Do you think you know that the Moon exists?

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

[Impenitent]

I don't know anything, but the cow told me he jumped over it...

-Imp

[Speakpigeon]

I don't know anything

How do you know that?
EB

[Atla]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

It's almost funny how lost you are in the standard Cartesian confusion. If all you know are subjective impressions, then you must know that there is a subjective-objective division. Did you know that no such division was ever found? If there is no such division, then the image of the Moon in our head is indeed a model of the real Moon out there, so the Moon does exists out there (the exception is when people are hallucinating objects that aren't there).

[Logik]

Depends on how you conceptualise "existence".

A Cartesian dualist interprets "exists" one way.
A model-dependent realist interprets it another.

The two interpretations are polar opposites so as to be impossible to reconcile. One pre-supposes mind-independence the other rejects it.

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

It's almost funny how lost you are in the standard Cartesian confusion. If all you know are subjective impressions, then you must know that there is a subjective-objective division.

???
How does it follow that if all I know are subjective impressions, then I must know that there is a subjective-objective division?

Did you know that no such division was ever found?

I would have been very, very surprised otherwise.

If there is no such division, then the image of the Moon in our head is indeed a model of the real Moon out there,

You're assuming a lot here.
I would say myself that if you have the impression of looking at the Moon, it's plausible that the impression is based on some sort of image or representation in your head. It's also plausible that the image is a model of some real thing out there which would be the actual Moon. All that in the subjunctive.
Plausible means it's OK to believe it's true.

so the Moon does exists out there

Does exist?!
You're just assuming that having an impression you are looking at the Moon entails that there is a Moon being looked at. You don't actually know that.
EB

[Scott Mayers]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

Wait, In the response to you about sensation in the thread about pain, you seemed to be denying the subjective phenomena of the illusion as relevant. ??

If the 'Moon' is not a word you assign to any experience outside of it as a word, then you may be just denying the choice of label, not the reality.

[Logik]

Wait, In the response to you about sensation in the thread about pain, you seemed to be denying the subjective phenomena of the illusion as relevant. ??

Why do you insist on splitting up the ALL-THERE-IS into dualistic categories?

Subjective Objective
Real Imaginary
True False

What purpose does it serve categorising the universe in such way?

From where I am looking it seems to me it's a sure-fire way to fall for the trap of Cartesian dualism!
Worst of all - you are falling for the trap of infinite taxonomies/interpretations!

Given 100 different taxonomies by which to interpret reality what criteria do you use to determine which interpretation is best?
You are perpetually playing the "Where should I draw the line?" game.
Rather play the "Why do I need to draw lines?" game.

[Scott Mayers]

Logik, your 'logic' is not sinking into me. Can you clarify?

My own background is intensively on the subject of "logic". You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law. If you are just practicing "fuzzy logic", while useful in other contexts, I'm not sure what you mean when we are only dealing with first-order logical discussions. What specifically are you claiming that I am missing about extended alternatives?

[Age]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

The moon as you see it, from the physical eyes, does not exist anymore. That moon has already changed in shape and form. So, I do NOT know if the moon exists, at any current moment.

[Age]

Depends on how you conceptualise "existence".

A Cartesian dualist interprets "exists" one way.
A model-dependent realist interprets it another.

The two interpretations are polar opposites so as to be impossible to reconcile. One pre-supposes mind-independence the other rejects it.

Those interpretations, like EVERY other perceived to be polar opposite interpretations, can be very easily and very simply reconciled. One just needs to stop believing that one is true and right and be OPEN to be able to SEE the actual Facts and Truths of things in Life. ALL these things have already been reconciled.

[Age]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

It's almost funny how lost you are in the standard Cartesian confusion. If all you know are subjective impressions, then you must know that there is a subjective-objective division. Did you know that no such division was ever found? If there is no such division, then the image of the Moon in our head is indeed a model of the real Moon out there, so the Moon does exists out there (the exception is when people are hallucinating objects that aren't there).

You only THINK that the moon exists. You do NOT KNOW this for sure.

[Atla]

???
How does it follow that if all I know are subjective impressions, then I must know that there is a subjective-objective division?

How does it not follow? You wrote that all you know are subjective impressions.

You're assuming a lot here.
I would say myself that if you have the impression of looking at the Moon, it's plausible that the impression is based on some sort of image or representation in your head. It's also plausible that the image is a model of some real thing out there which would be the actual Moon. All that in the subjunctive.

But here you are talking about an impression based on some sort of image or representation in your head, that's two things. But the image IS the impression, or a part of the impression. Again some unnecessary subjective-objective duality.

Does exist?!
You're just assuming that having an impression you are looking at the Moon entails that there is a Moon being looked at. You don't actually know that.
EB

Then likewise you can't actually know that your impression exists or not, since no subjective-objective duality was ever found. Same thing.

[Atla]

I don't think I could possibly know that the Moon exists at all since all I know to exist are subjective impressions, and none of them is as such what I call the Moon.
Do you think you know that the Moon exists?
EB

It's almost funny how lost you are in the standard Cartesian confusion. If all you know are subjective impressions, then you must know that there is a subjective-objective division. Did you know that no such division was ever found? If there is no such division, then the image of the Moon in our head is indeed a model of the real Moon out there, so the Moon does exists out there (the exception is when people are hallucinating objects that aren't there).

You only THINK that the moon exists. You do NOT KNOW this for sure.

Of course I know it for sure, idiot.
(Beyond the obvious footnotes that everything might be an illusion/simulation/magic/I might have the most epic lifelong hallucination somehow/bla bla bla.)

[Logik]

Logik, your 'logic' is not sinking into me. Can you clarify?

My own background is intensively on the subject of "logic". You seem to be denying any comparisons to be binary as some universal law. If you are just practicing "fuzzy logic", while useful in other contexts, I'm not sure what you mean when we are only dealing with first-order logical discussions. What specifically are you claiming that I am missing about extended alternatives?

I very much dislike first order logic to the point where I think it's harmful to critical thought, so I insist on high order intuitionistic/constructive logics.

First order logic is complete but not decidable: http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html

Observe the OP title. It can be reduced to a yes/no question: Does the moon exist?
And perhaps reduced down to a bunch more primitives like: Do you have knowledge? Do you have knowledge of the moon's existence?

All yes/no questions are decision problems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem ).

In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer

It's precisely because first order logic is undecidable is why philosophers are trapped in this eternal game of re-interpretation. My narrative is right, your narrative is wrong! With no effective mechanism to decide whether that's actually the case.

Observe that just about any statement you make in first order logic can be turned into a decision problem.

The sky is blue. Is the sky blue?
God exists. Does God exist?
Pain is an illusion. Is pain an illusion?
Feelings are subjective. Are feelings subjective?

If you insist on first order logic you are stuck. Every single distinction is an undecidable dead end. So much like one person can arbitrarily choose to answer "yes" to "Does God exist?", another could answer "no". And there is no way to decide who is right or wrong.

Good luck trying to communicate with somebody who draws different distinctions. You are forever trapped arguing about metaphysics and semantics.

If our small minds, for some convenience, divide this glass of wine, this universe, into parts — physics, biology, geology, astronomy, psychology, and so on — remember that nature does not know it --Richard Feynman