1. My experience of things strikes me as I am really in a world experiencing those things; and
2. Experience (and especially perception) presupposes a world in the first place. — Bob Ross
you accept that experience is about something, then why don't you accept that there is a world? I am confused. — Bob Ross
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: — Corvus
Could it be the case there is something rather than nothing, because you perceived something rather than nothing? — Corvus
↪Corvus 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 ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno
When observation is not operational?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? — Corvus
When observation is not operational?
Sometimes the way you say things makes it a bit harder to provide an explanation. But yes, if I'm not now seeing the cup I saw in the sink earlier (because now I'm sitting in the living room), I still believe that it's in the sink unless someone else took it from there. — L'éléphant
Nothing forces me to believe in this. It's the theory of object permanence. We naturally believe that objects continue to exist when we aren't looking at them due to our experience with the tangible world beginning at birth. Again, this supports the idea that observation is not based on logical thinking. While logic can help demonstrate that things exist, it cannot make us believe that things exist because this latter idea is developed in us overtime. — L'éléphant
It's possible, but unless that thought occurs to me, there's no belief in that regard at all. There isn't a continuous belief, let alone object permanence. We can't cross that hurdle. That's why the question doesn't actually make sense. — Throng
As I made clear in the OP, I am not denying the existence of the world at all. I am interested to see the arguments and logical reasoning on what reason or ground our belief in the existence of the world is based.
Could it be only reasoning? Or could it be some other mental events and activities? Or as Hume says, could it be our customs, habits and instincts to believe in the existence of the world? — Corvus
In psychology and cognitive neuroscience, pattern recognition describes a cognitive process that matches information from a stimulus with information retrieved from memory.[1]
Pattern recognition occurs when information from the environment is received and entered into short-term memory, causing automatic activation of a specific content of long-term memory. An early example of this is learning the alphabet in order. When a carer repeats ‘A, B, C’ multiple times to a child, utilizing the pattern recognition, the child says ‘C’ after they hear ‘A, B’ in order. Recognizing patterns allows us to predict and expect what is coming. The process of pattern recognition involves matching the information received with the information already stored in the brain. Making the connection between memories and information perceived is a step of pattern recognition called identification. Pattern recognition requires repetition of experience. Semantic memory, which is used implicitly and subconsciously, is the main type of memory involved with recognition.[2]
Pattern recognition is not only crucial to humans, but to other animals as well. Even koalas, who possess less-developed thinking abilities, use pattern recognition to find and consume eucalyptus leaves. The human brain has developed more, but holds similarities to the brains of birds and lower mammals. The development of neural networks in the outer layer of the brain in humans has allowed for better processing of visual and auditory patterns. Spatial positioning in the environment, remembering findings, and detecting hazards and resources to increase chances of survival are examples of the application of pattern recognition for humans and animals.[3]
There are six main theories of pattern recognition: template matching, prototype-matching, feature analysis, recognition-by-components theory, bottom-up and top-down processing, and Fourier analysis. The application of these theories in everyday life is not mutually exclusive. Pattern recognition allows us to read words, understand language, recognize friends, and even appreciate music. Each of the theories applies to various activities and domains where pattern recognition is observed. Facial, music and language recognition, and seriation are a few of such domains. Facial recognition and seriation occur through encoding visual patterns, while music and language recognition use the encoding of auditory patterns.
It involves other aspects of cognition the development of which are a prerequisite to our being able to engage in logical reasoning. For example pattern recognition: — wonderer1
I was not sure if my perception of the real time vision would actually be counted for as a legitimate perception of the world in any sense at all be it logical, epistemic or physical perspective. — Corvus
Could you please point out which part of the world scenario doesn't exist? :)You keep using the world to imagine the scenario that it does not exist. — Paine
It means sensory perceptions which are logically verified with reasonable warrant, and justified as valid knowledge. Most sensory perception in daily life can be unclear, fleeting and unjustified due to lack of focused attention, justification and warrant for certainty and accuracy.What is a 'logical legitimate perception? The Humean presumption that we have experiences prior to reasoning renders the idea unimaginable. From that perspective, the answer to your question, 'is there a reason to believe in the existence of the world?' is no.
But we do not need an answer to that to do anything else beyond the question. That is in contrast to philosophical questions that are concerned with how we inquire into the nature of beings. — Paine
Maybe the soul wanted a nice glass of red wine instead of blood? :)I am minded of the scene in the Odyssey where dead souls in Hades can speak for a short while if blood from a living person is poured into their cup. You imagine a visitor who demands to know why the soul does not speak when no blood is offered. — Paine
The Humean presumption that we have experiences prior to reasoning renders the idea unimaginable. From that perspective, the answer to your question, 'is there a reason to believe in the existence of the world?' is no. — Paine
It only takes a grain of sand to know the world.There is a difference between your cup in the kitchen and the existence of the world. — Corvus
That sounds poetic metaphor.It only takes a grain of sand to know the world. — L'éléphant
It's more than that. It's actually a philosophical nuance of realism.That sounds poetic metaphor. — Corvus
Suppose Camus and Sartre wrote great novels for expressing their philosophical ideas in them.It's more than that. It's actually a philosophical nuance of realism. — L'éléphant
I don't know. Accessibility comes to mind -- they want their works to be more accessible to their readers than writing nonfiction (which was peer-reviewed, academically, and published in journals). The cafè writers, as they're known, I guess.Suppose Camus and Sartre wrote great novels for expressing their philosophical ideas in them. — Corvus
For experiencing something, you don't need the world. But you need a world.
There are many worlds that you can experience, but a world you experience doesn't have to be part of the world
They exist in totally different ways and in different forms, which have nothing or little to do with the physical world we live in
But before that, what is the definition of the world?
I use ‘world’ and ‘reality’ synonymously, and by both I mean ‘that which is the totality of existence’. However, this doesn’t semantically fit the discussion here: instead, we could just suppose that a ‘world’ is the totality of a locale of existences, one of which encompasses you. What exactly the boundaries are isn’t really important for proving there is at least one ‘world’.
With above points in mind, to experience a virtual world in a computer game
I don't think you need the world to have experience logically and epistemically
This is exactly my point: you can’t claim you are experiencing if there isn’t something which you are experiencing. Whether or not ‘I’ or everyone exists in that world which you experience is, at this stage of the argument, irrelevant. Perhaps I misunderstood your OP, but I thought you were arguing that you don’t believe in any world at all: is that incorrect? — Bob Ross
You are correct. Logic doesn't tell you anything. But we apply logical thinkings into these abcure issues trying to come to more certain conclusions. Until we apply the logical thinking with the contents, Logic is not a Logic. ( You might recall that I have been claiming that in the other threads i.e. Logic needs contents to operate as a Logic.)Of course we cannot derive from logic that we need something to experience to experience in the first place: but that is true of virtually everything since logic only pertains to the form of the argument. — Bob Ross
I think experience is too abscure, and private mental events to qualify as the objective ground for the existence of the world or a world. We are looking for more objective reasons than personal experience for the evidence i.e. you may claim that you have experienced something therefore that something must exit, but why should I trust that claim? The claim is lacking objectivity.Epistemically, I think that experience itself presupposed that which is being experienced. — Bob Ross
And according to Hume, reason keeps asking and tries to ensure more accuracy and certainty on the knowledge it is inspecting, but the more it reflects, the less accurate, and less certain the knowledge and beliefs becomes due to the nature of the external world - changing and fleeting. But that is the nature of human reasoning, so why does he deny the point of reasoning for justification of the beliefs on the existence of the world? Doesn't it sound like a contradiction?
Should he not have said that for more accuracy and certainty of the belief on the existence of the world, on-going reasoning is needed accompanied by new up-to-date sensory perception on the world when and wherever possible, which will provide us with more justified belief on the existence? — Corvus
You may claim that you have experience of something, but how do I know that something was not your fantasy, imagination or dreams?
The OP does not deny the existence of the world, but it is asking for the reasons for believing in the world's existence.
We are looking for more objective reasons than personal experience for the evidence i.e. you may claim that you have experienced something therefore that something must exit, but why should I trust that claim? The claim is lacking objectivity.
there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. — 180 Proof
Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno
That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition. — Pantagruel
Hume displays a slightly faulty way of understanding sensation. He thought that we sense the world to be in a specific condition (like a state of existence) at one time, then we sense another condition at a later time, — Metaphysician Undercover
Hume takes the reverse perspective, assuming that we sense the sameness (when we really sense activity), and then he argues that change to the world must be justified by the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
I see. I just don’t see how one could definitively prove there is a world—it is just the best explanation of what one is experiencing. — Bob Ross
Science seeks objective knowledge, so does Philosophy too. For the course of achieving the possible objective truths, they apply reasoning, observations, critical analysis on the data and issues. It is not total impossibility although challenging at times.This is an impossible task, because all the direct knowledge we have of anything is a part of that personal experience that you mentioned: you are asking for that which is impossible to attain. — Bob Ross
I agree. We are trying to see the arguments either to prove, disprove or the question is illogical itself. The conclusions will only be evident from good arguments. But still I felt bringing experience to the argument sounded too solipsistic.
And the main topic OP is not to prove the existence of the World. But trying to see the arguments for believing in the existence of the world when not perceiving it. — Corvus
Think about what this says. "Prove that there is a world". Whatever doubts exist with respect to the existence of the world likewise exist with respect to any proofs which you might append to that. As to believing in the world when not perceiving it, you are always perceiving something. So just because you don't continue to see the back of something when you move to the front is no warrant to believe the back disappeared. If you are completely unconscious, having no cognitions of any kind, it is just as likely that you have ceased to exist as has the world. In fact, the former seems more likely. — Pantagruel
Not sure if this poster has read even single book on Philosophy in his whole life. Sounds like just making random statements on nothing. — 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.