By coherent I mean that our experiences when we are awake are consistent. — MoK

Not sure if your account on coherence is correct or not. My understanding of coherence is that when P is true, Q cannot be untrue, and vice versa. In this relation, P and Q are coherent.

From the point of view, your use of coherence seems to be wrong, and misleading, which directed you to the misunderstanding.

Personal experience can be a solid ground to conclude that the experience is coherent. Our experiences when we are dreaming are mostly incoherent while they are always coherent when we are awake. — MoK

What do you mean by "coherent"? Can you explain "coherence" and "being coherent"?

Here, I am not talking about the cup of tea but my experience of the cup of tea only. — MoK

Psychological state or personal experience cannot be ground for objective knowledge.

The private experience is an objective ground for coherence. We don't have any other tools except our private experience anyway! — MoK

That is an idea of absolute idealist and solipsism. Problem with these ideas is that they cannot appeal to or share objective knowledge.

Can you give me an example of something you experienced in the past that was an illusion? — MoK

Illusions are possibility in daily life of humans. Your seeing a cup in a location could have been an illusion. There is no proof you were seeing a cup.

We couldn't possibly live in a reality that is not coherent. — MoK

The point is not about living in a reality, but the fact that private experience is not objective ground for coherence.

We couldn't possibly depend on our experiences if what we experience is a mere illusion. — MoK

Again, not the whole experience is illusion, but there are parts of experience which could be illusion.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Ideas and thoughts could be coherent. Rains, snows, sky, horses, birds, phones, computers and keyboards are not coherent.

None of these. Something is coherent when it is consistent. — MoK

I don't need to prove it. It is a brute fact. — MoK

Seeing a cup in a location is your private perception. It lacks objective ground for anything being coherent.

But beliefs and thoughts could be incoherent. That is why I want to exclude them from the discussion. — MoK

It makes more crucial and important part of your experience is excluded from your premise, while relying on your personal subjective seeing a cup as ground for your belief on the contents of your experience being coherent. There is always possibility what you are seeing could be illusions.

Of course, your computer is coherent. Yet get on the screen what you type on the keyboard for example. — MoK

Computer screen and keyboard either work or don't work. No one describes computer screen and keyboard are coherent.

Isn't the Moon, something that has a diameter of 3,475 km, outside the mind? — RussellA

It exists in the physical world with no relation to the mind. However, when you perceive it, it appears in your mind. It doesn't exist in your mind. Your mind just sees it. Seeing is not existing itself.

How could we ever know such a thing? — RussellA

From reasoning and inference.

The Idealism of Berkeley doesn't think that anything physical exists outside the mind. — RussellA

Mind doesn't have outside or inside. Whatever appears in mind must exist, if they could be observed and verified as existing.

It makes perfect sense. — MoK

When something is coherent, it is meaningful. demonstrable, provable and verifiable. Can you prove your seeing a cup is coherent?

I am not talking about people's beliefs and thoughts. — MoK

Beliefs and thoughts of people are part of the world which you experience in daily life.

I am not talking about dreams here but our experiences when awake. Dreams are an example of incoherent experiences though so it should make sense to you when I speak about coherence in our experiences when we are awake. — MoK

Dreams are experience. Dreams don't exist outside of your experience.

Then consider your computer. Is your experience of your computer coherent? — MoK

Computers are tools for information storage, retrieval and searches for information. They are also communication tools. They are not coherent or incoherent.

I am talking about my experience to be coherent only. — MoK

The argument is too limited and unclear, but most of all misleading in its content and points. You need to clarify all the above points before progressing into P2 and C2.

how can the Universe exist without there being anything external to it? — RussellA

It follows that the universe has the external somewhere.

I am part of the world and the Moon is part of the world, but the Moon is external to me. — RussellA

But how can the internal exist without the external? Does your skin exist? Your skin is external to you.

I have the thought that nothing exists in the external world
Does it follow that I don't exist? — RussellA

Yes, it does. If nothing exists, then you cannot exist.

I have the thought that nothing exists in the external world
Does it follow that I don't exist?
No, because if I have a thought then I must exist. — RussellA

If you think that nothing exists in the external world, how your having a thought proves you must exist?
Surely you are a part of the world. No?

I already elaborated on the coherence in reality when I discussed my cup of tea here. — MoK

It does not make sense to say, your seeing a cup with a set of properties in a location is  the ground for the experience being coherent.  You are bound to have plenty of other experiences that are incoherent such as what other people feel, believe and think in their minds, and how they will act, decide or behave in the future etc etc.  You won't quite be sure why you dreamt what you dreamt in your sleep, and you won't know what you will see in your dreams in the future etc etc.

Another problem is just saying, your seeing a cup in front of you, cannot be the object ground for your experience being coherent, because no one knows what you are seeing or perceiving in your mind just by listening to your statement or claim on what you were seeing.

There is also possibility that what you were seeing was an illusion, not real perception too.

The object is a substance that is perceived by the mind. Please see the last comment. — MoK

It would be far more clear to say, body, mind or object than substance, because substance can mean many other things, and it doesn't not directly denote or refer to any particular objects. It is an obscure word which has wide scope on its meaning from ancient times.

I think that most physical theories are phenomenological and very few fundamental. — Ypan1944

I agree. There are no such things as gravity, but only the phenomenon that things fall down to the ground from the air when released. From the observations of the phenomenon, they named the phenomena as gravity.

As I said, the reason can be right or wrong, so it is not a good example for our discussion. — MoK

Reason is not just for right or wrong. It is the general faculty for all knowledge.

The rest of our experiences are, however, coherent. — MoK

How do you know they are coherent? What is the ground for your experience being coherent?

A substance is something that exists and has a set of properties. — MoK

Is Mok a substance? He exists and has a set of properties.

The object is not in my experience. — MoK

Where is the objects then? What does the object denote in actuality?

Because it is needed for the sake of discussion. — MoK

Substance is an abstract concept which has no reference, hence it sounds vague and ambiguous. Not a good word to use for the discussion.

I hope it is clear by now. — MoK

Not quite.

"I think therefore I am" is the first principle of Descartes philosophy. — RussellA

"I think therefore I am" is not an affirmation, but inference. He was still doubting his own existence, and the possibility that he thinks. But his doubt on it couldn't be doubted.

I think X implies I am doubting. For instance, I think God exists, I think there are ghosts, I think the world will end soon, I think I am thinking .... etc are all implications of doubting.

Why are our thoughts different from our senses in that the content of thoughts cannot be doubted? — Kranky

You can doubt anything, but the fact that you are doubting cannot be doubted, hence the only certainty in the universe. Wasn't it the idea of Cartesianism?

What I am interested in is reality as we experience it. — MoK

In that case, it is nothing to do with coherence. You cannot claim coherence from experience when you are not interested in right or wrong. Something is coherent if it makes sense. Making sense is possible when something is reasonable.

I don't have direct access to the substance, the object here. I am arguing in favor of it. I have direct access to my experiences only. — MoK

What is the substance? Would it be objects in your experience? Why use the word substance? The word substance is not clear in the context.

This coherence cannot be due to the experience itself — MoK

The coherence must be from our reasoning.

If we accept these two, then we realize that there must be a substance that the experience is due — MoK

What is the substance in your experience? We don't see or know anything about a substance in our experience. We know about the content of experience, not a substance.

I said: "Which premises, P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?". I was referring to the premises rather than you. — MoK

You should have said "Which premises are problematic?" rather than "P1 or P2, do you have a problem with?" Your sentence was then not communicating your original intention or idea.

1) Our experiences are coherent, — MoK

Our experience is not always coherent. Some are, and some are not. So, it is already unclear from the start.

P1 or P2, do you have a problem with? — MoK

And I didn't say that you have a problem! — MoK

You did.

What are the relevance between P1) and C1)? How does C1) derive from P1)?

#1 C1 follows since the experience does not have the capacity to be coherent, given its definition. Therefore, we need a substance that contains the information and is also coherent. — MoK

This conclusion doesn't have logical consequence from P1), and sounds ambiguous in its claim.

Both. I don't have problem. Just pointing out the problem in the statements.

C1 and C2 follow from P1 and P2 respectively, each is a form of Modus Ponens. — MoK

You seem to be misunderstanding what Modus Pones is, and how it works.
MP is in the form of,
P -> C
P
C

You must demonstrate and prove why P is the case, before concluding C. You cannot just say something as P, and just because you said P, C follows from P. There is no relevance or any logical consequences or entailment between P and C in your statements. In that case, you cannot come to conclusion C from P.

So you should conclude "Hence the argument is unsound', instead of the following: — Metaphysician Undercover

Doing so without clear evidence or information of the type or nature of the distance in the track would be commiting a fallacy of illicit presumption. Until all is clear and evident, the argument must be judged as invalid.

t if the reasoning is valid and the premise is false, then the argument is valid but unsound. — Metaphysician Undercover

Depending on the type of two points in the distance (which is not clear in the OP), the conclusion can be true, which makes the argument invalid.

Think of the case where the two runners are running around a circle, not a straight line. When A takes over T, he is still behind T in the circle. A must run again to take T over, but when he does, he is still behind T and so on ad infinitum, which makes the conclusion true, and argument invalid.

It's better to say that those conclusions are unsound rather than invalid. — Metaphysician Undercover

Unsound argument means the premise was false, and also invalid reasoning was applied for the conclusion. Here reasoning seems valid, but the premise was false, which led to the false conclusion. Hence the argument is invalid.

To be precise, conclusion is either true or false, but arguments could be either valid or invalid. If the conclusion was true and followed from the premise, then the argument is valid and sound. If the conclusion was false and had false premise, then the argument is invalid and unsound.

Arguments can be valid if it followed from the premise even if the conclusion is false. Argument is invalid, if it didn't follow from the premise even if the premise was true. Do you agree with these points?

The statement P -> Q was false could have been proved via MT.
P -> Q
~Q
~P

That assumption does create a measurement problem. So unless we think that measurement problems are good, then I'd say it's a wrong assumption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Correct. Wrong assumptions lead to invalid conclusions. End of the story. I think I wrote this point a while back in the thread.

, it is simply assumed that divisibility is infinite. — Metaphysician Undercover

An obvious wrong assumption?

logical like Russel or Wittgenstein — Tobias

From my experience of reading the posts written by so called the analytic folks, some of them seem to suffer from total lack of, or narrow and shallow knowledge in history of philosophy, grave misunderstandings on, or total lack of the basic knowledge of logic, and delusions of self grandeur symptoms, which make them think that anyone who doesn't agree with their views must learn from them. Hence the reason, having the second thoughts, reluctance and caution on accepting the school itself as an ideal philosophical methodology, or associating with the name in any degree. It gives impression that whether the symptoms could be the negative effects from reading the philosophy.

I do not know if there is one 'legitimate' conception of philosophical analysis. — Tobias

I would say my philosophical method is not analytical as such, because I have never read analytical philosophy much.

I would rather think my method could be the Socratic methods which utilises the natural reasoning seeking for the proper definitions and commonsensical reasonableness in the discussions.

Having said that, in fact analogy doesn't make much sense, if it is not supported by the arguments and evidence on why something works as it does, why something is the case, and why the analogy makes sense for the points.

Philosophy often asks and explains on "why" something is the case or works the way it does, while science does on "how".

I suggest that if you like to read Hegel you read him on his own terms and not provide your own assumptions as gospel. You reenact some kind of dualist philosophy of mind I guess, but that is not where Hegel is at. He does not abide by the categories of analytic philosophy. — Tobias

There are some common grounds between Hegel's philosophy and Analytic philosophy. They are not totally opposite ends with no common grounds. There are many analytic philosophers who are deeply influenced by Hegel such as Robert Brandom and John McDowell. I found parts of Hegel's writings in SL and PS highly analytic in fact.

Using the logical analysis on the original writings of philosophy is not just for analytic traditional folks. All philosophers do use the analysis for making the texts clearer and more understandable for us. Not doing so would be seen as acts of denying the legitimate philosophical analysis, and could even be regarded as acts of unnecessary and meaningless abstraction of the original texts.

Hegel is a monist. I do not understand what you mean here very well I think... — Tobias

Yes, you misunderstood me there. Everyone knows Hegel is a monist. I meant, from what Hegel was saying, Kant's dualism doesn't make sense, unless of course, Kant believed in the concrete existence of Thing-in-itself. He didn't.

Why saying the world beyond experience is unknowable makes Kant a dualist? "unknowable world" doesn't mean it exists. It is unknowable on whether it exists or not. I have been denying Kant was a dualist. Some other folks think Kant was a dualist. I hope this point makes sense. If not, please let me know.

Your explanation on dreams and awakening comparing with continuity and discontinuity was an analogy not identity you claimed. That is fair enough. But it seems that it could do with further investigation and elaboration on why we dream, and why do we wake up from sleep and dreaming from philosophical point of view would be interesting. It wouldn't be such a huge project for doing so. It would just require a bit further reasonings and inference on the topic I would imagine. It was only a suggestion.

Spirit is the idea that the movement of thought, its dialectical development in a process of position, negation and negation of the negation, permeates the whole of reality. — Tobias

This sounds ambiguous too. The expression "the movement of thought" doesn't make sense at all. Thought is always about something, and it always happens in the thinkers mind. Saying "the movement of thought" without any clarification, who the thinker of the thought is, and what the content of the thought is, saying thought is moving to some direction sounds like a groundless personification of thought, which breaks the logic of thought.

I think you have it the other way around. Spirit is not personified God, not at all, in fact, God is personified spirit. — Tobias

Saying God is personified spirit, that sounds like a religious claim. In philosophy, God is to be proved either via reasoning or presenting the evidence of the existence of God.

It is understandable to say spirit could be personified God as a part of assumptions or inferences for further arguments for the proof of God, but saying God is personified spirit sounds like the claimer has already accepted the existence of God without any proof or evidence blindly, which doesn't quite sound like a philosophical claim.

The comparison of a dream with a removable discontinuity is an analogy, not a complete identity. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

It doesn't seem to explain or help us understand why we dream or what is the nature of our awakening from sleep. You need to try to explain why and how we do so.

It is worth noting that in mathematics, a point is said to be discontinuous, while in the "function" of waking states, the discontinuity spans a duration. This analogy provides an intriguing perspective on the nature of waking states and their relation to dreams. — Deep Kumar Trivedi

Dreaming is a psychological event, and awakening is a biological function of a body. Dreams are devoid of any rational explanations on their origin and nature. Isn't it a categorical error to link dreams and awakenings to continuity and discontinuity, which are the concepts for the physical movements of objects or events?