• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Nothing exist until after we perceive it

Martinm said:
What's that? Why, it's the point, sailing majestically over Antonio's head.
He's right, Antonio. A subjective quality of the brick, like color, isn't the issue. It's matter of its existance that we're trying to get at.

You claim that "Nothing exists until after we perceive it", however, that statement is filled with potential paradoxes, such as the brick example. More basically, if nothing exists until after we perceive it, how do we perceive anything at all? What generates the perception in the first place if the object we are perceiving doesn't pre-exist the perception?

If you believe that it is the perceiver who generates the perception and, thus, the object, then you are talking about solipsism. I think you'll find, with a little consideration on the matter, that solipsism is a philosophical dead end.
 
I'm trying to decide if it's comforting or unsettling that if I had never read Antonio's posts, they would not have existed.
 
Re: Brick on the head analogy

You're confusing subjective reality with objective reality. Subjectively, or to you, the brick does not exist. But objectively, the brick does. Once you're hit with the brick, subjectively the brick will now exist (objectively it always has).

Same with colour. You're subjectively defining the colour as brown while a dog would see grey. Say we have a red brick. You see it as red, a colour blind person (who can not see red) sees grey. Objectively, the photons striking the brick absorb most of the photon wavelengths and emit photons with a wavelength of say 638nm. So objectively, the "colour" is specific (it has a specific wavelength), the only thing that changes is how we label it subjectively (we apply label red or grey to it depending on perception).

Antonio Alejandro said:
I thought a brick hitting you on the head would be a big perception. Ouch!! If the brick is flying thru the air and it is not being perceived, i.e. it is not within the confines of our definition of existence, it does not exist.
Lets say that the detective who shows up at the scene determines that the brick is brown. The detective says: the brick is brown. Color is clearly one of the attributes of existence, of being. Is the brick truly brown? Does the brick have an intrinsic brown color?
To those that answer yes the brick has an intrinsic color brown. Then, can we have a color blind person view it, and he will see it brown?
a frog or a mosquito? Will they see it as brown?
Can someone name a person who sees the absolute color of brown? The argument then typically goes in this manner. Well in the electromagnetic spectrum there is a definite number for brown...so yes ...that is the color brown. But then if this was true then the color blind person, the frog, and the mosquito would be seeing exactly the same color brown. Existence is a human definition and it is bound by a human interpretation of time and space, of duration and dimension.
As the brick is flying thru the air, "something is happening", what is "happening" is clearly not whithin our definition of existence, because the universe is not as we think it is, but as it is. Perhaps the color blind man, the frog, and the mosquito have their own valid definition of existence.
We can only imagine what is happening to the unobserve brick, but what we imagine is not what is.
 
What about something that goes really fast? If Bill shoots the gun at Shirley and can't see the speeding bullet, does she die?

~~ Paul
 
Subjectively speaking, the bullet does not exist for Shirley until the moment it connects with her. Objectively the bullet always existed.

As to whether she dies or not depends on whether the bullet hits a vital organ and severity of injuries, assuming Bill actually shot at Shirley.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What about something that goes really fast? If Bill shoots the gun at Shirley and can't see the speeding bullet, does she die?

~~ Paul
 
But who is generating the existence by perception? If Shirley is, then the brick will still hit her, since she is the origin of both Bill and the brick.
If it's Bill, then the moment he shoots himself in the head, the brick, Shirley, the field they're in, everything, is gone.

So it's logically consistent, if still a dead end for determining the actual truth of the matter.
 
If anyone hasn't noticed, this notion is nothing more then a logical fallacy.

Basically Antonio is saying if you can't perceive it, it doesn't exist. Therefore what you can't perceive doesn't exist.

That's nothing more then proving itself by repeating the argument in a slightly different way, or to put it formally, fallacy of begging the question. :)

Ratman_tf said:
But who is generating the existence by perception? If Shirley is, then the brick will still hit her, since she is the origin of both Bill and the brick.
If it's Bill, then the moment he shoots himself in the head, the brick, Shirley, the field they're in, everything, is gone.

So it's logically consistent, if still a dead end for determining the actual truth of the matter.
 
The idea of disappearence is conceptual

How do you define existence? I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.
You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually". I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event. Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it. Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.
 
Re: The idea of disappearence is conceptual

Antonio Alejandro said:
How do you define existence?
(My definition of) Existence is as "is real; being actual in objective reality".

I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.
You defined (to a degree) the word "consciousness".

I dont follow, I dont know what you mean by "absolute".

Things that exist do exist, I guess that'd make all things that exist absolute.

Perception does not alter objective reality.

You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually". I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event. Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it.
I've never seen my brain before, I'm fairly certain its in there.

Second, there is a problem with perception, the problem of optical illusions. Its not hard to make a 3D image on a 2D canvas, you wouldnt say the object is 3D although it looks like it.

It's not necessary for something to be observed to exist.

Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.
I'm not sure I understand what that last part says, but nonetheless its not a good practice of ethics to throw bricks at people.
 
"Reality is that which continues to exist after you stop believing it." Philip K. Dick (maybe, not positive of authorship, so I suppose the quote only partially exists)

I don't see the point in speculating on multiple forms of reality. Anybody have a reason to multiply entities? Is there something useful in defining perceived vs. non-perceived reality?
 
Re: The idea of disappearence is conceptual

Antonio Alejandro said:
How do you define existence? I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.

Huh? Nothing in time and space is absolute sounds nice and deep, but what exactly do you mean by that?


You are attempting to explain a non-conceptual event "conceptually".

What???? Non-conceptual event conceptually? Either the brick flies through the air or it doesn't. There's nothing conceptual about it... You are the one who's attempting to create conceptual explanations for objective reality.

I never stated that the brick disappears, for to state that the brick disappears it would mean that i am using a concept "disappear" to explain a non-conceptual event.

You're not making much sense actually. Non-existence means the brick is not there. You're creating a concept of "if I don't perceive it, it doesn't exist". Nobody else is introducing "conceptual" events into this except you.


Disappearences only happen when referenced to perception, but i have already stated that it does not exist until after we perceive it.

Only if you're going to stick to begging the question fallacy.

Additionally, I cannot say that no existence = disappeared. What i am saying is that whatever the "non-conceptual event" is is not within the definition of existence.
Once again, whatever is "occuring" as the unperceived "brick is flying thru the air" is not within the bounds of the conceptual. We can imagine what it is...but imagination is not what it is.
Slow down sparky. You're not impressing anyone with your "deep" reasoning here except people who can't see through deep sounding words. You have created a conceptual event - that is non perception of something means it does not exist. What you failed to understand are two things.

One - this is a conceptual exercise. Objectively, the object does exist.
Two - the conceptual exercise is only limited to the person who is not observing the said object.

I know you're going to go back in a circle and say but my perception of reality is based upon my subjective understanding of it. However, that is simply begging the question - my subjective interpretation of the universe has absolutely no bearing on it's objective existence. To suggest otherwise is idiotic to say the least.
 
Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.
 
The second he does, either his entire thought experiment will be reduced to a pile of steaming dung or he'll earn the kook of the year award. Expect sounds of crickets chirping for a long time to come CF. :)

CFLarsen said:
Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.
 
CFLarsen said:
Antonio Alejandro,

Please answer the question:

Will Shirley be hit by the brick?

Just yes or no, please.
Depends, does Bill have good aim?

If he does, then yes, Shirley will be hit with the brick (I'm sure she deserved it :D...).

Woohoo, I can see just myself making "throw bricks at old lady" jokes all day :p.
 
What of the tunguska event? For purpose of arguement, we'll assume that there was a person/sentient reindeer near the epicenter of the blast.

They're not looking up, so they don't see the comet (it was most likely a comet or other peice of lethal cosmic debris that our loving gawd left over from creation). It's entering the atmosphere at well above the speed of sound, so there's no way to here it. The person/reindeer's demise by incineration is far faster than their nerves can report, so even when they died, they have no idea what hit them, or in fact that anything hit them at all.

BTW, this is not an entirely unlikely situation, there were people near the impact site, and reindeer could be sentient (the reindeer are watching you!).

In the above situation, the poor sap was clearly unaware of any comet, before, during or after the impact. In fact, heisn't aware of anything after the impact, because he's just been turned into air pollution.

If the comet does not exist, because he's not aware of it and probably nobody else is and will only be tipped off by fallen timber and shock waves, then why is the fellow/reindeer so very dead?

If the comet did not fit into the definition of "existant" then please explain why all the trees are knocked over, when they were standing up yesterday, and why the windows are broken, and why the siesmologists have siddenly decided to study a-causal events.

The point is, there are no a-causal events on a macro scale. I'm not sure about a micro scale, quantum physics is not my thing, but conscienceness is definatly definable as being a macro scale. Neurons are pretty darned big compared to, say, neutrinos.

It is possible that an object, or event, goes unoticed by everyone, and is only detected later by subtle clues such as hundred-square mile craters and telephone-pole trees. Nobody saw the comet, but it, or something pretty darned close had to have been there or else this was an a-causal event, which never happen because they violate TLOP, and TLOP controls EVERYTHING controls EVERYTHING ELSE. I tend to reason that large zones where trees have been knocked over and windows shattered, with reports of a huge blast, are in fact caused by large explosions, and that large explosions, in keeping with everything we know about the world, are caused by something rather than non-existant entities, even if those entities cannot be observed.

Either this came down to a semantics brawl of the Franko pagent has just found a (two?) new contestant.
 
Aha! another example (please excuse the double post, it seems appropriate in this case).

What about things we percieve that no longer exist? We can see the light, via observatories, of objects far away in the universe, that due to he travel time of light, no longer exist.

This doesn't mean that the images are false, the structures observed by the hubble did once exist, nebulae and the like are most certainly a part of the universe. We're just percieving them only now, due to the fundamental nature of the universe.

Doe sthis mean that nebulae only exist once the hubble has seen them? Or could it possibly mean that only the photons we percieve exist?

The structures are being seen now, but do not exist now. They were not seen in the past, but must have existed in the past, otherwise our loving gawd is sending photons our way with no reason but to keep us busy. There's no way to reconcile this situation without appealing to the supernatural, which, suprise suprise, has never been perceived.
 
So, applying this concept to other areas than bricks and Shirley McLaine, one can conclude that a viral infection, say the flu, exists only after the infected person perceives the symptoms!:eek: How is it possible that his/her cells are affected by the viruses, but only after a certain point, when the the usual symptoms are felt and our patient counsiently realizes that he/she got infected (Sh!t, I´ve got the flu!) the infection becomes real?!

What a medical breakthrough...

Perhaps such lines of reasoning would be better placed as

Question- We care about the universe´s existence, but does the universe "cares" about our existence?
Answer- NO!

Disclaimer- many religious people and phylosophers will not agree with the above statement.
 
Impy, are you sure you're not taking this thread way more seriously than I am? I can't see you, so perhaps you don't exist. :D

~~ Paul
 
Re: The idea of disappearence is conceptual

Antonio Alejandro said:
I defined it as perception of time and space, but nothing in time and space is absolute.
Well done. You've used the tried and true method of covering one's hindquarters through fitting the data (i.e. definitions) to one's theory rather than fitting one's theory to the data.

If we all make up our own definitions for common words, ...well, you get carp like this.

Now if you could reasonably justify redefining the words as you have, then maybe you'd have something.
 

Back
Top Bottom