The existence of something is a purely human concept. What does it correspond to outside of human consciousness?

  • I have long wondered why there are not more solipsists.
    – Boba Fit
    Commented May 4, 2023 at 12:49
  • 2
    If "existence of something" (meaning something other than subject's mind) is a "purely human concept" (meaning something inside the subject's mind), then there is no "outside" and thus no "correspondence" at all. Commented May 4, 2023 at 13:03
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA The existence of something can be a purely human concept referring to something external to consciousness. Commented May 4, 2023 at 13:09
  • @BobaFit you are the Original, and still the Best.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented May 7, 2023 at 11:23
  • Very puzzled that this question has been closed. Commented May 10, 2023 at 21:46

3 Answers 3


The existence of something is a purely human concept. What does it correspond to outside of human consciousness?

The existence 'of something' can be produced, conceived or apprehended by a living, human existence (human being) which participates in the world—itself a collective construct—amongst things and people on the basis of the possibilities available. (Of human existence this much can be said, but not of the origin of the material of life, which is ultimately a mystery.) What characterises the human world is its complexity and sophistication. Another sophisticated species could form its own type of world, and could possibly produce, conceive or apprehend the existence of 'things'.

  • Do you mean that outside of consciousness nothing exists? Commented May 8, 2023 at 9:59
  • @ArmanArmenpress That depends on how existence is defined. e.g. Like "does a falling tree make a sound" A: "We can define sound as our perception of air vibrations. Therefore, sound does not exist if we do not hear it." - Wikipedia Commented May 8, 2023 at 10:42
  • Insofar as I describe world as a collective construct the counterpart is earth or nature, in which undiscovered things are subsumed, hidden and indeterminate. Something yet to be discovered may not yet even be defined, and so there is a problem in ascribing existence since it is unknown what is supposed to be existing. But one could reasonably say there are undiscovered things: 'undiscovered things' exist. Commented May 8, 2023 at 11:27
  • World is 'grounded'—rationalised—on the basis of things that emerge or are drawn from the concealment of 'earth' (metaphor). "World and earth are essentially different and yet never separated from one another. World is grounded on earth, and earth rises up through world. ... In its resting upon earth the world strives to surmount it. As the self-opening it will tolerate nothing closed. As the sheltering and concealing, however, earth tends always to draw the world into itself and to keep it there." Heidegger, GA5 p.26 Commented May 8, 2023 at 12:54
  • 1
    @ArmanArmenpress Yes, the world outside consciousness exists. In the context of the above, 'earth' exists, but not much detail can be said of it. It's like saying 'undiscovered things' exist. Commented May 8, 2023 at 14:45

Existence is a zero being. Conscious begin when you remember a mean of the existing - you know what is it or what are you. Unconscious if you don't know or forget somesense. And ofc the space exist outside the cell of your brain - external cosmos of knowledges and causes and inner cosmos of feelings and minds. Also exist a collective mind area, i guess.

  • 2
    No mind, bassho etc., is it collective mind-body?
    – user65758
    Commented May 4, 2023 at 12:03
  • Eng is not my native, i use word mind when i say about cause and effect, and conscious is about function thinking or brain work - reaction on something, for or from(unconscious) something. Mind is for minds, knowledges - understanding of a processes, awareness of a fact , brain is for thoughts, meanings, knowings, rules - like cut version of an app, functions only without customization... So, no-mind term in my view is not correct word, but no-function or no-intention, Taoist u-wei is same. All belong to mind or collective mind. Mind is for set and switching processes, by cause understanding. Commented May 5, 2023 at 5:51
  • 1
    Re. "no-function or no-intention" — like Kant's intuition without thought: gedankenlose Anschauung (A111), stripped of determinations, also like Nirvana (sometimes described as a "collective mind area"). Also as without determination, so 'unsayable', the Dao that cannot be spoken. Also the simplest experience of 'world' as projected by Being. This seems to be a different type of consciousness though. Commented May 8, 2023 at 22:44
  • 1
    Non-identification is supported by the ambiguity of what is presented by the world: "In the immediate circle of beings we believe ourselves to be at home. The being is familiar, reliable, ordinary. Nonetheless, the clearing is pervaded by a constant concealment in the twofold form of refusal and obstructing. Fundamentally, the ordinary is not ordinary; it is extra-ordinary, uncanny [un-geheuer]." Heidegger, GA5 p.31 Commented May 9, 2023 at 9:58
  • 1
    It is the mental fabrications of world that are extra-ordinary and uncanny. They need to be abandoned to get to the simplest state – like a non-verbal trance state, semi-slumber or transcendental, to approach thoughtless intuition (gedankenlose Anschauung). This state cannot be described without turning it into a mental fabrication. Commented May 9, 2023 at 13:19

Existence exists outside of the mind.

Existence is the manifest form, state’s collapse of all universal potential in the moment of now (the only moment which “truly exists”.

Existential Truth is a perturbation of Objective Reality (let us just say that is the sum totality of existential being).

Universal potential may very well exist outside of time and space (giving rise to the “spooky phenomenon.”) However “existence” comes by some perturbation of reality.

There is this confusion regarding “Truth”.

If we call existential reality “Truth”, whatever that may be. Whatever is in our own mind may only be loosely referred to as “truth”, so long as it has “integrity”, which we may define as “consistency with Truth”.

There in lies the complexity of perception and perspective. So many shades of approximation exist among disparate perceptions.

Existence however exists, regardless of human awareness. Human awareness gives it meaning, or manipulative interaction.

  • Welcome to SE. I'm afraid it isn't at all clear how this answers the question. It may be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it is obvious to the person asking the question.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented May 6, 2023 at 14:27

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .