Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? What is the world?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. — Alkis Piskas
For not to believe in the existence of the cup anymore, if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. But here the point is that, you are not given that reason. The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it.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? — Alkis Piskas
What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore?So, as I see the thing is that you do have reasons --in fact, a lot-- to believe that the cup still exists. — Alkis Piskas
Can you define your concept of the world? For instance, what colour is the world? — Corvus
But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world?"The world" is simply every direct experience of what appears to be any physical sensation from any sense organ. This is opposed to and contrast with purely analytical knowledge held within the mind. — PL Olcott
But isn't that a case of solipsism? Does it mean that someone who lost sensibility in his sense organ has no world? Therefore he doesn't have the world, but also without the world, he doesn't exist anymore in the world? — Corvus
It sounds interesting. But need more elaboration and explanation. — Corvus
OK. But I think you are stretching the issue or digging into it too much and that you are getting too conceptual about it, — Alkis Piskas
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. — PL Olcott
Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking.Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? — Corvus
This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.What is the world? — Corvus
Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive?The point is not to do with being conscious or not. — Corvus
This sounds as a Cartersian argument. Of course, you can doubt the cup's existence or non existence.if you have a likely reason for the cup's non existence, it it natural to doubt on its existence of course. — Corvus
I guess you mean the cup is not perceived by you, not that it is not and cannot be perceived in general. Well, the existence of the cup, the tree, the world certainly does not depend on whether you are perceiving or can perceive them or not. Their existence -- reality in general-- depends on the common aggreement of people that they exist. But even so, even if you are not currently perceiving them there's is no reason to believe they ceased to exist, for you and everyone else.The only given situation is that the cup is not perceived because you are not seeing it, or you cannot see it. — Corvus
This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable.What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore? — Corvus
Which did you know first, the video or Kant’s cosmological idea?
I’ve adjusted my response: you are correct in that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceived, under two conditions. First, iff perception is taken as Hume intended, and second, iff the world is taken as a transcendental idea.
I seriously doubt anyone thinks along those lines these days. Doesn’t make you any less correct, or the dialectic any less interesting, but perhaps does question the relevance. — Mww
What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world, but the world is actually including all the celestial objects, microbiological molecules as well as all the countries on the earths, the planets .... etc etc, then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world is, perhaps your rooms, kitchen, a patch of sky outside your house, some roads and streets, which are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world?Of course. If I didn't, I couldn't interact with it. I would be in a coma. Even if you are sleeping or under drugs or hallucinating you interact with the world: a simple noise can affect your dreaming or what you are thinking. — Alkis Piskas
Exactly and absolutely ! Hence I asked you the previous question, which you appeared to have answered with confidence i.e. when you are conscious, you obviously perceive the world. Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world?This is too vague a question. It has to be put in some context because the world --even as philosophic subject-- can have different meanings. And it's a question for a topic of its own.
But for the sake of the current discussion, I believe that we must restrict the meanings of the term to be the physical universe, also called the physical world. — Alkis Piskas
I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. Being conscious could mean simply being awake without particularly perceiving, feeling or thinking about anything. For perceiving something, of course you must be conscious, but you also need to apply your intentionality to the object you perceive.Of course it has. I commented on your saying "when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world". Isn't perceiving directly connected with consiousness? Can I perceive without being conscious? And vice versa: isn't consiousness a state and ability to perceive? — Alkis Piskas
You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief.At this point, I'm just wondering it by "you" you mean "we" or "everyone". That is, questioning the existence of the world if no one perceives it, that the words exists in our minds only, etc. These are of course classic questions that divide whole systems and schools of philosophy. — Alkis Piskas
If you are totally open minded about all the possibilities that can happen to the unperceived existence, be it a tree, or a cup you have seen before, then you don't have reason (or you have less reason - depending on the situations) to believe it is still existing while not perceiving it.This is what you are asking since tjhat start of your description of the topic. And, for one more time, I countered it with the question: "What are your reasons for not believing in the cup inexistence anymore?". One has just to think which of the two is more reasonable. — Alkis Piskas
But you have not answered any of the questions from the agreed point of view. Most of your answers seem to have been based on the subjective concept of the world. Therefore we have not moved much forward from where we started. :)Anyway, since I see that this can go on for ever, I believe it is better to end it here. I hope you agree. :smile: — Alkis Piskas
My answer to that question was, when I am not perceiving the world, there is no reason that I can believe in the existence of the world. I may still believe in the existence of the world without perceiving it, but the ground for my belief in the existence is much compromised in accuracy and certainty due to lack of the warrant for the belief. — Corvus
Yes, I do accept the brain is the biological organ where all the mental events happens. But at the same time, brain is the blackbox i.e. we don't know how it is connected to our perceiving the cup. — Corvus
The world is still undefined concept. — Corvus
But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge? — Corvus
My belief on the existence and working of the brain, which I have never seen is based on the information I have read from the books and Biology classes in the school.
This is a belief in different type, nature and form on its foundation. — Corvus
Great points :up: I will think it over, and will get back to you for any points or questions. Thanks. :pray:It seems like special pleading to believe in the existence of your brain but not in the existence of a cup that you cannot see. It is reasonable to believe in either the existence of both or the non-existence of both. So I think you need to either accept materialism or commit fully to idealism. — Michael
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.