Do you believe that if all humans and animals (things that undergo experience/sensation) ceased to exist, there would still exist something?
As in, do you believe in a mind-independent world?
If so, how is it you know?
And, what is the nature of this thing that exists? (eg, atoms, platonic forms, etc)
If no, would you describe yourself as an idealist? Explain your views.
Basically this is a thread to discuss your thoughts about the structure of reality.
>>14128
>Do you believe that if all humans and animals (things that undergo experience/sensation) ceased to exist, there would still exist something?
>As in, do you believe in a mind-independent world?
Yes
>If so, how is it you know?
Because if I exist now, and if I know that there are things I am perceiving that are external to me, me dying won't change that fact.
>And, what is the nature of this thing that exists?
Atoms and such presumably. Maybe also "souls" for "living things" and/or consciousnesses
>>14255
>external to me
>>14599
Do you imply I need to prove that everything I experience is not a mental construct or some sort of self-produced illusion generated by my existance?
>>14733
If anything I'd like to see you prove that the relation between us and the world is an external one.
>>14733
yes
or, justify why you shouldn't have to justify this
>>14255
>I believe things I see externally to me exist because I see things externally to me
Nice circular logic m8
This kind of thread justifies the discrimination of humanities students.
>>14128
Object permanence is a notion that babies learn. It happens through observation and games like peek-a-boo.
That's all that needs to be said.
>>16442
Children learn the existence of god. It happens through observation and games in church.
That's all that needs to be said.
>>16345
Why?
>>16442
Children don't learn anything. Life is a process of unlearning.
>>17496
How the fuck do you come to that conclusion?
>>17496
That sounds like a load of nonsense anon.
>>16881
They are either permanent or appear exactly as if they were permanent. What is your alternative hypothesis?
>>16881
Whats wrong with Peek-a-boo as a means of testing?
>>14128
Well, what's more useful to believe?
>>14842
You, I like you.
>>18148
It's crazy to me how that's the way people just assume things are, but I can't ever recall hearing an argument as to why that is. I blame Descartes.
>>14128
>Do you believe that if all humans and animals (things that undergo experience/sensation) ceased to exist, there would still exist something?
>As in, do you believe in a mind-independent world?
Yes.
>If so, how is it you know?
Different organisms clearly perceive the same things (you're not going to make me prove other people exist are you? Because that's a whole other thing), albeit from different perspectives, even without communicating with each other. This suggests that not only is there a single reality we all share, its content is not determined just by the content of the individual's mind. We also encounter experiences randomly often, without wanting to, expecting to, or having any thought about them at all. If the external world were somehow a product of our minds we would expect to be able to extrapolate a mental cause for all the events in our lives, much like psychoanalysts try to do with people's dreams. In fact, people's mental state seems to have very little, if any effect on the state of reality outside their body. No amount of willing or believing something to be true has been shown to change the state of reality. Based on this overwhelming indifference of external reality to our minds, I think it's safe to say that it would continue to exist without us. Not to mention, science is very reliable in predicting events and there's strong scientific evidence that the universe existed before life on Earth did. So why would it go away if we ceased to exist?
>And, what is the nature of this thing that exists? (eg, atoms, platonic forms, etc)
That's a question for physics to answer. Matter seems like an acceptable answer to me but the real answer is probably more complicated.
>>16261
That's not circular logic. There's nothing circular about "I belive x exists because I see x".
>>18930
>I blame Descartes.
But Descartes was one of the guys trying to make those arguments.
>>14128
>Do you believe that if all humans and animals (things that undergo experience/sensation) ceased to exist, there would still exist something?
Why talk about something that broad?
If you're going to be solipsistic, go all or nothing.
>>14128
>As in, do you believe in a mind-independent world?
Yes
>If so, how is it you know?
Things occurred before the first human walked upright. How would you define the 'mind' anyway? What animals could be said to possess one? If consciousness exists in non-human organisms, which they seem to, then the question is entirely moot.
>And, what is the nature of this thing that exists? (eg, atoms, platonic forms, etc)
It is One unchanging monad.
If there are things that existed before I was born, there will be things that exist after I die.
