How do objects exist independantly of human perception?

[Scarf-Ace]

Assuming they do of course. Although i'm not totally convinced .

If our relative perceptions of an object, the phenomenal, are relative to an existant object, how does the object exist independantly of our perceptions?

Berkeley's "mind of God" argument deals with this nicely saying that God's absolute perception is not relative and hence gives the object existence which we perceive relatively.

But how would an atheist respond to this question? I'm interested to hear your opinions. Or beleivers who have issue with the theory.

[TVAA]

I refute Meta-Gumble thus:

[kick]

Aargh, my toe! [hops around]

[Mangetout]

Our minds reside in (or as some would argue, interface with) matter in order to acquire those perceptions; if perception were necessary in order for matter to exist, how did our sensory apparatus come into existence?

[mrblue92]

If you define "existence" as "what humans perceive to be as real", then your question is already answered in the negative: nothing would exist if we were not here to perceive. After all, what we call "the universe" doesn't "exist" as we see it, because it's already happened--much of it thousands, millions, perhaps billions of years ago. Thus the classic "tree falls in a woods, does it make a sound" counter-argument.

Sure, you can define an absolute reference frame as "God", but it's beyond me how that would do anything to establish any sort of anthropomorphic or otherwise intelligent deity who has some degree of detailed interest in humanity (in other words, what is most commonly defined as "God" in our culture). That would seem to be a non sequitur.

[il Topo]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
If our relative perceptions of an object, the phenomenal, are relative to an existant object, how does the object exist independantly of our perceptions?

How can it not exist independently of our perceptions? How could our mere perception possibly affect the objective existence of an object? What am I missing here? Anyone have any help for the philosophically impaired?

Why can't an object have an objective existence that is never perceived (e.g., only perceived relatively by perception devices such as our brains)?

But how would an atheist respond to this question?

Why would an atheist be concerned about this issue at all???

[SentientMeat]

Noumena are themselves phenomena.

To turn the question around, if a thing in a universe suddenly became able to think, it would necessarily have trouble convincing itself that another thing existed since its "thoughts" were the sole interface by which the object could interact with the thinking object, agreed?

[eburacum45]

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no human there to hear it,

there are millions of woodland creatures that are not deaf...

the world does not exist for the benefit of humanity alone.

Only a philosophical species as daft as humanity would come to the conclusion that objects do not exist independently of human perception.
______________________________
Sci-fi worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

[Tusculan]

The OP seems to start from the hidden assumption that existence needs to be given. That assumption itself is most often derived from solipsist origins or the like. Things do exist, as a matter of fact. It doesn't seem worthwhile to discuss where things derive their existence from. They just are. In effect, this is wat existentialism (in particular Sartre) is all about. TVAA put it even briefer. If you don't want brief, read Critique of Pure Reason or Being and Nothingness.

The question in the OP: if perceptions are 'relative' (=dependent upon?) to things, how can things exist non-relatively from perceptions, looks like a dressed-up version of an invalid argument (I'm too tired to look up the fancy English word. Is fallacy right?): A -> not B, then B -> not A. Which is incorrect. The analogy is not exact, though. To take a clearer example: the branch depends on the tree to survive, but the tree does not depend on the branch. (Hopefully someone will give a better example)

If the OP wants to discuss why things exist, I'll have to bounce the ball back: why would you want to know? What kind of answer are you looking for? If you can't say what kind of answer will satisfy you, I can't phrase the answer in a manner that will answer your question.

If the OP wants to discuss whether specific things exist: there is no general answer. For things like rocks and WMD I'd say: have a look. For things like Santa Claus, time machines, perpetuum mobile, a reasoned argument is necessary.

If the OP doubts whether things really exist and suggests everything may be an illusion, we are crossing the border to the well-ploughed area of solipsism/epistemology, of which I'm sure there have been countless threads already. I'm willing to discuss that, but I'm not sure whether the OP is asking for that.

[Scarf-Ace]

The question in the OP: if perceptions are 'relative' (=dependent upon?) to things, how can things exist non-relatively from perceptions, looks like a dressed-up version of an invalid argument (I'm too tired to look up the fancy English word. Is fallacy right?): A -> not B, then B -> not A. Which is incorrect.

It looks like a dressed up version of an invalid argument, but the subtle distinction is that I am not asking how they (things) can actually exist, but what kind of existence they have.

Mangetout the simple answer to your question is that our sensory aparatus came into material existence through becoming an object of God's mind - fully objective existence.

If you don't take this view you have to describe what kind of existence an

[Scarf-Ace]

[relog]
object has, independantly of human perception.

SentientMeat: I agree with you but do not see how thats relevant.

Imho the "mind of God" explanation is the only one which gives a satisfactory answer.

[zwaldd]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
But how would an atheist respond to this question?

The same way an atheist would respond to any existential question. There are two possibilities:

1. There is a published scientific explanation.
2. There isn't (which is basically the secular equivalent of "God did it").

[il Topo]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
...the subtle distinction is that I am not asking how they (things) can actually exist, but what kind of existence they have.

Oh.

Given the existence of a God, I now understand your point regarding how God's Mind could provide an objective means of perceiving an actual existence of an object.

Regarding atheists, I guess they would have to say that if one accepts that there are no objective perceivers, then the objective existence will never be perceived and thus may not be fully knowable. At best, it can be deduced from a plurality of subjective perceptions.

Or have I missed your point again? Perhaps I have, since this seems quite obvious to me, and I don't understand why the question is being asked or what the dilemma could be.

[Ramanujan]

Originally posted by TTT
A -> not B, then B -> not A. Which is incorrect.

actually....(A->~B) -> (B->~A) is tautological. it's as valid as anything in logic, and is "the law of contrapositive" or what have you.

i'm not sure i see how this necessarily involves theism. the "mind of god" doesn't seem to me to be an absolute reference frame, for one. in what reference frame, for instance, does god's mind exist objectively in?

also, it certainly doesn't seem as though one needs an absolute perceiver to describe an absolute frame of reference.

that one cannot perceive an objective existence doesn't mean there is no objective existence. it simply may be assumed there is none, since nothing is lost by that assumption.

[TVAA]

I think TTT meant "A->~B, then ~B->A", which is indeed incorrect.

[John Mace]

I'm surpirsed no one has brought up the Anthropic Principle.

read about it here.

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)

In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative.

[Tusculan]

: reads Ramanujan's post :
That'll teach me from posting logic at the end of the working week. Of course I should have said what TVAA was so kind to read it as. (does this make sense?)

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
(...) I am not asking how they (things) can actually exist, but what kind of existence they have.

Mangetout the simple answer to your question is that our sensory aparatus came into material existence through becoming an object of God's mind - fully objective existence.

I still do not really understand the question. We agree physical things like chairs and computers exist. We probably also agree that other things that are not entirely physical exist as well, such as the theory of relativity, mathematical theories and the like. So are you saying that you believe these kind of things have a different kind of existence in your 'God's mind' theory (GM for short), than in an atheist theory? Or are you saying there are different things (such as angels?) whose existence depends on GM, and atheists have to explain the kind of existence normal things like the aforementioned have?

I take it that you mean the first: you propose that existence-as-dependent-on-God is a different kind of existence than 'bare' existence in the Sartrean existential sense. But I have a hard time seeing what this coherently could mean. Why does me seeing a cup as simply existing differ from you seeing the cup as existing based on God's mind? Do you think the latter kind of existence is more fragile, like the cup would suddenly disappear if God (which He should forbid) would be distracted for a moment? I know, GM-theory assumes that God could not be distracted in this manner. But then for all intents and purposes there is no difference between GM-theory and existentialism.

What I am suggesting is that (to my mind, at least) there is nodifference in the kind of existence according to GM-theory and existentialism. Since you seem to assume there is, it looks like the burden of proof as to why or whether there is a difference lies with you.

Or do you mean that the kind of existence depends on the actual source of existence? I don't see why it should. Or are you in fact not concerned with the kind of existence, but with the explanation of existence? (it's just like reading Heidegger all over again)

If you are really interested in this kind of thing, a lot of medieval philosophy was devoted to the question of 'existence' in relation to God. However, these philosophers (naturally) agreed on your basic assumption, that God created the world, so all things in the world shared the same kind of 'created' existence. Maybe the thing is that you consider this to be a kind of 'fallen', 'lesser' existence (compared to God's existence). For atheists, however, there is no 'higher' kind of existence to compare to. Hence if you want to speak about that kind of 'existence', you are using 'existence' as a theory-relative word, which makes it meaningless to ask for an atheist theory of 'existence'. It is like asking: what image of God do atheists have?

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Isnt it a tad arrogant to predicate the existance of anything on the sole basis that human beings must sense or comprehend it?

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your Philosophy"

[blowero]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
If our relative perceptions of an object, the phenomenal, are relative to an existant object, how does the object exist independantly of our perceptions?

We don't know. That's kind of like saying: "Without using a mirror or camera, what does the back of your head look like?".

Berkeley's "mind of God" argument deals with this nicely saying that God's absolute perception is not relative and hence gives the object existence which we perceive relatively.

This is meaningless until you define "God".

But how would an atheist respond to this question? I'm interested to hear your opinions. Or beleivers who have issue with the theory.

This atheist doesn't have a problem with simply saying "I don't know". Positing poorly-defined supernatural entities doesn't help to answer questions that we don't have the answer to. If you are unwilling to accept that matter just exists, why are you willing to accept that "God" just exists? There is less evidence for God than there is for matter, yet you would give God more credence?

[rsa]

The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out.

And if the universe is closed and recollapses at some point in the future, we will all be resurrected as a computer simulation with immortal life.

I like Martin Gardner's characterization of FAP in which he called it "CRAP--the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle."

[il Topo]

Originally posted by rsa
And if the universe is closed and recollapses at some point in the future, we will all be resurrected as a computer simulation with immortal life.

I like Martin Gardner's characterization of FAP in which he called it "CRAP--the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle."

Yeah, but Tipler's book was kinda cool.

[TVAA]

Aaaaah! [begins to tear hair]

Tipler makes Futurists look bad, and they already look pretty weird...

[SentientMeat]

Meta-Gumble

SentientMeat: I agree with you but do not see how thats relevant.

You are asking "how does the object exist independantly of our perceptions?". I am answering that our perceptions are the only means of assessing the existence of an object: We cannot know, with mathematical certainty that our perceptions are not deceptions, but they're all we've got.

Having said that, neither can one be certain of God's existence, and so to my atheist mind Berkeley's proposal is no solution at all.

[AHunter3]

Meta-Gumble:

I am not asking how they (things) can actually exist, but what kind of existence they have.

By "kind of existence", do you refer to "meaning"? (Otherwise, please provide a short list of "kinds of existence"). In other words, would it be fair to restate your original question as "What meaning to objects have independent of human perception?" Or perhaps as "Gee, our perceptions are subjective. If we bracket off subjective perceptions of an object, what remains behind and what can we say about it, philosophically?" Or am I missing the shuttle bus here?

Assuming I'm kind of following you (and the authors to whom you refer) here -- meaning is interactive, always. Meaning is meaning to a subject. It does not exist merely subjectively, i.e., it really is "of the thing", but it also doesn't exist merely objectively, i.e., it really is "to the subject".

Relationships are where meaning exists. Things do not have meaning intrinsically.

(If a thing were a conscious thing I suppose it could have meaning unto itself in that sense, but that's still a relationship and not a quality of the thing in and of itself. Like our own understanding of ourselves, it varies with degree of knowledge and familiarity and insight, can change over time, and can vary with time and situation).

[Scarf-Ace]

TTT:

I take it that you mean the first: you propose that existence-as-dependent-on-God is a different kind of existence than 'bare' existence in the Sartrean existential sense. But I have a hard time seeing what this coherently could mean. Why does me seeing a cup as simply existing differ from you seeing the cup as existing based on God's mind?

Well the cup we both see is different as "the cup I see" may be defined as my sense perceptions of the cup plus any other associated thoughts. Naturally these are different between persons but I reason that the cup has an independant existence due to the fact that it persists beyond my perceptions which is confirmed by the accounts of others.

So common sense and knowledge tells us that a thing has an objective existence, the problem is to understand the nature of that existence. You could specify the positions and states of each individual atom comprising the cup for a given moment of time. But we know from quantum physics that the observer principle means that our perceptions alter the object being perceived (how I don't really understand) so if two people were to compile data about the cup, each data set would be different right? However there is a something beyond perception which you might say is impossible to know.

This atheist doesn't have a problem with simply saying "I don't know". Positing poorly-defined supernatural entities doesn't help to answer questions that we don't have the answer to. If you are unwilling to accept that matter just exists, why are you willing to accept that "God" just exists? There is less evidence for God than there is for matter, yet you would give God more credence?

Well I beleive that matter exists, but in its organised state, and given the mathematical information needed to represent it, I posit an intelligent consciousness pervasive through reality which sustains the existence of the universe.

Similarly relations between things are consistent with principles or laws which require a consciousness to produce.

[SentientMeat]

Meta, it is not necessary to jump to high-minded descritions of the cup in terms of atoms and quantum states (incidentally, quantum effects at such an "everyday" scale are effectively zero, and one cannot simply appeal to the quantum mechanics of the very small things comprising the object since these all average out).

Since perceptions are all we have, the cup can simply be "known" by its perceptible effects: How heavy is it, what is its function, colour, temperature, what memories do we associate with cups, what glottal sounds or squiggles on a page/screen might alert another consciousness that one is perceiving a cup?

there is a something beyond perception which you might say is impossible to know.

Agreed. I cannot physically combine every atom of the cup with those of my mind, and even if I could, I would still not "know" the cup fully. So what? Again, how does a divine entity help, given that its existence is at least as uncertain as that of the cup?

[TVAA]

The natural world is the Mind of God. That's where things exist.

If Berkeley's argument is interpreted otherwise, in which mind does God exist?

[Tusculan]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
TTT:
So common sense and knowledge tells us that a thing has an objective existence, the problem is to understand the nature of that existence. You could specify the positions and states of each individual atom comprising the cup for a given moment of time. But we know from quantum physics that the observer principle means that our perceptions alter the object being perceived (how I don't really understand) so if two people were to compile data about the cup, each data set would be different right? However there is a something beyond perception which you might say is impossible to know.

Thank you for the clarification. I’m glad that you are being so constructive with your responses. I hope you don’t mind that I (and most of the other posters) seem a bit critical; we are trying to find the precise point where opinions diverge. Have you studied philosophy, by any chance? You have touched an interesting but rather technical area of philosophy.

The question, as you now put it, seems to be this. Although we assume in daily life the objective existence of objects, all we have to go by are our perceptions, which may misguide us and (according to quantum-theory) influence the actual state of the objects. So how can they offer a basis for objective existence? God’s mind would offer an objective basis. (I hope I’m paraphrasing this correctly).

First off, as noted by SentientMeat, you shouldn’t take quantum theory into this, since that is not really applicable to macro-physics. Furthermore, even with quantum theory you cannot negate the objective existence of things, you only cannot be sure of the way in which things exist.

Phrased like this, the question seems to be: how do we now what something is objectively, if all we have are varying perceptions?

This is a question that has haunted all of modern philosophy. The line of interrogation by Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Sartre seems most appropriate for providing some clarification. The introduction to Being and Nothingness gives a very concise, and unfortunately rather tough reading, summary of views on the existence (being) of things.

Most philosophy has to start with the common view that all we have are perceptions (sense-data). We could define a thing as the sum of all its possible perceptions. The fact is, however, that we have more than just bare perceptions, there usually is an intuition on top of it, that what we perceive is real. This intuition may be wrong at times, but it seems to be a fact of life. We assume something behind the collection of all perceptions, that makes it coherent. We could call this the thing-in-itself (Kant), the really objectively existing thing, which in itself is never perceivable. But what would that mean? Why posit something to explain perceptions, if you cannot perceive that explanandum itself? Nietzsche and Hegel bit the bullet and did away with the split between the ‘phenomenal’world of perceptions and the ‘noumenal’ world of things-in-themselves. We have to assume an objective world to explain our perceptions, but whe should not assume that you never know the objective reality. In the end all we have is the knowledge derived from perceptions, and if that is all we have, that is all there exists. We thence are continually striving for the complete knowledge of the real world, until we reach that, at which point we would know the objective reality. Once you know all there is to know, it doesn’t make sense anymore to speak of something objective behind this total knowledge. (This is basically the Hegelian dialectic to Absolute Spirit). Or you can do like Nietzsche: since we can never know the thing-in-itself, why bother? Instead be happy with the perceptions we have (this comes down to the cheap version of Hegelian dialectic: you have the same attitude but don’t bother to travel to the end).

Sartre seems to sidestep the discussion: instead of concentrating on how we can know the precise objective reality of things, he assumes the objective reality and wants to investigate in what way things exist.

To get back to the question: we do in fact never really know whether what we perceive is the true objective existence of things. But since that is all we have to go by, it is not really worthwhile or even sensible to speak of a total doubt to the objective existence of things or the reliability of our perceptions of those things. We learn the trustworthiness of perceptions of things piecemeal. There is no easy road, but there is a road that does get us somewhere. (I’m with Hegel on this one)

If I’m sidestepping your question, please correct me.

[SentientMeat]

Bravo, TTT, your clarity and erudition are a credit to these boards. My explanations sound like a drunken karaoke singer compared to your superb soprano.

Also, apologies to Meta-Gumble if some posts sounded a little critical - your questions are interesting and an earnest desire for knowledge is apparent.

[smam]

I just read all this, phew!
Is there anyone keeping an eye on God to make sure he is still there?
If there is something outwith our knowledge that as far as we are aware does not exist but we think it may exist and we go looking for that object and find it, then we know it always existed.
But if we cannot find it , although we may think it still exists it technically wont for human beings.
So if we go looking for God maybe he/she/it wont exist till we find him, and until we find him then he doesn't exist so the earth should just disappear right?
I just think that if the earth under my feet exists then the tree in the wood exists. I also think that if no-one believed in God or the concept of God was alien then the earth would still exist, even though technically for humans God would not exist.
Which I guess, proves God exists, or doesn't.
If God takes time out to watch my pizza in the oven so it does not disappear while I am watching TV then why does he allow it to burn sometimes? WHY GOD? WHY? WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN MY PIZZA?

[X~Slayer(ALE)]

Heres something to provoke more thought:

If there are no objects to sense, would humans exist?

[blowero]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
Well I beleive that matter exists, but in its organised state, and given the mathematical information needed to represent it, I posit an intelligent consciousness pervasive through reality which sustains the existence of the universe.

Similarly relations between things are consistent with principles or laws which require a consciousness to produce.

I have 3 points in response to this.

1.) One of the primary functions of the human mind is that of a pattern-recognition machine. There's pretty compelling evidence that this is the case; just as an example, experiments have been done where subjects were shown 2 lights set apart from each other in a dark room, which flashed in sequence. The subjects reported seeing a moving light that traversed the distance between the two points. In other words, the mind "filled in the gaps" in an attempt to create coherence out of disparate events.

What's my point? Well, we need to ask the question "Is the universe actually highly organized, or do we simply perceive it that way? Does mathematics prove a coherent plan, or is it an invention of human minds that have developed specifically to make sense of our surroundings? I see a lot of evidence for the latter, but none for the former. What exactly is "organized" about the universe? The fact that matter condenses into lumps of planets, stars, and galaxies? Look at the converse: were matter distributed in an exactly uniform manner, with precisely the same distance between each fundamental particle, could we not wonder at how it is so uniform? Given that matter exists, it has to be distributed in some way. If it were distributed differently, could we claim divine intervention for that? Could we not claim divine intervention for any state of any universe?

Or to put it more directly: Organized compared to what? How many non-organized universes have you encountered? What exactly would be the "default" state of existence, before God "organized" it? How do you know that?

2.) For the sake of argument, let's say you are right, and the "organization" of the universe necessitates a controlling intelligence. This controlling intelligence would obviously have to be organized, and since we are requiring organized things to have controlling intelligences, the controlling intelligence would need another intelligence to control it. In fact, we would need an infinite number of controlling intelligences.

3.) One might argue that the universe is the controlling intelligence. But then, how is this any different than simply saying the universe is what it is? Or one might argue that the universe has a consciousness; it's certainly an intriguing notion that the vast collection of matter that is the universe might produce consciousness in the same way that the collection of matter that is the human brain does, but there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that this is the case. It's simply wild speculation.

[Tusculan]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)

If there are no objects to sense, would humans exist?

Very briefly (since it's late over here and I have to get up early): something akin to your question has already been taken up by ol' Kant. For there to be an awareness of the I, you must have an awareness of things. Put otherwise: you can only become selfconscious by first being conscious of something else. Assuming that self-consciousness is a prerequisite of reason, this means there have to be things to be aware of in order for there to be reasoning beings. Put otherwise: the world and the I are [i]gleichursprünglich[i/] (equi-original) (I think this is Heidegger's phrase)

This is not a rigid proof, but an outline of a specific argument.

[Voodoochile]

I think the question itself is just a man-as-center-of-universe assumption.

A far better question would be how does human perception exist independantly of objects.

[Scarf-Ace]

Hey, nice post TTT; reads like a brief history of recent European philosophy .

Me and Mary Jane studied philosophy for a while, but we have since went our separate ways . I hope I am a lot more rational now...

Please blowero my theory is based on observation I truly beleive that for anything to exist, information about the thing is a requirement.

For matter to form any sort of structure at all, to me indicates that information concerning the object must be co-existent with the matter of the object. We infer this information; through observation and experiment we arrive at the laws which dictate how the values of the relevant variables describing the object can be calculated. You might say that this knowledge is only a representative model of the universe - we impose our thought-forms on an entirely material universe. This is true to the extent that our model is necessarily inacurrate in terms of measurement, but it seems to me we cannot apply our minds to something which has no prior relation to consciousness.

...

[zwaldd]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
I truly beleive that for anything to exist, information about the thing is a requirement.

Your definition of exist includes perception. By that definition, objects can't exist independently of perception. For objects to exist independently of perception, you'd have to use a different definition.

[blowero]

Originally posted by Meta-Gumble
it seems to me we cannot apply our minds to something which has no prior relation to consciousness.

But isn't this simply an unsupported belief of yours? What evidence do you have that it's true? And how do you answer my point #2 in my last post, that your belief would require an infinite number of successive controlling entities? If you posit that intelligence must precede organization, and given that intelligence is organized, must there not be another intelligence that preceded that intelligence?

[Optihut]

Things can exist outside of human perception, especially considering the limitations of human perceptions.

*However* if there is no human (or any other life form) to witness these things or their possible consequences, do they matter?
For me personally the answer is a clear "no".

I think TTT meant "A->~B, then ~B->A", which is indeed incorrect.

Unless A and B are binary

[Scarf-Ace]

If you posit that intelligence must precede organization, and given that intelligence is organized, must there not be another intelligence that preceded that intelligence?

Hahaha I wanted to answer this before I got chucked off the comp.

Saying that "intelligence is organised" is meaningless. The entities of a system may be considered by an observer to be organised (or not) in relation to another system. If this system is a relatively intelligent mind, its thoughts may be considered to be organised, but intelligence is the organising principle. To say that the organising principle requires organisation itself is true - to an extent. I consider it a recursive meta-system transition. This makes sense when you consider that God, the mind, and its objects are all one and the same.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by TTT
Phrased like this, the question seems to be: how do we now what something is objectively, if all we have are varying perceptions?

This is a question that has haunted all of modern philosophy.

The problem here is perception is ill-defined. What does "perception" actually entail?

Originally posted by TTT
Most philosophy has to start with the common view that all we have are perceptions (sense-data). We could define a thing as the sum of all its possible perceptions. The fact is, however, that we have more than just bare perceptions, there usually is an intuition on top of it, that what we perceive is real. This intuition may be wrong at times, but it seems to be a fact of life.

I don't think that's an "intuition" but an implicit assumption we made. In other words, we accept that our sensory inputs closely approximates that of objective reality without proof.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE)
Heres something to provoke more thought:

If there are no objects to sense, would humans exist?

No. If there are no objects to sense, that means there are no objects. The only way for the objects not to exist is there is no matter. If there's no matter, there's no human.

[Tusculan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The problem here is perception is ill-defined. What does "perception" actually entail?

Well, since the OP and all posters were happy with the common-language understanding of 'perception', and we seemed to understand each other perfectly well, I didn't feel the need to provide a proper definition. I only find definitions useful to clear up misunderstandings. But if you want one, what about 'sensory inputs' (your term)? Problem of course is that 'sensory' is ill-defined, as is inputs (which seems to imply a rather distinctive and not universally accepted view of the mind's interaction with its environment).

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I don't think that's an "intuition" but an implicit assumption we made. In other words, we accept that our sensory inputs closely approximates that of objective reality without proof.

This is not what I wanted to say. I was refering (admittedly in an obscure way) to the feeling people have that what they perceive actually exists. You may have perceptions of something without believing that it exists and is in your presence (I do when watching television or a movie), and you may have a perception that something is real. I vaguely remember that medieval philosophers debated on the existence of a 'common sense' that ensured that when you hear and see something, you can connect the two senses as perceiving the same object. (I may be wrong here, I have this from secondary sources only)

These days many persons find it hard to believe that we can have any perception above strict sense-data. To my mind, this is the unfortunate effect of a lot of bad science and philosophy being trickled down through movies. (Not that I'm against movies, I just don't consider them a proper source of information for science or philosophy) The picture of the mind as a brain in a vat, with its only link to the external world being a set of limited sensory devices, has apparently taken a firm hold on the common imagination. While it might be a good metaphor for specific discussions and a good image for certain thought experiments, it is not at all like the actual existence of human beings. Human beings do exist in the world, in which they do not receive sense-data that they convert with image recognition into perceptions of physical objects. Human beings live in a world in which they see a friend and immediately begin to smile, hear a car approaching and jump out of the way. (I'm paraphrasing Heidegger here) It is only when we have reason to doubt our perceptions of things in the world, that we start questioning our perceptions.

I'm not saying you in fact would adhere to the computer metaphor of the brain, but your 'sensory inputs' choice of words may easily imply so. You should be wary of uncritically accepting the metaphors that you receive from common culture; philosophy only properly begins when you learn to distance yourself from them, when necessary.

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

I am an atheist, but find myself compelled to answer this question from the perspective of a pragmatist. To this end, I have to ask: What does it matter?

-FK

[Tusculan]

Originally posted by Fuji Kitakyusho
What does it matter?

Which post or statement are you refering to?

[dal_timgar]

Why should objects need human perception to exist?

Didn't Uranus, Neptune and Pluto exist before they were discovered? We can claim they needed God but we still have to prove there is a God.

Why philosophize beyond your evidence?

[InquisitiveIdiot]

This question is answered extensively in the anime "Serial Experiments Lain."

Quick answer: no. If no one remembers something, it never happened/doesn't exist.

Of course, it still does exist, because god is watching everything, so even if something disappears from the entire world's collective mindset (say, a girl with a freaky braid) it still doesn't disappear entirely.

You can make people forget (and things thus disappear) with god-like power that comes from spending too much time on the internet.

Course, the internet isn't really the internet, but a link from the real world to humanity's collective soul. Through mastery of this link, interaction with god is possible.

In short, you are all reaching nirvana by reading this post. The internet is god, and you don't now whether the rest of the world is real or not. Have a nice day.

[Ramanujan]

i think i will posit that, fundamentally, it is quite reasonable to claim that objects do NOT exist independent of human perception.

what makes up the strongest leg of this argument is that by "exist", we mean "exist in the world we see" (in our perception). what i mean is, suppose we posit that objects do not exist independently. then the human perception is not an object.

what we would mean by that is human perception is not the result of anything we would perceive to be an object independent of our perception. so, if "objects" exist (one that might cause perception), they do not exist in the manner we consider our computer, or candles to exist.

but we do presume human perception exists. we assume we exist (i've been involved in a ridiculously long thread about how it can't be proved). something must cause that perception, if we are to consider whether objects exist independent of it.

therefore (i claim), we could viably consider human perception to be completely different from the objects of human perception, in that we assume it exists while we doubt the existence of the objects it reveals to us. so it seems that the concept that it is something fundamentally different is not terribly difficult to believe.

[TVAA]

TTT: What difference does it make if they don't? As long as the data subject to human perception is consistent, our worlds will seem to exist when we're not aware of them.

[Tusculan]

TVAA: don't you mean Ramanujan's post?

[TVAA]

TTT: No, I'm responding to your OP.

What difference would it make? In what way would the properties of the universe vary between the two possibilities?

[Logical Phallacy]

do not try to bend the spoon.

rather, attempt to realize the truth.

ohh? and whats that?

"there is no spoon"