The ontological status of unperceived objects in Berkeley's philosophy

[Interesting Ian]

I posted the following question in a Berkeley Forum a couple of years ago. I don't suppose that anyone will be in much of a position to answer it apart form maybe undercoverelephant, but people are very welcome to articulate what position Berkeley ought to have took. Anyway here's the question I asked:

I'm wondering how the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley regarded the ontological status of the world when unperceived by finite beings? That is to say does an unperceived tree, for example, exist in a "full-blooded" sense as a perception/conception in Gods Mind when unperceived by us? Likewise, when approaching an object, and it continually expands to fill our visual field, is this because God has in his conception the full repertoire of all possible sensory experiences constituting that object which he then allows us partial access to? Presumably the contents of this partial access will depend upon our "spatial" orientation with respect to the object concerned and the keenness of our senses.

Are Gods conceptions numerically identical to our perceptions here? Or should we understand it as being analogically akin to a 3 dimensional world in a computer game, where we might say objects within the game not currently displayed on the VDU exist in the computers memory, but not in quite the same form as when they are displayed?

Alternatively are objects in the external world entirely a psychological construct on our parts? That is to say there is no tree in Gods mind as such, but we subconsciously construct our notion of a tree from particular visual and tactile sensations which we habitually find together.

What was Berkeley's true position and what position should he ought to have adopted regarding this issue?

[hammegk]

"A student once remarked, 'God
Must find it exceedingly odd
That this sycamore tree
Simply ceases to be
When there's no one about on the quad.'
And the reply: 'In re. what you thought to be odd,
I am always about on the quad,
So this sycamore tree
Never ceases to be.
Sincerely, Yours, faithfully, God."

Source unknown.

[ScottDYelich]

man... seems hopelessly boring... to compute the trajectory of every
drop of rain.... of every particle of sand... dust... of each molecule of water in the ocean.

and that's just this one blue-green planet! when done here, there's
lots more to do.

talk about hell!

no wonder god hates us so much.

I say, lets avoid the quad, give back the tree that won't exist
anymore...


forget save the whales, lets save god!

Scott

[synaesthesia]

That's a good question Ian. Although I'm not very well aquainted with Berkely's position on this question, I think it makes good fodder for thought.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most central questions of epistemology. Wha exactly is the difference between the observed and the unobserved?

Consideration of this question is something to which I think I should devote more time. Thus far, however, I have been strongly lead to the position that the difference between observable and unobservable is not as principled as it's philosophical importance might suggest.

I believe that there is a fundamental epistemic continuity between accessing memories, thoughts and motivations and accessing a quasar hundreds of millions of lightyears away.

I second Ian's comment about UE. He perhaps might have some insight into Berkely's position.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:I'm wondering how the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley regarded the ontological status of the world when unperceived by finite beings?
Define finite being, please.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Define finite being, please.

~~ Paul

Any mind/self other than God's such as our minds.

[Beleth]

Doesn't the whole idea of there being a "God Mind" where everything unperceived still exists fly in the face of the conclusions we reach from quantum mechanics?

I wonder how Berkeley would have incorporated QM into his philosophy.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:Any mind/self other than God's such as our minds.
Is the tree a finite being?

Beleth said:I wonder how Berkeley would have incorporated QM into his philosophy.
I'm stunned that you could dare suggest that an ancient and revered philosophy might be affected by scientific progress. Shocked!

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beleth
Doesn't the whole idea of there being a "God Mind" where everything unperceived still exists fly in the face of the conclusions we reach from quantum mechanics?

I wonder how Berkeley would have incorporated QM into his philosophy.

Well objects might say exist in the same sense as the inside of a room exists before you enter it in an computer game environment.

However this interpretation of Berkeleys philosophy is clearly at odds with the understanding of Berkeleys philosophy implied by those famous limericks regarding his philosophy. ie

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad."

REPLY
Dear Sir:
Your astonishment's odd:
I am always about in the Quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by
Yours faithfully,
GOD.

But I believe this to be a misinterpretation of Berkeleys philosophy. Nor do I think he should have adopted such a position as it reintroduces some of the problems endemic to materialism.

Indeed on this point Peter Lloyd agrees with me. He says on http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm


{begin quote}
This is a limerick by Ronald Knox, which demonstrates one of the popular misconceptions of Berkeley's philosophy. In fact, Berkeley's claim would be that the material quad does not exist at all as an independent object. Strictly speaking, it exists neither when somebody is in the quad nor nobody is in the quad. What does exist, even when nobody is in the quad, is an archetype of the quad in God's mind. This 'archetype' may be thought of God's private notebook about what the quad looks like. When people subsequently go into the quad, they will find themselves having the appropriate mental experiences (referred to as 'perceiving the quad'). Those experiences are produced by God with reference to His archetype - in a manner similiar to that in which musical sounds are produced by a skilled musician with reference to a printed musical score. {end quote}


Now given the "virtual reality" intepretation of Berkeley's philosophy, it doesn't seem at all incompatible with QM! On the absolute contrary, it is wholly compatible with QM. Indeed, to me, Berkeley's philosophy in a sense implies something doesn't concretely exist until some sentient being observes it. As far as I am aware QM could be said to imply this. What does seem to be inconsistant with QM is materialism in the sense that QM implies that it is meaningless to talk about existents in abstraction from any measurement.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Ian said:
Is the tree a finite being?


No. Being as in a self. You know, a mind/spirit or soul. In other words something which possess consciousness.




I'm stunned that you could dare suggest that an ancient and revered philosophy might be affected by scientific progress. Shocked!

~~ Paul

All scientific progress so far have vindicated Berkeleys ideas. He made valid arguments against the ideas of absolute space. Valid arguments which were completely ignored by the scientific community. He argued against an absolute time. Both vindicated by Einstein's theories of relativity. He argued against the intelligibility of a reality existing in abstraction from our perceptions. Vindicated by QM.

It is in fact materialism which is not taking any notice of scientific progress with it's notion of a wholly mysterious reality existing independent of our perceptions. A position at odds with a straightforward interpretation of QM.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How do you know that a tree doesn't have consciousness? Perhaps it has a simple one that at least perceives its own existence.

A position at odds with a straightforward interpretation of QM.
Does QM require sentient beings to perceive things in order for them to exist? I don't think so. You can chit-chat about QM all you want, but it is dangerous to come to the conclusion that a tree doesn't exist unless some particular subset of all things is there to interact with it.

~~ Paul

[c4ts]

I don't find myself changing between states of existence when nobody's watching me. How strange.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by c4ts
I don't find myself changing between states of existence when nobody's watching me. How strange.

I initiated this thread and I would appreciate it that you don't contribute if you have nothing sensible to say.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I initiated this thread and I would appreciate it that you don't contribute if you have nothing sensible to say.

I think Berkley would argue that until I am percieved, I am an immaterial object in the mind of God.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
How do you know that a tree doesn't have consciousness? Perhaps it has a simple one that at least perceives its own existence.


I don't know this. This is getting away from the point though. Just imagine the limericks refer to a rock instead of a tree. It only has implications for Berkeley's philosophy if you entertain the possibility that everything is conscious.




Does QM require sentient beings to perceive things in order for them to exist? I don't think so. You can chit-chat about QM all you want, but it is dangerous to come to the conclusion that a tree doesn't exist unless some particular subset of all things is there to interact with it.

~~ Paul

Particular subset of all things? Minds are not a subset of anything. They are the only true existents according to Berkeleys philosophy. I never said unperceived trees don't exist. They have at least as much existence as the contents of an unopened room in a computer game.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Don't people get bored with these kind of questions after awhile? Is there any experiment we could run to see what the state of the tree is when no one is around? How about setting up a video camera? Does it have consciousness? I bet it would record the tree, so I guess it has consciousness.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Don't people get bored with these kind of questions after awhile? Is there any experiment we could run to see what the state of the tree is when no one is around? How about setting up a video camera? Does it have consciousness? I bet it would record the tree, so I guess it has consciousness.

~~ Paul

Oh dear. Is it really too much to ask for a sensible discussion in this thread?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh dear. Is it really too much to ask for a sensible discussion in this thread?

Hmm, since you seem to prefer talking to yourself, ignoring other posts, go to it! Happy now?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hammegk


Hmm, since you seem to prefer talking to yourself, ignoring other posts, go to it! Happy now?

What??? :confused:

[Interesting Ian]

BUMP!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation, Ian, but perhaps I don't understand the issue. So far, we seem to be asking about the status of an object unperceived by a sentient being, right? So I asked about the status of an object perceived by a video camera.

Are we rolling the tree and the video camera into one combo-unperceived object, then questioning its state until the video is viewed by a sentient being?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation, Ian, but perhaps I don't understand the issue. So far, we seem to be asking about the status of an object unperceived by a sentient being, right? So I asked about the status of an object perceived by a video camera.

Are we rolling the tree and the video camera into one combo-unperceived object, then questioning its state until the video is viewed by a sentient being?

~~ Paul

Ok, thought you were just joking about the camera. It is consciousness which is the essential ingredient in defining our empirical reality. A camcorder, with no sentient beings around, automatically recording some scene or other, is in the same situation as an unobserved tree.

[Interesting Ian]

OK . . OK. . . OK . . Which a*sehole gave my thread a rating of one star!??? :mad:

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK . . OK. . . OK . . Which a*sehole gave my thread a rating of one star!??? :mad:

Your thread rating is in the mind of god :D :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, a couple more questions.

Does the video recorder know that someone will view the video in the future, and thus oblige by recording the tree? Or, does it do nothing until someone comes and picks it up, then shoot back in time and record the tree really quick? Can we know the answer to this question?

Let's say my friend Fred picks up the video camera after it records the tree. Can I treat the tree/camera/Fred combo object as nonsentient until such time as Fred talks to me about it? In other words, do I need to treat another person as a sentient being, or only myself?

~~ Paul

Originally posted by Beleth
Doesn't the whole idea of there being a "God Mind" where everything unperceived still exists fly in the face of the conclusions we reach from quantum mechanics?

I wonder how Berkeley would have incorporated QM into his philosophy.

Exactly the same way Schroedinger did.......

;)

This really amuses me about the current generation of materialistic scientists. Far too many of them think that somehow the onward march of science and the mysteries of QM discount the philosophical profundities of people like Berkeley and Kant. This is just a monumental failure to understand the depth of the understanding communicated by people like Schroedinger. Schroedinger was an idealist for heavens sake!

"There is only One Consciousness, and it is the only thing which exists!" Erwin Shroedinger!

And yet here we have someone asking whether QM flies in the face of Berkeley! :rolleyes:


Ian :

You are asking what Berkeleys original position was. This is particularly tricky because Berkeley predates Kant, and I suspect it is possible that Berkeley may have reviewed this particular issue in the light of some of the things Kant said on a similar subject. Certainly Kants position that 'things in themselves' cannot ever be known (apart from God knowing them) and that both time and space were human 'ways of knowing' and therefore attributes of objects that depend on time and space are put there by us - they are not genuine attributes of the object(s) themselves.

So:


Presumably the contents of this partial access will depend upon our "spatial" orientation with respect to the object concerned and the keenness of our senses.


...is true, and I think both Berkeley and Kant accepted this.


Are Gods conceptions numerically identical to our perceptions here? Or should we understand it as being analogically akin to a 3 dimensional world in a computer game, where we might say objects within the game not currently displayed on the VDU exist in the computers memory, but not in quite the same form as when they are displayed?


I'd go for this also, both with respect to Berkeley and Kant.


Alternatively are objects in the external world entirely a psychological construct on our parts?


Here they divide. Berkeley says yes, Kant says no. It would have been interesting to hear Berkeleys reply to Kant. In a sense Berkeley actually tried to answer the ultimate questions, but Kant was more interested in where pure reason could take him and it only took him as far as asking the [right] questions.


What was Berkeley's true position and what position should he ought to have adopted regarding this issue?


Part of the problem here is that Berkeley wrote a considerable amount of material which he never chose to publish. I don't really want to second-guess what was in that material.

As for what position he ought to have taken, I guess we have to say that the tree does not exist in the mind of God in the way it exists in our minds. It exists in the way it exists in Gods mind.

I haven't had time to read through this thread properly yet. I am in the process of re-examining my own views on this, currently I am reading a book written in 1920 by P.D. Ouspensky, the first three pages dealing with subjectivity/objectivity, Kant and Berkeley respectively....so by next week I might give a slightly different answer.... :)

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[B]Okay, a couple more questions.

Does the video recorder know that someone will view the video in the future, and thus oblige by recording the tree? Or, does it do nothing until someone comes and picks it up, then shoot back in time and record the tree really quick? Can we know the answer to this question?


Well, we know that several pictures of Pluto existed before we knew Pluto existed i.e. after its discovery was confirmed people went back and checked old photographic plates and Pluto was in them. Therefore Pluto must have existed in 'the mind of God' before any humans observed it, unless the observed/recorded past is changeable, and I don't think it is. (I have previously argued that the unobserved past is indeterminate - this is different). Having said all that Pluto is close enough to Earth to have affected other observations i.e. the motion of Neptune - so it was part of the system that was being observed by consciousness - I believe we can say it existed in a way that more distant and less relevant 'objects' do not. This question kind of leads us to whether or not the Universe is finite or infinite, closed or open. From an idealist POV the only things which need to exist are those which have either been directly observed, or have had a direct bearing on things which have been directly observed. Whereas the precise happenings on the dark side of a plant orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy have no need to 'exist' until such time as a conscious being goes to investiage them. In such a scheme the Universe is potentially infinite, but actually finite. If the Universe is actually infinite then it is difficult to see how 'all of it' can already exist in the mind of God. If the Universe is both potentially and actually finite then we don't have so much of a problem.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:From an idealist POV the only things which need to exist are those which have either been directly observed, or have had a direct bearing on things which have been directly observed.
Then by induction the entire universe needs to exist.

~~ Paul

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
UcE said:
Then by induction the entire universe needs to exist.

~~ Paul

But what is meant by "The entire Universe"?

We do not even know whether or not the material Universe is finite or infinite.

Paul :

The only way I can make sense of this is to compare it to the mathematical structure representing a mandelbrot set and an actual representation of a mandelbrot set. It's actually infinite and in 'the mind of the mathematical God' it exists in its entirety (whatever that means) - but as far as the actual representation is concerned the only bits that exist are the bits you actually look at. Maybe the Universe exists in the same sort of a way. Maybe objects are 'generated' 'just in time' for them to be observed.

[Interesting Ian]

As a matter of interest, in the original forum in which I posted my question, I got a reply from Peter Lloyd. I'll paste it in here which you might find of particular interest Geoff.

{quote}


Ian raises a very good question: when we are not looking at some object (say, a tree), what precisely is it that persists in God's mind between successive observations?

Thus: "... should we understand it as being analogically akin to a 3 dimensional world in a computer game, where we might say objects within the game not currently displayed on the VDU exist in the computers memory, but not in quite the same form as when they are displayed?"

I believe that this is precisely right, and I believe that Berkeley
held the same opinion, and expressed it as well as he could before the invention of computers, let alone virtual reality.

Berkeley maintained that God's mind contains 'archetypes' of the
objects that we see around us. These archetypes are ideas in God's mind that direct Him in the construction of our perceptual world. Berkeley made a direct comparison of God's use of archetypes to a musician's use of a score to play music. The score is written in ink on paper, and bears no sensory resemblance to the sound of music. Yet they serve to direct the musician in re-creating the required sounds. Likewise, God's archetypes need bear no sensory resemblance to our sensory experiences, yet they serve to direct God in running our sensory show.

This is just like a database in an digital computer that embodies a
mathematical model of a three-dimensional world. The computer can use that database to render any view as seen from any observer in any position. As you (virtually) move around within the (virtual) world, the computer continually adjusts its rendering of the world in our visual display.

We may say that, in the Berkeleian view, our entire waking world is a virtual reality, driven by a purely mental computer -- which Berkeley called God.

George Berkeley was not a very precise writer, and in some bits of his books, you might find suggestions of other opinions about the nature of unobserved objects. But the position expressed above is the one that we find persisting throughout his works, and in any case it is the only one that makes sense.

There are, of course, lots of interesting ramifications of this. For
example, let us suppose that God's mind operates in an economical manner. Suppose that God does not construct the archetypes of things that have never yet been observed, until such time as some finite being observes them. In the computer analogy, we may say that some parts of the 3-D database are not populated until they are needed for rendering imagery. Suppose, for instance, you are walking around in a virtual house. There is a room that you have never been in. Then, eventually, you find the (virtual) keys and can unlock the (virtual) door. Until that moment, the computer is free to choose whatever is to
be inside that room. The contents of the room can be generated 'just in time' as you open the door. Then you might find inside an ancient, dust covered book three hundred years old, which predicts the very date and time when you will open the door. You might be amazed by this until you remember that this is a virtual reality and that the computer need not have generated the model of that book in its database until the moment you entered the room. In much the same way, I would suggest, God alters and modifies the unobserved parts of the universe, to bring about synchronicity and even miracles when those parts come to be observed.

As far as I am aware, Berkeley never explored this ramification of his own philosophy. If anyone knows of any passages where he does so, then I would be *very* interested!

Nevertheless, I do think that this theory is valid and that it can be used to give an account of parapsychological phenomena.

Peter

{unquote}

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In the computer analogy, we may say that some parts of the 3-D database are not populated until they are needed for rendering imagery.

But why the ontological flourish?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
In the computer analogy, we may say that some parts of the 3-D database are not populated until they are needed for rendering imagery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But why the ontological flourish?



I don't understand you. Apart from arguably solipsism, any metaphysical position incorporates ontological assumptions. Nor do I see anything wrong with this.

BTW, you were aware that you were quoting Peter Lloyd rather than me?

[Interesting Ian]

Ok, someone's done it again. Who's voted one star for my thread in the last 24 hours??? :mad: :mad: :mad:

Not me, I gave it a 5.

I commend you on a thoroughly worthwhile and fascinating thread. :)

[DanishDynamite]

II:.Ok, someone's done it again. Who's voted one star for my thread in the last 24 hours??? :mad: :mad: :mad: It wasn't me. How negligent of me. Just a minute....[leaves thread, looks for rating button, finds "1" rating]...there....I've corrected that oversight.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
II:. It wasn't me. How negligent of me. Just a minute....[leaves thread, looks for rating button, finds "1" rating]...there....I've corrected that oversight.

DD,

Ok, I know you dislike me. But what is the point of voting 1 star purely for the hell of it?? If you do sincerely believe in your heart of hearts that this thread is worthless, then so be it. But have you actually read the thread?? Even if you think the metaphysic in concern is obviously ludicrous, does that warrent a 1 star in your opinion? Think about it. Try to be more objective.

I implore anyone reading this thread to vote according to how interesting this subject matter is relative to other typical threads.

Thanks :)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Apart from arguably solipsism, any metaphysical position incorporates ontological assumptions. Nor do I see anything wrong with this.

I do. Metaphysics and ontology aren't exactly the same thing. While both may deal with the nature of things, ontology doesn't explain the non-being of things, and Berkley's philosophy concerns itself with non-being as being in the mind of God. But I could be mistaken about ontology.

[DanishDynamite]

II:Ok, I know you dislike me. But what is the point of voting 1 star purely for the hell of it?? If you do sincerely believe in your heart of hearts that this thread is worthless, then so be it. But have you actually read the thread?? Even if you think the metaphysic in concern is obviously ludicrous, does that warrent a 1 star in your opinion? Think about it. Try to be more objective. You are right. My voting was entirely based on your behaviour and not on the content of this thread.

The problem, Ian, is that you invariably degenerate into your standard "argument", which is: "Materialism is stupid. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy is a %&#/. "

When this happens over and over again, it completely detracts from any point you might otherwise have.

If you could just state your premises and argue soberly from there, people would be correspondingly more receptive.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The problem, Ian, is that you invariably degenerate into your standard "argument", which is: "Materialism is stupid. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy is a %&#/. "


Ah, but he didn't do it this time! Give the guy a break, he is very obviously trying.