[QUOTE=kladner;316234]
I don't think I have to believe in the world for it to exist, if it does or as it does. I do think that we are dependent on our senses, however our senses diverge from whatever is "Really Real". The world looks quite different to birds, and they do not experience the heat of chili peppers as mammals do.
Which is more real?
[/QUOTE]

To think the world would not exist if one stopped believing in it
(or if one closed one's eyes forever) is a form of the fallacy of
solipsism. The opposite is certainty of the world's unconditional
existence, not "if it does" (it does) but "as it does" (as you said).

We are dependent on our senses (for perception, hence concepts,
hence all knowledge), but what they pass on to us is really real.
If it weren't we would have no means of experiencing reality,
no means of tying our knowledge to reality. But maybe it was
meant that two different beings (two people, or a man and a bird)
experience different types of sensations from similar events.
Sure. And their consequent knowledge is vastly different.
So which sensation is more real? Neither - sensations don't
contradict each other. Which "knowledge obtained" is more real?
Neither, if they don't contradict. But you know more than the bird.

[QUOTE=davar55;316293]We are dependent on our senses (for perception, hence concepts, hence all knowledge), but what they pass on to us is really real.[/QUOTE]There are times when my senses tell me that the world is spinning around me.

At other times, my senses tell me that the world contains moving, vaguely shaped colourful objects apparently nearby but quite intangible.

By your reasoning they are doubtless real shapes and the world undoubtedly spins around me on occasion.

[QUOTE=davar55;316293]We are dependent on our senses (for perception, hence concepts, hence all knowledge), but what they pass on to us is really real.[/QUOTE]

When was the last time your perceptional senses showed you that the square root of -1 was irrational when expressed in base-10 notation?

[QUOTE=chalsall;316310]When was the last time your perceptional senses showed you that the square root of -1 was irrational when expressed in base-10 notation?[/QUOTE]

Do you mean base 10 notation (in which case i is irrational because it's
imaginary) or base negative ten notation (you got me)?

As I said, all knowledge is ultimately based on what we perceive, but
is built out of perceptions into higher and wider concepts. Like from
the perceptions from which we derive the small numbers we can
derive the ability to count, then eventually understand N, and Z,
and Q, and R, and C, which lets us understand your example.

[QUOTE=chalsall;316310]When was the last time your perceptional senses showed you that the square root of -1 was irrational when expressed in base-10 notation?[/QUOTE]

[pedantism]Irrationality is independent of base.[/pedantism]

[QUOTE=davar55;316293]fallacy of solipsism. [/QUOTE]

Solipsism is a philsophical position, open for debate certainly, but not a fallacy.

[QUOTE=xilman;316297]There are times when my senses tell me that the world is spinning around me.

[/QUOTE]

The commonality of perception as well as the seemed repeatabilty of that perception would imply that the world is indeed spinning.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316320][pedantism]Irrationality is independent of base.[/pedantism][/QUOTE]

yet, if your base is Rationality (R) and you define the universe as the set (US) then perhaps:

all your base R belong to US.

[QUOTE=chappy;316324]
yet, if your base is Rationality (R) and you define the universe as the set (US) then perhaps:

all your base R belong to US.[/QUOTE]

Wow. I tip my hat to you, sir.

[QUOTE=chappy;316324]The commonality of perception as well as the seemed repeatabilty of that perception would imply that the world is indeed spinning.[/QUOTE]Agreed, but on occasion it is spinning specifically around me. Most of the time it is not spinning with respect to me. I think we are talking about different phenomena.

This thread!

Found this link in a Facebook argument of similar topic to this thread.

[url]http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/[/url]

trust me, I'm a doctor.