What Can We Truly Know About Our Existence?

[robert]

Can any of you prove the existence of someone or something around you? Or better yet, your own existence? Because the only thing you can really know for certain is your own mind's existence, and even that, one can argue, doesn't exist.

 

[JamesU]

Can any of you prove the existence of someone or something around you?

short answer: no

 

[KaneOris]

Well, u know that you exist, because, a thought process is existence, and if we can think, with the definition of existence, you know that atleast you exist. But can we prove other things exist, that's another story. Even if they were apart of our mind that we made up, would they not exist there? Even if this never happened, or isn't in the real dimension, it still existed. I have no doubt i exist, and the world that my mind sees does.

 

[robert]

...a thought process is existence, and if we can think, with the definition of existence, you know that atleast you exist...

But how do you define what thought is? What I'm trying to say is how do you know your thoughts arnt a compilation of tiny particles all working together to create some bigger thought. Its hard to explain but it makes sense in my mind. At least what I think is my mind.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

But how do you define what thought is? What I'm trying to say is how do you know your thoughts arnt a compilation of tiny particles all working together to create some bigger thought.

That sounds cool; it makes sense that that's what thought is. Or maybe it's something else but cool definition.

I can only really prove I exist if you're convinced so it's technically up to you.

 

[robert]

I can only really prove I exist if you're convinced so it's technically up to you.

Good point. I have complete control over what exists and what doesn't exist. You officially don't exist. Just kidding. So I can basically think/convince anything out of existence. The only hard part would be convincing myself that things like gravity or other forces don't exist, or even better thinking myself out existence.

So how would one go about convincing someone that they exist, rather than proving that they exist?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

They're the same thing.

 

[robert]

ya I realized that shortly after I posted it.

 

[ur13]

Without getting into semantics I will say...

Matter exists.

Therefore everything you see exists. Your keyboard. Your watch. Your hand. YOU!

You "exist" because you typed this post on the keyboard in front with your fingers using your mind.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Matter exists

Does it? Are you absolutely sure? How would you convince somebody who insisted it didn't, or who said you didn't have sufficient reason to claim it did?

 

[ur13]

Does it? Are you absolutely sure? How would you convince somebody who insisted it didn't, or who said you didn't have sufficient reason to claim it did?

Not to be flip but how would you convince someone that matter doesn't actually exist?

You can reach out and touch your keyboard to type this. If you die tomorrow someone else can reach out and touch the same keyboard independent of you (to tie into the argument of reality exists only in your head). In 1000 years someone will be able to reach out and touch yourr keyboard (or whatever it was recucled into). 100,000 years the same thing. 1,000,000 years from now the matter that made your keyboard will still exist, in what form who knows but it will exist.

Another way to do it would be to say that when the big bang happened it produced "stuff" that fills this universe. The stuff exists independent of us (man). I'm calling that stuff "matter" (it might not be the best term).

Do either of those statements prove matter exists? I guess that depends on you tastes in philosophy.

 

[robert]

You can't say matter exists simply because it will be around in 1000 years because you won't be here to verify that. Also, how do you know your actually reaching out and touching anything. The keyboard could be an image created in your head, and the feeling of touching it could also be created in your head.

 

[Marostos]

Without getting into semantics I will say...

Matter exists.

Therefore everything you see exists. Your keyboard. Your watch. Your hand. YOU!

You "exist" because you typed this post on the keyboard in front with your fingers using your mind.

ur13: you have commited a logical fallacy. You are assuming as existent what you're trying to prove as existent. Besides, you forgot one premise: that everything is matter. So you proof proves nothing. Basically is the same as saying "apples exist because they exist".

 

[ur13]

You can't say matter exists simply because it will be around in 1000 years because you won't be here to verify that. Also, how do you know your actually reaching out and touching anything. The keyboard could be an image created in your head, and the feeling of touching it could also be created in your head.

Well the Earth contains fossils that can be carbon-dated to well past 1000 years. We have texts that were written over 1000 years ago. Etc etc...I just picked a random number.

I know the keyboard exists because I am touching it. It isn't a construct of my mind. It is completely indepedent of me. Thus you or the next person could come here and type on it if I was gone. Do I know it will be here in 1000 years. No. However I know the matter it is made up will be here. Maybe my example wasn't the best but my point is that the universe exists independent of consciousness. How many millions of years has it existed before man or "life" for that matter?

How can I be so sure? I can observe reality and that things exist. Consciousness is man's ability to perceive what exists.

How about this. Imagine you are thirsty. Now if we went by your thinking you would wish a glass of water into existence in front of you. When was the last time you did that? Existence exists so you need to get up out of your chair, get a glass out of the cupboard and put it under the faucet and turn it on and fill it. Try as hard as you like to sit in your chair and wish it into existence it will never ever happen.

ur13: you have commited a logical fallacy. You are assuming as existent what you're trying to prove as existent. Besides, you forgot one premise: that everything is matter. So you proof proves nothing. Basically is the same as saying "apples exist because they exist".

"Apples do exist because they exist."

Existence is an absolute. Like I said existence is independent of our wishes and hopes. The apple will exist whether you want it to or not. Ok so you eat the apple. It no longer exists, right? True, but the matter that made the apple still does. Said matter will become part of you or you will get rid of it as waste. The apple might not exist anymore but it's matter does as does what an apple is (a fruit of a tree).

Again nothing you do with your mind can change that. You could go around the world and destroy all the apples, all the seeds and all the DNA (good luck) and the "apple" will no longer exist but all that matter will in one way or another.

Just as existence in independent of our wishes it is independent of the apple's wishes (do apple wish?)...

 

[Marostos]

I know the keyboard exists because I am touching it. It isn't a construct of my mind.

Sense aren't reliable when it comes to proving. "To prove" basically means "to demonstrate" without doubt, based on TRUE grounds. Sense-data is far from being "evident" or "true". See Descartes's First Meditation for a nice view on this matter.

How can I be so sure? I can observe reality and that things exist.

Why you keep assuming that the world we see is "a fact-based reality"? Most philosophy is based on being somewhat skeptical; critical. Why you think that the real world you see, smell and touch isn't the result of some hidden mental-activity (subconscious can work as an example)?

Apple do exist because they exist.

If you want to prove something about x, you can't assume it as true. That's not a proof. Just a reiteration. I'm going to formalize your argument:

- What we want to proof: That apples exist
- Premises (truths)
1. Apples exist
Therefore,
apples exist.

Is that really a proof? I don't think so. Think about it for one minute and realize the absurd "proof" you just made.

 

[ur13]

Why you keep assuming that the world we see is "a fact-based reality"? Most philosophy is based on being somewhat skeptical; critical. Why you think that the real world you see, smell and touch isn't the result of some hidden mental-activity (subconscious can work as an example)?

Ok prove to me that reality IS a result of some mental-activity.

The universe was here long before we were, long before life for that matter. How do we know? We can date organic matter.

Secondly, I'll repeat this. You are thirsty. You can wish or try to mentally create a glass of water all you want but it will never appear. You need to actually get up and get it yourself.

I am familier with Descrate's "Universal Doubt" idea. I suppose I see things differently.

 

[Marostos]

Ok prove to me that reality IS a result of some mental-activity.

So you're holding on to your so-called proof because you don't have any counter-proof that proves yours as wrong? That isn't very "philosophical" from you.

A: God exists
B Why?
A Then prove that he doesn't exists
-------------------------
A: God doesn't exists
B: How come?
A: Then prove he exists

That doesn't proves anything about God's existence, does it?

 

[Marostos]

.

Secondly, I'll repeat this. You are thirsty. You can wish or try to mentally create a glass of water all you want but it will never appear. You need to actually get up and get it yourself.

So what? If (let's suppose) the "reality" you see, smell and touch is the product of some "mental" faculty unknow to you, you can't tell what are the limits of that faculty, or even tell how does it operates. Again, your argument fails.

I am familier with Descrate's "Universal Doubt" idea.

I was also talking about the "evil genie" idea. Are you familiar with that one too? I guess not.

I suppose I see things differently.

The point is that you see things like common, average people does. That x exists because we can see, smell and touch x. There is no difference between your position and the "popular" position. Descartes (and John Locke too), on the other hand, did had a different position that you should learn about.

 

[robert]

Well the Earth contains fossils that can be carbon-dated to well past 1000 years. We have texts that were written over 1000 years ago. Etc etc...I just picked a random number.

I know the keyboard exists because I am touching it. It isn't a construct of my mind. It is completely indepedent of me. Thus you or the next person could come here and type on it if I was gone. Do I know it will be here in 1000 years. No. However I know the matter it is made up will be here. Maybe my example wasn't the best but my point is that the universe exists independent of consciousness. How many millions of years has it existed before man or "life" for that matter?

How can I be so sure? I can observe reality and that things exist. Consciousness is man's ability to perceive what exists.

How about this. Imagine you are thirsty. Now if we went by your thinking you would wish a glass of water into existence in front of you. When was the last time you did that? Existence exists so you need to get up out of your chair, get a glass out of the cupboard and put it under the faucet and turn it on and fill it. Try as hard as you like to sit in your chair and wish it into existence it will never ever happen.






"Apples do exist because they exist."

Existence is an absolute. Like I said existence is independent of our wishes and hopes. The apple will exist whether you want it to or not. Ok so you eat the apple. It no longer exists, right? True, but the matter that made the apple still does. Said matter will become part of you or you will get rid of it as waste. The apple might not exist anymore but it's matter does as does what an apple is (a fruit of a tree).

Again nothing you do with your mind can change that. You could go around the world and destroy all the apples, all the seeds and all the DNA (good luck) and the "apple" will no longer exist but all that matter will in one way or another.

Just as existence in independent of our wishes it is independent of the apple's wishes (do apple wish?)...

You can't prove that things have always excisted just because of carbon dating or texts. The texts and all the fossils with a certain carbon make up could have been created as soon as you were born to accommodate your entire life. Going along with what Marostos was saying, the reason we can't make glasses of water appear in front of us is because we can't and never will understand our sub-constious imagination, if there really is one, creating our reality. Just because you see something, or feel something, does not make it real.

 

[robert]

..."Apples do exist because they exist.".../QUOTE]

By your logic I can say: you don't exist because people don't exist. Could you imagine if that was the answer to everything. "Why is the sky blue?", "because", "Why is that when we jump we fall back down?", "because", "Why is that I'm alive?", "because", "Why is that when I carbon date something it tells me it is 1000 years old?" "because", "Why is that I can't make a glass of water apear in front of me?" "because". As you can see that type of reasoning is childish and doesn't prove anything.

 

[ur13]

So what? If (let's suppose) the "reality" you see, smell and touch is the product of some "mental" faculty unknow to you, you can't tell what are the limits of that faculty, or even tell how does it operates. Again, your argument fails.

But can you prove this mental faculty exists?

I was also talking about the "evil genie" idea. Are you familiar with that one too? I guess not.

I am, frankly I find Descrates a load of trash...that is my objective opinion. I shall take another look at his ideas this weekend...is there any specific text I should bring with me on my vacation?

The point is that you see things like common, average people does. That x exists because we can see, smell and touch x. There is no difference between your position and the "popular" position. Descartes (and John Locke too), on the other hand, did had a different position that you should learn about.

Yes X does exist because man can see, smell and touch it. We have nothing but our own logic and reason to guide us. Ever hear of Aristotle?

You can't prove that things have always excisted just because of carbon dating or texts. The texts and all the fossils with a certain carbon make up could have been created as soon as you were born to accommodate your entire life. Going along with what Marostos was saying, the reason we can't make glasses of water appear in front of us is because we can't and never will understand our sub-constious imagination, if there really is one, creating our reality. Just because you see something, or feel something, does not make it real.

This isn't philisophical, it is a conspiracy theory...

 

[ur13]

..."Apples do exist because they exist.".../QUOTE]

By your logic I can say: you don't exist because people don't exist. Could you imagine if that was the answer to everything. "Why is the sky blue?", "because", "Why is that when we jump we fall back down?", "because", "Why is that I'm alive?", "because", "Why is that when I carbon date something it tells me it is 1000 years old?" "because", "Why is that I can't make a glass of water apear in front of me?" "because". As you can see that type of reasoning is childish and doesn't prove anything.

People don't exist? Then what are we?

The rest of your points are correct, well the beginning of them..the because part. Example: "Why is it that when we jump we fall back down?"...because gravity exists. Gravity is due to...(go one and explain it yourself, you know where this is going."

Saying and Apple exists because it exists is not an end to itself.
But it is true statement.

 

[robert]

People don't exist? Then what are we?

The rest of your points are correct, well the beginning of them..the because part. Example: "Why is it that when we jump we fall back down?"...because gravity exists. Gravity is due to...(go one and explain it yourself, you know where this is going."

Saying and Apple exists because it exists is not an end to itself.
But it is true statement.

I wasn't saying people don't exist. I was making a point. I know we fall back down because of gravity. Again, I was making a point. You can't say that apple exists just because it exists because you can't justify a statement by saying "just because it does". That is the point I was trying to get across to you.

But can you prove this mental faculty exists?

No I can't. What I'm saying is that it is a possibility. You can't rule it out just because you say so. Just like I'm not ruling out the possibility that matter does exist. I am going to use your logic again: This mental faculty exists just because it exists. As you can see by me saying "because it exists" does not make it true.

 

[neurocomp2003]

it all comes down to that Matrix philosophy...how do you tell whether your in reality defined by the physics you discover or in a simulation...better yet does it really matter...as long as you have thought, that thought must exist in one form or the other. In some substance defined by motion and analyzed by sensation(sensory systems)

 

[robert]

...as long as you have thought, that thought must exist in one form or the other.

Yes, but what I was trying to argue is how do we know we actually have thought?

 

[Marostos]

But can you prove this mental faculty exists?

The point isn't about proving it or not. The point is being skeptical about your so-called "reality". Why can't you just be a little open minded?

I am, frankly I find Descrates a load of trash...that is my objective opinion. I shall take another look at his ideas this weekend...is there any specific text I should bring with me on my vacation?

First: It's DESCARTES
Second: that "load of trash" is the basis of modern philosophy (which is trash too to you, right?)
Third: An opinion is, by definition, subjective.
Last but not least: Descartes "Meditations"

Yes X does exist because man can see, smell and touch it. We have nothing but our own logic and reason to guide us. Ever hear of Aristotle?

What makes you think, other than some infunded trust on your senses, that there are "men" at all? You're basing all your point in arguments like "of course they exist. otherwise, why would I see them everyday?". Be somewhat philosophical for a moment. Leave obviouness behind. Can you do that? If not, then you may be a great physicist, but a very lousy philosopher. Ever heard of Nietzsche?

 

[neurocomp2003]

Robert: guess you'd have to define your version of thought for me

with my definition if you can say the word I or think the concept of self or even teh concept of 1...i'd have say you'd have thought.

 

[robert]

i mentioned it earlier.

But how do you define what thought is? What I'm trying to say is how do you know your thoughts arnt a compilation of tiny particles all working together to create some bigger thought. Its hard to explain but it makes sense in my mind. At least what I think is my mind.

To think is defined as follows:
1. To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.
2. To weigh or consider an idea: They are thinking about moving.
3. To bring a thought to mind by imagination or invention: No one before had 4. thought of bifocal glasses.
5. To recall a thought or an image to mind: She thought of her childhood when she saw the movie.
6. To believe; suppose: He thinks of himself as a wit. It's later than you think.
7. To have care or consideration: Think first of the ones you love.

So if have no control over our minds and their just some sort of outcome of particles interacting throughout the universe, or we are all programmed to think a certain way, are we really thinking? I think not. Because we arn't the ones doing the reasoning, considering, and imagining.

 

[Marostos]

Yes, but what I was trying to argue is how do we know we actually have thought?

First of all, it all depends on the definition of "thought". After that, it is very probable that you will end in Descartes's "cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am).

So if have no control over our minds and their just some sort of outcome of particles interacting throughout the universe, or we are all programmed to think a certain way, are we really thinking? I think not. Because we arn't the ones doing the reasoning, considering, and imagining.

If we have no control over our minds, there would be no "we" at all, right? Since we commonly identify "our essence" with our "soul" or "mind". However, that could be a valid consequence of the doubt you pointed at. After all, "thought" may end up being some neural interaction and period. But if such thing happened, then the definition of thought would have to change, and we wouldn't have to worry about any identity issue (wether I do the thinking or not), since it would be nothing else that sticking to the old definition when we have already a new one.

 

[neurocomp2003]

heh I'm confused...
"but what I was trying to argue is how do we know we actually have thought?"
[1]and in a previous post you said what if conscious thought is a byproduct of particle motion...[2]but in another previous post you talk about the existence of matter...[3]and in another you talk about the existence of self...
SO I'm not sure what your trying to argue...

I think your thought process comes down to the big debate of FREE WILL.

for [1] I don't know where I stand in teh argument...i've always thought about this questiona about byproduct...but people I've argued with always bring in the idea of free will. However in my pursuit of creation/evolutionary modelling I can't help think that perhaps our consciousnesss is a byproduct of atomic interaction but we do exist as single entities...I DOUBT we could ever prove either, whether we can control our movements and thoughts or if its a byproduct of our sensorimotor system.

for[2] and [3]its a Matrix question...so until we can create our own little software universe with cognitive agents we won't know the answer or how to approach it.

again i highly think your arguing about free will IMO.

 

[robert]

the reason i was arguing the existence of matter was to get ur13 to think differently about existence. I originally asked if you could prove you exist and then the whole issue of "i think therefore I am" came up, so I was arguing that maybe there is no thought and that its just the compilation of particles creating some sort of thought. The main thing I'm asking is whether or not we exist, but that always leads to thought so I brought the question of what is thought. Sorry for any confusion, I hope this makes sense. So prove you exist, and if you use thought as an argument, prove you have thought.

 

[neurocomp2003]

well to prove existence one does not need to use thought but if you could
[1] have thought of self or being a single entity then you are done...
so to define thought regardless of if it is byproduct or not OR whether you exist in our PHYSICS world or MATRIX world...I'd say fif you can create the feeling of "I" then you have thought...

[2] thus comes the definition of feeling or sensation...or ability to see or feel ones self move...ah its great to watch little kids first learning the function of a mirror...my niece took 2 tries to understand it but it was cute as she tried to touch teh image.

so how would you define feeling or sensation. I don't know i guess it woudl be the ability to react under contact. this may be also be leading to the definition of instinct...

...i'll think more on my definitions but how would you define those 3 terms.

 

[KaneOris]

But how do you define what thought is? What I'm trying to say is how do you know your thoughts arnt a compilation of tiny particles all working together to create some bigger thought. Its hard to explain but it makes sense in my mind. At least what I think is my mind.

How do you define what anything is. Anyway point being, even if my thoughts are tiny particles working together to create something, which is what a thought is, the particles have to exist somewhere to create the thought, so therefore if the thought exist, then you do. Consciousness is happening now, so something must exist.
I think the question of whether or not we really exist isn't a great one. Even if the world and universe we live in, doesn't exist. Something must, or else we wouldn't have any thoughts or have our own made up world or whatever. Its pretty obvious, that something exists. And no one ask me to prove it. Because i can only prove to myself that i exist using logic. You can do it for youself too. Whether anything else does, well yes i guess it does. My mind exist, and in that mind exists other things. Whether the world around me is apart of my mind or not is a different thing.

 

[Yank]

Robert: what's your exact definition of existence?

 

[KaneOris]

www.dictionary.com