Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[ImpyTimpy]

You can't. I tried to present this argument for young Kenneth a while back but he didn't understand it. In effect, we're taking our existence based on a degree of "faith" - that is, what I perceive is me existing in a real world and not some illusion. I have no evidence either way so I believe that what I see is what I see and I'm not locked away in a mental institution...

Going back to the original topic with this idea, does my perception of the world somehow alter anything however? Hardly. The base line is, even if my perception is false, there's some sort of objective reality outside that perception. For example, I find myself in a mental institution. Subjectively, I perceived myself to be typing this message, but objectively, I am simply an inmate in a mental house. Subjective reality therefore has no bearing on objective reality.

I like this concept. For the sake of argument, I hereby accept the possibility that I am not concious and assert that I am some kind of simulation or figment of someone else's imagination that is complex enough to respond as if it is concious.

Really, how could I tell the difference?

 

[c4ts]

You can't. I tried to present this argument for young Kenneth a while back but he didn't understand it. In effect, we're taking our existence based on a degree of "faith" - that is, what I perceive is me existing in a real world and not some illusion.

But even then I would not call that a sort of faith either, because faith is more of a kind of trust that someone or something will honor their word. The world as we observe it makes no promises, and we have to go by what we can perceive. Illusion or not, it all seems to be there. So what we do is rationalize, and that includes using our sense of pattern recognition. This mean assuming that if something behaves a certain way, i.e. a rock falls to the ground when you let go of it, it will continue to behave that way, i.e. the rock will always fall when you let go of it. This appears similar to faith, but the rock has made no promise to always fall, and by not posessing any volition, it is entirely subject to any forces that would cause it to fall up instead of down. We simply assume that the pattern of falling down when dropped will continue. So the way we rationalize the world around us is not a really a kind of faith, nor is how we determine it to be an illusion or not.

 

[Upchurch]

But even then I would not call that a sort of faith either, because faith is more of a kind of trust that someone or something will honor their word. The world as we observe it makes no promises, and we have to go by what we can perceive. Illusion or not, it all seems to be there.

The point I was trying to make was to point out the hypocracy of the amaterialists (for lack of a better word) who say that accepting one set of senses as representing something that is real is "faith" but accepting another set of senses as representing something that is real is "patently obvious". One argument is that if we accept one set and reject the other, the world is a much simpler place. However, when I suggest that it is even more simple to reject all our senses, that is seen as silly.

Besides, whoever said that the world was a simple, uncomplicated place?

It's not so much about what is real or what is not real as much as it is about where the threshold of acceptence is for what we've been calling "inputs". If one is going to be consistant and yet still rejects the material world senses as possible illusion, one much have a legitemate reason for not rejecting the amaterial (again, for lack of a better word) world senses as possible illusion as well.

To reiterate an example I used above, I can feel my desk and I can feel my emotions. If one is suspected of being an illusion purely by the fact that senses could be fooled, then the other must also be suspected of being an illusion as well.

edited to fix terminology

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
But "mind" is unnecessary as well.

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?

Wouldn't it be even more simple, more parsimonious if there were nothing at all, not even mind?

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post.

You've not justified why matter is discardable but the mind is not.

You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. I am simply asking you and your Atheist friends to prove your assertion. So far I see a lot of obfuscation, logical fallacy and question dodging, but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

If there is no mind then I cannot tell you …

Can’t tell me what?

(1) because I don't exist to tell you

Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

and (2) there is no you to tell.

Because I am a figment of the reader’s imagination?

All this would be merely an illusion. For who or what's benefit would beyond knowing.

At least to us figments …

Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.

Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest.

I merely taking your reasoning to it's conclusion where I am skeptical of not only the reality represented by my senses but of the reality represented by my internal senses as well. Why reject one, but not the other?

What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?

Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

Franko:
I would classify all incoming information as INPUTS (Perception), all outgoing information as OUTPUTS (Expression (Speech, action)), and all internal manipulation of information as PROCESSING (Cognition).

Upchurch:
Incoming from and outgoing to where?

Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.

… The physical world? How do you know that exists?

You don’t!

But YOU are the one that claimed Solipsism was a dead end … not "me".

When you express, speak or act, where are you doing all this?

Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?

If "you" are processing information, where are you doing that and how do you know for sure?

You know for sure because you just said you were processing information. If you weren’t processing then you wouldn’t have been able to generate the expression (output).

Franko:
Cognition relies on Memory. Memory is an internal source of inputs (i.e. not requiring the senses), but then again, for all you know all inputs originate internally.

Upchurch:
Or, for all you know, all the inputs originate externally. How do you know?

What?

Are you claiming that your memories are external to your mind? Upchurch you seem to be talking a lot of nonsense in this post, which is odd, because up until yesterday you seemed like you actually wanted to have a conversation.

How can you differentiate?

… because if a perception comes from your senses then it is an External Input, and if a perception does not comes from your senses then it is an Internal Input (a Memory).

If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant?

Sure, but the universe you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?

If all inputs were external, wouldn't you expect that you could be made to believe that the inputs are logically consistant?

Yes, and external inputs are logically consistent. I don’t see what point you are trying to make?

How do you know anything is true at all?

Thermodynamics?

There might be others who consider what you consider to be "The Mind" to be supernatural. How do you refute them and assert that "The Mind" isn't supernatural?

For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself. I perceive no evidence that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible. In fact the Mind seems very comprehensible.

You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.

I never made that statement. I only stated that I categorize perceptions into two main groups:

1) Sensory Perceptions = External perceptions (via the 5 “senses”)
2) Memories = Internal perceptions

Franko:
If the incoming information has been tampered with, then either there is a mechanism for you to perceive this, or you cannot, and if you cannot perceive the tampering or detect it in any way, then from your POV its exactly the same as if the information is not being tampered with.

Upchurch:
Then you don't know whether your incoming information has been tampered with or not? Or even if your "thoughts" aren't just fabricated inputs? Then why do you claim the "mind" is real? Blind faith in your belief system?

You were the one who claimed that the information was (or might be) tampered with. All I am saying is that without any evidence (or logic, or reason) to believe it I see no evidence, or logic, or reason to believe it.

Apparently you possess the Atheist trait which holds that anyone who does not interpret the evidence in the most pessimistic light possible is basing their beliefs on “blind faith”.

If your definition of “Blind faith” is actually “a lack of utter pessimism”, then I would say I have “blind faith” by your definition. But then again I don’t consider Pessimism or Cynicism the same things as Skepticism or Reason.

I'm not saying anything about matter being more or less real than Mind.

Sure you are!

You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you.

I'm saying that if you reject the reality of your perception of one [Matter], how can you not reject the reality of your perception of the other [Mind]?

Like you I reject neither the real difference between us is that you claim Matter makes Minds, and I claim that Minds make Matter.

I Why be critical of one perception but accept the other with no evidence whatsoever? That is the double standard.

Well the fact that I don’t accept things based on no evidence what-so-ever is precisely why I cannot accept that what is only Information actually has an independent existence as Matter. I cannot accept your religion based solely on blind faith and logically fallacious arguments. Apparently you can. I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.

 

[Franko]

The point I was trying to make was to point out the hypocracy of the immaterialists (for lack of a better word)

Me personally, I am an A-materialist!

(or Amaterialist)

 

[Upchurch]

Me personally, I am an A-materialist!

(or Amaterialist)

If that is what you prefer, I will correct my post.

 

[Michael Redman]

Nothing exists until after we perceive it.

OK, either we are nothing (which doesn't make sense), or something (we) does exist before we perceive it. If we can exist before we perceive ourselves, then things can exist before we perceive them.

I don't understand how anyone can actually believe the statement is true.

 

[Franko]

Michael Redman:
Nothing exists until after we perceive it.

I don't understand how anyone can actually believe the statement is true.

Well, if I am imagining a planet with continents and oceans and entire races of people with diverse histories then my little imaginary planet doesn’t exist in your mind until I tell you about it (until you perceive it), so I don’t see what is so difficult for you to grasp about this concept.

Now I didn’t write the quote that you mention, and I don’t know that I would have worded it that way, but I do understand (I think) what the original poster meant.

I think what is causing the confusion is Objective Reality, or the universe. The fact is that until you perceived it, it didn’t exist in your mind (it didn’t exist for you), but the question is did it exist for anyone else?

Perhaps it did, but all that would mean is that:

Nothing exists until after someone perceives (or conceives of) it.

OK, either we are nothing (which doesn't make sense) …

On that “we” agree.

… or something (we) does exist before we perceive it.

How can you exist before you perceived your existence? That sounds like you are claiming your Soul exists eternally even if you are unaware (unperceiving) of it?

If we can exist before we perceive ourselves, then things can exist before we perceive them.

How can “You” exist before you perceive yourself? Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)?

 

[Bluegill]

Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?

Hmmmm. I guess we'll just have to try it. Do any of you know how to get a hold of Shirley?

 

[Upchurch]

So you are claiming that your mind is an illusion?

Okay, so there is nothing at all … just the mind of the person reading this post.

Why must there be a mind at all?

You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. {snip} but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

Actually, I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm asking you to prove your claim that (1) information exists, (2) information has any kind of reality and isn't pure illusion and (3) that there is such a thing as a mind that uses the information.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.

Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

Almost, except for two critical item. First, solipsism means that at least one mind exists. I'm saying that we don't know that, as I've outlined above.

Second, I don't agree that solipsism has anything to do with atheism. You have yet to prove this claim either.

Isn't this precisely what you do with your solipsism and "figment of your imagination" arguments? When you ask me to prove that I'm not the only mind in the universe, I ask you prove that the mind (mine or anyone elses) exists at all.

Yes, but if Solipsism is true then YOU are the only MIND that is capable of proving anything at all.

You need to stop relying on priest to do your thinking for you. If Solipsism is true there are no priest.

That's interesting. This is a new claim. If solipsism is true, how could the solipsist prove anything since all of the solipsist's perceptions are illusion? How, further, does the solipsist know that the solipsist's own thoughts are not illusion as well?

Please explain how the solipsist could ever prove anything.

What exactly are your “internal senses”? Are there little eyes and ears inside your mind?

My appologies. I thought we had already covered this. Do you not "see" your memories? "Hear" your thoughts? "Feel" your emotions? Are these not internal senses or, if you prefer, amaterialist senses? Why do you trust these senses as being representative of real things but not your external or materialist senses? It isn't consistant.

Oh, look. You answered your own question:

Internal = Contained within your own mind.
External = Outside of your own mind.

Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

That isn't what we're discussing. Please explain again why you believe that information is real?

Whenever you Express yourself you are outputting information. Whether or not anyone exist to perceive this information is an entirely separate question. One that you and your “friends” seem reluctant to consider for some strange reason?

You know for sure because you just said you were processing information. If you weren’t processing then you wouldn’t have been able to generate the expression (output).

But how do you know you are actually processing the information rather than what "feels" like you're processing information isn't just more illusionary input? Why can't you answer this simple question?

What?

Are you claiming that your memories are external to your mind? Upchurch you seem to be talking a lot of nonsense in this post, which is odd, because up until yesterday you seemed like you actually wanted to have a conversation.

Okay, let's review.

You say that the external/physical/material world is an illusion that is really just an input of information, right? If this is true, that why would you think that your internal input (memories, thoughts, emotions, etc) aren't also an illusion that is really just an input of information?

Further, if your internal inputs are an illusion, wouldn't it be more parsimonious for their not to be a mind at all?

I thought you were for the simplist explination that makes sense.

… because if a perception comes from your senses then it is an External Input, and if a perception does not comes from your senses then it is an Internal Input (a Memory).

But if you have a perception (internal or external), you must perceive it through a sense of some kind (internal or external). How do you know that any of your perceptions are real?

If you're looking for logical consistancy, wouldn't you expect that, if you were generating it all yourself, you would make it logically consistant?

Sure, but the universe you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?

It certainly seems so, but you're the one claiming that it is not, even though you've never explained how. but that's off topic.

Thermodynamics?

Now who's telling jokes.

For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself. I perceive no evidence that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible. In fact the Mind seems very comprehensible.

You mean to say that you understand your own mind in every facet? What of your subconscious? Do you have intimate comprehension of that? Of your emotions? Or why you remember some details but not others?

I'm impressed. You're in the wrong field. You should be presenting psychology papers and lectures.

You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your "internal" senses but not your "external" senses.

I never made that statement. I only stated that I categorize perceptions into two main groups:

1) Sensory Perceptions = External perceptions (via the 5 “senses”)
2) Memories = Internal perceptions

Fair enough, I'll restate: You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your internal preceptions but not your external perceptions. Its like saying that you trust what you feel but not what you smell. Please explain why you trust some perceptions but not others.

You were the one who claimed that the information was (or might be) tampered with. All I am saying is that without any evidence (or logic, or reason) to believe it I see no evidence, or logic, or reason to believe it.

Then why believe your memories, emotions or thoughts? What evidence, logic, or reason do you have to believe those

You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you.

Not on this line of discussion I'm not. Trying to change the subject? I challenge you to quote where I have done this.

edited to fix piss-poor formating

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

Definition of Objective Reality

Impy what is the difference between subjective and objective reality?
Do you consider 1+1=2 objective? Are you saying that objective reality is conceptual?
Do you believe that objective reality is a species-specific agreement based on what they perceive. or do you feel it is universal.
If you consider 1+1=2 to be Objective, then how do you explain the non-intrinsic nature of each of the symbols, that their meaning is only relational?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Why must there be a mind at all?

Then who or what is having (imagining) this conversation … The Solipsist? … the Matter? … TLOP?

It really doesn’t matter though does it? You are still left with the same problem. Perhaps you believe if you can avoid it long enough it will magically vanish in the same way you believe it magically appeared?

Franko:
You are the one claiming that information is actually matter. {snip} but I haven’t seen any argument that information actually exist as anything other than information.

Upchurch:
Actually, I'm not saying anything of the kind. I'm asking you to prove your claim that (1) information exists, (2) information has any kind of reality and isn't pure illusion and (3) that there is such a thing as a mind that uses the information.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.

Why is it that you are unwilling or unable to defend the things you believe?

Our assertions are nearly identical, it is only that you make a few extra assumptions that I deem unnecessary. Instead of addressing those points you prefer to obfuscate the matter.

Why is that?

You are claiming:
1) That “matter” exists
2) That “matter” exist independently of perception/observation.
3) That “matter” creates a thing called “mind” that enables the “matter” to perceive itself.

All this seems to be based on assumptions that you can't prove and is, therefore, completely based on faith.

Franko:
Upchurch, for a long Time I have been saying that Atheism is essentially the same as Solipsism. Now you seem to be agreeing.

Upchurch:
Almost, except for two critical item. First, solipsism means that at least one mind exists. I'm saying that we don't know that, as I've outlined above.

Obviously you do not believe that or you would have stopped “posting” long ago. But perhaps you are right? Perhaps you never really posted at all? Perhaps the one person who is reading this has just been imagining your posts (and mine) all along?

Second, I don't agree that solipsism has anything to do with atheism. You have yet to prove this claim either.

Well, once you finally succeed in perceiving the unified physics equation, and you put it inside of your head you will realize that it has been running there quietly and has been generating this universe all around you, all along.

That's interesting. This is a new claim. If solipsism is true, how could the solipsist prove anything since all of the solipsist's perceptions are illusion? How, further, does the solipsist know that the solipsist's own thoughts are not illusion as well?

Please explain how the solipsist could ever prove anything.

Free Will is a wondrous thing, the only problem is there was never more than one entity willing to pay the price for it.

I thought we had already covered this. Do you not "see" your memories? "Hear" your thoughts? "Feel" your emotions? Are these not internal senses or, if you prefer, amaterialist senses? Why do you trust these senses as being representative of real things but not your external or materialist senses? It isn't consistent.

Well my question would be, why are your external senses more real than your internal ones? In other words, does the fact that you don’t perceive eyes inside your mind mean that you can’t see your memories?

Previously you had claimed that our physical eyes were just that – physical. Now you seem to be saying that you are still able to “see” things (memories) with imaginary mental eyes inside your mind.

My question is, if you acknowledge that you are able to “see” memories without physical eyes, then how do you know that your physical eyes are actually physical? Obviously physicality is not directly related to “seeing” so why do you claim that it is?

Franko:
Explain again why you believe that Information is actually hard stuff called Matter???

Upchurch:
That isn't what we're discussing.

Sure it is. At least that is what we were discussing. I can see where you might want to shift the point to some other tangent however.

Please explain again why you believe that information is real?

What I believe is that if you only have evidence for Information, then it is foolish to claim that you actually have evidence for Matter. Why you keep dancing around this point without actually addressing it is beyond my ability to comprehend.

how do you know you are actually processing the information rather than what "feels" like you're processing information isn't just more illusionary input?

Perceiving new (external) information is INPUT.

Manipulating information internally (i.e. perceiving without the 5 senses) is PROCESSING.

If those definitions are beyond your comprehension then I am not sure what else to OUTPUT.

You say that the external/physical/material world is an illusion that is really just an input of information, right?

I wouldn’t use the term “illusion”. I would say that this universe is a “shared reality” consisting of information generated by a common source (common to all observers).

If this is true, than why would you think that your internal input (memories, thoughts, emotions, etc) aren't also an illusion that is really just an input of information?

Well, I would say that all memories originated from the same common source. You perceive something, if you find it relevant you store it in your memory, and then you can perceive it later without access to the shared reality (the universe).

But like I keep saying, it is entirely possible that the “common source” (TLOP or “God”) is your own mind (Solipsism), but that doesn’t change one thing that I am saying.

Solipsism is irrelevant from my worldview. Whether it is true or not is a moot point.

Further, if your internal inputs are an illusion, wouldn't it be more parsimonious for their not to be a mind at all?

I never said that memories (internal inputs) were illusions, I simply stated that they consist of Information, and not Matter. You still haven’t explained why you believe your memories have an existence independent from your mind?

I thought you were for the simplest explanation that makes sense.

I am. And that is why I do not claim that something has an independent existence without verifiable evidence/proof/logic that it has independent existence. Do you consider unfounded and unproveable assumptions the simplest, most parsimonious explanation for phenomena?

But if you have a perception (internal or external), you must perceive it through a sense of some kind (internal or external). How do you know that any of your perceptions are real?

For the same reason I did yesterday when you asked this question.

Because an Input is the receipt of information. If you receive information – if you perceive it – then you have received INPUT.

As for it being “real” you will have to explain what you mean? You had been using that term to indicate made of independently existing “matter”, although that is not how I would define it.

Franko:
the universe (external) you perceive is logically consistent. Are you claiming it is not?

Upchurch:
It certainly seems so, but you're the one claiming that it is not

Upchurch, can you read or have you been completely blinded by Discordia? I just stated that the universe is logically consistent, and you just responded by stating that I claimed the exact opposite. Either address the points I actually make, or go off and imagine a debate with the person you are pretending me to be.

When have I ever claimed that the universe is not logically consistent?

Now who's telling jokes.

yeah, but the funniest part is that you didn’t get it.

Franko:
For the Mind to be Supernatural it would have to be ultimately incomprehensible to itself.

Upchurch:
You mean to say that you understand your own mind in every facet?

No, I mean exactly what I said. I see no reason to believe that the Mind is ultimately incomprehensible.

What of your subconscious? Do you have intimate comprehension of that?

It seems the older I get, the more I learn about it.

Of your emotions?

Ohh, I think I have learned a lot about controlling my emotions over the years. That’s another one that I feel I am improving with age.

Or why you remember some details but not others?

Same thing. I use to have no idea, now I have a vague idea.

You've still not distinguished the differentiator between why you trust your internal perceptions but not your external perceptions. Its like saying that you trust what you feel but not what you smell. Please explain why you trust some perceptions but not others.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I never said that I trust some forms of perceptions, and not others. All that I said is I can classify perceptions into 2 main categories: Sensory Perceptions (External Inputs), and Memories (Internal Inputs). Memories are derived from (originate from) Sensory perceptions, the only difference is that external inputs require an external source, while memories do not.

Franko:
You are claiming that Matter makes Mind. You are claiming that your Mind is really just a physical (matter) Brain, and you have no evidence for believing this.

All that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore the evidence that directly contradicts you.

Upchurch:
Not on this line of discussion I'm not. Trying to change the subject? I challenge you to quote where I have done this.

The subject of this thread is that nothing exist unless it is perceived.

Your entire line of arguments seems to revolve around the notion that Matter exist independently of consciousness (perception).

But perhaps you are confused about your own position?

… or perhaps you are just trying to confuse the poor reader?

 

[Upchurch]

Well, now you've just stopped trying and have fallen back on your old routine of strawmen, false acusations, and not reading what people actually say. I've read all that carp before and it's boring. I'll let someone who hasn't pointed out the multiple errors you make have a go at it rather than having all the (used to be) fun.

Have fun in the sandbox Good luck with you missionary work.

edited to add:

See? Didn't take uruk long to pick up the slack and home in on a big one. Good luck, uruk.

 

[uruk]

I actually require proof/logic for ALL my beliefs including my religious ones.

Could you show us this proof and how do you arrive at it?

 

[CFLarsen]

CFLarsen
You are using reason to determine the course of event, yet you have not demontrated how this reasoning is non-conceptual (i.e. absolute and impersonal). Yet it is exceedingly simple to show how it is conceptual and personal.
You are also holding on to the idea that the brick disappears when undefined. If I state that the unperceived brick disappears as it is flying thru the air or when it is hitting her, I will also be stating that the unperceived brick can also have existence.
In the unperceived "event" there is no time, there is no space, there is no mass or motion. All of these things are known by measurements, they are not intrinsic. The meaning of undefined is not the same as existence.

Just answer the question, please:

Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

I am talking about a perceived event. Not something "undefined". You are there, Antonio. You perceive that Shirley is lying there dead, with a brick in her head.

Who killed Shirley, Antonio? You or Bill?

 

[Franko]

Could you show us this proof and how do you arrive at it?

Sure. I believe all of the things that you believe, except I do not make the same unfounded assumption regarding “the Matter” that you make.

As I told Upchurch, I’d say all that you actually perceive is information, but you seem to want to claim (or pretend) that this information is more than just information. You want to claim that it has a life of it’s own independent of consciousness. You have presented no evidence for this belief, and you seem to want to ignore all the evidence that directly contradicts you on this point.

What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception?

 

[Franko]

Upchurch:
Well, now you've just stopped trying and have fallen back on your old routine of strawmen, false acusations, and not reading what people actually say. I've read all that carp before and it's boring. I'll let someone who hasn't pointed out the multiple errors you make have a go at it rather than having all the (used to be) fun.

Upchurch, are you running out of arguments? That posts is rather non-responsive.

But I saw it coming …

Funny how predictable you lovers of Discord (Chaos) seem to be.

… and here I thought you believed that the universe was so random, and stochastic, and magical?

 

[Michael Redman]

Isn’t self-awareness a requisite for bona fide existence (at least as a consciousness)?

Are you saying that existence is not a prerequisite for awareness? Doesn't something have to exist, and then become aware? Or do you think that awareness comes first, and then creates the existance?

 

[Franko]

Mike Redman:
Are you saying that existence is not a prerequisite for awareness?

I am saying that conscious existence and (conscious) self-awareness are the same thing.

If you are asserting a difference, then please specify what that difference is?

Doesn't something have to exist, and then become aware? Or do you think that awareness comes first, and then creates the existence?

I don’t see how you can have awareness without existence, nor do I see how you could have existence without awareness. Could you explain what you mean?

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
What is your justification/logic/reason/or empirical evidence for believing that “matter” exist independently of perception?

About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hans