Quote:
Originally Posted by Overdog
I believe the universe would still be there, doing what it does, but without any human minds around, it would have no meaning.
|
I think that's a fair and succint way to phrase the constructivist perspective.
Quote:
|
but I still often find myself adopting realist points of view automatically without even thinking about it. It's something I'm working on...
|
Well in everyday life we certainly adopt realist point of view in that all human behaviour very much operates in the world of "meaning", so to speak.
Maybe you guys can wrap your head around another point regarding our ideas of "time" and "motion/change".
While physical models describe motion as a function of "time" without a problem, once you are forced to explain your subjective experience, you will be absolutely forced to include an idea of "motion" or "change" that is more fundamental than time, somewhere in your view of reality. (Surprisingly many people don't realize that at all)
Let me elaborate on that. Regardless of your philosophical alignment, you have to suppose that your subjective experience is "part of" or "caused by" reality one way or another. Things inside your subjective experience are certainly dynamic (things appear to move or change). Hence something, somewhere in your view of reality is dynamic.
For example, the adherents of "static time dimension" might explain their subjective experience by stating their consciousness is the only thing that moves (through that time dimension). I.e. first they don't accept that motion could exist without being caused by "time"... yet they have no problem of allowing their "consciousness" to move "fundamentally" (without its motion being described by a static time dimension)
Likewise, if you suppose time is a dimension that "flows", you are saying its motion is "fundamental" (not being caused by another time dimension).
If you think about this for a moment, you come to realize that it is absolutely necessary to define SOMETHING in
your worldview to be "fundamentally dynamic", as long as your worldview includes an explanation to your subjective experience (which any complete description of reality must include, don't we think? Still it appears many people are quite happy with a worldview that does not explain their own subjective experience at all :P )
From my perspective, it seems just overly complicated to first define time as a static dimension and then be forced to add a component that nevertheless
moves over and beyond that "time", to explain why do we feel like we exist "now" :P One could just define reality itself to be dynamic. I.e. to suppose reality really is "in motion" or "changing", and that directly explains why our knowledge about reality & subjective experience is also changing.
-Anssi
