It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
but also because without perception nothing exists.
You'll have to think deeply about what that means and try to imagine a universe devoid of all perceptive consciousness. There is no way for any living thing to be sure of an existence beyond the reality that the brain and nervous system produces. This is not just about human perception.
PhotonEffect but also because without perception nothing exists.
reply to post by PhotonEffect
It is the strangest statement I think I've ever heard. It's to say that the planet we call Neptune didn't exist until we discovered it. Or that things magically pop into existence if they come across our highly limited, very weak perception.
If nothing exists outside of our perception, how do new things come into our perception? and from where?
Or what if Voyager 1 stops working and goes silent somewhere out in the deep expanses of space. Does it simply no longer exist?
The nervous system and brain do not produce a reality, they do not produce themselves. They compute a reality, meaning there needs to be input from something outside of itself. We do not perceive our perception, for perception requires something other than itself to perceive.
And using the term "perception" as if its some all-purveying substance is a little weird. Perceiving is performed by beings. If there was no beings with senses, there would be no idea of "perception". Perception is after the fact, in hindsight, an idea and nothing more.
Perceiving is performed by beings.
Think of it more like quantum mechanics. The act of perception of something is a joint phenomenon of the nervous system and the environment. As you say, there is something there but the manifestation occurs the moment the abstraction happens.
reply to post by PhotonEffect
My question still stands:
How were we able to perceive before we knew the nervous system even existed, if the nervous system is required for perceiving
How were we able to reproduce before we knew about DNA, if DNA is required for genetics?
It would seem that both the nervous system and DNA were both present long before we perceived and knew about them, thereby showing that perception isn't required for existence.
Perception is only required in order to name things.
I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this question- perhaps it's your phrasing of it. We can still perceive without knowing we can do it. However, as far as I know nothing can perceive (on whatever level perception exists) without some sort of ability to do so. I don't think perception (or at least the act of experiencing and reacting to the environment) is limited to human type nervous systems either. For instance an argument can be made that single celled organisms can perceive their environment in some sense. Same with plants. Yet neither of these have a nervous system in the traditional sense.
The point I'm trying make is that there is no proof of anything existing if something can't perceive it. Otherwise it's just an assumption or a guess relying on belief/faith. Try to think back to before you were born and what that was like. How would you know anything existed if you don't exist? Impossible. The only reason you know that things existed before your existence is because 1) something (presumably your parents) brought you into existence, and 2) other observers have already confirmed through their observations (knowledge) that there's stuff out there. But what if we were all suspended in a state of "pre-birth non existence"?
Again, I'm not sure I get what you are asking. Either that or you're trying to bait me.... Obviously, the act of reproducing doesn't require the knowledge of DNA or genetics to be able to do it. Now if you are trying to make the point that DNA existed even before we were able to perceive it, then I would say we have the benefit of hindsight to be able to say that. But before it's verification how could anyone have said DNA existed without relying on belief or faith?
I consider existence to be an absolute. That is to say, nothing can be stated to only half exist. There is no grey area. So in this sense, the existence of anything must be verified empirically. If it can not be then the existence of anything is just a probability, a guess, a hope, a belief. There is no way for us to be sure of a reality that we can not measure or confirm in some way. HENCE: existence, in its most absolute sense, requires perception.
Is this really that bizarre of an idea?