Indeed, you have.
I am confident that you turn off the gas and lock the door before bed, just in case untoward things happen while you are asleep.
In that way, your account is an affectation. — Banno
Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno
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. — Corvus
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? — Paine
If fact, what you seem to be getting at goes way beyond Berkley or Kant or any other idealist. Very few of them say that the world does not exist if we are not perceiving it. They take it for granted. — Manuel
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
My affectation thread will subsume this forum, eventually. — Ciceronianus
Occam's razor, for me. It is a simpler model of the world that the world always works one way, than a model of the world that it works one way when I'm looking and another way when I'm not looking. — flannel jesus
That's funny, I've used Occam's Razor to come to the opposite conclusion: the simplest explanation to explain things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and the correct interpretation of QM is to assume matter doesn't exist. — RogueAI
Interesting you mentioned QM. In QM there are theories saying that some states, objects or entities only come to existence when observed externally. — Corvus
The visual memory content is also appearance? No? — Corvus
There are unjustified or groundless beliefs too as well as justified ones? — Corvus
But isn't there also the possibility that all your past perception of the existence of the world could be an illusion? — Corvus
Why should you rely on the past memory of the world in order to perceive the present world's existence? — Corvus
Sure, and one of the popular interpretations of QM is the Many Worlds Interpretation. I agree with Bernardo Kastrup that positing the existence of huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead? — RogueAI
I maintain there is reason to believe the world exists when I’m not perceiving it, which is all I ever meant to comment on. — Mww
huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead? — RogueAI
Nietzsche believed any attempt to nail down truth as a repeatedly producible self-same thing, foundation, ground or telos, destroys meaning and value.
— Joshs
Any relevant quotes on that point from Nietzsche? — Corvus
You are correct in that you have no immediate reason a posteriori to believe in the existence of the world in the absence of perception. It is still the case you have mediate reason to believe a priori, in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions. And it is impossible that you do not insofar as you’re alive and functioning, so…..
The logical and epistemic arguments for a priori justifications has been done, and is in the public record. They serve as explanation for not having to re-learn your alphabet after waking up each morning, given that you already know it. — Mww
I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world
Would you say that one should believe in the existence of the world, when one is dead or in deep sleep? — Corvus
Ordinary observation. Or if you want a more formal word - empiric.So what are our perceptions based on, if not on the logical inference? — Corvus
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.I don't have to refuse or agree to believe. But could I not just say I don't have a reason to believe, when there is no reason to believe? I don't deny my existence when I am awake and perceiving the world, because if I didn't exist, then the perception would be impossible.
But then again, when I am asleep, I don't have a ground to believe that I exist. Do you have reason to believe that you exist, when you are in deep sleep? If yes, what are the reasons for your belief? How can you think about the reasons that you exist while in deep sleep? — Corvus
what is your reason to believe in the world, when you are not receiving it? Or do you claim that you have no reason to believe in the existence of the world when you don't perceive it? I would like to see the logical and epistemic arguments laid out for the reason for believing in the existence of the world. — Corvus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.