Oh, here I was thinking you were gonna come up with something that actually proved your point. *sigh*... this forum isn't what it used to be. Don't know why I even come here any more.
I didn't say I knew everything that was in my mind. I just said everything was there. Big difference. Either way, it's not a stance I actually take, I was just being argumentative. I see its merit though, and really the only reason I'm not an idealist is because I don't want to live in that world, because it allows the possibility that I can control/know everything. Which is boring, I'd rather live in a world out of my control, full of wondrously knew experience. Either way though, a truly conclusive argument can't be made either way. It's basically a choice to a belief, followed by a leap of faith. Where you go wrong is you fail to see the other side of the coin as a plausible scenario.
Do you not understand... what u call "proof", is something unattainable, because you don't utilize your coherent & common sense before demanding it. A blind man CANNOT "see", in a dream, what objects "look" like... End of story - "Proof" is in the puddin', for a reasonable man, at least.
The thing-in-itself is present, even if I'm not "perceiving"it. By the logic of Idealism - opposing objective reality, the world does not exist, if we're not perceiving it. It's all in the mind... so, by this logic, the world doesn't exist when we are sleeping(no perception). If the world doesn't exist when you're asleep, then how is it - that if I were to roll over and fall off my bed, I'm still asleep while in the air - before hitting the ground, I would collide with "fake" projections of the mind? This example shows that... the thing-in-itself subsists outside of the mind, and thus, it must precedes minds.
do you really think there is no perception while you sleep? i wonder what a light sleeper thinks about that claim.
No, I know there is external 'things" galvanizing perception while you're sleep... and that's why I was refuting an idealists stance. But, while someone is immersed in sleep... there is NO perception; a light sleeper, perceives, in response, to external stimuli... So, if there isn't a deluge of stimuli, the "light" sleeper will remain in the realm of no perception.
so if there is is stimulus, a light sleeper might wake. if the stimulus causes the waking, it is by means of perception after becoming aware of sensory information related to the stimulus. it could probably be argued that even if a person does not wake, their dreams might be affected by external stimuli and the perception thereof. i don't know if this fact affects your claim, but it does seem that you can't use the false "fact" of this lack of stimuli to support the claim.
Okay, I see what you're saying... but, nonetheless, things ARE outside of the mind - and that was my point by this example.
Objects are not, solely, contrivances of the mind; a mind cannot, before experiencing it, create the appearance of an essence; but, it can, mentally constitute new appearances, based on an appearance, it(the mind) once truly experienced. Let’s say after John “perceived” an elephant, a grey one, and then, after he experienced a pink rose, by way of the five stages of sense, he fell into a coma - into the darkness. It is possible, after experiencing the grey elephant, and pink rose, his mind, in dream form(hallucination), will create the image of a new rose and a new elephant, and make it seem as real, as the elephant, and the pink rose, he once originally experienced, through the five stages of sense. His mind can now, constitute a new appearance on the original appearance; it can deform the image of the rose, and elephant, and create a whole new rose, and new elephant. -In appearance, never in essence. In John’s dream, the mind, unconsciously can, create a new reality, where elephants' are pink, and the roses are grey and smell like elephants. How can u conceive fire and all of its "attributes" without ever experiencing it? YOU CAN'T. By using this example, I want to prove that, at one point in my life, I’ve experienced the original, independent world of essence, in appearance. If I’m dreaming right now, and mentally creating erroneous appearances based on the original appearance-essence, but still consciously thinking within this world of erroneous appearance, I know, that I’ve been conscious, in the real world, the world essence, at some point in my life.
did i not use the phrase "i don't know?" one thing I know is that I am wrong about a lot of things. there is a lot to convince me that most of the things i know originate from outside of me (music being the most powerful example to my mind), but nothing absolutely definitive. perhaps i am the man, and perhaps i am the butterfly. i am generally in agreement with the idea of objectivity, although i can never embrace that absolutely. "a mind cannot, before experiencing it, create the appearance of an essence" this is without foundation. if you demanded it, i could probably describe something that might exist that i currently have no experience of. but there's no need - science does that pretty regularly. the notion of a spherical planet was around well before anyone laid eyes on it. the same with black holes.
If you've NEVER experienced ANY sensation and phenomenon - a vegetable since birth... how can ONE have thoughts, ideas, and concepts? They can't. It's like a blind man having a dream about the "appearance" of fire... it's not gonna happen.
that's sort of like the nothing/something argument. for one thing, we don't have a whole lot of definitive experience regarding what it's like to be a vegetable for the obvious reason. we can make that prediction based on measurements, but i don't know if we can know with absolute certainty that it's right. consider this: what if the rules as you have conceived them are something your mind has created to keep you from realizing that everything you know was created in your mind? in that case, your convincing argument might be a lie to yourself. IF everything you know is a creation of your mind, then everything that tells you otherwise is included with that. ^ granted, this leads primarily to confusion, which is why i think the assumption of objectivity is useful, but it's not a question to be ignored in my opinion.
Sensation is galvanized by external stimuli... this is asserted with reasoning; because a brain reacts. But as I've said before, some knowledge is intangible, and CAN be divulged with Reason - this is one of them... of an objective reality.
I'm not sure you've really considered what I asked you to consider. Consider that everything you just told me might be a lie you are telling yourself. If you are subconsciously convincing yourself of those statements, you will of course consider them superior statements. But I'm not sure you've considered that what you call stimuli - and what you call reasoning - might be defined completely internally, giving only the illusion of an external world. Our minds are chemical machines, as evidenced by certain recreational practices - you can completely change the way you perceive the world. It's hard to be 100% certain of what is real. It's easy to assume that what is evident is real unless you have a good reason to say otherwise. So if you don't see a cat cross the alley a second time... why question it? Doesn't mean objective reality is absolutely true... but the assumption otherwise is very inconvenient, and very difficult to discuss with factual clarity.
There is one problem with this... If it were this way, wouldn't there be mass amounts of disagreements on what a palm tree looks like? Meaning, if 100 different people, all of them are coherent and can see color in sight, saw a palm tree, would each have a disparate answer? No, there is for the most part, a standard perception of what a palm tree looks, and of things-objects in general, in regards to its specific features and attributes. And I understand that perception can be amplified or dulled in subjective perception - in one perception the green of palm tree leaves can be a lot more present, and in the other perception, the green of the leaves can be quite dull. We can alter reality and perception with our minds to a certain extent, (we live in the world of appearance, we do not create its essence), but we cannot transmute it. Perception is an unconscious ability; our minds, without our own conscious consent, translates in appearance, the world of essence. The mind and the thing-in-itself are working in congruence, in order to manifest phenomenon, and it's "attributes" and modifications, in appearance. The tree has features, only because, the mind allows it to be as such; we are pre-hardwired in regards of how to interact with the external thing-in-itself.
It does not matter if there are 100 descriptions of what a palm tree looks like if they all came from you. That could just be your way of saying "it looks like this... or it looks like that... or that." All 100 of those people might be you. I don't think you're grasping what I'm telling you quite yet. If EVERYTHING is inside you, then all the disagreements about this or that perception can just be disagreements with yourself over how to describe your sensations. If it's all inside you, then I'm just a strand of your gray matter talking to the whole. Or you're just a part of me who doesn't seem to be ready to accept that everything I know could be something I created to entertain myself... I don't like getting too far into thinking like this. I'm just being the devil's advocate. I don't see a convincing way to resolve the mind/body problem. I think it's best to continue assuming the objective reality, I just also think that it's a mistake to assume it can't be otherwise.