The coherence and constancy of impressions

The opinion of the continued existence of body depends on the coherence and constancy of certain impressions.

Our internal impressions are fleeting.

• Yet they have a coherence and regularity in their appearances.

This coherence and regularity in the appearances of internal impressions is different from the coherence and regularity in external bodies.

Our passions have a mutual connection and dependence on each other.

But we never think that our passions existed when our passions did not exist, just to preserve the same connection with the passions that have previously existed in us.

This does not happen with external objects.

Those external objects need a continued existence.

• Otherwise, they lose the regularity of their existence.

I am seated in my room on the second floor, facing the fire.

• All the objects that I see are a few yards around me.
• My memory informs me of the existence of many objects.
• But then, this information does not go beyond their past existence.

My senses or memory does not give any testimony to the continuance of their existence.

I hear the door of my room opening.

• I turn my head and see a servant walking towards me.
• This creates many new reflections and reasonings.

I know the noise of the door opening comes from the door’s motion.

• I therefore conclude that the door still exists.

But in my example, I heard the door open, but did not turn my head enough to see it opened.

My mind only received one perception.

From this one perception, I assumed that:

• the door still exists, and
• it was opened without me seeing it opened.

My assuming is initially entirely arbitrary and hypothetical.

We really assume the continued existence of objects.

These have naturally led me to regard

We assume the world is something that:

• is real and durable, and
• preserves its existence, even when we cannot see all of it.

This coherence that leads to our assumption of continued existence is different from cause and effect.

This inference arises from: the understanding, and habit, in an indirect and oblique manner.

Nothing is ever really present to the mind besides its own perceptions.

Habit:

• can only be acquired by the regular succession of these perceptions, and
• can never exceed that degree of regularity.

Therefore, unperceived things cannot gain a greater regularity than things we percieve regularly

A habit cannot be acquired by something that was never present to the mind.

We give a greater regularity on real objects than the regularity in our mere perceptions by inferring the continued existence of sensory objects from:

• their coherence, and
• the frequency of their union.

We observe a connection between internal perceptions and external objects in their past appearance to the senses.

But this connection is not perfectly constant, since it can be broken by:

• the turning about of our head, or
• the shutting of our eyes is able to break it.

Yet these objects keep their usual connection, despite their apparent interruption.

Are they joined by something that we cannot perceive?

But all reasoning on matters of fact arises only from habit.

Habit can only be the effect of repeated perceptions.

The extension of habit and reasoning beyond the perceptions can never be the direct and natural effect of the constant repetition and connection.

Rather, it must arise from the cooperation of some other principles.