The Offical "Does the World 'Exist' Without Perception?" Thread

The big question is - does the world "exist" if NO is mind present?

Don't take the question too lightly, you'll be surprised how HARD it is to prove a thing can exist with out perception...

On one side - the Idealist: "To be, is to be perceived." - this is the motto of Idealism.

On thee other - the Realist/Materialist: Matter subsists - NO matter if a mind is present or not...

And there are vast number of ideologies in between... where do you stand?

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 12 April 2012 - 05:19 AM.

I'll start the thread...

Is a thing/object - ONE individual entity, or, is it an enumerable amount of attributes and characteristics constituting one whole?

And if you pick the latter statement, then how is it possible - a thing which is granted specific "attributes", in appearance, by a mind perceiving it, to "exist" in the same manner, if there is no mind present to translate the sense-data before it?

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 12 April 2012 - 05:23 AM.

No such thing as no perception. That's an 'is not' to an 'is'. Perception exists because existence exists. If there were no existence, there would be no perception, but since there is existence, perception is there and needed. It's needed because it's there and there's no other way. Not needed because existence wants to be perceived, but because perception plays a role in existence that cannot be replaced

No such thing as no perception. That's an 'is not' to an 'is'. Perception exists because existence exists. If there were no existence, there would be no perception, but since there is existence, perception is there and needed. It's needed because it's there and there's no other way. Not needed because existence wants to be perceived, but because perception plays a role in existence that cannot be replaced

So... Perception=Existence?

If so, then YOU are an idealist, my friend, to the highest degree.

But, if existence and perception are One and the same thing, do you NOT believe our solar system "existed" before any peceivers inhabited planet Earth?

So... Perception=Existence?

If so, then YOU are an idealist, my friend, to the highest degree.

But, if existence and perception are One and the same thing, do you NOT believe our solar system "existed" before any peceivers inhabited planet Earth?

I don't think they're so much one in the same. Just both pieces to what actually does exist. I see it like this

Perception≠existence
Existence+perception=the perceived existence

Red≠purple
Red+blue=purple

With both '+' equations, I don't think anyone can honestly say they know where the other piece came from, but without both, the solution wouldn't be. There has to be either some combination making up this existence, or this one existence broken down makes up the different combinations. Fuckin labels are confusing. Labels should be used to organize things, but when there's only one big picture, it doesn't need organizing. Labels would then only be used to try to describe. Some things we may never know. It would take forever to trace time back to forever without things being forgotten, lost, made up, misunderstood, or misquoted.

Edit: I believe every thing starts as an idea. Don't really wanna get into whether or not people believe in a supreme being, or machine or something, but I just thought I should add that because it plays a role in why I believe what I believe. Thought creates it's own thoughts. What is a machine other than a thought out idea capable of carrying out another idea. Creation creating creation. A hell of a system that can only be traced back so far

Edited by Scream ahh, 12 April 2012 - 06:00 AM.

I don't think they're so much one in the same. Just both pieces to what actually does exist. I see it like this

Perception≠existence
Existence+perception=the perceived existence

Red≠purple
Red+blue=purple

With both '+' equations, I don't think anyone can honestly say they know where the other piece came from, but without both, the solution wouldn't be. There has to be either some combination making up this existence, or this one existence broken down makes up the different combinations. Fuckin labels are confusing. Labels should be used to organize things, but when there's only one big picture, it doesn't need organizing. Labels would then only be used to try to describe. Some things we may never know. It would take forever to trace time back to forever without things being forgotten, lost, made up, misunderstood, or misquoted.

I kinda see what you're getting at, and I agree, to a degree; but, this is how I see it...

Our objective world, thee intangible database(world of essence), is like the computer game "the sims". When the computer(the perceiver) is focused on a part of the "sim world", it, that part of the "sim world", for that moment, technically, "exists". When the computer(percevier) is focused on one part of the "sim world", the rest of the "sim world" technically doesn't "exist" - because no perception is allowing it to exist, in appearance; but, when the computer(perceiver) goes back to focus on where the "red cup" was last perceived, the "red cup" WILL re-appear in appearance with the same characteristics, due to projected perception.

The world of appearance is a result of the interaction between the subjective perceiver and the objective database.

"The coexistence of many states constitutes in fact the essence of 'reality', for through it permanence or duration first becomes possible."

That's just my take on it....

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 12 April 2012 - 06:01 AM.

Edited my last post to add something to the end. I'll edit this one with a reply once I get done reading what's above. Fuckin mobile haha

Edit: I believe every thing starts as an idea. Don't really wanna get into whether or not people believe in a supreme being, or machine or something, but I just thought I should add that because it plays a role in why I believe what I believe. Thought creates it's own thoughts. What is a machine other than a thought out idea capable of carrying out another idea. Creation creating creation. A hell of a system that can only be traced back so far

No, I totally agree.. I think people are WAY TOO quick to forsake a "Higher Power", when formulating the equation of "reality".

I was first a dogmatic Muslim, then I became a philosophical atheist, and now, I'm back to believing in a "God" - I've simply extracted ALL the superfluous, mundane and superstitious characteristics from its being, all thanks to philosophy:smoke:; but, yea, my philosophy on "reality" has a lot of stock in a "Higher Power".

With the sims game, everything may not be perceived all at once, but it all exists. It may not all show up on the hadware, but it's all written in the program. Only doing what it's designed to do. I think everything has some type of design to it. It wouldn't function otherwise. One great big idea creating endless other ideas. One can say an idea can't create its self, but I can't control my thoughts enough to never ever have another thought. Even if its the same thought, it was thought of at a different point in time, making it a different thought. I don't belive any living thing can stop all perception. If it did, it wouldn't be alive. It maybe small, but it still matters. Ever got a paper cut and not notice it? It may not have been enough to be registered consciously, but some signal was sent through your system and reached where it needed to be reached. Everything in a machine is dependant on everything in it, if not, it would be a different machine. This 'existence' is one machine, creating and creating. I could try to keep going, but it would take forever to try to explain forever. Progression never stops. The universe will always be one step ahead

How would a higher power exist without you existing first to perceive it?

How would a higher power exist without you existing first to perceive it?

Because... perception is galvanized by sensation(phenomenon) - meaning, phenomenon must precede human thought and perception; so, what precedes tangible phenomenon? Thee intangible data; and this "Higher Power" is the proprietor of ALL data. "God" is the eternal, indifferent, self-subsistent life-force behind all there is, manifesting himself in the harmony of what exists.

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 12 April 2012 - 07:23 AM.

Man, I just woke up with a crazy thought.......none of this is real. What is real anyway? Does it matter if it's not the original? A seemingly perfect system created by a seemingly perfect idea. Is there really a such thing as 100% accuracy? 99.99999 maybe. Maybe there are so many different levels that we don't notice any flaw before a possible problem occurs. And fucks shit up. Does something even have to be 100% accurate to be perfect as long as it keeps rolling and fixing errors. Self changing. Man, wtf am I even thinking about? Early morning ramblings. Man, maybe I should just stop trying to 'beat' life. I've said this before, but maybe I'm doing too much fuckin thinking. It's fun to wonder, but, idk. I'm just a dude. Maybe a lot of the thoughts I think aren't true, but what if one day I think of something that I wish I hadn't. Is that even possible? Man, this is a losing game. Maybe I should quit while I'm still somewhat normal ha ha. Idk man. I just don't know.




Maybe I should just accept that. Sorry for the ramble, but it just started flowing and it took awhile to do this on mobile. Maybe I need more sleep ha ha


Edit: Woah. And I haven't smoked in about a month. My mind is kinda everywhere ha ha

Edited by Scream ahh, 12 April 2012 - 02:18 PM.

The big question is - does the world "exist" if NO is mind present?

Don't take the question too lightly, you'll be surprised how HARD it is to prove a thing can exist with out perception...

On one side - the Idealist: "To be, is to be perceived." - this is the motto of Idealism.

On thee other - the Realist/Materialist: Matter subsists - NO matter if a mind is present or not...

And there are vast number of ideologies in between... where do you stand?

If I put a gun to your head, pull the trigger and blow your brains out, the Universe won't go anywhere, you know.

If I put a gun to your head, pull the trigger and blow your brains out, the Universe won't go anywhere, you know.

Your post is a result of miniscule thought.

I'm not just talking about MY mind, which is just ONE mind, but rather, ALL minds...

The universe would not exist, because without self aware beings there would be no love and the universe needs love to "be".
We are the universe and we all play a role in the balance of it. take away all self aware entities and the balance is thrown off too far.. The universe is aware of itself, through us, and the other self aware beings, and it is we who are existence. When the universe ceases being aware of itself, the universe no longer exists.

So much semantics involved.
I'm not even going to touch this.
Because for one, we can't universally define what existence is and what it entails to exist. Also, a consensual assessment of what the universe is and encompasses is also necessary.

So much semantics involved.
I'm not even going to touch this.
Because for one, we can't universally define what existence is and what it entails to exist. Also, a consensual assessment of what the universe is and encompasses is also necessary.

It's not really semantics that's the problem, it's obstinance.

Here is a simple question...

Is there an OBJECTIVE perception of objects, or, are either disparate perceivers, on this earth, who "sense" objects in a much different manner?

If there is an objective perceptions of objects, we as humans can not obtain it. And yes it IS semantics. Obstinance is another abstraction.

Your post is a result of miniscule thought.

I'm not just talking about MY mind, which is just ONE mind, but rather, ALL minds...

Its more of a reductio ad absurdum than miniscule thought. Believe me, I have thought about this questions for years, I've figured the possibilities and answers but the most logical is that matter exists whether or not you are there to perceive it. To say that things don't exist because we don't perceive them, is sort of, egotistical and solipsist. You are putting too much emphasis on the individual.

After all, when I pull the trigger, where do you think your body is going to be laying?

If there is an objective perceptions of objects, we as humans can not obtain it.

I agree... but, that is not the question. Going back to the topic, by your response, I can infer that you agree to the notion of this world having disparate perceivers, and consequentially, this means "the world" APPEARS in a much different manner to these disparate perceivers ; moving on, since there are disparate perceivers, who perceive the world differently, as a result of their brain's hard-wiring, how is it possible for the "world" to have an appearance, without a hard-wired mind to perceive it?

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 13 April 2012 - 09:09 PM.