Does anything really exist?

[samsracecar]

I think this is the basis for some famous philosophy, but I'm not sure.

I thought of this on one of my sleepless nights, which are pretty often.

Anyway... Does anything really exist? Or is it all just electric impulses from our nerves that our brain deciphers into sound, taste, hearing, sight, and smell? Can everything be described as these impulses? And while I am here, is it possible to make a machine that can stimulate areas in our brain that receive the senses, and therefore create a virtual world that is indistinguishable from reality?

I hate to quote the Matrix, but it pretty much sums up everything I've been trying to say.
"If this is "real", then "real" is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I don't want to start a flame war, I am just curious as to what others think.

[abluphoton]

you must have heard of hallucinations...try this video from TED [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/oliver_sacks_what_hallucination_reveals_about_our_ minds.html] whatever the brain "sees" is reality. thats what many meditators experience [ travelling to elsewhere land, visiting dead, or seeing god ] thats very much real for him but need not be for others.

in my view, you its real what your brain projects but people through out the history have claims to train there minds to distinguish between hallucinations and reality and stop getting hallucination once and for all. they call it "enlightenment --looking into things the way they are"
i don know how much thats true.

[Ryan_m_b]

Every sensation you have is the result of sensory input to the brain, there are clear examples of then this sensory input isn't "real" e.g. dreams, hallucinations and even part of normal visual processing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision)#Blind_spot_test).

Whether or not thing's are "real" depend on your definition of reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) and whether there is such a think as ultimate reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_reality). Some philosophies such as solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) advocate the argument that one can never be sure if what one see's is "real" therefore the only thing one can be sure of is the existence of one's own mind.

[I_am_learning]

Generally, what most people see is real, if something is seen/felt only by you its not real.

[Jimmy Snyder]

What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet.
True, but after all, it's only money.

[mishrashubham]

Every sensation you have is the result of sensory input to the brain, there are clear examples of then this sensory input isn't "real" e.g. dreams, hallucinations....

I don't mean to argue, but isn't sensory input largely inhibited during dreams? In my understanding, the perceptions during dreams are generated within the brain and are hardly influenced by external stimuli.

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't mean to argue, but isn't sensory input largely inhibited during dreams? In my understanding, the perceptions during dreams are generated within the brain and are hardly influenced by external stimuli.

True, I meant to imply sensory input and perception.

[Galteeth]

The only directly experienced reality is that which occurs in the conscious mind. However, through various methods (especially the scientific method) we can construct a model of objective reality, that is, a model that makes predictions which other conscious minds can verify.

[Loren Booda]

The choice whether anything exists is real.

[wuliheron]

I hate to quote the Matrix, but it pretty much sums up everything I've been trying to say.
"If this is "real", then "real" is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I don't want to start a flame war, I am just curious as to what others think.

I think its a meaningless question. Not just silly mind you, but truly meaningless gibberish along the lines of Louis Carroll's "The Jabberwocky" that merely sounds compelling. I hear these kinds of nonsense questions all the time from people who insist everything is made of "energy" even though energy is defined by mass. Once when asked such a nonsensical question Stephen Hawking responded, "North of north." In this case I'll respond, "Nonexistence exists!"

For only $39.95 I'll send you endless drivel just like this that explains life, the universe, and everything.

[Evo]

I think its a meaningless question. Not just silly mind you, but truly meaningless gibberish along the lines of Louis Carroll's "The Jabberwocky" that merely sounds compelling. I hear these kinds of nonsense questions all the time from people who insist everything is made of "energy" even though energy is defined by mass. Once when asked such a nonsensical question Stephen Hawking responded, "North of north." In this case I'll respond, "Nonexistence exists!"

For only $39.95 I'll send you endless drivel just like this that explains life, the universe, and everything.
wuli, you're my new hero.

Also, $39.95 is pretty cheap!

[DaveC426913]

I think its a meaningless question. Not just silly mind you, but truly meaningless gibberish $# along the lines of Louis Carroll's "The Jabberwocky" that merely sounds compelling. I hear these kinds of nonsense questions all the time from people who insist everything is made of "energy" even though energy is defined by mass. Once when asked such a nonsensical question Stephen Hawking responded, "North of north." In this case I'll respond, "Nonexistence exists!" Everything past the$# above is simply rhetoric; it embellishes how strongly you feel, but does not actually make a case for your opinion.

You have not said how you think it's meaningless gibberish. How is 'is anything real' not a valid question, worth some consideration by those inclined?

I'd like to hear you support that.

[samsracecar]

I think its a meaningless question. Not just silly mind you, but truly meaningless gibberish along the lines of Louis Carroll's "The Jabberwocky" that merely sounds compelling. I hear these kinds of nonsense questions all the time from people who insist everything is made of "energy" even though energy is defined by mass. Once when asked such a nonsensical question Stephen Hawking responded, "North of north." In this case I'll respond, "Nonexistence exists!"

For only $39.95 I'll send you endless drivel just like this that explains life, the universe, and everything.

Okay, even though that kinda sounds like flaming, I'll accept it as an idea. Philosophy is a whole bunch of these "nonsense, meaningless, 'north of north' gibberish questions." Get used to it. There's a reason why philosophy and science don't mix.

I already know what explains life, the Universe, and everything. The Answer? 42!

Now all you need is the question...

I'LL sell it to you for $9.95!

[Evo]

Everything past the ### above is simply rhetoric; it embellishes how strongly you feel, but does not actually make a case for your opinion.

You have not said how you think it's meaningless gibberish. How is 'is anything real' not a valid question, worth some consideration by those inclined?

I'd like to hear you support that.Seriously? We define what is "real" and our definition

Definition of REAL
1: of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)
2a : not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine <real gold>; also : being precisely what the name implies <a real professional> b (1) : occurring or existing in actuality

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/real

Anything else is not real e.g. imaginary.

Not hard actually. Real is what we define it to be.

[CJames]

Anyway... Does anything really exist?

Define your terms. What is "anything," and what does it mean to "exist?" It seems clear to me that something exists, otherwise I wouldn't be thinking anything, seeing anything, or typing anything right now.

Or is it all just electric impulses from our nerves that our brain deciphers into sound, taste, hearing, sight, and smell? Can everything be described as these impulses?

Electric impulses, nerves, and brains are all assumed to exist because they have been observed in reality. Stating that what we perceive doesn't exist negates the whole idea that electrical impulses in our brains exist.

And while I am here, is it possible to make a machine that can stimulate areas in our brain that receive the senses, and therefore create a virtual world that is indistinguishable from reality?

Theoretically. We can already induce flashes of light in the brain with magnetic fields. No reason to think that you couldn't send impulses into the brain to create a virtual world.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think this is the basis for some famous philosophy, but I'm not sure.

I thought of this on one of my sleepless nights, which are pretty often.

Anyway... Does anything really exist? Or is it all just electric impulses from our nerves that our brain deciphers into sound, taste, hearing, sight, and smell? Can everything be described as these impulses? And while I am here, is it possible to make a machine that can stimulate areas in our brain that receive the senses, and therefore create a virtual world that is indistinguishable from reality?

I hate to quote the Matrix, but it pretty much sums up everything I've been trying to say.
"If this is "real", then "real" is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

I don't want to start a flame war, I am just curious as to what others think.

The real question from The Matrix is the same one asked by Rene Descartes. It is not whether anything is real, rather, how do I know my thoughts [perceptions of apparent external stimuli] are my own and not imposed on my mind by an evil genius? Also, Descartes figured that one out in six meditations.

[samsracecar]

Cool. I knew that I had gotten it from somewhere.

@CJames-These are my definitions.

Anything-Any physical object that can be measured (i.e. weight, mass, height, width, ect.)

Exist-Any physical object that can be observed with the five human senses or aids (i.e. x-ray, ultrasonic imaging, ect.)

[ThomasT]

Cool. I knew that I had gotten it from somewhere.

@CJames-These are my definitions.

Anything-Any physical object that can be measured (i.e. weight, mass, height, width, ect.)

Exist-Any physical object that can be observed with the five human senses or aids (i.e. x-ray, ultrasonic imaging, ect.)It appears that you've answered your question.

[samsracecar]

It appears that I have. No more philosophy for me tonight, I'm too sleep-deprived and answering my own questions and overall being rather clueless. I'll try to rest, then come back.

[KingNothing]

Yes.

[CJames]

It appears that I have. No more philosophy for me tonight, I'm too sleep-deprived and answering my own questions and overall being rather clueless. I'll try to rest, then come back.

I think that you proved a pretty good point to yourself, however.

[tenchotomic]

If a thing is not real.............It must be complex :biggrin:

[wuliheron]

Everything past the ### above is simply rhetoric; it embellishes how strongly you feel, but does not actually make a case for your opinion.

You have not said how you think it's meaningless gibberish. How is 'is anything real' not a valid question, worth some consideration by those inclined?

I'd like to hear you support that.


Neither of you has defined what "real" or "existence" mean and the context of life, the universe, and everything is so broad and vague that it is impossible to even guess. Hence, I can't even tell if your question is rhetorical or not.

[wuliheron]

wuli, you're my new hero.

Also, $39.95 is pretty cheap!

You'd be surprised how many people will actually pay for such things. There's one guy I heard of who is an Atheist who makes money selling pet insurance in case the rapture occurs. For a few hundred bucks he'll take care of your pets if Jesus comes back and you go to heaven. He can literally laugh all the way to the bank in his customers faces and they'll keep right on paying for his "service".

[wuliheron]

Okay, even though that kinda sounds like flaming, I'll accept it as an idea. Philosophy is a whole bunch of these "nonsense, meaningless, 'north of north' gibberish questions." Get used to it. There's a reason why philosophy and science don't mix.

I already know what explains life, the Universe, and everything. The Answer? 42!

Now all you need is the question...

I'LL sell it to you for $9.95!

Philosophy isn't all meaningless gibberish and it isn't all incompatible with science. Sometimes you just have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[DaveC426913]

Neither of you has defined what "real" or "existence" mean...Uh, that is the question being asked. Defining them would be part of answering it.

Because a term is not well defined does not make the whole question gibberish. I think you are using a derisive attitude to hide a lack of defensibility of your case.

Hence, I can't even tell if your question is rhetorical or not.
It is not.

[Containment]

"Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?" Matrix Quote thread much?

Anyhow I think what we are "really" looking for here is what is the best definition of the word real. Once we have that and everyone can agree on it we might be closer to an actual agreed upon answer. The problem I think is that people get hung up on words they are simply just tools used to express. It is the expression or more so the thought being expressed from the person that maters not the words. This is one of the reason why machines are not good at understanding language because they do not "feel" the expression for them self so they can not understand it in that way.

[wuliheron]

Uh, that is the question being asked. Defining them would be part of answering it.

Because a term is not well defined does not make the whole question gibberish. I think you are using a derisive attitude to hide a lack of defensibility of your case.

It is not.


So according to your logic if I start spouting made up words in the form of a question it doesn't make the question gibberish. Please then, enlighten us all as to what does constitute gibberish. This is what dictionary.com has to say on the subject:

Gibberish
noun
1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.
2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.

[DaveC426913]

So according to your logic if I start spouting made up words in the form of a question it doesn't make the question gibberish. Please then, enlighten us all as to what does constitute gibberish. This is what dictionary.com has to say on the subject:

Gibberish
noun
1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.
2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.

This is still a relatively content-free (and argumentative) response. If you feel there's nothing that can be contributed, there's a much more efficient way of making that point: simply contribute nothing (no need to post to say you have nothing to say). Meanwhile, others can grapple with how we might define reality.

There is certainly some latitude about what it means to 'really exist', and I agree that it is a very difficult topic to ponder. But existence and reality are things we face every second, so asking about it cannot be gibberish.

The question at-hand is 'does anything really exist?'

Descartes certainly felt it was worth grappling with. He removed all things he could not be sure exist, all the way back to himself. He was left with the final question: do I exist?

His logic was, simplistically, as follows: I order to doubt whether I exist, there is something doing the doubting. It does not matter what form that thing takes or upon what scaffolding it is constructed (be it atoms, neuronal patterns or even bits), the fact is whatever that thing is that is doing the doubting is what I call 'me'.


The intent of his words might more accurately be paraphrased as 'I doubt, there I am'.

[wuliheron]

This is still a relatively content-free (and argumentative) response. If you feel there's nothing that can be contributed, there's a much more efficient way of making that point: simply contribute nothing (no need to post to say you have nothing to say). Meanwhile, others can grapple with how we might define reality.

There is certainly some latitude about what it means to 'really exist', and I agree that it is a very difficult topic to ponder. But existence and reality are things we face every second, so asking about it cannot be gibberish.

The question at-hand is 'does anything really exist?'

Descartes certainly felt it was worth grappling with. He removed all things he could not be sure exist, all the way back to himself. He was left with the final question: do I exist?

His logic was, simplistically, as follows: I order to doubt whether I exist, there is something doing the doubting. It does not matter what form that thing takes or upon what scaffolding it is constructed (be it atoms, neuronal patterns or even bits), the fact is whatever that thing is that is doing the doubting is what I call 'me'.


The intent of his words might more accurately be paraphrased as 'I doubt, there I am'.

My assertion is simply that the question is gibberish. Using a 500 year old philosophy in an appeal to authority doesn't exactly prove me wrong. However, if you prefer I'll dig up a few even older accounts from mysticism and religious dogma that suggest the opposite and we can argue about who's is bigger.

[DaveC426913]

My assertion is simply that the question is gibberish. Using a 500 year old philosophy in an appeal to authority doesn't exactly prove me wrong.
There is nothing to prove wrong here. You've merely expressed an opinion with no defense.

Opinion: "I believe this. I give no defense, and thus expect no one else to believe it."
Response: "How nice for you."

I really was interested in how it was that you saw no value in the question, because it would help define where the question was lacking, but your responses simply reiterate the same content-free - and increasingly sarcastic - assertion. Without elaboration, I'm afraid your assertion is a dead-end, and it's now distracting from the discussion.

[phoenixthoth]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?

[Jimmy Snyder]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?
I doubt it. Every geometry book I ever had said "Suppose ABC is a triangle." Would they say that if it really was one?

[Ryan_m_b]

What about triangles (by which I mean the mathematically ideal triangle)? Do they exist?

Yes, as thoughts in the minds of those who imagine them. When it comes to abstracts, especially those of a mathematical nature, whilst 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is not an intrinsic property of 2 apples the pattern exists in the mind of the observer.

[Char. Limit]

I just drew a triangle. It's very nice, has three sides and all. I think it's scalene. But it definitely exists.

Now the ideal circle, I don't believe that exists in real life. I do believe simple ideal polygons (like the triangle and the quadrangle) exist.

[Jimmy Snyder]

This discussion is going on too long. I hope you people figure out whether I exist or not before Congress decides whether the US economy exists or not.

[Willowz]

" Reality is the existence and non-existence of states of affairs. "

Pretty much sums it up, ehh?

[Willowz]

If no definition can satisfy your interest in 'existence' or 'reality'. Then, you can start humming or shouting or crying and so on.

[wuliheron]

There is nothing to prove wrong here. You've merely expressed an opinion with no defense.

Opinion: "I believe this. I give no defense, and thus expect no one else to believe it."
Response: "How nice for you."

I really was interested in how it was that you saw no value in the question, because it would help define where the question was lacking, but your responses simply reiterate the same content-free - and increasingly sarcastic - assertion. Without elaboration, I'm afraid your assertion is a dead-end, and it's now distracting from the discussion.


My defense is simple, there is no definition provided for the terms and it is therefore gibberish. What part of "no definition provided" and "gibberish" do you still have trouble grasping?

[DaveC426913]

Plato too had something to say on the subject in his Cave allegory. What you perceive is your reality. It is real, again, regardless of what scaffolding it might be built on.

The question then becomes one of 'is there an objective reality?'

[wuliheron]

Plato too had something to say on the subject in his Cave allegory. What you perceive is your reality. It is real, again, regardless of what scaffolding it might be built on.

The question then becomes one of 'is there an objective reality?'


You expect people to determine whether reality is objective or not without so much as definition of the word much less a clear context? On the basis of a philosopher who insisted democracy was the worst form of government possible, burned books, and promoted mysticism?

[disregardthat]

Reality does not depend on the definition of reality, nor does existence depend on the definition of existence. Reality and existence are words which are implemented in our language. Definitions come afterwards, and their sole purpose is to explain and analyze the actual usage of the word. Asking "does anything really exist?", is asking "are we wrong every time we say that something exists?".

When do we use the word exists? How can it be wrong every time? That, my friend, does not make sense. I can be wrong about asserting that any particular thing exists, but if everyone was wrong every time, the word has no meaning, and would be of no use. Existence is not a property of a physical object, it is a word used in particular settings. It is given meaning by its usage, and only by knowing how to use it correctly we know how to make sense of "A exists", or "B does not exist".

Asserting that what you perceive is your reality is not correct. One can easily imagine a person hallucinating, and the person saying to himself "this is not right, these things does not exists". Is he wrong? Of course not, reality is not as simple as 'that which is perceived'. He knows how to use the word "exists", when it applies, and when it is applied correctly. Of course, this all depends on the collective usage of the word "exists", which also determines its correct usage.

[CJames]

I just drew a triangle. It's very nice, has three sides and all. I think it's scalene. But it definitely exists.

Now the ideal circle, I don't believe that exists in real life. I do believe simple ideal polygons (like the triangle and the quadrangle) exist.

Why is that? Do you believe in perfectly straight lines? Do you believe in lines that are infinitely thin? I don't, therefore I don't believe triangles really exist, although they help me understand reality.

[DaveC426913]

Why is that? Do you believe in perfectly straight lines? Do you believe in lines that are infinitely thin? I don't, therefore I don't believe triangles really exist, although they help me understand reality.
Triangles do not have to have perfectly straight or infinitely thin lines.

This brick I am holding is not perfectly rectangular, does that mean it does not exist?

[DaveC426913]

I'll respond to the parts of your posts that are attempts to have a dialogue. I think that's fair.
You expect people to determine whether reality is objective or not without so much as definition of the word...
No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.

[wuliheron]

I'll respond to the parts of your posts that are attempts to have a dialogue. I think that's fair.

No, but I expect it is possible to have a discussion about it, a part of which would involve attempting to define it.

Again, I hear no one attempting to define the word. Here is the Stanford philosophy website link on the subject explaining just how difficult it is to define:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

If you cannot provide a definition, nobody here is willing to provide a definition, and even the philosophers you have cited failed to agree on a definition then I seriously doubt it will ever lead anywhere.

[DaveC426913]

Again, I hear no one attempting to define the word.

Then go back and read some of the posts where people are attempting to define it.

I grant that attempting to define it is a long way from actually defining it such that everyone agrees, but that's what discussion is about.

If you cannot provide a definition, nobody here is willing to provide a definition, and even the philosophers you have cited failed to agree on a definition then I seriously doubt it will ever lead anywhere.How does that follow? If we don't know X now, then we will never know X, and there's no point in studying it?

[Evo]

Then go back and read some of the posts where people are attempting to define it.

I grant that attempting to define it is a long way from actually defining it such that everyone agrees, but that's what discussion is about.I'm lost, what have you defined?

We need to all agree on one single definition of what *real* is. I thought I furnished the accepted definition a long time ago. I have no idea what is being discussed at this time.

This thread is about to become non-existant.

[DaveC426913]

I'm lost, what have you defined?

...attempting to define...

One working definition is that reality is what you perceive with your senses (as opposed to what you interpret with your mind). It is definitely flawed, but it's a talking point.

[Evo]

...attempting to define...

One working definition is that reality is what you perceive with your senses (as opposed to what you interpret with your mind). It is definitely flawed, but it's a talking point.
And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?

[DaveC426913]

And are you agreeing that things that are *real* per the definition exist, or the counterpoint that nothing exists?

At the moment, I'm simply refuting the claim that no one is attempting to work on a definition. wuliheron seems to be basing his arguments on that falsehood and on argument fallacies, such as: since philosophers haven't agreed on it, it can't be done.


It is a shame that I have been unable to prevent this discussion from devolving into argument and derisive sarcasm. That's a terrible way for a thread to go but it's probably a fatal wound by now. Perhaps it should be closed. Pity.

[Evo]

At the moment, I'm simply refuting the claim that no one is attempting to work on a definition. wuliheron seems to be basing his arguments on that falsehood and on argument fallacies, such as: since philosophers haven't agreed on it, it can't be done.


It is a shame that I have been unable to prevent this discussion from devolving into argument and derisive sarcasm. While it may have led somewhere, it's been soiled badly. Perhaps it should be closed.I just don't see a discussion of real vs not real here. Not that there would be any value in such a discussion, it's nothing more than spewing personal opinions. And if you think you're not real, then what is there to argue about? You're not real, right?

I think we can safely assume per the definition of real that we are real by our own definition.

This thread has gone nowhere, so I am closing it.

I take full responsibility for letting this go on for so long.