In order to doubt that Canberra — Banno
But this is not the argument in this thread. That is specifically about not believing that something continues to exist, unperceived. — Banno
Wouldn't that you don't know the meaning of "Australia" be the background for your doubt? — Banno
There are many other things that can be discussed in the thread such as the world itself, God, Souls, places one never has been, people one never met ... etc. The building which stood across the road, but demolished for the new development, hence no longer existing etc.So you have no reason to believe in the existence of the things behind you? When you put the cup in the cupboard, you cease to have any reason to believe that the cup is in the cupboard?
That's not right. — Banno
The cups are simple, clear and shows up the issues in a way that other examples tend to obfuscate.There are many other things that can be discussed in the thread — Corvus
What do you think? Or is "I don't know what Canberra is" foundational? — Banno
What justifies believing "I don't know what Canberra is"? Isn't that question somehow inept? — Banno
You can justify that by saying that the symbol Canberra does not elicit any thought in your mind, but that is just equivalent to saying you don't know what Canberra is. — Lionino
Beyond the circular justification above, it is close to a brute fact, somewhat similar to the cogito. — Lionino
The discussion in this thread, like all discussions, presupposes the existence of an "external" world in which the discussion is taking place... — Banno
The discussion in this thread, like all discussions, presupposes the existence of an "external" world in which the discussion is taking place... — Banno
This presupposition of the existence of the outside world is not needed for the discussion to happen, as the discussion could be a projection of the mind; — Lionino
Perhaps at the very least it presupposes that solipsism is false. It need not presuppose the existence of a material world (e.g. it allows for idealism), or that the world we experience is that material world (e.g. it allows for us being brains-in-a-vat). — Michael
It seems to me that you must conclude that there is something more than just your thoughts. — Banno
Novelty. We are sometimes surprised by things that are unexpected. How is this possible if all that there is, is already in one’s mind? — Banno
Agreement . You and I sometimes agree as to what is the case. How is that possible unless there is something "external" to us both on which to agree? — Banno
Error. We sometimes are wrong about how things are. How can this be possible if there is not a way that things are, independent of what we believe? — Banno
And how would you reply to each of these counterpoints, were you arguing my view? — Banno
Then perhaps our only point of difference is, what reasons are to count as "good"......good reasons... — Michael
If you are convinced by Boltzmann to believe you are a Boltzmann brain, then the universe is pretty much as physics describes it, since that description - physics - is what Boltzmann uses to reach the conclusion that you are a Boltzmann brain...
And yet somehow the argument is seen as reaching the conclusion that the world is not as it appears... — Banno
I don't see a need to "resolve" the issue.How would you resolve that apparent contradiction without resorting to special pleading? — Michael
Sure. That does not render Boltzmann brains true. Again, I don't see a need to "resolve" the issue; indeed, I don't see that it could be resolved.“I am Banno” and “I am a Boltzmann brain” are not in conflict. — Michael
There might had been a situation where you put the cup in the cupboard of the shared kitchen dormitory in your university time. I wonder if you had ever lived in a dormitory of a university with the other folks sharing a kitchen. I had long time ago.So you have no reason to believe in the existence of the things behind you? When you put the cup in the cupboard, you cease to have any reason to believe that the cup is in the cupboard?
That's not right. — Banno
Indeed, and this is what Berkeley said. Something that would exist independently of a perceiving mind is unverifiable. Because, if you check that such a thing exists, well, too late, you're using thought again. That is the powerful argument by Berkeley.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.
The point at the time of writing the post was logical ground rather than physical, ontological or epistemic ground for the doubt. If your ground for believing in the world is your perception (P), then↪Corvus
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.
Indeed, and this is what Berkeley said. Something that would exist independently of a perceiving mind is unverifiable. Because, if you check that such a thing exists, well, too late, you're using thought again. That is the powerful argument by Berkeley. — LFranc
I guess the upshot is that it is somehow quite implausible to question the existence of a world around you, whilst all the while participating in it. — Banno
That the discussion in this thread pressuposes a belief in a real world outside our minds, my comment is a rebuttal exactly to that claim. — Lionino
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.