but to answer your question: squirrel live roughly 10-30% (2-6 years) of their natural life span in the wild. With the hawk, foxes, and cars around here not good odds for a house squirrel. — Vaskane

I never believed that squirrels can live in houses. I have seen a few of them in the garden sometimes. They are very fast, and agile. They quickly do their business and disappear into the woods.
I believe that animals might have beliefs in the existence of the world too. If they do, what would their beliefs be like?

Could one perhaps say that the world as they experience it is real to them?
— RussellA

We do actually say that for everyone. — I like sushi

How do you prove the world that you perceive is real?

How do you want me too?

What kind of argument do you want me to present?

Note: I find no need to ‘prove’ it to myself.

How do you want me too?

What kind of argument do you want me to present?

Note: I find no need to ‘prove’ it to myself. — I like sushi

OK, let's see it this way. Are sure all your sense organs are perfectly accurate?
How do you know they are? Or perhaps they are not?
Tell me what you are seeing as real in front of you.

Tell me what you mean by ‘real’.

Everything I perceive before me is ‘real’ in one sense - including illusions and delusions. In another sense if I see a flying elephant that is not actually there (everyone else denies it is there) then the elephant does not exist but is real for me - unless I am being gaslighted. I can form an image in my head no one else can experience, yet it is ‘real’ to me only. What is real to me comes to me through experience of how well my understanding maps onto my collective experience.

Recall I referred to the obsession some people have with certainty right at the start of our interaction here? Knowledge is limited. I feel like this is why you are probing? We know things because we can doubt them.

Tell me what you mean by ‘real’. — I like sushi

1. Real can mean physical existence. You are not just seeing something, but you can also touch grab feel use manipulate transfer and throw out physically.
2. Real can also mean genuine, not bogus, not look alike, not copy of the genuine.
3. Real means actual, not dream, not hallucinating, not illusion.

if I see a flying elephant that is not actually there (everyone else denies it is there) then the elephant does not exist but is real for me - unless I am being gaslighted. — I like sushi

What do you know about the flying elephant in your mind?

I feel like this is why you are probing? We know things because we can doubt them. — I like sushi

Probing helps us understand how our mind works, why we have beliefs on certain things and not, and the nature of doubting etc.

What do you know about the flying elephant in your mind? — Corvus

If you have a thought spell it out. It gets kind of boring talking in riddles.

1. Real can mean physical existence. You are not just seeing something, but you can also touch grab feel use manipulate transfer and throw out physically.
2. Real can also mean genuine, not bogus, not look alike, not copy of the genuine.
3. Real means actual, not dream, not hallucinating, not illusion. — Corvus

And which particular version did you have in mind when you asked the question?

Again, cut to the chase please.

Again, cut to the chase please. — I like sushi

It appears to me that playing this silly game is Corvus' whole point with this thread. Why would he want to cut to the chase?

Tell me what you mean by ‘real’. — I like sushi

Only thing I have done was responding to your request.

Then I was asked to cut to the chase,

Again, cut to the chase please. — I like sushi

and then pops up with a senseless comment that this is a silly game.

You have not even answered my question.

if I see a flying elephant that is not actually there (everyone else denies it is there) then the elephant does not exist but is real for me - unless I am being gaslighted.
— I like sushi
What do you know about the flying elephant in your mind? — Corvus

Now who are playing a silly game?

Do you have a point or are you just going to throw out facile questions?

You are effectively asking me what I know about how I perceive anything. Right back at you. You can perceive what you perceive so tell us all what you know about what you perceive perhaps?

Frankly I find it to be a ridiculous question BUT given that you asked it I imagine if you answer it it may shed light on where you are going with this.

Do you have a point or are you just going to throw out facile questions? — I like sushi

If you are able to recall, you claimed that you do actually say that the world you experience is real. in your post in this thread.
My questions was, how do you know it is real? It is a classic epistemological question. Maybe to it could have sounded like a silly game. But if you have read any book on Epistemology, you cannot deny that it is one of the central topic of the subject.

Why do you twist it as facile question? If it were a facile question, why did you keep on responding asking more questions?

If you are able to recall, it is not me who dragged you into this thread. But it was you who participated in the thread from your own Will.

Frankly I find it to be a ridiculous question BUT given that you asked it I imagine if you answer it it may shed light on where you are going with this. — I like sushi

It is beyond belief that you seem to be in total oblivion that my question was against your claim. The question would have never been put to you, if you hadn't made your claim. Philosophy is all about claiming, asking and probing on the metaphysical issues . If you renounce that, then I don't see your point of doing philosophy.

I already answered. It is ‘real’ to me. We experience what we experience. There is no ‘knowing’ for me in any absolute sense.

Now, how do you know what you perceive is ‘real’? If you answer your own question it might help, unless you find it meaningless?

I already answered. It is ‘real’ to me. We experience what we experience. There is no ‘knowing’ for me in any absolute sense.

Now, how do you know what you perceive is ‘real’? If you answer your own question it might help, unless you find it meaningless? — I like sushi

It appears that you were trying to clarify the concept of real before giving out more of your answers, but unfortunately you were interrupted by .

I think the concept of Real is vague in philosophical uses, and it is interesting to clarify the uses with our epistemic claims. I was expecting you to choose any concept you feel relevant and come back with your answers to my question - what do you know about your flying elephant?

what do you know about your flying elephant? — Corvus

I know that it is there. I also know that my experience is limited. I generally have little reason to disbelieve what I experience. What I believe is real for me is real for me and may or may not relate to what you believe is real for you.

In a more broader sense I know via what Kant called Intuitions. Even with abstract items like numbers they are only known as abstracted from our ‘appreciation’ (for want of a better term) of the spaciotemporal.

What about you? If you see an elephant flying in the sky how do you know about it?

What about you? If you see an elephant flying in the sky how do you know about it? — I like sushi

For me, I also can see a flying elephant, when I try to imagine one in my mind. It does have a pair of wings, and flies above the clouds like a hang glider. The image is vivid and feels REAL to me.
But I am not sure if I can claim the flying elephant in my mind is real.
Because it is unreal, and I was seeing the UNREAL object which was made up in my imagination.
I was going to claim that we see real objects as well as UNREAL objects too. My flying elephant in my imagination is UNREAL.

Your saying that you see a flying elephant and it is real to you, is a self-contradiction.
Because the flying elephant was an unreal object to you and to the world. You were seeing an unreal flying elephant.

Just to point out your saying that your flying elephant is real, which is unreal was denying the principle of consistency A=A. You were saying A = Not A.

Your saying that you see a flying elephant and it is real to you, is a self-contradiction.
Because the flying elephant was an unreal object to you and to the world. You were seeing an unreal flying elephant. — Corvus

Different uses of terms. Nothing more. No contradiction. It is a real thought not an unreal thought … what would an ‘unreal’ thought be?

Equating ‘truths’ has necessary limitations. For my consciousness and experience I have no idea what my limitations are so application of ‘truth’ in the existing world is an overreach.

If I said the elephant does not exist and does exist then that is different. I used ‘real’ as a relative function of personal experience. I can imagine something and you have no idea what it is. It is possible for you to imagine similar things. Imagining something is a real experience, just as seeing a tree with your eyes is a real experience. How this maps onto what is existent is another matter and kind of what Kant went into in a deep way in terms of investigating what can be known prior to experience.

How this maps onto what is existent is another matter and kind of what Kant went into in a deep way in terms of investigating what can be known prior to experience. — I like sushi

That is not the only thing Kant was writing about. He wrote about wide variety of topics.

If Real is taken to be existence, then it relates to the problem of belief in the existence of the world, and also Kant's paralogism. I thought this was obvious.

After all you brought in the term 'Real' in your claim. I just thought we could clarify on what you were claiming about.

What I believe is real for me is real for me and may or may not relate to what you believe is real for you. — I like sushi

This seems a totally useless meaning to ascribe to 'real'. It doesn't delineate anything except that you, rather than another person experience something.

It would have no use, in this case. It is self-evidence that we do not share experiences. It is their comparison resulting in consistency or deviation that matters, and helps us delineate what we can rely on from what we cannot. I suppose, for an idealist this doesn't matter though so I could be barking up the wrong tree.

That is not the only thing Kant was writing about. He wrote about wide variety of topics. — Corvus

In COPR this was the initial question. Of course he wrote other books …

After all you brought in the term 'Real' in your claim. — Corvus

False. You asked me the question using that term regarding my seeing an elephant flying (not ‘imagining’ one flying). What is sensible to me is real to me unless I recognise an illusion. What is a delusion is obviously beyond my examination (because a delusion is believed).

It would have no use, in this case. It is self-evidence that we do not share experiences. It is their comparison resulting in consistency or deviation that matters, and helps us delineate what we can rely on from what we cannot. I suppose, for an idealist this doesn't matter though so I could be barking up the wrong tree. — AmadeusD

We share an approximation of experiences. If we did not we would be nothing much to each other.

What about a rainbow? We all see them yet they are not there. The illusion is an objective one though, so whilst we can say it is not real in one sense (being an illusion) we share a common experience of it.

What about a rainbow? We all see them yet they are not there. The illusion is an objective one though, so whilst we can say it is not real in one sense (being an illusion) we share a common experience of it. — I like sushi

Yes, but it is patently obvious they are different experiences. "real for me" loses meaning as it can just be used to defend any erroneous claim by declaring yourself deluded.

I'm unsure that's true. Is there not actual sun rays actually refracting through actual moisture?

There are people who cannot see a rainbow.

it can just be used to defend any erroneous claim by declaring yourself deluded. — AmadeusD

? What are you talking about? If you are deluded you are deluded. You do not choose to be deluded. If you are pretending to be deluded you are lying.

What are you talking about? If you are deluded you are deluded. You do not choose to be deluded. If you are pretending to be deluded you are lying — I like sushi

Your incredulity aside - yes - that's exactly the scenario I am point out renders the use of the term 'real for me' absolutely unusable. Someone lying can just claim 'Well, it's real for me!' and you have no recourse.

So you must really mean that the term ‘delusion’ is meaningless because we can never verify about their experience.

This is a little like saying Canada does not exist because I have never been there. Merely heresay.

Scepticism only makes sense to a certain degree.

This is a little like saying Canada does not exist because I have never been there. Merely heresay. — I like sushi

It is absolutely nothing like saying this, but incidentally that example also affirms, as an example, that using the term 'true for me' would be useless precisely because you could make such a stupid claim, and then just say it's true for you so no one can criticise. You've never seen it, so - wahey, no Canada. Absurd.

I never said anything about anything being ‘true’.

I try to be precise. Corvus replaced ‘perceived’ with ‘imagined’ and now you have replaced ‘real’ with ‘true’.

If I see a flying elephant I would probably assume it is some kind of holographic projection when the reality is that it is a genetically engineered creature that looks very, very much like a flying elephant. It could just be a hallucination. Either way the experience is real for me.

If you find that impossible to take onboard I doubt we have anything much more to say to each other on this topic. Such is life :)

I never said anything about anything being ‘true’. — I like sushi

Then be a good sport; replace it with “real” and respond to the objection.

It remains with either term. It is not true OR “real” in any meaningful way. Which was “precisely” what I outlined

what it real can be criticises and speculated upon.

Honestly, there is nothing here to talk about bye :)

Honestly, there is nothing here to talk about bye — I like sushi

Ooof. Well that’s a move I guess.

A move I reject but that’s fine. There’s clearly daylight here and you’re now just plum not engaging while claiming there’s no daylight. Wild