Nothingness: Examining Existence Beyond the Mind

  • Thread starter Thread starter zelldot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Existence Mind
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical question of whether anything exists outside of one's mind, exploring concepts of existence, perception, and truth. Participants debate the nature of reality, with some arguing that existence is contingent on perception, while others assert that truth and reality can exist independently of individual consciousness. Key points include the idea that if one can ponder existence, then existence must be affirmed; however, this leads to paradoxes about the nature of truth and logic. The conversation delves into the limitations of sensory perception, suggesting that what we perceive may not accurately reflect an external reality. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexity of defining existence and truth, with contrasting views on whether these concepts are tangible or merely constructs of the mind. The interplay between logic, perception, and the nature of reality remains a focal point, with participants acknowledging the subjective nature of their experiences and beliefs.
  • #51
'Twas A Negaverse Christmas


Twas a Negaverse Christmas and all through the land,
Not an evil thing stirred, like a dead bird in your hand.
Crystals were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that energy would be collected there.
The youma were nestled all snug in their beds,
As visions of energy danced in their heads.
And Zoisite and Malachite, as you might suspect,
Had just settled down for a long winter's neck.<^_^>
When out in the throne room, there arose such a clatter,
Zoey sprang from his lap to see what was the matter.
Malachite soon followed, quick as a flash,
Angry enough to turn someone into a fine hash.
The energy from the dais lent a dim glow,
And barely shed light on what happened below.
When what to the generals' wondering eyes should appear,
But a quite drunken Beryl, and a keg full of beer!
With sleight of hand so cunning, so slick,
She produced Tuxedo Mask, whippity quick!
More rapid than racehorses, she spoke gibberish:
"We've beaten the Scouts! They had a death wish!
I've invited all our friends who aided the fight,
To all come and join us this fine Christmas night!
There's Galaxia, and Fish-Eye, we've got them all!
So come on, get busy, we'll have a big ball!"
As hungry cats set before roomfuls of mice,
They came: didn't have to tell them twice!
To the middle of the bash, the generals they flew,
Zoisite, Malachite, Jedite, and yes, Neflyte too!
Then, they all saw it, by the great hand of Fortuna,
The graces had granted them Sailor Scouts and Luna
They all fainted quickly and by the time they came around,
Their poor ears were ringing with a terrible sound.
Beryl had started cheers and was refilling her stein,
When, from above, there came a moon's shine.
The villains collectively gasped and began to hack,
But Zirconia went further and had a cardiac!
The light: how it twinkled,
It fostered despair
In the hearts of the villains
Who all gathered there.
It was the Moon Princess, with her heart and her wands,
Who had come to liberate Sailor Scouts from their bonds.
She raised her Moon Wand, and in a voice loud and clear,
Yelled, "No Negaverse Christmas this year!"
The villains were worried and they vocalized their peril
For the Negaverse and for the life of Queen Beryl.
"Cosmic Moon Power!" Serenity shouted, sans fear.
And the glimmer of death came uncomfortably near,
But the inebriate Beryl, she lost drunken awe
And without missing a beat, she began to withdraw
The most evil weapon; one might say "It rocked!",
An M-16 rifle, fully loaded and cocked.
She emptied a magazine into the air,
And some of it took off the long, pigtailed hair
Of the Moon Princess as she fell with a thud,
Into a pool of her own lunar blood.
The Queen dropped the rifle and held out her hand.
The Crescent Moon Wand came to her on command.
The youma rejoiced and began to giggle and titter
As the Silver Imperium Crystal began to glitter.
We heard Beryl exclaim as they fade from our sight:
"Merry Christmas to all! Earth will be ours by moonlight!"

Email comments and praise to ThreeLites@aol.com
Send hate mail to billgates@microsoft.com

I'm pretty sure that this will have meaning to someone who will appreciate it. Wiccans?

There are listings for Echoverse, some are from you!
Sillyverse?
Cheese McVerse?
Dubmuggaverse?
*__-
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
I must admit i am a great fan of logical reasoning, however am able to accept every thing you attempt to explain (in your own personal abusive way i might add.. btw: do you have many friends?). I really don't think you understand what i am trying to say here (actually i think i just can't word it correct - but hey dnt blame me if english was my second language).

How can non-existence never be able to exist, if i (in my own universe) believe it exists in the first place? What i am saying is that there must be something that doesn't exist because such a thing exists in my head. I understand tha it being in my head is existence in itself, but i dnt believe in this actual thing, just that there is such a thing. (i knw the first thing going in your rather ignorant mind is that "if u did ever find this thing, then it would exist for u in ur own universe", but hypothetically, what if someone else found this, and i had no knowledge of it, but that it exists).
 
  • #53
Oh... yea..Saying i had a "humbler and inferior mind" was just an attempt to satisfy the ever so lasting need of yours to feel superior to others (especially the people whom you don't personally knw). This is clearly shown by the way you speak (or atleast write) in this forum.
 
  • #54
igot_noid said:
Oh... yea..Saying i had a "humbler and inferior mind" was just an attempt to satisfy the ever so lasting need of yours to feel superior to others (especially the people whom you don't personally knw). This is clearly shown by the way you speak (or atleast write) in this forum.
Ahhhh, opinions are like... Hahahahahah.. I guess that you are the spokesman for everyone here? And after just being here for a relative few moments? Startling progress you make! Learn to walk at 3 months old? I'm sure that you'd still remember something so recent..

Ahh, so you were being disingenuous in your words, sarcasm..
And I gave you the respect of answering your dishonest crappola as if you were asking an honest question. Silly me. I spoke to you honestly, from the heart. Obviously you are unused to such communication. You must have many 'friends' if honesty and forthrightness mean so little to you.

Congrats, you have wasted my time, but wait.. maybe not? There are lurkers just reading these words that can understand and find value therein.
"Words from the heart find homes in many diverse places. Stones cast from the hand of ignorance find no mark at all!"
If not you, gee, oh well. I spoke to you with the same love and honesty with which I speak to my children, I guess that you are not used to that. A shame. No I don't look down on you, or feel superior. Your youthful insecurity is showing though. Well, if you don't like my apples, young man, just leave the tree alone. So, I won't waste anymore time with you. Good luck with your maturation.
(English is your second language? You do well! Is your first language Australian?)
 
  • #55
dubmugga said:
slightly off topic but I like the terms NEGAVERSE and ECHOVERSE too...
...one implies a negatively charged universe of equal dimensions between which we flip at superliminal speed and the other implies waves of thought reverberating through many universes
as you were...
with respect, all these ideas seem like they originate from the PERVERSE...

MF
 
  • #56
ah yes.. the ever-so ignorant response.

No Hindi was my first language, because i live in Australia does not mean i was born here. Neither does me practicing Hinduism or speaking Hindi mean i was born in India (now I knw you are wondering where I was born, but we'll leave that for you). People move. Things change. Might be hard to believe and understand, but hey.. it happens. Live with it.

And my queries were honest, as were me reading your "honest" replies. I have great respect for you at the philosophical level. However, i do not understand the neccesity of adding quick smirk remarks between each and every well thought out answer. You seem to not want to help people who don't have as great as understanding as you do in philosophy. Quite hyprocritcal i belive, because i am sure at some stage in your life that you were a 'questioner' doing just as such to gain knowledge (perhaps)... (trail of thoughts)

And it is this lack of respect for those wishing to learn which has, in me, aroused a certain dislike for you.

And I gave you the respect of answering your dishonest crappola as if you were asking an honest question. Silly me. I spoke to you honestly, from the heart.

To this you have left me with nothing but to say: heart? what heart?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
nameless said:
Define 'existence'?
Are you assuming that there is a 'me' to 'have' a mind?
Are you assuming that 'mind' exists?
'Cogito ergo sum' seems like a self-referrential fallacy. Does 'thought' always reflect absolute 'reality'? If not, why assume your 'existence' from thought. We have heard this quote for so long that it is assumed to have validity. Another cognitive fallacy.
What if there were a 'thought' floating through the mists hallucinating a 'Me' and a 'my universe'?

Then couldn't you still be said to "exist", but rather as a "thought" floating throught the mists, as opposed to existing as your conventional perception of "yourself" informs you that you exist.
 
  • #58
igot_noid and nameless, please keep the discussion civil and relevant to the topic at hand.
 
  • #59
Divisionbyzer0 said:
Then couldn't you still be said to "exist", but rather as a "thought" floating throught the mists, as opposed to existing as your conventional perception of "yourself" informs you that you exist.
Certainly, if you wish to 'expand the definition of 'existence' to include to include the 'temporal', to include the 'constructed' and 'dependent'.
I was (and am) referring to 'inherent' existence. Existence that is self-consistent, self supported, not affected by time, etc... 'Ultimate existence'.
 
  • #60
nameless

STAY :-)

IT is happening right
on "time"
.
.
 
  • #61
meL said:
nameless
STAY :-)
IT is happening right
on "time"
.
.
STAY??
Like Sit? Roll over? Play dead?
What is IT?
Nothing happens.
There is no time.
There is just this Dream...

This thread was about 'proving existence'.
I can't.
Quite the opposite...

Good night.
 
  • #62
existence to me is interaction. Wheather or not you percieve that interaction taking place it still happened in someone elses perception so even if I don't exist as myself someone still perceived me as exsisting even if I didn't acknowlage my own persona so in the end wheather you think you exist or someone else does the only truth I know is that there is existence
 
  • #63
zelldot said:
does nothing exist apart from my mind?
No. Your mind made nothing up. That is, nothing does not exist.

Moreover, something exists. Otherwise there would be no word to describe it and you wouldn't be asking or considering asking about this sensation of existing.

What exists may be an illusion or may be a desperate attempt of your mind to continue surviving in the illusion you have created. However... we can with all confidence report that something exists and nothing does not exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
igot_noid said:
What is it to exist? (i.e define existence). And if you do have a fair definition for this (by this i do not mean simple dictionary definitions which always define existence as "the state of existing" etc), then i would be grateful if you could answer this question: What is it to not exist?
Could you please also give me an example of something which does not exist? And I personally believe that doing so is not possible (i.e such a thing can not be comprehended by the human mind). Am I correct in saying this?
As stated by Ayn Rand, "to exist is to be something, as distinquished from the nothing of nonexistence"...to exist is "to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes". The equation for any specific thing that exists is "A = A", e.g., a thing is itself. The concept of existence is an axomatic concept of philosophy, which thus cannot be analyzed or reduced to other facts or broken into parts. Thus, to answer your second question, to "not exist" means that what you observe is "nothing". It is very easy to provide examples of nothing, so now open your left hand and observe what it holds. Either it holds "something" that exists, or "nothing"--so which is it ? Consider when your computer turns off for no reason while reading this forum, do you not clearly comprehend the concept of nonexistence of electrons flowing into it that provide the energy. So I hold that you error when you conclude that the human mind cannot comprehend "nonexistence", for without this ability, neither would it then be able to comprehend its opposite, "existence".
 
  • #65
zelldot said:
does nothing exist apart from my mind?

i would say that your mind doesn't exist, and it's just the material self that exists.
 
  • #66
zelldot said:
does nothing exist apart from my mind?

yes this statement is true... apart from your mind... nothing exists... when you cease to exists, your mind will be gone, and with it, existence... i think it's safe to say you will fall into/become nothingness. The mind creates consciousness of existence.
 
  • #67
By asking, "does nothing exist apart from my mind?", you demonstrate that nothing exists in your mind.
 
  • #68
what is the definition of a word but other words? How can we be sure that we're all talking about the same thing? The words we use are independant of the things we feel, we can't fully express ourselves to each other, we can only outline a thought or feeling, never share it 100%. When we speak of existence and mind, we all may have different ideas of what they are. These are just words, and we all attach different interpretations to those words, and interpret how others use those words in slightly different ways than they meant to provide. I would argue that it is impossible to prove existence because we can't all fully agree what it means.

If we can all agree that it can't be proven, then we can prove existence because it being true is the contrapositive of the truth of the idea that it can't be proven. If we all understand this paradox, then we all agree on this idea, and so we can justify the existence of it; therefore we have just proven existence.

If we all can agree that if we all agree on something it doesn't make that something true, then we are no better off from where we started. If we all can see the problem in the last statement, then we can all agree that the problem exists, but that we may be wrong in our conclusion, and if that we all recognize that idea then the idea exists and so does existence.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
dgoodpasture2005 said:
yes this statement is true... apart from your mind... nothing exists... when you cease to exists, your mind will be gone, and with it, existence... i think it's safe to say you will fall into/become nothingness. The mind creates consciousness of existence.

So are you saying when you die all consciousness dies? Maybe your physical body dies, but that's it. Sorry, I have to disagree. Evolution does not prove there is a god or not. Do you really think Earth is just a freak accident? No other planets have been like earth, that we know of. Mars perhaps once had water, but that's all we know.
 
  • #70
As far as "proving existence" goes... Des Cartes said
I think, therefore I am
which was accepted and still is today as proof of existence. I think the statement is weak and proves nothing. I think my renovation of the statements makes more sense... here it is:
quantumcarlosnada said:
I drink, therefore I am

My statement covers both physical and mental aspects of existence.

Physical: If I did not drink, I would not exist for lack of water and nourishent.

Mental (Consciousness): The sensation of drinking and its effects offer proof of an interaction between an exterior environment and my own quazi-interior environment.

The statement came to me one christmas eve when the ghost of WC Fields came to me complaining that he hadn't had a drink for so long he wasn't sure if he was still alive. I told him his films are still very lively but, sadly, his body gave out quite a while ago. So long, WC.
 
  • #71
you can't prove this sentance.

further, why is everyone trying to prove something?

i don't know. but i do know that the mind has made Two of what is only One.

why does one do this?
 
  • #72
sameandnot said:
you can't prove this sentance.

further, why is everyone trying to prove something?

i don't know. but i do know that the mind has made Two of what is only One.

why does one do this?

It's a good question, but sometimes people on this forum go too far, LOL. :smile:

Let's prove this forum exist!
Let's prove my dog exists!
Let's prove japanese is a real language!
Let's prove we are smart!
Let's prove our IQ!
Let's prove everything!
Let's prove the universe is not infinite!
Let's prove calculus is real!
Let's prove time travel isn't possible!
Let's prove that Albert Einstein really didn't believe in god!
Let's prove string theory is real!

UGhhhh
 
  • #73
What a sad, non-scientific way of thinking.
 
  • #74
Maxwell said:
What a sad, non-scientific way of thinking.
Potentially, yes.
Mind you, am I talkin out my damn-near-wrecked-'im when I say that all sciences ultimately rely upon perception, acceptance and belief systems... similar to every religion and/or discipline?

Science would benifit from opening up the mind a little more to peripherial concepts in order to advance. I realize science has advanced at an exponential rate over the last 200 years. But, for the most part the discoveries are re-makes of ancient, true discoveries... perhaps unconsciously found or perhaps actually excavated from still existing ruins.

One case in point is the once, highly insulated temple at the peak of the "pyramid of the Sun" in Mexico. It had a layer of mica specifically mined from a quarry 2000 miles from the pyramid while there was another, less insulating source of mica left un-mined only a few miles away.

The layer of specified mica was 2 feet under the floor of the "temple" and could only have been put in place to serve as insulation for a capacitor of great magnitude.

Centuries later the temple atop the "pyramid of the Sun" was excavated and decimated in around 1918 and the mica sold to stove makers and glaziers around the world.

But, who else heard about the set-up on the pyramid? Who might have derived an invention of some sort from the information initially found at the site? Did this early 20th century discovery lead to Tesla's ideas, Edison's inventions... etc...?...

tune in next year when it is proven that we exist through the employment of tazers in a hot tub filled with 'magma'.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

However, since you took the time to reply to me, I'll reply to something you said:

quantumcarl said:
But, for the most part the discoveries are re-makes of ancient, true discoveries... perhaps unconsciously found or perhaps actually excavated from still existing ruins.

I do not think this is the case. Most of the recent (as in the past 200 years) groundbreaking, life-altering technologies and advancements in science have been found because of ancient discoveries. They certainly were influenced by them -- it's like a snowball rolling down a never-ending mountain. However, they are not re-makes in the sense that they were "invented," by ancient peoples and then "re-invented" by us, like in your example. Sure, most of our science and technologies have its beginnings in ancient time, but I think that is a far cry difference than saying they are "re-makes."

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your statement, I just woke up.

quantumcarl said:
tune in next year when it is proven that we exist through the employment of tazers in a hot tub filled with 'magma'.

:smile:
 
  • #76
In my humble opinion, to ask about the existence of something simply means to ask whether or not the item in question is in some empirical relation to all other things. I don't think existence is an ontological concept. I think it is merely a pragmatic concept. But because the universe is all there is, to ask whether or not the universe is in some relation to to something else would be meaningless, in my opinion. Existence can only define the parts...not the whole. If my premises are correct, then the number "2" exists in the same sense as my tongue, because the number "2" is in some empirical relation to all other things in that it is an orderering mechanism which defines how the universe must work, arithmetically speaking.
 
  • #77
Maxwell said:
Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

Listen maxwell, I do understand the point. Everything we think of is just our perception. And you are right, as well as the author. But, mind you, I'm 17, and I do find the "do we really exist" thread laughable. I understand the scientific concepts, but heh, it just is kind of funny.

It's like saying, "I just bought a BMW, but does it REALLY exist?"

Sorry, :smile:
 
  • #78
Listen maxwell, I do understand the point. Everything we think of is just our perception. And you are right, as well as the author. But, mind you, I'm 17, and I do find the "do we really exist" thread laughable. I understand the scientific concepts, but heh, it just is kind of funny.
It's like saying, "I just bought a BMW, but does it REALLY exist?"
Sorry, :smile:

Of course it exists, it is made up molecoles, and atoms, therefore it is made up of energy. Energy exists', right?
 
  • #79
Maxwell said:
Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

However, since you took the time to reply to me, I'll reply to something you said:



I do not think this is the case. Most of the recent (as in the past 200 years) groundbreaking, life-altering technologies and advancements in science have been found because of ancient discoveries. They certainly were influenced by them -- it's like a snowball rolling down a never-ending mountain. However, they are not re-makes in the sense that they were "invented," by ancient peoples and then "re-invented" by us, like in your example. Sure, most of our science and technologies have its beginnings in ancient time, but I think that is a far cry difference than saying they are "re-makes."

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your statement, I just woke up.



:smile:

No misinterpretation really.
However, would we call the holographically projected semi-remake of starwars in 3056AD a "remake" or an improvement?

What I mean is that original ideas are few and far between... yet, expounding and expanding on these ideas appears to be the staple of those many people with a less excercised imaginations.

Personally I perceive that there has been a whole bag full of "sh's" dumped on discoveries that would otherwise allieviate most if not all of the cause for disharmony and disruption we see today (excluding hot "magma").

Somehow, and I fail to see how, a small group of people have decided it is a better thing to keep people in fear of as many things as possible rather than solve any problems with either new and/or "ancient" solutions.

Furtherto my earlier bent, what better way to collect energy than from the static electricity caused by the friction between the rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere? It gives new meaning to the idea of "this mortal coil". I'll go rattle my chains somewhere else now.

Best of Munchen Drinken Der Beiren.
 
  • #80
zelldot said:
does nothing exist apart from my mind?

The question is proof of existence.
 
  • #81
Prove it to whom? What does it mean to prove something? to explain something? It means to relate some phenomenon to one of our 5-6 senses. Maybe I coul'd prove it to you, but it doesn't mean that I've fundamentally proven it.
 
Back
Top