Sure. A great point. :up:
Although I recall Hume had problem with induction for being circular or question-begging type of reasoning.

From my point of view, if someone had a bad memory or have had little or not enough experience of the observations, induction doesn't work for him. In these cases, inductive reasoning cannot be a good ground for believing in something. If there is a possibility of even one failing, then it cannot be a law or principle.

Hume seems to be in the position that inductive reason (because it is based on habit and customs) can only offer us probable knowledge of the world, hence it cannot be a good ground for believing in the world.

Of course, it is not logically contradictory that things should cease to exist and then come back into existence again, but considered against the whole body of science and everyday observations it is highly implausible. — Janus

There are many sceptical discussions even on the whole body of scientific knowledge for their validity, because all scientific knowledge is obtained from the phenomenon i.e. sensibility via observations. Obviously there are problems in the certainty and accuracy of the scientific knowledge too. Even Science cannot escape from Scepticism. This is a totally separate topic. Maybe you could start a new topic with this issue.

You still don't answer the question. So you still believe that you would have to accept the counterfactual if you did and that you would then have to admit that it is a ground for believing it exists when you don't perceive it. — Ludwig V

So let me ask you this time. I have asked you this question many times, but you have never answered for it yet.

What is your reason to believe in the existence of the world, when you don't perceive it?

That may well be. And it may be that a desire for absolute certainty is behind the effort. But I still think the fact such skepticism is so contrary to how we live our lives that it should count against it, so to speak. If inductive reasoning (for example) is something we "have to do" by virtue of living, what induces us to think that there's no basis for it? Why question it in the first place? — Ciceronianus

Wouldn't it be due to the nature of our reason? When reason reflects on itself, it cannot fail to notice the problems in the existence and the knowledge of existence.

You still don't answer the question. So you still believe that you would have to accept the counterfactual if you did and that you would then have to admit that it is a ground for believing it exists when you don't perceive it.

The next question is whether you accept that you exist when you are perceiving an object and whether you perceive yourself when you are perceiving an object. — Ludwig V

I would go with Hume. There is no reason to believe in anything when I don't perceive, be it the world or myself. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in the world or myself. I keep asking you to know the difference between the two cases.

I'd never heard of this mechanism. Those psychologists are so clever, with names. — Ciceronianus

It was just a passing impression. Not a judgement. No worries.

How odd, and revealing, it is that Hume thought he didn't exist while he slept. How was it, you think, that he tried to "catch himself" without a perception? Did he try to "sneak up" on himself so to speak, only to find that he was aware he was doing so and continued to see, hear, smell, etc.? What would have been the case if he succeeded? — Ciceronianus

I had to answer the similar question on the other thread. I understand Hume's scepticism as his endeavour trying to find the ground for certainty and warrant for belief in the existence of the world and self, not the actual existence itself.

You repeat your claim three times but don't answer my questions.
Do you accept that if you were to turn and look at the cup that is holding your coffee, you would see it? Is that not a reason for believing that it still exists?
— Ludwig V — Ludwig V

Of course, I see the cup when I turn and look at the cup. The perception is coming in vividly.
But do you not see the difference that there is now the firm ground for believing in the existence of the cup, instead of not having the warrant that the cup's existence when not seeing it?

In defense of Corvus, he says he has on order Catalina González Quintero's — Fooloso4

I am not sure if there is any point to trying defend anything against someone who didn't understand what self-contradiction statements are, but claim to understand performance contradiction. I was under impression that he was going to go through all the arguments that I went through with Banno AGAIN with the whole load of self-contradicting questions, and was wondering what the point was.

I do not know this work or what he will get from it. Perhaps after reading it he will modify his claims or give us reason to rethink some of our own. In any case, even if we disagree with what he will say or Catalina González Quintero says, it demonstrates an attempt to become better informed about such things. — Fooloso4

I am not sure either. But I thought it would be interesting to read somebody whom I have never come across as Kant commentary scholars before. I was presuming maybe there might some new interesting insight in the book. Will be able to tell more once I finish the book. Who knows.

I am not claiming that I am an academic sceptic. Most of my ideas comes from my own reasoning and little amount of casual readings on the textbook and commentaries.

Since appeals to Hume and Kant and academic skepticism will take us too far from the topic of this thread I won't pursue it here, but I would be interested to read what you have to say if you start a thread on Hume and Kant and their connection to Academic Skepticism, and more specifically your claim that: — Fooloso4

Sure. This is not the main topic in this thread. So I will bow out, and let them carry on. I have been only responding to the questions and posts directed to me.

I will read the book when it arrives, and will open a new thread on it, if there are interesting points on the subject. Thank you for your post.

And yet both you are Hume write for an unperceived public.

How long must the lights stay out before this form of skepticism takes over? Do you doubt the existence of the world each time you blink? — Fooloso4

Blinks don't take long time enough to make the world to totally disappear. Does yours?

We are talking about what is called Academic Scepticism allegedly practiced by both Hume and Kant, which I am trying to learn more (waiting for the book to arrive).

It is about the warrant of belief, not the existence itself. This is an Epistemological issue, not ordinary life issue.

This is true. What it shows is that in order to live, you have to be irrational. — frank

It shows that the sceptics have been scorned for their rationality by the naive folks. :chin: :roll:

I agree that scepticism is a fundamental starting-point for this debate. But there's a question of the burden of proof. Your challenge to me is to provide a reason for believing that the cup that holds your coffee exists when you don't perceive it. Do you accept that if you were to turn and look at it, you would see it? Is that not a reason for believing that it still exists? — Ludwig V

I mean we have no ground, warrant or reason to believe in the world, when we are not perceiving it.
The ground, warrant or reason for believing in the world is the perception of the world.  But when you are not perceiving it, there is no more the ground, warrant or reason to believe it.  That is from a logical reasoning.

But people keep believing in the world when they are not perceiving the world.  They are believing it without the ground, warrant and reason for believing it.

So what is more rational?  I would say stopping believing in something when there is no ground, warrant and reason to believe it would be definitely more rational than keeping believing in something when there is no ground in believing it.

This was what Hume was propounding in his Treatise, and that point of Hume was what Kant described as "a truth which awakened him from dogmatic slumber." I cannot be sure on the accuracy of this point now without checking it again.  But I am assuming that was what Kant said. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

"Scepticism is what keeps Theory of Perception ticking", as said by Barry Stroud (a late Canadian Philosopher), and I think he is right.

Well, following Immanuel Kant, this is my idea of stupidity. How would you define it? — Matias

Stupidity is a tendency to judge other peoples' intentions and characters with groundless delusional beliefs, and seeking attention, approval and self-pleasure with like-minded folks in group.

After reading the OP and its supporters posts, it reminded me of a severe case of Projection Defense Mechanism symptom in Psychology.

One of the extreme cases of Scepticism was by Hume. He even doubted his own "self".  But we don't call him someone who indulged in affectation.  

"I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception. When my perceptions are remov'd for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist."  (Hume, Treatise)

Yeah, well, I’m still on your side, though we’re both technically outside the boundaries of the discussion. — Mww

:ok: :cool:

Right. I don't think Austin is arguing with that, although it may seem that some posters in this thread are. He was taking issue with a theory of perception transmitted by Ayers, which says your knowledge of external entities is built up from smaller units of perception called "sense data." — frank

I am not sure if perception or indeed any mental events could be reduced to the brain from Epistemology and Metaphysical perspectives.  It cannot be denied that the brain is where all the mental events happen, but from that boundary we are entering the physiological and neurological land, which are the foreign territories.

There are lots of issues that can be talked about at the conceptual level on mental activities since ancient times, and that is what we have been doing, and I don't see much changes in the near future for that trend to change as far as speculative Philosophy is concerned, and I am happy with that.

For sense data theory of perception, I feel that it is more reasonable than any other theories of perception.  When I see an object in the world, many times I am not sure what it is at first, when they are some distance away.  All I get is the extension and colour of the object. 

The extension is in the space and time, but the colour is a property from my consciousness, so there is some synthesis going on in perception. At this stage of the perception the object is nothing more than data i.e. I know the shape, colour and the location of the object (i.e. on the grass of the garden). I can further go and look close into the object and try to find out what it is looking for more data on the object. 

But even if it was found out to be a tree leaf, if I keep asking questions on it, there are more facts I don't know about the leaf i.e. which tree did it fall from? Was it indeed from the trees in the garden? or Was it blown into the location?  How long was it there? So, I never get absolute full information about the leaf, and in that sense, it still remains as data.  Data is also, by definition, information that can be stored and retrieved for further manipulation, which is coherent with perceived data, because we remember, imagine and reason with the perceived data after the perception.

This is the case even when I pick up a cup with my hand and look into it. Of course it is a cup, but at asking where it is made. what it is made of, who made it, or which factory made it, what is the diameter?, the weight? ... etc. Of course some information will be available if I go and measure the diameter with the ruler, and weigh it on the scale, but many information still remains unanswered. It is a data. For some naive direct realist, it is a cup, and that's the end of story for them. For me, there is a lot more I don't know about the cup. It is a data needing more investigation if need be, and possible to find out more information on the data in due course. Because a cup is a cup, not just because it looks like a cup, but because it has the extensive properties (some are in the form of essential properties and some are informational properties) attached to it for being a cup.

Anyway, I feel in that sense, Austin's endeavour trying to criticise or deny Ayer's Sense Data theory had been in vain.  Asking how we talk about perception is interesting, but it wouldn't make our perception have more certainty in perceiving.

It would have been more meaningful if Austin came up with his own definition and theory of perception before criticising Ayer, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

Thanks for your elucidation. Clear and precise analysis. :cool: :up:

I don't think your perception is infallible. LSD is not a "true" hallucinogenic, which means you know at the time that what you're seeing isn't real. For instance, I had an incident where I observed that the moon was following me around. I knew that wasn't real, though. — frank

Sure, I don't claim my perception is infallible. As a sceptic, in fact I even doubt my own perception. But it is the most reliable source of knowledge for me.

And the 2nd reason that I don't believe in the objects in the world is that there is a possibility that my perception was mistaken, it could have been an illusion, the tree I thought existed was cut down by someone while not being perceived by me, and not there anymore, or it could have been hit by lightening, and burnt down to ashes (and I am certain that it wasn't someone's words or shoutings that caused the burnt down - no, no. That would be an irrational belief or claim, if not insane ) ... etc. I am open minded about all the possibilities that existence can succumb to at anytime. I think it is a rational belief to have.

You might believe the tree exists because a trusted friend told you so, and on the other hand, your perception might be delivering false information to you if, for instance, you have taken a hallucinogenic drug. So, though it's true that if you perceive a tree, it's rational to believe there's a tree, it's probably not the only grounding for such a belief, right? — frank

hmmm being a sceptic, I am afraid I don't base on any of above case as the logical infallible ground for the existence of the tree apart from my own perception. Maybe some other folks might. Not me. :)

Ok good point. This is my argument.
The logical ground for me to believe the tree exists across the road is that, I have perceived its existence. There is no other ground for me to believe in the tree to exist apart from the perception.
But when I don't perceive it, I don't have that ground to believe it still exists. It might well be existing, but with no perception of it, there is no ground for believing it anymore.

Normally people still believe the tree to exist when not seeing it, because that's what they do.
But as I don't have a ground to believe in its existence, I can choose not to believe in its existence.
Now which belief is more rational? I would say my belief is more rational than the ordinary peoples' belief, because their belief has no ground, but I chose not to believe in its existence when I don't have a logical and epistemic ground to believe in it.

So the whole point of argument was about the logical ground for belief in the world, rather than the existence of the world itself.

You seem to have missed the point.

When we sleep, we are not perceiving the world.

Now apply the example I offered. It is of a case where someone we're watching is sleeping, and the world still exists even though they are not perceiving the world. The same holds true of the world and you while you sleep. — creativesoul

The point is that we are talking about a logical ground to believe in the world when not perceiving the world.  Please ask yourself, what is your logical ground for believing in the world when not perceiving the world.  Please don't say the world exists even when you are not perceiving it, because it is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the basis for scepticim regarding the external world.

You're mistaken here. "change the tree on the road with our words alone" is not equivalent to "change the world with our words". In other words, you've assigned the same variable "Y" to two different things and then treated them as the same thing. They're not.

See that word "alone"?

Words do not cut down trees. Words can instruct another to cut down trees... using language to do so. — creativesoul

But did words cut the tree itself? What tools did the words use for cutting down the tree?
OK, you say now you gave instruction to cut down the tree. Did the tree surgeon cut down the tree without any payments for it? If you gave the instruction to cut the tree, but haven't paid for the work, would he have cut the tree?

What if the tree surgeon refused to cut the tree, because the tree is not allowed to be cut due to the local conservation laws. What if he misunderstood your instruction, and cut the tree in next door neighbour's garden instead? But more importantly, did you give the instruction to cut the tree out of blue with no thoughts why the tree needs cut?

Again you could insist on saying that your words in the instruction caused the tree to be cut, but with all the above possibilities with the situation, are you actually justified to claim that it was your instruction which cut down the tree? Some people in ordinary daily life might say that, but you must be aware of the fact that here we are talking about rigid philosophical analysis on the change of the world, not daily life conversations.

The bottom line here is whether logically, if a hammer is the broken door. You used a hammer to repair the door. But the hammer is not the door. If you said that they are the same, I don't see any more point honestly.

Anyhow, I have gone over this same stuff with Banno all along, and I don't see any point of doing so again with yourself. My points are clear.

1. We don't have a logical ground to believe in the world while not perceiving it.
2. Words are not actions.
3. Words are not things.
4. Language is a communicating tool.
Have a nice day.

The last claim above does not follow from the bit that precedes it.

Think of when you've watched another sleep. People sleep. We watch. We're part of the world. The world exists while they sleep. If you agree, but still doubt your own experience, then you're working from double standards. Special pleading for your case. — creativesoul

It wasn't about other people sleeping. It was about the question, do I believe the world exists, when I am asleep? The point is not about the existence of the world. It is about the logical ground for believing in something when not perceiving. There is a clear difference.

We cannot change the tree on the road with our words alone. It does not follow from that that we cannot change the world with our words. Strictly speaking we do always change the world with our language, if for no other reason than we've added more examples of language use to it. — creativesoul

X cannot do Y. That doesn't mean X cannot do Y? Is this not a contradiction? This is exactly the confusion I have been telling he has been insisting on. :)

The point is that we do sometimes use language to do exactly what you said, but... and this is the important part... — creativesoul

Literally you could say anything. But that alone doesn't change anything in the real world. You need action to change the world. I take it that you have never cut your grass by yourself in your life for sure. :rofl: How nice it would be if you can change the world by your words alone. :roll:

You could say your words caused the action to happen. But you forgot the words were just expression (a communicating tool) of your thoughts, emotions and intentions. Not the actions. I hope that you are more reasonable than Banno in understanding and accepting this point. If not, it is OK. I gave my opinion for the points, as you asked for it.

You don't say "The tree was cut down by my words."    It sounds just not right.
You would say, "The tree was cut down by the tree surgeon."  

Good stuff. "This was Austin's most important idea: All utterances are the performance of speech acts" — Banno

Speech Act Theory seems to have problems. It confuses word utterances from actions just like you have done. Now I know where your confusion is coming from.

If you asked Searle "Who cut the tree?", he would say "You ordered me to cut the tree, so it must be the words in the order sir."

OK, I still think words are not actions. And words are not things. Saying they are same sounds not making sense.

And the repairing tools are not the broken doors to be repaired. Saying they are the same sounds illogical.

No. I think most folk here understand Austin. You are an exception. — Banno

I never claimed I understand Austin in full.

Obviously. It probably has not been pointed out to you before that we do things with words. A Big Learning for you. — Banno

Yeah I gave you the reason why I don't agree with your points. I would have thought you would admit the problems in your statements which are full of confusions and contradictions.

Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks. — Banno

Austin's writing is very clear, and his points are logical.  Anyone reading Austin will have no problem understanding him.  For some reason you seem to think, no one can understand Austin. 

Words are actions. We do things by speaking and writing. Your view of language is far too passive. — Banno

Hmmm I don't agree with you at all. You are still confusing the tools with the broken door. :(

You say that as if the order can't change things. And yet it does. — Banno

But you don't see the fact it was the action which changed the tree not your word.

There's a curious myopia amongst those who see language as only "communication" or "information exchange", such that they have a great deal of difficulty seeing how words are actually used by people to build the world. Property, ownership, money, exchange, promises, hierarchies, the everyday paraphernalia of life is constructed by language. — Banno

Another confusion between words and things. :roll: You still seem to be hiding in Austin' well, and cannot see the world out there just staring at the well wall.

Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy.

So I might leave this conversation there. — Banno

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. Please think about it carefully again. Leaving is fine. It just confirms you ran out of the ideas for the arguments. What can anyone do about it?

Can you change the tree with words? Ordering it cut down will certainly change it. — Banno

You spoke it to someone with a chainsaw, not to the tree. You still cannot distinguish words and actions.

I don't say that there are no cases where things cease to exist when I no longer perceive them. But I do say that there are some things that continue to exist when I no longer perceive them. On your account, you have decided that "exists" and "perceive" mean the same thing. I accept what I understand to be normal usage. We use the words in different ways. Why does it matter? — Ludwig V

See I have noticed the linguists always go on at "use the words in different ways. Why does it matter?" But it is just matter of habits, customs and choices of the different groups of people or individual. It is not something a priori problem.

So, let me ask you first what is the logical ground that things exists when you don't perceive them?

.. and mental events are not part of the world? — Ludwig V

Well you could assert it is part of the world. I won't challenge you on that.

I, personally see my mental events / state totally separate from the world. When I go to sleep, the world disappears into non-existence.

There is no logical ground for me to believe the world exists during my sleep, because I no longer perceive the world until waking up to consciousness. Therefore perception is prior to language. Language only operates when the mind is in gear, and able to see the world, as a communicating and interacting tool with other minds.

Yes, it is a tool, like I would use a wrench to pull out the nails from the broken door. Language is a tool to transfer my contents of thought to you to mean "This is what I think on the issue. What do you say to that eh? alright mate?". Nothing more or less.

Whatever Banno says to the tree in the field he sees, the tree will not change. It will just keep growing at his own pace ignoring him totally. 

Suppose, we have no language at all. The world will keep going on albeit with no or limited communications between all the living beings.  We might have to wave hands to each other to mean Yes or No, or use our fingers to count the apples in the market, but the world will remain silent, and just keep going about with its business like it has done for millions of years.

If you define the problem as the connection between words and the world, you have built that answer in to the question. — Ludwig V

It was who claimed that you perceive the world, then change it with words. I was just asking a question expressing doubts on his claim.

By the way, there is no connection between words and the world. There is connection between words and mental events and activities.

Well, the answer to your last question must be No. — Ludwig V

Therefore you cannot change the world or objects in the world with your words.

I think that is a bit unfair. — Ludwig V

For Austin, maybe it was. But that was the impression being created and propagated by his blinded followers.

And if Austin were writing this, there would be a thread running through the text that shows how the very approach you have taken presumes wrongly that a complete answer can be given, an account of language in its entirety, as if the whole of language dwelt within itself. — Banno

First of all, I think you should learn to think and speak for yourself, not hiding behind Austin or whoever when expressing your points in Philosophy. But more importantly, I think you seem to be wrong again on that point. What is the point trying to create a well with just Austin's linguistic analysis on Ayer? Wouldn't the water in the well go stale soon with the prejudice and narrow mindedness rejecting all the relating issues, analysis and criticisms?

Should we not try to look wider? OK we cannot grasp the whole world or universe, let's presume, but should we not try to look at the issue at least from the perspective of Language in general? From my perspective, it would be more constructive to do so, otherwise you cannot comment on anything which is buried and hiding in the artificially dug-up wells.

So there, against my better judgement, is a beginning of what might be said about just your first point. As Anthony says, the whole picture and every word in it is either confused or wrong. — Banno

Here, one cannot fail to notice the impression that the whole motivation seems to prove the opposing interlocutors views are either confused or wrong, rather than trying to see the issue from a fair, reasonable and constructive point of view. 

He might then point out that we don't only "express", we also hide, conceal and camouflage; we don't only "describe", we misdescribe, mislead, misdirect; we don't only "communicate", we deceive, mislead and beguile. Where we do one thing with words, we also do the opposite. — Banno

All these activities you listed are just part of the communication, description, expression and criticisms ... so on and so forth. You just listed these items to fill in the space. I could have done that, but what is the point? Everyone knows that they are part of the communication and interaction.

A first step might best be to look at the variety of ways in which we do things with words and build a picture of what language does from that. Look, first. — Banno

Misunderstanding and getting mixed up is evident here. "what language does from that."? Language doesn't do anything. It is a tool. Humans do things. Language just gets used to communicate and interact their thoughts, feelings and intentions.

Look, first. — Banno

You deny and criticise giving Prima Facie on perception leaning on Austin's shoulder, as if perception doesn't count. But here you seem to be acknowledging that you must perceive first before you can speak. Wouldn't it be a case of self-contradiction?

With these words, we don't just percieve the world, we change it. — Banno

See your imaginative conjectures? Who are "we"? Do we always change the world? With language?
Can you change the tree on the road with your words?

This post might seem cruel, but you were insistent. It very much seems that although you are commendably struggling with this material, you haven't yet seen how it undermines much that you take as granted. — Banno

The contents of your post doesn't seem to have any points against the fact that language is a tool to describe, express, criticise and diagnose the objects and world.

In other words, adding and listing all your points to the already stated fact, that language is a communication tool, does not change anything of the point.

Read your post again. It is filled with illogical and emotional conjectures - "you will be doing this, you would be doing that ..." It doesn't state any objective fact either on perception, or language.