Is there any substantive proof that objects exist independent of mind?

__________________
InterfaithForums.com-Where your ideas and beliefs count.

No, I don't think that there is any proof that object exist apart from our minds, but then again, we can't absolutely prove that we exist either. We just all seem to accept that objects exist.

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

Everything exists in Mind, in my opinion.

Even ourselves....


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

There is no question that everything that the human perceives is "in the mind," but as Bill Clinton would say (about a different little word), it depends what you mean by "in."

There's no doubt that there is a representation of my computer keyboard in my mind, perceived by me through sense data (the touch of my fingers, my visual observation of it, the sound of the keyboard, the smell of the crumbs from my breakfast....no, wait... ). But the keyboard itself is not physically located in my mind. When I stop thinking about it, it does not disappear.

And, in fact, I can retain the keyboard in my mind in the sense of my knowledge of it even after I stop receiving the sense data through which I learned about it. But the keyboard doesn't go with me when I go to the bathroom. Should somebody else wander by my desk, they'll find my keyboard, right where I left it. Now, it seems, that same keyboard is "in" their mind. Is it still in mine? If so, then what is in both our minds obviously cannot be the keyboard, but only a representation -- an idea -- of it. An idea that can, obviously, be shared with others, and that is independent of the actual keyboard, if any such thing exists.

So then, does any such thing exist? Well, to say that it does not, that it only exists in the minds of those who observe it, would necessitate some sort of communication between minds, wouldn't it? If sense data is not providing information about something that exists outside of the ideas of my mind, then that sense data could not provide the information to any other mind, either, and therefore, for the two of us to have the same sensation of keyboard, seeing it in the same configuration, with all the same orange juice and coffee stains, would necessitate the transfer of my my ideal image to the other person.

Now, since we know that this cannot be done with real non-representational ideas, then it would seem that it equally unlikely that it should be possible with ideas that represent some "physical reality," either.

And therefore, since I can describe a thing and leave, and hours, days or years later, another person, completely independent of me, and completely unknown to me, can give substantially the same description of the same thing, then it seems that we must concede that there is some real object there, and through the sense data that we are able to use to perceive the object, we form some conception of that object in our minds. It is possible, even likely, that our mental idea is not identical to the thing itself (after all, colour perception is as much a feature of our how our senses work as anything else), there must still be a reality existing that we can perceive.

Therefore, my answer is that objects exist independendtly of the mind, although they are likely not identical to the mind's conception of them.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

No, there is no proof that things exists outside of our mind. What would that proof look like? Someone else telling me it is still there when I am not thinking about it? Is someone else not also a part of my observation?

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

And how, independent of any observation in your mind, would you prove that??


That assumes that "somebody else" is independent of your mind. But how can you prove they are? Maybe you just imagine them all, complete with their reactions and the so-called shared common external referents, such as the keyboard.



Not at all, as I just said, if you are imagining the external world, then you are likely imagining the so-called indpendent minds that you imagine are confirming your imaginary sense experiences.


Let's leave the above line of thought aside, for the moment. Allowing that there are independent minds, can you be sure that your experience of anything is identical for either of you? They might both be using terms and descriptors for X, but you have no way of ascertaining if both of you mean the same thing by the terms you use in common.

We know this applies in complex concepts -- both Canada and the former German Democractic Republic were "democracies", but meant very different things by that term. For that matter, both the USA and Canada are "democracies", but does the term mean the same thing? arguably not.

If this is true of complex things, might it not also be true of simpler ones? Is the colour you "see" (which is to say, which your mind creates) when the optic nerves are stimulated by light with a wave lenght between 620–750 nm and the colour I "see" when my optic nerve is stimulated by the same sort of light, the same? How would you tell. My mental construct might well "appear" to be similar to the colour you "see" when your optic nerve is stimulated by light of 495–570 nm. There's no way to say; I cannot look in your mind, and you cannot look in mine.



But how do you know that what you wrote is what you read? If you imagined the object in the first place, then you imagined writing the description, and the words of the desciption are likewise imagined. A complete delusion is, nonetheless, a delusion and for those in the grip of a delusion there is no way anyone can disuade them of their delusion.



"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

This is gratifying! How rarely one gets to see solipsism expressed to such a degree!

Of course, this begs the question of which of us is it who really exists, and is creating, through observation, all the rest of us? Is it me? Is it Vivamis? Perhaps it's Lightkeeper, and we're all just conjured up to keep her company?

Still, here are some thoughts on solipsism that should at least be considered:

Perception is the faculty of awareness, yet it would seem reasonable to assert that a faculty cannot exist apart from something possessing the faculty. That is to say, a faculty is an attribute or capability, and neither 'attribute' nor 'capability' is a primary -- they describe something of the nature of something which is a primary. Therefore, attributes and capabilities describe entities that have those characteristics. It can be seen from this that perception requires an entity which both exists and which has the faculty of awareness. If this argument holds, then it contradicts the solipsist premise that only perception exists.

From a common sense point of view, we must allow that if only the solipsist's personal perceptions really exist, then it must also be true that all the creations of which the solipsist is aware must also have been created within the solipsist's own perception. The works (in Italian) of Dante, or of Shakespeare in English. The mathematical music of Bach or the romantic music of Beethoven or the noise of Led Zepplin, all created by that single mind. The theories of relativity, Newton and his calculus, quantum mechanics, string theory and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem -- each and every one the creation of the single perceiving solipsist. It is an interesting position to imagine that the solipsist invented quantum mechanics and wrote Bach's fugues, then invented people who understand them very well, but who remains, himself, almost completely ignorant of them. (Or perhaps I should say only perceives himself to be completely ignorant of them!)

I would not call that the most economic of suppositions.

Thirdly, when we think of the two objections I've already mention, we must then consider the solipsist's own perceptions. I do not think that the solipsist can easily deny that he is thinking, reasoning about his perceptions. He is not merely conscious of his perceptions, he is thinking about them. How is this possible without some mental machinery which can perform such thinking? Now, here's the rub: if such mental machinery exists independent and apart from his perceptions, this also contradicts the notion that only perceptions exist.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

No, it doesn't "beg the question" at all.

......
[joke]As the awareness which imagines itself to be "me" is sitting here reading from the computer monitor which it (the afore-mentioned awareness) imagined into existence, it is me that is imagining all of you.
[/joke]

Both Vivamis and Eolas Pellor have valid points.... which your reply completely manages to avoid addressing.
Instead, by attempting to make a joke about their replies, it seems to me that you are trying to divert attention from the real point, that is; that you cannot prove to someone else that you exist.

Isn't that a great leveller....


Peace, Love, & Light

__________________
"An object is perceived, or not perceived, according as the mind is, or is not, tinged with the colour of the object. "
Patanjali - Sutra 4:17

Strange that you would be surprised, since you espouse atheism, that most solpsistic of belief-systems. (Oh, excuse me, you don't perceive it to be a "belief system" so, of course, it isn't! (And I bet you won't get why that's a joke, either! ))




Says who? When I dream, for example, I perceive that I fly like a bird. It is, after all, a common dream....but am I aware of flying or only imagining it? Within the dream it is a perception, doubtless, full of seeming sensory stimuli and pleasure (or fears). But is it aware? Of course not.

So if whatever perception is, it is not awareness.

And, if that is true, then your whole argument collapses.




And this is an objection? Right? I want to make sure, because it is no objection at all, really, although you suggest it as one for some reason.

But I have had the experience, and I know it is not uncommon, of hearing a new song on the radio, and immediately encountering it as a known thing. Or the feeling that something read -- although it is the first time I have ever encountered it -- is familiar and totally known, to the point of being able to predict minutiae of plot development or lines of dialog. Many people have the experience of encountering a place or situation for the first time, and feeling that they have been there or experienced it before; this is so not-unusual that we have a common term for the senstaion: deja-vu.

I have certainly listened to my fair share of baroque fugues over the years, and have often found myself able to anticipate the developlment of the motif, to the point where I can whistle a beat ahead of the recording, or to embroider and improvise on the theme, without missing the changes. Such would only be possible if I had pre-knowledge of the piece of music, and the preformance I am listening to.


It is quite economical, since it only proposes one entity, one, single set of thoughts; you can't get much more economical than that and we all recall Ockham's razor so, logically, it is quite defensible. That people invent things as they are going along surprises you? I am not sure why.... it happens all the time in pub and cafeteria conversation in every university in the world.


What a beautiful little strawman argument!You are really a master of the technique.

"Be seeing you..."

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas