Are you denying that Earth is a moving object because you cannot see its motion? — MoK

You are confusing between denying and telling that earth rotation cannot be directly perceived.

That is a very wrong statement. Where did you take that from? — MoK

How can you tell a movement without perceiving and observing the movement? Are you guessing? or meditating?

I can show you have an understanding is wrong if you accept that you and baseball are on Earth and Earth is a moving object. — MoK

We are not talking about the ball on the earth. We are talking about the ball on the desk.

I am not talking about scientific theories here, but scientific facts that everybody agrees on, like the Earth's being a moving object. Do you deny that? — MoK

Scientific facts are derived from the theories. They are not given to you by God.

Doesn't baseball which to you is not moving is on Earth by which Earth is moving all the time? — MoK

Movement is only a movement when perceived by mind. Linking the baseball movement to the Earth movement sounds not correct thinking, or trying to make things confused, rather than trying to see the real problem.

He falsely described perception as a succession of impressions, rather than as a continuity of activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was just an explanation on how perception works. You can read about, and use many different methods on describing how human mind and perception works from different point of view and angles. I feel that Hume and Kant's explanations are very intelligible one.

So, are you critical of what people say, such as Hume as well, or do you think he was absolutely right? — MoK

I don't blindly judge anything or anyone. Some I agree, and some I don't agree. It depends on the points.

I am not talking about the established beliefs here but scientific facts. — MoK

All scientific facts are to be falsified. If not, they are not scientific facts. They are the religious doctrines.

Anyhow, to you, does Earth rotate around its axis and move around the sun? — MoK

Anyhow to me, the baseball does not move or change in time. To say it moves, is an illusion.

Sure, I cannot be an expert in all fields. That is why I trust experts' reports. I think that is a healthy practice, don't you think? — MoK

Yes and no. They are important, but philosophical mind takes nothing for granted. We try to see what is beyond the established beliefs.

The point though, is that Hume represents sense perception as a succession of distinct perceptions. But in reality sense perception consists of continuous activity, because it has temporal duration. And what is actually sensed is the activities which occur in time. The distinct "impressions and ideas" are only created when we impose breaks into the continuity of perception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hume was explaining how human mind works especially on perception. He was not talking about the reality itself.

No, you said that Earth maybe moves. — MoK

I said it to indicate that the movement of the Earth is not directly perceptible. It was not an implication of anything else as you are imagining.

To say, outright the Earth moves, means that your knowledge is coming from the books, medias and the popular science and words of mouths from the vulgars. Not from your perception or observation.

So if we do this, analyze the phenomena as distinct impressions or ideas, we have already imposed those breaks onto the continuity of the phenomenon of sense perception, to divide that continuity into a multitude of distinct impressions. Therefore this analysis is not giving us a true representation of sense perception, as continuous phenomenon, because it is analyzing distinct impressions which have been artificially created by breaking the continuity down. — Metaphysician Undercover

Reality events happen once uniquely in space and time.  The phenomena of the movement is captured by perception at the moment when it happens.  The movement of the object is captured as it appears in the space i.e. in continuity.   Continuity is also an idea which has the matching impression in reality.
But once it has happened, you cannot get back to the same movement again.  It passed.  The new movement could be recreated for observation.  But it wouldn't be the same movement as the original movement.

Taking out a slice of the movement out of the continuity is only possible in the course of reflection of the ideas.  Human mind can achieve this, because it has memory and reasoning which can recall the perceived ideas and analyze them with the rational investigation.

I don't believe that Hume meant we perceive the movement slice by slice as the broken images. Well it can happen in the old film movies which creates the illusion of the movement via running the stills images continuously on the project screen using the latent memory of mind.

I asked a question. Could you answer that? — MoK

I never said that. All I said was that the movement of Earth was not what we were talking about. You are not able to tell the difference between the Earth and the ball. This is what I said.

Do you think that the Sun is moving around Earth or it is Earth that is rotating? — MoK

Did I say that? You seem to be saying it.

What do you mean by maybe here? — MoK

Because I don't see it moving.

Doesn't Earth constantly move? — MoK

Maybe it does. But again movement we are talking about is not the Earth movement here. The object we are talking about is the baseball.

Pointing out your misunderstanding is not denying, but giving you the real truths and guidance to your learning journey.

You cannot observe any motion because you are an observer that exists on Earth. Anyway, we were discussing a baseball that moves relative to Earth. — MoK

According to your saying, everything on Earth moves. That is nonsense. There are definitely objects which are standing still.

If you have nothing to say, you just say "denying", which is not true. Nothing was insult to you, but just counter arguments against the nonsense.

I said that baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving! — MoK

But the baseball is sitting on the desk at the precise point which can be observed. The earth moving is not relevant to the baseball movement.

I am done with you. — MoK

Well, confused mind cannot last too long in its vacuous journey of blabs.

I am not saying that they are the same things! — MoK

Why talk about the Earth when we are talking about the baseball movement in time? It appears obvious confusion.

The dreams are produced by the subconscious mind. — MoK

A wrong premise. We see some images in dreams. Dreams are not produced by subconscious mind.

It is very related to the topic! — MoK

It is a medical topic.

Baseball is on Earth, Earth is moving, therefore baseball is moving. Moreover, the particles that build baseball are in constant motion too. — MoK

But we are talking about the movement of baseball here. Not Earth. You seem to think the Earth is the baseball. They are not the same objects.

In Huma and Kant, there is reality out there happening in the world. What we are seeing is phenomena of the reality. The phenomenon comes in via perception in the form of impressions and ideas. Hence we are not really seeing the reality, but the phenomenon.

Because they we are perceiving the phenomenon in impressions and ideas, we can analyze them with reasoning. We can stop them, rewind them and even predict them too. You seem be talking about the reality which is not accessible via perception totally disregarding the way our perception works.

It is not perception is deception, but all we have is perception on the reality in Hume and Kant. The reality itself is not available to us.

Perhaps that is so. It isn't a theory since it does not seem testable. Call it a premise maybe.
SEP calls it a principle, top of section 1 of the 'existence' page. — noAxioms

Kant says, all principles need arguments and proof why they are principles. But I don't see any such thing here.

Could you define and list the types of existence?
I linked to exactly that in my prior post. See the (*). I called them E1-E6, with openness for more. — noAxioms

How about "Existence is perceptible object in space and time"? This must be the defacto definition of existence.

The subconscious mind is always active and does not sleep! Dreams are created by the subconscious mind. — MoK

Can you prove that?

Now you are denying that memories are not stored in the brain! Did you know that people with Alzheimer cannot recall their memories because a part of their brain that holds memories is damaged? — MoK

This is off-topic. This thread is not about Alzheimer folks. You can discuss this in the lounge mate.

Movements occur all the time and they don't need an observer. Knowledge of a movement however needs an observe. You are confusing these. — MoK

The baseball has not moved even 1mm from its point on the desk after 3 days. Where is the movement in time?

No, the movement does not need any observer at all. Where did you take that from? — MoK

If you didn't observe it, how do you know movement? Did you guess, imagine or predicted from Tarot cards readings?

how could the conscious mind access these memories without a constant flow of information from the subconscious mind? — MoK

When subconscious mind is sleeping all the time, how can it remember anything? Memory is not stored in anywhere. The content of memory is not cheese or bread or water. We just remember past events and objects, or we don't, if forgot. Memories are the types of ideas we recall from past. They don't get stored. Storage only makes sense for physical objects.

See above. — MoK

See above.

If what appears as a continuity is really a succession of distinct locations, then the senses are deceiving us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perception is the mental presentation of reality.  Calling perception as deception sounds like a typical vulgar or children's understanding.

Then it appears like you would say that perception is deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ditto. :D

I don't understand this claim. How would the ball's existence at one location be distinguished from its existence at another location, other than on the basis of this being at two different times? Or would the ball just be everywhere all at once? — Metaphysician Undercover

Time doesn't exist until measured.  Time doesn't exist in space and time.  Objects and movements have nothing to do with time.  Time emerges when objects and movements are perceived as a secondary quality. How and why should the ball exist everywhere all at once?  That's not a philosophical reasoning.

I'm talking about the thing itself. The principle says that dragons cannot breathe fire if dragons are not real. — noAxioms

What is the real dragon? If something looks like a dragon and breathes fire, is it a dragon? I saw the fake dragons made to breathe fire.

This produces the issue of whether our senses deceive us when we perceive motion as continuous. — Metaphysician Undercover

We perceive motion as continuous because it appears as continuous. If continuity means without stopping, then it is not deceiving our senses at all. There are two points on continuity.

1) Can continuity be divided into instances?
2) Or is continuity one entity, which is not divisible?

When the baseball flies in the air towards the wall, it appears continuous motion of flying without stopping in our vision. However, if we take a photo of the ball while it is flying with high speed shutter settings such as 1/10000 sec. then it can be captured in perfectly frozen image. What seems to be clear is that continuous movement is the result of our perception. Without perception, continuity doesn't arise in the movement, or even the movement itself.

Whatever the case, time is not needed for the motion logically. If time is needed for any movement, then the time needs time for its own movement (flow), and the time needs time for its own movement (flow) ... Ad Infinitum. If this was the case, then nothing can move or flow for waiting for its own time to make it possible to move or flow. But in reality, movements take place without time, and movers move freely as they wish with no idea or need of time.

Time flows without time. Because time can only flow with time doesn't make sense. Hence things flow / move without time.

Yes. Quite different from an empty infinite space or a container of sorts.
Interestingly there is a modern quantum version of the World Soul. The idea is that the universe is quantum computer busy calculating its and our future — magritte

So Plato might have been talking about the world soul and parallel universe 2300 years ago. That sounds interesting. Quantum computing is trying to find out what it was all about.

It's a principle, yes. It does have something to do with existence since it explicitly mentions 'existence', but without specification of what type is meant. — noAxioms

Strange, that nowhere I could find anyone describing it as principle, but there are many explications on EPP. It sounds like a theory or idea too.

but without specification of what type is meant. — noAxioms

Could it mean that it covers all existence? Could you define and list the types of existence?
What is existence?

Yes, time passes always, even if baseball does not change, since many other things are subject to change. Moreover, the baseball is on a location on Earth, Earth is subject to motion, and therefore the baseball is subject to motion. — MoK

Movement must be observed and determined from the geographical location or point of the object on the earth to the moved point of the object on the earth. The planetary motion of the earth is not relevant to the movement of objects on earth. So your understanding of movement is not correct.

If baseball is subject to change then time is required to allow the change. Please reread my argument. — MoK

You need to read the baseball posting again, and think again.

It is required. Please reread my argument. — MoK

Ditto.

I would advise you reading K. Popper's books in full, if you are into science.
— Corvus
I don't think I need to read his book! — MoK

If you read it, it will refresh your incorrect ideas on science and philosophy, I am sure. But it is your choice of course.

So are you denying that there are things like electrons, quarks, etc.? Are you denying that you have a brain? You don't have direct access to your brain either. — MoK

You are back to keep repeating "denying". I never said anything about denying.
We all have brain, and that is all we know. Going further than that is off-topic here.

No, I think there are limits that each theory works well, so I don't think that we can replace the outdated theories since the outdated theories have their own use at the proper limits. — MoK

I was recommending you reading Popper, because you seem to think science knowledge is eternal.

Saying Hume is outdated and wrong is not a sound or intelligent statement. You could argue certain parts or some of Hume's ideas or theories are wrong with your hypothesis, verified premises and conclusions for your points.

But just saying Hume or any classic philosopher is outdated and wrong with no reason or supporting arguments is not a philosophical statement.

I am not defending Freud's theory of subconsciousness here. I just said that the term subconsciousness was first coined by him. — MoK

You brought Freud into the discussion suddenly, hence I was giving out my opinion on Freud.

Anyway, I was pointing out that Hume was not aware of the subconscious mind at his time so he could not possibly have a correct theory of minds. — MoK

Subconscious mind is unverified esoteric idea, Hume wouldn't have had been interested in it, even if he was alive now.

I think that the subconscious mind is very smart. The current research indicates that the subconscious mind is smarter than what we think. You might find this article interesting. — MoK

Subconscious mind cannot be verified, or used as basis for reasoning. It is just a postulated character of mind. It is hidden or sleeping most times, hence it cannot give you any knowledge on the world.
It can be used for explaining the reason for irrational aspect of human actions, but it is not taken as objective or verified knowledge.

That is a part of the philosophy of the mind. You cannot simply ignore it! Could you? — MoK

The classic philosophy of mind doesn't include physical brain as its topic. It is more a topic for cognitive science, neurology or clinical psychology.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

I would advise you reading K. Popper's book in full, if you are into science.

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake.
— Corvus
You said it here: — MoK

I said it to remind you keep saying it, not me.

Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?
— Corvus
No. Why is it relevant to our discussion? — MoK

Popper said that all science gets outdated and replaced with the new theories all the time. If science cannot be proven false, then it is not science. It proves your point were all wrong so far.

It is not common sense knowledge at all and that is why you are wrong. We are only aware of the conscious mind's activities. The term the subconscious mind was first coined by Freud before that we didn't know anything about it. — MoK

Freud's theory of sunconscious mind is subject to debates, because it is not something which can be proven objectively. If you think it is some holy grail principle of psychology, then you haven't read much psychology, it appears.

Do you have access to your memory? The memories are stored in a part of the brain so-called synapses. Do you have direct access to synapses? If not how can you recall a memory? — MoK

Philosophy don't care about where the content of memory gets stored in brain. It just knows that we have memory, and memory is in the chain of many mental operations.
Talking about biological aspects of memory in brain is a strawman fallacy in philosophical debates.

Yes, thinking also requires the subconscious mind. That is something that Hume was not aware of in his time! — MoK

Again, please read the top reply here.

So you are denying all the body of knowledge that was created by scientists! That is not a good habit since you are denying all the things that you are using daily as well! — MoK

No, when did I say anything about denying? You keep saying it. :D
It is not habit. To say habit for clarification is a categorical mistake. Have you read any Popper? Yes or No?