epistemology and time

[dionysus]

Hi Everyone,
I am not an academic philosopher, but wondered if I could have some pointers, and perhaps some clarification on a problem that concerns me at the moment. It was a thought experiment I recently conducted. When I looked in the mirror, I realized I did know what I looked like. I could not tell if I was ugly or handsome, young or old, as I could easily do with other people. I could, of course, describe everything I saw, but the description of the thing is not the thing. I would not recognize myself if my double passed me in the street. Recognition is not knowledge, anyway, and is a survival mechanism rather than an epistemological one. If, however, aided with a precise description of my appearance I stopped my double in the street and asked him to relate all his experiences and memories and, if what he said was precisely what my experiences and memories were, this would not be knowledge of the other (myself), or my existence in the world, as it would merely be tautological. While it may be the case that objective reality has never been shown to exist, my thought experiment suggests that perception is deceptive and not sufficient apparatus for epistemological problem of this kind. Our other senses tell us nothing about the world except what is fundamental for survival -- water is hot or cold, a material thing is hard or soft, big or small etc., so it seems the mind does not represent, and is incapable of representing the world as we normally believe it does. Though a scientist may come to understand that water (to take a previous example) is constituted of H2O, knowledge of things is not knowledge of the world's existence and if that is the case, knowledge of the thing, the individual, has to be doubted. Mathematics and language, so far as I can see, do not represent reality.
While I am making this post, one other philosophical problem concerns me, and that has to do with time. Time, it seems, is a human invention and has no reality. A clock's face points twice to 12 during a complete orbit of the earth round the sun. It would seem calendar time is going nowhere and is non-linear. If that is the case, how could the events of history arise successively or how could evolution occur in successive stages if time merely repeats the same 24 hour cycle? Can carbon dating ever be a measure of the past or indeed, any measure of the past be true? We always see things now. It would seem that intellectual tools, mathematics, language, measurement etc are hermetically closed systems justifying themselves rather than representing anything real.
How do others approach these issues?
Thanks

[pharaoh]

"While it may be the case that objective reality has never been shown to exist, my thought experiment suggests that perception is deceptive and not sufficient apparatus for epistemological problem of this kind. Our other senses tell us nothing about the world except what is fundamental for survival -- water is hot or cold, a material thing is hard or soft, big or small etc"

Suppose you were to recreate the world. What would you do to not let such questions ever impinge upon your mind? To express myself a bit more plainly, how should everything in the world work that would make it possible to fit in your definition of 'proper'?

[dionysus]

Thanks for your interest.
I am not sure if I have understood your question completely, but if I were to recreate the world so that doubt as to its existence would not arise, then the tools we have already ---language, sense-perception, mathematics etc, and the agent of them, would not have to re-present the world or its objects, but would already be the world and its objects. This is, of course, not possible, as the act of perception must separate from the perceived to make perception possible. Otherwise there would be no agent, no tools, no experience or discovery.
If, in an ideal world, the re-presentation was what it re-represented, then I can only see this as a codification between the person and the world. It would seem we can only represent the truth rather than know the truth. Nonetheless, to represent the truth is already to assume we know the truth to represent it. This would, in effect, make the world a virtual reality. If the proposition (and sentence) 'The table in front of me is made of glass' was true of the table in front of me made of glass, then the proposition would have to be independent of any other proposition I made in order for it to be true representation. How would I know this? Also, what the proposition represented would have to be independent of other objects in the field of vision. This is not true of perception, as it can represent a number of objects at any one time in the localized field of vision, but that field of vision would have to be independent of any other field of vision for reasons of orientation and identification. Now, if I was in the enviable position over a lifetime of inspecting everything in the world, the brain could not possibly encompass everything it perceived while at the same time claiming it was all 'real', even though my field of vision would assiduously represent wherever I was situated. If by 'real' is meant a true representation and if by 'world' is meant any localized field of vision I have of it, then we still have to account for second and third order representations such as the media --- television, maps, scientific tools etc --- which we take for real representations of an otherwise first order perception. If the world (or the localized field of vision) is independent of the perceiver, then the not inconsiderable problem arises on how that becomes possible.
I am still left with the problem of why I could not see myself as others see me in the image I had of myself in the mirror. I would, of course, be foolish, not to believe the image I had of myself was not myself. This might purely be a problem for psychology and not philosophy, as I do not need to recognize myself as I do others for survival. I am not usually deceived ( so far as I know) by other objects except through normal human error.

[pharaoh]

I am glad to talk to you and sorry for the late response.
In your last comment, you have addressed a number of questions, most of which have long been of my personal concern. I wonder if you don’t mind to investigate them one at a time, and of course on the condition that it doesn’t violate the integrity of your explanations.
If I may answer the same question I asked you, I would opt for the impossible; a world with absolute harmony, in which there is no trace of any tensions or apparent contradictions. I shall come to that, later.
As to the question of truth, I should say that,as I see it, there are three types of questions created in our minds; first, the questions which are arisen due to a situation of encountering a problem in the outside world. These would constitute questions like 'how to earn a livelihood' or ‘who am I going to marry?’ Then, there are second type of questions, whose main function is to bring about harmony to inner side of our mind; ‘Who has created the world?’ is one of that type. And the third type of questions; these exist mostly because of their rather amusing nature to human beings, which might itself stem from curiosity. This type would include questions like ‘what is going on in a planet billions of light years away from us?’ The last two, are the type of questions which mostly philosophers tend to ask; and these are also the type of questions(particularly the third type) which, with a bit of exaggeration, instead of seeking to solve a real problem is more intended to seek more problems, or to create more problems(like creating riddles)! Hence, can sometimes be absolutely disturbing, especially when one realises that there can never be an answer to that question; at least in his lifetime. There are, of course, overlapping areas in three types.
The first type of questions, we are not at a position to dispose of, obviously because that’s a matter of survival; but the second and third type, which are not directly relevant to your immediate affairs of life, can theoretically be, most of the time, ignored, which unfortunately(or I don’t know, maybe that’s been good luck), I for one, have not been able to actually relinquish, for now, more than thirty years. I am here to attest that I doubt it if I would have been far better off, were my mind not so much preoccupied with this sort of questions(I certainly don’t mean that it has always been all that bad!). What I mean in general terms, is that most such questions are apt to be vice instead of virtue, unless there is a good reason to ask them, a better life for the individual, from the individual’s own stand point, for example. As a result, I would imagine a harmonious world would be void of any questions. That is because of the nature of ‘question’ which is indicative of tension. If people were happy, the world wouldn’t necessarily be mundane without questions. (I am sure you have a lot to say about that).
Now, back to our own familiar, tension filled, universe. Regarding the first type of question about truth, what in my opinion, has always been the source of man’s much concern, more than anything else, is whether one’s predictions ever come true. If the future events were not of any concern to human beings, they would not bother thinking about the truth of anything. This, I suppose, is an important matter in providing a description of the essence of truth of the first type. According to this description, the truth of every belief is only accepted, respective to a certain probability (which is, as you mentioned, contrary to the mentality of an ideal world). In this sense, the exact representativeness of the picture of the world, we have in mind, finds its value only in as much as it can keep us from encountering the unfavourable unexpected. Most of the type two and three questions are not really much related to future events. Having said that, I should point out that not all that is questioned in philosophy are of these two types.
Now, I’d like to hear (eyes can also hear!) more of your words about the nature of truth; and if you partly agree with me, what do you thing the nature of the quest of truth would be? Do you think that is a good starting point? And please explain your opinion as to what you think truth is good for.
I hope we will be able to discuss the question of time, which is of my utmost interest, later.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Everyone,
I am not an academic philosopher, but wondered if I could have some pointers, and perhaps some clarification on a problem that concerns me at the moment. It was a thought experiment I recently conducted. When I looked in the mirror, I realized I did know what I looked like.

I assume you knew that you were looking in a mirror, and that in fact that image you saw was one of the most recognisable you know. Were that not the case I would have to conclude that you had damage to the fusiform area of your brain.

I could not tell if I was ugly or handsome, young or old, as I could easily do with other people. I could, of course, describe everything I saw, but the description of the thing is not the thing.

What makes you think it is more valid to be able to recognise the nose, the eyes, and the mouth and yet call question to the recognition of your unique visage. That is a contradiction.
As for whether or not you are ugly or handsome; they are value judgements made by society as a whole. If all humans were born with a hole in their face where the nose is, then that would be the objectively beautiful norm. Anyone being born with a nose would be considered ugly and would seek surgery.

I would not recognize myself if my double passed me in the street. Recognition is not knowledge, anyway, and is a survival mechanism rather than an epistemological one.

I do not accept this as true.

If, however, aided with a precise description of my appearance I stopped my double in the street and asked him to relate all his experiences and memories and, if what he said was precisely what my experiences and memories were, this would not be knowledge of the other (myself), or my existence in the world, as it would merely be tautological.

I'm not sure why you are using the word tautological here. Maybe you should look it up, and come back. Also I don't know why you are pursuing this impossible thought experiment.

While it may be the case that objective reality has never been shown to exist, my thought experiment suggests that perception is deceptive and not sufficient apparatus for epistemological problem of this kind.

I think not. I think it is just a thought experiment, that says nothing.. yet.

Our other senses tell us nothing about the world except what is fundamental for survival -- water is hot or cold, a material thing is hard or soft, big or small etc., so it seems the mind does not represent, and is incapable of representing the world as we normally believe it does.

There are so many things in this post that are simply not true. My senses show me the moon in the sky - it has no direct bearing on my survival. Neither does the David Attenborough program I am watching, as I type.

Though a scientist may come to understand that water (to take a previous example) is constituted of H2O, knowledge of things is not knowledge of the world's existence and if that is the case, knowledge of the thing, the individual, has to be doubted. Mathematics and language, so far as I can see, do not represent reality.

I agree that maths doe not represent reality, but it can be used to model it - to help us understand it. And that althought H2O is not the same as water it is also a useful model that helps us manipulate the world and understand how we need water as how it interacts with other material in the universe. I'm at a loss to see what your problem is exactly.

While I am making this post, one other philosophical problem concerns me, and that has to do with time. Time, it seems, is a human invention and has no reality. A clock's face points twice to 12 during a complete orbit of the earth round the sun. It would seem calendar time is going nowhere and is non-linear. If that is the case, how could the events of history arise successively or how could evolution occur in successive stages if time merely repeats the same 24 hour cycle?

Because is does not. The cycle is arbitrary. The earth is not in the same place every 24 hours, nor is it in the same place every year. The entire solar system is moving at an alarming rate, as is the galaxy and it is all expanding. Everything is in change.

Can carbon dating ever be a measure of the past or indeed, any measure of the past be true?

Yes.

We always see things now. It would seem that intellectual tools, mathematics, language, measurement etc are hermetically closed systems justifying themselves rather than representing anything real.
How do others approach these issues?
Thanks

With reason, and critical skepticism.

[dionysus]

assume you knew that you were looking in a mirror, and that in fact that image you saw was one of the most recognisable you know. Were that not the case I would have to conclude that you had damage to the fusiform area of your brain.

No. Try it yourself. Recognition is not knowledge. I am asking how do I know the image I have of myself in the mirror is myself? Recognition and perception, particularly of faces, is still a problem in psychology. As I say in my post this may be a problem in psychology rather than philosophy. As I also say in my post, it would be foolish of me to doubt the image I had was not myself, but the point of the thought experiment was to lead me into what the epistemological status of perception was.

What makes you think it is more valid to be able to recognise the nose, the eyes, and the mouth and yet call question to the recognition of your unique visage. That is a contradiction.
As for whether or not you are ugly or handsome; they are value judgements made by society as a whole. If all humans were born with a hole in their face where the nose is, then that would be the objectively beautiful norm. Anyone being born with a nose would be considered ugly and would seek surgery.

Every human has the features of a human being. What makes me and everyone else unique in their appearance? Any description given of the image I have of myself in the mirror could, in effect, be applied to everyone else. More specifically, if I had a large mole on the end of my nose that no-one else in the world had, I could not claim any single feature of myself was myself, as I, like everyone else, am more than any single feature and more than the sum of the parts. If the large mole at the end of my nose makes me ugly, I would not necessarily know it does until I saw myself objectively, as I do other people. The image in the mirror, from the point of perception, was not objective in my view. A child does not know if he or she is ugly or beautiful, as the child later learns from others whether that is the case or not, and not from the image presented in the mirror. I agree with you when you say that the beauty/ugly value judgements are made by society and that our ideas of beauty and ugliness are preconceived. This is for another discussion and does not further the discussion here.

I do not accept this as true

You give no support for this view.

I'm not sure why you are using the word tautological here. Maybe you should look it up, and come back. Also I don't know why you are pursuing this impossible thought experiment.

I am using the word 'tautological' in the ordinary dictionary sense as ' a needless and pointless repetition of words.' When I come face to face with myself in the street and want to know if who I am facing is myself. So I ask him about all his experiences, memories and beliefs and if these were exactly my experiences, memories and beliefs, this would not demonstrate the person in front of me was myself, because he has only repeated what I already know and therefore does not constitute objective knowledge. I am wondering if we really have the tools, language, sense-perception etc, to pursue the traditional themes in epistemology. You agree with me that mathematics does not represent reality, so does language, does perception?

[quoteI agree that maths doe not represent reality, but it can be used to model it - to help us understand it. And that althought H2O is not the same as water it is also a useful model that helps us manipulate the world and understand how we need water as how it interacts with other material in the universe. I'm at a loss to see what your problem is exactly.

The problem is whether the knowledge we have of things is objectively true. If say, the universe is reduced to a computerized model of it, how can we be talking about the same thing --- a vast, infinite universe, and my model of it on the computer? As I say above, we can only represent knowledge, but how do I know the representation is true? Mathematics, for example, justifies only itself in what are already pre-ordained conclusions. It has only been agreed between human beings that 2+2 = 4, and could have been different. 2+2 = 4 is necessarily true for mathematics, but not objectively true.

Because is does not. The cycle is arbitrary. The earth is not in the same place every 24 hours, nor is it in the same place every year. The entire solar system is moving at an alarming rate, as is the galaxy and it is all expanding. Everything is in change.

Can you show that the 24 hour cycle is arbitrary? What you describe does not mean time is linear. Godel remarked to Einstein, who believed it was theoretically possible to go back in time, that that was not time or the passing of time at all. ( I may have misquoted slightly, but that is the gist). If the clock is not an accurate timepiece for the quantum world, then this shows the huge gap between our ordinary knowledge of things and how things actually are. This is part of my thesis, is our ordinary knowledge of things actually true?
I asked : was carbon dating ever a measure of the past or was any measure of the past true? You say 'yes'. Can you give some context to that belief?

I said

We always see things now. It would seem that intellectual tools, mathematics, language, measurement etc are hermetically closed systems justifying themselves rather than representing anything real. How do others approach these questions? Your reply was with 'reason and skepticism' but offer little or no support for your beliefs nor do you seem skeptical about them.

[chaz wyman]

assume you knew that you were looking in a mirror, and that in fact that image you saw was one of the most recognisable you know. Were that not the case I would have to conclude that you had damage to the fusiform area of your brain.

No. Try it yourself. Recognition is not knowledge. I am asking how do I know the image I have of myself in the mirror is myself? Recognition and perception, particularly of faces, is still a problem in psychology. As I say in my post this may be a problem in psychology rather than philosophy. As I also say in my post, it would be foolish of me to doubt the image I had was not myself, but the point of the thought experiment was to lead me into what the epistemological status of perception was.

You are either talking bollocks or you are not expressing yourself very well.
I look in the mirror, I see me. Case closed. Recognition does not have to be knowledge for this to be the case. What makes you think face recognition is problematic?

What makes you think it is more valid to be able to recognise the nose, the eyes, and the mouth and yet call question to the recognition of your unique visage. That is a contradiction.
As for whether or not you are ugly or handsome; they are value judgements made by society as a whole. If all humans were born with a hole in their face where the nose is, then that would be the objectively beautiful norm. Anyone being born with a nose would be considered ugly and would seek surgery.

Every human has the features of a human being.

No true, sadly. A person without a face is still a person. Far all you know my face might have bee eaten by a dog.

What makes me and everyone else unique in their appearance? Any description given of the image I have of myself in the mirror could, in effect, be applied to everyone else.

There is a specific area of the brain dedicated to face recognition, that when damaged can lead the person to intellectually know that they see a face, but cannot tell the difference between Hitler and their own brother. They see exactly the same as they used to, but they do not have to processing power to make the identification. It would be more like looking at knees, or feet.

I agree with you when you say that the beauty/ugly value judgements are made by society and that our ideas of beauty and ugliness are preconceived. This is for another discussion and does not further the discussion here.

I do not accept this as true

You give no support for this view.

I don't need to - I am not making any claim.

I'm not sure why you are using the word tautological here. Maybe you should look it up, and come back. Also I don't know why you are pursuing this impossible thought experiment.

I am using the word 'tautological' in the ordinary dictionary sense as ' a needless and pointless repetition of words.' When I come face to face with myself in the street and want to know if who I am facing is myself. So I ask him about all his experiences, memories and beliefs and if these were exactly my experiences, memories and beliefs, this would not demonstrate the person in front of me was myself, because he has only repeated what I already know and therefore does not constitute objective knowledge. I am wondering if we really have the tools, language, sense-perception etc, to pursue the traditional themes in epistemology. You agree with me that mathematics does not represent reality, so does language, does perception?

Like I thought - there is no tautology here. Look it up.
As you cannot meet yourself in the street, I don't see what you are trying to demonstrate.

[quoteI agree that maths doe not represent reality, but it can be used to model it - to help us understand it. And that althought H2O is not the same as water it is also a useful model that helps us manipulate the world and understand how we need water as how it interacts with other material in the universe. I'm at a loss to see what your problem is exactly.

The problem is whether the knowledge we have of things is objectively true.

There is a simple enough solution to this problem as it usually emerges from a misconception of the meaning of objective. Tell me what you think it means , then we can talk about it. Otherwise, once again, I don't see your problem,

Because is does not. The cycle is arbitrary. The earth is not in the same place every 24 hours, nor is it in the same place every year. The entire solar system is moving at an alarming rate, as is the galaxy and it is all expanding. Everything is in change.

Can you show that the 24 hour cycle is arbitrary?

DO I need to? Really. Here's why. I think the length of day ought to be divided into 10. I understand that the French after their revolution decided that the year ought to be 10 months. I can't see why I ought not to be able to do it. But it does not matter either way.
What you say about time not being real or meaningful or that because there are such things as days, they all have to be the same. That is absurd.

What you describe does not mean time is linear.

But you are denying time. So you don't have any legs to stand on here. My experience is that when I break a cup, it does not magically come back to life the following day. What is done cannot be undone. That is what time is. And neither an I claiming that time is linear - that;s your words. Time is the measure of events by which we can tell that our experience of its passage is far from linear. Experiential time varies with what we do, and how old we are.

Godel remarked to Einstein, who believed it was theoretically possible to go back in time, that that was not time or the passing of time at all. ( I may have misquoted slightly, but that is the gist).
I do not give a rat's dingle about what Godel said to anyone, Time travel is only possible forwards, never backwards
If the clock is not an accurate timepiece for the quantum world, then this shows the huge gap between our ordinary knowledge of things and how things actually are. This is part of my thesis, is our ordinary knowledge of things actually true?
I asked : was carbon dating ever a measure of the past or was any measure of the past true? You say 'yes'. Can you give some context to that belief?

I studied archaeology for 6 years, Scientific dating methods, of which there are many, tell a completely coherent story and the various methods used, such as dendrochronology and potassium/ argon dating verify each other in irrefutable ways.

I said

We always see things now. It would seem that intellectual tools, mathematics, language, measurement etc are hermetically closed systems justifying themselves rather than representing anything real. How do others approach these questions? Your reply was with 'reason and skepticism' but offer little or no support for your beliefs nor do you seem skeptical about them.

Your points are far too general to offer you specific support. You seem to be thrashing out, not concentrating your mind on specific issues.

[dionysus]

[quote]You are either talking bollocks or you are not expressing yourself very well.
I look in the mirror, I see me. Case closed. Recognition does not have to be knowledge for this to be the case. What makes you think face recognition is problematic?

When you looked in the mirror you assumed the image was of you and would be foolish not to. I am asking something different ---- how do I know it is me? It is an epistemological question. My example of the mirror image may not be a good one, but it did lead me into an epistemological enquiry (albeit brief) that followed. There are many problems in psychology to do with perception and recognition. Of the top of my head Marr 1982 wrote a book about how the disparate fragments of data on the retinal image come together to identify people, things, objects etc. His study is theoretical and problems like this have never been fully resolved in psychology.

[quoteI do not accept this as true.
If you claim something is not true, then you must have a reason for believing that, but give no reason at all.

[quote]Like I thought - there is no tautology here. Look it up.
As you cannot meet yourself in the street, I don't see what you are trying to demonstrate.

I have just given you one definition of tautology from the dictionary above. Why do you think there is no tautology when you do not offer a definition of it to deny it?
I am saying I cannot know if the person I meet, identified from a precise description of me, is myself, because, even if his memories, experiences and beliefs are exactly those I have, the person would not be myself as he is simply repeating what I already know and therefore not objective knowledge. It is tautological. I think you have completely misunderstood the intention of this board, which is epistemology. Look, if I said 'the table in front of me is made of glass', how do I know what I said represents the table made of glass in the world external to me? It is the same with sense-perceptions and it is only through sense-perceptions we experience, but do not necessarily know, the world. If it was demonstrated that what I said ---'the table is made of glass' was a true representation of the table made of glass in the world, then I would have knowledge or a fragment of knowledge of the world, but it has never been demonstrated. At its most extreme therefore the world may not exist as we normally believe it does, because our sense-perception and language, which is all we have, has not demonstrated the world actually exists.

The rest of what you said was an irrelevant rant.

[dionysus]

pharaoh:
When I read your second post I was reminded of a quote from Wittgenstein --- 'If all the problems of science were solved we would still be left with the human problem'.
I once read a comic as a child which told the story of how everyone became happy. They were dancing in the streets and enjoying their existence until, over time, no money was made, the crops began to fail and they went hungry. So they went back to work and become unhappy!!
You ask 'what is the nature of truth' and 'what is truth good for?' I am not sure what you are asking. The nature of truth in the context of this board would be to show that the representations we have of the world in language and sense-perception actually exist in the world. Did you see the film 'The Matrix.' If you did you may remember when Nano's team are at the dining table and one of them is biting into sandwich says ' I am made to believe that what I am eating is a sandwich' or something to that effect. We are made to believe the world exists as we normally believe it does, but this has never been demonstrated. We only experience the world through language and sense-perception. When I switch on my computer millions of lines of code come into play and then a picture is presented. Something similar happens in our daily existence, which would make the world a delusion. 'What is truth good for?' Well it does not make us rich, we can't spend it in a shop and it wont necessarily make us happy, but aren't you concerned about the mysteries of being? Epistemology tries to deal with the mystery of whether the knowledge we have is of the world. It gives meaning and purpose to pursue the questions philosophy asks for those inclined that way.

[chaz wyman]

I am asking something different ---- how do I know it is me? It is an epistemological question. My example of the mirror image may not be a good one, but it did lead me into an epistemological enquiry (albeit brief) that followed. There are many problems in psychology to do with perception and recognition. Of the top of my head Marr 1982 wrote a book about how the disparate fragments of data on the retinal image come together to identify people, things, objects etc. His study is theoretical and problems like this have never been fully resolved in psychology.
[\quote]
As you have failed to express a problem of identify one, I'll ignore this until you manage to express it. Until then I will continue to identify the image I have of myself in the mirror as it is continually verified by my actions. In fact there are no examples I can think of where I can be more sure of that interpretation. You might as well hold your own dick on your and and ask -" is that mine?"

If you claim something is not true, then you must have a reason for believing that, but give no reason at all.
No, if you make an absurd and ridiculous statement, then the burden of reason lies with you.

I have just given you one definition of tautology from the dictionary above. Why do you think there is no tautology when you do not offer a definition of it to deny it?
There is no tautology here. What you describe does not match any known definition

I am saying I cannot know if the person I meet, identified from a precise description of me, is myself, because, even if his memories, experiences and beliefs are exactly those I have, the person would not be myself as he is simply repeating what I already know and therefore not objective knowledge.

This has nothing to do with objectivity either. Your example is impossible therefore absurd and not worthy of any consideration. If you cannot raise a problem without invoking and impossible example then you simply have not identified a problem.

It's just like me saying that when I got back into the past I meet myself, but as I do not remember meeting myself I cannot really have done it. Such is the paradox of time travel. But this is NOT a problem; time travel is impossible and the paradox helps me identify that as impossible. There is no problem of objectivity; no tautologies, and no problem. It's just verbal masturbation.



It is tautological.
DAH!! No it is not.
I think you have completely misunderstood the intention of this board, which is epistemology.
I am now wondering if you know what epistemology is, as you are so flakey about tautology.

Look, if I said 'the table in front of me is made of glass', how do I know what I said represents the table made of glass in the world external to me?

Exactly the same way you know that you are sitting in a chair and typing on a computer. What 'glass' has to do with it I have no idea. If it were made of wood you have the same problem.

It is the same with sense-perceptions and it is only through sense-perceptions we experience, but do not necessarily know, the world.

That is how we know the world, I don't see why you are making a special case of a mirror either.
How conception of the world is fundamentally mental, I agree. But I don't see why you think this is problematic. Unless you want to go down the "i'm a brain in a vat' argument.

If it was demonstrated that what I said ---'the table is made of glass' was a true representation of the table made of glass in the world, then I would have knowledge or a fragment of knowledge of the world, but it has never been demonstrated.

Try to put your hand through the table! Samuel Johnson used to call this sort of thinking absurd; "If I can kick it, it is real." In response to Bishop Berkeley who was arguing as you do, he called it 'nonsense on sticks'.


At its most extreme therefore the world may not exist as we normally believe it does, because our sense-perception and language, which is all we have, has not demonstrated the world actually exists.

If it were not for sense perception and language you would not even be able to express anything about it. And as it would not be a possible object of your experience, you could not deny its existence. THe only reason you can even talk about it is because you have an existence in it, other wise you would be mute on the topic.


The rest of what you said was an irrelevant rant.

Ignoring me is not evidence that what I say is unimportant.
Ignoring valid reflections is not evidence that you are making sense.
Maybe you should get you thumb out of your naive solipsism and try and walk through a few walls?

[HexHammer]

How do others approach these issues?

Sounds like you need to lean to the psychological area and maybe also in some neurological stuff, as what you have presented is not really grasping reality.