Andrew108 wrote: Sherab Dorje wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:Actually no. If we used a non-sentient device to measure and map the mountain then we would know that whilst it is true that our sentience is perceiving the representation 'mountain', the mountain itself is not appearing only because of our sentience / perception.
A non sentient device requires a sentient being to construct it and thus will only be able to map characteristics observable to the specific type of sentient being. A camera, for example, is a non sentient device that takes photos of characteristics that are discernible to human eyes, but not necessarily discernible to other beings. Unfortunately what you are proposing is impossible.
All we need to prove is that the mountain has an existence outside of sentience. So the fact that it can be measured by a non-sentient device and has a series of values (height, mass, dimension and so on) mean that it has an existence outside of sentience. Another example would be using a non-sentient device to measure phenomena that don't appear to the senses. I am not denying subjective experience. What I am saying is that it makes no sense to say that 'there is only the subjective since any objective condition is merely an imputed condition that doesn't exist from it's own side'.
Blimey, been trawling through this thread which is great BTW!
I need to respond to this though
A108, I think the point you may be missing here (and I apologise if its been addressed later in the thread) is that nobody would say the mountain doesn't exist. More that it doesn't exist in the way that it appears. The same can be said for the photograph of the mountain, it do exists....but not in the way it appears.
Both appear to exist inherently and as independent entities. They don't of course. So the mountain appears to our mind, (no argument there) but its mode of existence is deceptive.