Does the tree fall when nobody observes?

Exactly! The existence of entities and their natures are entirely dependent on our perceptions. We might even go so far as to say that the mind is the center of the universe - everything revolves around it. The Sun might as well be revolving around the earth, because that is what we experience and experience is all we have as reality - what does truth mean if we will never be able to experience it? This is the reason for the utter subjectivity of truth - what we experience is truely reality, whether we like it or not. It's tantamount to telling someone who is color blind that there are actually colors, but a color blind person never experiences color - to him the world is without color - that is his reality - his truth.

So, if i couldnt see a guy outside my house he's not there?

Originally posted by Philosophicus
I suppose you are refering to George Berkeley's famous dictum: "Esse est percipi" ("To be is to be perceived"😉 - that is the only part of Berkeley's thought sharing common ground with my own, but with everything else he said, I disagree with. Here's a few ideas by Berkeley with which I strongly disagree:

"Our perceptions of objects are all perfectly accurate and objective.
Any knowledge of the empirical world is to be obtained only through direct perception.
Error comes about through thinking about what we perceive.
Knowledge of the empirical world of people and things and actions around us may be purified and perfected merely by stripping away all thought (and with it language) from our pure perceptions.
From this it follows that:

The ideal form of scientific knowledge is to be obtained by pursuing pure de-intellectualized perceptions.
If we would pursue these, we would be able to obtain the deepest insights into the natural world and the world of human thought and action which is available to man.
The goal of all science, therefore, is to de-intellectualize or de-conceptualize, and thereby purify, our perceptions"

Berkeley was a dreamer.

ah... I see what you are missing... the hierarchy chart!!!! understand how he thinks first and then see what he did wrong...

Yes, because he's in a seperate reality than you are.

It still sounds more like perception of reality then reality itself you are talking about philo

reality? I mean do u even try to understand how he gets that conclusion in the first place?

I'm talking about the original part and yes Peter

Perception of reality IS reality - no difference between reality and a perception of it.

lol I am talking to philosophicus.. I should have use the quote button... this is my second time I made a mistake....

np peter

well reality IMO would be one and the same for everyone

perception of reality is different for everyone

so IMO there is a big difference.

you are right... but I think philosophicus knows that.. that's why he said "he's in a seperate reality than you are" clearly clarify that perception of reality is different for everyone..... But then.. one can only know the "truth" if one has sufficient experience...

something I made today--> "When one is exploring the "truth" one must also go through the road of confusion"

you know I'm still debating the original and not berkely

Originally posted by Mind
You are a genius! Also your solution to the chicken and egg problem - you make it look so easy to analyze seemingly simple problems, as well as complex philosophy.

And multiple registrations are not allowed.

okay... so somthing happens and all the witneases are dying coz of that issue... it has occured or not? 😬

imo it is falling, because even i no one sees it, the result of it can be observed, and i'm gettting lost... but it was clear to me earlier 😕 cry

Exactly! The existence of entities and their natures are entirely dependent on our perceptions.

Philosophy is like poetry, it seems that many philosophers muddy their own waters to appear deep, as is the case here.

The thought of a world not existing because you are not there to witness it is not a great philosophical discovery, it is what every young child thinks when they are at a stage in their life where they are too inexperienced and self centered to entertain the thought that they are not the centre of the universe.

If a tree fall in the forest, and there is no person there to hear it does it make a sound? YES.

Does the tree fall when nobody observes? (a lamer version of the question already answered) YES

Personal perception or existential views of one's own reality matter not to the events that occur throughout linear time. To philosophise on human behaviour or as to the meaning of one's own life is a noble pursuit. To question the laws of nature through philosophical discussion is both immature, without meaning, and often narcissistic.

is this a variant of "If a tree falls in the forest, and theres noone there to hear it.. does it make a sound?" ?? lol.. things still occur regardless if we are there to witness them... otherwise statistics would be useless no?

KharmaDog says, "To question the laws of nature through philosophical discussion is both immature, without meaning, and often narcissistic."

This is not only idiotic, but also very contradictive as this is a philosophy forum in which you parttake! Philosophy is the highest form of questioning and investigation by empoloying the rational - philosophy is all about questioning not only the laws of nature, but also their meaning - philosophy is about contemplating the meaning of everything and anything!? What else is the purpose of philosophy. In your opinion then, philosophy fails to be meaningfull at all, since you say that we cannot question nature. You clearly don't know what philosophy is.

SaTsuJin - from what oracle did you get the truth and authority to know for a fact that things still occur if we witness them or not? If one observes something, one can only say that the agent is experiencing something in a certain condition, but to say that an event occured in absence of an observer is meaningless and unsubstantiated. Statistics is merely a theory at best, with no real significance or effect on the world, and that exactly proofs my point. Do you even know what statistics is - what the meaning of it is - and what effect it has on the world? Statistics is so random in consistency that it ultimately has no substance - chance is at the very foundations of everything.

no no, I mean the kind of statistics (I suppose you'd call them that) where they state "A person is raped in the USA every 4 seconds" or "Someone in the country dies about every 10 seconds". I'm imagining thats not witnessable by everyone, but hard copy data must come from somewhere to procure such findings (obituaries, or filed police reports etc)

if someone witness it they can tell the tale, if no one witness it there are no one to say when it happend. The only thing they can say though is that it has happend.

SaTsuJin - Data: the manifestation of the latter is the combined input by various sources, these sources comprise individuals accounting for their experiences, thus we have multiple subjective realities involved in the process. Now, in the case of an individual reading a statistic, this person is isolated from the source of the statistic and its meaning can be interpreted in any possible way, where this happens with every other person who reads the statistic. Thus the statistic becomes scattered via the manifold experiences of it and by the interpretations applied. The bottom line is that a statistic is not a reality on its own, but a scattered reality of multiplicity in character - subjective in essence.

finti - even if someone witness something, the event only occured for that someone, telling the tale afterwards are empty words for an outsider. And how does a witness knows for sure that he/she is not imaginning the event? The madman doesn't know he's mad. Nobody can know for sure or be an absolute authority on whether an event they witness actually occured, or if it was merely imagined. How do we know we are not insane, living in our own imaginations, because if we are, we would not be aware of it!