Nothingness: Examining Existence Beyond the Mind

[nameless]

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.

 

[gumbythescientist]

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

 

[quantumcarl]

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.

 

[Rade]

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".

 

[Critical_Pedagogy]

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.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

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.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

By asking, "does nothing exist apart from my mind?", you demonstrate that nothing exists in your mind.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

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 independent 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.

 

[QuantumTheory]

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.

 

[quantumcarl]

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:

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.

 

[sameandnot]

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?

 

[QuantumTheory]

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.

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

 

[Maxwell]

What a sad, non-scientific way of thinking.

 

[quantumcarl]

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'.

 

[Maxwell]

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:

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.

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

 

[Mr. Tambourine Man]

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.

 

[QuantumTheory]

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,

 

[QuantumTheory]

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,

Of course it exists, it is made up molecoles, and atoms, therefore it is made up of energy. Energy exists', right?

 

[quantumcarl]

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.

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.

 

[quantumcarl]

does nothing exist apart from my mind?

The question is proof of existence.

 

[Ubern0va]

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.