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). — I like sushi

How can you imagine a flying elephant without seeing it? Your point was that either you were seeing or imagining a flying elephant, and it is REAL. My point was that ok, I am not denying your seeing it or imagining it, but it must be UNREAL. Who is right here on the basis of common sense, logical and epistemological view?

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). — I like sushi

Was just pointing out, what you claim as Real in your perception might be Unreal. Due to the nature of our sense organs, we sometimes perceive Unreal objects.

You see how you see. It is a matter of subjectivity.

What you see and claim to know is necessarily limited.

I am not denying your seeing it or imagining it, but it must be UNREAL. — Corvus

But what if it is not? Of course if I said to you I saw a flying elephant you would question my mental faculties … but maybe I actually did and there are genetically modified elephants flying around somewhere.

ou see how you see. It is a matter of subjectivity.

What you see and claim to know is necessarily limited. — I like sushi

Well if you are talking 100% from your subjectivity only, then you cannot communicate with anyone apart from you. We are searching for some degree of objectivity. That is what philosophical discussions are about.

But what if it is not? Of course if I said to you I saw a flying elephant you would question my mental faculties … but maybe I actually did and there are genetically modified elephants flying around somewhere. — I like sushi

Now you are being an extreme sophist.

I was taking an extreme example to highlight that there are grey areas.

100% subjectivity is pretty much where we all begin. We are not given a manual about how to perceive reality or what reality is.

I was taking an extreme example to highlight that there are grey areas. — I like sushi

We call it a nonsense.

100% subjectivity is pretty much where we all begin. We are not given a manual about how to perceive reality or what reality is. — I like sushi

You can begin wherever you like, but if anyone will agree with you is another matter. No one is quibbling about how or what you see in your perception, but claiming it is REAL would be regarded as a fallacy or illusion.

You think there are no grey areas?

You think there are no grey areas? — I like sushi

No. I think there are fallacies in your claims.

You seriously think there are no instances where someone has said something is nonsense only to later be proven wrong? Strange.

Anyway, this is just degenerated into pointless back and forth so I am out. Bye :)

You seriously think there are no instances where someone has said something is nonsense only to later be proven wrong? Strange. — I like sushi

I am not sure on other cases, but I am only commenting on your case, because your claim was found to be groundless.

Anyway, this is just degenerated into pointless back and forth so I am out. Bye :) — I like sushi

Indeed it is pointless to dip into this and that threads in the forums for exchanging light hearted negative comments without any interest, enthusiasm or good arguments for the topic. It would be waste of time on you and the others too. All the best. :grin:

If one does not believe an external world exists, then one is a solipsist, right?
Or, if one is not a solipsist, then one believes an external world exists (contraposition).
For the hyper-skeptic, only the existence of a variety of thoughts is certain, whatever they all may be.

Some indications:
We sometimes discover new things; things previously unknown, unthought, unexperienced, uninvented.
We're sometimes wrong about things; what, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case?
We can't do just anything, whether trying to "will" it so or not; extra-self imposed limitations.

Non-solipsists:
We agree on any number of things, a rather large number; when to be at work in the morning; where the local grocery store is; this is English; ...

↑ mostly adapted from earlier posts and other posters

↑ mostly adapted from earlier posts and other posters — jorndoe

Great summary :up:

If one does not believe an external world exists, then one is a solipsist, right? — jorndoe

But when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it. What would you class the position?

We're sometimes wrong about things; what, then, made us wrong, but whatever is indeed the case? — jorndoe

Hence, we try to seek justification on our beliefs and perception.
But point here is, can belief be justified properly? Belief is a psychological state, which cannot be justified rationally in nature.

Or are some beliefs also epistemic when justified? But if it cannot be justified, then it can't be. How do we justify our beliefs rationally?

But when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it. What would you class the position? — Corvus

Disingenuity.

Disingenuity. — Janus

Why? Under what ground?

The opposite of ingenuity...foolishness, self-contradiction.

The opposite of ingenuity...foolishness, self-contradiction. — Janus

Why do you believe in the existence of the world, when you are not perceiving it?
Do you have logical explanations for your belief?

Do you have logical explanations for your belief? — Corvus

The only thing I have ever known myself to exist on/in, is the world. It would be far more unlikely that at times i'm not perceiving it (unconscious ,whatever..) it has disappeared, than it would be that I am simply not perceiving it because my senses are not trained it.

I suppose the other thing is, in what scenario are we not sensible of the world in one way or another? A deprivation tank still provides a temperature etc... It's just aligned so closely with homeostasis its hard to tell. It hasn't actually removed stimuli entirely.

when one believes in the existence of the world, but says there is no justified belief in the world when not perceiving it — Corvus

Why would you believe something for which you believe you have no justification for believing? Sounds like the definition of stupidity to me.

Everything I experience gives me reason to believe the world does not depend on my perception of it. Perhaps you believe it doesn't give you such reason; if so, I can only conclude that you are a fool.

Why would you believe something for which you believe you have justification for believing? Sounds like the definition of stupidity to me. — Janus

To a stupid, everything sounds and looks like stupid.

Everything I experience gives me reason to believe the world does not depend on my perception of it. Perhaps you believe it doesn't give you such reason; if so, I can only conclude that you are a fool. — Janus

You don't seem to have understood the question. Do you believe in absolute accuracy on everything you experience?

The only thing I have ever known myself to exist on/in, is the world. It would be far more unlikely that at times i'm not perceiving it (unconscious ,whatever..) it has disappeared, than it would be that I am simply not perceiving it because my senses are not trained it. — AmadeusD

To immaterial idealists, the world is just perception. When they are not perceiving the world, they don't believe it exists. But to the realists, they tend to believe the world keep exists even when they don't perceive it. Beliefs are psychological state. You either believe something or not with or without reasons. But are there beliefs that need rational justification? Or do we tend to believe in something due to our nature as Hume wrote?

I suppose the other thing is, in what scenario are we not sensible of the world in one way or another? A deprivation tank still provides a temperature etc... It's just aligned so closely with homeostasis its hard to tell. It hasn't actually removed stimuli entirely. — AmadeusD

I suppose it depends on the definition of the world as well. Yes, the definition of the world, the concept of existence, and the nature of belief.

I suppose the other thing is, in what scenario are we not sensible of the world in one way or another? A deprivation tank still provides a temperature etc... It's just aligned so closely with homeostasis its hard to tell. It hasn't actually removed stimuli entirely. — AmadeusD

If we define the world as the totality of the whole universe, then what we have been seeing was tiny particle amount of the world. In that scenario, are we qualified even to say we have been perceiving the world at all? This is just one scenario.

amount of the world. In that scenario, are we qualified even to say we have been perceiving the world at all? This is just one scenario. — Corvus

The underlined would suggest: Yes! But we must be humble about it to a very high degree! Not that this is news lol

So what if there is no world? What then?

Do you believe in absolute accuracy on everything you experience? — Corvus

What does the "absolute accuracy" in regard to experience even mean? Perhaps you are looking for some absolute certainty? It's a fool's errand, a dimwit's folly. See if you can dig your pointless hole even deeper; should be fun to watch. :rofl:

What does the "absolute accuracy" in regard to experience even mean? Perhaps you are looking for some absolute certainty? It's a fool's errand, a dimwit's folly. See if you can dig your pointless hole even deeper; should be fun to watch. :rofl: — Janus

Well, whenever you return here, all you ever keep shouting is that whatever you read is fool and dimwit. How could anyone help you? :lol:

So what if there is no world? What then? — Tom Storm

You need your argument for the statement. Without the argument, it would be just a passing suggestion. I cannot agree or disagree with your point without seeing your arguments for your claim.