Question by heeltap: Do we exist bec we are perceived by God- the mind of God- just like whatever we perceive exists in our minds?
George Berkeley was a proponent of this metaphysical theory which is often called Subjective Idealism. The rule was “to be is to be perceived” That which remains unperceived by the mind does not exist. Because he emphasized direct perception he was considered an Empiricist along with Hume and Locke. However I think Berkeley was more of a Rationalist who focused on ideas implanted by God in Human minds. He was still mixing theology with secular philosophy trying to combine them. What do you think about the statements I have just made? 06-20-2007
Asking for your forgiveness ahead of time I am only seeking clarification of what you said. To that purpose May I ask these ancilliary questions of chessaholic: Exactly how did you perceive God? Is God real or is God a concept. Exactly how does one perceive a concept? Define *real.*
I don’t think we can perceive God by empirical means and to include imagining as a kind of perception is stretching the meaning of the acts or process of perception beyond its ordinary meaning. Berkeley imagined the analogical thesis my Q focuses on
Ideas are neither “dead or living” things. Ideas are information that we store in memory & use in many ways.
Best answer:
Answer by chessaholic
Well god does not exist, unless I perceive him, but we are talking about a subjective reality. The paradox arises that, it is because we percieve god, that he exists, and what you said about us existing becasue god percieved us, would be because we percieved god percieving us, and thus we are left with a situation bereft of sense! We exist because we think, cogito ergo sum, and god can come only after we think, becasue if we do not think, then god does not exist for us, and therefore I disagree with your statement.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Ideas are not conscious and god does not exist.
all i can say is that GOD IS every part of your perception and everything you have yet to percieve….your brain is your antenna and your attitude determines the range of thoughts… which added with the brain= mind of god
I like the statement well. Although it is impossible to perceive the mind of God in it’s entirety ( that would make one a god) I think God shows us the pieces our brain is capable of knowing.
If it’s true that for something to exist, we must perceive it, then, yes God must be perceived by us to exist, but that doesn’t say that God doesn’t exist, it just says that we are God.
Someone after Berkley used the same line of reasoning to imply that our perception only exists because we perceive it, which implodes the entire argument. Matter doesn’t exist, mind doesn’t exist- what else is left?
It stands then, that our perception is not the arbiter of existence, but, rather a lens with which we view it.
I am not a proponent of empiricism. Things exist whether or not they are perceived by subjective experience.
For example, the planets existed before we had the understanding and tools in place necessary to perceive them, as did molecules, atoms and a host of other things now known to exist which were imperceptible to previous generations.
Not only does what we perceive exist in our minds, but what we “create” in our minds, exists.
Therefore, we exist not because we are perceived by God, but because we were created in God’s mind.
UPDATE: Exactly how did you perceive God? Is God real or is God a concept. Exactly how does one perceive a concept? Define *real.*
Real = Existing. Existence is not dependent upon perception or non-perception, evidence or not. Real IS. A concept is an idea about reality/existence. Therefore, God is Real, and also a concept.
Every idea is already in existence. There is no true “creation”. We “create” when we uncover what already exists. There is nothing that can truly be created, only discovered. Einstein’s concept of no time supports this idea. If everything in the universe already exists at once, with no time, then nothing can truly be created that does not already exist.
Arguably, that is what science is: the discovery of what already exists.
How do most scientists come upon a “discovery”? They begin with a theory, a hypothesis. They perceive a universal Law that is already in existence and continue by proving their theory with physical evidence.
Scientists do not create the Laws. They only reveal Laws that already exist. Scientists who rely on empirical evidence are limited in their ability to perceive existence, because they are confined by conventional physics.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, is beginning to support certain metaphysical theories.
Why is God *real*, then? Because God exists.
He has existed in the minds of men and women throughout time, in every known culture. He does not exist simply because the human mind “creates” him – we can not “create” something that is already in existence. The human mind does, however, perceive Him because He already exists. There would be no concept of God, if God were not Real, or as I have defined Real: in existence.
To answer your question on a personal level: I didn’t perceive God until I believed in the concept of God. That is when evidence arrived to support the concept of God. I could not perceive this evidence, however, when I didn’t believe in the concept. That is where Faith and Belief step in. Faith is trusting that what we can’t yet perceive is already in existence.
Furthermore, if great minds like Einstein, Jung, and Hawking can believe in a Creator, then so can I.
We were created by God from the rib of Adam, not perceived.
Just like he created the moon and the stars and all that exists.
What we perceive in our minds is our own opinion..
No. There is only one ‘thing’ and that can’t be experienced through your senses or the thought mechanism. Perception is sensual and a result of imagined serparation from this ‘thing’. This ‘thing’ is not a god that percieves anything. It is something below and above what we can touch with our usual methods. The universe and all moving, transforming energy is percieved and thereby not this ‘thing’ directly. You want to look for something tangible and definible so you can capture it and control others with your knowledge of it. Not possible. We are this ‘thing’ and the use of your dead ideas that were learned from other dead ideas will never succeed in capturing this living ‘thing’.
As someone pointed out, the main problem with Berkeley’s idealism is that it has difficulty explaining an external world. Essentially, he solves the dualistic problem by denying that the external world exists. As someone pointed out, for example, it is clear that certain things exist of which we are not aware: it would be silly to posit that they came into existence simply because one just learned about them.
To some degree it is appealing to speak of a certain cognition existence along with one’s perception. However, it is also troubling to speak of the complete existence of things which others have already seen and understood. God may be the universal melting pot of all ideas, but Berkeley’s explanation leaves a bit to be desired. Certainly Merleau-Ponty went a good deal further with this theme in The Primacy of Perception.
One cannot deny that there is a good deal of rationalism in Berkeley, but he seems to be fundamentally an empiricist. Your comment concerning his mixing theology with secular philosophy, however, begs the question: who divided it in the first place? It would seem that the burden of proof falls upon you to separate them.
While Berkeley’s idealism solves various epistemological problems, it ultimately fails in its inability to be able to explain a material world separate from ideas. If, in fact, the perceived material world were only a matter of God’s idea along with what we already call ideas, then it is odd that the perceived external world operates so differently from what we call ideas, which are apparently only internal to ourselves. Interesting though he is, Berkeley perhaps provides for more problems than he solves.
God is what people call the multi-dimensional reality in which we are embedded – because they sometimes are aware that it is responsive to consciousness – to our needs, choices, prayers etc. Reality does not perceive us, it mirrors our mind/body beliefs – what we have learned/been taught to believe about self and the world.
We – on the other hand – only perceive what we already “believe” to be true – IF we identify with the learned ego. This faith controls our thought system and feelings and worst of all – our perceptions. Hume’s epiphany in young adulthood was about this habituated perceptual system.
Until we become aware of our learned egoic self, we cannot remember and live according to our authentic nature and are forever limited by the ego’s little ideas of power.
esse est percipii?
no bloody way.
*kicks a rock* “i refute thee thus, sir.” samuel johnson