3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑December 1st, 2022, 11:11 am
Accordingly, this video below made me think of the old question about how we would know whether the tree fell in the forest if there were no observers. Materially, we do know we have two dynamics which are associated with the phenomenon of sound. One being the physical perception of it and another being the metaphysical perception of it.
Er, no. There is no "metaphysical perception." That phrase is an oxymoron.
While both still require a subjective observer (idealism) for a some-thing to be percieved, their truth values seem to make materialism nonsensical.
There is no "both." There is only perception (an experiential event). Physical theory provides an
explanation for the perception --- and quite a powerful, satisfactory one.
Sensation due to stimulation of the auditory nerves and auditory centers of the brain, usually by vibrations transmitted in a material medium, commonly air, affecting the organ of hearing. b. Physics. Vibrational energy which occasions such a sensation. Sound is propagated by progressive longitudinal vibratory disturbances (sound waves)."[15] This means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical definition, respectively.
Yes. The answer depends upon what is intended by "sound" --- i.e., whether the experienced sensation, or the physical cause of the sensation. The vibrations exist whether or not anyone senses them. But obviously no one senses them who is not within earshot.
And so, while it seems logically necessary that there are observers in the philosophical sense (Subjective Idealism) . . .
Observers are only necessary for there to be an observation. No observer is necessary for the existence of what is observed (per physical/materialist theory).
. . . how does the Materialist reconcile the existence of an observer, along with the qualitative properties of same?
"Reconcile"? Observation
consists of "qualitative properties." Experience of qualitative properties is just what "observation" is. Physical theory seeks to explain why we have those experiences (and does a pretty good job of it).
Remember, human beings are essentially information processing systems who think and feel.
No, they're not. They think and feel, of course, but while one may describe the brain as an "information processing system," animals are not "essentially" IP systems. They are self-replicating biochemical systems.
And Materialism attempts to explain everything in terms of material events.
Yep. And it does so quite well.