No Unperceived Things Exist

(A) If a thing exists, then it can be proven to exist.

(B) If a thing is unperceived, then it can’t be proven to exist.

Given: A thing x is unperceived.

Prove: x doesn’t exist.

  1. x is unperceived. (Given)
  2. x can’t be proven to exist. (Modus Ponens on (B) and (1))
  3. x doesn’t exist. (Modus Tollens on (A) and (2))

Therefore by universal generalization, (C) if a thing is unperceived, then it doesn’t exist.

Define “perceived” … carefully.

Sensed through my input senses.

I am standing outside. I can see soil, I can feel it.

Does anything exist below the surface layer of soil that I see and feel?

No.

== an insect, void of cognitive thought.

What supports my weight and prevents me from falling through the visible soil?

What happens to ants when they go through a hole in the visible soil?

What holds trees upright in the wind?

Proof Ottawa doesn’t exist.

Lots of people have been to Canada, and can confirm Canada exists. Lots of people know Canadians, and can infer Canada exists. But no one has ever been to Ottawa, and we can, therefore, write off Ottawa as ever of existed.

Knowing that Canadians Lie, and Canada seeks war against the US, it is therefore logical to assume that the Canadians are lying about Ottawa, as a masterstroke of misdirection away from their real capital, Toronto, in case there is ever a war. They know our spies will never bother to drive that far north to confirm. Its just a couple if lakes and beavers in desolation, perfect to trick us to drop nukes on or commit tank divisions into attacking.

Occam’s Razor: Canada is the sum of all evil, as Ottawa doesn’t exist.

Buff said. Logic rules. Hi five everyone. …

Berkeley, Solipsism, and two dudes standing on a corner.

Neither of them exist unless the other observes them, according to Browser. So, if Billy drops dead, Bob suddenly disappears into thin air? Ah, he continues to exist because God is observing him. To be Bob is to be percieved; Bob esse est percipi.

But who is observing God so that God can exist?

Then many things popped into existence when they were perceived. They had no history before that. They did not exist and then they did. For example, if we are the only technological life form, then whole galaxies sprung into existence when we invented the telescope.

And before there was life on earth, there was no earth.

(or there is some kind of panpsychism or God or something that perceives, though I wonder how this is proved)

In a sense one could say that perceiving is not only creative, but the only creative act. It brings things into existence. But this is odd, since generally we think of perceiving things that already exist. As in we notice them. But we do not notice things, at least not the first time they are perceived, we create them. Or life forms create them. How did the first life form come into existence?

2op

perception without information = awareness.

you cannot perceive something without the derivative information concerning that thing.

conclusion; perception is simply our tool to read the world, we can and do use other instruments. the information in the world exists regardless of our perception of it.

  1. I suppose the visible soil, so long as your weight exists.
  2. They cease to exist.
  3. I suppose the visible ground.

Even an insect supposedly has input senses and perceives things. Cognitive thought seems irrelevant.

By “perceived,” I mean “perceived by at least me.” That is as much as I myself am certain. I don’t think any of you exist, since I’m not perceiving any of you. As much as I’m certain, the input I’m receiving on this thread is from a computer, and not necessarily from any or all of you as people conventionally believed to exist.

I suppose so.

Riddle me this, oh great philosopher.

If you jump into the area of a hungry lion in a zoo, will closing your eyes make him disappear as he leaps on you, tears your skull open, and eats your brain?

If so, this is a trick I would gladly see you try to perform in public!

In case you’re worried about your other senses magically bringing the lion into existence, we can drug you and numb all of them so you feel nothing… surely, because you feel nothing, there will be no lion… he will just disappear.

Contact me so we can set this up, you’ll be very famous if you can really do this! And you’ll be fairly famous even if you can’t…

So you believe that before there was life on earth, there was no earth?
and no sun?

This would mean that in the moment of the first perception, whatever it was a perception of, the perceiver was created and whatever the perceiver perceived.

In fact before the first life form, there was no universe. So there is no evolution to get to the first life form, there is no process in the creation of a perceiver.

Browser, have you ever really looked into the problems of solipsism? And if so, what do you think about them?

Actually that something CONTINUES to exist despite someone not perceiving it (any longer) does not contradict his ideas.

Ummm… what brain?

Can you see it?
Can he?
There is nothing to eat if his eyes are closed, not even those eyes (which never existed in the first place).

No. I think it does.

Ah, so his perception includes memory of past perception and not only the immediate? I’ll wait for him to confirm if that’s true.

Anyway, that sounds more like some extreme version of logical positivism than solipsism to me.

Good point, James :laughing: . So browser, do you agree with the conclusion that you have no brain?

And his eyes don’t exist until he looks into a mirror for the first time?
How did he look into the mirror if his eyes didn’t exist until he saw them?