Stretching it too far. — Corvus

Indeed, you have.

I am confident that you turn off the gas and lock the door before bed, just in case untoward things happen while you are asleep.

In that way, your account is an affectation.

I'll leave you to it.

Yes, it is interesting topics to engage the discussion in philosophically. It can make the whole thread look like sceptical discussion at times, but it is not really. It depends on at what angle of point we are looking from.

Indeed, you have.

I am confident that you turn off the gas and lock the door before bed, just in case untoward things happen while you are asleep.

In that way, your account is an affectation. — Banno

You are the one who crashed into this thread with the pendulum claiming untrue statements without even knowing what the point of the discussion was. Please read your posts again. It really seems like a serious case of projection defence.

Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno

My affectation thread will subsume this forum, eventually.

My example was against your point that you would rather take a more supported and seeming option rather than a less supported and unlikely option. The OP was asking what your reasons to believe in the existence of the world are, while not perceiving it. — Corvus

But your example of the Earth being round has less immediately perceivable proofs, than the argument that the Earth is flat. The latter is much easier to believe, because the world feels that way. But once we introduce reason to the equation (of which only a part of it is in experience) then we can see much more and better evidence suggesting the Earth is round, of which of course we know have evidence beyond doubt.

Your question about how do we know if the Earth exists if we are not perceiving it is much less evident than the belief that the Earth exists absent us. It only appears more evident if you ignore the great amount of evidence that is not immediately available for conscious experience.

If fact, what you seem to be getting at goes way beyond Berkley or Kant or any other idealist. Very few of them say that the world does not exist if we are not perceiving it. They take it for granted.

What they question is the conceptions we should make about the world absent people, but never denying that the world exists, in some manner or other.

I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are very rare.

So, this question of proof could be asked of your proposal. What is self-evidently given such that it provides the grounds for believing or not believing our experiences? Upon what grounds is your doubt more than a subtraction from what is given to you? — Paine

Isn't doubting part of reasoning? Isn't it natural for reason to doubt when there is not enough evidence or ground in believing something?

If fact, what you seem to be getting at goes way beyond Berkley or Kant or any other idealist. Very few of them say that the world does not exist if we are not perceiving it. They take it for granted. — Manuel

Wasn't Berkeley an idealist who believed the external world doesn't exist at all? I understood that Idealists believe the world is perception, and there is no material existence in the world at all. I am not sure if Kant was an idealist. Wasn't he a dualist, and realist in the sense that he thinks that the external objects enter into our sensibility for us to perceive them. We can perceive the objects which are in our senses, but there are objects that are not in our senses, which we don't know or perceive, but do exist (Thing-in-Itself).

I am not denying any existence or the world, or anything like that. I was simply asking (the OP) what is your reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceiving it?

Gravity is a constant reminder. Biology never turns off. These worldly constants are always in our perceptual space and can never be not perceived. — NOS4A2

But they are not exactly what we call perceptions in epistemic sense, are they?

Nietzsche believed any attempt to nail down truth as a repeatedly producible self-same thing, foundation, ground or telos, destroys meaning and value. — Joshs

Any relevant quotes on that point from Nietzsche?

Better yet, how can we know that the entire universe, along with all our memories and "evidence," wasn't created an hour ago? And how can we know that our sense of certainty re certain deductions and logical truths isn't simply the result of a malfunctioning cognitive system?

I think such considerations can, occasionally be useful in philosophy. For example, when considering if the multiverse actually fixes the Fine Tuning Problem, such a thing might be relevant since such universes might be part of the set of mathematically describable universes and outnumber "law-like" universes. Another example would be Plantinga's argument about grounding our beliefs when we have no good reason to suspect that our cognitive equipment is set up to find truth (Donald Hoffman makes a similar argument, although in favor of idealism instead of God).

However, in general I think such radical skepticism is pretty goofy. Saint Augustine's "Against the Academics," is a pretty good takedown of this way of thinking. Or as Jay Bernstein says in his Hegel lectures: "who doubts everything is real except for their own perceptions? Someone experiencing psychosis."

But if you want a completely logical way to ground the empirical sciences, you can always try Hegel's Greater Logic if you haven't. It creates a bridge between first principles and the world of observation, and it shows how the external world exists through this. Whether you find the argument convincing or not sort of requires going through it though. It's like an 800 page thought experiment.

The first thought that occurred to me was: Why would we need a reason to believe the world exists? Reason suffers when such unreasonable demands are put on it. Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world. — Fooloso4

The OP was not claiming the world doesn't exist. It was seeking the reason for your believing in the world when not perceiving it. Reason is not a being of its own. It is rational methodology of thought.

My affectation thread will subsume this forum, eventually. — Ciceronianus

Incorrigibly, it already applies to all my posts.

Occam's razor, for me. It is a simpler model of the world that the world always works one way, than a model of the world that it works one way when I'm looking and another way when I'm not looking. — flannel jesus

That's funny, I've used Occam's Razor to come to the opposite conclusion: the simplest explanation to explain the Hard Problem of Consciousness and the correct interpretation of QM is to assume matter doesn't exist.

A great post Count Tim. :up: Hegel is one of my favorite Philosophers. I will do some reading on him this week, and will get back to you after some mulling over on your points.

That's funny, I've used Occam's Razor to come to the opposite conclusion: the simplest explanation to explain things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and the correct interpretation of QM is to assume matter doesn't exist. — RogueAI

Interesting you mentioned QM. In QM there are theories saying that some states, objects or entities only come to existence when observed externally.

Interesting you mentioned QM. In QM there are theories saying that some states, objects or entities only come to existence when observed externally. — Corvus

Sure, and one of the popular interpretations of QM is the Many Worlds Interpretation. I agree with Bernardo Kastrup that positing the existence of huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead?

The visual memory content is also appearance? No? — Corvus

No. Memory content is representation of cognized things. Appearance is neither representation nor cognition.

There are unjustified or groundless beliefs too as well as justified ones? — Corvus

Over time, yes, but belief in general, each in and of itself in its time, is nothing but judgement, justified by and grounded in, the relations between the conceptions contained in it. Any discursive judgement may be falsified, but only but another with different relations, in succession, and not by itself.

But isn't there also the possibility that all your past perception of the existence of the world could be an illusion? — Corvus

Not if perception is strictly a non-cognitive operation. If it is the case perception is nothing but a physiological effect of real things on specifically adapted receptive organs, there is no administration of it by the intellectual system, hence no judgement can be made on it, which would preclude whether or not it is illusory.

Why should you rely on the past memory of the world in order to perceive the present world's existence? — Corvus

I don’t. I rely on my senses for perception of things in the world, but I possess nothing that can perceive existence. I understand what you mean, but going only by what you wrote…..makes no sense.

I maintain there is reason to believe the world exists when I’m not perceiving it, which is all I ever meant to comment on.

Sure, and one of the popular interpretations of QM is the Many Worlds Interpretation. I agree with Bernardo Kastrup that positing the existence of huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead? — RogueAI

Good point. :chin:

I maintain there is reason to believe the world exists when I’m not perceiving it, which is all I ever meant to comment on. — Mww

Fair enough. All I wanted to see was the philosophical arguments for believing in the world when not perceiving it. But the peripheral arguments, perspectives, and information stemming from the main point too, are interesting and useful in learning, even the negative ones.

All I wanted to see was the philosophical arguments…. — Corvus

Cool. I know you saw mine, scattered in the two threads where this has come up.

Thank you!

huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead? — RogueAI

Because the mwi interpretation is simpler by some metrics than other interpretations - namely, it has fewer postulates than most of its competitors. It literally takes fewer bits to describe many worlds in QM than, say, Copenhagen.

Nietzsche believed any attempt to nail down truth as a repeatedly producible self-same thing, foundation, ground or telos, destroys meaning and value.
— Joshs

Any relevant quotes on that point from Nietzsche? — Corvus

Well, this notion of craving for self-sameness as nihilistic and life-denying is discussed by Nietzsche in terms of the ascetic ideal in his Genealogy of Morals.

You are correct in that you have no immediate reason a posteriori to believe in the existence of the world in the absence of perception. It is still the case you have mediate reason to believe a priori, in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions. And it is impossible that you do not insofar as you’re alive and functioning, so…..

The logical and epistemic arguments for a priori justifications has been done, and is in the public record. They serve as explanation for not having to re-learn your alphabet after waking up each morning, given that you already know it. — Mww

Yup. Folk use meaningful language not created by themselves to arrive at philosophical 'positions' that quite simply cannot take account of that much.

Others have responded to your question much better than I can but I would like to know what answer would you find satisfactory? Since we can’t escape our senses and aren’t omnipotent we can never truly know that the universe is real or other people are actually sentient and so on but as I said we have more reason to believe those things than that the universe is a simulation and everyone but you is a meat robot without actual sentience.

Your question does not answer mine. Is reason an activity that exists while nothing else does? Is that activity something that can be known without reference to beings? I doubt that.

In the way Hume frames the knowledge of causes, he distinguishes between making judgements through deduction using logical propositions and other ways of learning about them. The 'reasons' you are waiting for have nothing to do with learning. As far as the intellect goes, it is interesting that both Plato and Aristotle viewed the indifference to learning causes of beings to be a misologos, the hatred of reason.

I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world

I would say I have to two main reasons why I think there is a world:

1. My experience of things strikes me as I am really in a world experiencing those things; and
2. Experience (and especially perception) presupposes a world in the first place.

I used to have similar views to you on this: I thought that since all we have is experience, then how could be possibly know anything about what is categorically beyond it? Without being able to probe around or use an instrument on whatever lies beyond our experience, which we obviously will never be able to do, how do we know how what we experience relates to what actually exists (beyond it)? It seems entirely possible that what exists beyond our experience could operate and be completely different than what we experience. So far so good!

But...the question you have to ask yourself is: doesn’t experiencing something imply that there is a something which you are experiencing—even if it appears or is presented within your experience as different than what really is? Likewise, doesn’t perceiving (which is the act of experiencing constructed representations) presuppose that which is being perceived (i.e., represented)?

I find it incredibly plausible that I exist and I am experiencing—but this presupposes a world in which I am and am experiencing.

So, that’s point #2, but what about #1? Why think that the world is very similar to what we experience? Honestly, I don’t think we should. I don’t think, for starters, time exists in the world as it is in-itself—but you asked about why one believes in the world (when one is not perceiving). I am a phenomenal conservatist; so, in a nutshell, I think that one ought to trust their intuitions (intellectual seemings) about evidence until they have good reasons to doubt them. So, for me, when I am walking around and living, all the evidence seems to me to point to me existing as an organism in a very natural world. If it strikes you as if you are just consciously experiencing phantasms, then you should hold that until you have good reasons to doubt it. I can try to present some worries with that intuition if you would like.

Would you say that one should believe in the existence of the world, when one is dead or in deep sleep? — Corvus

No, I think that believing in the existence of the world, during deep sleep, is what turns pleasant dreams into nightmares. And believing in the world when one is dead seems to be impossible.

So what are our perceptions based on, if not on the logical inference? — Corvus

Ordinary observation. Or if you want a more formal word - empiric.

I don't have to refuse or agree to believe. But could I not just say I don't have a reason to believe, when there is no reason to believe? I don't deny my existence when I am awake and perceiving the world, because if I didn't exist, then the perception would be impossible.

But then again, when I am asleep, I don't have a ground to believe that I exist. Do you have reason to believe that you exist, when you are in deep sleep? If yes, what are the reasons for your belief? How can you think about the reasons that you exist while in deep sleep? — Corvus

Perception is conscious activity -- not in deep sleep. So, if you're asleep, you're not making a judgment like "I don't believe the cup exists when it's not in front of me." Let's settle on that. You're awake, and you're making a claim that you don't have a reason to believe an object exists when you're not looking at it. This is you admitting that you exist.

what is your reason to believe in the world, when you are not receiving it? Or do you claim that you have no reason to believe in the existence of the world when you don't perceive it? I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

I suppose it is possible to some degree that the world i'm perceiving is an illusion of some sort and it probably is in some way, but i still believe regardless of the uncertainty in this one; that at a minimum a world does exist. For certain at least one world exists and i'm somewhere in the middle of it. If this weren't the case then i wouldn't be experiencing anything at all. Experience is the subjective litmus test for existence, and every existence contains a world, or itself is a world no matter how big or small, long or short lived.

To believe in the world in the first place i must first experience the world, that would provide me the necessary evidence (not proof) to conclude that indeed, it appears that a world does exist apparently out there beyond myself. Alternatively, if somehow i was never exposed to an external world (brain in a vat, no external access situation), i would still have my inner experience, which tells me something about existence. Existence is true, it's happening now, and here. I feel, therefore i think i am. This is either the anthropic principle or something close to it maybe.

It's interesting to note that people when placed in sensory deprivation tanks, after a sufficient amount of time the brain begins to starve for sensory stimulus, then it goes on to hallucinate, and some people hallucinate entire realities like in a dream. It's also interesting to note that when at least the average person dreams, their brain automatically assumes it's all real, and perfectly normal, even when impossible things are happening.

The brain can't tell the difference between a self-generated world and an exogenous one. We almost always automatically believe the world that we are presented with, real or not. It appears that we are 'programmed' to believe in something, no matter what.