Aaaaah! [begins to tear hair]
Tipler makes Futurists look bad, and they already look pretty weird…
Meta-Gumble
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.
Meta-Gumble:
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).
TTT:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Heres something to provoke more thought:
If there are no objects to sense, would humans exist?
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.
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 *gleichursprünglich[i/] (equi-original) (I think this is Heidegger’s phrase)
This is not a rigid proof, but an outline of a specific argument.
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.
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.
…
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.
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?
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”.
Unless A and B are binary 
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.
The problem here is perception is ill-defined. What does “perception” actually entail?
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.
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.