»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
What is existance?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
What is existance? |
|
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
This is a question that I've sometimes toyed with. Some philosophers feel that the only reason we are aware of our existance is through our perception. I agree with this, in a way. However, I also agree with Descartes(I think) "I think, therefore I am" philosophy. But suppose someone had no senses. What would life be like for him/her? How would he/she know that he/she existed? How would one communicate with one who was without senses? So, my question is basically this: How do we know the basic nature of our existance? How do we know that we actually do exist, and that the physical world is not simply a creation of our own minds? |
||
| © Copyright 2000 fractal007 - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What if it's the other way around? What if the mind doesn't exist? Reductively, the argument for mind transcendence is based on mistakes in perception but does that mean the mind is always right provided it has the right data? I'm not saying we don't have brains, we don't think; I'm saying that such things can be traced to nuerons and so forth and that we don't really need the transcendal mind to fill in the void. I'm saying there is no void. It's all physical. I don't think this can be proven as such because it also explodes the subject/object dichotomy and the search for truth, but it does allow for a philosophy of coping rather than a philosophy of certainty. Brad |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I apologize for creating the wrong impression. By "mind" I meant the conscious thoughts and all, that we experience, as a result of our brain. WHeather or not we have a soul/mind, apart from the physical brain, is not the question I was attempting to address. As to wheather or not there is a void to fill, I believe that there is, but still entertain the possibility that, as you've said, there isn't. Dispite my religious beliefs, I still like a good discussion of just what makes the mind tick. Wheather it's all physical, or there's something more, I love the discussion. So, then, i rephrase my question: How do we know that the physical world we observe is not all a concoction of our own consciousness. How do we know it's not all a hologram generated by that intricate system of neurons, or by the soul, or mind, or whatever there is that lies in our heads. [This message has been edited by fractal007 (edited 12-12-2000).] |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
Just the mere fact that you typed this topic is evidence that you exist. How do you know it's not a hologram or a concoction of your own consciousness? Well, because the material world is tangible... you can touch it, see it, observe it. All of the physical sciences support evidence for "existance".... Of course, mental hospitals are full of people who experience illusions such as believing that all of this is just a hologram or a figment of their imaginations. The definition of schizophrenia is: "a psychotic disorder characterized by loss of contact with the environment, by noticeable deterioration in the level of functioning in everyday life, and by disintegration of personality expressed as disorder of feeling, thought (as in hallucinations and delusions), and conduct -- called also dementia praecox" Sometimes, illusions that reality is just a concoction can lead mentally ill people to believe that they are actually God, because, if, indeed, all of existance is just a creation in their minds, then, logically, they would be "the creator", right? Anyway, i sorta went off in a different tangent with this..... bottom line is, tangible physical matter and the physical sciences exploring that matter and life itself, both bear some pretty hard evidence that you exist, i exist, and... lol... the darn internet exists!!! Because... here we are, right? Now, if you think you've made all this up yourself, then maybe you ARE God, and if you are, could you do me a favor? PLEASE?? -- Just answer when i talk to you, ok? i'm really not all that bad of a person.... really!!!... and it would be nice to know you're out there somewhere THANKS!  |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
LOL, Uh Oh, I hope I'm not going mental. It's not that I do believe that the world's my own creation, or that it's a 'figment of my imagination'. It's just that that's always something I like to ask people to stimulate discussion about life, the universe, and everything. Besides, I've researched lucid dreaming, and that's the only state of consciousness that I'm aware of, in which one is "God". OK, so then, what would life be like if you had no senses? Do you think that we'd be aware of a physical world, in some way? [This message has been edited by fractal007 (edited 12-12-2000).] |
||
|
Songbird Member Elite
since 1999-12-15
Posts 2184Missouri |
2 be or not 2 be? yes or no? negative or affirmative? left or right? north or south? east or west? input or output? download or upload? on or off? pregnant or not? existing? yes or no? no hanging chads no in betweens no maybe's on this test it either a open or shut case existing neurons know and feel..if they are connected to the brain connection severed body dead Spirit breath Alive to God (There's my two cents) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Songbird, How very metaphysical of you. Fractal007, I'm not sure I understand your next question if you don't posit some type of metaphysical mind. If you could be aware of the world, wouldn't you have to be able to sense it in some way? If you had no senses, you wouldn't be able to sense yourself, right? If you've never had any senses, how could 'you' actually exist? If you're talking about the six senses we have or are generally defined as having, aren't you positing something other (another kind of sense) to explain that awareness? It's a difficult question and I'm not trying to make light of it. It follows Kant by the way. I am trying to show the difficulty and, indeed, the radicality of seeing the world without a 'mind' that is somehow distinct from the world. In other words, my answer to your question would be no. Doreen, How very sense certain you are.  Brad |
||
|
doreen peri Member Elite
since 1999-05-25
Posts 3812Virginia |
ask the blind man seeing truths ask the deaf man hearing voices bounced off walls and skin ask the paralyzed, in wheel chairs trapped within a heartbeat, confined ask the woman who can't smell or taste, her senses stripped by love she's dined on, dessert not an option -- she is the waiter, the platter not served i sense no senses sweet to quick complete an empty palette, and words cannot be read by braille even in the dark when nobody's touching anybody stark, naked, a void in prisons, interacting cells without input i sense no senses. i am numb. and death is just a moment's separation. the sadness of the vegetation would leave a sour taste if the tongue could talk, the eyes could feel, the ears could see. what? no senses? the stench of existance, annihilated - all you can ever really ask out of life is a sincere apology and some decent poetry - |
||
|
Songbird Member Elite
since 1999-12-15
Posts 2184Missouri |
Doreen I really liked your creative answer (questions) Especially these lines, the whole answer tho is profound. i sense no senses. i am numb. and death is just a moment's separation |
||
|
Jannel Member
since 2000-01-18
Posts 492Muncie, IN, USA |
life without senses is simply a mass of goo working together to perform the function of breathing and blood pumping. robotic almost. your question of whether or not what we see is what is real reminds me of fight club. we know because we sense and feel, but how do we know that we really are sensing and feeling? also, while sartre argues that existence preceeds essence and that there are no a priori knowables, a buddhist or hindu would argue the opposite, that our soul exists independent of our sensory body. also, is reality subjective? my roommate and i remember the same night two different ways. i know what happened, and she does as well, but they are not the same stories. is one of us wrong, or did it happen both ways? or neither way? we can only hope tht what we see is true. except when we hope it isn't. my head hurts. |
||
catalinamoon
since 2000-06-03
Posts 9543The Shores of Alone |
My short comment is that I have the same question. I have often hypothesized that my dreams were reality, and my waking life the dream. How do we know? I have very lucid dreams. Or is that what I'm doing now?? As for the last question you raised, I think I am convinced that we still exist regardless of the state of our awareness, though perhaps on a different level. Oh no, I'm not sure that made ANY sense. Bye Sandra |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Hi there ... I am going to attempt to address what I think your question is ... if I happen to be addressing everything but your query, however, you can just ignore me and assume I am talking to myself ... hehehe Individual reality is based on perception, true ... but if that were the only criteria or limiting factor, then we would all be legends in our own minds as doreen pointed out. What is the real bummer in this reality stuff is what I call 'collective reality:' basically, the stuff that we pretty much can all agree on. For example, if there were a fluorescent green pickup coming down the street, I might think it is "an ugly vehicle," you might think it is "a cool vehicle," and someone else may think only "a neon green pickup" and leave it at that. Here, while we each have varying opinions about the aesthetic value of the item in question (with the hypothetical third person having voiced none), the general concensus is nevertheless that it is, in fact, a neon-green pickup. That is individual vs. collective reality. In schizophrenia, the individual reality completely usurps the collective reality, though sometimes the two can agree (at which times we say they are 'in touch with reality' -- meaning the collective reality). Of course, to make things interesting, there's always mass hysteria ... in which case we're ALL nuts. There is also the little matter of the physical world ... if you are standing in the middle of the freeway and a semi is speeding toward you, your perception that you are actually in a peaceful meadow with nothing around for miles is not going to render you any less the road pizza ... in short, the tree that falls in the road DOES make a sound regardless of whether anyone hears it, because the air is still displaced by the falling solid and the tree still causes the ground to vibrate, and vice versa. (blink blink) ahem ... what was I saying...? --Linda < !signature--> Remember: maintaining a positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will certainly annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. [This message has been edited by Skyfyre (edited 12-15-2000).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Linda, Very nicely explained. I like the term collective reality. It drops objectivity without having to worry about absolute subjectivity (relativism is usually the term). I eventually have to problematize your view of aesthtics and the individual of course. Eventually, I will also have to question the question itself (why are we emphasizing color and not some other aspect of the car) but that'll be for another day. Today, it's just nice to know someone else is comfortable with the dissolution of subjective/objective dichotomy. thanks, Brad |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Existence is based on what ever we are experiencing. Nothing more and nothing less. Something does not have to have perception to exist. It must simply have matter. Though when you think about it, even a vacuum exist doesn't it/ Jamie Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. - Virgil. "Yield thou not to adversity, but press on the more bravely". |
||
|
fractal007 Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958 |
I've always figured that nobody can REALLY know reality. Now let me clarify this before people get mad: What I mean is that reality is always viewed through our eyes, and our other senses. This does not mean that it is not real, only that the data we aquire as humans is data that comes from the eyes, which detect certain wavelengths of light, the ears, which detect certain wavelengths of sound, and so on. We only see a piece of reality. It is real, of course, there is no disputing that. About the issue of dreaming, and stuff of that nature, I have come to the following conclusion: everything is objective. In other words, suppose I see X in a dream, and interpret it to mean x. Suppose that I am also a spiritual individual[religious, zen, or some other form of belief in something above and beyond the physical], and so another part of me interprets X to mean Y. Now, suppose both x and Y are benificial. That would mean that although X did stand for a meaning on its own,[assuming that what Freud and Jung held to be true, was true - namely that dreams contain symbols/archetypes which indicate aspects of our lives/minds]my mind interpretted it as something else. Although this something else was not the original intended meaning, it was still beneficial to my life, in the case of interpretation x, and beneficial to my walk of faith/religion/philosophical dogma, in the case of interpretation Y. This means that we can draw a conclusion: The mind generates models of reality. Although these models are not always accurate, in the case of optical illusions, and the such, they are, for the most part, beneficial. This is one of the reasons that there is such strife when issues such as religion are discussed. From a strictly scientific and philosophical standpoint, a religion is simply a model of reality. It may not be valid scientifically, but it is benificial to the individual who practices it - unless it is forced upon that individual by the state, such as what happened in the medieval era, in which Christianity was used as an excuse to quell and attack the masses. This is still seen today in the form of the right wing. This is one of the reasons why I see religion as a spiritual thing which is one's own choice, and not a social mechanism, which is imposed by government. I digress. In the case of actual physical events, the mind can also construct or improve upon models of reality which it gains from these events. For example, suppose that I experience event A. I find event A to be disturbing, because it does not compute with "the natural order of things". Perhaps element C of my mind makes interpretation 1, in which event A has some spiritual connection. Perhaps it is beneficial to me in a spiritual sense, even though it does not appear to be very good at the time. Suppose that element X of my mind makes interpretation 2. Suppose that this interpretation is something along the lines of, "You should be more open minded", or "Don't always assume".(Which, BTW, is something that our minds do a lot. It's a nasty habbit, which I like to often call 'stereotyping'.) Now, although the interpretations of event A may not be valid in someone else's eyes, they are still none the less benificial to me. Therefore, I make my point in all this jibber jabber: All reality is subjective, and processed in our minds, which are very constricted due to the fact that they continually make their own models/heuristical analyses/stereotypes of the world around us. Primarilly, as the memetics/evolutionary biologists/psychologists will tell you, these models which the mind constructs(I believe they are called "Schemas") are for our own benefit. Namely, they help us to survive/reproduce. However, from other standpoints, such as spiritual ones, the models are "life lessons" which teach us things, helping us to find "the ultimate truth", whatever that might be. However, since we do not really know the question, we can only speculate. I'd not be surprised if the answer were something simple, like 42!!!! |
||
|
Echo Rhayne Senior Member
since 1999-09-17
Posts 1495Canyon Country, CA |
Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times tables, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom’s vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom’s walking, but surely Tom’s existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is. It may be tempting to think that ‘Tom exists’ means merely ‘Tom is real’. In fact, this could be distinctly appealing, for ‘real’ is what has been called an ‘excluder’ predicate, meaning thereby that it attributes nothing positive to Tom, but operates in a purely negative fashion simply to exclude Tom from being imaginary, mythical, fictional, and the like. To say that ‘exists’ meant ‘is real’ would be to say inter alia that it attributed nothing positive to Tom; and that would do much to relieve our frustration at being so fluent in our use of ‘exists’ despite having no idea of its attributing anything positive to Tom. It would be a relief to discover that ‘exists’ attributes nothing positive to him at all. Unfortunately, this won’t do; for among all the negatives that ‘is real’ might be applying to Tom would be not only ‘not imaginary’, ‘not mythical’, etc., but also ‘not nonexistent’. Now, suppose a seer predicted that in two years that a son would be born to Bill and Mary, and that he would be called ‘Tom’. When the prediction was finally fulfilled, we might imagine the seer announcing triumphantly ‘At last Tom exists, exactly as I predicted he would’. If ‘exists’ were an excluder like ‘is real’, then the seer could only be understood as excluding something from Tom; and in this case it would be non-existence. As said by the seer, therefore, ‘At last Tom exists’ could only mean ‘At last Tom is not-nonexistent’. And if he really were to mean that, we should be entitled to ask him just when Tom could ever have been said to be nonexistent, i.e. never to have existed. In fact, before he existed Tom could never even have been referred to, and hence at that time nothing at all could have been attributed to him, not even the property of being nonexistent. Promising as it may have seemed, therefore, ‘Tom exists’ is not to be understood simply as ‘Tom is real’. Of course, the failure of attempts to understand ‘exists’ as ‘is real’ leaves plenty of room for other suggestions, each proposing to substitute one or more terms for ‘exists’, and thereby to show why our original disquiet about it and existence has been sadly misplaced. If one thinks that ‘exists’ is readily dispensable in favour of some other (less troublesome) expression, then there will be no difficulty in dismissing the thought of there being some such property or attribute as existence. Alternatively, if one thinks that ‘exists’ is not to be dispensed with in this way, then one might be inclined to continue pursuing the puzzle of just what existence is. It is probably now reasonably clear that the question of existence is inextricably intertwined with the question of ‘exists’. In some languages, the predicate ‘is’ does duty for ‘exists’, and even in English there are archaic uses of ‘is’ in that role. In discussing existence, therefore, we shall be much concerned also with the predicates ‘is’ and ‘exists’. In this regard, the predominant view on existence among contemporary philosophers of an analytic persuasion might be summarized in two theses, the first of which is the Frege-Russell distinction between four different meanings of ‘is’ - the ‘is’ of existence, of identity, of predication, and of generic implication (inclusion), as illustrated below. ‘Socrates is’, rendered in regimented language as ‘(x)(Socrates = x)’. ‘Cicero is Tully’, rendered as ‘Cicero = Tully’. ‘Socrates is wise’, rendered as ‘Wise(Socrates)’. ‘Man is an animal’, rendered as ‘(x)(Man(x) Animal(x))’. On this view, the different uses of ‘is’ entail correspondingly different meanings, so different in fact as to have nothing whatever in common. That is to say, they are casually ambiguous rather than being merely systematically ambigous or analogical, which would have been the case had their meanings been inter-related though without being univocal in any way - not even partially. The second thesis commonly, though not universally, held by analytic philosophers might be summed up in the familiar dictum, ‘Existence is not a predicate’. More accurately, it should be written either as ‘Existence is not a (first-level) property’ or as ‘"Exists" is not a (first-level) predicate’. Before discussing current views on this and the earlier thesis, it will therefore be useful to be reminded of what some earlier philosophers have had to say about existence and, correlatively, about ‘is’ and ‘exists’ as verbs of being. The general philosophy of this work may be called 'perfect integration'. It is the belief that all fundamental principles fit together in a faultless, seamless, logical structure. And that there is only one such structure. Because man is in the universe, mind is congruent with the physical universe (as interaction). Therefore, existence is, as a whole, an entity possessed of mind. It cannot be a discreet entity in the manner of its parts (man) but is rather a holistic entity and the context in which discreet entities exist. God is to universe as mind is to brain. Logic and God are therefore congruent aspects of existence. Logic being the quantitive, analyzable aspect and God being that which is qualitive and unanalyzable. One analyzes quantities. One contemplates qualities. Analysis produces understanding and the means of physical existence. Contemplation produces contentment and gives meaning to life. Now that may be more than what you wanted to know, and I bounced around a lot with different peoples opinions, and some of it might not have made sense, but here you go! We're called to stand out, not blend in! [This message has been edited by Echo Rhayne (edited 12-22-2000).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/ |
||
|
rad802 Member
since 2008-04-19
Posts 279KY U.S.A. |
Reality appears to be an illusion. THE MEASURMENT PROBLEM: At the quantum level things like light behave as a particle and a wave. What is waving is probability. Nothing appears in a definite state until it is measured. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. The example of Schrödinger's cat: The cat is in a sealed box with a 50/50 chance of a hammer dropping to break a flask of deadly gas. While the box is sealed the cat exist in two states, the cat is said to be both alive and dead. However, a single, particular observation of the cat does not measure the probabilities: it always finds either a living cat, or a dead cat. After the measurement the cat is definitively alive or dead. The question is: How are the probabilities converted into an actual, sharply well-defined outcome? A worthy legacy is the irrevocable consequence of dreaming. Rick A. Delmonico |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Was combing threads, and found this one. My response to Brad is a bit late, but I wanted to make a comment: Isn't "certainty" a separate issue altogether from the issue of transcendence? Whether we are "all physical" (materialism), or whether we have a "mind" (dualism), or whether we have a "soul" (spiritualism), there may be varying kinds (and degrees) of certainty involved with each philosophy. Would you deny that reducing the human mind to neurons, and neurons to molecules, would impose a kind of certainty, albeit a grim one? namely the certainty that there is nothing else, and that the best we should do is cope? In my mind, the modernistic tendency to certainty can be either religious or non-religious in its application. How many times I have read statements which amount to saying "I'm certain that we can't be certain". Conversely uncertainty can be found in each of these viewpoints as well, since dogma in religion is usually the companion of mystery. As far as existence is concerned, it is one of those things which eludes precise definition, and yet is universally acknowledged. I think the existential philosophers, along with the religious, were right to stop asking about the precise nature of existence, and started asking what is the right way to exist, what is the better path? How to be authentic, righteous, good, etc ... Stephen |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
The five senses tell me whether something is real or not. Although I've been fooled by vision, hearing, and smell many times. I guess that's my answer. The physical 5 sense. Maybe I misunderstood your question. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Everything. |
||
|
Zeigeist Member
since 2009-12-09
Posts 311Michigan |
A fine movie on the subject is " What the "bleep" do we know. just FYI Z |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
From The Tao te Ching, by Lao Tsu Translated by Stephen Mitchell. "Lao Tsu" is often translated as "The old man." 56 Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know. Close your mouth, block off your senses, blunt your sharpness, untie your knots, soften your glare, settle your dust. This is the primal identity. Be like the Tao. It can't be approached or withdrawn from, benefited or harmed, honored or brought into disgrace. It gives itself up continually. That is why it endures. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think "existence" as mere being, holds little interest whatsoever. Its when religion and philosophy tackle the question of what is the best way to "be" or to live ... or why some things in existence take precedence over others ... that interesting discourse begins. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The question was, "What is existence?" I am fond of the Taoist point of view on this. I hear you ache to turn the conversation to the glories of God and of Christ, however, and of the necessity of them. You should probably do that. You do it compassionately and thoughtfully. Perhaps you might try to extend the theology and ethics into the realm of the question, though. Do you feel that God and Christ are actually part of man's ground of being, and that they are much of what man actually builds his existence upon: Man is part of the shadow cast by God onto the world in some way, and that part of our lives involve a struggle to become knowledgeable of that soul within ourselves, or am I simply weaving theological fancies here? As I say, I'm more at home with the Taoist point of view. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Existence is having the possibility of identity. I'm only saying that inasmuch as I understand Eastern concepts of existence, I don't see how they amount to much more than "What is, IS, no matter what it is", which seems to negate any distinctions whatever. I would love to read your thoughts on this, as my understanding and reading here is somewhat limited. quote: Extending those thing to the question, might involve introducing the concept of faith, in its most basic form. A good Christian has faith in God. But any human being has faith in at least something God has said and done ... in his own "Genesis". The Judeo-Christian view of existence is that which God positively wills or passively allows. Acceptance of the fiat of basic existence doesn't involve too much questioning, other than exploring the ideas of mystery, wonder, aesthetics, and on the negative side a ponderance of sin, pain, and questions of Theodicy. The questioning simply steals its own force when taken back too far. To question that which is the pre-condition of questioning itself, leads to absurdity. This bit of Theology fits practically with our everyday approach too, since no one really doubts their own basic existence, except in philosophical discussions, though it is unprovable in strictest terms, once the relation between perception and reality is questioned. In that sense, Descartes was on to something ... in pointing out that a question without a questioner is more than questionable. quote: It seems to me that that Theological path has been explored by "Neo-Orthodoxy" which was basically an expression of Theology in Existential terms (that is, Existential Philosophy setting the framework in which Theology would be discussed). I don't think it's all wrong, but it isn't orthodox in the sense of retaining God's transcendence. That God is the ground of our being (not part of the ground of our being, for that would make him a product of nature rather than the Maker of Nature) is orthodox, though the term avoids connotation of the personal. But the struggle you mention is present, in finding God finding us, and thereby getting our truest selves back. "At home", as you said eariler, is a very apt term for it. Chesterton had some interesting comments about God breaking the cosmos in pieces to give it identity, which might be very interesting for this discussion. Anyway, they express pretty well something of what I am stammering to express. Maybe I'll post them soon. As always Bob, it's good to talk. Stephen |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
