Let A denote the set of sense perceptions of a conscious being, and let B represent that conscious being's belief in the existence of an external world.
With this understanding in mind, are reason and logical argumentation crucial in inferring B from A? If indeed they are, what mode of reasoning proves most efficacious: deductive, inductive, or abductive? For instance, can we deductively prove B from A?
Hermann von Helmholtz argues that some perceptions, such as the 3D position of objects in the 2D field of vision and the speed of objects or rate of change of position in 3D space, arise as the product of a process similar to conscious inference, but the perceptions happen automatically as the product of an unconscious process. He calls this Unconscious Inference. Based on pathological observations we consciously infer that neural structures perform the unconscious functions. But to my knowledge we don't have specific models for how the unconscious neural activity becomes the conscious qualia in our minds. Contemplating the concept of unconscious inference or perception in general further gives rise to the so-called hard problem of consciousness.
Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, maps the set of perceptions of a conscious being to the ego, which I define as the effort to govern action in the sensory context. Freud says the ego is weak in early life and it is dominated by two sources of cause that are both external to the ego: the id (inner drives) and reality. So, in other words, the sense perceptions of a conscious being are biologically adapted to make a distinction between efforts to govern action in the sensory context and sources of cause that are not the ego.
The ego can be viewed as a closed loop feedback system. The id and reality are open loop systems that can drive the ego from inside or aid or interfere with the ego from the outside. The newborn ego of an animal or human must inherently recognize the id and reality without having to consciously reason. Animals and young children do not demonstrate the mature human capacity for reason.
The distinction between the self and the not-self as a source of cause seems to be apriori attribute of the organism which we later incorporate into our mature conscious belief systems. Freud does not discount the subjective experience of love or the Oceanic feeling in which the boundary between the ego and the not-ego dissolves or ceases to exist in the sensory perception of the subject.
Freud describes himself as a godless Jew, and he does not describe the biological ego in terms of an I-thou relationship, except that the ego is socialized and learns to recognize other social egos in the context of reality. Others are convinced that sociality is present in the newborn organism that we recognize as mammals and other social animals. There is no logical reason why social instincts would not be inborn and arise as the product of an unconscious process based on some structures and functions of the neurons in social animals.
I note that Helmholtz is a scientist who maps mysterious sources of cause to the unconscious. That means subjective reports of God or not-God as attributes of what exist both arise as the products of an unconscious process. People who are consciously godless find arguments against the existence of God and people are conscious of the supernatural I-thou relationship need not find any arguments for God.
