And on the contrary, the conditions of truth and objectivity seem to presuppose a world beyond my perception. — JuanZu
Mind-independent truths do not depend on the existence of mind-independent things
Yes, you can call it an illusion. This is what a lot of Easter polosophies assert. But I never liked this term that is used to actually mean our personal, subjective reality, i.e. how each of us view reality. The term "illusion" actually means misconception, false or misleading idea or impression of reality, etc. If we are fully conscious and not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, etc., I cannot call an illusion my view of the world in that state. This is my reality. I live with it. (Well, most of the time.) Otherwise, we have to call everything that exists for us an illusion. Can you live with it every moment in your life? Even if you consider and believe it to be true, it's a totally useless belief, it can't help you at all, since you can't do anything about it. So it is much more practical I believe to consider the --indisputable for me-- fact that the world and reality is what we consider, believe the world and reality, It's an agreement, a contract we make with life. Those who can't do that are in a big trouble. :smile:What I meant was, if you believe in what you are perceiving is the world ... then are you not in some sort of illusion that you are perceiving the world, when what you are thinking of the world ... are perhaps less than trillionth of a dust in size compared to the actual world? — Corvus
Ha! This is playing with litreral meaning of words and phrases. When I'm saying "I perceive the world" I certainly don't mean I perceive every atom in it! I mean "the part of the world that I am able to perceive." Come on, this is more than obvious.Are you really perceiving the world? Or have you been perceiving less than a trillionth of a dust in the size of the world? — Corvus
Same as above. Of course it is not enough. Perceiving is becoming aware of and identifying something by means of our senses. I am aware of a big part of what my senses can receive. (They are receiving more than I can be aware of.) Ir also depends on my attention, i.e. where I direct my mind and thoughts to ot leave them to be directed to.I don't see how being conscious is enough to perceive all the objects around you. — Corvus
By "unperceived" you mean "never having been perceived" or "not being currently perceived"?You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief. — Corvus
It depends on the object.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. — Corvus
This is basically true. But it's you who have insisted to go on! :smile: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. :) — Corvus
What I have stated is precisely that existence can no longer be reduced to perception. — JuanZu
You seem to be arguing that both (1) and (2) are true:
1. "things external to my perception exist" is true only if things external to my perception exist
2. "I exist" is true only if things external to my perception exist
(1) might be true (even a truism) but (2) is a non sequitur, and the claim that (2) is true because (1) is true is also a non sequitur. — Michael
You are not taking into account the conditions of truth and objectivity. For the statement "This perception exists" to be true, it requires, so to speak, an impersonal and non-subjective space of validation. Which would have been demonstrated in the example of the future statement. Therefore, ontologically, perception is one more thing among other things in the impersonal and non-subjective world. That is to say, we cannot doubt the existence of the "external world" more than our own perception. — JuanZu
If you assume that only your mind exists, you can no longer ask about the existence of the external world, you have already closed the way to answering that question. — JuanZu
it requires, so to speak, an impersonal and non-subjective space of validation — JuanZu
What I claim is that any statement you make about your existence presupposes conditions of truth and objectivity. — JuanZu
then your existence is a "property" that can only be validated by going beyond the perception. — JuanZu
Which doesn't require an external world. — Michael
My existence doesn't depend on the existence of some second thing; it depends only on my existence. — Michael
... there are no better reasons to affirm your existence than the existence of the world. — JuanZu
Also, it begs the question how the self can continue to exist independently of the world, so that alone may be considered warrant for believing in the objective world even when one cannot perceive it. — GRWelsh
Arguing that the existence of an external world is the best explanation for my existence is different to arguing that objective truths depend on the existence of an external world. I'm arguing against the latter, not the former. I can (and do) accept the former — Michael
Something is true even if I am no longer alive to perceive it, be it the truths of physics, mathematics, etc. — JuanZu
I am not talking exclusively about material objects. You can, if you want, consider numbers, logic, ideas, theories, etc., as Non-material objects or ideals [or as a kind of materiality that is not reducible to physicalism]. But the important thing is that its existence along with mine cannot be reduced to perception. — JuanZu
The argument holds regardless of whether you are a Platonist or not. — JuanZu
The relevance of the ‘reality’ of the existence of such a fist does naught to reduce sensation of pain. — I like sushi
The pain is conclusive proof that the fist exists.
— PL Olcott
Pain can be caused by things other than fists. — Michael
That the world exists (an abstract concept) is verified to be true (also an abstract concept) on the basis of anything that appears to be any physical sensation (not merely an abstract concept). — PL Olcott
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.