Is Thinking Essential for Existence?

[Nomy-the wanderer]

I've heard the phrase "I think therefore I am" as a proof of existence, but I do not find that very sound (and i think i heard that Descartes didn't exactly say that phrase).
I believe that because we have the ability to think, either by free will or not, then we have to exist. Even if we are in a "Matrix" setting or if we are all a figment of someone else's imgination. We exist in some form, maybe just not in the reality we perceive.
Jameson

The reality is what we can concieve of, if we can concieve of our existence and others around us, and this is what we perceive as reality...Which doesn't have to be similar to others realities..

The key is that we all seem to be having common images of reality, except for a few that we may call diseased sometimes...

I guess proving my existence isn't about philosophy it's more of a litteral question, if i said i am then i do exist...The question could be more about the existence of the other compositions of the reality i can perceive...

 

[Rade]

did you not exist before your existial moment. I'm sure other people that known of their existence would have known of your existence before you did. thus you did existe without knowing in your own mind.

Yes, I agree, for only something that exists can have an existential moment. My point is that I "really" did not know the fact of my existence (or even think about the possibility) with 100 % certainty until the time of my existential moment. Even today, it is the only fact of reality that I hold with 100 % certainty...e.g., my existence. For example, I have no way to know for sure if you or anyone else exists, perhaps 99.99 % sure, but not 100 % sure (let us hope my wife is not reading this ), but I am trying to deal with the philosophy of the question asked. Recall that the name of this thread is " CAN YOU PROVE YOU EXIST " ? I hold that the answer is yes for anyone that has experienced their existential moment...this is my hypothesis open to falsification. Outside this hypothesis, I hold that it is not possible to "prove" you exist, in specific I reject the Cognito argument of Descarte, which many hold is a logical prove of their existence (see my previous post).

 

[nameless]

CAN YOU PROVE YOU EXIST " ? I hold that the answer is yes for anyone that has experienced their existential moment...this is my hypothesis open to falsification.

I'm not sure how someone's personal, subjective experience can be 'falsified'. I posit it cannot. It is 'truth' for them. As your experience is 'truth' for you. One cannot 'prove' one's 'independent' existence. One can only 'believe', have 'faith'...
'Flatus ergo sum' is just as intellectually ridiculous (or valid) as cogito... 'Cogito ergo cogito' (or Sum ergo sum?) is really all that can be truly said on the subject, and even then there can be 'qualifications'. Funny how we accept 'bumpersticker wisdom' without much thought as long as it has 'been around awhile'. *__-

 

[Rade]

I'm not sure how someone's personal, subjective experience can be 'falsified'. I posit it cannot...

You make a good point since introspection (e.g., as defined from link below: Introspection is the direct observation or rumination of one's own heart, mind and/or soul and its processes, as opposed to extrospection, the observation of things external to one's self.) is held to be outside the scientific method, as I read from this link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection. However, I also read that some scientists do conduct research on introspective psychology:
Cognitive psychology accepts the use of the scientific method, but rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation. It should be noted that Herbert Simon and Allen Newell identified the 'thinking-aloud' protocol, in which investigators view a subject engaged in introspection, and who speaks his thoughts aloud, thus allowing study of his introspection.

One cannot 'prove' one's 'independent' existence. One can only 'believe', have 'faith'...

Of course, this is the topic of this thread, and this then is your hypothesis, and you may very well be correct. But, I would like to hear your logical argument as to why YOU cannot prove that YOU exist, not just your statement that it is not possible. Clearly, Descarte provided a logical argument that he could prove he did exist, which I post below from Wikipedia, since there is much confusion (even my own) on what he did and did not say as evidenced from many posts on this thread:
The phrase "cogito ergo sum" is not used in Descartes' most important work, the Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to it. Descartes' felt that this earlier phrase, which he had used in the Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he changed it to "I am, I exist" (also often called "the first certainty" in order to avoid the term "cogito").
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt – his argument from the existence of a deceiving god – Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any has survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it: it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?
"But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)
There are two important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Secondly, he is not saying that his existence is necessary; he is saying that if he's thinking, then he necessarily exists (see the instantiation principle).
It should also be noted that Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs.

 

[nameless]

Cognitive psychology accepts the use of the scientific method, but rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation.

Perhaps the new 'science' of 'cognitive psychology' rejects introspection as a valid methof of investigation, but the 'enlightened' sages throughout the millennia know differently.

..extrospection, the observation of things external to one's self.

Impossible. What you 'observe' is still within 'mind'. It is not at the moment possible to ever know whether there exists anything beyond 'self', beyond 'mind'.

Of course, this is the topic of this thread, and this then is your hypothesis, and you may very well be correct. But, I would like to hear your logical argument as to why YOU cannot prove that YOU exist, not just your statement that it is not possible.

Please see my reply to your same question, Rade, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=823609#post823609"

Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any has survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it: it is impossible to doubt that he exists.

What religious claptrap! "I 'BELIEVE' in <fill in the blank> and therefor it is impossible to doubt <fill in the blank>"... What kind of scientist/philosopher finds anything 'impossible to doubt'?? Balderdash!

I think that Descartes was 'handicapped' by the lack of real science and personal understanding in what is meant by 'existence'. If all dreams, all fantasies, concepts, constructs, imaginations 'exist', and are granted Reality by that 'existence', then yes.. everything imaginable 'exists'. This is, by the definitions that I understand, ridiculous. Simply put something under the 'microscope of modern science', something Descartes had no access to, all the 'hard matter' dissolves into nothing. No structure, no reality. Nothing. He was obviously unable to see to such a depth.
Buddha could.

There are two important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point.

He claims a 'religious-like' certainty, entirely subjective, and lacking in real evidence. He has proved nothing.

This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the (OUR) meditations.

Ideally, yes!

Secondly, he is not saying that his existence is necessary; he is saying that if he's thinking, then he necessarily exists

Again, the 'definition' of 'existence' as HE uses it might be helpful. With my definition, his conclusion is non-sequitur.
If the person 'existing' within my dream at night 'thinks', therefore, does he 'exist'?
There's that definition problem again.

It should also be noted that Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to restore his beliefs.

This sounds too 'religious' to deserve reference in a serious conversation.
A person is entitled to believe whatever he wishes, but that belief aught not be subject to scientific scrutiny. It is not appropriate. Just look at the religious threads here; name calling, derision, rejection, mean laughter, dismissal... is what happens WHENEVER 'belief', of anything, is subject to the 'light' of 'critical reason'.
A 'theist' grasps at anything to validate his 'beliefs. A scientist sees what he sees and tries to explain and understans, at least until further evidence might alter that 'vision'/hypothesis.
Descartes sounds a bit 'desperate'.

So, please, your personal understandings and thoughts have more 'weight' here with me than Descartes. You can elucidate so I can understand your meanings, he cannot, and from what I know, his 'understanding' is inferior and not of importance to me.
Sorry if he is some sort of 'sacred cow', but they DO make the best burgers! *__-

 

[-Job-]

I think it's likely that I'm unconscious every "very often" for a very short period of time, say every pico or femto-second. The physical process responsible for consciousness (whichever that is) must come from the interaction of matter, and that can't be continuous. I could come up with a proof as to why i exist, but in the process of writing that proof i would have been unconscious a very large number of times so i wouldn't take it seriously.

 

[octelcogopod]

I would think that just being able to say out loud(or think) the sentence "I exist" is proof enough.

 

[-Job-]

Except of course when you happen to have some headphones on blasting out some tune, or you have an earworm and can't stop thinking about a song.

 

[octelcogopod]

Except of course when you happen to have some headphones on blasting out some tune.

Haha.. That's analogous to the old saying "if a tree falls in the forest but noones around.." type thing.

But truth is, I think it's a silly question to begin with.. Just take a look around, listen to your own thoughts, and you will realize that a lot of "stuff" exists.
If me or you or anything truly do not exist, then there's no difference between that universe, and the universe we perceive to be in now.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

-

That who exists?

 

[nameless]

The physical process responsible for consciousness (whichever that is)...

What an amazing thing to hear! I was under the impression that it is within Mind/Consciousness that the 'material world' exists solely and temporarily within. Perhaps we mean different things when we use the term 'Consciousness'? Same as awareness? As in conscious awareness? Like one doesn't have when asleep? But there is always some extent of Consciousness aware, and no one can say whether or not 'it' begins with or dies with the body.
Hypotheses abound, though.
If, perchance, it doesn't, than that in itself would be a good arguement, among many, that 'Consciousness' is not materially dependent and is unaffected by any'thing' in the whole damn 'hologramic omniverse'!
After all, there is nothing in a dream at night that can hurt the dreamer.
Dreams are within 'Mind'.
We are 'dreams' within Mind.
We have no more and no less 'existence' than that.

 

[nameless]

That who exists?

Hahahahaha..
Quite a timely question!
Who indeed?!
Thank you.
*__-

 

[-Job-]

My definition of consciousness is the traditional one.
I'm obviously assuming that consciousness is entirely dependent on the interaction of matter, which i believe is an appropriate default. It's an assumption i have to make otherwise i'll find myself having to believe a lot of other things which are not verifiable at the moment. We might even say "consciousness is a property of a physical system which is structured in this or that way", unorthodox as it might sound, i have no reason to expect otherwise. This i think is feasible, considering that the human nervous system is an authentic loop, when your brain sends signals to the muscles in your hand, causing it to move in some fashion, as the hand moves, the skin in that hand is stretched, the pressure of which causes neuron receptors in your skin to fire. Similarly, when you wave your hand in front of your eyes, the hand waving is detected through vision. It's as if you had a network of neurons extending from your hand connecting it directly to your eye. If you really had such a network connecting all of your outputs directly with your inputs and you were attempting to determine which portion of this extended brain is generating consciousness, you'd very probably consider the new networks we've just added just as much as the rest of the brain, or the system as a whole. Of course these new networks are implemented not with neurons but with general physics, so in explaining consciousness we may have to consider the immediate environment of the being. In my opinion, there's plenty of potential for a theory on consciousness, as being generated by physical processes, to be developed.

 

[nameless]

My definition of consciousness is the traditional one.
I'm obviously assuming that consciousness is entirely dependent on the interaction of matter, which i believe is an appropriate default.

As you choose.

It's an assumption i have to make otherwise i'll find myself having to believe a lot of other things which are not verifiable at the moment.

So you are saying that if the road to 'Truth/Understanding' is 'difficult' or 'unfamiliar' or requires 'too much thought', thast you will 'prefer' the 'easier' road?

We might even say "consciousness is a property of a physical system which is structured in this or that way", unorthodox as it might sound, i have no reason to expect otherwise.

Is a 'stastical probability' not enough reason to at least look into the 'difficult' corner? No new world views come from 'more of the same' thinking...

This i think is feasible, considering that the human nervous system is an authentic loop,

Exactly so! That is the problem with using it as a referrence for 'Reality' beyond the loop. Just the same intellectual fallacy as "How do I know that the Bible is true? It says so in the Bible." Nonsense.

... are implemented not with neurons but with general physics, so in explaining consciousness we may have to consider the immediate environment of the being.

General (classical) physics is incapable of study of consciousness as it has deliberately excluded it, traditionally. They will either have to 'come up to speed', or become lost in their own paradoxes that arise from an incomplete 'set'. QM is much more fruitful here, but it will be impossible to remain a 'materialist' the deeper your understanding of QM.

In my opinion, there's plenty of potential for a theory on consciousness, as being generated by physical processes, to be developed.

Possibly. Funny that it hasn't as of yet...
Are you implying that 'Consciousness' is physical?

 

[Rade]

I was under the impression that it is within Mind/Consciousness that the 'material world' exists solely and temporarily within.

I just found this statement and would like to expand the discussion. You seem to be using the argument "the moon does not exist outside some living "mind". That is, first we have a living mind that can grasp a material object such as the moon, it is grasped, then it (object) exists. But, the knowledge gained via science tells us with near 99.99999 % certainty (although I agree science never allows 100 % certainty) that the moon as a material object existed long before any "minds" evolved on Earth to grasp it, so I would suggest that your impression is false, that is, the existence of the moon as a material object is not contingent on a living mind--but perhaps I do not understand your impression ?

 

[nameless]

But, the knowledge gained via science tells us with near 99.99999 % certainty (although I agree science never allows 100 % certainty)

Once upon a time, Rade, science was just as sure that the Earth was flat, that the Earth was at the center of the universe, that 'effect' was 'caused', that gravity and time were constants and rotten meat transmogrified into maggots and on, ad nauseum. So, I'm not all that impressed with what classical sciences (in isolation) are 99.99999% 'agreed upon' at anyone time, because the numbers DO change. That little .00001% has shown, at times, to be the case, after all, as knowledge and understanding and wisdom is gained.

that the moon as a material object existed long before any "minds" evolved on Earth to grasp it, so I would suggest that your impression is false, that is, the existence of the moon as a material object is not contingent on a living mind--but perhaps I do not understand your impression ?

You cannot prove your assertion, can you? I'd love to hear (and critique) it!
Perhaps a deliberate up to date study on the matter might save you some embarasment before exhibiting the 'arrogance' to suggest that my understanding is 'false'. You have offered no evidence to validate your claim that what I say is false. Neither can you.. I think that you would have a very difficult time (read: impossible) proving the 'existence' of something 'beyond' it's conceptualization within mind. It has never been proven or even evidenced that there is anything 'out there' beyond mind, as you can in no way ever get outside 'mind' to 'objectively' 'know' anything!
This is eloquently described even understandable to the most deluded 'materialist' on numerous sites all over the web.
We, Rade, have already been 'around this corner'. You believe what you wish and evidence be damned. While you were waving that idiot Rand around like a crucifix, did you ever read the 'elegant and thorough refutation' of her work that I offered you?
I have 'expounded' quite thoroughly all over this site regarding this matter, and if you are really interested in a view from my perspective, you have an open invitation.

I suggest that yes, perhaps you do not understand my perspective. You are welcome, though, to make the attempt to do so. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. But be warned, if you actually accomplish 'understanding', you won't return to 'Den of Obsolescent Delusional Concepts and Notions' again.

Bye the bye, Rade, as per this thread's title, you obviously think that you can prove that you exist to yourself (satisfies the ego), do you think that you would be able to prove your 'existence', while answering all relevant criticisms, to me?

 

[quantumcarl]

I Drink / Therefore I Am

I drink, therefore I am.

 

[kant]

I've heard the phrase "I think therefore I am" as a proof of existence, but I do not find that very sound (and i think i heard that Descartes didn't exactly say that phrase).
I believe that because we have the ability to think, either by free will or not, then we have to exist. Even if we are in a "Matrix" setting or if we are all a figment of someone else's imgination. We exist in some form, maybe just not in the reality we perceive.
Jameson

The problem with this self-existence proof rely on the self. It is too damn referential, and when things are too damn referential, it is a pain in the ass. We can go on and on my the role of biology on our consciousness, or come up with stupid questions like "am i the same person today as i was yesterday?".

 

[Rade]

You cannot prove your assertion, can you? I'd love to hear (and critique) it!...you obviously think that you can prove that you exist to yourself ...to prove your 'existence', while answering all relevant criticisms, to me? ...think that you would have a very difficult time (read: impossible) proving the 'existence' of something 'beyond' it's conceptualization within mind. It has never been proven or even evidenced that there is anything 'out there' beyond mind, as you can in no way ever get outside 'mind' to 'objectively' 'know' anything!

The statements above concerning "prove" demonstrate a lack of understanding of the knowledge gained via the scientific method. "Proof" of anything outside the mind is not possible via science...where did you conclude from anything I posted that it is possible ? As to proof of my existence for me, as you will recall, I indicated that the proof came from my existential moment--thus, the purpose of this thread, to discuss possible "proof" that one exists--. For me, the "proof" was an internal proof of my mind (uncounsciousness) interacting with my mind (consciousness), and thus of course I cannot "prove" such to anyone--it is what I know to be true via the evidence provided (very suddenly and without volition) by the sense of the uncounsciousness. As to external proof of reality, it is not the goal of the scientific method to "prove" anything, but to "falsify". Now, you seem to suggest that nothing exists outside the human mind, and you seem to not only suggest that these things cannot be proved to exist (a position I would agree with since such is not the way of science), but that logically they do not exist (a position I do not agree with). Thus, suppose all human minds cease to exist at 6:33 tomorrow morning, you then hold that the universe is both materially and logically gone by 6:34...correct ? I find such a philosophy to be nonsense, because we know from physics that many isotopes have 1/2 lives much longer than the period of time the human mind has existed on the earth. The uranium isotope was not formed by any "consciousness" -- why would you expect that any rational human would hold such to be even 0.0001 % possible ? Yet, it is clear that this is in fact your philosophy--so be it, you are welcome to your belief. But, perhaps you hold that the human mind did not originate on the earth, but even so, even if we hold that some mind--some consciousness is older than the Earth (or the moon)--,even then consciousness cannot be older than existence, because it is not logically possible for a non-existent consciousness (e.g., a consciousness older than existence) to be conscious of any"thing", because first such a "thing" would need to exist. Thus your argument is reduced to a contradiction, and logically, condradictions cannot be used to form a philosophy, at least not one based on logical argument. Thus, our ultimate disagreement, you and I, is that you hold a Primacy of Consciousness to metaphysics, while I hold a Primacy of Existence. Thus, we get to the reason why I hold your approach to metaphysics to be false (and you hold my philosophy to be false), and why we will just go round and round here, for when two humans start from completely different axiomatic concepts, they will (by definition) never agree--but such is the way of philosophy. As to Rand, you are welcome to begin a new thread on her philosophy of Objectivism. However, there is already a significant amount of information (pro, con; including your previous critical links) at this site for those with an interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand

 

[John_Charles_Webb]

I've heard the phrase "I think therefore I am" as a proof of existence, but I do not find that very sound (and i think i heard that Descartes didn't exactly say that phrase).
I believe that because we have the ability to think, either by free will or not, then we have to exist. Even if we are in a "Matrix" setting or if we are all a figment of someone else's imgination. We exist in some form, maybe just not in the reality we perceive.
Jameson

The phrase "I think. therefore I am" is a metaphysical (beyond mundane physics) Zen Koan (like what is the 'sound of one hand clapping').

-I think, therefore I am
therefore 'thinking' may be a condition precedent to existence OR only one indicator of existence. eg. I eat, therefore I am.
or I do NOT think therefore I am not (a contradiction because of the presence of the non-thinking "I" as the observer). Therefore, thinking may not be the only condition that proves (therefore) existence.

OR 'if 'A' therefore 'B' does not preclude if 'X' therefore 'B'.
(x meaning any variable other than non-existence).

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)

 

[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.)