Apologies for not reading the thread and perhaps repeating what's already been said. As far as Im concerned, "the reason for believing in the exisrence of the world" is that there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. :smirk: — 180 Proof

No probs mate. But what is your proof that what you are seeing, and going through in your life is not a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination?

Cool. I know you saw mine, scattered in the two threads where this has come up. — Mww

:cool: :ok:

Thank you! — RogueAI

:pray: :blush:

But what is your proof that what you are seeing, and going through in your life is not a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination? — Corvus

This seems a very unfairly asymmetrical question. Why would someone need proof that it's not a dream, but not need proof that it is a dream?

Well, this notion of craving for self-sameness as nihilistic and life-denying is discussed by Nietzsche in terms of the ascetic ideal in his Genealogy of Morals. — Joshs

I was reading a paper on Nietzsche's metaphysics and epistemology last night, and apparently he was very much into Kant's TI in the beginning. The paper was saying that to Nietzsche, art was a form of perception, which gave him therapeutic comfort from the unbearable world.

Others have responded to your question much better than I can but I would like to know what answer would you find satisfactory? — Captain Homicide

Your own opinions and views are most appreciated, but there is no reason why you shouldn't agree to, or follow the historical philosopher's views, ideas and systems, if that is what you do synchronise with in the ideology.

but as I said we have more reason to believe those things than that the universe is a simulation and everyone but you is a meat robot without actual sentience. — Captain Homicide

What is the "more reason" in detail that entail the belief?

Is reason an activity that exists while nothing else does? Is that activity something that can be known without reference to beings? I doubt that. — Paine

I doubt it too. But reason is cunning enough to be able to speculate the non-existence of the world without it being part of the world, couldn't it?

For Hume, I think he put reason as "slave of passion", which cannot give us the absolute certainty on our demand of accurate knowledge. Wasn't he then falling into the sceptical arguments, and then concludes that the nature of human mind comes first, which forces us to believe in the external world? I am not sure if he meant it with all his true honesty. It sounded like he wanted to avoid trouble being an extreme sceptic at the time of history and the society he lived.

I can try to present some worries with that intuition if you would like. — Bob Ross

Interesting post from you Bob. :up: By all means, I do look forward to reading your further presentation on the points that you have in mind.

No, I think that believing in the existence of the world, during deep sleep, is what turns pleasant dreams into nightmares. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you control or decide what and how you dream during deep sleep? I thought it is impossible for one to control, think, decide in one's dream. Isn't the content of dream totally random in nature, and you have absolutely no control over it?

And believing in the world when one is dead seems to be impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

hmmm... The problems of death seem still to be a mysterious topic. Are the dead totally really dead? I was under impression, they are dead physically, but might not be dead in soul. Might not be dead doesn't mean they are alive either. It just means we don't know.

For instance, I have some books on Kant, and when I see the books in my bookshelf, I feel still Kant is not dead. But he is dead. So he is both dead and not dead. When I take out one of his books, open it, and read it, really I feel he is alive and speaking in front of me standing at times. So when one is dead, is it a total death? or just a physical death? No one alive had been dead, so no one can verify on these points. And we are not even able to know the living others' minds. How could we suppose to know the dead's minds and their beliefs?

This seems a very unfairly asymmetrical question. Why would someone need proof that it's not a dream, but not need proof that it is a dream? — flannel jesus

I think you are missing the point of the question. It was not about "someone need proof on his belief", but it was about asking "whether 180 proof had proof on his belief". The question was put forward for more detail only because of the fact that he kindly has responded to the OP with his initial answer.

I believe in the unperceived cup each time I remember it in my mind. Absent the thought, the belief is absent.The error of assumption is regarding belief as a permanent object - let alone the cup.

Wasn't he then falling into the skeptical arguments, and then concludes that the nature of human mind comes first, which forces us to believe in the external world? I am not sure if he meant it with all his true honesty. — Corvus

Which passages are you referring to?

The thought experiment about Solipsism is, of course, endlessly relevant because it can't be disproven. As far as I know, there's no sequence of experiences or observations one could have to prove this isn't all a figment of your imagination, or a virtual world full of NPCs created to keep you entertained and docile, or any number of other infinite fake-world ideas.

First, let me ask you for a brief elaboration of your own view: what is 'experience' if it is not of something, under your view? That way I can provide some worries I may have with your intuitions and evidence.

I was reading a paper on Nietzsche's metaphysics and epistemology last night, and apparently he was very much into Kant's TI in the beginning. The paper was saying that to Nietzsche, art was a form of perception, which gave him therapeutic comfort from the unbearable world. — Corvus

Heidegger had an interesting take on Nietzsche’s thinking about art. He said for Nietzsche art was the means by which the will to power opens up and supplements the possibilities of moving beyond itself.

The creating of possibilities for the will on the basis of which the will to power first frees itself to itself is for Nietzsche the essence of art. In keeping with this metaphysical concept, Nietzsche does not think under the heading "art" solely or even primarily of the aesthetic realm of the artist. Art is the essence of all willing that opens up perspectives and takes possession of them: "The work of art, where it appears without an artist, e.g., as body, as organization (Prussian officer corps, Jesuit Order). To what extent the artist is only a preliminary stage. The world as a work of art that gives birth to itself" (Will to Power)

Ordinary observation. Or if you want a more formal word - empiric. — L'éléphant

Does that mean that when observation is not operational, do you stop believing in the existence of the world during the time of no observation? If you keep believing in the existence when the observation stopped, what is it that forces you into the belief?

Perception is conscious activity -- not in deep sleep. So, if you're asleep, you're not making a judgment like "I don't believe the cup exists when it's not in front of me." Let's settle on that. You're awake, and you're making a claim that you don't have a reason to believe an object exists when you're not looking at it. This is you admitting that you exist. — L'éléphant

How do you know the admission is true, not mistaken or unfounded? From whose point of view is the admission being performed, and proved?

The brain can't tell the difference between a self-generated world and an exogenous one. We almost always automatically believe the world that we are presented with, real or not. It appears that we are 'programmed' to believe in something, no matter what. — punos

I suppose there are many alternative worlds existing out there to believe in too. I asked ChatGPT for type of the alternative worlds available for us. So, the traditional earth bound world is not the only world existing out there. But then would you have to decide on which world is the real one, which are fake and bogus worlds?

Type of Alternative Worlds - from ChatGPT
"The concept of alternative worlds often appears in various contexts, including philosophy, science fiction, and speculative thought. Here are a few ways in which the idea of alternative worlds is explored:

1. **Multiverse Theory:**
In theoretical physics and cosmology, the multiverse hypothesis suggests the existence of multiple universes beyond our observable universe. These universes may have different physical constants, laws of physics, or even entirely different compositions.

2. **Parallel Universes:**
This idea is often explored in science fiction. The concept of parallel universes suggests the existence of multiple, coexisting realities that may differ slightly or significantly from our own. Choices made in one universe might lead to different outcomes in another.

3. **Alternate Realities and Dimensions:**
Some speculative theories propose the existence of alternate dimensions or realities that exist alongside our own. These dimensions might have different rules, properties, or even be entirely inaccessible to us.

4. **Philosophical Thought Experiments:**
Philosophers have often used thought experiments to explore the idea of alternative worlds. For example, the "possible worlds" theory suggests that there are many ways the world could be, and our reality is just one of those possibilities.

5. **Virtual Reality and Simulations:**
In the context of computer science and technology, the idea of simulated worlds or virtual realities explores the concept that our reality might be a constructed simulation rather than an independently existing, "real" world.

6. **Literature and Art:**
Many works of literature, film, and art explore alternative worlds as a creative and imaginative exercise. These worlds can serve as a backdrop for exploring different social, political, or existential themes.

Whether in the realms of science, philosophy, or fiction, the exploration of alternative worlds often serves as a means to question, understand, or escape the limitations of our own reality. It's a rich and diverse topic that spans multiple disciplines and continues to capture the human imagination." - ChatGPT

I believe in the unperceived cup each time I remember it in my mind. Absent the thought, the belief is absent. — Throng

How did you manage to perceive the unperceived cup first place, which caused your belief and memory on the unperceived cup?

The error of assumption is regarding belief as a permanent object - let alone the cup. — Throng

Most of our beliefs can be unfounded and groundless. But we could try to figure out which beliefs are groundless and which are warranted by evidence beliefs. This is partly what the OP is about suppose.

Which passages are you referring to? — Paine

Treatise of Human Nature Part IV. p.188 - p.218
Hume denies reason's ability to warrant us with belief in continued existence of the world when not perceived. He says it is "imagination" which does it.

The thought experiment about Solipsism is, of course, endlessly relevant because it can't be disproven. As far as I know, there's no sequence of experiences or observations one could have to prove this isn't all a figment of your imagination, or a virtual world full of NPCs created to keep you entertained and docile, or any number of other infinite fake-world ideas. — flannel jesus

Solipsism sounds controversial, but then the alternatives don't sound much better, do they?
If you look closely, realism is also a type of scepticsm, because there are many things that they don't know about, and cannot prove either as true existing or non-existing,  for example afterlife, God and souls. 

"Proof?" I make no positive claim that requires "proof"; simply there are no compelling grounds to even consider that the world is "a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination", and therefore, the existence of the world remains self-evident or presupposed by all other true statements of fact. Your OP raises a perennial pseudo-question (à la "Cartesian doubt"), Corvus, and maybe as a cure for what's ailing you, consider Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief" and Wittgenstein's On Certainty.

:up:

No one is born a solpsist. We innately know (non-verbally) there exists an external world, and proceed to learn how to interact with it. Two issues arise:
1) Is there a defeater of the belief in an external world?
Answer: there is no defeater. Solipsism is merely a logical possibility, and possibility is insufficient to defeat a belief.
2) Is belief in an external world rational?
Answer: yes, because it is an undefeated properly basic belief. It is basic, because it is not grounded in other beliefs. It is "properly" basic, because it was caused by a mechanism that would necessarily produce this true belief.

Typical objection: this doesn't prove ~solipsism is true.
Response: Yes, but that's because solipsism is logically possible. See #1.

"Proof?" I make no positive claim that requires "proof"; simply there are no compelling grounds to even consider that the world is "a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination", and therefore, the existence of the world remains self-evident or presupposed by all other true statements of fact. Your OP raises a perennial pseudo-question (à la "Cartesian doubt"), Corvus, and maybe as a cure for what's ailing you, consider Peirce's "The Fixation on Belief" and Wittgenstein's On Certainty. — 180 Proof

Ok fair enough. Quite disappointed on your "vulgar" nature of response in hysterical tone. Enjoy your own recommended readings yourself.

First, let me ask you for a brief elaboration of your own view: what is 'experience' if it is not of something, under your view? That way I can provide some worries I may have with your intuitions and evidence. — Bob Ross

Isn't experience always about something? I used to think that way, but maybe you have idea on experience in general, or experience which is not about something. What would it be from your idea?

I don't understand how what you said has to do with realism being a type of skepticism. Realism itself makes no claims about God or souls or unicorns or Santa clause

Realism itself makes no claims about God or souls or unicorns or Santa clause — flannel jesus

Obviously you have not seen them getting asked, and giving out their replies. That doesn't follow that they don't make claims on these issues. Other possibility could be that they don't make claims on them because they don't know?

some realists are Christians or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus or etc. Some realists are atheists. I don't see how realism implicitly makes any claims about spiritual things - spiritual people are also frequently realists

Suppose there are different types of realists of course. Are there also idealists, sceptics, immaterialist, anti-realists and non-realists who are realists?

I suspect that's a no on some of them. But of course there are different types of realists. Most people are realists, and there's plenty of types of people in the set of "most people"

Sure. My definition of realist in this thread was the folks who believe in the objects which they can see only as real existence, since this is a metaphysical and epistemological topic.

And please bear in mind, Afterlife, God and Souls are not necessarily spiritual concepts. They could be just metaphysical and epistemic concepts, which I meant and implied.