...it is about how our mind and belief works... — Corvus

That's an 'interesting' thing to say, given the fact that Hume himself clearly admitted having no clue about belief...

...and he was right. He didn't.

That's an 'interesting' thing to say, given the fact that Hume himself clearly admitted having no clue about belief...

...and he was right. He didn't. — creativesoul

Hume's writing can be deceptive in Treatise, and it can be tricky to pinpoint what he was actually trying to say. But I am sure he describes the way our belief in the unperceived existence of external world generates. I will update on it with the relevant quotes from his Treatise in due course.

Hume's writing can be deceptive in Treatise, and it can be tricky to pinpoint what he was actually trying to say. — Corvus

Nah. He said it plainly. He said he had no idea and you say otherwise about him...

I'll take his word over yours.

Nah. He said it plainly. He said he had no idea and you say otherwise about him...

I'll take his word over yours. — creativesoul

Sure. Fair enough. If you say,

1. This is what you said.
2. But this is the evidence(s) which prove(s) against what you said.
3. Here is the list of the counter evidence(s) E1, E2, E3 ...En, or the supporting quotes (from Hume, Kant or whoever titles of the works, year of the publishing, page of the quotes etc).
4. Therefore your conclusion, claim or point is wrong.
5. And this is what I claim to be the case, truth, point and proofs.

And when I go through all the points submitted in the counter proofs and evidences with close investigations, and were thought to be correct and logically agreeable, then of course, I would be happy to agree with, and concede the counter arguments and proofs as the case, truths or reasonable. I fully welcome, and do appreciate the counter arguments in that form.

But if the counter arguments are in the form of mindless and groundless nonsenses forwarded by folks such as , then I could only interpret them as their meaningless and futile efforts for wasting time. :)

All well and good, but why would you invoke the antinomies of pure reason, especially with respect to cosmological ideas, when the question was only ever to do with believing something?

Even to change the initial ask regarding perception and belief, to one of the illogic of appending existence as a predicate, still only involves understanding and has no need or call for transcendental ideas and whether or not they abide with dogmatic proofs.

You’ve went and done made the World a cosmological idea for which there is no possibility of any experience, but it started out as a mere totality of possible appearances, any one of which may be a experience.

So what….we’re just moving here? We’ve left the original query and it’s offspring aside? Fine by me, but you outta warn whoever’s left.

is it logically correct in saying "The world exists."?
— Corvus

Might be interesting how that even came to be a question. — Mww

All well and good, but why would you invoke the antinomies of pure reason, especially with respect to cosmological ideas, when the question was only ever to do with believing something? — Mww

Isn't it a case that we went to invoke the antinomies of pure reason due to your queries - "how that even came to be a question?"

The statement "The world exist." should it not be dissected for the legitimacy and rationality ?
If it is even irrational or illogical to utter the statement, then belief in the existence will be proven to have no ground either.

You’ve went and done made the World a cosmological idea for which there is no possibility of any experience, but it started out as a mere totality of possible appearances, any one of which may be a experience. — Mww

Not me, but Kant seem to have had the idea. I was just a messenger.

So what….we’re just moving here? We’ve left the original query and it’s offspring aside? Fine by me, but you outta warn whoever’s left. — Mww

This was just Kant's idea. Doesn't mean he has the final words. It was just something to put aside along with the main query to bear in mind how the concepts involved in the topic could be diverse in the directions.

You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology.

Hume's own words below. Granted, they are not the admission I was looking for, but they are spot on regarding the OP, and a difference between your report/dependency of/on Hume and Hume. I found that curious...

 

It seems evident, that men are carried, by a natural instinct or prepossession, to repose faith in their senses; and that, without any reasoning, or even almost before the use of reason, we always suppose an external universe, which depends not on our perception, but would exist, though we and every sensible creature were absent or annihilated. Even the animal creation are governed by a like opinion, and preserve this belief of external objects, in all their thoughts, designs, and actions.

E 12.24, SBN 161-2

There is, indeed, a more mitigated scepticism or academical philosophy, which may be both durable and useful, and which may, in part, be the result of this Pyrrhonism, or excessive scepticism, when its undistinguished doubts are, in some measure, corrected by common sense and reflection.

Hume's writing can be deceptive in Treatise….. — Corvus

I think got this right. For my part, I don’t think his writing deceptive, as much as just disagreeing with the way he uses his conceptions, which follows from how other philosophers use the same ones.

In the case of the dilemma of existence, on the other hand, which he names as such in T.H.N., it isn’t the dilemma itself that’s disagreeable, but rather, it is the principle he claims as ground for it, insofar as if the principle is inappropriate or misconceived, the dilemma disappears and with it the disagreement. Or, maybe, which is usually what happens, the dilemma just changes its clothes.
————

The statement "The world exist." should it not be dissected for the legitimacy and rationality ? — Corvus

Yes, it should, if one wishes. But it remains whether the legitimacy and rationality can even be addressed by transcendental ideas, and as you can read for yourself in A424, it is just the epitome of a sceptical method in which nobody wins. I think the question as to the illogical appending of existence as a predicate to an empirical conception is properly addressed elsewhere in the text.

In addition, the impossibility of a certain method of belief does not follow from the denial of certain predicates, which makes this…..

If it is even irrational or illogical to utter the statement, then belief in the existence will be proven to have no ground either. — Corvus

….false, if the uttered statement is “the world exists”, insofar as the logical legitimacy in accordance with rules, is not the same as a belief, which is nothing but a judgement based on the synthesis of conceptions, regardless of rules.

While we’re here, the rule is…you can’t synthesis an empirical conception, re: the world, with a transcendental conception, re: existence. To do so is the ground of illegitimacy, in the form of “…a mere sophism…” or, “….a miserable tautology….”. But to believe the condition of a thing, that rule is not evidenced in the mere synthesis of conceptions, hence is not illegitimate in that way.

So it is that once World as you use the term is understood as a cosmological idea, it becomes just as illegitimate to believe in its existence, as it is legitimate for Everydayman to believe in the existence of the plain ol’ world of appearances. Kantian dualism run amok, n’est ce pas?

More Hume pertaining to the OP...

But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact, which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages; yet some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. A man, who should find in a desert country the remains of pompous buildings, would conclude, that the country had, in ancient times, been cultivated by civilized inhabitants; but did nothing of this nature occur to him, he could never form such an inference. We learn the events of former ages from history; but then we must peruse the volumes, in which this instruction is contained, and thence carry up our inferences from one testimony to another, till we arrive at the eye-witnesses and spectators of these distant events. In a word, if we proceed not upon some fact, present to the memory or senses, our reasonings would be merely hypothetical; and however the particular links might be connected with each other, the whole chain of inferences would have nothing to support it, nor could we ever, by its means, arrive at the knowledge of any real existence. If I ask, why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.

I think ↪creativesoul got this right. For my part, I don’t think his writing deceptive, as much as just disagreeing with the way he uses his conceptions, which follows from how other philosophers use the same ones.

In the case of the dilemma of existence, on the other hand, which he names as such in T.H.N., it isn’t the dilemma itself that’s disagreeable, but rather, it is the principle he claims as ground for it, insofar as if the principle is inappropriate or misconceived, the dilemma disappears and with it the disagreement. Or, maybe, which is usually what happens, the dilemma just changes its clothes. — Mww

Yes, I agree that he has points in his claims. Hume's writing style is clear to follow, but he definitely says different things on the same point in different parts of his books, which can give impression perhaps he was trying to be elusive in what his definite position is on being labeled as an extreme sceptic, academic sceptic or just speculative armchair philosopher. Or maybe he wanted to be all three.

So it is that once World as you use the term is understood as a cosmological idea, it becomes just as illegitimate to believe in its existence, as it is legitimate for Everydayman to believe in the existence of the plain ol’ world of appearances. Kantian dualism run amok, n’est ce pas? — Mww

Here is a youtuber (He has a PhD in Philosophy of Science.), who claims there is no actual world in this video. I have been saying exactly the same things as his arguments somewhere in this thread.

I thought the video interesting in coming across the same arguments laid out by this youtuber philosopher. Just goes to show how the topic can be philosophically rich, deep, diverse and has many aspects of perspectives.

Hume's own words below. Granted, they are not the admission I was looking for, but they are spot on regarding the OP, and a difference between your report/dependency of/on Hume and Hume. I found that curious... — creativesoul

I read that Enquiries had been written after his Treatise to give his mitigated opinion on his scepticism propounded in Treatise. I recall that was what some of the later commentators such as H.H. Price says of Hume's scepticism.

Price points out that Hume reduced the amount of writings on his skepticism in Enquires, and it is regrettable that Hume had done that i.e. Hume could have added more details and depths into his arguments on this theory of Scepticism regarding Senses and External World. If he had done that, he could have firmly established himself as a great philosopher in Theory of Knowledge, Scepticism and even in Phenomenology.

What I read in Treaise gives the impression of Hume sounding sceptical, but even in Treatise, he keeps writing in the tone of undecided manner in siding between scepticism or common sense philosophy. He even says "this vain to ask whether there is a body or not in the external world."

I find his individual sentences in the writings of Treatise and Enquiry clear and in accurate for his points, but the way he put down, as if he is agreeing with the extreme scepticism in one part of the books, and then would deny what he said previously sounding mitigated sceptic, and in some other parts he sounds like there is not point even asking the question on the belief in the existence of external world. That is difficult to grasp, and challenging if not deceptive to find out or pinpoint. Maybe it was his intention to be not fully committed to one way or the other, appearing to be remaining elusive on taking sides on either scepticism or common sensical philosophy.

More Hume pertaining to the OP...

But here it may be proper to remark, that though our conclusions from experience carry us beyond our memory and senses, and assure us of matters of fact, which happened in the most distant places and most remote ages; yet some fact must always be present to the senses or memory, from which we may first proceed in drawing these conclusions. — creativesoul

Ok, here is Hume's account of the way our belief generates for the existence of continuous existence of the external world (bodies).

In Treatise, Hume clearly says that the belief in the contiguous existence of bodies emanates from the faculty of imagination, not by the senses or reason. The faculty of imagination triggers the belief by the properties of our impressions namely, constancy and coherence.

Constancy of impression in the perception of the tree is, that which gives the impressions of the tree resembling as constant shapes in each of the perceived impression. The perception of the tree comes into the mind as the same constant shape of the tree, never in the shape of a table or chair or cup.

"I survey the furniture of my chamber; I shut my eyes, and afterwards open them; and find the new perceptions to resemble perfectly those, which formerly struck my senses. This resemblance is observed in a thousand instances, and naturally connects together our ideas of these interrupted perceptions by the strongest relation, and conveys the mind with an easy transition from one to another. An easy transition or passage of the imagination, along the ideas of these different and interrupted perceptions, is almost the same disposition of mind with that in which we consider one constant and uninterrupted perception. It is therefore very natural for us to mistake the one for the other.[5]" (T. 1.4.2.35 / pp.204)


Coherence of impression are the continuous impression of the same object, when not perceived, but due to the resemblance and temporal connectivity of the impressions, the perceiver can invoke his belief that the object was the same object that he perceived even after extended time of not perceiving it.

"Bodies often change their position and qualities, and after a little absence or interruption may become hardly knowable. But here it is observable, that even in these changes they preserve a coherence, and have a regular dependence on each other; which is the foundation of a kind of reasoning from causation, and produces the opinion of their continued existence. When I return to my chamber after an hour's absence, I find not my fire in the same situation, in which I left it: But then I am accustomed in other instances to see a like alteration produced in a like time, whether I am present or absent, near or remote. This coherence, therefore, in their changes is one of the characteristics of external objects, as well as their constancy." (T. 1.4.2.19 / pp.195)

When Hume sees the fire burning in his chamber, he receives the impression of
ABCDEFGH
But when he makes trip to outside and come back to the chamber, and see the fire, he gets
XXXXXIJKLM ..Z

X = unperceived impressions
A - Z (except X) = perceived impressions

XXXXX is the impressions unobserved while Hume was out the chamber.  For Hume they are the  beliefs in the existence of the contiguous unperceived fire stimulated by the impression H, the last impression he perceived before leaving the chamber.  The impression H invokes the idea of coherence in Hume's impression from the temporal relation which gives the ground for belief that I is the consecutive impression of the fire.

This explicatory idea is from Hume on Knowledge by Harold W. Noonan, and I was trying to reiterate from my own understanding of his explanation. I hope it makes sense.

You will see how Husserl had totally different his own concepts of the world, and existence from Kant's in his Phenomenology. — Corvus

Husserl ian phenomenology is not at all concerned with what does or doesn’t exist.

Kant basically laid out a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Phenomenon are and noumenon are of negative use only, not positive.

None of this has anything much to do with scientists speculating on actual perceived data. A discrepancy in our understanding leads to conjecture and some are better/luckier than others when it comes to getting more accurate interpretations of said data.

It is likely an obsession with the idea of pure knowledge that has led you down this cul-de-sac. Finite abstractions (such as in mathematics) are items of such pure knowledge. Do they map onto the world we perceive 1 to 1? Impossible to say. Does that mean the world does not exist.

Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’?

The world definitely exists at least as a projection (of what at least appears physical sensations) from one's own mind. The world may have never existed physically. It may be the case that when you close your eyes everything that you were "seeing" ceases to exist until you open your eyes again.

Husserl ian phenomenology is not at all concerned with what does or doesn’t exist.

Kant basically laid out a distinction of phenomenon and noumenon. Phenomenon are and noumenon are of negative use only, not positive. — I like sushi

Sure, Husserl has totally different concept on the world. He is a Phenomenologist of course. It is interesting to explore how the concepts of the world are different from the individual thinkers. That's the whole point.

Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. Depending on the commentators of Kant, the interpretations are different. Bring some relevant quotes with arguments, if you want make your own points.

None of this has anything much to do with scientists speculating on actual perceived data. A discrepancy in our understanding leads to conjecture and some are better/luckier than others when it comes to getting more accurate interpretations of said data. — I like sushi

This sounds too pre-judgemental and dismissive without relevant through arguments or evidences. Why should anyone take this point seriously?

It is likely an obsession with the idea of pure knowledge that has led you down this cul-de-sac. Finite abstractions (such as in mathematics) are items of such pure knowledge. Do they map onto the world we perceive 1 to 1? Impossible to say. Does that mean the world does not exist. — I like sushi

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already. Please bear in mind that this thread is exploratory rather than declarative.

Also, what do you ‘actually’ mean by ‘exist’? — I like sushi

That is another interesting concept I am going to explore in this thread.

The world definitely exists at least as a projection (of what at least appears physical sensations) from one's own mind. The world may have never existed physically. It may be the case that when you close your eyes everything that you were "seeing" ceases to exist until you open your eyes again.
8 hours ago — PL Olcott

Sounds like a case of Immaterial idealism. Could it be a Berkelean?

Please watch the Youtube video above, if you haven't done so already.[/]

I have. Hence the point about people using and interpreting data.
— Corvus

This is another interesting concept I am going to explore. — Corvus

I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of a planet if certain pieces of data point to its existence. That some believed ‘observed’ such phenomenon needs verification … that failed and the idea was dismissed.

Yes, everyone knows Kant's phenomenon and noumenon. — Corvus

They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’.

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim. — Corvus

Why? How?

I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’. — I like sushi

The concept "exist" is not a simple term. One can write a PhD thesis with it.
Not sure if it is meaningful to ask simply, and answer simply on it.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe in the existence of a planet if certain pieces of data point to its existence. That some believed ‘observed’ such phenomenon needs verification … that failed and the idea was dismissed. — I like sushi

You still fail to see the point. The video about the planet Vulcan was to show you how Hume's account on human belief in unperceived objects could be applied as an alternative methodological basis by the Scientist. It was not about Science, and it was not about data, it was not about the world. It was about the Humean account of belief.

They do not. Many think he meant noumenon as some ‘other world’. — I like sushi

There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations.

When one is like that, I have serious doubts on the fact, that if he would even know what he is asserting to know on his side that he has been asserting to be the case.

Again it sounds lacking logical thinking and objective evidences on the claim.
— Corvus

Why? How? — I like sushi

Well, you seem to try to assert some points in your messages, but they don't seem to have flow, or supporting arguments or evidence in logical and reasonable manner, form or writeup. They sound like some personal opinion type of statements lacking informational depth or points.

I simply asked what you mean by ‘exist’.
— I like sushi
The concept "exist" is not a simple term. One can write a PhD thesis with it.
Not sure if it is meaningful to ask simply, and answer simply on it. — Corvus

Since it is the very point of your thread, the word "existence" even being in the title, I would think it's fairly necessary for you to explain what the word means, at least as it applies to your thread, whether or not it's a simple task.

Since it is the very point of your thread, the word "existence" even being in the title, I would think it's fairly necessary for you to explain what the word means, at least as it applies to your thread, whether or not it's a simple task. — Patterner

Sure, that was in my plan anyway. I will do some related readings on the concepts. I was looking at the book by Colin McGinn called "Logical Properties", and he is discussing about "Existence" in a whole chapter dedicated to the topic. It looked interesting.

I am also interested in further analysing the concept of "The World" and "Belief" too. Along with "Existence", there seem to be good amount of philosophical discussions on the concepts which will help in understanding the topic "Reasons to believe in the existence of the unperceived world" in purely exploratory attempts, rather than declaration or presumption on anything.

Maybe then I can address whatever it is you wish to discuss.

There are Kantian scholars in both far end of the poles on the interpretations i.e. the traditionalists vs. revolutionist. Obviously you are asserting the one sided view only, as if it is the only fact or reality while totally ignoring and being oblivious of the other end of the interpretations. — Corvus

On the particular point I was making it is quite clear in his own words. He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations.

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’.

In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …).

Look forward to seeing what you mean by the words you use.

The world definitely exists at least as a projection (of what at least appears physical sensations) from one's own mind. The world may have never existed physically. It may be the case that when you close your eyes everything that you were "seeing" ceases to exist until you open your eyes again.
8 hours ago
— PL Olcott
Sounds like a case of Immaterial idealism. Could it be a Berkelean? — Corvus

I always come up with all of these things on my own from scratch. I am merely using my own system of categorically exhaustive reasoning to examine the boundary conditions of the problem.

Of every category that can possibly be there are no categories where the world does not exist.

when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. — Corvus

How can you not perceive the world if you are conscious?
And, if you are not conscious (sleeping or unconscious in any way), then no question can be is raised as to whether you believe anything or not.

I do believe in the existence of the cup when I am perceiving it, but when I am not perceiving it, I no longer have a ground, warrant or reason to believe in the existence of it. — Corvus

The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? It may have been stolen in the meantime, but why would that be more probable than still existing? But even if it is stolen, wouldn't it still exist?
So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists.

The question should be rather posed the other way around: Is there a reason why not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore? — Alkis Piskas

If all of what seems to be physically manifest reality is actually merely a projection from one's own mind then when the perception of an object ceases to exist the object also ceases to exist because its only existence was one's perception of it.

Categorically exhaustive reasoning
The only correct path to truth is to consider every possibility categorically. By doing this categorically we compress an infinite list of possibilities into a finite sequence of short lists of categories.

He literally states only in the negative sense. He was trying to be very, very precise which (in various other areas) did cause rise to differing interpretations. — I like sushi

Any supporting quotes from CPR for these points?

The point of Noumenon is very important to the use of the term ‘existing’. — I like sushi

It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation.

In simplistic terms what exists is open to experience. It is a mind-numbingly obvious thing Kant stated really. That which cannot be known ever is not even a ‘that’ we can refer to in the first place. — I like sushi

No one claimed that existing objects are non experienceable. But a suggestion was that experience alone is not enough ground for belief in the existence of the unperceived world. Would you agree?

The term noumenon is (somewhat ironically) a grasping at the impossible (of ‘negative use’ only NOT something that positively contributes as it is no ‘it’ or ‘that’ … and so on …). — I like sushi

Could you please clarify this statement with elaboration? Thanks.

Of every category that can possibly be there are no categories where the world does not exist. — PL Olcott

Can you define your concept of the world? For instance, what colour is the world?