Don't you think that might be asking a little too much? It seems to me that Ockham's Razor suggests it's fairly reasonable to chop off the evil scientist as unparsimonious. — wonderer1

Ockham's Razor is a useful heuristic, not an objective measure of metaphysical truth.

If it was a poor simulation we would never be having this conversation because it would be common knowledge that everyone would know.
— PL Olcott

I don't see how this follows. — Michael

If we keep seeing the guy that changes the light bulb of the Sun changing its light bulb then we would know that the Sun is not a giant star millions of miles away.

If we keep seeing the guy that changes the light bulb of the Sun changing its light bulb then we would know that the Sun is not a giant star millions of miles away. — PL Olcott

Okay? I don't see how this answers the question.

If we keep seeing the guy that changes the light bulb of the Sun changing its light bulb then how would we know that we are experiencing reality and not a poor simulation (or vice versa)?

After 13 pages, any conclusions so far?

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

I posted 2x quotes from Treatise of Hume, and also added some explanations to them on how the belief arises on the existence of the External Word / Bodies.

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. — creativesoul

I agree with you points, although personally I feel also our memory and inductive reasonings in some degree play part working with imagination for invoking beliefs in the existence of unperceived existence.

Paul Russell seems to suggest the above part of Hume's Scepticism links to Hume's theory of Religion i.e. The proof in existence of God later in Treatise. (The Riddle of Hume's Treatise, 2008 OUP, pp.168, Paul Russell)

the conclusion was pretty obvious from the OP.


It’s a silly question.

If we keep seeing the guy that changes the light bulb of the Sun changing its light bulb then how would we know that we are experiencing reality and not a poor simulation (or vice versa)? — Michael

Not at all. We know that the simulation of a giant star millions of miles away is a very terrible simulation.

The Truman Show
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14675964/?ref_=nm_flmg_t_36_act
I think that at the end he saw them turn the lights off that were the stars in the sky.

How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy.

How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy. — Lionino

:clap: :100:

Something that skepticism has always been criticized for is its inability to account for its intention of universality, truth and objectivity in its own statements. Parallel to this impossibility, Kant made his criticism of empiricism, opening the space for an experience of the true that is not reduced to weak connections such as associations, comparisons of impressions and different problems related to inductivism:

_____________________________

"Empirical judgments, in so far as they have objective validity, are judgments of experience; they, however, in so far as they are only subjectively valid, I call mere judgments of perception. … All of our judgments are at first mere judgments of perception: they are valid merely for us, i.e., for our subject, and only afterwards do we give them a new relation, namely to an object, and we intend that [the judgment] is supposed to be also valid for us at all times and precisely so for everyone else; for, if a judgment agrees with an object, then all judgments about the same object must also agree among one another, and thus the objective validity of the judgment of experience signifies nothing else but its necessary universal validity."

Kant, Prolegomena (4, 298; 51).

_____________________________

Is there not in all philosophy and science an intention of truth, of objectivity, of universality of discourse? Therefore, isn't the skeptic's doubt a gesture in a certain sense that is anti-philosophical and anti-scientific? Doesn't it necessarily fall into the liar's paradox? Doubting the world would be like cutting the branch on which I am sitting, waiting for the tree to fall and not the branch.

So, you've said a lot since I last posted. I wonder if you saw Hume's answer to the question you've posed?
— creativesoul
I posted 2x quotes from Treatise of Hume, and also added some explanations to them on how the belief arises on the existence of the External Word / Bodies. — Corvus

Was the answer to your question clearly stated in those quotes? If not, if not, then what's the point of qouting the question? Why answer like that? Normally when one quotes a question, they offer an answer.

I agree with you points, although personally I feel also our memory and inductive reasonings in some degree play part working with imagination for invoking beliefs in the existence of unperceived existence. — Corvus

Hume's problem of induction seems to apply here, if one places value upon it in this situation.

I'm not a Hume fan, so.

I certainly know that the universe existed long before me. I also know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will no longer be one after I cease to exist. If there are some words written by someone that - after reading them - cause you to doubt any of that, I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames.

OK

Not at all. We know that the simulation of a giant star millions of miles away is a very terrible simulation. — PL Olcott

I'm going to remind you of what I said before:

But if one had only ever experienced a poor simulation of reality and never experienced reality then one wouldn't know that one was experiencing a poor simulation of reality and not experiencing reality.

Perhaps in reality grass is red and the Earth has two moons.

You're begging the question, assuming that the world you have experienced your entire life isn't a simulation, and so claiming that a poor simulation would look different to the world we currently experience.

Was the answer to your question clearly stated in those quotes? If not, if not, then what's the point of qouting the question? Why answer like that? Normally when one quotes a question, they offer an answer. — creativesoul

I added some explanations for the quotes, because different people might interpret the original quotes differently. You asked the question, and I offered the answers with the quotes and added explanations. If you read any academic papers or commentaries, that's what the authors do. They don't simply copy and past the quotes, and assert the quotes says it all. They always add their interpretations. You could have agreed or disagreed with the interpretations.

I certainly know that the universe existed long before me. I also know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will no longer be one after I cease to exist. If there are some words written by someone that - after reading them - cause you to doubt any of that, I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

Hume didn't just doubt, but offered the arguments on why people believe in the existence of unperceived objects or worlds. If you certainly know the universe existed long before you and, and also you know that there is no good reason to doubt by thinking that there will be no longer after you cease to exist, then Hume was explaining how your beliefs arise in your mind. I think Hume is one of the greatest Philosophers in history.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

You claimed that the point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term "existing". I think this is a substantial and interesting statement. If you could explain why and how it is, and from what evidences and premises that claim has originated, then that would help.
At the present moment, we don't have any of your premises or arguments on your claim. We just have a statement.

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, — Mww

It sounds a signifikant admission. :)

But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge?
— Corvus
I missed that clue, for which there is no excuse. — Mww

Yeah, I was wondering, if the world is not an object, but just a mere concept, then could it be A priori? Because all the livings seem to know their environments pretty well, or get used to it fast for finding food and necessities for their survival as soon as they are born. No one really teach them saying - this is the world for you.

I suggest you use that fact as a reason to commit them to the flames. — creativesoul

What Hume meant by that would be, do that to the silly comments and words. :nerd:

Likewise. Your thread. Make your point.

Present what you mean by the terms you use. I can wait.

Until then bye bye :)

That seems reasonable to me. But you ask: "How do I know that I am perceiving a physical thing in a real world and not just dreaming or hallucinating..." If you don't know how to tell the difference, how do you know there IS a difference?
— Patterner

I know that there's a qualitative difference between the experiences I consider dreams and the experiences I consider wakefulness. I presume that the things I experience when I dream are not of external world objects. I then wonder if perhaps that the experiences I consider wakefulness are also not of external world objects. I then further wonder if there are external world objects at all. — Michael

But is there any reason or evidence to suspect either is the case? Any reason not to accept that things are as they seem? Sure, many things turned out to be other than what had always been assumed. They were proven to be otherwise with evidence, math, logic. What about your wonderings?

But is there any reason or evidence to suspect either is the case? — Patterner

Is there any reason or evidence to suspect that neither is the case?

Any reason not to accept that things are as they seem?

Are you suggesting that the reason we believe in the veracity of our experiences is simply that we have no good reason to believe them false? Believing them accurate is the "default" position that should be assumed unless presented with evidence to the contrary?

Perhaps the default position should be to remain agnostic?

But is there any reason or evidence to suspect either is the case?
— Patterner

Is there any reason or evidence to suspect that neither is the case? — Michael

I don't need reason or evidence to disprove something for which there is no reason or evidence to suspect is the case. If there is no reason or evidence to consider a proposal, I won't. If reason or evidence to consider it exists, I'll listen.

Are you suggesting that the reason we believe in the veracity of our experiences is simply that we have no good reason to believe them false? Believing them accurate is the "default" position that should be assumed unless presented with evidence to the contrary? — Michael

Yes. Are you suggesting we believe otherwise without reason or evidence?

Why can I assume that my experiences are accurate without reason or evidence but can't assume that my experiences are inaccurate without reason or evidence?

Why is the default position that experiences are accurate?

You certainly can assume that your experiences are inaccurate without reason or evidence. By all means, have at it. But I will advise caution. While dreaming, you may believe the boulders rolling down the hill toward you will kill you. But when they kill you in your dream, you will simply wake up into the real world. (There may be rare cases where someone dies in reality of a heart attack, brought on by the anxiety of what is happening in the dream. But boulders in a dream have never killed anyone in reality.) You can assume the boulders in what I call reality are as powerless to harm you as the boulders in what I call a dream are, and ignore those that are rolling down the hill toward you. In which case, you will no longer be part of the conversation about how to determine what is objectively real, as opposed to what we choose to believe without reason or evidence.

In which case, you will no longer be part of the conversation about how to determine what is objectively real — Patterner

Only if you're right and our experiences are accurate. If you're wrong and our experiences are inaccurate then we might just wake up.

Is there not in all philosophy and science an intention of truth, of objectivity, of universality of discourse? Therefore, isn't the skeptic's doubt a gesture in a certain sense that is anti-philosophical and anti-scientific? Doesn't it necessarily fall into the liar's paradox? Doubting the world would be like cutting the branch on which I am sitting, waiting for the tree to fall and not the branch. — JuanZu

No, the skeptic's doubt is the way toward truth. This is because we tend to accept statements propositions, etc., as true without proper scrutiny. We often accept conditions such as authority, convention, usefulness, efficiency, as indications of truth. Then these ideas, which we accept not because they've been shown to be true, but for some other pragmatic purpose, become entrenched into our methods, techniques, etc., as habits. The skeptic sees the need to inquire into all these principles which form the basis of these habits, to distinguish good from bad.

Doubting the world is not like cutting the branch which one is sitting on, it is to question whether it is correct to assume that I am sitting on a branch. The difference is that doubting precedes action, and therefore it is very useful in preventing mistaken action, but you portray it as a mistaken action. That's a false representation of the skeptic's doubt.

In which case, you will no longer be part of the conversation about how to determine what is objectively real
— Patterner

Only if you're right and our experiences are accurate. If you're wrong and our experiences are inaccurate then we might just wake up. — Michael

Dreams naturally end. they do not last throughout the entire time. We are asleep.

So far, every time I have slept, I have awoken. It’s just how things work with humans. So any dream I’ve ever had that did not end while I was still asleep ended when I woke up.

Sometimes, I have woken up because of what happened in a dream. Boulders crashing down upon me, for example. Thus ending the dream.

Sometimes, while dreaming, I have woken up because of things that happened in the real world. A loud noise, for example. Again, ending the dream.

Occasionally, I have been aware that I was dreaming as I was dreaming. Sometimes, that knowledge caused me to wake up.

None of those things has ever caused me to "wake up" from what I call reality into what some might call a higher reality. Nothing else has ever caused me to wake up from what I call reality into what some might call a higher reality. You may be suggesting that death in what I call reality will wake you up to a higher reality. While I am not going to encourage you to test this idea, I ask that, should you die before I do, and discover that you are correct, you try to send a message to me. I would be most interested to learn that you are correct.

Still curious why anyone needs a reason to believe? Beliefs can be built on faith and thus you don't even have to have any evidence. Simply believe and go from there. — Vaskane

This is a real life example on why I don't believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack which has been sitting in the corner of the garden for months anymore.

I put it in the bin, and the bin was emptied by the collection truck a few days ago. Although I have not seen the bin being emptied (because the collection truck comes at 6am in the morning, when I am asleep), I know that's what they do.  And someone brought the bin into the place where it usually sits in the garden.

So, my belief that the rusty barbecue rack doesn't exist anymore is grounded by my imagination and my inductive reasoning that the binman must have emptied the contents of the bin into their truck as they normally do, and took it away to the recycle centre as they normatively do.

Without the ground for the belief, I would still believe, or be unsure about in the existence of the rack, which is not there anymore in reality.

So why would anyone believe in the existence of the rusty barbecue rack or anything in existence blindly or by faith? That doesn't sound right or reasonable at all, and his belief is definitely is groundless and wrong too.

the skeptic's doubt is the way toward truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :100:

Just to explain how our belief works and arises by nature. OK, you can believe in something without reason or ground, but we call it "blind faith", which can be dangerous thing to have.

If not certain or unsure about anything, then don't hesitate to doubt until obtaining the evidence for ye or ne - that is what Hume would say. I think it makes sense, and Hume is a genius.

…..if the world is not an object, but just a mere concept, then could it be A priori…. — Corvus

Simply put, all concepts are from the understanding, hence always arise a priori. But it isn’t enough to class all conceptions as a priori when their application is more informative, that application depending exclusively on the theory developed to prescribe it.
————-

So the garbage man taking the BBQ rack away was sufficient reason for you not to believe in its existence? There’s your transcendental illusion for ya…..because the rack isn’t in this space at this time, it isn’t in any space at any time.

YIKES!!!!