Nevertheless, is it not the case that Berkeley is read by many to have used God's (sensory) perception of the world to be the basis for the OBJECTIVE sound of a falling tree despite the absence of a SUBJECTIVE-hearing human being?
That's what they read second-hand, anyway -- possibly an interpretation even started originally by his defenders. The earliest form of the "falling tree" may be from 1883 in an issue of a magazine called The Chautauquan
. If Berkeley was taken as the inspiration for it (actually unknown according to one account), then the source for such in A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge
would be the following passage, which lacks any reference to God. (Capitalized emphasis is from the published version, not from me):
But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it; but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call BOOKS and TREES, and the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? BUT DO NOT YOU YOURSELF PERCEIVE OR THINK OF THEM ALL THE WHILE? This therefore is nothing to the purpose; it only shows you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind: but it does not show that you can conceive it possible the objects of your thought may exist without the mind. To make out this, IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU CONCEIVE THEM EXISTING UNCONCEIVED OR UNTHOUGHT OF, WHICH IS A MANIFEST REPUGNANCY. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and does conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in itself.
The stereotypical belief that he, in the Treatise, claimed "God perceives" may have been derived from this passage found elsewhere in the TCPHK, about spirits or minds in general, which likewise doesn't mention the "G" word. I assume it's also one of the two problematic passages that George H. Thomas tried to debunk in his 1976 book Berkeley's God Does Not Perceive
THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER SPIRIT THAT PERCEIVES THEM [bodies] THOUGH WE DO NOT. Wherever bodies are said to have no existence without the mind, I would not be understood to mean this or that particular mind, but ALL MINDS WHATSOEVER. It does not therefore follow from the foregoing principles that bodies are annihilated and created every moment, or exist not at all during the intervals between our perception of them.
In another place he figuratively and floweringly refers to God as enabling other minds to perceive each other as bodies, but again there is no mention of this Supreme Being itself perceiving or having a sensory faculty:
He alone it is who, 'upholding all things by the word of His power,' maintains that intercourse between spirits whereby they are able to perceive the existence of each other. And yet this pure and clear light which enlightens every one is itself invisible [as are all minds, indicated elsewhere].
Thus, I was perhaps unjustified in even suggesting that he was clarifying or changing anything along that line ("God perceives") in his later works! (No need to revise what never was.)