The proof you are asking for presumes there is a priority to "reason" that Hume does not accept:

this operation of the mind, by which we infer like effects from like causes, and vice versa, is so essential to the subsistence of all human creatures, it is not probable that it could be trusted to the fallacious deductions of our reason

So, this question of proof could be asked of your proposal. What is self-evidently given such that it provides the grounds for believing or not believing our experiences? Upon what grounds is your doubt more than a subtraction from what is given to you?

:up:

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:

Rather, he considered that quest a nihilistic aim, an attempt to stifle and freeze living becoming.
— Joshs
"a nihilistic aim"? Doesn't it sounds like a contradiction? When nihilist has aim, doesn't he stop being a nihilist? What was the reasons for him doing that? — Corvus

Nietzsche believed any attempt to nail down truth as a repeatedly producible self-same thing, foundation, ground or telos, destroys meaning and value.

The first thought that occurred to me was: Why would we need a reason to believe the world exists? Reason suffers when such unreasonable demands are put on it. Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world.

Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world. — Fooloso4

:100:

We never stop perceiving the world. Gravity is a constant reminder. Biology never turns off. These worldly constants are always in our perceptual space and can never be not perceived.

The first thought that occurred to me was: Why would we need a reason to believe the world exists? Reason suffers when such unreasonable demands are put on it. Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world — Fooloso4

Reason itself can be unreasonable when it naively takes for granted unexamined presuppositions. For instance, what sorts of suppositions are at work in positing that the existence of a thing requires its pre-existence with respect to our engagement with it?

Maybe the Earth only turns round when we look at said evidence and is flat the rest of the time? :nerd:

Maybe the Earth only turns round when we look at said evidence and is flat the rest of the time? :nerd: — Count Timothy von Icarus

That sounds like a statement from misunderstanding existence from motion.
Anyway, the earth rotating the Sun was purely found out by the Mathematical deduction, not empirical observation.

Suppose that if a dog cannot tell the difference between a cat and tiger, and when he saw a tiger, if the dog chased the tiger barking thinking it was a cat, then he would be eaten fast by the tiger, and no longer exist. But the matter of fact is that, even a dog would perceive the tiger, and know the imminent danger, and run away as fast as he could hiding for his own safety.

For human beings, if you drive a car when you are not perceiving the road ahead of you, believing that it exists even if you are not perceiving it, and keep on racing away into a river, then that would be a disaster. When you don't perceive the road ahead of you, you simply say to yourself, you no longer have reason to believe there is a road ahead of you, and get out of the car, and take a taxi home. Wouldn't it be a more rational thing to do? — Corvus

So you are interested in questions about perception and reality in case the road or a building vanishes? Or in case animals in the jungle suddenly fail to recognise each other and get eaten? How would you demonstrate that something like this has ever happened or will happen? I think that question might be more significant than whether reality is 'really real'.

There are endless things we can't be certain about, but, as I said, I wonder what is the point of speculating? How do we know that the world wasn't created 10 minutes ago, with all of us holding implanted memories? How do we know we're not living in a simulation? Is solipsism true? You can think your way in any direction, tie yourself in knots of doubt and speculation. Why do it though, when that old quotidian seems to just keep rolling along?

So, your own example is an argument against your own OP. — Manuel

My example was against your point that you would rather take a more supported and seeming option rather than a less supported and unlikely option. The OP was asking what your reasons to believe in the existence of the world are, while not perceiving it.

:chin:

Anything is possible.

:victory:

Anyway, the earth rotating the Sun was purely found out by the Mathematical deduction, not empirical observation.

Uhh... I'm not sure about that. Unless the proof started with:

"Let there be astronomical observations equivalent with the empirical observations we have made....

Uhh... I'm not sure about that. Unless the proof started with:

"Let there be astronomical observations equivalent with the empirical observations we have made.... — Count Timothy von Icarus

You cannot observe the earth rotating around visually sitting on any point on the earth. :)

You cannot observe the earth rotating around visually sitting on any point on the earth. :) — Corvus

Yeah, you can, from anywhere within sight of a Foucault pendulum.

See, trouble is, you are not paying attention. You do your philosophy then try to squeeze everything in to it.

"It is still the case that you have mediate reason to believe a priori, in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions." -
When you said that, it sounded like you were treating a priori and the existence of the world as the same league of perceptual knowledge. But you are denying it, putting them as "irrelevant.


"in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions."
Yes, they have similar meaning, in which case implying memory? No?

"For the metaphysical philosopher, perception is mere appearance, an as-yet undetermined effect on physiology by something, and from which there is no memory as a determined thing
The visual memory content is also appearance? No? If you see the images from your past events in your memory, are they not perceptual contents?

"Every belief is justified, and no empirical knowledge is infallible, so it would seem memory drops out of consideration for either. A priori knowledge, on the other hand, is infallible, but does not obtain its certainty from memories of things, but from the necessity of principles."
There are unjustified or groundless beliefs too as well as justified ones? No empirical knowledge is infallible? Again there is infallible empirical knowledge too? - such as I have hands (waving, seeing and verifying)? What would be some examples of infallible a priori knowledge? Folks like Kripke have denied validity of a priori knowledge saying that all knowledge is a posteriori. Even all the mathematical knowledge is acquired by experiential learning.


"But we’re talking about believing in the existence of the world, which already presupposes it. We should be discussing belief in the continuation of such existence, rather than existence itself."
But isn't there also the possibility that all your past perception of the existence of the world could be an illusion? Why should you rely on the past memory of the world in order to perceive the present world's existence? Does existence have to be always continuing - for how long? Surely existence could be temporary, momentary and fleeting?

"In which case, we shall always disagree, in that you are doing empirical anthropology and I’m doing cognitive metaphysics. This irreconcilable dichotomy reduces to the impossibility for qualitative judgements such as meaningful and trouble-free life, being derivable from ontological predicates, such as existence."
That points were for the folks who were asking for the point in asking the questions on the reasons for the existence of the world. Just to say, it might not be all meaningless task if the pragmatic points are what they are drawing values and points from any activities.

"….then you are not driving the car. You’re merely the payload in a projectile."
My point was why do you believe in the existence of the world when you are not perceiving it, but you would stop driving a car, when you don't perceive the road ahead of you.

Yeah, you can, from anywhere you can see a Foucault pendulum.

See, trouble is, you are not paying attention. — Banno

You are confused again between the actual earth and the pendulum. :roll:

Your body still perceives the world in sleep, in fact your dreams can be lead on by nouns in the real world. The fact that many a thing can stir a person from their sleep is proof that even your unconscious body KNOWS something is occurring. — Vaskane

Really? Fascinating. Thank you for your effort writing the substantial post on Nietzsche in conjunction with the topic. I have not been reading him for a while, but will get back to it sometime in the near future for sure. I think he is a great writer.

Again, you decide your philosophy and then force everything else to conform. You use your philosophy to protect itself against any possible refutation, and think that this is rational; you even take this to be a moral high ground - "doubt everything that is not my direct perception" has become your ideology, and this despite the numerous refutations here in your thread and elsewhere.

Hence you cannot accept the evidence of the Pendulum, and refuse to think about it in a serious way.

Here's the physics in detail. It's down to you now to explain where this goes wrong and give an alternative account.

Or concede that the Earth rotates.

Your ball.

So you are interested in questions about perception and reality in case the road or a building vanishes? Or in case animals in the jungle suddenly fail to recognise each other and get eaten? How would you demonstrate that something like this has ever happened or will happen? I think that question might be more significant than whether reality is 'really real'. — Tom Storm

As my favorite psychologist, George Kelly, wrote:

The open question for man is not whether reality exists or not, but what he can make of it. If he does make something of it he can stop worrying about whether it exists or not. If he doesn't make something of it he might better worry about whether he exists or not.

I like it!

You seem to have habit of confusing tools with the object to be observed. Anyhow we were not talking about the pendulum at all, but the visual unobservability of the actual earth rotating round directly while being located on the earth.

Please read the relating posts again. was saying he couldn't observe the earth rotating round while he was asleep / not perceiving. I said he is not supposed to, as it is natural not able to observe the earth rotating around while sitting on any point an earth visually.

Does it sound like we were talking about the pendulum? It had nothing to do with morals or refutations either. It was just a simple reminding.

Anyhow we were not talking about the pendulum at all, but the visual unobservability of the actual earth rotating round directly while being located on the earth. — Corvus

As I pointed out, your philosophy protects itself against counter examples. But we can trace back the thread of this conversation.

You said:

You cannot observe the earth rotating around visually sitting on any point on the earth. — Corvus

and:

...the earth rotating the Sun was purely found out by the Mathematical deduction, not empirical observation. — Corvus

The Foucault pendulum shows these two statements to be wrong.

So you are obliged to reconsider the point from Manuel, to which was replying:

The world looks and feels flat, but there is much more evidence to support the claim that it is round, but most of the evidence we use to support this claim comes from experiments which go beyond immediate conscious perceptions.

So, your own example is an argument against your own OP. — Manuel

and

...it is more coherent and is better supported than the alternative of nothing existing absent us. There is more to evidence than continuous perception of a thing. — Manuel

The account that the word continues when one is unconscious is simpler and explains more of our observations in more detail than your alternative.

Yes, things in the external world change, disappear, and new objects appear on the earth.  It is the reality, but we may not perceive them directly or realistically because they may be happening slowly, or while we are away to some other parts of the world etc.

But the OP is not about the actual existence of the world itself, but it is more about our reasoning for believing in the existence of the world.

Why do we believe in something that we are not seeing?  Would it be the memories, imagination or intuition or indeed logical reasoning that make us believe in the existence of the world?

There are many cases where when we don't perceive something, we immediately stop believing in their existence.  it is about trying to find out what are your reasons to believe the existence of the world or objects when not perceiving them.

I will tell you my personal story. I went to a house that I used to live in when I was a young child.  I have not been in that area for many years.  One time I was near the area for some other work to do, and thought about the house and the little alley way that I used to play with other guys in there. I was nostalgic of the time, and was actually going to the house and the wee alleyways, and see how it would be after so many years. 

 I still believed that the house would still be there, but I was not sure. When I actually went there, the house had gone along with all the houses nearby, and there was no more the little alleyway that we used to play in.  They demolished the whole area, and built gigantic shopping centre buildings all along, and I could not find the old house or anything similar to it anywhere near it. 

 My belief in the existence of the old house was proved wrong.  I thought to myself, well I should have no ground in believing what I am not perceiving in the world, and that is a rational and coherent way to think.

As I pointed out, your philosophy protects itself against counter examples. But we can trace back the thread of this conversation. — Banno

You suddenly brought the pendulum into the discussion out of the blue saying that, I was not paying attention, and it is problem. And I was just saying, No, that is not the case, and explained the situation logically. :)

The pendulum is evidence.Yes I introduced it. Are you now demanding that no one introduce anything novel into the conversation?

You are not paying attention. Your account has been refuted.

The Earth moves, and does so even while you are asleep.

hmmm the discussion was neither about the earth rotation nor the pendulum. It was about the logical ground of belief in the existence of the world.
But the moment and I was talking, it was about the actual earth we all are standing, sitting and lying on, not the pendulum.

Go back and look again. The Earth has been shown to rotate even when you are asleep. Therefore the earth exists even when you are asleep.

Frankly this thread is a manifestation of 's question concerning affectation.

To me it seems everyone has their reasons for beign attracted to certain ideas and models of reality or perception. It's not always easy to understand the perspective of others. I'm not really able to make sense of your position here, but that may be on me.

If things can vanish when they are not perceived, what about people?

But the OP is not about the actual existence of the world itself, but it is more about our reasoning for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus

But our reasoning leads to views about the nature of reality.

My belief in the existence of the old house was proved wrong.  I thought to myself, well I should have no ground in believing what I am not perceiving in the world, and that is a rational and coherent way to think. — Corvus

All my immediate relatives are dead, as are a good number of my friends. I occasionally dream they are still living. Sometimes I imagine that the world I knew 30 years ago is still here and I can resume conversations with the long departed. Did those people ever really exist? Did those conversations ever happen?

Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno

Stretching it too far. Hope it is not your projection defence mechanism activation.