Simon says... wrote:There is not anything that exists that is not perceived? Woa that is quite an assumption to be make there.
Not really, all the evidence is in support. Even the evidence of quantum physics. Bishop Berkeley puts it well. Etc...
I take it when a tree falls in the forest with no observers your one of the people who denies this?
What? That it fell? Made a noise?
The answer is simple science. No mysticism involved. And answered clearly by myself and others elsewhere on the forum.
"When a tree falls (or a hand claps or enjoying a Beethoven symphony...), a standing compression wave is created; a
'shock wave' (or, of course, multiples thereof)!
A 'shock wave' is
absolutely silent!!
If it acts upon a membrane, such as our eardrum, the wiggles jiggles and bumps of the eardrum are conveyed to and 'translated' in the brain and conceived/perceived as 'sound' (whether Beethoven or a smack in the head, all 'sound' is in the 'mind', as is all 'light/color', 'odors', 'textures', etc..., all 'sensory' percepts).
Outside your head, there is absolute silence, absolute darkness...
With no 'perceiver' there is no 'perceived'.
We are One."
Of course there is no evidence for it because all the evidence available has to go through our senses and thus might not be accurate...
Accurate? According to what parameter? Your perceptions? Science's percepctive? The Perspective of 'belief/faith'? Of a mouse?
If it is
perceived, it (exists!) is real! True! Incomplete!
But a lack of evidence prooves nothing.
Exactly!
But when there is all evidence to the contrary, your notion remains no more than an unfounded 'belief' based on imagination and/or emotional needs, etc...
It is neither science nor philosophy. It is 'religion'. And from that perspective, is 'valid'.
"Everything exists (
in context)."
That which exists is a
feature of the complete Universe, and in that context, 'valid/real/true'.
There is also no evidence to suggest that there isn't stuff that isn't perceived.
Poor statement. It is impossible to prove an absence, and a logical fallacy to request one.
The reason I assume that stuff exists that is not perceived is because I have literally no reason to suspect that it doesn't.
You would if you studied a bit of science. And logic. The same illogic is used to 'justify' everything from 'beliefs' in faeries and guardian spirits to life after death. If you see faeries, they are real for you and a real feature, in that context, of the Universe. Science and logic are not perspectives in support. 'Faith' and 'belief' are the context for all sorts of 'interesting' and horrible stuff. Your dreams and thoughts and beliefs are real, but not necessarily to or for other Perspectives.
Tree falls in forest with no observer, does this happen for real?
There is no evidence in support. Of course there are Perspectives that believe that it does. So it both does and does not, depending on context/Perspective.
Why on earth wouldn't it happen for real?
The same question can be asked to justify ('justification' is an emotional affair, not science) faeries and ghosts. You cannot prove an absence, so, utilising that cognitive fallacy, you can 'justify' (if you feel the need)
any 'belief'.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to explain this concept now seeing as, apparently not only does my logic escape you but my words too! If my words are usless how am I to explain anything whatsoever.
Your words are clear, but your logic needs a bit of polishing is all.
Seriously, what do you actually think is the case? That stuff only exists when you are observing it?
If I am not perceiving something, it has no existence in my perception of reality, my little world. That, in itself, is no argument that it does not, after all, exist in the perceptions of others, and thus a feature of the complete Universe.
Do I exist or am I just a figment of your imagination, does anything besides you exist?
As I said,
"Everything exists!"
Existence is perceived context. In/as the appropriate context, everything exists.
Even "figments of imagination".
I'm not asking if you know the answer to this cos u don't,
I 'think' that it is
irrefutable, that "everything exists (in context)".
It is all inclusive. The
complete set.
All further distinctions (subsets; 'this' exists 'that' doesn't...) fall to Occam's razor as added complexity with no gain.