Cool. I know you saw mine, scattered in the two threads where this has come up. — Mww

:cool: :ok:

Apologies for not reading the thread and perhaps repeating what's already been said. As far as Im concerned, "the reason for believing in the exisrence of the world" is that there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. :smirk: — 180 Proof

No probs mate. But what is your proof that what you are seeing, and going through in your life is not a long vivid dream or some realistic illusion or hallucination?

I maintain there is reason to believe the world exists when I’m not perceiving it, which is all I ever meant to comment on. — Mww

Fair enough. All I wanted to see was the philosophical arguments for believing in the world when not perceiving it. But the peripheral arguments, perspectives, and information stemming from the main point too, are interesting and useful in learning, even the negative ones.

Sure, and one of the popular interpretations of QM is the Many Worlds Interpretation. I agree with Bernardo Kastrup that positing the existence of huge numbers of universes popping into existence all the time is a huge violation of Occam's Razor. Why don't the people who believe in the MWI just believe in idealism instead? — RogueAI

Good point. :chin:

That's funny, I've used Occam's Razor to come to the opposite conclusion: the simplest explanation to explain things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and the correct interpretation of QM is to assume matter doesn't exist. — RogueAI

Interesting you mentioned QM. In QM there are theories saying that some states, objects or entities only come to existence when observed externally.

A great post Count Tim. :up: Hegel is one of my favorite Philosophers. I will do some reading on him this week, and will get back to you after some mulling over on your points.

The first thought that occurred to me was: Why would we need a reason to believe the world exists? Reason suffers when such unreasonable demands are put on it. Such doubt only arises when reason is abstracted and treated as if it were independent from our being in the world. — Fooloso4

The OP was not claiming the world doesn't exist. It was seeking the reason for your believing in the world when not perceiving it. Reason is not a being of its own. It is rational methodology of thought.

Nietzsche believed any attempt to nail down truth as a repeatedly producible self-same thing, foundation, ground or telos, destroys meaning and value. — Joshs

Any relevant quotes on that point from Nietzsche?

Gravity is a constant reminder. Biology never turns off. These worldly constants are always in our perceptual space and can never be not perceived. — NOS4A2

But they are not exactly what we call perceptions in epistemic sense, are they?

If fact, what you seem to be getting at goes way beyond Berkley or Kant or any other idealist. Very few of them say that the world does not exist if we are not perceiving it. They take it for granted. — Manuel

Wasn't Berkeley an idealist who believed the external world doesn't exist at all? I understood that Idealists believe the world is perception, and there is no material existence in the world at all. I am not sure if Kant was an idealist. Wasn't he a dualist, and realist in the sense that he thinks that the external objects enter into our sensibility for us to perceive them. We can perceive the objects which are in our senses, but there are objects that are not in our senses, which we don't know or perceive, but do exist (Thing-in-Itself).

I am not denying any existence or the world, or anything like that. I was simply asking (the OP) what is your reason to believe in the existence of the world when not perceiving it?

So, this question of proof could be asked of your proposal. What is self-evidently given such that it provides the grounds for believing or not believing our experiences? Upon what grounds is your doubt more than a subtraction from what is given to you? — Paine

Isn't doubting part of reasoning? Isn't it natural for reason to doubt when there is not enough evidence or ground in believing something?

Indeed, you have.

I am confident that you turn off the gas and lock the door before bed, just in case untoward things happen while you are asleep.

In that way, your account is an affectation. — Banno

You are the one who crashed into this thread with the pendulum claiming untrue statements without even knowing what the point of the discussion was. Please read your posts again. It really seems like a serious case of projection defence.

Yes, it is interesting topics to engage the discussion in philosophically. It can make the whole thread look like sceptical discussion at times, but it is not really. It depends on at what angle of point we are looking from.

Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno

Stretching it too far. Hope it is not your projection defence mechanism activation.

hmmm the discussion was neither about the earth rotation nor the pendulum. It was about the logical ground of belief in the existence of the world.
But the moment and I was talking, it was about the actual earth we all are standing, sitting and lying on, not the pendulum.

As I pointed out, your philosophy protects itself against counter examples. But we can trace back the thread of this conversation. — Banno

You suddenly brought the pendulum into the discussion out of the blue saying that, I was not paying attention, and it is problem. And I was just saying, No, that is not the case, and explained the situation logically. :)

Yes, things in the external world change, disappear, and new objects appear on the earth.  It is the reality, but we may not perceive them directly or realistically because they may be happening slowly, or while we are away to some other parts of the world etc.

But the OP is not about the actual existence of the world itself, but it is more about our reasoning for believing in the existence of the world.

Why do we believe in something that we are not seeing?  Would it be the memories, imagination or intuition or indeed logical reasoning that make us believe in the existence of the world?

There are many cases where when we don't perceive something, we immediately stop believing in their existence.  it is about trying to find out what are your reasons to believe the existence of the world or objects when not perceiving them.

I will tell you my personal story. I went to a house that I used to live in when I was a young child.  I have not been in that area for many years.  One time I was near the area for some other work to do, and thought about the house and the little alley way that I used to play with other guys in there. I was nostalgic of the time, and was actually going to the house and the wee alleyways, and see how it would be after so many years. 

 I still believed that the house would still be there, but I was not sure. When I actually went there, the house had gone along with all the houses nearby, and there was no more the little alleyway that we used to play in.  They demolished the whole area, and built gigantic shopping centre buildings all along, and I could not find the old house or anything similar to it anywhere near it. 

 My belief in the existence of the old house was proved wrong.  I thought to myself, well I should have no ground in believing what I am not perceiving in the world, and that is a rational and coherent way to think.

You seem to have habit of confusing tools with the object to be observed. Anyhow we were not talking about the pendulum at all, but the visual unobservability of the actual earth rotating round directly while being located on the earth.

Please read the relating posts again. was saying he couldn't observe the earth rotating round while he was asleep / not perceiving. I said he is not supposed to, as it is natural not able to observe the earth rotating around while sitting on any point an earth visually.

Does it sound like we were talking about the pendulum? It had nothing to do with morals or refutations either. It was just a simple reminding.

Your body still perceives the world in sleep, in fact your dreams can be lead on by nouns in the real world. The fact that many a thing can stir a person from their sleep is proof that even your unconscious body KNOWS something is occurring. — Vaskane

Really? Fascinating. Thank you for your effort writing the substantial post on Nietzsche in conjunction with the topic. I have not been reading him for a while, but will get back to it sometime in the near future for sure. I think he is a great writer.

Yeah, you can, from anywhere you can see a Foucault pendulum.

See, trouble is, you are not paying attention. — Banno

You are confused again between the actual earth and the pendulum. :roll:

"It is still the case that you have mediate reason to believe a priori, in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions." -
When you said that, it sounded like you were treating a priori and the existence of the world as the same league of perceptual knowledge. But you are denying it, putting them as "irrelevant.


"in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions."
Yes, they have similar meaning, in which case implying memory? No?

"For the metaphysical philosopher, perception is mere appearance, an as-yet undetermined effect on physiology by something, and from which there is no memory as a determined thing
The visual memory content is also appearance? No? If you see the images from your past events in your memory, are they not perceptual contents?

"Every belief is justified, and no empirical knowledge is infallible, so it would seem memory drops out of consideration for either. A priori knowledge, on the other hand, is infallible, but does not obtain its certainty from memories of things, but from the necessity of principles."
There are unjustified or groundless beliefs too as well as justified ones? No empirical knowledge is infallible? Again there is infallible empirical knowledge too? - such as I have hands (waving, seeing and verifying)? What would be some examples of infallible a priori knowledge? Folks like Kripke have denied validity of a priori knowledge saying that all knowledge is a posteriori. Even all the mathematical knowledge is acquired by experiential learning.


"But we’re talking about believing in the existence of the world, which already presupposes it. We should be discussing belief in the continuation of such existence, rather than existence itself."
But isn't there also the possibility that all your past perception of the existence of the world could be an illusion? Why should you rely on the past memory of the world in order to perceive the present world's existence? Does existence have to be always continuing - for how long? Surely existence could be temporary, momentary and fleeting?

"In which case, we shall always disagree, in that you are doing empirical anthropology and I’m doing cognitive metaphysics. This irreconcilable dichotomy reduces to the impossibility for qualitative judgements such as meaningful and trouble-free life, being derivable from ontological predicates, such as existence."
That points were for the folks who were asking for the point in asking the questions on the reasons for the existence of the world. Just to say, it might not be all meaningless task if the pragmatic points are what they are drawing values and points from any activities.

"….then you are not driving the car. You’re merely the payload in a projectile."
My point was why do you believe in the existence of the world when you are not perceiving it, but you would stop driving a car, when you don't perceive the road ahead of you.

Uhh... I'm not sure about that. Unless the proof started with:

"Let there be astronomical observations equivalent with the empirical observations we have made.... — Count Timothy von Icarus

You cannot observe the earth rotating around visually sitting on any point on the earth. :)

So, your own example is an argument against your own OP. — Manuel

My example was against your point that you would rather take a more supported and seeming option rather than a less supported and unlikely option. The OP was asking what your reasons to believe in the existence of the world are, while not perceiving it.

Maybe the Earth only turns round when we look at said evidence and is flat the rest of the time? :nerd: — Count Timothy von Icarus

That sounds like a statement from misunderstanding existence from motion.
Anyway, the earth rotating the Sun was purely found out by the Mathematical deduction, not empirical observation.

Hume is saying that reason does not do that acceptance in the sense of a series of formal statements or a priori set of conditions. The belief in the world's existence is prior to any doubt. — Paine

Could you prove why the belief in the world's existence is prior to any doubt on behalf of Hume? Do you believe he is justified in saying that? i.e. why reason doesn't do that acceptance in the series of formal statements or a priori set of conditions - I think we need detailed elaboration on this assertion.

Wouldn't it be like saying that the earth looks more flat than round, so it must be flat. It looks like the Sun is rotating the earth, so the Sun is rotating around the earth?
This was what the ancient and the medieval people believed and supported, and anyone saying against it was punished by law too.

But it has been turned around by Copernicus and Galileo totally and incredibly. So what looks seemingly like the case, and supported by the majority is not always the truth.

Hume would say that you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope when demanding a warrant for accepting the existence of the world: — Paine

I wasn't demanding a warrant for accepting the existence of the world, but was asking the reasons for your accepting the existence of the world. i.e. Why do you believe the world exists, when you are not perceiving it?

Rather, he considered that quest a nihilistic aim, an attempt to stifle and freeze living becoming. — Joshs

"a nihilistic aim"? Doesn't it sounds like a contradiction? When nihilist has aim, doesn't he stop being a nihilist? What was the reasons for him doing that?

The world ( including the ‘I’) would be a meaningless series of isolated ‘nows’ with no sensible content. Your belief in the ‘simultaneous’ world around you while typing, and your belief in your own immediate existence, is no more justifiable that the belief in anything else. — Joshs

I have read about this from a neurology paper, and was agreeing to its point fully. But then my memory is vivid and fresh enough to catch up that momentary pasts and render into the legitimate perception. In that sense there are the parts of memory which could be regarded as perception. It is only when long time interval has passed, the contents of memory goes stale or fade away resulting in total loss of the past cognitive perception.

On the other hand, one could argue that what is irreducibly valid is the temporal structure of retention, the present, and anticipation, forming a moving zero point of perception. We could call this zero point a transcendental ego. — Joshs

This sound like the mental state some Buddhists try to achieve in their meditation practices. I read that they try to achieve selfless mental state by focusing on the internal concepts or the teachings of Buddha in the text.

The link I posted below comes from an essay that has never been published, sadly. I don't understand why because it seems so interesting what Kelley Ross post there, and didactic with examples and explanation. — javi2541997

I think it is a quite good article on Kant. Lately I wanted to read some new and different commentaries and views on Kant, instead of the traditional interpretations on him. Seemingly there are hundreds and thousands of commentaries and papers on Kant's philosophy from the time after Kant's death to even now. It just tells us how influential his philosophy has been.

Regrading this question, Kelley Ross states: The question then is why the thing in itself remains in the theory. To subsequent generations it has seemed that Kant ends up with a precarious, paradoxical, and perhaps even incoherent dualism between things in themselves and the phenomenal objects produced by synthesis. The thought here, however, is that Kant was right to retain his dualism. It is one indication of how delicate is Kant's balancing act in the equation of "transcendental idealism" and "empirical realism" that it is the "realism" of the latter that even those sympathetic with Kant have trouble taking seriously. — javi2541997

It seems an interesting view on Kant. I am not an expert on Kant myself, but am interested in learning more on his philosophy with on-going readings and discussions on the topics.

Honestly though, this is the kind of "philosophy" that feels affectatious. Loaded question that doesn't lead to any real wisdom. — Vaskane

But didn't even Neitzsche believed that the ultimate knowledge of the true reality was impossible to achieve? In that sense, wasn't he also a sceptic? Although his Philosophy is more tuned for Value, Freedom and Taste oriented, would you not agree that you can only come to true value, freedom and taste via the true knowledge? In that sense, you must define what truth is, and also have the verified ground for your belief that your knowledge of the world is free from error, prejudice and uncertainty?

Not perceiving the world would require you to be rid of ALL of your experiences of it. Even when an artist is between the Apollonian dreamland and the Dionysian intoxication, and they are freed from all the contradictions inside of themselves during their creative passions, they too still perceive the world, while in the zone of their own universe. — Vaskane

How do you prove that the artist is not dreaming or imagining on the contradictions, perceived world and universe?

You can only stop perceiving the world in death alone, so yeah, you stop believing then too because you're dead — Vaskane

But you don't have to die to stop perceiving the world or not to have any reason to believe in the existence of the world. You can have a good night sleep instead of death, and you can have all that with some sweet dreams as bonus while in sleep too. Death sounds too morbid and needless if you are not 100++ years old yet, doesn't it?

You are correct in that you have no immediate reason a posteriori to believe in the existence of the world in the absence of perception. It is still the case you have mediate reason to believe a priori, in the existence of the world, iff you’ve a set of cognitions from antecedent perceptions. And it is impossible that you do not insofar as you’re alive and functioning, so….. — Mww

But can the world be the object of a priori knowledge? When you say precedent perception, could it be memory? Doesn't memory tend to be unreliable for qualifying as a ground of infallible knowledge or justified belief?

The fact that someone is living and functioning doesn't mean that the folk have infallible ground for the existence of the world, does it? All he might be interested in his mind could be the football results on TV, or his stag night plans with his pals in coming weekend. These are the people whom Hume calls the "vulgars" in his Treatise. They would not even understand what the question or issues are with the scepticism regarding the external world.

As you said, most folks in ordinary daily life don't bother or care about the reasons to believe in anything. They just do.

Everydayman doesn’t bother himself with believing in so obvious an existence, any more than he bothers himself with doubting the non-existence of it.
For the philosopher or the scientist, it is quite absurd to suppose either of those merely believe in that existence the ignorance of which, for them, is impossible.
Which begs the question….who else would even wonder about it? — Mww

Some folks seem to think, why is this issue important or significant? I think it is interesting and significant because perception is perhaps the most important thing in leading a meaningful and trouble free life. Not just for human beings, but even for the animals on this earth.

Suppose that if a dog cannot tell the difference between a cat and tiger, and when he saw a tiger, if the dog chased the tiger barking thinking it was a cat, then he would be eaten fast by the tiger, and no longer exist. But the matter of fact is that, even a dog would perceive the tiger, and know the imminent danger, and run away as fast as he could hiding for his own safety.

For human beings, if you drive a car when you are not perceiving the road ahead of you, believing that it exists even if you are not perceiving it, and keep on racing away into a river, then that would be a disaster. When you don't perceive the road ahead of you, you simply say to yourself, you no longer have reason to believe there is a road ahead of you, and get out of the car, and take a taxi home. Wouldn't it be a more rational thing to do?

Corvus, I want to share with you some notes from Kelley Ross, when he finished his dissertation. My aim is not to force you to believe on the existence of the world, but to see another prospective in its prism. Ontological Undecidability — javi2541997

Hello Javi.  Thanks for your quotes from the article, and points.  It is very helpful, and interesting. It is interesting that the author of the article sees Kant's Thing-in-Itself as objects beyond human understanding.  Once upon a time in the past, I too, was looking at the concept that way.  

Would it make Kant an idealistic dualist?  The dualist who thinks that there are two different worlds i.e. Phenomena and Noumena. It is also an idealistic world view because the world is in the mind of the perceiver i.e. without the perceiver, the world doesn't exist?  Would this be the right interpretation for Kant?

But, if we are not directly acquainted with the real objects of experience, and they exist, then the real objects of experience are separate from us. — javi2541997

The point of the OP was not that I don't believe in the existence of the world when not perceiving it, or trying to deny the existence of the world as such. But I was trying to see what the logical grounds are for our belief in the existence of the world.

This epistemic problem has been dogging the philosophers from the ancient times, and in the modern times Hume and Kant as well. They have been propounding and analysing the issues in their work extensively. But I was wondering, if the old problems regarding the scepticism have been sorted out with some concrete resolutions in recent times and even now as we are discussing the issue in here, or is the problem still hanging in the air with the same controversies as long before in the history of Philosophy from the ancient to the early Modern times.

Is our belief in the existence of the world based on some logical evidences and reasonings based on the perception?  Or is it by inductive reasoning? Or would it be just habits, customs or animal instincts?

Academic Skepticism in Hume and Kant: A Ciceronian Critique of Metaphysics by Catalina González Quintero (Author)

The book is divided into three parts i.e. Scepticism in the ancient Greek times, Humes' Scepticism and Kant's Scepticism. It is clearly written, and looks at the methodologies and details of the Scepticisms from different angles, which is interesting.

Perception is not based on logical inference. — L'éléphant

So what are our perceptions based on, if not on the logical inference?

If you're looking for the logical grounds for believing in the existence of the world, then what better way than your own thoughts in refusing to believe. Someone, like you, who refuses to believe in objects not existing is the best, surest reason for believing there's something. You exist. — L'éléphant

I don't have to refuse or agree to believe. But could I not just say I don't have a reason to believe, when there is no reason to believe? I don't deny my existence when I am awake and perceiving the world, because if I didn't exist, then the perception would be impossible.

But then again, when I am asleep, I don't have a ground to believe that I exist. Do you have reason to believe that you exist, when you are in deep sleep? If yes, what are the reasons for your belief? How can you think about the reasons that you exist while in deep sleep?

It wasn't.

But I definitely took a picture and left a message. It remains in my mind, and now in yours. But neither of us can access it physically, here and awake, that is. So what does that mean? — Outlander

It sounds like you had a real vivid dream, which felt to you like real life happening. When you woke up, and tried to verify if it was a real life event or not, it was just your dream event. So, could it mean that we might all be dreaming right now? How do we tell the dreams from the real world, or real life events from the dream events?

Is it possible for you to be not perceiving the world while you are still alive? Would this be when you are asleep? But don't things still wake you up? Are you not in some way perceiving the world even when you are asleep? — Metaphysician Undercover

When one is alive, and perceiving the world, of course, one believes in the existence of the world, because one has the ground for believing in the existence of the world.  But when one is dead, or asleep, there is no longer perception for the individual.  Therefore could it be the case that there is no reason for the individual to believe in the existence of the world? Would you say that one should believe in the existence of the world, when one is dead or in deep sleep?

If I understand your point correctly I’d say we have far more reason to believe in the objective existence of the world than not. The onus is on the person that says it isn’t real, a simulation etc. — Captain Homicide

So what are your reasons and proofs for believing the world exists, when you are not perceiving it? What is the ground that says, something isn't real? How do you tell something is a simulation, rather than real?

I am interested in seeing the logical reasons for believing in existence of the world or objects without perceiving them. It is not about the actual world or objects, but the thinking process for the reasons of our beliefs in existence.

Are our beliefs in the existence of the world or objects based on some logical reasoning? or is it just all groundless, habits and customs to believe in these things?

If you are typing this and asking others for opinions, aren't you committed to the existence of the world? — Tom Storm

As I am typing this, I am perceiving my surrounding objects and the world around me vividly. So yes, I am believing in their existence for sure.  But I don't have any reasons to believe in anything else in this world I am not perceiving.

One may notice problems, but why extrapolate from them the notion that such problems are ubiquitous, regardless of considerations of context? — Ciceronianus

But isn't Philosophy about finding out the nature of the world, our knowledge of the world, and the limitation / boundary of our knowledge? What would your points of Philosophy be?