Because that I said you are never not perceiving the world? — Pantagruel

If you have anything constructive to add to the topic, I would advise you to read at least on Hume or Kant, and bring your own arguments on the points rather than emotionally lashing out to people, please. That would help.
I don't think you had a least manner or proper arguments on the topic from your postings to be fair.

How is anything I said emotional?

Like I said, you are never not perceiving the world. If your mind is operating, it is "in touch with the world". The fact that I don't see it when I close my eyes does not surprise me, nor should it. Just because you don't continuously see "exactly the same set of things" doesn't mean that "the world" has in anyway ceased to exist or become dubious. You are just continuing to perceive it in a different way.

How is anything I said emotional? — Pantagruel

No one would agree with you, if you insist that you were interested in this topic and tried to ask or bring your arguments for the thread going on, when you were quoting those posters who are evidently not interested in this topic, and making smirk comments which aren't directly related to this topic. It wasn't helpful, and was clearly unnecessary. That was my impression. If I was wrong or misunderstood you, I do aplogise.

No one would agree with you — Corvus

So far you are the only one I hear. As far as I can see, I am bang on topic. It isn't like it's some abstruse tangent. It's literally the title of your post. If you want to dispute the reasoning, fine. If the thought of what I said upset you, I am sorry. It wasn't intended to be rude in any way.

edit. I see this has gone down before. At which time you said you weren't responsible for making someone leave the discussion. Funny how your attitude changes when it is "your" discussion.



Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy.

So I might leave this conversation there.
— Banno

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. Please think about it carefully again. Leaving is fine. It just confirms you ran out of the ideas for the arguments. What can anyone do about it?

This initial post of yours gave me no idea what you were trying to say.

there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world.
— 180 Proof

Just so.

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

That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition. — Pantagruel

How does this relates to the OP?

That was a reply to some observations made by some other people. It was contextually relevant to their posts and alluded to an interaction on another thread, which isn't uncommon. And yes, I concur with 180 Proof that there isn't any reason to doubt the existence of the world - certainly not more than there would be to doubt your own reasons for doubting it, at any rate.

That clear things up?

Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks. — Pantagruel

I don't claim to understand Austin. Austin is still in my reading list.

I feel your writing style is not clear, and definitely not proper. Please bear in mind the fact that your quoting randomly the posters in the thread, who has shown their negativity on this topic previously , and making obscure remarks which is not relevant to the discussion appeared unclear in your motive.
I have never come across poster like that before.

That was a reply to some observations made by some other people. It was contextually relevant to their posts and alluded to an interaction on another thread, which isn't uncommon. And yes, I concur with 180 Proof that there isn't any reason to doubt the existence of the world - certainly not more than there would be to doubt your own reasons for doubting it, at any rate.

That clear things up? — Pantagruel

OK, to me this is not a big deal. We are only communicating with language, and language cannot reveal everything in the situation. I saw your out of the blue message (which is not even addressed to me) quoting the posters who showed negativity to this topic previously, and with your surreptitious comments which seemed not related to the topic gave me impression that you had other motive than engaging in the topic in positive manner.

I notice that it was your 1st post in the thread, and it would have been better if you kindly explained what your points in your 1st post was about. I mean those quotes you did, was it necessary? I am still not sure how the quotes are relevant apart from smirk sounding about something I don't understand. What would Austin say about your message?

That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition. — Pantagruel

What is that got to do with the reason that you believe in the existence of the world? Could you elaborate please?

As I said, it was a sidebar on a second thread, in which I referred in the same way to a third thread. Anyway...

"I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World

As I said, it was a sidebar on a second thread, in which I referred in the same way to a third thread. Anyway... — Pantagruel

See? You are avoiding / hiding away from the issue. It was the 1st message you posted gave the impression, and then it snowballed into what sounded like a series of emotional explosion. If you had genuine point on the topic, I would presume you could give a good substantial exposition, which clearly you seem lacking.

"I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World — Pantagruel

This type of message only make the writer sounding like a vulgar who claims reading 1000s of books but with his hands not with the brain in Hume's term.

touche

:chin: :roll: :ok:

I would say that, in terms of just evidence for the existence of the world, doesn't it at least seem like you are in an external world?

I would say that, in terms of just evidence for the existence of the world, doesn't it at least seem like you are in an external world? — Bob Ross

Yes, I am. I am in the world. Sometimes the world is in my mind, when I am imagining it.

But Hume would say, no mate, when you close your eyes, you don't see the world.
Do you still believe that the world exists? If yes, what is the reason that you believe in it when you are not perceiving it?

What about, for starters, the seeming object permanence (of things)? That seems to suggest, at least, that there is an external world.

What about, for starters, the seeming object permanence (of things)? That seems to suggest, at least, that there is an external world. — Bob Ross

Object permanence sounds like a psychological term. I must admit I am not familiar with the concept.  Could you perhaps elaborate on it?

My intention of the OP run was, to investigate more on Hume's account of his skepticism on the External World, and then go to Kant, and see what Kant has to say about skepticism from his Ti,  TD and TII. 

Then looking at Husserl and Phenomenology accounts of the world view. The final part was going to look at the Epistemic account of the world with the digitally extended perception under Embodied Cognition.  That was the plan.  Not sure how well it will progress now, but whatever the case, it was all for self learning, while exchanging views and ideas with the others. :)

If nothing exists behind me, how does my turning my head bring things into existence?

But Hume would say, no mate, when you close your eyes, you don't see the world.
Do you still believe that the world exists? If yes, what is the reason that you believe in it when you are not perceiving it? — Corvus

Because no matter how many times I do the experiment things are always there when I open my eyes again just as I left them when I closed my eyes. If I have something in front of me, I can close my eyes, yet still feel it when I touch it.

I don't know what you are looking for: there is no logical or any other kind of proof that the world exists. In fact, there are no proofs other than logical or mathematical proofs, there are only inferences to the most plausible explanations. It seems to me that the most plausible explanation for the invariances we see everywhere in nature is that they have their own existence independently of perception.

What more are you looking for? What is the point of this wild goose chase?

:rofl: Maybe your head doesn't exist...I knew a guy once who could put his head between his legs and disappear up his arse.

That thought's gonna keep me up at night...

So it should...unless you can convince yourself that you, being up and the night...all do not exist.

:up:

If nothing exists behind me, how does my turning my head bring things into existence? — Patterner

I think Hume would say, things do exist, but when you are not seeing them, why do you believe them to exist? What is the ground for the belief that they exist when they are not perceived.
So your premise "If nothing exists behind me," sounds unfounded.

Because no matter how many times I do the experiment things are always there when I open my eyes again just as I left them when I closed my eyes. If I have something in front of me, I can close my eyes, yet still feel it when I touch it. — Janus

Yes, this is the point. When you close your eyes, you still believe the things exist. You are even touching them with your hands, claiming, wow these things exist, you are not even seeing them.
Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.

And I believe Charles Darwin's theory provides the answer. — Wayfarer

Hume doesn't think reason does it, and he concludes that human instinct and nature, namely imagination forces us to believe in the things while not perceiving them. He seems to think its psychology rather than reasoning make us to believe in the world when not perceiving it.

What would be Darwin's explanation?

I think Hume would say, things do exist, but when you are not seeing them, why do you believe them to exist? What is the ground for the belief that they exist when they are not perceived.
So your premise "If nothing exists behind me," sounds unfounded. — Corvus

It's not my premise, and it is unfounded.

You'll notice I deleted my answer which was made on a whim, although now you've responded I will explain what I meant, which was simply that survival dictates that you better believe there are unseen objects, else you run into them and remove yourself from the gene pool.

Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing. — Corvus

I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that.

What Hume did argue, is that we could not perceive causal relations between events. But that's a different matter.

It's not my premise, and it is unfounded. — Patterner

Ok, fair enough :ok:

You'll notice I deleted my answer which was made on a whim, although now you've responded I will explain what I meant, which was simply that survival dictates that you better believe there are unseen objects, else you run into them and remove yourself from the gene pool. — Wayfarer

Ok, thanks for your explanation.

Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.
— Corvus

I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer

I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer

"we may well ask, what causes us to believe in the existence of body? But 'tis vain to ask, whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings." (Treatise 1978: p.187)
He doesn't ask you directly, but he raised the issue, and even if he says "'tis vain to ask", he keeps on analysing the issue extensivey.

What Hume did argue, is that we could not perceive causal relations between events. But that's a different matter. — Wayfarer

Yes, that is a different topic, but similar in the principles.