Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating? — MoK

Did I say that? You seem to be saying it.

What do you mean by maybe here? — MoK

Because I don't see it moving.

Doesn't Earth constantly move? — MoK

Maybe it does. But again movement we are talking about is not the Earth movement here. The object we are talking about is the baseball.

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey.

You cannot observe any motion because you are an observer that exists on Earth. Anyway, we were discussing a baseball that moves relative to Earth. — MoK

According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense.

I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving! — MoK

But the baseball is sitting on the desk at the precise point which can be observed. The earth moving is not relevant to the baseball movement.

I am done with you. — MoK

Well, confused mind cannot last too long in its vacuous journey of blabs.

I am not saying that they are the same things! — MoK

Why talk about the Earth when we are talking about the baseball movement in time? It appears obvious confusion.

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. — MoK

A wrong premise. We see some images in dreams. Dreams are not produced by subconscious mind.

It is very related to the topic! — MoK

It is a medical topic.

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too. — MoK

But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects.

In Huma and Kant, there is reality out there happening in the world. What we are seeing is phenomena of the reality. The phenomenon comes in via perception in the form of impressions and ideas. Hence we are not really seeing the reality, but the phenomenon.

Because they we are perceiving the phenomenon in impressions and ideas, we can analyze them with reasoning. We can stop them, rewind them and even predict them too. You seem be talking about the reality which is not accessible via perception totally disregarding the way our perception works.

It is not perception is deception, but all we have is perception on the reality in Hume and Kant. The reality itself is not available to us.

Perhaps that is so. It isn't a theory since it does not seem testable. Call it a premise maybe.
SEP calls it a principle, top of section 1 of the 'existence' page. — noAxioms

Kant says, all principles need arguments and proof why they are principles. But I don't see any such thing here.

Could you define and list the types of existence?
I linked to exactly that in my prior post. See the (*). I called them E1-E6, with openness for more. — noAxioms

How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind. — MoK

Can you prove that?

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged? — MoK

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate.

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these. — MoK

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time?

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from? — MoK

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings?

how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind? — MoK

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? Memory is not stored in anywhere. The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects.

See above. — MoK

See above.

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perception is the mental presentation of reality.  Calling perception as deception sounds like a typical vulgar or children's understanding.

Then it appears like you would say that perception is deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ditto. :D

I don't understand this claim. How would the ball's existence at one location be distinguished from its existence at another location, other than on the basis of this being at two different times? Or would the ball just be everywhere all at once? — Metaphysician Undercover

Time doesn't exist until measured.  Time doesn't exist in space and time.  Objects and movements have nothing to do with time.  Time emerges when objects and movements are perceived as a secondary quality. How and why should the ball exist everywhere all at once?  That's not a philosophical reasoning.

I'm talking about the thing itself. The principle says that dragons cannot breathe fire if dragons are not real. — noAxioms

What is the real dragon? If something looks like a dragon and breathes fire, is it a dragon? I saw the fake dragons made to breathe fire.

This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

We perceive motion as continuous because it appears as continuous. If continuity means without stopping, then it is not deceiving our senses at all. There are two points on continuity.

1) Can continuity be divided into instances?
2) Or is continuity one entity, which is not divisible?

When the baseball flies in the air towards the wall, it appears continuous motion of flying without stopping in our vision. However, if we take a photo of the ball while it is flying with high speed shutter settings such as 1/10000 sec. then it can be captured in perfectly frozen image. What seems to be clear is that continuous movement is the result of our perception. Without perception, continuity doesn't arise in the movement, or even the movement itself.

Whatever the case, time is not needed for the motion logically. If time is needed for any movement, then the time needs time for its own movement (flow), and the time needs time for its own movement (flow) ... Ad Infinitum. If this was the case, then nothing can move or flow for waiting for its own time to make it possible to move or flow. But in reality, movements take place without time, and movers move freely as they wish with no idea or need of time.

Time flows without time. Because time can only flow with time doesn't make sense. Hence things flow / move without time.

Yes. Quite different from an empty infinite space or a container of sorts.
Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. The idea is that the universe is quantum computer busy calculating its and our future — magritte

So Plato might have been talking about the world soul and parallel universe 2300 years ago. That sounds interesting. Quantum computing is trying to find out what it was all about.

It's a principle, yes. It does have something to do with existence since it explicitly mentions 'existence', but without specification of what type is meant. — noAxioms

Strange, that nowhere I could find anyone describing it as principle, but there are many explications on EPP. It sounds like a theory or idea too.

but without specification of what type is meant. — noAxioms

Could it mean that it covers all existence? Could you define and list the types of existence?
What is existence?

Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion. — MoK

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct.

If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument. — MoK

You need to read the baseball posting again, and think again.

It is required. Please reread my argument. — MoK

Ditto.

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science.
— Corvus
I don't think I need to read his book! — MoK

If you read it, it will refresh your incorrect ideas on science and philosophy, I am sure. But it is your choice of course.

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either. — MoK

You are back to keep repeating "denying". I never said anything about denying.
We all have brain, and that is all we know. Going further than that is off-topic here.

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. — MoK

I was recommending you reading Popper, because you seem to think science knowledge is eternal.

Saying Hume is outdated and wrong is not a sound or intelligent statement. You could argue certain parts or some of Hume's ideas or theories are wrong with your hypothesis, verified premises and conclusions for your points.

But just saying Hume or any classic philosopher is outdated and wrong with no reason or supporting arguments is not a philosophical statement.

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. — MoK

You brought Freud into the discussion suddenly, hence I was giving out my opinion on Freud.

Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. — MoK

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now.

I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting. — MoK

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge.

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you? — MoK

The classic philosophy of mind doesn't include physical brain as its topic. It is more a topic for cognitive science, neurology or clinical psychology.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

I would advise you reading K. Popper's book in full, if you are into science.

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake.
— Corvus
You said it here: — MoK

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far.

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it. — MoK

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears.

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory? — MoK

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates.

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time! — MoK

Again, please read the top reply here.

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well! — MoK

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?

Philosophy does get outdated! Consider the case of Hume. — MoK

Hume is till being read and studied actively all over the world.

Good for them. You should do the same. — MoK

I have already done so, so why do it again.

Exactly! — MoK

Without doubt !!

Where did you get that from? Why don't you study psychology a little before commenting on the conscious and the subconscious mind? — MoK

It is a common sense knowledge. You don't need to study psychology to know that.

Where does all your knowledge reside when you are asleep? It cannot disappear into oblivion! How are you informed about a specific knowledge when you are awake? You are not aware of all your knowledge at once. Are you? — MoK

The knowledge is kept in memory when asleep. When you awake from sleep, they can be accessed via reasoning. Conscious mind means that you are just awake. Dogs and cats are conscious, and some plants can be conscious, but they don't have knowledge because they are only conscious but nothing more.

I think by perception Hume means the conscious mind. It is a very important part but it is not all things that define a person with the capacity to think rationally. — MoK

No. It sounds like you haven't read Hume. Read above. Thinking rationally requires more than being conscious.

Electrons for example exist and move around the nucleus. They can be found free as well. Quarks exist within protons and neutrons. The conscious and subconscious minds refer to different parts of the brain. — MoK

They are just theories and postulations from what they saw. They don't exist as entities.

Sure you are wrong. That is the reason that most of the outdated philosophers are wrong. — MoK

Philosophy doesn't get outdated. We still go back to the ancient philosophy and the Renaissance times for referencing on what they said. Science outdates. Did you read Popper?

Philosophers need to read about science if they want to do good philosophy! — MoK

Philosophers read everything not just science.

It is not nonsense at all. It is nonsense to accept his outdated philosophy now. — MoK

Problem with nonsense is that it doesn't know it is nonsense.

They exist so in this sense they are real. — MoK

Where do they exist?

I didn't say they are on the same level! — MoK

You forgot what you said.

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa. — MoK

The subconscious mind does not sleep at all. That is the conscious mind that sleeps. — MoK

The conscious mind means that you woke from sleep. Subconscious mind means that you have a part of mind which sleep all the time, but you think it doesn't.

Where is your perception when you are asleep? Why does your perception start to work when you are awake? How could you do reasoning if reasoning per se is a form of perception? — MoK

Perception only happens when you are fully awake and alert. All your knowledge on the universe comes via perception. Perception is also backed by reasoning and logic. Without perception, you don't have knowledge.

You cannot do proper philosophy without a good science and vice versa! — MoK

Science needs philosophy. Philosophy doesn't need science. No philosophers will go out in the white gown, and conduct experiments and tests and measurements. They just read, think and speculate for analysis and reasoning pursuing truths on the universe.

Hume was false. He was an intelligent philosopher though. I am sure he would deny his philosophy if he was alive now. — MoK

Hume is one of the most important philosophers in western philosophy. To say Hume is false is like saying, philosophy is false and all knowledge is false. Nonsense.

So do you think that things like electrons, quarks, subconscious minds, conscious minds, etc. are real? — MoK

We know them, and use them. But to say they are real can be problem in logical sense. You need to make clear in what sense "real" is real. Philosophy doesn't deny them. But it is trying to make sure in what sense you are using the concepts, and whether they make sense when used in the arguments.
You seem to be emotionally defending them as if they were denied. No. Nothing is denied.

Philosophy and science go hand in hand without science you cannot do good philosophy and vice versa. — MoK

No. They are not in the same level. Philosophy inspects and analyze the misuses of the concepts and imaginary ideas of science, hence philosophy makes science more robust in logic and theory.
They are not friends or lovers. Philosophy is higher level authority in the ladder if you will.

Yes, they are concepts but these concepts are based on extensive study of the brain. Why do you stick to the idea of perception when I already refute it? Why don't you study a little psychology? It is necessary when it comes to time! — MoK

If your knowledge is based on your conscious and subconscious mind just woke up from sleep, no doubt that you are in full of confusion and illusions. You must rely on your perception and reasoning for your knowledge.

Philosophy goes deeper into the roots of the idea trying to capture the arche of the concept. Psychology and physics only talk about what are visible and obvious, and what is given by the measurement and experiment.

He couldn't possibly say a lot about them since there was no knowledge of them in his time. He was false! Therefore, you are false. — MoK

Because you are mixing psychology and physics in philosophical debates in random and chaotic fashion, it seems to be creating confusion and illusion in your mind. Hume was not false. Hume was intelligible and sensible.