No... because you can't define the 'existence' of something without perception that means our whole knowledge and knowing of reality and truth revolves around perception.
All I'm saying is that existence is not dependent on human perception, that is a very lofty assertion, for our understanding is fundamentally limited. If the Earth was never formed and man-kind never came to be, does that mean the Universe then would have never existed? I'm not trying to refute idealism, just trying to show that any philosophical theory has issues. Yes our understanding revolves around what we perceive, but it does not mean irrevocably that existence relies on that perception. It's not very apparent but it seems like there is a bit of "begging the question" going on here.
things do not need to be percieved to exist, we never knew of atoms for thousands of years, yet we are still made up of them. Not to mention, the universe is infinitely diverse, we are simply restricted to our own senses and bias. Idealism is only true is if you want it to. I personally think that there is a universe full of thing we haven't perceived, never will be able to imagine perceiving, and never will perceive. There will always be information and discoveries to be made that will change our view on the world, just look at the difference between our view of the physical universe today vs. 1200 A.D.
think about this, we are told there is a heart beating in our chest, that our brain is making a million calculations a second, we havent seen our heart for ourselves, but we find those statments to be true because other people made these discoveries
Define what the universe is without reference to perception? Is it replete with gaseous clouds? How do you know what a gaseous cloud is in the first place? Hmm... I wonder? And how did we come to know the reality of atoms? From the discoveries of our perception? "we are told there is a heart beating in our chest" -- Define to me what a heart is without reference to perception? Is a heart that red thing that beats?
So its like number 2 then, (sorry i edit posts after more thought into the matter.) which is to say we can't know if thoughts actually exist. Which actually requires me to think more, damn it....
The idea is that we can perceive these things. They are able to be perceived. The idea of the atom has been spoken of in ancient literature, the idea of the universe being vibration. Ideas exist as conceptual thought forms which can be categorized by similarity. Through understanding one thing, we are better able to understand countless others, simply because things are connected. In my imagination I have perceived incredible things.
I have to say, number two is giving me a hard time. As i believe all of existance is begun on thoughts, how can one know if their thoughts exist, and not that they are not simply obeying programming.
Why do these things prove idealism though? They prove that humans can not describe what exists without perceptive adjectives, that is all. All I'm trying to point out is that based on simple logic something unperceived by humanity is not proven as not existing. I understand what you are trying to explain, but the argument has a leap of logic. Not trying to tell you that you are wrong per se, just that the argument needs work.
Well then I'm sorry but your argument is a very convoluted one, this assertion is not easily understood from it. I appreciate the deep thinking but until you find a way to make it much more concise the discussion will just be a back and forth confusing mess. You have some great points but I think a deeper study into the fundamentals of philosophy will help you develop your argument.
You can know that you yourself are thinking, but no other. In fact you cannot even know if you guide your own thoughts, have free will.
Funny you mention that... I don't think we are the sole producers of thought, not at all, should be pretty obvious, but, I do think our powers lie in cultivating and guiding certain thoughts - as opposed to others.