How many people here believe objects continue to exist when not being experienced?

Question

Cognitive development research indicates that what is typically considered adult cognition moves through a regular sequence, from 1) largely sensory content (sensations), to 2) sensations organized according to a concept of "objects" persisting in the world, to 3) objects organized in terms of a coherent location and movement in a single integrated space, to 4) recognition of causal laws used to predict the behavior of said objects.

Only the first stage is *purely* evidence based. Everything else about what we call an mature view of the world is contributed by the mind (subjectively). Obviously, for instance, no *experience* could suggest objects persist *when not being experienced*. That space is an integrated whole is even more abstract, and unsupportable by finite evidence. Finally, since Hume we have known that "causality" is a dubious concept (logically). But science does work, and not simply on "faith". So, what do you think is going on, and how?

Answer 1

Life is but a dream. But it's MY dream.

This question, it's my dream. my answer, my dream.

your life, an intricate yet fairly in-significant part of MY dream. you see, your existence has been fulfilled with the asking of this question.

ciao

Answer 2

I am an irrealist.

The thesis is roughly this: 'Objects' exist, but we can only infer their existence from mental sensations. Our sensory evidence for the existence of mind-independent objects is purely inferential - usually irrealism supports a kind of object-skepticism. In the extreme: idealism.

The irrealism I support is thereby an epistemological thesis more-so than metaphysical. Some irrealists deny the existence of objects (for epistemic reasons), and they are commonly called idealists (which is a misnomer - it ought to be 'ideaism' or 'ideaists).

__________________

You ought to be more specific when you talk about objects. There are types of objects - mind independent and mind dependent. For instance, many metaphysicians hold that 'colors' like blue or red are mind-dependent objects. That is, they exist only in the mind of some perceiver; their existence is dependent upon a perceiving entity. In this sense, some objects are ontologically dependent upon others.

Mind-idependent objects, on the other hand, like the alleged tables, chairs, atoms, bricks, et cetera, are not ontologically dependent upon other objects. It is possible for an atom to exist without any other objects existing at all whatever - whereas for the object 'yellow' to exist (or property 'yellow'), there must also exist some object that is a perceiving-entity.

________

I don't see how causation is totally relevant here. In science, particularly physics, they already suppose that objects exist, specifically material objects that have causal powers. In metaphysics, though, we do not presuppose them, although their evidence - or what we take to be evidence - is apparent to us...In any case, metaphysics is primarily about finding out what exists, what is fundamental for and to an exisent. With this concern in mind, the existence of mind-idependent material objects ought not be presupposed out-right, although it easy and commonplace to believe that they exist, as it is given that we trust our senses, and what better explination for sensation than an independent cause (like corporeal substance!).

_____

Why does science work? I think science works because mathematics works so well for us, and mathematics is purely conceptual. We set up models (in empirical-science) that are mathematical (non-empirical): absolutely precise mathematics, which is purely a conceptual affair, that we have as a model for what we experience. The mathematical propositions correspond - in some way (i'm not sure) - to the world, and we grasp the correctness of the models with the alleged world we experience, a resemblance or pattern. From many instances of this phenomena, we induce that it will continue to happen in this fashion, and probably has for eons. We establish laws, which we then deduce new theories that account for all types of experential phenomena....et ceteta. In short, I think this is how science *works* - and it works well.

Any way, I liked your explination and your question! A very old and great question.

Answer 3

"causality" being  a dubious concept  doesn't mean science cannot work.  It referrs to the first stage you mentioned above.  Science exists after first stage.

Answer 4

Hey, anything is possible.

Answer 5

There is no world "out there" because all the Universe is One.

Separateness is the illusion of the ego.

EDIT  Science, as a way of knowing the universe, can limit one's understanding. We can know holistically, without analyzing and trying to take  it apart into pieces..

Answer 6

objects, unless eliminated, always exist whether one is there to experience them or not. I have never been to the Great Wall of China but I know it exists. I have been to Hawaii, and far as I know to date it is still there where I left it. Being cognitive is as cognitive does. One is aware of one's surroundings at the time and when that event passes it is only able to remember that event and move on to the next event, the environment will continue whether one is there or not.

It is like if a tree falls in the forest and one is not around will it make a sound? Well, of course it does. Just because you are not there to hear it yourself doesn't mean a sound doesn't occur.

Answer 7

If we  have the ability to conceive there is something beyond the boundaries of what we call reality, is that not in itself evidence that objects "not being experienced" exist?  Perhaps this will not apply to what you are seeking, but it seems strange to me that a few brain cells on a very tiny planet in a very huge solar system can assemble vast quantities of what they call evidence and knowledge and present them as truths.  If we were to extrapolate ourselves into deep space and watch our planet disappear into the darkness of the universe just how tiny are those brain cells that think they can figure it all out?  It may sound like I'm being snide and perhaps I am a bit.  Science has built its box.  Faith is much more open-minded since it does not ignore reality but at the same time allows us to experience that which lies outside the box.

Answer 8

Never under-estimate the Power of the Spirit!!! This cannot be seen, smelled, touched,heard,felt, or be upheld by Science alone. Take an Eclectic look at " Operant Conditioning( Skinner) and Dr. Karl Jung's Theories of the " Universal Unconscious". Blend them in your Mind and you will get a much more Accurate Answer to your Question.

Answer 9

You need to be more clear on what your quesion(s) are.  

Not all of science works.

Answer 10

of course they continue to exsist. its material. its made of real things. so just cause you cant say weather there really is a chair in the other b/c you cant see it doesnt mean its not there. cause then two people experiencing the same objects illogical. physical things dont just dissappear.