Can you prove you exist?

[nameless]

By thinking I have brought myself into existence.

"When the inner dialogue stops, the world disappears"
Don Juan (Carlos Casteneda)

Right on the money! Yes, yes, yes!

And Rade, I understand science well, though I did mis-speak when I used the word 'prove'. Please feel free to substitute the word 'evidence' where I said 'prove'. That is what I meant.

The uranium isotope was not formed by any "consciousness"

It would appear that there is a large segment of quantum physicists who would disagree with you. But, hey, they are entitled to their 'beliefs' also, eh? You are so quick to dismiss that which you do not understand in favor of the comfortable 'known'... but, hey, you are entitled to YOUR 'beliefs' also!

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify, but I don't think that I can hold a fruitful discussion with a fundamnentalist of any sort, and so also with a 'Randian' fundamnentalist.. (Randianity? No problem, Randianity is as evidently based on 'reality' as is Xtianity. But, THAT is where 'beliefs' are emotionally held and defended.)
Happy trails.

 

[Rade]

It would appear that there is a large segment of quantum physicists who would disagree with you.

Could you please provide a peer reviewed paper where it was concluded that the theory of quantum mechanics predicts that "consciousness created the uranium isotopes that exist in the universe"--which if I understand you correctly, is the philosophy you hold to be true. And yes, I agree that many argue against Rand's philosophy, as shown in the following links from this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand
Articles critical of Ayn Rand
The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard Written in 1972, this was the first piece of Rand revisionism from the libertarian standpoint.
The Unlikeliest Cult in History by Michael Shermer
"Extensive list of critical essays that Objectivists must answer"
[11] "The works of numerous philosophers that are critical of Rand's Objectivism are included at this internal link #11"

 

[Rade]

"When the inner dialogue stops, the world disappears"Don Juan (Carlos Casteneda)

No, when "your" inner dialog stops, "your" world disappears, but the "world" does not disappear. Thus, when existence disappears, then the inner dialog will stop, and not a moment in time before.

 

[nameless]

Rade, unless you can show any evidence at all that there actually IS a 'the world' beyond the your own subjective world within your own mind, why don't you 'save it for church'! Is it your religion? Where your personal 'belief' is sufficient 'evidence' to maintain that 'belief'? You jump up and gainsay without ever offering a shred of evidence (of course not as you cannot!) in support of your 'belief system', yet make demands of me for my hypothesis.

As a short aside, if you have actually read and understand all the valid refutations of Rand's work, why is her name constantly smeared across your posts? Why are you still her disciple?

What makes you think that I would go through the trouble of searching and providing references (that I have had to uncover for myself over the decades) for what I offer, when you seem incapable of transcending your own perspective, which has probably remained the same for quite a while, long enough to even attempt to understand another? I don't think so. I have nothing to prove. I did the work. Do your own.

Ever synthesize the data and form your own hypotheses? Show me an example? Anything will do..You believe what you like!

Let us not go around this bend again, ok?

Have a nice night.

 

[octelcogopod]

Like loseyourname said, there's no difference between a world where solipsism is true, and one where it isn't.
The truth is, yes, we only see the world that our minds allow us to see, but that doesn't mean we can't reach other areas with science. Phenomenology goes even further and says that the tools we use, the technology, technically the whole world, is only perceived by the mind, adn therefore there may be other parts of time space that we do not see, and also even other dimensions and such.

While I agree that the world we see is just a conceptualization in the mind, this does not mean the external world doesn't exist, it merely means that we are limited to seeing only what our minds allow us to see.
Jumping to the conclusion that the world does not exist, is a silly one, because the burden of proof will be on your hands, nameless, when you make such a claim.

Furthermore, we do have this external world, or at least some illusion of it, and therefore maybe some day we will explore science fully, and science will be able to explain a subjective state.
Then again maybe it never will, but who knows?

 

[Rade]

Rade, unless you can show any evidence at all that there actually IS a 'the world' beyond the your own subjective world within your own mind...

Thank you Nameless for no longer using the word "prove" in your arguments, your new use of the concept "evidence" to replace "proof" is refreshing. Thus, as you must know, the "evidence" of the realist philosophy has a long history, just as your idealist (e.g., phenomenalist) view of reality. Recall, I referred you to the 1986 book by philosopher David Kelly, titled: The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception. The "evidence" you seek that there really is a world out there is provided therein--but something tells me you will not take the time to investigate and understand the logical argument provided. You can consider this my null hypothesis that you request, I look forward to your falsification.
And, you keep bringing up Rand. Yes, I use many of her logical arguments, as do many philosophers. And yes, I find I disagree with her thinking and logic in other areas. Take for example her attempt to logically validate her incessive smoking, her volitional pollution of her body--not very logical to me for someone that taught that "reason is mans only absolute". And, on the topic of this thread..."can you prove that you exist", Rand would say absolutely not, I disagree--thus-- surprise your philosophy is closer to Rand's than mine.

 

[ashmanovski]

Emily & Joe

The question of reality, existence and philosophy in general is (as most of us would agree on, I assume) based on human brain activity. We think with our brains, we process EVERY INPUT of information from this "existence" or "reality" or whatever you want to call it with our brains and generate thoughts and answers with our brains.

I think the view on reality and existence will be dramatically changed in the future if we imagine this fiction:

Let's say in the year 3048 (if the human race is still alive), technology and science has advanced so much that we have a 100% understanding of the human brain, and we have mapped every neuron. We have the technology to manipulate all the neurons in the brain in any way we like.


Continue to "EMILY & JOE" if you are lazy


PARENTESIS Some of you might already be thinking: "OK this guy is stupid. Of course we won't understand the brain for 100%, that is just impossible, etc."
I don't think that is impossible at all, because the brain is right there, it's right in front of us, fully visible and reachable. We have the technology to measure what is going on in the nature of the brain (its electric activity and a great amount of its molecular chemistry), so figuring out the rest of it's molecular chemistry is just a matter of time (not a matter of single years, but 100-1000 years maybe).
The other problem which we face with the understanding of the brain is its complexity of neuron-networks. The brain has millions and millions of neurons (brain-cells) and each neuron can have up to 200 000 connections with its surrounding neurons. So the amount of possible connections between neurons exceed 500-digit figures.
END OF PARENTESIS



EMILY & JOE
Now, we put a human being (just for the sake of ease, called Joe) in a "brain-machine", from which we can create any stimulation we want on Joe's neurons. In other words, we can simulate ANY event to Joe. The person behind the machine (let's call her Emily) can CREATE a ”false” reality for Joe.
Now imagine the following scenario:
Joe doesn't know who Emily is, and Emily is the inventor of this machine and the only one in the world who knows about it yet, as it is a brand new invention. Emily has also been spying on Joe for a year, gathering all information she could get from who Joe is.

Emily is now going to do an experiment:
She follows Joe for a day, and when Joe is at Burger King (while in the bathroom), she pours a poison (which makes the victim to feel very sleepy 3 hours after drinking the poison, and urging for sleep, and while sleeping fall into a 10 hour coma) into Joe's beverage. Joe drinks his beverage and feels extremeley sleep when at home a while later.
Of course, he takes a nap on the couch and falls in the short coma. Emily breaks into his apartment and takes Joe to her lab (Joe is still in a coma and doesn't know anything). In the lab, she puts Joe in her "brain-machine", while in intervals giving Joe injections which makes Joe unable to move or do anything, but his brain is fully awake. As Joe is connected to the "brain-machine", he is thus a SLAVE to what this machine simulates for his brain.


Now, she simulates the following scenario for Joe's brain:
Joe wakes up on his couch, and to his great surprise, three chimpanzees wearing black suits are sitting in his livingroom. Just before he's about to freak out, one of the monkeys says:
- Hey Joe, calm down. We aren't going to hurt you, we are from the CIA.
We are here to ask you a couple of questions regarding apples. We believe the average knowledge of apples among the US citizens can be linked to one's violent and terroristic behaviours. We have picked out random citizens and you have been one of the chosen ones. The survey will take around 9 hours as we will ask questions and ask you to perform small tests.
- But you are monkeys. How can you speak? Chimpanzees can not speak, and they can definitely not have been hired by the CIA! Joe bursts out.
- We are genetically modified chimps... We have the same behavioural abilities as you human beings, one of the other chimps replies.

So, Joe spends 9 hours with these three chimps. During the day, all the everyday things happen around Joe's house (besides the talking chimps of course), which confirms to Joe that what is going on is NOT a dream. His mind is perfectly clear, everything else seems normal, all his senses are working as usual. He's not feeling drugged etc etc.
When the chimps finally leave, Joe sits down and thinks about what has happened. Although freaked out, he just accepts the happenings of this very strange day. He did after all spend 9 hours with the chimps, and he pinched himself at least 100 times to assure it's not a dream. He did all the things he could think of which one do when proving to oneself that one is not having a dream. After a short while, he feels tired and goes to bed for the day, to wake up next morning.

But, everything that had been going on was just a simulation of Emily's brain-machine, as we (the readers of this post) know. Emily injects another "coma-substance" into Joe and takes him back to his apartment, putting him into his bed and makes sure all the things in his house looked just the way they did in the end of the brain-machine's simulation.
Joe wakes up the next day, although freaked out, thinking about the events of the previous day with a smile on his face. As time passes, he tells the story to people around him, and of course, nobody believes in Joe. But will anyone EVER be able to convince Joe that his story about the three talking chimps wasn’t REAL?
I’d say no.


THANK YOU, AND NOW MY THEORY
If you have read all the way to this point, I’d like to thank you for being patient albeit the extremely long post . What I tried to do here was to post my theory of reality/existence:


Reality is not universal, not absolute neither standing above anything else. The reality we sense, feel, perceive, is just a conclusion of all the experiences given to the brain. What seems to be so real, can be just as fake as in a computer stimulation just as in Emily’s ”brain-machine”. It’s not a matter of how ”real” something is. It’ just a matter of how convincing it is towards our brains. Existence in this very reality is just an illusion, as the brain’s function is to illustrate. Illustrate a picture based on photons and illustrate sounds based on pressure waves. We exist in the reality we find most convincing. The reality created by Emily’s machine to Joe, was just as convincing as the universe. For Joe, three chimps working for the CIA did indeed exist. Thus, for Joe, three chimps working for the CIA, doing apple-surveys, are just as real as EVERYTHING in this universe YOU find real.

As we all now... a discussion/debate is dead when people agree on the topic... So... bring it on everybody

 

[fargoth]

by writing this reply here, i can prove that either me, or the reader of this text exist

oh, and ashmanovski, why the double post on two different threads?
i replied to the post on the other one...

 

[ashmanovski]

Oh I wrote the reply in this thread first, to describe my view on reality/existence... but then I thought maybe such a long story can be discussed further in another thread without making this current thread too messy and off-topic

 

[HallsofIvy]

"I think therefore I am" is wrong, it should be… “I believe therefore I am”...

Actually, it's the exact opposite: "I doubt, therefore I am".

Descartes was asking "Is there anything which we can say absolutely is true?" What if, given, any statement about the universe, I just say "I doubt that"? What, without any prior belief- without any sensory input (which might be fallacious) can I not doubt? The only possible answer is that there is something doing the doubting! Since I am the one doing the doubting, the one thing I cannot doubt is that I exist. (The rest of you are on your own.)

 

[Serpo]

There's something doing the thinking and something doing the believing as well... what's the diference, it all resonates from the brain.. just a matter of opinion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I believe the solution to the koan is:
By thinking I have brought myself into existence.

"When the inner dialogue stops, the world disappears"
Don Juan (Carlos Casteneda)

No, when "your" inner dialog stops, "your" world disappears, but the "world" does not disappear. Thus, when existence disappears, then the inner dialog will stop, and not a moment in time before.

You guys are so far off the mark about Zen and Don Juan it's funny :tongue2:. You can't just twist around things to fit your personal philosophies.

Although JCWebb's final interpretation of Decartes is correct, 'cogito ergo sum' is not a koan; in fact, it is the opposite of a koan. It is the result of a logical process (decidedly anti-koan), a conclusion Decartes reached about what it is that one cannot doubt. After all, if one doubts thinking, there is still something left that is thinking doubt. For that reason Decartes decided he must possesses a fundamental trait whose nature it is to think.

Decartes must have been right about possessing something that thinks, but what justifies concluding the thinking thing is what gives consciousness existence? Decartes' reasoning is, as kant (PF's kant) pointed out earlier, a bit self referential. It's like radio that is always broadcasting a talk show concluding it exists because that talk show never stops. Is a radio more than what it broadcasts? Isn't it possible that the only reason the radio concludes what it does is because it cannot stop that damn talk show from broadcasting?

Now for koans. A koan is not meant to initiate a logical process, normally it's an intuitive device. Consider this koan by the famous master Joshu, "A monk asked, 'Not being taken in by various things -- what is it like?' Joshu answered, 'It is, of course, how it should be.' The monk asked, 'Such is my true essence, isn't it?' Joshu answered, 'Taken in, already taken in.'"

How was the monk taken in? Well, the answer to that clearly disputes Decartes conclusion. The monk follows Decartes path and "thinks" about his true essence, but Joshu reprimands him for trying to think it. Zen is a meditation discipline (at least it orignally was). In meditation the mind is stilled so that what awaits behind it can come to the forefront. THAT, according to the Buddha's teaching and the Zen teachers who followed his teaching (not all did), is one's true existence . . . not what one thinks.

Regarding Castaneda and Don Juan, anybody who's read Castaneda knows the above interpretation of Don Juan's statement is about as incorrect as one can get. The major purpose for Don Juan's statement wasn't to say that stopping inner dialogue will cease existence, but to say that it will result in discovering it. Thinking, according to Don Juan (like every true Zen master who has existed) is not what brings one into existence, it is what obscures our true nature (well, not actually thinking, but he inability to stop it, which most people can't). His teachings to Carlos were specifically to help him learn to stop the the incessant inner dialogue.

As someone who practices, I can tell you that when one is really able to quiet the mind, existence is intensely accentuated, and one can do little but surrender to the power of the moment. It's only those who've never experienced that inner silence who speculate one ceases to exist without thinking, or that thinking engenders existence.