Its something so obvious that we don't think about it. But we also don't think about it cos it doesn't quite make sense.
As a "naïve realist" we think we see the world as it is.
But then we discover that the world was here before us.
What did it look like before us?
On one hand we think it looked the same. But then why couldn't we see it before we were born?
We couldn't see it before we were born because we had no eyes and no brain and no consciousness. It is as though we were sleeping before we were born. But then it means that the world didn't look like anything before we were born.
So how can it both look the same, and not look like anything?
Something doesn't make sense. We just don't think about it.
Its the same odd thing we get when we think about our personal experiences versus major events. In the West we all know where we were when we first heard about 9/11. We each have a personal experience and there was a shared major event. Both at the same time.
The issue here is what is called "conditionality" that things do not exist alone but depend upon other things.
What is the sound of a tree falling with no one to hear it? This is the same issue.
Obviously we "know" it made a sound, we can find evidence of the shock waves in the disturbed soil, and perhaps feathers where birds were disturbed into flight. But there was no sound in anyone's ear. For the "sound" in the usual sense someone needs to be there. And for "me" to hear it "I" needed to be there.
Now this puts me at the centre of the world in a way. If I am not there then no sound is made! Wow I am God!
Now this quickly does down the rabbit hole. But firstly note that the argument just made is that for a phenomenon to exist "I" need to be there. And then we might ask and how do I know whether I am there? Well it is only that there is a phenomenon. So its enough to have the sound to know I am here. Or more generally right now all the experiences I am now having prove I exist. This is exactly Descartes "I think therefore I am." But if the only way I know I am there is a phenomenon existing then what does "me" actually add. Why not just have the phenomenon and forget about any "I" being present?
Its been noted in fiction that memories of experiences are not enough to prove "I was there." Perhaps those are false memories, or implanted memories like in Total Recall. This is the modern version of Descartes Demon. And we might argue that even with an actual sound perhaps we are in a Matrix and the phenomenon is being implanted. But with the "present moment" while what we are experiencing may be in question, "that" we are experiencing cannot be faked. Even people in the Matrix experiencing fake experiences are still experiencing. "Present Moment" is like Einstein's Acceleration in General or Speed of Light in Special Relativity. Even relative philosophies must have some point of absolute, some bedrock that cannot be faked. If people try to fake the bed rock they end up defeating their own argument like someone sawing off a branch on which they sit. So "Present Moment" is an absolute that cannot be faked, but there is no need for a "self" in the present moment.
But we protest didn't we get here by observing that there was nothing before we were born and us being present is a condition for phenomena to manifest.
...
out of time TBC
No comments:
Post a Comment