You don't even need to bring science in to the equation. You can just note the interdependence of everything in the world from a phenomenal point of view. — Marchesk
If the train wheels ceased to exist once nobody was looking at them, the passengers would hear and feel an almighty jolt... — andrewk
(This is what came out of the ‘observer problem’; read this.) — Wayfarer
But you’re still speaking from a realist perspective - whether scientific or not. — Wayfarer
ur knowledge and experience is actually constituted, made up of different facets, all of which come into play when we see ‘the object’. And they are therefore constitutive of whatever we know of reality. That’s the sense in which reality is ‘dependent on perception’. — Wayfarer
But if you don't want to this to collapse into skepticism, you have to allow that our perceptual facilities do provide some accurate information about how things really are. — Marchesk
Why would we have eyes to see if what is seen isn't what's really there? — Marchesk
The whole problem of ‘scientism’ is that it says that science knows everything that can be known, in principle. — Wayfarer
Because it's there when you reenter the room and open the desk. — Marchesk
you can set a camera to record a video or snapshots of the paper while you're away. — Marchesk
If you look up at the sky, is the ground still holding you up? — Marchesk
How far do you want to take the skepticism? Because it can go all the way to the current perception for me right now, and leave everything else as unknowable. — Marchesk
Let's say that when nobody is observing the rest of the universe, all that matter is destroyed. So you get in a car while nobody is doing astronomy, and the driver steps on the brakes. What happens? Do you feel the rest of the universe opposing your change in motion, or just the Earth and Sun and maybe Venus if it's up? — Marchesk
Here's another related way to go about this. Has anyone died from something unperceived? Yes, quite often. One example would be going on a hike and being killed by a falling rock. The hiker may not have seen or heard the rock. — Marchesk
Another would be dying from some disease, particularly in the past or places without access to medical equipment. You get sick and die from something nobody perceives. How does that work if the microbes, cancer, etc. doesn't exist? — Marchesk
By observing their actions such as dogs reacting to higher frequency whistles or homing pigeons. — Rich
However, if they stoped existing, everything would necessarily change since you are literally taking something out of existence. — Daniel
You probably won't know, because of the crudity of human sensory organs, but in theory you could, in the same way as we know about a black hole: by its interaction with other things. A paper sheet in another room interacts with the desk drawer containing it, which interacts with the desk, which interacts with the floor and air, which interact with the walls of the closed room, which interact with the air outside the room, which interacts with you,
There would be tiny differences in the patterns of air movement around you if that piece of paper were not in that closed desk in the closed room. Your naked senses may not be enough to measure that but, at least in theory, if you had sensitive enough measuring equipment, you could detect the difference.
This is writ large in Wayfarer's / Russell's / GE Moore's example here (↪Wayfarer). If the train wheels ceased to exist once nobody was looking at them, the passengers would hear and feel an almighty jolt as the carriages they were in suddenly dropped onto their axles.
This response may not work for astronomical objects outside the observable universe, because of the expansion of the universe. But that's a somewhat different discussion. — andrewk
That is, obviously, when you are observing them, not when you are not observing them. — PossibleAaran
Do we know that anything exists when unperceived? — PossibleAaran
does anything exist if unperceived", really doesn't make any sense at all, because "to exist" refers to how we perceive things. — Metaphysician Undercover
The whole problem of ‘scientism’ is that it says that science knows everything that can be known, in principle.
— Wayfarer
Who says this? — Pseudonym
Our experience is what it is, it's just that we don't know 'what it is' yet. If 'what it is' is nothing more than the firing of neurons, then scientific investigation reveals the whole of it, there is nothing more to investigate. — Pseudonym
In the end, we have to face the fact that this question, "does anything exist if unperceived", really doesn't make any sense at all, because "to exist" refers to how we perceive things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Wouldn't it be neat, if, say, a piano was falling down towards you, and you could look away, et voilà, the piano would no longer exist? — jorndoe
This is a subject dear to my heart, because of my perplexity over whether I will ever do a bungee jump (and whether I 'should'). (I suspect I won't, my excuse being the risk of detaching a retina).But this answer assumes that gravity continues to operate while unperceived does it not? — PossibleAaran
The hiker didn't see the rock, but did any body else see it? If so, then the example is compatible with things only existing when perceived. If nobody saw the rock hit the hiker, not even the hiker (perhaps he was asleep), then how can anybody say with any degree of reliability that the rock actually did hit him? This hasn't been explained. — PossibleAaran
Does a fire continue to burn even when no one is looking? A critic of Stace had said that it must do so, because when you return to the fire after ten minutes, the wood has turned to ash, which is just what happens if you stay and watch the fire burn out. Stace pointed out that this argument assumes that the law of causation operates continuously through time, whether observed or unobserved, and this is obviously part of what needs to be proven. — PossibleAaran
As to your suggestion that Kantian Idealism is about 'how we know what we know', the question depends on the word 'know' which is intolerably vague, and so it is hard to assess how Kantian Idealism is an answer to that question without an explication of 'know'. — PossibleAaran
LOL, what absurdities some metaphysical standpoints commit adherents to! :s — Janus
I believe that there are items which exist when neither I nor anyone else is perceiving them. Examples of such items are pieces of paper, seas, mountains and apartment blocks. I believe it, but how could I possibly know it? — PossibleAaran
It would seem that , in a real sense, the world of 'objects'as old fashioned metaphysical dualists define them in logical terms, never existed in the first place, — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.