What is the connection between "I think, therefore I am" and "To exist is to be perceived"?

In fact, philosophy does not only have two camps: materialism and idealism. Looking at the problem from another angle may give you a broader perspective. The key to this question is not whether idealism leads to materialism or materialism leads to idealism. The key to this question lies in the interpretation of the word "existence". Descartes said "I think, therefore I am", but what is existence? How do I exist? Here "existence" is defaulted to self-evident ready-made existence. Let's look at the "existence is reasonable" and "existence is perceived" proposed by Hegel and Berkeley. Look at the structure of the two sentences. They both put "existence" as the subject in front and give it a realistic attribute. That is to say, "existence" is used as a noun here. Now let's analyze what "existence" is. From the part of speech, it is an obvious verb, that is, where does the verb get its real attributes. To put it bluntly, existence is an action, it does not have ready-made attributes, it is a state of constant change. What Hegel and Berkeley were discussing was not existence but "beings," while Descartes's point of view bypassed the key issue of "existence" and emphasized thinking or not thinking. The author can think carefully about the question of what "existence" is, and then he can look at things from a different angle. If we explain the poster's question purely from the perspective of materialism and idealism, these two views must be idealist views. I don't know why so many people say that "existence is perceived" is a materialist view, and I can't understand it. . As for the question raised by the poster about using idealistic thoughts to deduce materialist theories, I would like to put forward my opinion here. Since metaphysics is the study of the origin of things, then whether a theory is materialist or idealistic should not be considered based on side issues. Rather, it should be considered from the source. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" defines the origin of things as human "thinking", and Berkeley's "Existence is to be perceived" also defines the origin of things as "perception" of human consciousness. In essence, they are both idealistic. doctrine, as to whether or not the perceived things are real, these are all side issues derived from the origin and cannot be used as a basis for judging the nature of the theory. Just like there are always some subjective thoughts in materialist theories, but this cannot be considered as an idealist theory, and vice versa. For metaphysics, the key lies in the origin. Finally, I made a few comments on the argument method of Berkeley's point of view in the previous pages. Berkeley admitted that things that are perceived exist, but it does not mean that he claims that things that are not perceived do not "exist". The key here lies in the understanding of the word "existence". Materialism and idealism must have different explanations of existence. If the "existence" here is interpreted as the existence of matter, then the sentence "existence is to be perceived" is indeed absurd. However, since "existence" has been interpreted as the existence of matter, then the materialist point of view has been recognized first. If you then use a materialistic point of view to explain an idealist theory, then no matter how you explain it, it will definitely be wrong. To put it bluntly, it is first stipulated that the origin of the world is matter. On this basis, it is meaningless to discuss whether the idealist view is right or wrong.