Does the universe exist independently of perception?

[Catachresis]

I dont know how well Ive phrased this question but here goes...

Does the universe exist independently of perception?

[excreationist]

I think the physical particles that make up the universe existed before human beings ever did, but the concept of "the universe" required minds in order for the concept to exist. I think that concepts don't exist until someone thinks them up although they would be based on their previous experiences and beliefs...

[3rdhybrid]

a concept or perception is of what already exists. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound. Yes it did. There does not have to be a perception of an event for the event to have happened. The same vibrations went out into the world. In one sence, the ego says there was no sound because I did not hear it.
im probaly not making sence. o'well
peace

[Thieving Magpie]

Originally posted by Catachresis
IDoes the universe exist independently of perception?

I assume so.

[fwh]

If by the universe, you mean matter, then science assures us that "particles" of matter exist. We are also assured that those "particles" are perceivable. Indeed, they are the basis of all perception, inasmuch as it is only their presence (outside of our minds and independent of ourselves) which provides us with something to perceive. For example, it is the very particle's presence or absence which distinguishes an actual perception from an hallucination.

Now, physical science has for a long time stressed the enormous difference between what it investigates as the actual structure of matter (particles-atoms, quarks, superstrings) and the actual appearances/phenomena which are perceived by human conciousness. IMHO the relation between man and nature depends heavily on the participation of man's own mind in the creation of these phenomena from the particles. (We don't see the particles, but rather see a tree)

So, in order to turn unrepresented particles(atoms) into a representation(tree) at least one sentient organism with a nervous system organized around a spinal cord culminating in a human brain is indispensable. Therefore, only particles fall in the universe if there is no organism there to give them a representation. But a tree falls in the forest if a human being with a 21st century western/scientific conciousness is there to witness it.

[thefugitivesaint]

I'd say yes. Before there was ever a perciever there was Universe. We are simply a vastly small part of a much larger whole and the whole has no need nor use for us to be (i.e. does not require our perception of it to exist).

Our perceptions are even tied completely into our specific evolutionary development as a species. We do not "perceive" all that is as our "perception" is limited (i.e. we only see part of the color spectrum, hear only sounds under/over a certain level, etc.)

Universe is independent of our perceptions of it. It's a claim i can stand safely making.

-theSaint

[Keith Russell]

fwh:

The fact that we call it a tree (or that a non-21st Century and/or non-Western person would call it seomething else) does not change what it is.

Keith.

[Some Loser]

The universe ceases to exist for us once our perception of it ceases. However, as long as we perceive at least part of it, then it exists for us in its entirety.

[lunar tee]

a concept or perception is of what already exists. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound. Yes it did. - 3rdhybrid

Why do people always say this? Hearing requires a brain to conceive sound from impulse. Is reflected light sight? No; the light must start a chain culminating in the perception by a brain of a sight. The answer is no; if no one is around, the falling tree makes no sound.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It creates a sound wave, however, and that, of course, is the point. Semantics aside, the tree does, indeed, make a sound wave without anyone around to "pick it up," shall we say?

Actually, even that is way too homocentric, which is, of course, at the heart of the question and why it is always fallacious.

Birds, dogs, leaves, dirt all "hear" the sound wave and/or are effected in some manner by its existence; an existence independent of human existence.

[excreationist]

lunar tee:
Why do people always say this? Hearing requires a brain to conceive sound from impulse. Is reflected light sight? No; the light must start a chain culminating in the perception by a brain of a sight. The answer is no; if no one is around, the falling tree makes no sound.
Vibrations would still go through the air though. And even (most?) insects would be able to detect it - at certain frequencies... though their learning abilities as far as hearing goes are very limited or maybe non-existent. (Most?) Birds and mammals on the other hand would be able to learn to associate sounds with different things so they are able to react in a more intelligent way...
I guess it is a matter of opinion whether you consider that various animals (insects/birds/etc) can hear sounds or see sights... I wonder if plants that seek sunlight can be said to "see" it - they can detect it at least.
Anyway, saying that "no-one" is around to hear a tree falling in the woods implies that animals can't hear sounds - or they aren't "anyone".

Some Loser:
The universe ceases to exist for us once our perception of it ceases. However, as long as we perceive at least part of it, then it exists for us in its entirety.
What if a blind, uneducated person who lived in ancient times perceived a bit of the universe (their surroundings) - would the universe *in its entirety* exist for them? (Including the billions(?) of galaxies and perhaps zillions of parallel worlds, etc)

[Mr. Sammi]

There are 2 answers to this question.

The philosophical answer - NO.

The scientific answer - YES.

The third answer - The view from nowhere. Now what would the being from nowhere with the view from nowhere be able to say about this?



Sammi Na Boodie ()

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired
It creates a sound wave, however, and that, of course, is the point. Semantics aside, the tree does, indeed, make a sound wave without anyone around to "pick it up," shall we say?

Actually, even that is way too homocentric, which is, of course, at the heart of the question and why it is always fallacious.

Birds, dogs, leaves, dirt all "hear" the sound wave and/or are effected in some manner by its existence; an existence independent of human existence.

and...

by excreationist
Anyway, saying that "no-one" is around to hear a tree falling in the woods implies that animals can't hear sounds - or they aren't "anyone".

That's MY point! To say that "no-one" hears it is to say that literally no ONE, be it insect, human or any kind of "one" hears it. If you say that a tree falls and no one is there, you are saying that there are no organisms there to detect sound. The sound occurs to the perceiver, not to the tree or anywhere in between.

[fwh]

Keith said:

The fact that we call it a tree (or that a non-western or non-twenty-first century person would call it something else) does not change what it is.

Me:

Agreed! Do you agree that this "it" is a sub-or supersensilble base of reality, which cannot be experienced as such, only inferred? And do you further agree that this base is all that is independently real or objective?

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by lunar tee

That's MY point! To say that "no-one" hears it is to say that literally no ONE, be it insect, human or any kind of "one" hears it. If you say that a tree falls and no one is there, you are saying that there are no organisms there to detect sound. The sound occurs to the perceiver, not to the tree or anywhere in between.

If no one was around, how do you know that a tree fell???

[thefugitivesaint]

Do you agree that this "it" is a sub-or supersensilble base of reality, which cannot be experienced as such, only inferred?

Perhaps i'm a bit obtuse but i am not sure what this question is trying to address.

Are you saying that this "it" can only be experienced by us (human beings) through the mediation of our symbolic systems of thought and that we can never know the "it" as "it" is in-itself? It's a relatively old question if that's what your getting at but perhaps i'm reading to much into my own confusion concerning the inquiries point?
-theSaint

[August Spies]

Why do people always say this? Hearing requires a brain to conceive sound from impulse. Is reflected light sight?

lunar,
hearing does not equal sound
light does not equal sight.

You post is confusing the THING itself (sound waves or light waves) with the perception of the thing ("sight" or "hearing")

The question was not "if a tree falls in a forest does is it heard"

[Samhain]

Originally posted by August Spies
lunar,
hearing does not equal sound
light does not equal sight.

You post is confusing the THING itself (sound waves or light waves) with the perception of the thing ("sight" or "hearing")

The question was not "if a tree falls in a forest does is it heard"

The problem is, without the mediums of human perception (i.e. sight & hearing), they might just as well be waves of nothingness.

"Sound (n): the sensation produced by the stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transferred through the air or other medium."

"Light (n): electromagnetic radiation to which the organs of sight react.

(Taken from the Random House Webster's College Dictionary)

For example, ultraviolet rays are not visible to the human eye. While they can still be said to exist, they are not seen unless one uses special tools in order to make them visible to the human eye, thus they cannot be considered as "light", but only as "electromagnetic radiation". So, as far as the unaided human eye is concerned, ultraviolet rays might just as well not exist. The same goes for wavelengths of sound that cannot be heard by the human ear.

So, while a tree may fall in a forest and produce vibrations, it does not produce sound until it travels through an ear and is interpreted by the brain as sound. The same can be said for electromagnetic radiation and light.

[August Spies]

The problem is, without the mediums of human perception (i.e. sight & hearing), they might just as well be waves of nothingness.

not exactly. First off there are other animals with hearing and sight than humans. And even ignoreing humans, as someone noted sound waves and light waves still have an effect on, say, other plants.

So, as far as the unaided human eye is concerned, ultraviolet rays might just as well not exist.
yes... as far as the unaided human eye is concerned.
which does not necessarily say much.

So, while a tree may fall in a forest and produce vibrations, it does not produce sound until it travels through an ear and is interpreted by the brain as sound.

This highlights my objection to the "if a tree falls..." question. To me it seems to just boil down to semantics. Everyone here is agreeing the tree would create sound waves. The debate is just over the definition of "sound." Semantics for semantics sake is fairly uninteresting imho.

[excreationist]

lunar tee:
"no-one" (or "someone") would generally mean "no person" though - if all organisms were included it would be clearer to say "nothing" (or "something").

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
If no one was around, how do you know that a tree fell???
You could see a fallen tree later, and assume that it fell at an earlier point in time.

[Samhain]

not exactly. First off there are other animals with hearing and sight than humans. And even ignoreing humans, as someone noted sound waves and light waves still have an effect on, say, other plants.

1. I limited my examples to humans for simplicity, of course, this could be easily extended to animals and plants as well with different examples.

2. While things such as the ultraviolet wavelength may have an effect upon plants, how is it that one can say that it is "light" without the interpretation of the wavelength through the medium of the eyes?

3. The definitions deserve attention.

yes... as far as the unaided human eye is concerned.
which does not necessarily say much.

What else does it need to say?

This highlights my objection to the "if a tree falls..." question. To me it seems to just boil down to semantics. Everyone here is agreeing the tree would create sound waves. The debate is just over the definition of "sound." Semantics for semantics sake is fairly uninteresting imho.

I disagree. This has nothing to do with semantics. Sound waves are only sound waves due to the interpretation through the filter of the human senses. Personally, if we are going to discuss these sorts of philosophical questions I'd prefer that we be sure exactly what we are talking about and not half-ass it. There are fundamental differences between the vibrations caused by a falling tree and sound waves, which are only thus due to the interpretation within the brain. If you wish to ignore the difference under the umbrella of semantics, then it's your choice.

[August Spies]

Sound waves are only sound waves due to the interpretation through the filter of the human senses.

no... sound waves are sound waves. A tree falling would make the same effect on nature (ie waves of sound) regardless of human senses.

There are fundamental differences between the vibrations caused by a falling tree and sound waves,

how?because they fall into the range of what we can hear? bullswank. If I get a hearing aid I can hear new sounds I couldn't before. They do not suddenly become sound with the invention of some form of hearing aid.

What else does it need to say?
human consciousness is not the most important thing in nature. Like Nietzsche's myth, we are just small beasts on a planet that will die quickly and the universe could care less.

I limited my examples to humans for simplicity, of course, this could be easily extended to animals and plants as well with different examples.
extended to animals and plants and other things. Easily? I disagree. "if a tree 'fell' in an absolute vacuum with nothing else around" is quite a different question.

[Samhain]

Let's put it this way:

What are "sound waves"? Sound waves are nothing but vibrations at certain frequencies, they are not anything more than vibrations until they are received and then interpreted by the brain through the ears. The way that we perceive the world is dependent upon our senses. Theoretically, if all beings were unable to hear these vibrations and interpret them as sound waves they would be nothing more than vibrations. The fundamental difference lies within perception, one cannot ignore the difference between human perception and the scientific reality. Until the scientific reality is received and interpreted by perception, it ceases to become "sound" or "light".

[excreationist]

Originally posted by Samhain
While things such as the ultraviolet wavelength may have an effect upon plants, how is it that one can say that it is "light" without the interpretation of the wavelength through the medium of the eyes?
What about sunflowers? They apparently track the sun... this would involve something like photoreceptors and "muscles". (With no intermediate processing though)

Sound waves are only sound waves due to the interpretation through the filter of the human senses.
What about when people talk about ultra low frequency sounds (e.g. 10 Hz) or ultra-high frequency sounds (e.g. 100,000 Hz)? (Maybe "ultrasounds" use high frequency "sounds"). Anyway, in those cases, a person isn't hearing the sounds - since we can only detect frequencies between about 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by August Spies
lunar,
hearing does not equal sound
light does not equal sight.

You post is confusing the THING itself (sound waves or light waves) with the perception of the thing ("sight" or "hearing")

The question was not "if a tree falls in a forest does is it heard"

MY post? My post is the one saying the waves and the photons are not sound and sight! I'm saying that the sensation of sound and seeing occur in the person or the owl or the frog or the centipede or the cute little bunny that is doing the sensing. Sometimes sound can be perceived by an organism (an organism like me) without there being any sound waves, like when I'm all alone in the house at night and think I hear footsteps. Sure, the stimulus is USUALLY outside the organism, but the organism's perception of the sensation is the sound.

[August Spies]

I don't think that really address what I was saying, merely that the thing I quoted from you confused the act of hearing with the thing of sound.

[fwh]

You are right about this being old news. I'll restate. Since Kant philosophy has heavily emphasized the participation of man's own mind in the creation, or evocation, of phenomena. Why?

Because physical science has for a long time stressed the enormous difference between what it investigates as the actual structure of the universe(matter), and the appearances of that matter to normal human conciousness.

Matter is supersensible or being beyond that which is perceivable or apparent to the human senses.

Most people are aware of the above -and have been for a long time- and then promptly forget it and leave it out of account when approaching certain subjects where it is most germane.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by excreationist
lunar tee:
"no-one" (or "someone") would generally mean "no person" though - if all organisms were included it would be clearer to say "nothing" (or "something").

Yes, it would be clearer because of our habitually homocentric thinking. But, technically, to say no one, in this case, means "no sound-perceiving thing" because all organisms are "ones."

Let me ask you something. Do you think the question of the tree in the forest is asked to illustrate the point that sound occurs in the perceiver instead of in the mechanism of its generation? Because that is what I think. I think we are accustomed to thinking of seeing as occuring in front of our eyes instead of within our brains, and of thinking of the sound of a tree falling as occuring somewhere within its crashing branches and what it lands on instead of within ourselves. I don't think the issue is semantics at all; I think the issue is that we habitually tend to look at sensation in the wrong way. The focusing on whether "no one" includes organisms besides humans is insignificant to the issue addressed by the question, which seeks to show that without "someone", there is no sound because sound is a perception that requires a perceiver.

[August Spies]

Samhain

If a there is a sound wave that we couldn't hear for years and years and then one day we discover a way to hear it (using an aid) does this frequency suddenly become "sound"? Does it gain the quality of sound instantly with our perception? Does it then cease to be sound the second humans stop listening?

Also, people always refer to sound waves we can't hear as "sound" For example those dog whistles which make a sound humans can't hear but annoys dogs. Or the whistles on cars that are supposed to be heard by deer. Are people using "sound" incorrectly then?

[Shadowy Man]

I guess the Sun doesn't exist at night time.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by August Spies
Samhain

If a there is a sound wave that we couldn't hear for years and years and then one day we discover a way to hear it (using an aid) does this frequency suddenly become "sound"?

I'm not Samhain, but I'm going to answer anyway. Sound occurs the moment something hears and not until. The sound waves, themselves, are never heard; they stimulate the nervous system to perceive a sensation interpreted as sound.

Does it gain the quality of sound instantly with our perception?

That's just it; the waves don't "turn into" sound, they just project and disperse and then are gone. Sound occurs as a result of being stimulated by the waves.

Does it then cease to be sound the second humans stop listening?

Sound ceases to be sound when no one is perceiving it. Waves are never sound, but they can stimulate and then cease to stimulate the occurrance of sound.

Also, people always refer to sound waves we can't hear as "sound" For example those dog whistles which make a sound humans can't hear but annoys dogs. Or the whistles on cars that are supposed to be heard by deer. Are people using "sound" incorrectly then?

Dogs and deer are perceiving sound when stimulated by the waves that don't stimulate us, so dog and deer whistles still cause sounds. People are using "sound" incorrectly when they say there is a sound that nothing can hear. Because sound is a perception; not a wave, right?

[Samhain]

Originally posted by August Spies
Samhain

If a there is a sound wave that we couldn't hear for years and years and then one day we discover a way to hear it (using an aid) does this frequency suddenly become "sound"? Does it gain the quality of sound instantly with our perception? Does it then cease to be sound the second humans stop listening?

Also, people always refer to sound waves we can't hear as "sound" For example those dog whistles which make a sound humans can't hear but annoys dogs. Or the whistles on cars that are supposed to be heard by deer. Are people using "sound" incorrectly then?

I assume you've read the definitions I previously cited; you tell me.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
I guess the Sun doesn't exist at night time.

Then you would guess wrong; the sun exists even if you don't see it. What does NOT exist at night time is your vision of the sun, unless it is being stimulated by memory of the sensation of sunlight instead of by photons.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by lunar tee
Then you would guess wrong; the sun exists even if you don't see it. What does NOT exist at night time is your vision of the sun, unless it is being stimulated by memory of the sensation of sunlight instead of by photons.

Yeah, no kidding. What's the big problem. Propagating pressure waves instigated by some kind of concussive force (i.e. a falling tree) exist whether or not we "hear" it, and "sound", according to your definition of the word, doesn't exist until the brain perceives these pressure waves as collected by the fleshy bits on the sides of our heads. "Light", according to your definition of the word, has the similar property, even though the propagation of photons exists independently of any human's ability to receive them and interpret them as "sight."

Wow! Isn't semantics fun! :rolleyes:

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Samhain
I disagree. This has nothing to do with semantics. Sound waves are only sound waves due to the interpretation through the filter of the human senses. Personally, if we are going to discuss these sorts of philosophical questions I'd prefer that we be sure exactly what we are talking about and not half-ass it. There are fundamental differences between the vibrations caused by a falling tree and sound waves, which are only thus due to the interpretation within the brain. If you wish to ignore the difference under the umbrella of semantics, then it's your choice.

I agree, Samhain; this has nothing to do with semantics, except that we are using words to communicate. The whole point of the philosophical question of the tree in the forest is that when we talk about sound, we are not talking about something projected by the tree, and, likewise our other sensations.

[Samhain]

My goal has never been to offer an answer to the question regarding whether a tree makes a sound in a forest or not if no one is around to hear it. My only goal has been to lay the ground for the philosophical discussion itself. Does a tree make a sound in a forest if no one is around to hear it? My answer would be this: a tree that falls in the forest produces vibrations, vibrations, that when filtered through a ear and interpreted by consciousness, create the stimulation of sound and hearing. Without the sensation of hearing, these things cease to be "sound", but are only the raw, unfiltered vibrations at certain wavelengths. Yes, the action of the falling tree could have the properties for potentially creating "sound", though it ceases to be such until it is filtered and processed by the sensation of the vibration and consciousness.

It would seem that by the accusations of playing semantics games, everyone seems to be missing my point. I'm not attempting to use semantics to create confusion, I'm only trying to set the stage for more precise philosophical discussion, if you will.

[Shadowy Man]

Yes, but many people, including most scientists that I know, define the word "sound" such that it actually refers to those vibrations whether we "hear" them or not. Same goes with light.

So, basically the question boils down to:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does anyone hear it?

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Yeah, no kidding. What's the big problem.

I don't know how big it is, but the problem is that when people make statements such as "I guess the Sun doesn't exist at night time.", they show that they fail to appreciate the difference in the sun and the sight of the sun. Then they turn around and say, "Yeah, no kidding."
Propagating pressure waves instigated by some kind of concussive force (i.e. a falling tree) exist whether or not we "hear" it, and "sound", according to your definition of the word, doesn't exist until the brain perceives these pressure waves as collected by the fleshy bits on the sides of our heads. "Light", according to your definition of the word, has the similar property, even though the propagation of photons exists independently of any human's ability to receive them and interpret them as "sight."

Wow! Isn't semantics fun! :rolleyes:

Yeah; ain't irony fun, too?;)

[Shadowy Man]

If I make a sarcastic comment and no one around appreciates the sarcasm, is it really sarcastic?

[Samhain]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Yes, but many people, including most scientists that I know, define the word "sound" such that it actually refers to those vibrations whether we "hear" them or not. Same goes with light.


1. We aren't running a popularity contest.

2. I understand what you are saying, humans do this all the time, it's easier to refer to the vibrations as "sound" rather than make elaborate explanations. It makes things easier to understand, yes, but if you want to actually find answers to these types of philosophical questions, then don't you find it more advantageous to get specific and not just half-ass it? These aren't easy questions, if you want answers you're going to have to dig, so grab a shovel if you want to come, spoons just won't work in this realm.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does anyone hear it?

Aww, now you're just trying to take all of the fun out of it :D

[thefugitivesaint]

But, the emphasis placed on the limitations our systems of measurement or investigation by some within the philosophical tradition is based on some percieved notion that there exists an ideal form of knowing the "substance" that makes up all things without recourse to some mediated form of understanding.

This notion is a false one. We always have to depend on our evolutionary developed cognitive processes even when we had no existing symbolic forms in which to translate this understanding into the social field.

The "appearance" of "matter" or, as you put it, the "supersensible " may not encompass the whole of what is being investigated but we have a solid history of achievement in the scientific endeavours carried out by us as a species. We can extrapolate from limited investigation to a wider spectrum of phenomenon and how the process or function acts in nature. The context of discovery is far different than the context of justification had to support whatever is being established as a "law", scientifically speaking.

I disagree that this "matter is supersensible" in the respects to our ability to "percieve" it. We cannot "percieve" all forms of matter but we only need to know what we know about the relevant aspects of nature that would allow us as a species to flourish and survive. All other forms of investigation are slightly superfluous to this basic requirement but that doesn't mean that we should abandon them simply because they do not bear directly on our perpetuation.

Am i confusing matters with all of this or what?
-theSaint

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Samhain


Aww, now you're just trying to take all of the fun out of it :D

Fine. Is this more fun?

If no one is around to hear the tree fall, how do you know it even fell? :p

[August Spies]

So after doing this dance agian I am more convinced that you guys are argueing about semantics.

Everyone is agreeing that without people around to percieve the tree fall it would still create sound vibrations, correct?

Okay so then we are just argueing over the definition of sound. does sound = sound waves? Or does sound= the act of interpreting those sounds.

According to the dictionary:
a. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.
b. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.
c. Such sensations considered as a group. .

well according to it, it can mean either. Personally ive always though of it as definition a. above, but you are free to think what you want.

[99Percent]

Well, my interpretation of this question as that everything in the universe is both a cause and an effect. For example we cannot see, feel, hear, or perceive anything inside the center of the Earth yet its obvious that there is something there, although what it is exactly is conjectural.

The sound of the tree falling in a forrest must have in turn caused other events, for example maybe a bird started flying startled, that in turn caused another chain of events that eventually leads to another reality you perceive.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
If I make a sarcastic comment and no one around appreciates the sarcasm, is it really sarcastic?

Well, if you make a sarcastic comment, that implies that you intend for the comment to be sarcastic. So at least someone (you) appreciates the sarcasm, making the comment, in fact, sarcastic.

But how about this? There are some words on a sign and a person who can't read looks at the sign. No reading went on during this event. Later, another person who can read looks at the sign and reading goes on. The difference lies within the perception of the beholder; in both cases the words and sign are the same.

[Amos]

So then if there are no ears around the falling tree would not make any sound and if there were no eyes around the sun would not make any light. Rather until the scientific reality that can produce light or sound is received and interpreted by perception, it ceases to become "sound" or "light".

If this is true for light and sound would that also be true for love, taste, evil, pleasure, pain and, in the end, for life itself?

[fwh]

Thanks for responding. I don't know that we are disagreeing. Let me ask you a question to maybe clarify some things.

Are you agreeing with me that the act of perception includes thinking; perception cannot be separated from the cognitive process?

For example. Let us consider Johannes Kepler: imagine him sitting on a hill watching the dawn. With him is Tycho Brahe. Kepler regarded the sun as fixed: it was the earth that moved(heliocentric). But Tycho followed Ptolemy and Aristotle in this much at least: the earth was fixed and all other celestial bodies moved around it(geocentric). Do Kepler and Tycho see the same thing in the east at dawn?

[excreationist]

Originally posted by fwh
Do Kepler and Tycho see the same thing in the east at dawn?
If Kepler was strongly thinking that the Sun is not moving while the Earth is moving, then I think they would be perceiving the Sun differently - and seeing it (visually) in different ways...
It is sort of like someone imagining their car is stationary and the surroundings moving past their window are the only things that are moving... while other people would think that the car is moving while the surroundings are stationary.

[atrahasis]

Originally posted by Catachresis

Does the universe exist independently of perception?
YES it does

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by fwh
Thanks for responding. I don't know that we are disagreeing. Let me ask you a question to maybe clarify some things.

Are you agreeing with me that the act of perception includes thinking; perception cannot be separated from the cognitive process?

I think perception can include thinking, but a lot of perceiving goes on without thinking. And a lot goes on with thinking. We engage in a lot of "automatic" perception, as when we perceive something on an unconscious level and respond to it; the classic example is when we find ourselves sitting in a car at our intended destination but have no memory of what took place during the drive. And surely other animals perceive hunger, fear, etc., without registering them cognitively. I think we and other organisms can perceive without knowing we are perceiving.

For example. Let us consider Johannes Kepler: imagine him sitting on a hill watching the dawn. With him is Tycho Brahe. Kepler regarded the sun as fixed: it was the earth that moved(heliocentric). But Tycho followed Ptolemy and Aristotle in this much at least: the earth was fixed and all other celestial bodies moved around it(geocentric). Do Kepler and Tycho see the same thing in the east at dawn?

I think they don't see the same thing, even though they are looking at the same thing. And in this case, of course, cognition is involved.

[thefugitivesaint]

Fwh:
Are you agreeing with me that the act of perception includes thinking; perception cannot be separated from the cognitive process?

I agree. But, i think that the initial act of "percieving" doesn't necessarily possess any active thinking meaning what we see is assimilated into our memory after we consult our knowledge or our symbolic system of understanding what we are seeing. I can look at a painting and just see it without really investigating that painting by applying any information i may have about its form, content, style or history. Of course, the moment of "just looking" at a thing is so quickly followed by thinking about what we are looking at that the question stands. We are not in disagreement here. "Perception" of any sort, touch, smell, sight or sound are all tied into the cognitive process and necessarily so. It's all part of the same biological system.

As to different interpretations of what is "perceived" like the different opinions held about the setting of the sun, the two are "perceiving" the same phenomenon but they are not both accurate as to what is happening exactly. One is correct in postulating the fixed sun and the moving earth while the other is mistaken. From their vantage point though the viewpoints make no operational difference in determining the process of the setting sun. But, thinking a thing is as one thinks doens't make it so.

-theSaint

[John Page]

Originally posted by lunar tee
I think perception can include thinking, but a lot of perceiving goes on without thinking. And a lot goes on with thinking.......I think we and other organisms can perceive without knowing we are perceiving.
[/B]
:confused: Hmmm. If a mind that does not think is not a mind can it perceive? Secondly, we can know things without knowing we know them, the latter requiring consciousness of "self" etc.

Do you agree the act of perception is part of the process we term "thought"? Or do you consider it more like cognition which seems to span perception through to conscious realization?

Cheers, John

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by John Page
:confused: Hmmm. If a mind that does not think is not a mind can it perceive?

A herd of cattle can perceive the need to crowd together in cold weather; it's a physiological mechanism and doesn't require thought, as we think of thought. Still, they have perceived something and responded, wouldn't you agree? Many animals have the abililty to analyze complicated situations before they act, so I would say that is certainly perception. Something seems like something to them.

Secondly, we can know things without knowing we know them, the latter requiring consciousness of "self" etc.

Do you agree the act of perception is part of the process we term "thought"?

In my opinion, the mechanism of perception consists in sensory stimulation and sensation. Add "weighted" memory to the mix and you get thinking, which encompasses perception.

[John Page]

Originally posted by lunar tee
In my opinion, the mechanism of perception consists in sensory stimulation and sensation. Add "weighted" memory to the mix and you get thinking, which encompasses perception.
I don't see how memory + perception results in thought. I view thought as a process and don't disagree that the process of perception can be considered a subset of thought.

However, the picture gets blurred when I think about a process that contains information. Example, by reperforming the thought process of addition I can conclude 2 + 2 = 4. What is the difference between this and "remembering" the result. (Note: I am aware that some research has shown that our minds develop shortcuts to results so we don't have to process everything from scratch every time).

The above example challenges the usual "data in, process, data out" view of thought and computation after von Neumann. It points in the direction of memory being a process and memorization being a supra-process that creates repeatable processes. Repeatable process thus have the appearance of static memory.

If the above process model is valid, it means each of the "fixed" datum about the universe we perceive is in fact a repeating process of mind. With memory being our brain's repeatable (internal) recreation (or simulation if you prefer) of the "outside world".

This is probably a long ways from your weighted memory model but I'd be interested to get your comments/alternative conceptualizations.
Originally posted by lunar tee
A herd of cattle can perceive the need to crowd together in cold weather; it's a physiological mechanism and doesn't require thought, as we think of thought.
Still :confused: . Surely each cow acts on its perceptions (either consciously or unconsciously) and this is thought however low. (pun intended).

Cheers, John

[excreationist]

Originally posted by excreationist
If Kepler was strongly thinking that the Sun is not moving while the Earth is moving, then I think they would be perceiving the Sun differently - and seeing it (visually) in different ways...
It is sort of like someone imagining their car is stationary and the surroundings moving past their window are the only things that are moving... [like a driving simulator] while other people would think that the car is moving while the surroundings are stationary.
Just to expand on what I wrote....
There is a part of the brain called the middle temporal area (MT) which seems to be what determines sensations of movement we have.
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b210.html
This talks about a woman who is "motion blind".

http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b220.html
This talks about the MT area.

http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b230.html
This talks about an experiment on trained monkeys where their MT area was artificially stimulated and it caused them to give the wrong answers... they seemed to be perceiving the movement wrong.

Anyway, in the sun example, to have a sensation of it being static and the earth moving you'd have to strongly believe that the sun is the static "frame of reference" - but that isn't intuitive since it is visually smaller than the surrounding terrain. If it is your intuitive "frame of reference" then the sun's perceived movement over time is 0.

It's like this optical illusion with cubes...
http://www.sjesoft.com/3DGallery/trueSpace/optical.jpg
You can get a different sensation of what's going on depending on your "frame of reference" - whether the cube tops or cube bottoms are visible.

[John Page]

Originally posted by excreationist
Just to expand on what I wrote....

Cool links...:notworthy

[lunar tee]

Damn, I had a nice post full of, not only lowing cattle, but coon-hunting dogs. I lost it, but will post tomorrow. Thanks and sorry for the goof-up.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sound ceases to be sound when no one is perceiving it. Waves are never sound, but they can stimulate and then cease to stimulate the occurrance of sound.

Ok, this is as far as I got, so I apologize to anyone else who may have covered the ground I'm about to, but....what's your point, other than semantics hair-splitting?

If you want to equate the word "sound" with the words "human perception" and irrelevantly separate out the inherent quality of that "sound" (i.e., the sound wave), then I can only ask, to what end? What is your point?

The question isn't, "What is the random grouping of linguistic symbols we all use when referring to our perceptions of the effect of a certain frequency upon our ear drums," right? The question is, "Does the universe exist independently" of those "perceptions?"

You've admitted as much the minute you grant that a wave exists in order to effect "us," yes? Ergo, the wave exists independently of human perception of the wave, ergo, there does indeed exist something independent of human perception.

The fact that the wave occurs first and then we perceive it only serves to fulfill the burden of the question, not beg it.

It may very well be trivially true that the photons bouncing off an object twenty feet away from us form an image of a tree upside down in the back of our eyeballs, which is then interpreted by our brains as to the proper size, symbol and distance, but that doesn't change the fact that the data came from a tree twenty feet away from us.

While I agree, it's remarkable how the brain does this, that doesn't change the fact that the photons exist independently of you and your brain, nor that the tree exists in a spatial relationship (as well as special :D) relative to your own physical spatial relationship.

It's all spatial, so can't we just get along? (sorry, couldn't resist....and should have)

Back to the point. The fact that, for example, sonar is another form of spatial orientation demonstrates (in a very fundamental and pragmatic manner) that such "outsidedness" must exist.

Corroboration of an independent existence may certainly spring from our perception of it, but such corroboration from us is not a requirement for it, capisca?

If it were, then it would be impossible for me to communicate any of this to you for you to disagree with (if, indeed, you still do...as I mentioned, I stopped reading at the above comment).

Regardless, to argue any aspect of solipsism is to, ultimately, argue solipsism, which, in turn, is pointless mental masturbation, since it ipso factorily (to coin a phrase) means that only you are having this conversation to begin with.

Either one accepts the overwhelming evidence of "outsidedness" or one does not. If one does not, then the only alternative is solipsism, which, if that is the case, please stop making all of us up so we can get some sleep.

My 2 sense.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired
Ok, this is as far as I got, so I apologize to anyone else who may have covered the ground I'm about to, but....what's your point, other than semantics hair-splitting?

If you want to equate the word "sound" with the words "human perception" and irrelevantly separate out the inherent quality of that "sound" (i.e., the sound wave), then I can only ask, to what end? What is your point?


Hello, Still Retired. My point in arguing about the tree in the forest thing is that there is an important difference (the whole point of the question, in my opinion) in where the sound, itself, manifests. The fact that, to us, the sound "comes from" the falling tree demonstrates the necessary but scewed way we in which we regard ourselves in our world. This, in turn, demonstrates something of the quality of our sensations; that they are entirely personal.

[John Page]

Isn't the point of the fine semantics that:

a) We perceive sound (consciously).
b) Some types of sound we associate with falling trees
c) We thus learn the sound(s) of trees falling.
d) From our understanding of cognition and physics we have explanations how the physical event of the tree falling causes the sound to be perceived.
e) From our experience and analysis of reality we infer that if an observer had been present they would have reported hearing the tree fall.

What I'm getting at is the need to distinguish "things that we actually know because we experienced them directly" and "inferences that we can reliably make based on prior experiences and analysis". To make a reliable inference we need to fully understand cause and effect.

Does the sound of a tree falling in a vacuum make a sound? I ask this question to suggest one needs to know all material circumstances in order to reach a reliable conclusion. Problem is, how do we know that we know all the material circumstances?

Cheers, John

[fwh]

I don't understand the semantics battle which is going on. It seems all feel matter exists without perception.

Perception can only take place by means of sense-organs in a particular organism. All sorts of occurences can take place but without a sentient organism around NO perception occurs. The event occurs but no conciousness witnesses it.

But what happens when perception takes place? What takes place next IS contentious. I will quote a favorite source:
"But the two most important things to remember about perception are these;

First, that we must not confuse the percept with its cause. I do not hear undulating molecules of air; the name of what I hear is "sound'. I do not touch a moving system of waves or of atoms and electrons with relatively vast empty spaces between them; the name of what I touch is matter.

Second, I do not perceive any 'thing' with my sense organs alone, but with a great part of my whole human being. Thus, I may say, loosely, that I "hear a thrush singing'. But in strict truth all that I ever merely 'hear--all that I ever hear simply by virtue of having ears--is sound. When I 'hear a thrush singing', I am hearing, not with my ears alone, but with all sorts of other things like mental habits, memory, imagination, feeling and (to the extent at least that the act of attention involves it) will. Of a man who merely heard in the first sense, it could be meaningfully be said that 'having ears' (i.e. not being deaf) 'he heard not'." William James called it a blooming confusion.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I, too, am at a loss, since everyone seems to keep missing the only salient point, which is that everyone does indeed grant that there exists something "out there;" one's perception of it being entirely irrelevant to the independent existence of the thing itself.

The OP question has been answered. Yes, the universe exists independently of perception.

End of discussion, yes, at least as far as that question?

It seems to me there are two questions being asked here, one which has already been answered (i.e., the OP) and one that involves only a discussion of how different organisms may (or may not) perceive what is already established as being "out there."

I, for example, am red/green color blind (which means, primarily, that I have difficulty discerning subtle shades; dark blues look like blacks, etc.), but, in order for me to even be color blind in this fashion ipso facto means that there are indeed color wavelengths already existing for me to react to, yes?

So, again, the fact that there is an "outside" is established and the question then becomes merely an academic one (i.e., mental masturbation), since personal perception necessarily exists "inside" and is therefore of trivial consequence to the objective reality (homocentric consequence at that).

My personal experience of color shades is precisely that and nothing more; my own personal experience. It does not effect color wavelengths in the slightest, so the only concern (and, again, in this case trivial) is whether or not it can be reasonably established that there exists a consistent color wavelength "dark blue" that when I see it, I incorrectly (in the grander sense) interpret that wavelength.

In other words, empirical evidence is discovered to varify that it is indeed a faulty aspect of my sensory input devices and sensory processing device (i.e., eyes and brain) that have resulted in my mistaken perception.

This is what the burden of proof is all about, naturally, and as you can see, in this instance, it is a trivial burden, since whether or not I misperceive the independently established wavelength (for human sense organs) "dark blue" as "black," will only result in a possibly embarassing social faux pas at a formal dinner.

Regardless, the point is that since there is an "out there" which effects the "in here" of my sensory processing and symbol interpretation abilities, the onus should be upon me to either correct the mistake in some manner, or simply allow for it when choosing a tuxedo.

I certainly can go through my life demanding that others are incorrect and that my personal experience somehow proves this, but that is, of course, ludicrous posturing on my part and little else.

The wavelength "dark blue" (whatever that may be) can rather simplistically be varified within a reasonable degree of repetition and therefore certainty to exist independently of my ability to correctly perceive it as "dark blue." The fact that I perceive it as "black," simply means that I am incorrect in terms of the thing itself and nothing else.

In other much more succinct (and possibly too dogmatic) words, it doesn't alter the thing itself; the thing itself alters me.

[fwh]

Thinking and cognition. They are so closely united that many times I use them simultaneously in expressing my thoughts. Thinking is a result of the cognitive process? If so, what else can result from the cognitive besides thinking?

Thanks Excreationist for the examples from the web. Really exciting stuff and interesting to contemplate.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi-Still Retired
I, too, am at a loss, since everyone seems to keep missing the only salient point, which is that everyone does indeed grant that there exists something "out there;" one's perception of it being entirely irrelevant to the independent existence of the thing itself.

Koy:

1. How do you know that everyone does indeed grant that there exists something "out there"?
2. Even if everyone did, they could still be mistaken.
3. That "something is out there" is a sweeping generalization that may not be true under certain definitions of the terms used.
3. The salient points, IMO, are what exists and how do we come to think "there's something out there" and believe it to be true?

Unless we can answer these questions with a hypothesis confirmed by experiment, we might just as well be saying "Something something something something something."

Of course, you have to start by believing something. ;)

Cheers, John

[John Page]

Originally posted by fwh
Thinking is a result of the cognitive process? If so, what else can result from the cognitive besides thinking?

I take the view that the overall process we describe as human thought includes cognition. It might be useful to consider the overall purpose and functions of thought, these seem to fall into 2 categories:

a) Action
b) Understanding (or "applied knowledge" if you wish). Understanding is useful in guiding future action - but is not necessarily bound to a finished objective e.g. at once he understood why rocks fall downwards and then suddenly died.

Cheers, John

[abe smith]

As the question asked at the OP is not answerable, (our) asking it at-all is meaningless.

Even if , like the Quakerman's picture on the Quaker Oats box, we try to push ourselves away in an infinite regress, we are NEVER going to be able to eliminate the connexion of our (sensory, perceiving) selves from the "problem".
So? shall we pass on to qys more interesting/discussable/answerable?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by John Page
1. How do you know that everyone does indeed grant that there exists something "out there"?

I was referring to everyone in this thread I had been interacting with, but if you want to broaden it, anyone who does not grant an "out there" to existence, instantly negates all discussions everywhere as moot, yes?

So, you either grant there is an "out there" the second you engage in a discussion, or you should never engage in a discussion since it takes two to tango, yes?

2. Even if everyone did, they could still be mistaken.

Non-sequitur. Granting that there are other people (i.e., "everyone") automatically grants that there is an "out there" (i.e., you're not the solipsist since there can be only one).

3. That "something is out there" is a sweeping generalization that may not be true under certain definitions of the terms used.

Which is why I supported my arguments with the existence of the sound wave and the color waves, etc., proving that there exists "something out there," (i.e., something that exists independently of human perception).

Were you not reading along?

3. The salient points, IMO, are what exists and how do we come to think "there's something out there" and believe it to be true?

Well, as I just said and prior, we've been discussing sound waves and color waves as just two examples of "things" (to simplistically label them) that exist "out there."

MORE: Unless we can answer these questions with a hypothesis confirmed by experiment, we might just as well be saying "Something something something something something."

Since we have already, perhaps I'll just leave that to your own internet skills and request you read the entire thread.

MORE: Of course, you have to start by believing something. ;)

:confused: No, actually, you don't, but then this is irrelevant anyway, so I'll let it slide so that you can get up to speed with the rest of us.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Since we have already, perhaps I'll just leave that to your own internet skills and request you read the entire thread.
....
No, actually, you don't, but then this is irrelevant anyway, so I'll let it slide so that you can get up to speed with the rest of us.
So, you believe I haven't read the entire thread?
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
I was referring to everyone in this thread I had been interacting with, but if you want to broaden it......
Thanks for the clarification...
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
.....anyone who does not grant an "out there" to existence, instantly negates all discussions everywhere as moot, yes?

No. I'm challenging your concepts of "I", "exist", "something" and "out there".
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
So, you either grant there is an "out there" the second you engage in a discussion, or you should never engage in a discussion since it takes two to tango, yes?

*You* are claiming you are "out there" but I still don't know what you mean by this and what you think you are.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Non-sequitur. Granting that there are other people (i.e., "everyone") automatically grants that there is an "out there" (i.e., you're not the solipsist since there can be only one).

Non-sequitur to you too. I still don't know what you mean by your belief that "everyone else is out there".
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Which is why I supported my arguments with the existence of the sound wave and the color waves, etc., proving that there exists "something out there," (i.e., something that exists independently of human perception).

Koy, have you not been paying attention? It should be reasonably obvious to anyone who has really read this thread that we infer from experience or otherwise believe that things exist independently of our perception.

Here it is again. *You* see the forest for the first time and conclude it is the forest. *You* return to the same spot many times and the forest, while it may change a little, remains. In your mind, the forest is still there. *You* believe the forest is there and continue to do so. However, the only way to confirm this belief is to visit the coordinates of the forest and confirm with knowledge derived from first-hand perception that the forest has the appearance of still being out there (right there and then).
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
:confused:
Well, look at your own claims then:
1. There is something out there (or the even more vague "Something exists")
2. I don't believe anything (see previous thread).
:D No wonder you're confused!

Assertion #1 implies that there is an "out there" and an "in here". I am not convinced that your concept of "in here" or "I" is consistent with your existential claims.

Try "It appears to me that I know reality can be divided into what is me and what is not me" and investigate how this act of self-perception occurs. Of course, if you don't know how this act of self-perception occurs it remains as belief on your part that such a process *you* (or *I*, from your point of view)exists.

I look forward to hearing what you believe you know.

Cheers, John

[Koyaanisqatsi]

John, with all due respect, please re-read the thread, particularly the sections where the discussion centered around the existence of sound waves and all of the arguments I presented to whit.

Originally posted by John Page: No. I'm challenging your concepts of "I", "exist", "something" and "out there".

I see. I guess I should then present my concepts of "I," "exist," "something" and "out there" then?

Ok.

"I." That would be me.
"Exist." That would be "to exist."
"Something." Here (in the discussion I was engaging in), that would be sound waves (and/or color waves).
"Out there." That would be "independent of human perception."

I'm sure we're sticky on the "exist" part, but no matter. I'm sure you'll jump in from there, yes?

ME: So, you either grant there is an "out there" the second you engage in a discussion, or you should never engage in a discussion since it takes two to tango, yes?

YOU: *You* are claiming you are "out there" but I still don't know what you mean by this and what you think you are.

I'm sorry to cause you such undo confusion. Perhaps I can explain it more simplistically, but then your response already grants the question.

As to what I "think" I am? I think I am. I think.

Is Amos near?

ME: Non-sequitur. Granting that there are other people (i.e., "everyone") automatically grants that there is an "out there" (i.e., you're not the solipsist since there can be only one).

YOU: Non-sequitur to you too.

It's not a greeting, but thanks.

MORE: I still don't know what you mean by your belief that "everyone else is out there".

That's probably because you're too concerned with building straw men around the word "belief."

ME: Which is why I supported my arguments with the existence of the sound wave and the color waves, etc., proving that there exists "something out there," (i.e., something that exists independently of human perception).

YOU: Koy, have you not been paying attention?

To you? No.

MORE: It should be reasonably obvious to anyone who has really read this thread that we infer from experience or otherwise believe that things exist independently of our perception.

And it should be painfully obvious to anyone who has "really' read this thread that there must therefore exist an "out there" (see my above definition) for us to have any experiences to infer from.

MORE: Here it is again. *You* see the forest for the first time and conclude it is the forest.

Do *You* see any irony in that declarative? What I "conclude" about the forest is irrelevant to the forest's existence; an existence that must be "out there" for me to make any conclusions about.

But of course, that was my point, so I understand why you've missed it, too. :D

MORE: *You* return to the same spot many times and the forest, while it may change a little, remains.

Thereby confirming through repetition of the experience the independent existence of said forest, yes.

MORE: In your mind, the forest is still there.

No, the forest is "still there" independently of my mind. Otherwise, there would be no way for me to conclude that it is "still there."

Even if I were hallucinating the "still thereness" of the forest, that would have no bearing on the independent existence of the forest. The forest does not require my mind for it to exist, hence the conclusion that the universe exists independently of human perception.

MORE: *You* believe the forest is there and continue to do so.

Well, again, assuming I am not hallucinating the forest, "belief" need not enter into it, other than in these pointless semantics spirals, so, by all means, have at it.

And while you do, please make sure to equivocate the disparate contextual meanings of the term "belief," will you? I so enjoy that. :rolleyes:

MORE: However, the only way to confirm this belief is to visit the coordinates of the forest and confirm with knowledge derived from first-hand perception that the forest has the appearance of still being out there (right there and then).

Oh, joy. I see you've already started. Now what "belief" are you referring to? The "belief" that a forest once existed at the same spatial coordinates as it did the first time I "derived" this "knowledge of the forest" having the appearance of "still being out there (right there and then)?"

Why would I need to do such a thing and you dropped some straw on the floor there?

The question isn't about confirming one's memories, the question is (or rather, has become, thanks to you) whether or not said forest exists (right there and then, if you like) outside of one's own personal perception of that forest.

You've already answered that question in the affirmative by granting the fact that I had "first-hand" experience of the forest for me to, apparently, retrieve as a memory at some unspecified later date for my erroneous return to the same spatial coordinates I remembered from that first-hand experience.

I certainly wouldn't bother going back to a forest if such a forest did not already exist independently of my perception, yes?

MORE: Well, look at your own claims then:

This should be interesting.

MORE: 1. There is something out there (or the even more vague "Something exists")

It wasn't vague in the slightest. The "something" I was referring to was the sound wave made by the tree falling with no one around to hear it fall. I then further qualified my argument by substituting a color wavelength for the "something," hence my request that you re-read the post and follow more carefully what was being discussed.

Now we have yet another substitution for the term "something;" i.e., the forest, so, as you should be able to see very clearly, there is nothing vague about anything I've written, with the exception of my defining the term "exist."

I sensed you needed more chum for your redirection. You may thank me later.

MORE: 2. I don't believe anything (see previous thread).

That was not my claim, but I'll save you some time. I do not use the term "believe" precisely because it almost always results in these pointless semantics sidetracks.

MORE: Assertion #1 implies that there is an "out there" and an "in here". I am not convinced that your concept of "in here" or "I" is consistent with your existential claims.

Since I did not make those claims (you did on my behalf), it's little wonder that you're not convinced.

MORE: Try "It appears to me that I know reality can be divided into what is me and what is not me" and investigate how this act of self-perception occurs.

I'll stick to the points I've demonstrated and you've avoided instead of your transparent straw men, thanks. Solipsism is a pointless waste of time and already negated by the fact that we're having this discussion.

If you're the solipsist (since there can be only one), then, as I've pleaded to all others arguing any element of this pointlessness, please stop pretending we all exist "out here" so we can get some sleep, yes? You have no idea how tiring it is to constantly pretend that I exist independently of your mind's remarkable faux-universe generating powers.

MORE: Of course, if you don't know how this act of self-perception occurs it remains as belief on your part that such a process *you* (or *I*, from your point of view)exists.

Did you have fun with that straw man? I particularly liked the "I's" :D.

MORE: I look forward to hearing what you believe you know.

And just how do *You* propose you do this, since I'm actually the solipsist and have decided that you no longer exist.

I certainly hope you don't post a response and prove me to be incorrect in my belief of what I think I perceive I know. It would be just horrible to have you post a response and prove solipsism fallacious, especially after all of the trouble I just went through to create you in my mind to begin with so that I could have this pointless discussion with myself.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
It wasn't vague in the slightest. The "something" I was referring to was the sound wave made by the tree falling with no one around to hear it fall. I then further qualified my argument by substituting a color wavelength for the "something," hence my request that you re-read the post and follow more carefully what was being discussed.

Now we have yet another substitution for the term "something;" i.e., the forest, so, as you should be able to see very clearly, there is nothing vague about anything I've written, with the exception of my defining the term "exist."

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
I do not use the term "believe" precisely because it almost always results in these pointless semantics sidetracks.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
And while you do, please make sure to equivocate the disparate contextual meanings of the term "belief," will you? I so enjoy that. :rolleyes:
It seems you accuse me of the equivocation you yourself admit and which, as a result has caused you to initiate your own semantic sidetrack. :D

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Is Amos near?

LOL. I believe that he may be, but on the other hand he may have been smitten from on high and not exist at all.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
"Out there." That would be "independent of human perception."
Let me interpolate your starting point, "Human perception is defined as a process that can determine what is "out there" as opposed to "in here"".

Hopefully you see that I am not arguing from the point of solipsism (of which your rendering was mildly amusing in a sarcastic sort of way which you seem to mistake for irony).

Human perception can be considered part of what is out there. Let's go back to the topic - "Does the universe exist independently of perception". I think we're agreeing that stuff can continue to exist whether we continuously perceive it or not - but that's an answer to a different question, like "Do things exist when we're not perceiving them". Perhaps you agree that a self-perceiving entity (by definition) differentiates between self and not-self.

Assuming we're not diverging in opinion at this point (or even belief ;) ), if we define the universe as comprising everything then it does not exist independently of perception. A perceiver, then, is something that distinguishes between itself and the rest of the universe.

Cheers, John

[AnthonyAdams45]

A perceiver, then, is something that distinguishes between itself and the rest of the universe. I like this, sir. I like this a lot.

[John Page]

I should have typed:

"A self-perceiver, then, is something that distinguishes between itself and the rest of the universe."

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by John Page : It seems you accuse me of the equivocation you yourself admit and which, as a result has caused you to initiate your own semantic sidetrack. :D

How so? You had asked me what I meant by "something" and I qualified it for you. Sound waves exist independently of my ability to perceive them, yes?

MORE: Let me interpolate your starting point, "Human perception is defined as a process that can determine what is "out there" as opposed to "in here".

Not quite, but close enough. My argument would be "human perception is irrelevant to the question of the universe existing in and of itself (if you will), since, axiomatic to perceiving the universe is that there is 'something' there first in order for it to be perceived."

Better? In other words, human perception comes as a result of 'something' "out there" to perceive. This fact has been and can be independently confirmed through various measuring devices. A geiger counter, for example, measures Gamma radiation whether or not there exists a human to measure the measurement. This demonstrates that Gamma radiation exists independently of human perception.

MORE: Hopefully you see that I am not arguing from the point of solipsism (of which your rendering was mildly amusing in a sarcastic sort of way which you seem to mistake for irony).

The irony comes from "something" else :D.

MORE: Human perception can be considered part of what is out there.

Well, perhaps, but only in a trivial manner. Human perception is an exclusive process of what is "in here" (i.e., a function of the human brain subject to the proper functioning of the particular brain in question and all of the various sensory input devices connected to that brain). The point being, of course, that an individual's processing of external stimuli (which results in "perception") is not only dependent upon that external stimuli's prior (and therefore independent) existence, it demonstrates the necessity of there existing said stimuli externally, i.e., independent of human perception.

While I may certainly process the external stimuli of photons reflected upside down on the back of my eyes and retrieve the necessary symbolic templates of the abstraction "tree" in my brain in order for me to declare "tree," the reason my processing has been stimulated initially is due to the external existence of those photons and how they reflected off of the tree; i.e., the tree exists independently of my mind's perception of it.

Therefore, we have, at the very least, certain basic qualities of external stimulation which effect and stimulate my internal processing.

In other words, "something out there" has effected "something in here."

MORE: Let's go back to the topic - "Does the universe exist independently of perception". I think we're agreeing that stuff can continue to exist whether we continuously perceive it or not - but that's an answer to a different question, like "Do things exist when we're not perceiving them".

Not quite. Whether something "continues" to exist absent our perception of it is of trivial importance to the "thing" itself, which is at the heart of the question. The "thing" itself (i.e., sound waves, color waves, forests, tree, and now Gamma radiation) exists whether or not there is a human (or self-perceiving entity, if you prefer) there to process it. Thus the universe does, indeed, exist "independently of human perception."

In other words, yet again, human perception is not a condition of "something" existing. If no "self-perceiving entities" ever existed in this universe, that wouldn't change the fact that gamma radiation (or sound waves or color waves, etc.) exist in this universe.

MORE: Perhaps you agree that a self-perceiving entity (by definition) differentiates between self and not-self.

I would agree that we have the ability to ascertain what exists externally from our sense perception of it; that we can confirm our perceptions in various ways, yes, but, again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not something exists independently of that perception.

Perception is nothing more than the end result of processing external (and internal) stimuli and therefore dependent upon said stimuli.

If there wasn't anything "out there" to process (barring the fallacious "matrix" argument) then there wouldn't be anything for us to perceive.

MORE: Assuming we're not diverging in opinion at this point (or even belief ;) ), if we define the universe as comprising everything then it does not exist independently of perception.

That is a trivial, pointless and fallacious semantics dance contingent upon the equivocation of "everything." A perception is not a "thing;" it is a process of evaluation. Implicit in the question is whether or not it can be established that there exists a universe independent of human perception; i.e., if no humans ever existed, would the universe exist?

A sound wave, for example, is not contingent upon a human perceiving it (i.e., "hearing" it) for it to exist, thus the question of the OP has been asked and answered (ad nauseum).

MORE: A perceiver, then, is something that distinguishes between itself and the rest of the universe.

Trivially so in a pointless abstract way, I guess, but more on topic, a perceiver, then, is something that merely confirms the independent existence of the universe, since without such an independent universe as it relates to the perceiver, there would be nothing for the perceiver to perceive.

Your turn :D.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
How so? You had asked me what I meant by "something" and I qualified it for you.
Look at the post that I quoted. First you claim "I wasn't vague in the slightest" and then "I do not use the term 'believe' precisely." So, what do you mean by 'believe' when you claim you do not believe? (This might help me understand what you do not believe. ;))
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Sound waves exist independently of my ability to perceive them, yes?
This is an hypothesis that we build upon to construct our picture of the universe and, as we have both pointed out, it is possible to demonstrate that phenomena exist out side of perception. The hypothesis is therefore supported in a much more rigorous way than "we all believe there's something out there".
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi

This quote was deliberately left blank. I didn't see anything new there.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Not quite. Whether something "continues" to exist absent our perception of it is of trivial importance to the "thing" itself, which is at the heart of the question. The "thing" itself (i.e., sound waves, color waves, forests, tree, and now Gamma radiation) exists whether or not there is a human (or self-perceiving entity, if you prefer) there to process it. Thus the universe does, indeed, exist "independently of human perception."

As already described, you're making an inference that the "thing" will still be there. You experience things "being there" repeatedly (a.k.a. continuously or continually depending on usage). I'm not saying its an inference I disagree with, but I am trying to be precise as to the actual experience and do not regard this as trivial.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
I would agree that we have the ability to ascertain what exists externally from our sense perception of it.....
External? Is this your three dimensional intuition jumping to the fore?
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Perception is nothing more than the end result of processing external (and internal) stimuli and therefore dependent upon said stimuli.

I am somewhat familiar with the work of von Neuman et al, thank you. More of this another day.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
That is a trivial, pointless and fallacious semantics dance contingent upon the equivocation of "everything." A perception is not a "thing;" it is a process of evaluation.
I'm not equivocating. A process of evaluation is a "thing" and a perception is a "thing" - you're not going all mystical on me now are you?
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
i.e., if no humans ever existed, would the universe exist?
I think this is a reasonable inference but I cannot experience or prove it.
Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Trivially so in a pointless abstract way, I guess, but more on topic, a perceiver, then, is something that merely confirms the independent existence of the universe, since without such an independent universe as it relates to the perceiver, there would be nothing for the perceiver to perceive.
A perceiver can so confirm by experiment.

I don't consider my observation trivial since it puts in perspective the assumed relationship between the perceiver and the universe - or do you believe an observer can exist external to the universe?

Cheers, John

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by John Page
I don't see how memory + perception results in thought.

Well, what else besides memory with its concomitant associations (+ & -) drives the impulse toward its reward? I'm not kidding, I'm open to alternative theories.

I view thought as a process and don't disagree that the process of perception can be considered a subset of thought.

Yeah, I'm with you here.

However, the picture gets blurred when I think about a process that contains information.

I think it's so hard to think about because we almost can't conceive of information in a "pure" or unbiased state.

Example, by reperforming the thought process of addition I can conclude 2 + 2 = 4. What is the difference between this and "remembering" the result. (Note: I am aware that some research has shown that our minds develop shortcuts to results so we don't have to process everything from scratch every time).

That's just it; the way I see it, there IS no difference - it's ALL memory. The rules we follow to "figure out" problems are memories, just as rote memory is, just as schema are. I mean, I know that different areas of the brain activate in response to certain input and that this determines what type of memory will be linked to specific firings. But, still, it's those associations that make the data seem to flow (when it's actually probably more like a strobe). I think this continual zapping creates the experience we call thought.

The above example challenges the usual "data in, process, data out" view of thought and computation after von Neumann. It points in the direction of memory being a process and memorization being a supra-process that creates repeatable processes. Repeatable process thus have the appearance of static memory.

If the above process model is valid, it means each of the "fixed" datum about the universe we perceive is in fact a repeating process of mind. With memory being our brain's repeatable (internal) recreation (or simulation if you prefer) of the "outside world".

This is probably a long ways from your weighted memory model but I'd be interested to get your comments/alternative conceptualizations.

Not a long ways, at all. By "weighted memory" I refer to the electrochemical associated pathways between activated cells that enables the flow. The limbic pathway is involved in this, but I don't think we can get into that under this topic.

[B]Still :confused: . Surely each cow acts on its perceptions (either consciously or unconsciously) and this is thought however low. (pun intended).[/B

I have no objection to saying that maybe cows think a little because certainly our own intellectual processes became what they are out of some mechanism that was simpler (I usually think of thinking and cognition as interchangeable, but I'm not married to that idea). I just don't think the cow's brain structure permits the kind of branching and associating we would consider rich enough to drive much of a memory. I think their memories are like isolated islands with lots of "vacant" space around them.

[lunar tee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Well, again, assuming I am not hallucinating the forest, "belief" need not enter into it, other than in these pointless semantics spirals, so, by all means, have at it.[QUOTE]

The key word is assuming. You are assuming you are not hallucinating. This assumption can no more prove a forest than it can disprove one, can it? I mean, you know that some people DO hallucinate things that aren't there all the time. This by no means means that we all do, it only illustrates that we need no "something out there" to proximally stimulate the perception. Even though we have no option but to operate as if we are sure there is something out there, the fact is that we really don't know. Isn't that true?

[John Page]

Originally posted by lunar tee
Well, what else besides memory with its concomitant associations (+ & -) drives the impulse toward its reward? I'm not kidding, I'm open to alternative theories.

How about a theory that there is nothing but process? The human processes include one (say, perception) that strips away (ignores?) the process aspect of reality (of constant change, in the universe, whatever) to present reality as a series of data points. In this way we are led to conceive of memory as a set of fixed data.

The advantage of such a model is that it readily admits the contemplative nature of human thought. 'Freeze dried' impressions of reality can be analyzed any number of times.

Squaring away the appearance of free will with determinism made me consider 'memory' relative to 'thought' and 'perception'. I needed to rationalize to myself why I didn't believe in 'absolute' free will it was obvious that choice was available and could be exercised. Thus, I argue there must be a way for multiple scenarios to be created from the never still processes of reality (that we are instances of!).

Hope this makes sense, its not a mature theory! Liked the rest of your post.

Cheers, John

[Koyaanisqatsi]

John, I'm getting really tired of having to constantly correct your poor reading comprehension (and/or deliberate, pathetic straw men), so please, for the love of Buddha, read the goddamned posts properly.

Originally posted by John Page

ME: How so? You had asked me what I meant by "something" and I qualified it for you.

YOU: Look at the post that I quoted. First you claim "I wasn't vague in the slightest" and then "I do not use the term 'believe' precisely."

When I pointed out I wasn't being "vague in the slightest," it was in response to your false accusation about my being "vague" in defining the "something" that exists "out there!"

You accused me of being "vague" in regard to my use of the term "something," which I qualified several times (sound wave; color wave; forest; tree; Gamma radiation, etc.).

MORE: So, what do you mean by 'believe' when you claim you do not believe? (This might help me understand what you do not believe. ;))

I never made any such claim. Read the goddamned post. I said I do not use the word "believe" precisely because of these stupid, transparant sidetracks.

ME: Sound waves exist independently of my ability to perceive them, yes?

YOU: This is an hypothesis that we build upon to construct our picture of the universe and, as we have both pointed out, it is possible to demonstrate that phenomena exist out side of perception.

End of OP discussion. Thank you for at least firmly establishing that the OP question has been answered.

MORE: The hypothesis is therefore supported in a much more rigorous way than "we all believe there's something out there".

Whom are you quoting? It isn't me.

ME:

YOU: This quote was deliberately left blank. I didn't see anything new there.

Piercing counter argument. Considering nothing you posted is anything "new" I guess I should have just rudely dismissed your entire response in kind.

ME: Not quite. Whether something "continues" to exist absent our perception of it is of trivial importance to the "thing" itself, which is at the heart of the question. The "thing" itself (i.e., sound waves, color waves, forests, tree, and now Gamma radiation) exists whether or not there is a human (or self-perceiving entity, if you prefer) there to process it. Thus the universe does, indeed, exist "independently of human perception."

YOU: As already described, you're making an inference that the "thing" will still be there.

What has "still" got to do with it? No wonder you childishly attempted to dismiss my previous point. No one is asking whether or not there exists a sense memory of the "thing" so why are you fallaciously trying to force this straw man?

The question (and answer, as you've already granted) is whether or not there exists a universe ("something") without human perception of it.

MORE: You experience things "being there" repeatedly (a.k.a. continuously or continually depending on usage).

Where does your desire to sidetrack come from? What has "repeatedly" got to do with anything?

As I pointed out in my last post and you ignore here, the question isn't about the efficacy of memory.

MORE: I'm not saying its an inference I disagree with, but I am trying to be precise as to the actual experience and do not regard this as trivial.

Then do us all a favor and address the actual experience instead of trying to sidetrack the discussion into one about whether or not a sense memory of an event is sufficiently stable in regard to one's initial perception of the experience, yes?

No one here (that I'm engaged with, anyway) cares about whether or not human perception of an event later matches the event itself.

The question is whether or not the universe exists independently of human perception, which you've already granted is true.

ME: I would agree that we have the ability to ascertain what exists externally from our sense perception of it.....

YOU: External? Is this your three dimensional intuition jumping to the fore?

And here's your fallacy in bright shiny digital ones and zeroes. In order for me to have an "intuition" as you put it, there must first exist something to intuit, yes?

A point I have repeatedly made and you continue to avoid.

How could I have a "three dimensional intuition" unless there first existed those three dimensions?

There, I've run rings around you logically. Again.

ME: Perception is nothing more than the end result of processing external (and internal) stimuli and therefore dependent upon said stimuli.

YOU: I am somewhat familiar with the work of von Neuman et al, thank you. More of this another day.

So, in other words, "I'm not going to address the central fallacy to my position, just imply that it's already been addressed and dismiss it."

Thanks. :rolleyes:

ME: That is a trivial, pointless and fallacious semantics dance contingent upon the equivocation of "everything." A perception is not a "thing;" it is a process of evaluation.

YOU: I'm not equivocating. A process of evaluation is a "thing" and a perception is a "thing" -

No, they are not.
Not in the manner we've been discussing!

The "things" we've been discussing are sound waves, color waves, forests, trees, Gamma radiation, etc. These are "things;" what you are describing is a process; specifically a mental process of the human brain (or, self-perceiving entity if you prefer).

STOP EQUIVOCATING!

ME: i.e., if no humans ever existed, would the universe exist?

YOU: I think this is a reasonable inference but I cannot experience or prove it.

Irrelevant. It isn't dependent upon your experience or your proof of it, which is, of course, the point and one you've already granted!

ME: Trivially so in a pointless abstract way, I guess, but more on topic, a perceiver, then, is something that merely confirms the independent existence of the universe, since without such an independent universe as it relates to the perceiver, there would be nothing for the perceiver to perceive.

YOU: A perceiver can so confirm by experiment.

Yes, it can. Thanks for missing the point yet again, however.

MORE: I don't consider my observation trivial since it puts in perspective the assumed relationship between the perceiver and the universe - or do you believe an observer can exist external to the universe?

ENOUGH OF THIS STUPIDITY. The question is whether or not the universe exists independently of human perception (already granted by you), not whether or not a human can exist externally to the universe (i.e., outside the universe)!

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you drunk? If so, then pass the brew, but stop with this reckless disregard for what is actually being discussed (not to mention the transparent re-phrasing of my arguments to stuff your straw men)!

I'm sick of it.

The OP question has been answered by you: "as we have both pointed out, it is possible to demonstrate that phenomena exist out side of perception."

As pointed out previously (ad nauseum), end of discussion.

[John Page]

Koy:

Bluster and name calling is not usually associated with reason. Pleading "straw man" to every probe of what and how you are thinking is not a defense - indeed it is a straw man in itself to accuse me of misrepresenting your position when what I'm trying to is tie down (what appears to me as) the shifting sands in your use of terms like "we", "believe" and "thing".

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
The question is whether or not the universe exists independently of human perception (already granted by you), not whether or not a human can exist externally to the universe (i.e., outside the universe)!

1. As the opening post acknowledges, the question posed, "Does the universe exist independently of human perception" may have some ambiguity.
2. The question you answered was "Does the universe exist when we are not perceiving it?" Answer = Yes. I have pointed out that a minor qualification is required here due to our use of inference (from evidence) to conclude "things can continue to be" without an observer present.
3. The question I answered was "Are the universe and human perception independent" Answer = No.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
The "things" we've been discussing are sound waves, color waves, forests, trees, Gamma radiation, etc. These are "things;" what you are describing is a process; specifically a mental process of the human brain (or, self-perceiving entity if you prefer).
A process is definitely a thing and some of the "things" you refer to are processes as much as material entities - all live things can be categorized as processes, for example.

Are you proposing that processes exist outside the universe, the universe being defined as everything? A totally rigorous proof would entail all things to be tested for conformance with the statement "Does the universe exist independently from perception?"

What I have tried to show is a view that the process of perception (i.e. that which detects the existence of things) is not inconsistent with contemplation of the concept "universe". However, it should be noted that, since we are part of the universe (by definition), we cannot be completely objective about it.

Cheers, John

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by John Page Bluster and name calling is not usually associated with reason.

Good thing I resorted to neither, then.

MORE: Pleading "straw man" to every probe of what and how you are thinking is not a defense

Talk about irony! :eek:

Good thing I didn't do that either, then. Here, try this. Post my remarks and actually counter them on a point-by-point basis, rather than sophomorically generalizing them and then fallaciously dismissing them.

MORE: - indeed it is a straw man in itself to accuse me of misrepresenting your position when what I'm trying to is tie down (what appears to me as) the shifting sands in your use of terms like "we", "believe" and "thing".

I haven't shifted once from my qualifications; though "we" is a new one. All I've done is repeat what I qualified prior and then addended that qualification to accomodate your additions (i.e., "forest" and "tree").

ME: The question is whether or not the universe exists independently of human perception (already granted by you), not whether or not a human can exist externally to the universe (i.e., outside the universe)!

YOU: 1. As the opening post acknowledges, the question posed, "Does the universe exist independently of human perception" may have some ambiguity.

And I have demonstrated, it does not. You claim you are challenging that, yet all of your challenges have been met and demonstrated to be either fallacious in nature or incorrect, which.

Kindly focus your attention on my arguments and counter arguments, instead of this redirection, yes?

MORE: 2. The question you answered was "Does the universe exist when we are not perceiving it?" Answer = Yes.

No, I did not. The question I answered was the OP question, "Does the universe exist independently of perception?" There is little to no ambiguity in that question as the rest of my posts demonstrated painstakenly thoroughly, if I do say so myself.

The universe not only exists independently of perception, it must exist independently of perception in order for it to be perceived in the first place (again, barring the "matrix" and the "solipsist" fallacies).

I noticed you keep avoiding this point.

MORE: I have pointed out that a minor qualification is required here due to our use of inference (from evidence) to conclude "things can continue to be" without an observer present.

And I have demonstrated why such a "minor qualification" is neither warranted nor salient nor relevant to the OP question.

Nowhere in the OP question does it ask whether or not the universe continues to exist absent our perception, does it? Or is that the ambiguity you allege in order to stuff your straw? :D

MORE: 3. The question I answered was "Are the universe and human perception independent" Answer = No.

And, again, I pointed out what a trivial and fallacious straw man that was, adding little to nothing relevant to the OP question.

You want to get into semantics so badly, then fine. The use of the adverb form of the word "independent" is what defines the salient quality of the question the OP posits, reflective of the implicit notion of dependency (i.e., "is the universe dependent upon perception" to exist?), yet you are misconstruing that fact and fallaciously using the adjective form, reflective of a question of mutual exclusivity, which, as you further point out, does not exist, but has nothing to do with the OP question.

So, I guess my question would again be, why are you attempting to do this, if not to redirect and reformat the question into a straw man?

ME: The "things" we've been discussing are sound waves, color waves, forests, trees, Gamma radiation, etc. These are "things;" what you are describing is a process; specifically a mental process of the human brain (or, self-perceiving entity if you prefer).

YOU: A process is definitely a thing and some of the "things" you refer to are processes as much as material entities

On a trivial level, perhaps, but this still has nothing to do with the salient elements of the OP question, as I have demonstrated repeatedly and you continue to ignore in any substantive manner.

Why? Is it that unclear to you what is meant here by a "process" and what is meant by a "thing" and what relevance the two have to the OP question, and if so, then I reiterate my plea to you to re-read the thread?

MORE: - all live things can be categorized as processes, for example.

"Can" be, but need not be in the context of the OP question. Why do you insist upon addending irrelevant, trivial semantics sidetrack delineations into this, when none are warranted?

The context of the OP question relates distinctly to process versus stimulus (i.e., internal perception versus external stimuli), yes? It is to that and that alone that the question is pointing, so what's the problem?

It is of trivial importance that anything can be categorized as anything else through various semantic steps. To say, for example, that a "process is definitely a thing" when the "things" that we have been discussing are distinctly different in nature and make up, having little to nothing to do with each other (except, perhaps, in this pointless semantics dance), serves no relevant purpose to the OP question.

MORE: Are you proposing that processes exist outside the universe, the universe being defined as everything?

No and I don't need to, so why do you keep forcing this straw man? :mad:

No one is asking whether or not human perception exists outside of the universe! Let me repeat that: No one is asking whether or not human perception exists outside the universe.

The question (for the ten billionth time) is whether or not the universe exists independently (note the adverb form) of human perception; i.e., is the universe's existence dependent upon human perception?

The answer (as we've both agreed repeatedly) is a resounding "no."

Pleased take careful note of the precise wording and the fact that nowhere implicit in that question (either directly or indirectly) is whether or not the universe continues to exist absent our perception of it, nor is there anything in that question regarding the mutual exclusivity of either the universe existing or human perception existing.

The only pertinant element to the question is in the adverb "independently."

MORE: A totally rigorous proof would entail all things to be tested for conformance with the statement "Does the universe exist independently from perception?"

What about the OP question justifies such a strident and overly pedantic claim?
If justification does exist, then you're still incorrect, since a "totally rigorous proof" would only entail all things relevant to the OP question to be "tested for conformance."

As it stands, however, we have the best of both worlds, since I have done precisely both in regard to your repetitious posts and demonstrated how none of your fallacious observations provide anything relevant to the question.

Please concentrate your attention on a point-by-point rebuttal of my arguments and observations relevant to the OP in regard to what I just posted.

Thank you.

MORE: What I have tried to show is a view that the process of perception (i.e. that which detects the existence of things) is not inconsistent with contemplation of the concept "universe".

And what I have rather definitively shown (again, if I do say so myself) is that shuch a "view" is trivial at best and offers nothing salient to the discussion.

Where in the OP question do you see anything regarding a "contemplation of the concept 'universe?'" and how is such a "view" at all relevant to the question of whether or not the universe is dependent upon human perception?

Are you implying somehow that when we "contemplate the concept 'universe'" we are in turn creating the universe, as the OP question seeks to have answered?

What is the relevance of pointing out this "view?"

MORE: However, it should be noted that, since we are part of the universe (by definition), we cannot be completely objective about it.

And this is relevant how?

Answer this question for me (if you're capable without redirection) and forget everything else, since nothing you've posted has any relevance to what is being here discussed: Is the universe's existence dependent upon human perception?

Yes or no?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by lunar tee
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Well, again, assuming I am not hallucinating the forest, "belief" need not enter into it, other than in these pointless semantics spirals, so, by all means, have at it.[QUOTE]

The key word is assuming. You are assuming you are not hallucinating. This assumption can no more prove a forest than it can disprove one, can it? I mean, you know that some people DO hallucinate things that aren't there all the time. This by no means means that we all do, it only illustrates that we need no "something out there" to proximally stimulate the perception. Even though we have no option but to operate as if we are sure there is something out there, the fact is that we really don't know. Isn't that true?

No, it isn't true. Even in the rarefied exceptions of hallucination, the person hallucinating is generally aware that it is in fact a hallucination (such as with myself on drugs), though even if they were not, it merely underscores the fact that others (i.e., "out there") do confirm that the one hallucinating is experiencing a faulty processing mechanism.

Remember that the heart of this question is whether or not there is a supportable "out there" quality to our existence; an "out there" that can even be qualified when one among us hallucinates something that isn't there.

Re: my color blindness. Yes, to me, I can certainly argue that from my personal experience, the specific wavelenght that all of you see as "dark blue" is actually "black," but the objective truth to the matter (i.e., the "out thereness" of the matter) is that I have a faulty color wavelength processing center somewhere in my brain that makes me mistake "dark blue" for "black."

A spectrometer will tell me that I am wrong in my perception of the specific color wavelength that I incorrectly perceive as "black," which in turn demonstrates that it is not the wavelength that is in question, but rather my ability to correctly process it (correctly meaning according to the thing itself and not my perception of it).

I.e., the heart of the OP question.

Even in the case of the "matrix" fallacy, there is still an "out thereness" inherent in the programmers of the matrix, so even if my entire universe were actually just the result of several billion electrodes connected to various stimulus centers of my brain leaving me to think I am experiencing an "out there," there is still an "out there" that is effecting me (i.e., the scientists or robots or whatever that are inducing the false stimulus).

No matter how you slice it, there is evidence of an "out there" to our existence, regardless of our perception (correct or incorrect) of it.

Whether by inference or by direct experience, the result is the same, since without external stimulus of some nature, one can have neither inference nor direct experience.

[lunar tee]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
No, it isn't true. Even in the rarefied exceptions of hallucination, the person hallucinating is generally aware that it is in fact a hallucination (such as with myself on drugs), though even if they were not, it merely underscores the fact that others (i.e., "out there") do confirm that the one hallucinating is experiencing a faulty processing mechanism.

I don't understand how reiterating the trustworthiness of what we perceive about our perception gives me any confidence in your opinion that we must be right. I understand you are not saying that what we see is what we get, but still don't see how we are guaranteed anything at all.

And hallucinations, in one form or another, are not rare. We all imagine things all the time, awake and asleep. At the moment we imagine them, we "believe in" them, we trust them. We awaken or stop reading the story or the movie ends or take our medication or grow up and stop pretending, but while the imagining is going on, our own perceptions have us going. Sure we feel that we have control, but how do we KNOW it's not all part of a larger imagining?

[John Page]

Koy:

Below I'm trying to focus on the main points, both the substance of the OP question and the other miscellaneous stuff you seem to be shooting off about.

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Good thing I resorted to neither, then.

So refering to the content of someone's post as stupidity is not calling them stupid?

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
Good thing I didn't do that either, then.
Here is an excellent example you calling a question a straw man. How does a question misrepresent another's position if it doesn't misquote them?

Me: Are you proposing that processes exist outside the universe, the universe being defined as everything?
You: No and I don't need to, so why do you keep forcing this straw man?

Originally posted by Koya