It simply would not "be" as we percieve it but it would remain, this is a tree falling in the woods question. If someone happens along at a later time and see's a fallen tree they could assume it fell, dur.

We are not so grand as all that.

From god people who seem to think that without us and our brains everything else would cease to exist. But the earth is 4.5 billion years old and deep hominid history perhaps 4 or 5 million years at most. At what point in our recent history did the human mind reach the giddy heights of intellectualism required to develop a brain capable of 'creating' the entire universe via perception? Contending that before our modern naval-gazing time there was nothing in the universe is what's irrational. 

I think the OP needs to go and pray for guidance in this perplexing matter.

Edit: On second thought, this is clearly another handle for our resident troll.

To everyone:

Another way of understanding “to be is to be perceived” is in terms of the multiverse i.e. are we living in the universe, or are we living in a multiverse?

The idea of the multiverse is that the universe we perceive could be one of an infinite number of different types of universes. One of the multiverses could only be 1mm away from our universe, but we may not be able to perceive it if it is in a different dimension.

Each of the multiverses could have a different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values. Because of the anthropic principle, we live in a universe in which the physical laws and range of physical values are conductive to the type of life forms that we are. However, there may be other life forms in other universes elsewhere in the multiverse, which are defined by a completely different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values.

In short, if we are living in a multiverse (infinite series of different universes), rather than just this universe, then what we perceive the universe to be is not all that there is i.e. if we actually live in a multiverse rather than a universe, then the universe we perceive is just an infinitesimally small part of the multiverse.

George Berkeley’s "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) is compatible with the idea of a multiverse. That’s because in a multiverse, whatever we perceive is not what reality is. What we perceive may be only an infinitesimally small fraction of reality.

The question is, are we living in a universe, or in a multiverse?

Here is a programme on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008z744

That's a fine-and-dandy question, and not at all what you were saying in your OP.

What you seem to have said the first go-round was: "The universe would not exist if there was no perception of the universe." What you seem to be saying now is, "The universe as we know it would not exist if we were not here to perceive it, as it is in reality a slice of a larger whole." Those are two slightly different statements. The first is a question of existence; the second is a question of how our limited perceptions limit our understanding of the universe.

If i misconstrue what you are saying, I apologize, and ask that you clarify exactly what you are attempting to explicate.

Really Pissed - who cares about the multiverse. We don't know, can't know and that's the end of the story. Your talking about it in such a way as to seem to manouvre us to an admission of some possible reality that serves your as yet unstated agenda doesn't really take us anywhere. What are we really talking about here? Apparently we don't even know what the universe is made of, much less what's understand going on outside of it. In fact we don't even understand the nature of the planets in our own solar system. The weird magnetic field on Uranus for instance, or the incomprehensible core of Neptune. Talking about multiverses is mental masturbation without lubrication. 

Especially when when speculating about kinds of 'Multiverse' like he(?) is describing - universes co-existing and overlapping our Universe ...

Yes, that’s roughly what I’m saying.

If we live in a multiverse, rather than a universe, that contradicts naturalism and physicalism. That is because for naturalism and physicalism (including eliminative materialism) to be true, the universe has to exist as we know it, externally to and independently of what we know. If however we live in a multiverse, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Instead, the universe that we perceive only exists as our perception – ‘to be is to be perceived’. In a multiverse, the universe that we experience through our senses is relative to our perceiving minds. It is therefore inside our perceiving minds.

As for my opening post, the issue of size is another factor. What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive it? Or what form would the universe take as it exists, rather than as it is perceived?

What is the difference between the universe we perceive, and the universe that actually exists, and how big is that difference?

What if the difference is infinite?

This also answers others in a roundabout way. 

X exists and X is not perceived entails that X exists.

But that makes the perceiving mind totally dependent upon the ‘sub-category of universe in which it can emerge and survive’. If we live in a multiverse, and the universe we perceive is not the only universe, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know i.e. naturalism and physicalism are false.

Also important here is this: What is the difference between the universe as it is, and our perception of it? How big is that difference? If the difference is very great, then Berkeley’s idealism is true, because the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know.

I think you confuse logic with your personal feelings. Just because something offends your feelings, it doesn’t mean it is devoid of logic.

I’ve answered this question in post #18 (Posted on: June 27, 2010 - 6:39pm). Let me know if I’ve missed anything. Time is an important issue here.

That is a non-sequiter. It simply doesn't follow'.

All minds that we know of are aspects of material beings that cannot exist in a total void. That doesn't logically preclude a mind that can exist outside a physical reality, ie, a 'universe' of some kind, but we have no evidence of such.

What is the logic that gets you from there being other universes, to "the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know"??

You have not presented any logic, merely this naked assertion that "the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know". 

You seem to be letting your personal conviction that that is an unquestionable truth stop you from seeing that it needs to be logically justified.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The only conclusion you can draw is that "without our minds, the knowledge of the universe contained within our minds would not exist", NOT the Universe that that knowledge refers to.

You are making the same simple fallacy of conflating the object of our perception with our perception of it. Our perception of an object is clearly contingent on the existence of the object, but there is no logical dependency in the reverse direction. 

if A then B does not entail if not B then not A.

That is the fallacy of "Affirming the Consequent".

What logic are you using to come to your conclusion?

Are you "intellectually challenged"? 

at some recent point during human development of a perception of the universe - which dates back really only a hundred years or so - even less with actual mapping - we did not perceive the universe as existing. And in fact, there are still people in the world who have no perception of the universe even as we speak.

Where did our ancestors live before this perception/comprehension developed? Did they live on their perception of a disk-like Earth, with Ra whizzing around them?

To everyone:

Idealism supports theism. That’s why you don’t like it. If idealism is in any way logical, then that debunks atheism. That’s why atheists are so heavily opposed to idealism.

Berkeley’s idealism is highly respected in philosophy. It would not have that respect if it was not logical.

Physicalism and naturalism are called materialism. Theists don’t like materialism because materialism supports atheism.

Here is a better discussion on Materialism vs. Idealism in Physics Forums: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2677

“To be is to be perceived” is not a non-sequitur. It is the denial of John Locke’s definition of an invisible ‘substance’ upon which our perceptions are supervened. If you deny the existence of an invisible substance, then reality is only that which you perceive and nothing more. It is actually perfectly scientific to conclude that it is only that which we perceive which is real i.e. “To be is to be perceived”. That is a central axiom in science. It’s not even remotely a non-sequitur.

modus operandi.

NO. Atheists come to the position of non-belief in Gods primarily because they are of the inclination to require that knowledge be justified by empirical evidence, ie, that ideas cannot be self-justifying, they have to anchored in something beyond the mind which came up with the idea. It is because they see little or no justification for idealism that they do not accept the God concepts.

You have it backwards - rejection of idealism comes first, which normally leads to Atheism.

To the extent that it is respected in philosophical circles, that merely demonstrates the irrelevance of philosophy to the pursuit of actual insight and knowledge.

It is a circular argument - it is only supported in circles which to an extent share the same error.

It amounts to an argument from popularity, and/or authority, well-established logical fallacies.

That is true.

Theism is typically based on raw pre-suppositions, feelings, intuitions. The more intellectual Theist will then attempt to derive arguments in support of the pre-supposition, and reject out of hand any arguments which don't support, and also attempt show why they are invalid.

It is a non-sequitur, by your own argument, since you concluded what amounts to the opposite position to what is in Berkeley's statement.

IOW, you just deduced that "Reality is that which is perceived", IOW, "To be perceived is to be".

That is is still is not fully true, since it does not allow for imperfections in perception, both in perceiving something which does not actually exist, and not allowing for the close-to- absolute certainty that there is much that exists that we do not perceive.

The depths of your illogic are profound.

EDIT: It would be more charitable to assume you are deliberately trolling, trying to get us stirred up by throwing such patently absurd arguments at us. Otherwise we have to seriously consider you have a mental problem of some kind.

Are you going anywhere with this? 

You cannot logically defend idealism but all these other people could and therefore it must be logical and we are all meanies.

Have I got it right?

 To everyone:

It is actually materialism and realism that are the delusion. Idealism is much more logically sound.

Idealism makes more logical sense than materialism for the following reason: Everything that we know is knowledge, and knowledge exists inside the mind. Knowledge cannot exist within the brain, because the brain is itself knowledge that exists inside the mind.

Even the idea that the Universe is billions of years old is knowledge. The brain is knowledge, the planet earth is knowledge, and the rest of the universe is knowledge. Knowledge exists inside the mind. Therefore the Universe is inside our minds. That is perfectly logical.

And 'appeal to authority' is perfectly appropriate. We have to appeal to authority all the time. That is why we have leaders. We have to appeal to the authority of our leaders because we do not possess authority ourselves.

So the knowledge wouldn't exist without us, but does that mean that the universe itself no longer exists?  All idealism is is the conclusion that without our minds, the universe is irrelevant and unknowable, and EFFECTIVELY non-existent.  Idealists fail to realize that it still exists, whether or not they perceive it.  They then conclude wild things they think are possible, because they believe the universe is their mind/a collective mind/god's mind.  It is, in fact, not.

The only way to prove that the universe is not in your mind is to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, demonstrate that the universe still exists even though you do not.

They're called observational instruments.  You know, like a video camera?

The problem with that is that the brain is knowledge. Knowledge can’t exist inside knowledge. Knowledge must exist inside the mind. So the brain must exist inside the mind.

It’s because if we did not exist, then neither would the universe. The burden of proof is actually on materialism and realism. To prove that the universe exists independently of your knowledge of it, you have to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, present evidence that the universe still exists.

That’s a controversial claim. We have to trust scientific authorities when they make decisions about which pesticides are safe for human consumption, and which are not, for example.

But if no one existed, then neither would observational instruments, and neither would the universe.

You haven't provided a logical argument for your assertion that "the brain is knowledge", or that that statement even makes sense. I have repeatedly provided a coherent description of the relation between knowledge and physical objects, including structures such as our brain, which hold and support the process of consciousness which has concepts which refer to the existence of perceived entities.

You still have not provided any logical argument for your views, or reasons why my picture is illogical, just variations on this naked assertion, which in itself is not even a coherent proposition.

Your last statement is fine, right up to "therefore". The rest is true in the sense that a logical model of the universe exists within our minds, which is just another way of summarizing the first part of the statement.

Again I ask, why do you insist on identifying that vastly simplified model, representation, whatever of the Universe with the Universe itself? What is your justification for that step?

Ooh, but inanimate objects can serve as observational instruments without humans creating them.  Sand with a hoof print works as an example.  The impression in the sand is an 'observation' of the hoof that stepped on it.  No humans required to show that at some point something with a hoof stepped in the sand.

Now, the knowledge of said event requires a human, but the event itself does not.  Likewise, knowledge of the universe requires a mind (your mind), but its existence does not.