# How do objects exist independantly of human perception? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 29, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914 "2003-04-29T14:20:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/1 "2003-04-29T14:20:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/2 "2003-04-29T14:25:12Z")
I refute Meta-Gumble thus: [kick] Aargh, my toe! [hops around] ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/3 "2003-04-29T14:40:50Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![mrblue92](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@mrblue92](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrblue92)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/4 "2003-04-29T14:45:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/5 "2003-04-29T15:13:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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??? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/6 "2003-04-29T15:16:30Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/7 "2003-04-29T16:01:55Z")
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](http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html) ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/8 "2003-04-29T16:04:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/9 "2003-04-30T15:01:43Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/10 "2003-04-30T15:11:58Z")
[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. ---
**Author:** ![zwaldd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a9adbd/32.png) [@zwaldd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zwaldd)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/11 "2003-04-30T15:25:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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”). ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/12 "2003-04-30T15:34:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/13 "2003-04-30T16:42:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/14 "2003-04-30T16:48:33Z")
I think TTT meant “A-\>~B, then ~B-\>A”, which is indeed incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/15 "2003-04-30T17:01:32Z")
I’m surpirsed no one has brought up the Anthropic Principle. read about it [here](http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html). > [@](#): > > “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. ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/16 "2003-04-30T17:38:56Z")
: reads **Ramanujan’s** post : :o 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 _no_difference 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? ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/17 "2003-04-30T18:01:25Z")
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”_ ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/18 "2003-04-30T18:39:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/19 "2003-04-30T19:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914/20 "2003-05-01T04:32:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. 🆒 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-objects-exist-independantly-of-human-perception/171914.md?page=2)