Are we truly existing or just a projection of our surroundings?

[TR345]

Do we really exist? Or, are we just an image which is projected into that which does exist. In a body of water, there are waves. Are these waves existent in themselves, or are they merely a discription of the waters movement. In space time, is all that is perceived to be, actually that which is of no absolute existence in this sence, and that which exists absolutely is not percievable as we are and our world are made up of that which is not absolutely existent.

 

[TR345]

By absolutely existent, I meen to exist without a reletive perspective. For example we exists a a person and beneath that we exist as a collection of organisms and those organism's a collection of cells and those cells a collection of molocules and thos molocules a collection of atoms, and those atoms? We are an image painted with atoms. We ourselves are not existen in the same way as the existence of an atom. Without the atoms we would not exists.

Do all things then eventually exist as an image of that which is absolutely fundimental.

It is important that you don't mix up by my multiple uses of the word existence. I am not trying to find the meaning of the word existence. I am trying to use words to express thoughts and words require context.

With that said I don't meen to say that we don't exist, just that our existence is reletive and not existing singularly. So by absolute I mean existing alone as itself and itself only.

 

[Werg22]

There's a flaw in your logic. Existence is not an absolute principle; we, with our perception of the world, define existence.

 

[TR345]

There are different ways of defining existence, and that is one of my points. I meen absolute existence as in what exists indefinately.

I think maybe we exist, but only in time where as all time exists in space. We only exist for a period of time before we are no longer we. What was we still exists, but we as people are gone.

 

[wuliheron]

"Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, or am I really a butterfly dreaming I am a man?"
Chuang Tzu

Like any other metaphysical or ontological statement it may be that we can never answer your question with certainty. However, your response touches on whether holistic or reductionist views are more useful. Reductionist approaches are what I call Brute Force. They provide quick and useful results. Nonetheless, by definition holistic approaches such as relativism describe more than reductionist approaches can.

 

[Quasarus]

The existence seems for me to be two-folded: as subject and as object.
As subject a human can perceive the objective side of the reality (to the certain extent),
and also can perceive the subjective part, for example by talking to the other human.
The subject can also be not only perceiving, but acting (this is what it is doing now (with the help of the part (body) that can be purely objective(if this is possible))) upon other parts of the existence.

There are different ways of defining existence, and that is one of my points. I meen absolute existence as in what exists indefinately.

I think maybe we exist, but only in time where as all time exists in space. We only exist for a period of time before we are no longer we. What was we still exists, but we as people are gone.

The latter depends on whether the subjective part of us is built of atoms and molecules.

If yes then it's functions as subject should be dependent on the integrity of the body.
But then the problem arises: why me as subject built of atoms can perceive only what only one human can perceive, but not what several people can?

If not, then if we assume the existence of the soul, attached to the brain, then it is quite difficult to imagine 'how it is possible', and it seems to contradict with the split-brain experiments.

But I am not sure whether in some part of me don't live some other subjects, which would act on another level of consciousness, for example control so called unconscious part of me.