G E Moore proved the existence of the external world by waving his two hands - saying, "Here is one hand, and here is another hand." Seeing the hands and being able to wave them proves that there exists the external world — Corvus

Yet another example of the exceptionalism of North trans-Atlantic philosophy. Almost as good as the typical Quinean argument of "Well we (I) want it to be true so it is true". In Ancient Athens, there would be no disagreement, Plato and Diogenes would join forces in mockery.

I was reading "A Kant Dictionary" by H. Caygill last night, and it says, Noumenon is not a being or existence in Kant — Corvus

Voilà, another interpretation of the term.

All and each sensation, depending on its mode of intuition, is represented by its own conceptions. The compendium of those conceptions, synthesized in an aggregate series of relations to each other, gives the cognition of the thing as a whole. For those singular sensations, by themselves, not in conjunction with other modes of intuition, only judgements relative to that mode of intuition, that sensation, are possible.

Sufficient to explain why not all possible sensations are necessary to judge an object, and, that each sensation manifests in a possible judgement of its own, in accordance initially with its physiology, henceforth in accordance with the rules implicit in the faculty of understanding. — Mww

Not quite clear what you are trying to say here. Could you give some real life examples, where you can make judgements with conception only without any other mental faculties associated?

Voilà, another interpretation of the term. — Lionino

Yes, there are many different interpretations even in the academic communities. Which one is the absolute true one?

make judgements with conception only….. — Corvus

All judgements having to do with things, are of conceptions only.

…..without any other mental faculties associated? — Corvus

I never said no other faculties were associated. In fact, other faculties must be, given the previous comments.

Yes, there are many different interpretations even in the academic communities. Which one is the absolute true one? — Corvus

We will have to bring Kant back from the dead, but even then it is possible he would not be able to fully explain it, after all he failed to do in his several books. Denuo, ecce maledictio linguarum naturalium.

We will have to bring Kant back from the dead, — Lionino

You could join the time travel thread, and travel into the 1700s. :nerd:

All judgements having to do with things, are of conceptions only. — Mww

If you already have the concepts of things, why do you need further judgements on them?
What are there to judge with things?

If you already have the concepts of things, why do you need further judgements on them? — Corvus

Further? This implies concepts are judgements, when they are in fact only representations.

For why judgement is needed, when there are already conceptions, consult A67-76/B92-101.

Further? This implies concepts are judgements, when they are in fact only representations. — Mww

It breaks the traditional meaning of judgement and concept. I am not sure if there is a point for insisting on the point apart from creating confusion.

For why judgement is needed, when there are already conceptions, consult A67-76/B92-101. — Mww

If that is really what Kant said, then you, as a serious reader of CPR, should be in a position to criticise the point, rather than blindly accepting it, and worshiping CPR as if it were a bible. If concept were judgements, then is the Sun the Moon? Is a dog a cat? Is an apple a bucket? It just creates unnecessary and unacceptable confusions.

CPR is not a bible to be worshipped. It has to be interpreted and understood in the making sense way for the present days. If it is not making sense, it is not worth it. I try to read it making sense way. Someone said "To understand Kant is to transcend him." I think he was right in saying so.

CPR is not a bible…. — Corvus

For a few hundred years, it is, for all intents and purposes, the bible for critical human thought.

It has to be interpreted and understood in making sense way for the present days. — Corvus

Why wouldn’t it? Knowledge has certainly evolved, but the human intellectual system, in whichever form that actually is…. by which knowledge evolves, has not changed one iota in these few hundred years. Or even if a couple iotas, still not enough to make a difference. Given current education and peer review, Kant would understand “qualia” just as well as anybody these days.

”To understand Kant is to transcend him." — Corvus

Nahhhh. To understand Kant is to think as if in his place and time. Work with what he worked with. You didn’t read in that link, where the author said pretty much the same thing? That people are apt to misunderstand him because they’re using asymmetrical conditions in attempting to arrive at congruent conclusions. Sadly, Kant must be wrong because he’s three hundred years old?

(Sigh)

Nahhhh. To understand Kant is to think as if in his place and time. Work with what he worked with. You didn’t read in that link, where the author said pretty much the same thing? That people are apt to misunderstand him because they’re using asymmetrical conditions in attempting to arrive at congruent conclusions. Sadly, KAnt must be wrong because he’s three hundred years ago. — Mww

Judgement is an act of judging. Concept is more close to definition. Judgement can have concepts in its content, and it is always in propositional form. That is what Bolzano said in The Theory of Science. I think that makes sense. If one says concept is judgement and they are the same, then it doesn't sound right logically. If that is what Kant said, then one should point it out as an absurd idea.

Anyways, ok, we agree to disagree. :) Worshipping Kant as if he is some God, and CPR is the bible is not a good philosophy. It is, rather, a religion in disguise of the philosophy. :grin:

Worshipping Kant and CPR as if he is some God, and CPR is the bible is not a good philosophy. — Corvus

While this is correct, do you see the fault in judgement in supposing it has been the case with respect to this conversation? And if there’s no evidence for the case other than mere observation of the disparity in our respective comments, and even if that assertion never was directed towards this conversation in the first place, what purpose is served by stating the obvious?

But never fear; it’s ok. It’s covered in the bible (of critical human thought):

(those finding themselves in a dialectic corner) “…must either have recourse to pitiful sophisms or confess their ignorance…”.

While this is correct, do you see the fault in judgement in supposing it has been the case with respect to this conversation? And if there’s no evidence for the case other than mere observation of the disparity in our respective comments, and even if that assertion never was directed towards this conversation in the first place, what purpose is served by stating the obvious? — Mww

Your misunderstanding seems to come from thinking judgements are concepts, and judgements have no association with reasoning in the operation. If this is the case, what is the purpose of reason in CPR? What does reason supposed to be doing in the minds?

Your misunderstanding seems to come from thinking judgements are concepts….. — Corvus

Good luck finding where I said judgement are concepts. If I didn’t say it, what possible ground could there be for you to claim a misunderstanding of mine related to it?

…..and judgements have no association with reasoning in the operation. — Corvus

What operation? For this operation it doesn’t, for that operation it does. I’m not going to guess which one you’re talking about.

Good luck finding where I said judgement are concepts. If I didn’t say it, what possible ground could there be for you to claim a misunderstanding of mine related to it? — Mww

It would be much helpful if you could / would just explain the unclear things in straight forward manner instead of keep beating around the bush.

What operation? For this operation it doesn’t, for that operation it does. I’m not going to guess which one you’re talking about. — Mww

If you traced back what you wrote, you just kept on saying that judgement has nothing to do with reason. But then now you seem to have changed your words talking about "the other operation.", and tell us you won't guess which one. It is not a straight forward way of discourse.

Yeah, ok. All my fault. Sorry.

Good luck.

Yeah, ok. — Mww

Kant's TI was opposed and criticised by many of the other Philosophers after his time such as Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bolzano, Heidegger ... etc. His TI wasn't absolutely perfect. But then which philosophy is?

Good luck. — Mww

Thanks. To you too. :ok:

There is no reason to believe in the existence of the world even if you are seeing it. First of all, there is no reason to believe in any scientific theory. The statistician George Box said "All models are wrong but some are useful." That takes science out of the dichotomy of true-false. A model is useful if it gives good explanations for many of our observations, and if it gives us some kind of picture of what could be producing what we see while opening up possible paths to still more useful models.

Quantum mechanics (QM) cannot explain everything, but it gives a lot of very good predictions. Unfortunately there is no way to understand it as traditionally physical, in the sense of particles controlled by forces through cause and effect. In the math a very distant object can be changed instantaneously by something happening here. That can't be due to forces because by the rest of physics, forces operate locally.

This makes it difficult to believe QM because no one can see how that can happen - but there are theories. One is that QM is just a bunch of formulas for prediction, but there is no real quantum world. That is a lot harder to accept now that we know that there is no traditionally physical universe. If the quantum world is not real, neither is our familiar physical world. This approach thus ends up in idealism - only the experienced observations are real. That is one alternative we might entertain but do not have to believe it - or anything else.

Other theories extend the physical world to include things we never thought were real, physical things, like for instance information. Another approach is that only the math is real - the physical world is part of the set-theoretcial universe and exists if sets do. None of these theories are particularly believable, but they are all possibilities worth exploring and some might be useful.

Secondly, the observed physical world is a structure created by our brains. People are not born being able to see in 3D - the incoming visual information is 2D. Sometime during infancy the brain creates neural structures that make this information appear to be 3D. This has to be done in the very unformed infant nervous system. Adults born blind cannot later after sight-restoring surgery learn to see in 3D - they see a very flat world. Seeing in 3D does not come from inference or reasoning of any sort. But evolution has found it useful for human survival and reproduction to produce our internal movies in 3D.

Plus 3D might not last as a physical framework either. Trying to cope with QM and relativity has produced non-3D models. A highly curved 2D surface seems to work reasonably well. But so does a universe existing in 10^400 or so dimensions which has some information structures that have good 3D approximations.

We don't have to believe in the existence of anything - doing so doesn't have much advantage - but exploring and entertaining the possibilities of competing theories - and developing new ones - can be useful to life.

We don't have to believe in the existence of anything - doing so doesn't have much advantage - but exploring and entertaining the possibilities of competing theories - and developing new ones - can be useful to life. — Gary Venter

An interesting post. :up: It is interesting, because it was unusual to read about the sceptical world view, which is based on, and coming from science and QM perspective, not some idealistic immaterialism. I used to have the idea (still do), when science especially physics and QM knowledge get mature and deepen to the limits culminating its level of knowledge in the domain, that would be a kind of views on the world and universe, rather than being absolutely certain about them. There are lot of points in your post to go over, mull over, reading up, and return for further discussions. Thank you for the great post. Welcome to TPF. :pray: :cool:

The statistician George Box said "All models are wrong but some are useful." — Gary Venter

Him and hundreds of other people before him.

The statistician George Box said "All models are wrong but some are useful." — Gary Venter

What does it mean to say that models are wrong? Wrong in relation to what? If a model is useless it is useless, which means it doesn't accord with experience. Newtonian mechanics is useful, albeit not quite as useful as Einsteinian mechanics in some contexts.

We don't know whether either of them are right, in the sense of true, or even what it could mean for them to be right beyond observations showing that the predictions that are entailed by them obtain.

What does it mean to say that models are wrong? — Janus

It is simply the tired metaphorical dichotomy of map and territory. The territory is not the map, so it is "wrong", but some maps are better at guiding you around the territory than others.
Surely some Ancient Greek wrote something along those lines, and surely some Mesopotamian 2000 years before that said something along those lines too.
Some nations have relevance mania and need to make one or two things every one of their intellectuals said into a quote, an idea, a thought, a "law", a piece of content — a meme —, even if it is not interesting or true or original at all, so that they pretend more national merit than it is due. Think of how some Hindutvas claim that Indians invented most things in the world, but now imagine that with more cunning memetic tactics.

Thank you. Seems like a great forum.

You and Janus bring up a good point about "all models are wrong." Statisticians also objected to this and were offended. When I talk about Boxian Skepticism I usually say that "all models are subject to replacement or revision." The larger point is that right/wrong or true/false isn't the real issue. Or "How can we know for sure?" We can't. And "useful" goes beyond making predictions. A model that gives some kind of explanation of what is going on is more useful than one that just says "Here's the math." Also a model that goes somewhere is important - not a dead end - gives ideas of further possibilities to explore. Also thanks for the historical perspective.

Thank you. Seems like a great forum. — Gary Venter

Welcome. Yes, it is. :)

Here is some logical grounds for believing in the existence of the world from ChatGPT.

"The logical ground for belief in the existence of the world can be approached from various philosophical perspectives, each offering different arguments and justifications. Here are a few key approaches:

1. **Empirical Realism**: Empirical realism is the view that the external world exists independently of our perceptions and experiences of it. This position is based on the idea that our senses provide us with reliable information about the world, and that we can trust our sensory experiences as a basis for forming beliefs about reality. From this perspective, the existence of the world is grounded in the evidence provided by our senses and the consistency of our observations across different perceptual experiences.

2. **Metaphysical Realism**: Metaphysical realism holds that the external world exists objectively, regardless of our perceptions or beliefs about it. This position is based on the idea that there is a mind-independent reality that exists independently of human consciousness. Metaphysical realists argue that the world has an intrinsic nature and existence that is not contingent upon our subjective experiences or interpretations of it.

3. **Inference to the Best Explanation**: Some philosophers argue for the existence of the world based on the principle of inference to the best explanation. According to this principle, we should believe in the existence of the world because it provides the best explanation for our experiences and observations. The existence of the world is posited as the simplest and most coherent explanation for the diversity and regularity of our sensory experiences.

4. **Pragmatic Justification**: Pragmatic approaches to belief in the existence of the world emphasize the practical consequences of adopting such a belief. From a pragmatic perspective, belief in the existence of the world is justified because it is necessary for successful navigation of our environment, interaction with others, and attainment of our goals and desires. Belief in the existence of the world is seen as a useful and necessary assumption for engaging effectively with our surroundings.

These approaches provide different justifications for believing in the existence of the world, ranging from appeals to sensory experience and empirical evidence to arguments based on metaphysical realism and pragmatic considerations. While each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, belief in the existence of the world is generally regarded as a foundational assumption of human cognition and inquiry, underlying our understanding of the natural world and our place within it."

I wonder if these views provide the solid enough grounds for the beliefs, or do they have some logical flaws in their views.

But it is a simple argument that, if we redefine the word mind, solipsism in our vocabulary can be immediately tagged as 'false' as soon as a quick introspection shows there are things in my mind whose origin I don't know — Lionino

Now after some reflection, this argument appears to have a weakpoint that is what it means for ideas to have an "origin". By origin it would mean how the contents of my mind come to be, their cause that is. If I take a snapshot of my mind at a given moment, I cannot establish what the causes of {the ideas there} are without looking at a past snapshot, but then, the classic Humean question: what is the necessary connection between the idea at time t and at time t-1? Why can I trace the thought "I am hungry" to the subjective experience of hunger, but I can't trace the perception of a laptop to the experience of hunger, beyond a mere regularity?

I wasn't expecting that.

Boxian Skepticism — Gary Venter

Never heard of it.

all models are subject to replacement or revision — Gary Venter

Hardly an original idea.

We occupy reality and it’s real so everything’s real and nothing’s fake. If all the delusions the world had were confusing it’d be because of lack of knowledge. What we perceive is limited by our own understanding. The only things that can’t exist lack potential, so you—having known potential—know what’s possible and what’s impossible.

so everything’s real and nothing’s fake. — Arbü1237

Is Santa Clause real? Is God real?