Hume: External World is a Fabrication

[Veritas Aequitas]

You lead lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him understand the implcations of Hume's philosophy

Seriously, suggest you read this re Hume to understand what Hume actually implied in his philosophy;

Fictions of the Imagination
Fictions in Hume’s Science of Man
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5a
The “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5b
The Philosophical Fiction of Double Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5c
The Philosophical Fiction of an Underlying Substance
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5d

What is your response to the above?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had claimed the philosophical realists' dogmatic and ideological claim of an absolutely mind-independent reality and things to the extent the moon pre-existed humans and will continue to exist even after humans are extinct, is grounded on an illusion.

Why philosophical realists cling to the idea of an absolutely mind independent reality is driven by an evolutionary default, thus based on a psychological impulse.

Here is Hume's view on the same issue;

Hume’s view on external objects is that the mind is programmed to form some concept of the external world, although this concept or idea is really just a fabrication. (1)

Hume’s skeptical claim here is that we have no valid conception of the existence of external things (Treatise, 1.2.6.9). (2)
Nevertheless, he argues that we have an unavoidable “vulgar” or common belief in the continued existence of objects, and this idea he accounts for.

His explanation is lengthy, but involves the following features.
Perceptions of objects are disjointed and have no unity in and of themselves (Treatise, 1.4.2.29).
In an effort to organize our perceptions, we first naturally assume that there is no distinction between our perceptions and the objects that are perceived (this is the so-called “vulgar” view of perception).
We then conflate all ideas (of perceptions), which put our minds in similar dispositions (Treatise, 1.4.2.33); that is, we associate resembling ideas and attribute identity to their causes.
Consequently, we naturally invent the continued and external existence of the objects (or perceptions) that produced these ideas (Treatise, 1.4.2.35).
Lastly, we go on to believe in the existence of these objects because of the force of the resemblance between ideas (Treatise, 1.4.2.36).

Although this belief is philosophically unjustified, Hume feels he has given an accurate account of how we inevitably arrive at the idea of external existence. (3)
In contrast to the previous explanation of this idea, he recommends that we doubt a more sophisticated but erroneous notion of existence—the so-called philosophical view—which distinguishes between perceptions and the external objects that cause perceptions.

The psychological motivation for accepting this view is this: our imagination tells us that resembling perceptions have a continued existence, yet our reflection tells us that they are interrupted.
Appealing to both forces, we ascribe interruption to perceptions and continuance to objects (Treatise, 1.4.2.52).

https://iep.utm.edu/hume/#SH3d

Views?

I got through the first few sentences and then almost fainted from mental fatigue.

I guess my only question is, does the world go on after I cease to exist or does it not? Personally, I see no reason to think that it doesn't. The world didn't end when Napoleon died. The world didn't end when Jesus [may or may not have] died. Personally, I wouldn't want it to end when I die. It's not like I want to take the world with me when I go and not leave it here for anyone else's kids. I have no children myself, but it'd be kind of grotesque for me to try to call it the "end of the world" for everyone just because I won't be in it.

Yes, common sense do tell us, the world will go on after physical death or even if there are no humans to perceive it.
However, common sense is driven by common primal psychology from an evolutionary default to yearn for eternal life in a heaven.

Common sense by default is critically necessary but it has its limitations regarding what is more realistic.

The issue here is Philosophical Realists insist as an IDEOLOGY without compromise, reality and things exist as absolutely mind-independent to the extent the moon will exists even if there are no humans.

Hume, Kant and other philosophers had demonstrated to hold mind-independence as central to reality [as an extreme ideology] is an impossibility; it is illusory and delusional to cling to such views, albeit it has some usefulness.

On the more pragmatic view, the extremism of such an ideology would trigger philosophical realists [esp. as theists] to kill those who oppose them or they could even exterminate the human species in clinging to their ideology.

Thus it is more realistic [as defined] and pragmatic to hold on to the view that reality and things CANNOT be absolutely mind-independent; such a view is that of ANTI-Philosophical_Realism which can take many forms.

[Iwannaplato]

You lead lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him understand the implcations of Hume's philosophy

Nor the difference between restating your position and interacting with the points made by others.

[Skepdick]

What's the difference between 'absolutely mind indenpendent reality' and
'mind independent reality.'?

The difference is infinitesimals. Numbers which are potentially zero but maybe not zero.
So wrap your mind around a number which has this property: n ≈ 0 AND n*n=0
It's potentially zero, but definitely zero when squared (throw back to physics where "energy" is defined as the potential of a system to do work. Scratch that, to do useful work - system's working, but it's not transfering any energy to move your detector it's not useful work).

It changes, but our measurement equipment is too imprecise to detect a difference. Infinitesimals represent the modality of detectable vs undetectable changes.

This gives you three ontological categories to work from:

* unchanged
* changed, but undetected
* changed and detected

absolutely mind independent reality <=> reality changes. mind doesn't.
mind inependent reality <=> reality changes. mind changes undetectably.
mind dependent reality <=> reality changes, mind changes

Enter philosophy. Bicker obver excluded middle. If the mind changes undetectably that's not mind independent. That's mind inter-dependent.

Haven't bothered to read the thread but this probably leads to Hume's (I think it was him, who remembers such things) argument for the uninteligibility of the universe without an a priori set of values. If you can't distinguish between at least two states - then you have no value system. Everything is 0.

That's the gist/sentiment of it. Don't hold me to the wording. But the crux of thre matter is the n*n = 0 property of the system.
Your equipment measures 0 (it's too imprecise) but is it n or n*n that you are measuring?
Or n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n
Or n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n.......?

If you are measuring infinite amount of computations (n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n.......) in a single unit of time then you are the creator of that which you call "time". A timeless being you are. And your measurements are only as good as your values.

Either way an infinite amount of computation could be taking place in a single unit of human time. Undetectable changes at that.

It's the abyss.

Irreducible complexity arguments are born from this sort of reasoning.

[Sculptor]

You lead lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him understand the implcations of Hume's philosophy

Seriously, suggest you read this re Hume to understand what Hume actually implied in his philosophy;

Fictions of the Imagination
Fictions in Hume’s Science of Man
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5a
The “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5b
The Philosophical Fiction of Double Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5c
The Philosophical Fiction of an Underlying Substance
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5d

What is your response to the above?

Using links is not the same as thinking or learning.

[Skepdick]

You lead lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him understand the implcations of Hume's philosophy

Seriously, suggest you read this re Hume to understand what Hume actually implied in his philosophy;

Fictions of the Imagination
Fictions in Hume’s Science of Man
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5a
The “Vulgar” Fiction of a Continued Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5b
The Philosophical Fiction of Double Existence
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5c
The Philosophical Fiction of an Underlying Substance
https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/#SH5d

What is your response to the above?

Using links is not the same as thinking or learning.

But it's definitely the same as assigning homework.

[Sculptor]

You lead lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him understand the implcations of Hume's philosophy

Nor the difference between restating your position and interacting with the points made by others.

Yes. and making a list of links is not thinking.

[Skepdick]

Yes. and making a list of links is not thinking.

What the hell do you know about thinking; or thinking about thinking; or thinking about thinking about thinking... ?

[Iwannaplato]

What's the difference between 'absolutely mind indenpendent reality' and
'mind independent reality.'?

The difference is infinitesimals. Numbers which are potentially zero but maybe not zero.
So wrap your mind around a number which has this property: n ≈ 0 AND n*n=0
It's potentially zero, but definitely zero when squared (throw back to physics where "energy" is defined as the potential of a system to do work. Scratch that, to do useful work - system's working, but it's not transfering any energy to move your detector it's not useful work).

It changes, but our measurement equipment is too imprecise to detect a difference. Infinitesimals represent the modality of detectable vs undetectable changes.

This gives you three ontological categories to work from:

* unchanged
* changed, but undetected
* changed and detected

absolutely mind independent reality <=> reality changes. mind doesn't.
mind inependent reality <=> reality changes. mind changes undetectably.
mind dependent reality <=> reality changes, mind changes

Enter philosophy. Bicker obver excluded middle. If the mind changes undetectably that's not mind independent. That's mind inter-dependent.

Haven't bothered to read the thread but this probably leads to Hume's (I think it was him, who remembers such things) argument for the uninteligibility of the universe without an a priori set of values. If you can't distinguish between at least two states - then you have no value system. Everything is 0.

That's the gist/sentiment of it. Don't hold me to the wording. But the crux of thre matter is the n*n = 0 property of the system.
Your equipment measures 0 (it's too imprecise) but is it n or n*n that you are measuring?
Or n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n
Or n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n.......?

If you are measuring infinite amount of computations (n*n*n*n*n*n*n*n.......) in a single unit of time then you are the creator of that which you call "time". A timeless being you are. And your measurements are only as good as your values.

Either way an infinite amount of computation could be taking place in a single unit of human time. Undetectable changes at that.

It's the abyss.

Irreducible complexity arguments are born from this sort of reasoning.

Interesting and also above my head. I really meant 'what is the difference to you, VA, between those two terms?' His use, in part because he started adding 'without compromise' to one of them.

But one part I think I could or at least can with clarification understand is

1) absolutely mind independent reality <=> reality changes. mind doesn't.
2) mind inependent reality <=> reality changes. mind changes undetectably.
3) mind dependent reality <=> reality changes, mind changes

1) sounds a bit like Buddhism, though it would be, then, more like reality changes, Buddha doesn't. (mind is included in reality in this model) Also it sounds, even in your formulation more like reality independent mind. Mind is not affected at all by reality, nor it is a part of it, it seems. (Which heads us toward a Maya type model of reality, I think)

2) I am not sure what this is.

3) Seems pretty much the case that they both change. But are they hinged on each other for existence? It seems like mind is. Is the rest of reality, the non-mind parts, if there are any, dependent for their existence on the mind. There would seem to be a variety of possible models here: panpsychism, some idealisms...

2)

[Skepdick]

1) sounds a bit like Buddhism, though it would be, then, more like reality changes, Buddha doesn't.

This already skips over the point. Reality changes. Buddha doesn't. Or maybe... Buddha doesn't know that Buddha changed.
Or maybe Buddha doesn't know that reality changed.
Or maybe Buddha doesn't know that both reality and Buddha changed.

This is the birth of information as a unit of change.

(mind is included in reality in this model) Also it sounds, even in your formulation more like reality independent mind. Mind is not affected at all by reality, nor it is a part of it, it seems. (Which heads us toward a Maya type model of reality, I think)

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. We can't know that our mind has changed if we can't detect the change.

You could say that the change in Buddha was "insignificant" but that's a value judgment, not fact.

[Iwannaplato]

1) sounds a bit like Buddhism, though it would be, then, more like reality changes, Buddha doesn't.

This already skips over the point. Reality changes. Buddha doesn't. Or maybe... Buddha doesn't know that Buddha changed.
Or maybe Buddha doesn't know that reality changed.
Or maybe Buddha doesn't know that both reality and Buddha changed.

This is the birth of information as a unit of change.

(mind is included in reality in this model) Also it sounds, even in your formulation more like reality independent mind. Mind is not affected at all by reality, nor it is a part of it, it seems. (Which heads us toward a Maya type model of reality, I think)

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. We can't know that our mind has changed if we can't detect the change.

You could say that the change in Buddha was "insignificant" but that's a value judgment, not fact.

In the context of the thread, changes that are not detected would be stuff that VA is saying Hume ruled out the existence of.

[Skepdick]

In the context of the thread, changes that are not detected would be stuff that VA is saying Hume ruled out the existence of.

Thus afirming the viciously-circular tautology. Completing the circle (as all philosophies do).

Yes. Undetectable changes are out of existence. But what Hume means by "existence" is the world we make up.
The world in which the undetectable changes have been ruled out of existence.

Epistemology. Not ontology.

I am with him. That's what I call anti-realism. Exact same page. We live in the simulation

[Iwannaplato]

In the context of the thread, changes that are not detected would be stuff that VA is saying Hume ruled out the existence of.

Thus afirming the viciously-circular tautology. Completing the circle (as all philosophies do).

Yes. Undetectable changes are out of existence. But what Hume means by "existence" is the world we make up.
The world in which the undetectable changes have been ruled out of existence.

Epistemology. Not ontology.

I am with him. That's what I call anti-realism. Exact same page. We live in the simulation

So, how do you guys know it applies to other people and not just yourselves?

[Iwannaplato]

And, I guess a follow-up question - doesn't calling it and viewing it as a simulation, make it yet another noumena? Isn't there then a (well, not infinite ) regress, one that just doesn't get finished. It's a new reality that we perceive and we start with the whole denial of persistancy process again. We fabricate that conception.

[Skepdick]

In the context of the thread, changes that are not detected would be stuff that VA is saying Hume ruled out the existence of.

Thus afirming the viciously-circular tautology. Completing the circle (as all philosophies do).

Yes. Undetectable changes are out of existence. But what Hume means by "existence" is the world we make up.
The world in which the undetectable changes have been ruled out of existence.

Epistemology. Not ontology.

I am with him. That's what I call anti-realism. Exact same page. We live in the simulation

So, how do you guys know it applies to other people and not just yourselves?

Because we are arguing over definitions. We probably mean exactly the same thing but I don't speak your language and you don't speak mine.

Which is where the conflict is born from.

I reject your meaning.
You reject my meaning.

This causes contradiction... We resolve it and we go "ahhh, lol. that was dumb".