What's the world like when nobody is there to perceive it?

you can't see it

>>3196177
This is the sort of thing a fucking toddler struggles with. Did you skip that stage of development or something?

File: viking pepe.png (5KB, 240x134px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 240x134px

>he hasn't understood qualia yet

>>3196195
that's not an answer though

if it's obvious a toddler ca grasp you should be able to clearly explain it

it's 100% likely the question also frustrates you so you lash out at me because you too can explain it

because you're a faggot cunt loser with low self esteem and it makes you feel better acting like you one of the most fundamental questions about reality comes so easily to you, and not me

basically, you're an idiot

and I mean that in the literal sense, you're stupid, you can't grasp things, it's above you, you're beneath me

in summary, please end your life by tying the nearest ligature around you neck and cutting off the supply of oxygen to your brain until your life fades from your eyes, thanks

like I'm actually serious, I would unironicaly pay good money perhaps 200 american dollars to watch you commit suicide over webcam right now

ligature yourself cunt, end your fucking life cunt

>>3196305
>says the faggot who asks if things dont exist when your not looking at them
The american education is strong with this one

I think you are misinterpreting idealism OP. It is not a game of peekaboo.

Consider the question of where the mind ends and the external world begins. It can't be your body, you can chop off a finger and it won't affect your mind. Brain damage will change you, though you still exist.

There is no clear delineation. This implies your mind and the outside world are connected, part of the same thing. This begs the question whether your mind is part of the universe or the universe is part of a mind, or maybe something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN6Fh2i8LQo

>>3196372
I think it's you that's misinterpreting

is the wall behind your head part of this universe, that consists of what's mind?

if so, what is this wall like

>>3196505
The universe had to exist for life to come into being.

>>3196927
This presupposition about the universe creating the mind instead of the mind creating the universe.

Can't be proven. The best we can do, as descarte says, is that the "I" exist. However we know in modern science and psychology, the concept of "I" is a false narrative. So when even your "self" doesn't exist, what is there to exist?

>>3196953
The self exists. You are correct in saying that we can't know anything else exists. But I see no reason why it shouldn't

File: 4.png (352KB, 580x391px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 580x391px

>>3196220
>he thinks qualia are real

>>3196505
>is the wall behind your head part of this universe
There is evidence the wall exists even though I am not currently sensing it.

The wall can be compared to other components of my mind. Like memories. Though I am not recalling a memory at this time, you would consider it part of my mind. Would you not? If not then what is the mind?

Is it a small fleeting moment consisting of whatever thoughts are in my head at the time or whatever neurons in my neo-cortex are firing off? Or is it a point in time? If it is a point, how do neurons have the time to interact?

I don't have the answers to such questions. All I can say is that it casts doubt on the notion the mind is totally distinct from whatever is causing sensory input.

>>3197016
There is no evidence of self in any sense. There's memories, habits, consciousness, learning capabitlities of the brain and so on. All of those can be changed at a moment's notice. None of them separate can be called the "self". All combined cannot be called the self since when they change, drastically via injury or gradually over time, the "self" changes from one to another.

Either way, the idea of self is more of a nominal view than concrete basis.

>>3196927
>The universe had to exist for life to come into being.

so yeah, you are misinterpreting idealism

>>3197094
>There is no evidence of self in any sense.

I mean, aside from the fact you've lived your entire life as one..

>>3197072
>There is evidence the wall exists even though I am not currently sensing it.

I think the wall is part of my/your conceptual scheme. the way in which we mentally frame our sensory experience. we build the world with our minds around the incoming senses.

>Is it a small fleeting moment consisting of whatever thoughts are in my head at the time or whatever neurons in my neo-cortex are firing off? Or is it a point in time? If it is a point, how do neurons have the time to interact?

this is all based on the idea that neurons exist independent of human minds, and give rise to our minds materially/physically. which is the very question being discussed in the thread. I do not believe in a material world. neurons do not exist beyond human experience. they don't exist outside our minds, creating them.

which when you think about it, is nonsensical anyway. neurons are a scientific, linguisitic concept. how could this quintessentially human thing, pre-exist human minds? we created neurons, we hypothesized them.

>from whatever is causing sensory input.

who says it needs a cause?

>>3197926
Presupposes that it is somehow a "self" that experiences rather than collection of experiences/memories accessed by the conscious/awareness of things.

Still not proven.

We went through this shit with Descartes, Berkeley, Locke, Kant and Hume.
Get with the times.

>>3196372
If you cut your finger, it will affect and change your mind.

>>3197967
proven to whom

>>3196177
there is no knowledge other than what is gained through perception. any world that can be understood by you is one that can be perceived.

if it is different it is so in ways that are ununderstandable for you.

>>3196305
Chill dude

>>3196177
Matter and energy existing in spacetime. Just like now.

Your perception of the world is entirely one of your own mind, constructed so it can differentiate different places, objects and events from one another. The universe is "invisible" without something to interpret information about it, ie you. But it will still function in the same way.

>>3198248
Presuppositions aren't proofs to anyone?

>>3196338
>Subjective Idealism is American
Plz read a book

>>3196177
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence

>>3199316
he's asking a philosophical question not a question of how humans perceive things. of course we perceive object permanence to be a real thing but that doesn't mean it actually is.

>>3196305
>sperg struggles with object permanence

Pottery

>>3199517
>>3199337

>>3199316
>>3199517
you guys are just idiots

why would you even bother making a response like this? it just shows how little you grasp the topic being discussed.

me:
>what's the nature of object permanence?

you:
>hurr toddler here's a wiki link to object permanence

just another pair of idiots