[Iam90]

Originally Posted by Reach

Devonin essentially answers this, but I'll take a crack at it.

You're asking three similar, but unrelated questions.

1. Yes, the apple is still red.
2. Neither are 'right'.
3. In the physical world.

Now for explanations:

1. 'Red' is only a label. The apple is whatever the apple is, regardless of how it is perceived. This is because the apple contains inherent physical properties of matter that make it the way that it is. Our perception of this properties does not change them.

As such, as Devonin said, the inherent properties of matter that reflect light off of an apple remain constant, meaning the apple is still 'red', or whatever you want to label it. You just have to make sure that label is *constant* and reliably associated with these physical qualities.

If the apple is red insofar as we construct "red" out of the "inherent physical properties" of the apple, and we only view the universe as a construct out of these inherent physical properties, how can we ever know these inherent physical properties without our understanding of them being clouded by constructs of themselves, and more to the point how can we know that they remain constant? A constant effect doesn't necessarily dictate a constant cause, if there can be multiple causes for the same effect.

2. Technically, all senses are a construct of the brain. That is, the physical universe is interpreted systematically in our minds to create an image of reality.

None of these constructions are 'right' because none of them are the physical universe itself. Rather, they are a sort of mirror image, or physical reality mapping itself onto the mind.

3. This relates to the previous question. The constant here is the physical universe itself. Regardless of how our minds interpret the universe, the universe stays static in its physical properties. As such, that is where the truth is, and that is where science attempts to make valid and reliable measurements.

I'm still wondering how science intends to interpret the static reality under the sensory constructs - given that our scientific method is always going to employ the senses. It's a basic bit of Kantian metaphysics, but still an interesting thought.

These questions bring up an important philosophical point that can bring up interesting questions related to the thread topic:

Our brains create our perceptions of the universe - however, our brains are part of the universe itself. Therefore, our psychological minds are a construct of the universe itself. Our observations and thoughts are the universe looking back and thinking about itself.

This makes neuroscience not only the study of the brain, but the study of the universe mapping and constructing an image of itself. That is, a closed loop is created, where the universe is able to observe and understand itself.

As such, does that make us a form of utility for the physical universe? Much like humans create tools to perform certain tasks, do universes create minds in order to understand themselves?

Does this make the universe conscious and aware of its own existence?

If so, does that qualify as giving our lives meaning?

All this definitively tells us is that a conscious part of the universe reflects upon the whole; but as I understand the term "universe" implies the whole itself and not mere parts.

That's not to say it isn't entirely possible that you're right; but is our act of conscious reflection upon the universe enough to extrapolate that the universe itself is conscious? I'm not sure about that.