My definition of realist in this thread was the folks who believe in the objects which they can see only as real existence, — Corvus

It is? Your title implies it's about everyone who believes the world exists. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Plenty of people who believe in Jesus and Santa and ghosts think the world exists.

It is? Your title implies it's about everyone who believes the world exists. I suspect I'm not the only one who thinks so. — flannel jesus

I have been repeating myself about 1000 times so far this topic is asking for logical ground / reasons for believing in the existence of the world. Not presuming or claiming on anything. I have been just responding on the individual posts some were excellent, some misunderstood, and some almost insane hysterical tones which are nothing to do with the topic or the truth.

I think they if you wanted this thread to be about a particular type of skeptical realist, there are words you could have used in your title and op that would have been unambiguously clear about that. For now, you will have to endure the confusion.

:cool: :ok: There are more well tuned posters who are giving excellent write-ups, and they alone compensate for any and all the confusions, and makes the OP worthwhile, because as I am getting the constructive and interesting responses, they give me motive to do research, readings and study on the points. This is excellent opportunity for learning.

But we can learn from confusions too - how human minds work for different people, and we can notice the backgrounds of their ill intentions and negative motive for the aggressive responses, which has nothing to do with philosophy or the OP. It is all being noted, nothing goes missing or wasted. :)

We innately know (non-verbally) there exists an external world, and proceed to learn how to interact with it. — Relativist

Do you suggest that the external world is an inborn (a priori) concept?

dang, you really don't want to just admit there's a bit of ambiguity in your op do you? You'll insult everyone else rather than just say "yeah I see why you thought it was about people who thought the world was real, that's what was in my title after all".

Interesting approach

If I admit what you want me to admit, would it make you happy? :rofl:

Do you suggest that the external world is an inborn (a priori) concept? — Corvus

It's not an a priori truth in the traditional sense, because its falsehood is logically possible. I'm simply saying ~solipsism is a rational belief.

I mean I would totally love to just go back in time and you just say "oh yeah I see why you thought I meant that" instead of insulting me. That was all very unnecessary.

No insult. I don't see why you should feel insulted. I was only trying to make you to see the point, because you seem to be missing the point, from the very start.

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

I don't understand your reaction. I read @180 Proof's contribution as a reasonable response, which was located in the philosophical tradition. I found it helpful.

But we can learn from confusions too - how human minds work for different people, and we can notice the backgrounds of their ill intentions and negative motive for the aggressive responses, — Corvus

Yeah, okay.

It's not an a priori truth in the traditional sense, because its falsehood is logically possible. I'm simply saying ~solipsism is a rational belief. — Relativist

Ok. I see. Good argument on your original post, I think. :up:

I don't understand your reaction. I read 180 Proof's contribution as a reasonable response, which was located in the philosophical tradition. I found it helpful. — Tom Storm

I thought his using the word "ailing" in his reply was not a good manner in public writing.

:cool: :ok:

right, so it's acknowledged now that you chose to respond like that to me instead of just realising that I read your words at face value.

"He read my words at face value, he must have I'll intent, negative motives, he's so aggressive!"

Maybe, corvus, I didn't have any negative motive and I just read your words for what they were. You don't need to jump to conclusions about me or my motives in a situation like this.

No no, that wasn't about you. I think you are very sensitive. We have exchanged our views and there were some differences and mutual misunderstandings, but we sorted out all OK, and agreed to move on. That is my understanding. :blush:

Why in the world would you write a post to me about people getting confused and having ill intents, if you aren't specifically talking about me, the very person who read your op and interpreted it for the words it said?

If you're not talking about me, there's no need for you to mention that at all. I'm being gaslit here

It turns out that Heinlein's "fair witness" is the only actually correct way of doing this. While one is perceiving the existence of the world one has complete proof that the world exists at least in the sense of a set of (what at least appears to be) sensory perceptions.

This remains true even if the world never physically existed. When one no longer is perceiving objects, then it would be the case that these objects have utterly ceased to exist in every sense (besides memories of them) when these objects are mere projections from one's own mind.

The only path to the actual truth is to continue to hypothesize possibilities until they are conclusively proven to be definitely false. Both belief and disbelief tend to short-circuit this.

I thought his using the word "ailing" in his reply was not a good manner in public writing. — Corvus

I see. I think this is just a turn of phrase.

I see. I think this is just a turn of phrase. — Tom Storm

Maybe it is used different ways where you live, but here where I live, if one describes someone as ailing, then it is seriously rude. :roll:

I was talking about the OP in general how it went so far, because you said

For now, you will have to endure the confusion. — flannel jesus

.

When someone says, 'I have something for what ails you, my friend' they generally mean they want to help you with your concern. I would agree with @180 Proof that your position here could be understood to be ailing you. It may lead to distress and a source of confusions about the world you live in. But it's entirely up to you. We have seen people here who are so convinced of solipsism, they seem to have become unwell. Philosophy can fuck with people's minds and ability to function. That said, if you get too caught up in feeling slighted by any word that sounds critical from others then this site can be a constant source of feeling aggrieved.

It turns out that Heinlein's "fair witness" is the only actually correct way of doing this. While one is perceiving the existence of the world one has complete proof that the world exists at least in the sense of a set of (what at least appears to be) sensory perceptions.

This remains true even if the world never physically existed. When one no longer is perceiving objects, then it would be the case that these objects have utterly ceased to exist in every sense (besides memories of them) when these objects are mere projections from one's own mind. — PL Olcott

Yeah, this sounds interesting. I will do some reading and search on Heinlein's Fair Witness (never heard of the name before), and have some contemplation on it. Will get back to you if I have any points to discuss or ask.

The only path to the actual truth is to continue to hypothesize possibilities until they are conclusively proven to be definitely false. Both belief and disbelief tend to short-circuit this. — PL Olcott

Wow, yeah, this is what I believe too. :up:

No no, I am not bothered at all. I was just a bit surprised at his post using the derogatory word (well here, it is definitely derogatory and ill mannered word).
So I told him what I thought and felt about the post, and that is all there is to it. I don't dwell on it :) Thank you for your concern and care. Much appreciated.

No problem.. I like diversity on this site and people who hold different views to my own. :pray: If everyone agreed, wouldn't life be boring?

No problem.. I like diversity on this site and people who hold different views to my own. :pray: If everyone agreed, wouldn't life be boring? — Tom Storm

I agree with you. :up: It would be pure boring for sure, if everyone had same views on everything. :wink:

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

That I don't know. I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, but when I see the cup I no longer believe it because I know it in the qualitative sense. Hence, when I don't see the cup, I believe in it if I think of it. Since the knowledge I now recall was irrevocable to me when I saw it, I can only believe in it when I remember it. One can argue, What about hallucination? What about dreams? In that case it goes without saying that my perception was delusional and my belief is wrong, but provided the cup repeatedly affirms itself to me each time I have a coffee, I can only believe in it, but only while I remember it..

But if you accept that experience is about something, then why don't you accept that there is a world? I am confused.

I don't know why there is something rather than nothing, — Throng

Could it be the case there is something rather than nothing, because you perceived something rather than nothing?