Perception and Existence

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I was having this disscusion with my friends earlier and we couldn't come to a conclusion.
If there is no way to percieve something then does it exist?
The example that we used was that if the Earth was destroyed and all living things on it died (assuming we are the only life), would the universe continue to exist.
Another example could be that when we die would existence continue?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolutionary Pseudonym:


If there is no way to percieve something then does it exist?

What do you mean by 'perceive'?


The example that we used was that if the Earth was destroyed and all living things on it died (assuming we are the only life), would the universe continue to exist.

Again, this depends on what you mean by 'the universe'.

If you mean 'that which exists only when we perceive it' then no, it wouldn't. But, in that case you would merely have misunderstood this phrase.

On the other hand, if you mean by it 'that which existed long before life evolved and which exists independently of us', then yes it will.

So, if you use the phrase as the rest of us do, then the question answers itself.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

What do you mean by 'perceive'?
By percieve I mean any form of realisation of existence or of the existence of any object, idea, emotion, etc.



Again, this depends on what you mean by 'the universe'.


By which I mean of which that is in existence



If you mean 'that which exists only when we perceive it' then no, it wouldn't. But, in that case you would merely have misunderstood this phrase.

On the other hand, if you mean by it 'that which existed long before life evolved and which exists independently of us', then yes it will.

So, if you use the phrase as the rest of us do, then the question answers itself.

Perhaps a more concise way of saying what what I'm asking is that: is existence purely that which we can experience, ie percieve, or is it independent of experience and can it be without perception.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Revolutionary Pseudonym:


By percieve I mean any form of realisation of existence or of the existence of any object, idea, emotion, etc.

But, perceive normally relates to the sense of sight.


By which I mean of which that is in existence

But this could be wider than that which exists in the universe.


Perhaps a more concise way of saying what what I'm asking is that: is existence purely that which we can experience, ie percieve, or is it independent of experience and can it be without perception.

Well it can't be or we'd not look for things which we haven't yet experienced. For example, would explorers in the past have sought out new lands if this were the case. Would scientists look for 'dark matter' if this were so?

Anyway, your definition of perception includes existence, so it would be impossible to separate the two if you define it this way.

So, I suggest you fall back on the usual understanding of this word, and once you do you will see (unintended pun!) that things can exist which we haven't yet perceived (seen), or which we can't perceive (see).

[OldMoney]

In the world we live in where our own reality is based on an individual perception of a constantly changing universe its hard to be sure that anything exists. Even though we cant be completley sure of our own existence we should still strive to better it, for ourselves and our fellow man. One thing is for certain, if the imperial capitolists continue to have thier way life here on earth will surrley cease to exist. So wether or not the stability of the universe depends on you being able to percive it we still need to fight oppresion.

Perception doesnt nessicarily have to do with the sense of sight either, as all 5 of our senses are the same thing. They all are derived from touch. 1 sense of sight is light touching our cornea and our brain interpreting the signal, 2 sense of smell is particles with scent touching the fibers in our nose, 3 sense of taste is food touching our taste buds, and the brain interpreting those for taste, 4 sense of hearing, is sound waves touching and vibrating in our ear and how the brain translates that to sound. So perception is from all 5 of our senses which in reality are 1 and the same, the sense of touch.

[Lynx]

Matter and energy do not require observers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Old Money:


Perception doesnt nessicarily have to do with the sense of sight either, as all 5 of our senses are the same thing. They all are derived from touch. 1 sense of sight is light touching our cornea and our brain interpreting the signal, 2 sense of smell is particles with scent touching the fibers in our nose, 3 sense of taste is food touching our taste buds, and the brain interpreting those for taste, 4 sense of hearing, is sound waves touching and vibrating in our ear and how the brain translates that to sound. So perception is from all 5 of our senses which in reality are 1 and the same, the sense of touch.

I did say it was normally associated with sight, but it would be odd to say any of the following:

"I perceived a tickle".

"I peceived a heavy meal on my stomach"

"I perceived a headache".

And I challenge your view that the sense of sight is this:


1 sense of sight is light touching our cornea and our brain interpreting the signal,

This would suggest that the brain had eyes!

This can't be right either:


2 sense of smell is particles with scent touching the fibers in our nose, 3 sense of taste is food touching our taste buds, and the brain interpreting those for taste, 4 sense of hearing, is sound waves touching and vibrating in our ear and how the brain translates that to sound. So perception is from all 5 of our senses which in reality are 1 and the same, the sense of touch.

This suggests that the nose has a nose inside it, and that the taste buds have taste buds inside them and that the brain is a human being (since it can translate stuff).

In short, this scientistic 'explanation' of yours assumes the very things it was introduced to explain.


In the world we live in where our own reality is based on an individual perception of a constantly changing universe its hard to be sure that anything exists. Even though we cant be completley sure of our own existence we should still strive to better it, for ourselves and our fellow man. One thing is for certain, if the imperial capitolists continue to have thier way life here on earth will surrley cease to exist. So wether or not the stability of the universe depends on you being able to percive it we still need to fight oppresion.

If this is so, then how do you know the world exists, and is not the creation of your senses?

[Lynx]

"Obama's health care reform is perceived as being favorable to the insurance industry."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is just: "Obama's health care reform is seen as being favorable to the insurance industry."

[Lynx]

or "Obama's health care reform is viewed as being favorable to the insurance industry."

But perception is more than just 'sight'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I agree, but the further away from sight we drift, the more metaphorical it becomes.

[OldMoney]

The brain does have eyes, all of our senses are translated in our brain. Our nose doesnt have a nose inside it but it does have scent receptors that are activated at the touch of particles with scent, which are translated in our brains to a smell. The theory of us having 5 different senses is as outdated as the idea that there are 5 elements, or that capitolism works. Our 5 senses are all derived from touch. Are you saying that blind people are unable to percive things because thier eyes dont work? Like I was saying it is imposible to prove anything exists including the world, thats why discussions of this sort are futile, we should be focusing our energy on more constructive ways of combating the imperialists.

[whore]

if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no body to hear it, does it make a sound?

well, considering that sound is merely a wave in a medium, i would say, yes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound&oldid=342666097

of course things continue to exist, even if there is no perception of the existence. to claim otherwise is equivalent (in that there is no evidence) as claiming a creator of the universe. it is non-materialistic!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Old Money:


The brain does have eyes, all of our senses are translated in our brain. Our nose doesnt have a nose inside it but it does have scent receptors that are activated at the touch of particles with scent, which are translated in our brains to a smell. The theory of us having 5 different senses is as outdated as the idea that there are 5 elements, or that capitolism works. Our 5 senses are all derived from touch. Are you saying that blind people are unable to percive things because thier eyes dont work? Like I was saying it is imposible to prove anything exists including the world, thats why discussions of this sort are futile, we should be focusing our energy on more constructive ways of combating the imperialists.

I'm sorry, but the news that the brain has eyes will comes as a surprise to the medical profession.

And once more, you are attributing to the brain human characteristics: the ability to translate. It could only do that if it had a team of translators operating inside it. As far as I know, human anatomists have yet to find them.


Our 5 senses are all derived from touch.

So you keep saying, but repetition isn't proof.


Are you saying that blind people are unable to perceive things because thier eyes dont work?

Well, you won't get a blind person saying things like the following:

"I can can just perceive my friend in the distance, getting off that bus", or:

"Yes, I can just perceive the star you said that had recently exploded."


Like I was saying it is imposible to prove anything exists including the world, thats why discussions of this sort are futile, we should be focusing our energy on more constructive ways of combating the imperialists

But, on what basis do you assert that it is impossible to prove the world exists?

On the contrary, it is far more certain that it does than that the brain has eyes, or that it's a translator of any sort.

[OldMoney]

Wether or not your willing to agree with me or not doesnt change the fact that the 5 external senses are all activated through thouch. Im not saying there is only one sense, just that the 5 external senses neuroscience teaches about are all actualy different forms of touch. The other senses are the ones the main stream doesnt teach you about. Like intuition, or spacial awarness, or the global conciousness. If your buying into the science the imperialists teach you as an absolute, you might as well give your life up to jesus n call it a day.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

First of all, all our senses are not a sense of touch. A sense of tough involves "touching" something in the following sense. If my hand paralyzed, I am not exercising a sense of touch when I place said hand on a table. When my hand is not paralyzed, I am. When other senses are caused by material interactions, this interpretation of the word "touch" is completely distinct from what we refer to as our sense of "touch."

You've confused different meanings of the word "touch" to reach a false conclusion. You might have got this conclusion from neuroscientists, but unless there is more to the argument, there is a language usage problem - whether the experts like it or not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Old Money:


Wether or not your willing to agree with me or not doesnt change the fact that the 5 external senses are all activated through thouch. Im not saying there is only one sense, just that the 5 external senses neuroscience teaches about are all actualy different forms of touch. The other senses are the ones the main stream doesnt teach you about. Like intuition, or spacial awarness, or the global conciousness. If your buying into the science the imperialists teach you as an absolute, you might as well give your life up to jesus n call it a day.

It's not a matter of whether I agree with you or not, your account implies that the brain has a team of translators operating inside it.

And I am not sure why you keep referring to the imperialists and the science they allegedly teach; my argument has nothing to do with science (whoever teaches it), but with what it makes sense to attribte to the brain.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga!

We'll make an ordinary language philosopher of you yet! Good points...

[Wolf Larson]

I was having this disscusion with my friends earlier and we couldn't come to a conclusion.
If there is no way to percieve something then does it exist?
The example that we used was that if the Earth was destroyed and all living things on it died (assuming we are the only life), would the universe continue to exist.
Another example could be that when we die would existence continue?

Zen. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Lets all meditate after reading Ram Dass & Herman Hesse. Tea anyone? ;) Since Ayn Rand took the label objectivist I'm inclined, in a reactionary fashion, to call my self a subjectivist although I do believe reality exists outside of our personal experience. If you died the world would go on. If you're thrown into a prison cell the world outside of the cell goes on. If you place a tape recorder in the forest and a tree falls you will hear the sound of the tree falling when you replay the tape. Reality can be subjective as far as our interpretations of it but existence as far as sub atomic particles interacting with energy exists outside of the human experience.

[Streetlight]

Zen. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Lets all meditate after reading Ram Dass & Herman Hesse. Tea anyone? ;) Since Ayn Rand took the label objectivist I'm inclined, in a reactionary fashion, to call my self a subjectivist although I do believe reality exists outside of our personal experience. If you died the world would go on. If you're thrown into a prison cell the world outside of the cell goes on. If you place a tape recorder in the forest and a tree falls you will hear the sound of the tree falling when you replay the tape. Reality can be subjective as far as our interpretations of it but existence as far as sub atomic particles interacting with energy exists outside of the human experience.
I'll make the agruement that we don't know if our minds cease to think/percieve after death, therefore it cannot be disproved that existence as we know it is nothing more then mere ideas of the mind.

[OldMoney]

Ok maybe Im not understanding how touch is different right? I dictionary.com'd that sh!t n came up with the following deffinitions;
Touch
to put the hand, finger, etc., on or into contact with (something) to feel it: He touched the iron cautiously.
to come into contact with and perceive (something), as the hand or the like does.
to bring (the hand, finger, etc., or something held) into contact with something: She touched a match to the papers.
to give a slight tap or pat to with the hand, finger, etc.; strike or hit gently or lightly.
to come into or be in contact with.

Now all these deffinitions of touch involve contact, matter comming into contact with another type of matter. Following that deffintion; which of our 4 remaing senses doesnt involve touch?

Hearing the first deffintion is; to perceive by the ear. We percive by the ear when soundwaves come into contact with our ear.
Scent is a chemical sense detected by sensory cells when an odorant comes in contact with the chemoreceptors in the nose
Taste deffiinition 4 is; to perceive or distinguish the flavor of. I guesse that happens when food comes into contact with our taste buds right?
Sight Deffinition 1 is; the power or faculty of seeing; perception of objects by use of the eyes. We can percive an object when the light particles it refracts come into contact with our eyeballs.

So maybe ive had too much tea, or read too much plato as an impresionable youth, but I still dont see the difference your trying to draw. Perhaps I need to master another language to fully understand. The only reason I argue it is because Im a firm beliver that the Imperialists hold back scientific and technological advances. Like a constant represion of true knowledge in order to keep us serfs. Ive been lied to my whole life right, so sory eh!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Wolf:


What is the sound of one hand clapping?

A sort of whooshing sound.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Old money:


Now all these deffinitions of touch involve contact, matter comming into contact with another type of matter. Following that deffintion; which of our 4 remaing senses doesnt involve touch?

You are confusing touch with contact.


The only reason I argue it is because Im a firm beliver that the Imperialists hold back scientific and technological advances. Like a constant represion of true knowledge in order to keep us serfs. Ive been lied to my whole life right, so sory eh!

But, the vast majority of scientists involved in this area argue as you do, so exactly who is 'holding back' what is somewhat unclear.

Even so, your argument (and theirs) depends on attributing to the brain human characteristics, so unless you believe that there are little human beings inside our skulls, your account (and theirs) cannot be right.

[whore]

Wolf:



A sort of whooshing sound.
depends on where you clap.

if you just wave your hand in the air, as if you were expecting it to conect to another hand, that just happened not to be there, yes.

but, if you go to clap, and someone interperses themself, then there may well be a sort of "clap"ing sound (depending on what it hit).

however, looking at the word "clap", i would have say that neither of those really take into account what a "clap" is. i would argue that it depends on what you clap on, as to what soudn you produce with one hand. hitting "air" isn't really clapping, and as such, your answer isnt really correct.

:lol::cool:

rosa, what do you think of my tree falls in the forest argument?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Whore:


depends on where you clap.

Depends on all sorts of things you did not mention. But, in more normal circumstances, my answer was correct.


rosa, what do you think of my tree falls in the forest argument?

If you read my first reply, you will see I give that answer too -- if I understand yours aright...