Ok, that's cool. Talking about objectification and fabrication of perceptions is a bit different than saying there is complete uncertainty about whether physical objects have any existence other than what one sees, hears, and so on. Which is how I usually hear the topic framed. Because I don't think people actually have any uncertainty about whether their eyeballs exist when they aren't looking in the mirror. Or whether they have a brain. Or any doubt about whether one's friends have any existence other than your own seeing, hearing, etc. of them.retrofuturist wrote: I would never have object-ified "liver" as an independent physical object if no one had ever told me about livers, their function, and so on.... I would have just regarded this lump as "body".
What about you? Would you have object-ified "liver" as an independent physical object if no one had ever told you about livers, their function, and so on.? Without that objectification would we be having this discussion?
All in all, it's less about agnosticism than it is about the fabrication of perceptions of existence/non-existence. When one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
As far as my own liver goes, I take it on faith with a 100% confidence level that I do in fact have one. Whether I objectify it or not may be relevant to my state of mind, but is irrelevant to the proper functioning of this physical body.
Oh and there is a way to prove that my liver exists - an X-ray or ultrasound is more than sufficient. Philosophical skeptics have gotten ahold of the concept of "proof" and raised it to a standard which is far beyond what "prove" means in the first place, making the idea of proof meaningless.