Does the table exist after you leave the room (and no one is perceiving it)?
Such questions are what usually make philosophy notorious. Actually its not so much the question, but the answer, for in fact according to some philosophers, its more plausible to argue that the table doesnt exist after you leave the room, than to argue that it continues to exist.
I will show you in less than 10 paragraphs how to argue for that, and after this, you can show off to friends who think they know everything in the world.
First, you agree that the table exist after you leave the room? Naturally.
But what is to say that the table exist at all? Well, it means you can touch it, you can see it, smell it, lick it, sit on it, put things on it etc. The existence of the table is the sum total of these properties.
Agreed? Well, then, what happens when you leave the room (and shut the door, and no one else is in the room)? You can no longer see the table, no longer touch it. In fact, since no one is in the room, no one is perceiving the table, touching it at the moment.
So how do you know that the table exist?
It's perfectly conceivable to say it doesnt exist! If the existence of the table is exactly the sum total of being seen, being touched etc., then it doesnt exist for the same reason: no one is seeing it, touching it etc.
Ah, then you say, but the table still exists, because if I open the door quickly, there it is again, right in the same place.
But how do you know if the table disappeared during the time when you are not looking?
So you say: we've never seen any table that will disappear in our absence.
That is perfectly true. But have you seen any table in the absence of anybody at all? No one has ever seen a table when nobody is present. Everytime a table is seen, there is at least some people around, namely at least you. No one has ever seen an unseen table, so how can you predict with such certainty that unseen tables dont disappear, and reappear when someone is seeing it?
Then you say: i put a book on the table, and when i reenter the room, the book is still on the table! If the table disappeared in my absence, then the book would have fallen onto the ground rite? The book didnt fall, ergo the table didnt disappear.
Aha! So you say; but how do you know the book existed when you are not in the room? It might have disappeared along with the table, and reappear when you enter the room.
So you object: Guys guys, this is pointless, I was looking through a peekhole all along, and hey presto, the table (along with the book) didnt disappear! Therefore we know that the table still exists in our absence.
But sadly no, this is not valid an objection at all. If someone is looking at the table through a peekhole, then it means the table is being perceived. The question is whether the table exist when it is not being perceived at all. And this you cannot show.
Take a video cam and record the table "in action"?
No, the video cam might just have disappeared and reappeared with the table when it is in the room where no one is perceiving it. Just give it up, why do you want to say the table continue to exist? You got no proof that the table exists in everyone's absence.
Surely its logical to think that the damn table continues to exist. There is no special reason why it should disappear and reappear like that.
Well, I can tell you its more logical that the table NOT continue to exist when we are not perceiving it. The existence of the table means nothing more than being seen, being touched, being heard when we rap our knuckles on it, etc. (To appreciate this, imagine if I tell you that there is a table in this room, but you cant see it, cant touch it, your hand will pass through it; you will probably be inclined to say that the table doesnt exist). Since in everybody's absence, the table would be being not seen, not heard, not touched etc., there is nothing more to say that the table exist. It doesnt make sense to say it exists.
So there... the table doesnt exist when you are not in the room.
For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! — Nietzsche, The Gay Science
17 comments:
Hey. Heh.
U know I'm no philo major, but it is this part of philosophy that grinds at my being.
I simply don't understand the desire to postulate that the table or any object doesn't 'exist' when it is not perceived. As far as logical deduction would tell me from the evidence presented the table/book is simply 'not perceived'. It thus becomes ultimately irrelevant, at least in my opinion, to discuss if it 'exists' in the sense of the word of 'being perceived' as when 'existence' itself is touted to be 'being perceived' (which happens to be the anti-thesis of being 'not perceived', which is exactly the scenario for which is painted to be) then there is no argument worth discussing.
It becomes simply: existence = not perceived. thus, since it is not perceived = it is does not exist. I disagree with the definition as such a definition makes the argument meaningless.
If I may take this to a stretch- if such a definition of existence is used, we can essentially argue too that aliens/dinosaurs/your dream wife exists simply because you were able to satisfy all the perceptive indicators used in proving the perceived notion of existence for the table when you encounter them in your dream. I have no qualms about it if that's the standard 'existence' is held to. But is it?
The crux here I believe is in the chosen definition of existence. Is it simply if a thing is 'perceived'? I don't have that answer. I think that the romantic part of language users would agree that 'existence' is much more than simply being perceived. I see in this argument instead a desire to confound the meaning of existence by borrowing its physical manifestation in our perception to hint that the table does not 'exist' in the romanticised idea of the word where existence possibly encompasses the idea that something exists because it has the 'right to being there' for a lack of a better definition.
I mean, a moment ago and even now if I were inanimate I would be perceptively non-existent to anybody else as I sit here alone. But we can all agree that existence is more than that- at least I hope. As sadly as I am, I cannot afford you an alternative 'romanticised' definition of existence- but in the interest of philosophical inquiry I do urge further explorations along that line before abusing the word 'exist'.
In science there is a obvious difference between a negative result and a non-observation. The problem here with regards to 'existence' is that by your own definition, this very non-observation has been convoluted to a 'negative result'. If we go beyond the simple 'perception' idea of existence, it becomes obvious that we cannot determine if the table exists or not when it is not observed. As such, in my opinion, the logical deduction would be that the table cannot be known to exist or not exist- and I'm perfectly fine and dandy and all with that conclusion. It sure isn't perceived- I have no problems with that. Your definition of existence is not something that tries to examine the constant but is itself dependent on perception- that should not be the case.
Then again, I feel ironically non-existent to people sometimes anyway. Haha. Great Article though, but this is just one thing that has been bothering me ever since I met Socrates, no fault of your own. =\
heh... that's one way to resist this argument. But think: what other possible definitions of existence are there?
I know you said you cant come up with an alternative definition, but let me assure you, not many philosophers can either.
Thats one of the reasons why i touched only lightly on the definition of existence. It would be confusing to talk more about it in the post.
But let's see. Your preferred definition of existence would something that is not dependant on being perceived.
But wait a minute. What has been the definition of existence that the common man has been working with all along? Is it really only philosophical jargon to say to exist is to be perceived?
Can you tell me why you say the table you see before you exist?
Nvm, let me answer that. You say the table exists because you can see it, touch it, put things on it. Thats the layman usage. Not philosophical jargon only.
Well, if you want to be really metaphysical however, you can say that there is "something" in the table that is over and above being perceived. That which endures.
That is what you have in mind rite?
But what is this mysterious thing? have anyone ever seen it? When we say the table exist, are we ever referring to this mysterious substance?
What is this substance like? Isn't it ontologically weird? To say that it exist, yet we have no proof of it, no way of knowing it? This substance is supposedly without properties: since it is the substance upon which all properties inhere. Why do you want to posit such a weird, unknowable substance in the world? Is it the philosopher being jargonic, or you wanting something queer?
Yeah. =) Endures is a brilliant word. I was looking for that. Hehe.
I realise the conundrum we have gotten ourselves into in the last part. To say that the 'substance' of existence does not exists because no one can prove that it does exist. Hmm. But that the idea of existence depends on none other then existence itself.
Yet there are some 'substances' that do not have the desired physical properties and are yet, for a lack of a better word, considered to exist. Like Zeitgeist (spirit of the time). Oddly enough, we do posit many unknown substances in the world- ghosts, spirits, love even. Yet is their existence, or maybe 'right to being' in language and as a 'concept' compromised? Many scientific theories are false, but it doesn't detract from the plausibility of such a 'concept'.
If we hold on the the 'perceived' definition of existence, then by all evidence it is highly possible to argue that God does exist. But for some reason philosophers have stopped short of announcing that as a given. I am curious really what argument they use to stop themselves from making that deduction.
To side track a little I was wondering if we can define the existence of something by if it makes its quality of enduring known without active pursuit on the part of the observer. A sort of working definition, paltry at best. But i was thinking along those lines. Should make for interesting discussion haha, after exams maybe. But I'm sure you've had these discussions countless times with your philo friends. Sigh.
Like black holes- they 'exist' because they make their presence known even when we don't actively seek them? I dunno. Sounds weak. Hmm. Like I exist because I am not passively waiting only to be perceived? A table exists because it is there even when you don't want to perceive it to be?
Why is the 'want' so important? I guess because when you try to define existence by perception and deny existence by non-perception, the power to define whether something exists or not lies in the beholder's ability to perceive- but that is also where we can feel in our gut that the definition of existence has taken on a sinister twist. I am not yet convinced enough (though I might be someday) that your existence or anyone else's is solely dependent on the beholder (or me in that case), though deluded people might argue otherwise. So instead I try to create a definition that would put the onus of existence back to the source object. Therein, if it can somehow do something to show unsuspecting observers that it is present, that it endures, in such away that it affects the observer's otherwise non-perception, it exists.
I'm kinda confused here really, but just throwing up ideas in the spirit of inquiry. Haha, useless as it is.
Thank you for bringing up the main part of philosophy that bothers me though. Heh. Looking forward to have this discussion really. =)
eh.. it is not that we dont know whether this "substance" exist or not; it is that the existence of this substance is weird ontologically. I wouldnt say Zeitgeist is weird ontologically; anyway it isnt a substance at all. I wouldnt say the existence of God (which is a substance) is weird either; only the substance in this discussion is weird ontologically (for the reasons i gave previously).
And you said perceivance is enough to make prove that God exist? Not many people would endorse that precisely because: who gave the proof? Who perceived God? Did they really perceived God?
By your working definition of existence, things exist because they are there regardless we want them to be. However its too broad, and apply to practically everything that exist. Even dreams items (which doesnt exist). It does no work in refuting the argument that the table might disappear in our absence as well. (It can disappear and reappear against our wishes too.)
I didnt say, too, that your existence is dependent on someone perceiving you. I said the table's existence is dependent on someone perceiving it. The existence of other minds is another philosophical problem which shouldnt be discussed together with the problem of other things.
hmm. i agree that that stuff on the difference between the other words. existence is unique then.
As for the question of God, we could say the same for dinosaurs, the aurora, and most catalogued endangered and rare species in the world for that matter. The question of reputable evidence as basis for existence is unfortunately a shaky one. But I don't think the point of this discussion is to go there.
I'm trying to see if that initial definition- that the substance must 'actively be seeking to affect the observer's perception' is too broad. Surely it should cover everything thought to exist. I know it would cover ghosts- for which existence is not yet a given, but not dismissed either. Borrowing and expanding on your answer to 'God', these 'ghosts' may very well exist but as other phenomena or its 'evidence' called to question.
As for dreams- I see two possible ways to move forward: a) that in dreams the objects that 'exist' do indeed 'exist' for all purposes, in your dreams. Dreams being the containing 'stage'- why not use perception only as a basis then? because it is insufficient in the real world to encompass the romantic form of existence as endurance that we are trying to save; or b) that the object in your dreams could never be said to 'actively seek' your perception because in dreams you are essentially seeking to perceive these objects as they are indeed figments of your imagination.
The definition was not meant to refute the argument that the table might disappear and reappear. As said earlier, I have no problems with the table disappearing- but I can argue for that whether it disappears or appears, i.e. the very ability that it can; the substance that gives it that ability; that fact that it can actively seek to be perceived, vouches for its existence. In other words the 'existence' of the table no longer depends on if it can disappear or not. I don't really care that it does or does not. As long as at times when we are lucid (dreams being a contained stage/or a self-induced phenomenon) it has the ability to force its existence upon our perception, it exists. The crux of turning to this form of definition is essentially to return the onus of existence to the object rather than the observer.
So from this definition of existence that I am trying to sculpt, the ideal answer in the table scenario is not a) that the table exists but instead b) that we cannot tell if a table exists or not when we aren't around.
The difference is I have rejected the idea of the non-observation as a negative response and returned some difference to the meanings of 'existence' and 'being perceived' so that not perceived does not = to does not exist.
The existence of other minds is indeed perhaps out of the scope here. I agree we should shelve that line of thought. But the sentence can stay relevant. Rephrased: I am not yet convinced enough (though I might be someday) that the existence of any inanimate object is solely dependent on the beholder (or me in that case), though deluded people might argue otherwise.
I'm not trying to say that I have answers to something philosophers have tried to answer for so long. I am just trying to see what sort of interesting discussion this can come to as I have not had the chance to sort this out.
Hmm... Haha.
Not to spam but one more point to try to save the argument from perception point of view instead. And maybe attempt to try to argue for the table's existence. Sheesh, I really should be studying though.
Consider the 2 ways to look at it:
a) argument from active influence to perception
b) argument from perception alone
Maybe smoke and fire would be a better example actually. a) the ability to let us perceive heat/smoke heralds the existence of fire or b) we treat the heat and smoke as itself a perception of fire. In both cases, the fire exist.
Point is either way will lead to this:-
Even when we are not in the room the table does exist because it is either a) making its presence known even when we don't seek it or b) we are still 'perceiving' it.
All because even if we are in another place, the table does things that affect the environment. It displaces air that would otherwise be in its place, it obeys the laws of conservation of energy that would otherwise wreck havoc in the molecular world, it provides the necessary number of matter to counter the anti-matter balance in our universe. The table either a) influences us to let us know it exist even if we don't seek it and even if we don't know we know it or b) we are still 'perceiving' the table even if we do not know that we are perceiving the table, so it has to exist.
This holds true even if you are an astronaut in space and vacuum as the amount of matter-energy in this dimension in the universe is supposedly finite. No matter how insignificant you think this is it is important.
For argument a) the crux lies in that we are no longer simply passively perceiving the subject. The subject influences us all the time. So it has to exist. as for b) this influence can be argued to be a form of perception, so it has to exist.
Interestingly because of this argument, ghosts' existence become questionable as they are not as well perceived as matter items.
Of course, the problem with this argument is that I am taking present day scientific theory for granted.
Of this and above, I have to say I prefer the earlier (where we cannot tell if a table exists). But I wouldn't dismiss trying to argue that the table does exist from the latter point of view either.
I better get back to work. All the best for your exams too.
wa lau..i can't even finish reading all the comments at one go,reminds me too much of readings-lenghtwise..shall finish reading wen i get home,gg to sch now,haha...
eh kx can you shorten your replies a bit... its quite tough to read through a thousand words each time. heh
Your definition of existence is no good in proving the existence of rare species as well. Lets not talk about things whose existence is in dispute, like ghosts. Philosophy doesnt recognise the existence of ghosts, for the sole reason the evidence is not strong enough. Dinosaurs exist though, for we have evidence of dinosaurs; there are fossil records etc. This is in line with the definition of existence i have been working with all along: evidence validates existence. It might be that the fossil records are fake, but then under ANY definition it is still possible that the fossil records are fake.
You mentioned something like the effect of the table when we are not perceiving it. Something like it displaces air moelecules. Those are your evidence of it existing then? Notice you are reverting back to the first definition of existence: evidence validates existence. You didnt like to base existence on perception yah, so you need to find something else for that.
The argument wasnt a simple: the evidence points to existence; no evidence, hence no existence. The argument is that: evidence points to existence; no evidence, AND to posit existence would be weird, hence no existence. It is an inference to the best explanation.
"I am not yet convinced enough (though I might be someday) that the existence of any inanimate object is solely dependent on the beholder (or me in that case), though deluded people might argue otherwise."
If you cant come up with a reason why it would not be weird to posit the existence in our absence, I dont see how I am the "deluded" one, for while I can argue for what I say, you cant. I am in fact arguing that the layman's conception of existence would force him to agree that the table wouldnt exist in our absence; to conclude otherwise would be deluded in fact.
Instead of arguing with me, you would do better to go read this book: Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous by George Berkeley
It's a thin book, you can finish reading within 2 days.
Let me put this in another argument form:
P1: All physical objects are nothing but the totals of our sense-perceptions.
P2: Sense-perceptions cannnot exist unperceived.
Conclusion: Physical objects cannot exist unperceived.
Obviously you are taking issue with P1, but so far everything you have been arguing from is made from the basis of sense-perceptions. To refute P1, you have to reject the claim that physical objects are the sum total of sense-perceptions. That you havent do.
In any case, I've said that the justification for P1 is an inference to the best explanation. There is an even stronger justification: namely that to conceive of physical objects as existing unperceived is a CONTRADICTION in terms. Contradictions cant exist, just like a round square. One does not even understand what it means to speak of physical objects existing unperceived, much less argue for it.
I find the P1 P2 form of the argument very helpful. Thanks. It was not my intention to come across as adversarial in the process of discussion. I don't think I am trying to 'argue' in that sense of the word. I'm just seeking to elucidate some concepts and I think that discussing it helps.
I am aware though that this is your blog. And for that I apologise for the mess here.
Note that in the discussion above I brought up not 1 but 2 points of view. (explains the 2 separate posts)
1) that existence depends on the object and its ability to influence perception rather than perception alone.
This is obviously insufficient to refute P1. I concede that it is lacking.
2) that I agree with you. That evidence points to existence; no evidence, AND to posit existence would be weird, hence no existence.
I am NOT taking issue with P1 here.
Essentially in the 2nd part I am no longer arguing P1 or P2. Physical objects cannot exist unperceived is true.
But instead I am questioning the other hidden assumption that can physical objects 'ever even be' unperceived. Hence the air molecule/matter-energy dilemma. I 'know' that I am reverting to the first argument when I made that statement. That's why the 2nd post came about. It was no longer meant to refute that objects exists only when perceived. It was meant to question the validity of such a concept when used in reference to physical objects as they can 'never' be unperceived.
When i used the word "argue" i didnt mean any hostile intentions. Philosophical discussions ARE arguments.
You are saying if objects disappear when they are not perceived, then they would have a weird effect on the universe, rite? The air would not be displaced etc. (I don't understand what you are trying to argue in your latest reply seriously.)
I am not sure how that is relevant, but lets see how to dissect this:
Either the weird effect on the universe have an effect on us that we can perceive,
Or it has an effect on us that we cant perceive.
(is this what you are trying to say?)
If it doesnt have an effect on us, then the sense perceptions doesnt exist, then the table doesnt exist. You said the universe would have some weird consequences etc., like non-observance of the law of conservation of energy. But note that the universe which is beyond our perception is in the same boat as the table: we dont perceive it. If we dont perceive the unseen universe, then it cant be used to argue that the table exist.
If it has an effect on us that we can perceive, then obviously we are perceiving the table. We are perceiving its existence. Note that I said the table is the sum total of the sense perceptions, which includes everything you brought up here.
Also note that every physical law is formulated on the basis of being perceived. We have no basis for thinking these physical laws operate when there is no observer.
If you still think that "physical objects cannot be unperceived" is weird, then try this: try to conceive of a unperceived object. If you can do that, I grant you your case.
Of cos, the normal response will be: what so hard about conceiving of a physical object existing unperceived? Here I am conceiving of a cactus in the desert with no observers around ->success.
But wait a second, did you really conceived of a cactus without any observers? Notice that when you think of the cactus, you are conceiving it from a particular orientation: you framed it within your mind JUST LIKE when you are there to observe the cactus in person. You didnt conceive of a cactus existing unperceived then; you merely left out mentioning the observer, which is you.
You can NEVER conceive of a cactus existing unperceived; so whats so weird about this concept?
"If it has an effect on us that we can perceive, then obviously we are perceiving the table. We are perceiving its existence. Note that I said the table is the sum total of the sense perceptions, which includes everything you brought up here."
Yep that's what I meant.
So there is no longer any question about physical objects ever existing being unperceived. By the last post I was not thinking of it as weird anymore. So that part I need no convincing. But by the way I don't think the cactus thing works as it's technically not a physical object when you are mentally conceiving it anyways, no need to go all the way to talk about observers.
I can agree with the whole existence due to perception thing. I was trying to think along this line of thought that the universe cannot be 'beyond our perception' as we are perceiving it every instant. If there is just one more unit of anti-matter in the universe, something would have to disappear as a reaction. So conceptually we are in constant interaction with every inch of the universe whether we like it our not, according to theory of course.
But of course as you pointed out, sadly these very laws, though not newtonian physics in nature, are still concepts drawn up based on the observable universe, and thus of course, validate the existence of unobserved matter as it took that into account in the formulation in the first place.
So back to zero. =/ Hmm. Seriously, there are no plausible counter arguments to this table disappearing scenario in philosophical literature?
I'm really buying into the if I don't see it, it's not there thingy. Haha.
No wonder philosophers don't grow uncomfortable with this phenomena. It's really quite easy getting used to. =D
Of cos this is not saying that I believe that the universe doesnt exist when I am not looking at it (and other people are not looking as well). It is just that I have a convenient argument against its existence. heh.
And the cactus example was just meant to refute this point: that I can conceive of physical objects existing unperceived. Not to refute: physical objects can exist unperceived.
Oh, and there are good arguments against the table disappearing.
One way is to appeal to cause. What cause the table to exist when we are looking? There must be some underlying cause that makes it appear to us.
Berkeley famously argued that it is God who caused everything to appear to us. But that is extremely problematic, for obvious reasons that I wouldnt specify.
Anyway, the objection from cause resemble one of your previous objections too rite? Sadly, this objection is not too feasible either, since the law of cause and effect has only been known to work in the phenomenonal realm; in the underlying realm, who knows if there is really cause and effect. That is, how can we assert that there HAVE TO BE something causing my phenomenal experience?
The Inference to the Best explanation may argue that cause and effect is the best explanation. But we can similarly argue that the best explanation is that phenomenal stuff simply is. Underlying causal stuff is so weird that we shouldnt countenance it. But now we have a standoff - which intuition should we trust?
Post a Comment