esse est percipi?

I always found Berkely to be very interesting. He was certainly very deep in thought a good deal of the time. Though I have always found him to be exceedingly interesting, I cannot say that I whole-heartedly agree with him. I do understand where he's coming from with his philosophical theories, but I can't agree that something is simply not there if there's no one around to see/hear/etc. it. I would say, for instance, that if a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, it still makes a physical noise but since no one can hear it ~ who cares? I also cannot agree with him, because there have been people who have left any form of civilization, they had experiences while they were living a hermits lifestyle, or on a vision quest, and then they returned, still real. But, perhaps he's really saying that we may cease to exist if we no longer perceive ourselves as real? Maybe it doesn't have to do with the way we are or are not perceived by others. Perhaps then, if the tree did not perceive itself as real there would be no noise. But then, in that instance ~ there would be no tree, because it would cease to exist. And, to that end, perhaps if a person honestly, truly comes to a frame of mind where they do not believe that they exist, they will cease to be. Then again, perhaps the theory really means that everyone has to agree that something is not real in order for that something to cease to exist. Perhaps if I believe that I do not exist, and everyone else believes that I do not exist, I will cease to exist. So, now we have three possiblities ~ that if everyone (with the exculsion of ourselves) stops perceiving us, we will no longer exist. OR, if just we reach a place where we no longer perceive ourselves we will cease to exist. OR, if everyone in the world can agree that we do not exist, we will cease to exist. That's a very interesting topic, with many possible interpretations.

It seems obvious that Berkeley's wrong, but when it comes to his arguments, who can beat them? All that we know about the external world comes from our senses, and to say they exist without us to perceive is to speak nonsense. It like saying these objects of perception are not objects of perception. But where his theory fails, is exactly where we can't go. Berkeley says these objects are ONLY objects of perception. But, just because that is all we can know, doesn't make it true, of course, claiming either way is unfounded. As to the hermit, Berkeley solves this problem and all of the problems relating to continued existence, but claim God perceives all, thus all exists.