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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

You are saying that you believe in the existence of the unperceived object, but still not giving any reason or ground for the belief.

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

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.

Think of a case that a long time (a few years) has passed since you perceived the object, then you might not even be sure if you actually saw the cup or tree or not. Your memory will fade away, and you have every reason to doubt the credibility of your own memory too. So it would be rational to have the doubt on the existence of the unperceived object or world.

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

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. :)

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

I only came across the video a day or so ago. I thought it was an interesting video, because the presenter has Phd in Philosophy of Science, but rejects the existence of the actual world, and he talks about why there is no actual world. The argument is reasonable, which is similar to one I had.

This thread has become not just Hume or Kant's views and arguments on the topic i.e. the world, existence and beliefs, but also general survey of these concepts. So, yes we were discussing Kant and Hume when someone raised the issue with them, I was responding to them while exploring the concepts and also the title "What are your reasons and grounds for believing in the existence of the unperceived world / object?"

There is a clear difference between "the world" and "the external objects" too such as cups or trees. The world is still undefined concept. And trying to have some sort of agreed object concept of the world would be ideal for the discussions too. Some folks seem to think they are all the same, but I feel they are all different, but I have been trying interact with the same level of perspectives rather than rejecting their points on the basis of being irrelevant.

What do you think of this video? Any thoughts?

"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?

Isn't objectivity one of the properties of the world? There is no point talking about someone's closed private world as the actual objective world, is there?

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

Are you sure what you are perceiving is the world? What is the world?
The point is not to do with being conscious or not. The point is, what is your ground / reason for believing in the existence of unperceived world / object.

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

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.

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

What are your reasons believing in the cup still keep existing as the cup, when you are not seeing it anymore?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

Ehhhh, maybe. I’ll have to back check that. But there’s a more exact exposition of why not. See A592/B620 for the groundwork, if you’re so inclined. — Mww

I was reading B446/A420 and B448/A421 in CPR for the part, where Kant says that the World is totality of all appearances in the universe, therefore it is beyond the grasp of Reason. The topic of the World is, therefore subject of Cosmology.

I have edited and updated my answer on the Cartesian proof to be more complete. — Lionino

Thank you. :cool: :pray:

So we are now talking about the ‘existence’ of fictional and hypothetical worlds?

No thanks. I am out.

Only so many liberties we can take with words before gibberish takes over. — I like sushi

No, it is about how our mind and belief works, and how even Science use our belief in non-existing existence and observations as a methodology at times for finding and exploring the universe.

Your rushed and senseless judgement on the point seems to be based on misunderstanding and ignorance on the topic. All the best.

You might be interested in Descartes proof of the outside world, from the MM:

I will conclude that, if the objective reality of any of my ideas is such that I clearly recognize that it is neither formally nor eminently in me and that, consequently, I cannot myself be the cause of it, it necessarily follows that I do not exist alone in the world, but that there is still something that exists and that is the cause of this idea; whereas, if such an idea is not found in me, I will have no argument that can convince me and assure me of the existence of anything other than myself; for I have searched them all carefully and have not, until now, found any. — Lionino

Good point. :up: Thank you for your post, and welcome to TPF.

Can I ask if it would make any sense to believe otherwise? Then if it matters at all if we believe in such an ‘existence’ extraneous to our general sensory interaction as part-of the world (rather than as some disembodied entity). — I like sushi

The belief in the existence of the hypothetical planet Vulcun comes to mind. Sometimes even the Scientist believe in the non-existence of the contiguous external objects when not perceived.

Our belief in the external world and causation are habitual based on the experienced reliable presence of objects and invariance of objects and the observed constant conjunction of events.

What do you think he says? — Janus

You have not even understood the question. The question was not about the external world, but was about the CONTINUAL existence of the external world (when not perceived).

Arguments do not prove anything; they are merely consistent (if valid) with their presupposed premises.
This means that belief in the existence or non-existence of the external world is based on reason, but the premises that reasoning, whether for or against, is based on cannot be certain and are themselves based on abductive speculation (imagination). None of which disagrees with Hume, so it looks to me like it is you who misunderstand Hume. — Janus

Your post sounds like as if you have not read anything on Hume and any messages in this thread with attention.  What does Hume say about  the way our beliefs arise for the continuous existence of the external world?

Ehhhh, maybe. I’ll have to back check that. But there’s a more exact exposition of why not. See A592/B620 for the groundwork, if you’re so inclined. — Mww

Sure, I feel this is one of the interesting points in CPR. Will have read and thoughts, and get back for further discussions and clarifications.

Check this reading group: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13614/reading-group-humes-of-skepticism-with-regard-to-the-senses — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :pray:

What do you want me to do, quote all the places where Hume is wrong? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, doesn't have to be all, but more the merrier of course. But this is good. It gives me good guidance where to look. I am grateful. Thanks.

My take is that the subjective nature of time and space are the cornerstone of the framework. But I don't think he claims that these are 'merely' or 'only' subjective, in the sense of being peculiar to the individual. Rather that they are grounded in the human mind, so, if you like, a kind of 'universal subject' rather than an individual ego. This is where Kant's 'transcendental apperception' is significant ('experience both of the self and its objects rests on acts of synthesis that, because they are the conditions of any experience, are not themselves experienced'). It's an antidote to the kind of hyperbolic objectivity that science is inclined to foster (many argue that it culminates in a kind of hyperbolic subjectivism, although I don't agree with that.)

//ps// and also Hume's scepticism should be mentioned which was principally scepticism of the knowledge of causal relationships. This was the subject of Kant's answer to Hume which is a unit of study in its own right.// — Wayfarer

:up: Interesting points. I am going to go over Kant's view on Scepticism too, after Hume. This post seems giving me insight and guidance where to look in Kant's sea of works. Thanks. I will read your post with attention, and will get back to you if I have any point to add, ask or criticise. :D

You seem to be a master of missing the point. The argument is simply that the existence of the world independently of its being perceived is an inference to the best explanation for our experience. It isn't a proof and doesn't purport to be.

As I read Hume all he was doing was pointing out that inductive and abductive reasoning are not deductively/ logically certain; a move against rationalism. — Janus

I am not sure where you read Hume from, but it doesn't sound as if there is any truth at all in your points.  Therefore I will give it a miss on that. :D

I have a few commentary books on Hume, and all of them have substantial amount of writings on the topic i.e. Hume's scepticism on the External World.  In fact there are a few books devoted to Hume's theory on the External World e.g. by H.H. Price.

Personally I do feel that, Hume's Scepticism on the External World is the most interesting part of his Philosophy, and it has a good amount of arguments and proofs in it. It is not just a 2 line google search results amount as you claim.

Just to give you simple hint or summary of his arguments and proof, his Treatise Hume devotes a full section called "Of the Scepticism with Regards to Senses" to discussion on the Perception of the External World.  He divides his arguments into 2 parts.  One from the Vulgar(Ordinary People)'s point of view, and the Philosopher's point of view for the other.

He argues that the ordinary people believe in the existence of the external world when not perceiving it, and it is based on the idea that the objects have distinct existence from perception. Because objects have distinct existence without perception, the vulgars (ordinary people) believe that the objects have continued existence while not being perceived. And because the objects have continued existence, it is also distinct in existence (i.e. exists without perception)

But in Hume's system for an object to be distinct, it has to be the perception of the object, because all objects are impressions.  Nothing can be perceived without impression, so the distinct object in existence must be an UNOWNED floating impression.   But it is impossible for impressions to be unowned or floating logically.  Hence from Modus tollens,

If CE then DE 
not DE 
therefore not CE

It follows that the vulgars' belief in the existence of the external world is false.

He goes on proving Philosopher's belief in the existence of the external world, and concludes that the belief cannot be based on reason, but imagination.  There are extensive arguments and proofs why this is the case.

Therefore your post seems to have been based on false information of you readings or your misunderstanding on Hume.

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

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

Kant says that the World is totality all appearances in the universe (CPR, Antinomy of Reason), therefore it belongs to the subject of Cosmology. It is illogical to say "the World exists." Because pure reason cannot grasp totality of all appearance in the universe.

it's safer to think that what you won't know can still kill you.
But hey, you won't find any purely deductive disproof of solipsism either. — jorndoe

Sure, I find Hume's argument interesting, which I am going to read further. Whether he was denying the world or not, is not really important for me at all.

It is also interesting to look into more on the concept of "the world" and "existence" and dissect them further. Questions such as, is it logically correct in saying "The world exists."? What does the predicate "exist" entail? What is the definition of the world?, arise as the secondary issues.

You'll notice I deleted my answer which was made on a whim, although now you've responded I will explain what I meant, which was simply that survival dictates that you better believe there are unseen objects, else you run into them and remove yourself from the gene pool. — Wayfarer

Ok, thanks for your explanation.

Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.
— Corvus

I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer

I did a term paper on Hume, way back in the day. If you could provide a reference to where he says this I'd be interested, because I don't recall anything like that. — Wayfarer

"we may well ask, what causes us to believe in the existence of body? But 'tis vain to ask, whether there be body or not? That is a point, which we must take for granted in all our reasonings." (Treatise 1978: p.187)
He doesn't ask you directly, but he raised the issue, and even if he says "'tis vain to ask", he keeps on analysing the issue extensivey.

What Hume did argue, is that we could not perceive causal relations between events. But that's a different matter. — Wayfarer

Yes, that is a different topic, but similar in the principles.

It's not my premise, and it is unfounded. — Patterner

Ok, fair enough :ok:

And I believe Charles Darwin's theory provides the answer. — Wayfarer

Hume doesn't think reason does it, and he concludes that human instinct and nature, namely imagination forces us to believe in the things while not perceiving them. He seems to think its psychology rather than reasoning make us to believe in the world when not perceiving it.

What would be Darwin's explanation?

Because no matter how many times I do the experiment things are always there when I open my eyes again just as I left them when I closed my eyes. If I have something in front of me, I can close my eyes, yet still feel it when I touch it. — Janus

Yes, this is the point. When you close your eyes, you still believe the things exist. You are even touching them with your hands, claiming, wow these things exist, you are not even seeing them.
Hume is asking you what make you to believe in the existence of the things that you are not seeing.

If nothing exists behind me, how does my turning my head bring things into existence? — Patterner

I think Hume would say, things do exist, but when you are not seeing them, why do you believe them to exist? What is the ground for the belief that they exist when they are not perceived.
So your premise "If nothing exists behind me," sounds unfounded.

What about, for starters, the seeming object permanence (of things)? That seems to suggest, at least, that there is an external world. — Bob Ross

Object permanence sounds like a psychological term. I must admit I am not familiar with the concept.  Could you perhaps elaborate on it?

My intention of the OP run was, to investigate more on Hume's account of his skepticism on the External World, and then go to Kant, and see what Kant has to say about skepticism from his Ti,  TD and TII. 

Then looking at Husserl and Phenomenology accounts of the world view. The final part was going to look at the Epistemic account of the world with the digitally extended perception under Embodied Cognition.  That was the plan.  Not sure how well it will progress now, but whatever the case, it was all for self learning, while exchanging views and ideas with the others. :)

I would say that, in terms of just evidence for the existence of the world, doesn't it at least seem like you are in an external world? — Bob Ross

Yes, I am. I am in the world. Sometimes the world is in my mind, when I am imagining it.

But Hume would say, no mate, when you close your eyes, you don't see the world.
Do you still believe that the world exists? If yes, what is the reason that you believe in it when you are not perceiving it?