Oh. That’s fine. I hope I didn’t give any indication I thought otherwise. Correlation not causation and all that. — Mww

:cool: :ok:

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

A world with no existence is metaphysically impossible because metaphysics deals with existence.
A world with no existence is logically possible because logically there are possible worlds where nothing exists.

How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it?
— Corvus

….makes no sense to me, and my…. — Mww

If something was independent of experience, then it would be A priori. But if something was independent of intelligence, then would it be also A priori? Well, then we wouldn't know what it would be. I wasn't sure on that. And your claim, that we don't prove, but reason on it sounded not making sense, because we don't know whether it were A priori or Thing-in-Itself, or some unknown empirical object.

…..seems to have made no sense to you. I meant by the proposition that just because we are not receptive of a thing is not sufficient warrant for us to den its existence. Whereas, if we were to deny the existence of that which is a cause of our sensations, we contradict ourselves. — Mww

I wasn't meaning to deny existence because we are not receptive of a thing, but rather was saying that having a concept of something doesn't warrant its existence of it.

The difference between he intellect receiving from without, and creating from within. — Mww

Not quite sure what this means. Could you please elaborate?

How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it?
— Corvus

You don’t. You reason to a justifiable conclusion on sufficient grounds. — Mww

It sounds absurd that you can reason on something which is independent of whatever your intellect received.

Is nirvana or moksha even a worthwhile goal ? — Sirius

No.

A possible existence and its possible phenomenon may be irrelevant at a certain time, but time isn’t something to be ignored in general. Contingency in empirical knowledge mandates successions in time, so….. — Mww

Are irrelevant until (such time of) the manifestation. The proposition was emphasising the time factor.

But that isn’t the system as a whole. It is human nature so want to know, and for that the whole system…..whatever it may be…..is a prerequisite. — Mww

Of course not, but it was to make the point that the alternative is not always the case.

Nature is the totality of all that is possible independent of whatever intellect receives it. — Mww

How do you prove something is possible independent of whatever intellect received it?

Concepts alone, their origin and method of use being granted, in the domain of pure thought they do not, but consideration still must be given to possible existence and phenomenon. — Mww

Possible existence and phenomenon are not the actuality until they manifested, so should they not be irrelevant?

Existence, the category, does not grant existence to objects, but only makes necessary that an object exist for it to be an experience. — Mww

Here we are talking about Existence as the actual instantiation of objects rather than the category.

Within the system as a whole, from appearance in the beginning to knowledge at the end, it is impossible concepts have nothing to do phenomena, but Nature is still presupposed as having to do with existence — Mww

Yeah you could apply the concepts to the phenomena to get the understanding, but that is not the necessary connection is it? You can have a brand new phenomena with no concepts and no understanding presumed, attached or presupposed as just a sensibility. What is "Nature" here? What does it include?

The concept comes first as a thought, the phenomenon corresponding to it is impossible, therefore does not come at all. — Mww

Doesn't it indicate that concepts has nothing to do with existence or phenomenon of objects?

Nevertheless….remember the time relation? Which came first? In the case of, e.g., black holes, the concept, grounded in math and pure logic, antecedes the phenomenon. — Mww

What about the concept of God? Which came first? The phenomenon or the concept?

What? That's not at all a reasonable comment on evolution to my mind. I hope i've missed something. — AmadeusD

That was a metaphor.

I suggest that his premise can be justified by the Principle of Innatism, a natural consequence of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

Is there a better justification for his premise? — RussellA

It would only make sense to those folks believing in evolution. More than half the world population folks don't care about evolution. I mean if evolution were true, we would have had wings and fly around to the work instead commuting stuck in the traffic jam polluting and burning the toxic gasoline paying out fortune just for one example.

Nothing has been happening with the human bodies or minds since the history began to show any scientific proof that evolution is true. The prehistoric world is full of imagination and fantasies.

Therefore evolution based justifications has weak grounds in all logical arguments. But more importantly, in Kant's philosophy, it would be irrelevant.

Surely good philosophy needs to justify its premises. — RussellA

Sure.

If I said that aliens from Mars are running all governments, and made no attempt to justify my statement, I would get nowhere. — RussellA

If you had strong enough evidences supporting your claims, then you might get somewhere.

Similarly, if I based a philosophy on the premise of a priori pure intuitions and a priori pure concepts of the understanding without attempting to justify my premise, my philosophy has been based on a weak foundation and will thereby be unpersuasive to many. — RussellA

I am not sure if your justification using innate-ism were coherent for your premises or conclusions.

Wrong...you know they are said to exist. And since there is no controversy regarding their existence among the experts, you have good grounds to believe they exist, You, curiously, have it all arse-about. — Janus

If you addressed the points I presented instead of making pointless claims about "my level" you might actually begin to do some philosophy. I don't believe in a flat earth by the way; do you? If not, on what basis do you not believe it? — Janus

If you were wise enough to use proper language instead of the derogatory word in you post, you would have not lowered your level in public as you have done.
The way that you resort to the derogatory language on every post you wrote, gave impression you are not into philosophical discussions at all.

By the way, it's not a matter of "worshipping experts" but of provisionally accepting that in their area of expertise their experience is more comprehensive and their judgements better informed than yours are. You go further than I do anyway in trusting their judgement, since you say you know Andromeda exists. And to say you know something, but do not believe it is incoherent. — Janus

You seem to be confusing between knowledge and truth, and justified belief.

Wrong...you know they are said to exist. And since there is no controversy regarding their existence among the experts, you have good grounds to believe they exist, You, curiously, have it all arse-about. — Janus

If everyone was at your level, then they would still believe in flat earth. Experts worshipping syndrome does not prove anything.

Possibly, but his philosophy isn't complete without asking where these a priori pure intuitions and a priori Categories came from. — RussellA

Sure, but it is totally different thing asking about them to find out what Kant had meant by them, and asking about them to conclude their origin is innatism. The origin of A priori ideas in biological psychological sense would be in the interest of the evolutionary science rather than Philosophy.

Having said that, that is just my opinion. You could always refute that with your point and the original text. If you quote any other 2nd 3rd commentaries for the points, there is always room for doubt, and opposition saying yeah but that is just a commentator's view. Now even SEP info is proven to be not 100% reliable source of knowledge. It is just a container for some articles which they think high standard, but their standards can be not 100% objective.

When you refer to "universe" do you mean a universe within the mind or a universe external to the mind? — RussellA

Universally to mean "under all conditions", not in the physical universe.

From the Principle of Sufficient Reason, an appearance must have a cause, which may well be unknown. This unknown cause can be called "x", or even "Thing-in-Itself". — RussellA

To talk about the unknowns, it would only make sense in the possible world of unknown, as I have made clear in the other thread "Reason to believe in the existence of the world".

How can you know atoms exist, yet not believe in their existence? — RussellA

To believe in atoms, I must see it with my own eyes, and even be able to touch them. I was never been able to do so in my whole life, hence I cannot believe in its existence.

I know atoms exist, because my physics teacher told us so in the high school class, and I read in the books. Hence it is a knowledge through the grapevine. Why should I trust it apart from the reason someone told me so? To trust and believe in them would be committing myself into naive vulgarity.

It proves that some knowledge has weaker ground than the beliefs justified and verified with the perceivers witnessing and real life evidence. Hence SEP info is not always correct.

If not from Innatism, where do you think our pure intuitions and pure concepts came from? — RussellA

Kant was saying that pure intuitions and concepts are the the properties of our minds which work with pure reason in CPR. He is not interested in where they came from as if, they have walked into a pub, or inherited down into your mind by your ancestors. No no. :)

but this universe only exists in the mind of the perceiver, not in any world that exists outside the mind of the perceiver. — RussellA

That sounds like extreme idealism. We are talking about the universally and necessarily true knowledge, and it exists. Again it is nothing to do with the physical universe. Knowledge exists in our understanding. Universally doesn't mean the physical universe. It means "under all conditions".

They cannot refer to the world of Things-in-Themselves, as these are unknowable, — RussellA

You just committed a self-contradiction here. You shouldn't even be able to write about it, if above were true.

Knowledge is justified true belief, so knowledge has a stronger ground than belief.

If from the grapevine one hears the belief that atoms exist, and the grapevine justifies the claim, and in fact atoms do exist, then, and only then, is this knowledge. — RussellA

I have demonstrated how even the most [t]rusted and accepted official definitions could be false, but you have gone back to the false official definition ignoring the real life demonstration and evidence.

The point of the a priori is that it distinguishes two very different approaches to the relationship between the mind and the world.

It distinguishes between Innatism, the philosophical belief that one is born with certain ideas and knowledge, and Locke's idea that the mind at birth is a blank sheet, a tabula rasa, devoid of all ideas or knowledge, where all our ideas and knowledge arrive from experience. — RussellA

When you say "Innatism", it denotes psychological or biological nature rather than epistemic, conceptual nature, and it has nothing to do what Kant was meaning for A priori. A priori knowledge is for universally and necessarily true knowledge, and there is no room for difference in the truth value.

For example 2+2=4 is A priori knowledge, which is universally and necessarily true in the whole universe. There is no way, that it is 4.5 for you, and 4.1 for me, and 3.9 for a bloke in some other remote place on the earth.

Therefore you read about A priori knowledge or concept, but never A priori sensation or perception (absurd expression).

I know the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't believe it exists.
— Corvus

I think that this should be the other way round: "I believe the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't know it exists"

The SEP article on The Analysis of Knowledge discusses knowledge as justified true belief. First one has a belief, and then one tries to justify this belief, and if one's belief is true, then one has knowledge

IE, belief comes before knowledge. — RussellA

Justified true belief has stronger ground than a knowledge via heard through the grapevine. I really don't believe the electrons, atoms and Andromeda galaxies exist, because I have never seen them, or been there. Without me personally justifying and verifying the facts, there is no ground for me in believing in them.

But I know they exist, because I read about them. Just because I know something doesn't mean that I must believe in it too.

Even if the contents were from SEP, if it sounds irrational and not making sense, you should think, reflect on it, and reject them, and be able to tell the difference between truth and false. That is what philosophy is all about. Thinking with your own reasoning is what matters most, rather than just reading the information from the well known institutions, and blindly accepting them.

More later~

Justified yes (evidential), proven no (purely deductive). ← different — jorndoe

Sure. Good point. :up:

By "properly" do you mean deductively, with logical certainty? — jorndoe

to denote in any possible way that you feel relevant i.e. logically, epistemically, intuitively, phenomenologically ....

If you recall from the previous messages in this thread, the thread is not about one single topic, or declarative, but it could be from any angle and is exploratory. Therefore, one can discuss the topic from sceptic, realistic, idealistic, metaphysical, physical, psychological or conceptual point of view, and I will try to engage in the discussion from the level or point of view. This point of the thread seems to have been totally misunderstood by the folk like , who keeps saying and distorting the thread as attempting to deny the existence of the world.

Metaphysics that have survived (this far, sort of, in corners of academia at least), are just that. For some proposition, p, if attainable evidence is compatible with both p and ¬p, then we strand there. And we're venturing into metaphysics. Not particularly informative, like a difference that makes no difference (though Bateson used that phrase differently). — jorndoe

The concept of the world is such a historic and rich topic in the history of philosophy, if we even look at the very beginning in ancient Greece, Thales was the first man ever asked what the world is made of, which started the philosophical tradition.

The question of what is the world, what is the world made of is still unanswered to this day, and only Metaphysics can deal with such topics along with the sciences such as Physics and Cosmology.

Although the OP says, "Reasons to believe in the existence of the world", I have said numerous times that we could approach the topic from the conceptual perspective initially such as asking and discussing the concept of "the world", "existence" and "beliefs".

The terms "the world", "existence" and "beliefs" are interesting philosophical concepts even from just a definitional point of view. As you suggested, the concepts can be abstract and multi subject in origins such as physics, psychology, semantics, logic and metaphysics.

Hence it can be extended with modal logic. Knowledge of the real world needs the real world to stand on, if you will. — jorndoe

I was reading "On the Plurality of Worlds" by David Lewis over the weekend, and in the book Lewis was discussing Modality of possible worlds, and it was interesting. Indeed, the book made me think about the concept of the world in terms of various different types of possible worlds, and their nature of existence.

You are correct in saying that actual knowledge of the world requires the actual world's existence. That was also Lewis' point in the book. Everything existing belongs to the actual world, but there are possible worlds which also belong to the actual world.

"The world we live in is a very inclusive thing. Every stick and every stone you have ever seen is part of it. And so are you and I. And so are the planet earth, the solar system, the entire Milky way, the remote galaxies we are seeing through telescopes, and (if there are such things) all the bits of empty space between the stars and galaxies. There is nothing so far away from us as not to be part of our world. Anything at any distance at all is to be included. Likewise the world is inclusive in time. No long-gone ancient Romans, no long-gone pterodactyls, no long-gone primordial clouds of plasma are too far in the past, nor are the dead dark stars too far in the future, to be part of this same world. Maybe, as I myself think, the world is a big physical object; or maybe some parts of it are entelechies or spirits or auras or deities or other things unknown to physics. But nothing is so alien in kind as not to be part of our world, provided only that it does exist at some distance and direction from here, or at some time before or after simultaneous with now." The Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis pp.1

With all the possible worlds in the world, I was thinking about the unknown world. There is a world which is unknown to me, and there must be one for you too. I believe in the existence of the unknown world.

The unknown world includes everything that is unknown to me such as the world of past, future, all the places I have never been, outer space, galaxies, the world of spirituality, the world of other people. All the worlds of other people are unknown worlds to me, because I cannot access their minds and perceptions. And my world must be an unknown world to all the others for the same reason.

The belief in all the abstract items which have not been justified or verified is totally valid, when the belief has been deducted from the unknown world. It would have been impossible to have the belief under the category of the actual world.

One's actual world is the logical premise for unknown worlds, because one must first know the actual world that he sees and perceives to be able to deduct their unknown worlds. Without the former, there is no latter. The former is the necessary causal relationship with the latter.

Therefore my reason to believe the world is my perception of it. My perception, recollection of the memories and being conscious of it is also the proof of the existence of the world.

The perception of the world, and thoughts about it (by the aboutness of my thoughts for the world) is also the base of my deduction for the unknown world, which includes the totality of the world which is not visible and accessible to my physical world.

Have a good weekend. Grabbing a JD#7 on the rocks. — jorndoe

Thank you. Hope you had a great time. Later~

It may well be the case that you want to encounter only views that you like or are able to appreciate. You would not be alone there. — Tom Storm

If you read all my posts, you would realise that I welcome genuine philosophical arguments, criticisms and refutations based on logic and reasonings, and I always try to present the same to the serious interlocutors.

But in the case of @Janus, he has never been sincere or serious from my memory. He has no arguments, but just throws abuse and debasements on the thread itself, or one's philosophical points. So, your point in the quote is incorrect and unfounded.

Well it hasn't been a waste of my time so this statement is wrong. I find your views interesting. If you do nto wish to engage with a member just ignore them. Most members employ this strategy here. — Tom Storm

Apologies if I mistook your true intention. The fact that you were communicating with @Janus in supportive manner towards him could have sent out the impression that you were just here to accompany and assist @Janus for his disrespect for the thread.

If you were not, then there was misunderstanding obviously. I hope you would understand the situation. I do appreciate your explanation on the situation. Thank you.

Indeed. Of all the great philosophers, he is the most clearly-spoken and incisive. — Wayfarer

Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer are my favourite philosophers. But I see Kant as the most important philosopher of all time. Any topic we pick up this day, it is very likely that it had been already discussed and investigated by those philosophers already.

Thank you for your understanding. It wasn't my feedback for you at all. It was just a sincere and honest message to you and @Janus that we seem to have totally different views even on what philosophy is. Under this situation, I am under impression that we cannot have any decent constructive philosophical discussions at all.

My engaging in any type of philosophical discussion with yourself, or @Janus would be just total waste of everyone's time. So, all the best.

How does he know for certain what he is conscious of is not an illusion?
— Corvus

Isn't this the argument against Direct Realism, in that if Direct Realism was true, the external world would be exactly as we perceive it. However, in the case of illusions, there is an obvious difference between our perception and reality. For example, when a pencil is placed in a glass of water, it can look crooked. But it isn't really crooked. — RussellA

Yes, but my question was how do you know it is real or illusion? How can you be sure?
What is the obvious difference between our perception and reality and also illusion?
I should have asked these questions to Kant, but he is not around unfortunately, hence you have been asked, because you decided to quote him.

Kant was definitely not a Direct Realist. — RussellA

Definitely not.

How does the Direct Realist know when looking at something in the world, such as a tree, that what they think they are looking at is just an illusion? — RussellA

Not sure. I am not a DRist either. Maybe they perceive illusions as real too? Yes, real illusions? :)

How / Why do you justify your belief in something that you cannot prove it exists?
— Corvus

I cannot prove that electrons exist, yet I believe they exist. I justify my belief from the numerous scientific articles that I have read that say that electrons do exist.

Do you believe that the Andromeda Galaxy exists? Can you prove that it exists? — RussellA

Those are the blind beliefs on the existence that have not been justified. For any beliefs if they were to be qualified as knowledge, then they need empirical or logical justifications with evidences.
Your beliefs on the things that cannot be verified or justified are groundless beliefs.

I know the Andromeda Galaxy exists, but I don't believe it exists. If I believed in its existence without justification or verification, then I would have a groundless belief on it too, and I don't want that.

I have knowledge of its existence which is from heard through the grapevine in nature, which is not a solid justified ground.

More to follow ...

The IEP article on A Priori and A Posteriori writes: An a priori concept is one that can be acquired independently of experience, which may – but need not – involve its being innate, while the acquisition of an a posteriori concept requires experience.

A Priori does not mean universally true for all people at all times. A priori means in a sense innate within a particular person. My private subjective experience of colour when seeing a wavelength of 700nm is innate to me. — RussellA

Not sure what the IEP article was about, but it doesn't sound right. If A priori is just innate to you, and all different from person to person, then what is the point of A priori? Would it not better just as well call it as Relative concept rather than A priori? There must be some universality and necessity in truth on A priori, and that was what Kant was after in CPR.

How can you know that when you are look at a wavelength of 700nm, your private subjective experience of colour is the same as mine? — RussellA

I can't know what your perception of WL700nm would be like, and that was the point. Your claim on "A priori imposition of colour Red for the perceived WL700nm" doesn't sound valid, does it? If it were A priori imposition as claimed, then we must all have the same colour of Red in the visual perception. But we don't. Therefore, it cannot be A priori imposition.

In other words:

1) I am conscious of my existence in time
2) Therefore I am conscious of something persisting in time — RussellA

How does he know for certain what he is conscious of is not an illusion?

3) But this something that persists in time cannot be inside me, as this something cannot be conscious of itself — RussellA

Does this mean, if something was conscious of itself, then it could be inside him? :chin:

I don't find anything philosophical from your writings and messages, sorry. Please use the forum "Lounge" for all your postings which are not philosophical in nature. Thank you.

No, because this imposition is a priori, and as priori is beyond choice. In the same way that when I see the wavelength of 700nm I have no choice as to what colour I perceive . — RussellA

This sounds a bit vague and needing some more discussion. OK, you perceive the colour by seeing the WL700nm, you claim. If that is the case, what is the relation between the colour you perceive (red), and the WL700nm? Are they same in nature, substance and composition? The WL700nm itself is not the colour you perceive itself, is it?

After seeing the red colour, you close your eyes, and you can visualise the colour you have just seen in your mind. It appears in your mind as red colour. Then what is that red colour? Is it the WL700nm? or something else?

Speaking as an Indirect Realist, none. I believe that things exist independently of the mind, and can come up with reasons to justify my belief, but cannot prove it. Such is the nature of Indirect Realism. — RussellA

How / Why do you justify your belief in something that you cannot prove it exists?

No, because this imposition is a priori, and as priori is beyond choice. In the same way that when I see the wavelength of 700nm I have no choice as to what colour I perceive . — RussellA

A priori means that it is universally true under all circumstances. If you say that you see the WL700nm, and you perceive the colour red. You claim that you have no choice but perceive the colour under A priori condition.

But if that is the case, how do you explain that some other people perceive the colour differently, or no colour at all (in the case of colour blind people)? Surely that proves the point that colour perception is not A priori?

An example of a Transcendental argument is used by Kant in his refutation of idealism. Idealists believe that things have no existence independently of the mind. — RussellA

Wasn't Kant refuting the rationalists rather than idealism? If it were idealists, who were they?

His Transcendental argument does not prove that things exist independently of the mind, only that the concept that things exist independently of the mind is legitimate. — RussellA

What is the proof of the legitimacy of the concept that things exist independently of the mind?

Kant argues that:
1) since idealists acknowledge that we have an inner mental life, and
2) an inner life of self-awareness is bound up with the concepts of objects which are not inner, and which interact causally,
3) then we must have legitimate experience of outer objects which interact causally. — RussellA

Any relevant quotes for this argument from CPR?

(I'm not saying that you are doing this.) — Tom Storm

I was not saying that you were doing that either. Well actually if you think this thread was all about solipsism, then you might have been :D, and as someone quite rightly commented recently here, where you and @Janus belong to, should be Netflix.

If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. — Corvus

Stop it...you're killing me! — Janus

Read some philosophy books, and learn instead of wasting time. :)

I agree. But I'm not sure people always consciously do this. But they tend to use arguments as surrogates for value systems. A classic example of this is presuppositional apologetics for Islam or Christianity. But this is a digression. — Tom Storm

Yes, some do. I don't see a point doing it.

My primary question when faced with arguments about whether the world is real, or if am I in a simulation, or if matter an illusion and idealism is the correct ontology - is what is the significance? Is there anything in my life I would do differently? Almost always the answer is no. — Tom Storm

The scepticism on the world was one of the historical philosophy themes. In the ancient times, they used to take it seriously, and some of them stopped judging on all things. But nowadays? We just use the topic to practice and study philosophy. If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. :)

Well, I believe in calling a spade a spade, and it is not I who is looking for, or in need of, help. In any case, by all means carry on going around in your silly circle, it may be useless, but at least it will most likely provide a few laughs along the way, for others if not for you. — Janus

The way that you keep resorting to the lowly languages and mention of laughs, whenever you appear here just seems to indicate you might be looking for either some help or attention. It just appears to demonstrate that you are not into a sound philosophical discussions.

Not for me. Philosophy is about how you orientate your values, then come the arguments. My view is that people often settle on beliefs that appeal aesthetically, then a lot of post hoc rationalization comes into play. I also think the most interesting part is why people are drawn to certain arguments. Arguments dontl necessarily speak for themselves, they often speak to the biases of those who hold them. — Tom Storm

It is not ideal, not morally good or even practically possible to force down a value of someone to the others. No matter how right the value was, it would be meaningless and counter productive endeavour / exercise for all those involved.

Arguments are intellectual and logical dialectic efforts looking to come to the answers in the middle or end of them heuristically, and they are one of the traditional methodologies of philosophy.

So is it more about the argument than a vital part of how you live? I am always interested in why people argue or hold positions. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is all about arguments. The conclusions are for each individuals.

I’m not making an argument, it is a question for you. — Tom Storm

I am mainly interested in seeing different arguments on the topic, and forwarding my counter arguments if and where necessary. The conclusion is up to each individuals.

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

Or if your definition of the world is, all that you perceive in your daily life, then you are seeing the whole world. But then a question arises, is your definition of the world objective?

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.