How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?
And, if you are not conscious (sleeping or unconscious in any way), then no question can be is raised as to whether you believe anything or not. — Alkis Piskas

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? What is the world?
The point is not to do with being conscious or not. The point is, what is your ground / reason for believing in the existence of unperceived world / object.

The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? It may have been stolen in the meantime, but why would that be more probable than still existing? But even if it is stolen, wouldn't it still exist? — Alkis Piskas

For not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore, if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. But here the point is that, you are not given that reason. The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it.

So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists. — Alkis Piskas

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore?

Can you define your concept of the world? For instance, what colour is the world? — Corvus

"The world" is simply every direct experience of what appears to be any physical sensation from any sense organ. This is opposed to and contrast with purely analytical knowledge held within the mind.

"The world" is simply every direct experience of what appears to be any physical sensation from any sense organ. This is opposed to and contrast with purely analytical knowledge held within the mind. — PL Olcott

But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world?

Isn't objectivity one of the properties of the world? There is no point talking about someone's closed private world as the actual objective world, is there?

But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world? — Corvus

[Reason for believing in the existence of the world]
When we look at the most extreme of all possibilities: AKA solipsism, and we confirm that even in this case the world does exist, then we know that the world does definitely exist.

What do you think of this video? Any thoughts?

Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea?

I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, under two conditions. First, iff perception is taken as Hume intended, and second, iff the world is taken as a transcendental idea.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks along those lines these days. Doesn’t make you any less correct, or the dialectic any less interesting, but perhaps does question the relevance.

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation. — Corvus

I will wait for you to address the terms you use

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points? — Corvus

B310-B312 | A254-A256

So, you've said a lot since I last posted. I wonder if you saw Hume's answer to the question you've posed?

You asked: What reason do we have to believe in the world(external objects/things) if and when we're not perceiving it(them)?

According to Hume, either our perception of fact and/or our memory thereof are reason to believe that the world exists even when we're not perceiving it.

I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, — Mww

Yes because within the hypothesis that the world is a projection from one's own mind it does actually cease to exist while no longer perceived.

OK. But I think you are stretching the issue or digging into it too much and that you are getting too conceptual about it, arriving finally at impractical conclusions. Conclusions that are also very difficult or even impossible to agree with or argue about.
You had only to examine and evaluate my arguement. If you don't agree with it or are questioning it, just present a counter-argument or questions about it. Explain why it is wrong or ask why it is so. Otherwise, there cannot be a dialogue.

OK. But I think you are stretching the issue or digging into it too much and that you are getting too conceptual about it, — Alkis Piskas

Categorically exhaustive reasoning
The only correct path to truth is to consider every possibility categorically. By doing this categorically we compress an infinite list of possibilities into a finite sequence of short lists of categories. — PL Olcott

Words are words. You may not perceive the fist coming towards your face but you will sure as hell feel its impact.

The relevance of the ‘reality’ of the existence of such a fist does naught to reduce sensation of pain.

We undoubtedly tweak how we view the world through an intricate web of cultural indoctrination that it necessary to operate in said world. Solipsism is a very poor position to start from if you have no intention of bringing scepticism into play.

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? — Corvus

Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking.

What is the world? — Corvus

This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world.

The point is not to do with being conscious or not. — Corvus

Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive?

if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. — Corvus

This sounds as a Cartersian argument. Of course, you can doubt the cup's existence or non existence.
I don't see however what this has to do with my saying that you have no reasons to believe in its non existence ...

The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it. — Corvus

I guess you mean the cup is not perceived by you, not that it is not and cannot be perceived in general. Well, the existence of the cup, the tree, the world certainly does not depend on whether you are perceiving or can perceive them or not. Their existence -- reality in general-- depends on the common aggreement of people that they exist. But even so, even if you are not currently perceiving them there's is no reason to believe they ceased to exist, for you and everyone else.
(It goes w/o saying of course that we are not talking about things that are expected to cease to exist after a certain period of time.)

At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy.

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore? — Corvus

This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable.

Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile:

Exactly. This is what I'm saying. Too conceptual. :smile:

In fact, totally theoretical. Moreover, I can't even see how it applies to your "if I don't perceive it, it doesn't exist" principle.

Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea?

I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, under two conditions. First, iff perception is taken as Hume intended, and second, iff the world is taken as a transcendental idea.

I seriously doubt anyone thinks along those lines these days. Doesn’t make you any less correct, or the dialectic any less interesting, but perhaps does question the relevance. — Mww

I only came across the video a day or so ago. I thought it was an interesting video, because the presenter has Phd in Philosophy of Science, but rejects the existence of the actual world, and he talks about why there is no actual world. The argument is reasonable, which is similar to one I had.

This thread has become not just Hume or Kant's views and arguments on the topic i.e. the world, existence and beliefs, but also general survey of these concepts. So, yes we were discussing Kant and Hume when someone raised the issue with them, I was responding to them while exploring the concepts and also the title "What are your reasons and grounds for believing in the existence of the unperceived world / object?"

There is a clear difference between "the world" and "the external objects" too such as cups or trees. The world is still undefined concept. And trying to have some sort of agreed object concept of the world would be ideal for the discussions too. Some folks seem to think they are all the same, but I feel they are all different, but I have been trying interact with the same level of perspectives rather than rejecting their points on the basis of being irrelevant.

Yes because within the hypothesis that the world is a projection….. — PL Olcott

That hypothesis is not one of the conditions by which I would affirm the thesis.

Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking. — Alkis Piskas

What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world, but the world is actually including all the celestial objects, microbiological molecules as well as all the countries on the earths, the planets .... etc etc, then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world is, perhaps your rooms, kitchen, a patch of sky outside your house, some roads and streets, which are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world?

This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly and absolutely ! Hence I asked you the previous question, which you appeared to have answered with confidence i.e. when you are conscious, you obviously perceive the world. Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world?

Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive? — Alkis Piskas

I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. Being conscious could mean simply being awake without particularly perceiving, feeling or thinking about anything. For perceiving something, of course you must be conscious, but you also need to apply your intentionality to the object you perceive.

At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy. — Alkis Piskas

You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief.

This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable. — Alkis Piskas

If you are totally open minded about all the possibilities that can happen to the unperceived existence, be it a tree, or a cup you have seen before, then you don't have reason (or you have less reason - depending on the situations) to believe it is still existing while not perceiving it.

Think of a case that a long time (a few years) has passed since you perceived the object, then you might not even be sure if you actually saw the cup or tree or not. Your memory will fade away, and you have every reason to doubt the credibility of your own memory too. So it would be rational to have the doubt on the existence of the unperceived object or world.

Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

But you have not answered any of the questions from the agreed point of view. Most of your answers seem to have been based on the subjective concept of the world. Therefore we have not moved much forward from where we started. :)

My answer to that question was, when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. I may still believe in the existence of the world without perceiving it, but the ground for my belief in the existence is much compromised in accuracy and certainty due to lack of the warrant for the belief. — Corvus

Do you actually mean that there is no reason or do you just mean that the reasons given are inadequate?

Do you actually mean that there is no reason or do you just mean that the reasons given are inadequate? — Michael

The latter was the answer. But there would be the cases where the extreme inadequacy is similar or identical to nothing.

Then let's start with something that I'm sure most will agree with and work backwards; when we see a cup we see a cup.

The next step backwards many will accept is that seeing a cup is reducible to or an emergent phenomena of brain activity.

Do you disagree with the claim that we have a brain and that brain activity is causally responsible for us seeing a cup?

Yes, I do agree we are seeing the cup, when there is a cup in front of us.
But the question was what is your belief in the existence of the cup when not seeing it i.e. if you have gone away for a few hours or even days, but you think about the cup (maybe the cup was gold plated on the handle with some messages from your friend which was a present), do you have reasons to believe the cup is still existing as it was when not seeing it? If you do, what makes that belief justifiable?

I'm asking about the brain; do you accept that we have a brain and that brain activity is causally responsible for us seeing a cup (when we do in fact see a cup)?

We need to work backwards from the common denominator (seeing a cup) to find out where our disagreement starts.

Yes, I do accept the brain is the biological organ where all the mental events happens. But at the same time, brain is the blackbox i.e. we don't know how it is connected to our perceiving the cup, or the details of its workings for the perception.

Yes, I do accept the brain is the biological organ where all the mental events happens. But at the same time, brain is the blackbox i.e. we don't know how it is connected to our perceiving the cup. — Corvus

So you believe in the existence of your brain even though you don't ever see it? Then you clearly have reasons for believing in the (continued) existence of something that you cannot see. Why is it a stretch to extend this reasoning to other things, like the wider central nervous system, your eyes, the light that stimulates your eyes, and the cup that reflects the light?

At what point does it suddenly become unreasonable to believe in the existence of something that cannot be seen, and why there?

The world is still undefined concept. — Corvus

Ehhh….it’s defined well enough as a concept, but I’d agree it’s not well-defined as an object. Problem is, and hence the notion of transcendental illusion, and….as you made mention, one of the antinomies of pure reason…..it is generally treated as an object, thereby the existence of which there would be sufficient reason to believe even if not perceived.

But the world is not an object; it is merely a euphemism for the totality of possible appearances, from which follows there’s no reason to believe in the existence of it, DUH!!!! because it doesn’t, but there is reason to believe in the totality of possible appearances the conception “world” represents.
———-

But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge? — Corvus

I missed that clue, for which there is no excuse.

My belief on the existence and working of the brain, which I have never seen is based on the information I have read from the books and Biology classes in the school.
This is a belief in different type, nature and form on its foundation.

The cup that I am not seeing, but believing in its existence or not, is based purely on the visual perception, when seeing. When not seeing, it is based on the other beliefs and reasonings.

They are different type of cases.

it’s defined well enough as a concept, but I’d agree it’s not well-defined as an object. — Mww

How do you define objects separate from concepts?

but there is reason to believe in the totality of possible appearances the conception “world” represents. — Mww

What is the reason? :)

My belief on the existence and working of the brain, which I have never seen is based on the information I have read from the books and Biology classes in the school.
This is a belief in different type, nature and form on its foundation. — Corvus

I'd hazard a guess that you believe in the existence of a brain that you cannot see because its existence is part of a parsimonious theory with explanatory and predictive power, and that you believe it is reasonable to believe in a parsimonious theory with explanatory and predictive power?

Well, the same is true for the cup; the (continued) existence of a cup that I cannot see is part of a parsimonious theory with explanatory and predictive power, and so it is reasonable to believe in the (continued) existence of a cup that I cannot see.

Furthermore, presumably you believe that your brain behaves (more or less) according to the physical laws as described by our best scientific theories? Well, such theories also include laws against creation (and destruction) from nothing, and that things don't simply change apropos of nothing acting upon them (whether internally or externally). The claim that cups just come into and out of existence depending on the direction we face (or depending on whether or not our eyes are open) is contrary to many of the physical laws as described by our best scientific theories.

It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism.

It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael

Great points :up: I will think it over, and will get back to you for any points or questions. Thanks. :pray: