Non-existence

[LukeMC]

Of course we experience things which seem to be outside of our mind. The question is whether we positively claim that experience to be an experience of an actually ontologically independently existing reality outside of your mind, or whether we reduce it to be an experience confined to your own mind. There is more complexity in the former case, and less complexity and more simplicity in the latter case.

How can you say that the sensation I feel in my foot is purely in my mind? I experience the sensation of touch where my foot is located in the same way I experience the sensation of thoughts where my mind is located. They're both a physical sensation and experience. Why is it not the case that our bodies are the only thing that is real, and our minds are merely an illusion generated by the body? (As opposed to minds being real and body being illusion).

What criterion do you use to choose between these experiences? "I think therefore I am" could just as easily have been "I feel therefore I am". Both are result of physical sensation experienced in a particular area of what we understand to be the body. I would posit that both must be real unless you can state in greater detail how one would choose which experiences to trust as really being.

If you do accept this, it doesn't damage your argument. You'll just have to say "experience confined to the mind/body" instead of just the mind. And I understand what you are saying to Kyuu. But if you are to deny the senses that tell you there is an objective reality outside of your mind, then how can you trust the thoughts and decisions that led you to the conclusion that there is probably no such objective world? Or are your thoughts more reliable than your senses, perhaps?

And a final question, just to make absolutely sure that you're sick of me, do you live your life under the assumption that everything outside of your mind is an illusion and could change at any moment? (General curiosity).