As it stands, 'I think, therefore I am' is as big a proof we have of our own existence in philosophy. I and every other human being since Descartes have not been able to take this any further so I'm curious; has any philosopher taken the next step? After proving that I exist, I believe it would be an interesting to step to prove that my friend exists. So who's covered this with any kind of conclusion?

I think Descartes said, basically; how would we know if our friend existed? Sense experience? Our senses are unreliable, therefore we can't rely on them. (Though he also thought he'd proved the existence of God, and even of material things (I think) so he's not infallible) :p

He thinks, he is independent, therefore he is.

It all comes down to trust.
If we don't trust that materia and other life exist, we can't prove that it does.
If we distrust its existance we have to distrust our own experience as existing, it becomes a form of paranoia.
Then there's always the element of surprise coming from outer events that have a huge impact on our pereception of our existance, that helps to create our experience of being.
The experience of existing in the form of being an individual human being is but a small part of the whole existance of all that is, in all forms of consciousnesses, from the smallest particle to the universe and all its variations.

Deffinetely a question I've puzzled over before. See I allready have down how I can tell I exist, but proving the existence of others is challenging. Though I find it difficult to believe this world is all in my head and that everyone else is simply figments of my imagination. But can I prove the otherwise? Well what I do have to offer is these two thoughts: 1.) using our sense we can interpret our reality, and touch, see, taste ;) another person and interpret them as part of that reality (being real), that and as said above by Pollux "He thinks, he is independent, therefore he is.", another persons independent thought process, there ability to think differently and come up with unique answers to problems that you would not have thought of can classify him/her as real.

Anyway, ever seen Vanilla Sky? If not I highly highly recommend that movie.

So I don't know if I'll ever post on Sciforums again so all I have to say once again is peace out to all.

......Beb – Trust has no intrinsic value regarding proof. If your friend is a perfect illusion but you cannot tell the difference then trusting that the friend exists is the same as believing an illusion is true. Your assertion of trust does not answer the question but reinforces the quandary.
......If you can think then you can rightly claim that you exist since thinking does not involve any senses. As soon as you attempt to make claims based on sensory perception then you immediately introduce doubt about the existence of anything other than yourself. How do you tell the difference between a perfect illusion and reality? You can’t, hence you cannot rely on your senses for any form of proof.

It's just a matter of how you chose to perceive the world. Is a fake Picasso less real than the authentic one?
If the "illusion" is so convincing, then why label it false? Sure, we can wonder and examine how the existance is buildt up, including all its "illusions", but they are nonetheless the reality we preceive, they are in that quality real. The illusions are our reality.

Hi everyone :) I'm new around here so I hope you don't mind if I just start carrying on right away :)

"If a tree falls in the forest...". I always think of that one when this topic comes up. I don't know who first asked that question, but I like to think it's the same as asking "If something happens, and there's no one around to experience it, does it actually happen?". To me, it's a question about the nature of reality, and whether or not there is what you might call an "absolute" or purely "objective" reality that is independant of any perceptions each of us might have about it.

Is the world an illusion? Is reality nothing more than a construct of my mind? Am I the only one who is actually real? Am I the only one really here? Am I part of some sick voyeristic experiment concocted by alien or godlike scientists. I could try to find a way to "prove" to myself that someone I know is also actually real, but I still can't figure out how that would ever be possible. They could sit down with me on a starry night, and in the middle of a deep philosophical coversation articulate in an honest and heartfelt manner the exact same feelings I am expressing here, and I might be convinced. But is that proof? No. That's exactly what someone would do wouldn't they, if they were trying to stop me from discovering the truth. It's what Truman Burbanks best friend did to him when he came close to discovering the true nature of his world :)

Since you can't actually prove it either way, it has to come down to what you believe. Take three people were standing outside a building with no identifying markings of any kind on it. The first person believes that it is a post office, the second person believes that it is a bank, and the third person believes it to be a school of philosophy. If they all then took a look inside, either one person would be right, or none of them would be right. But it is not possible for 2 of them to be right, and certainly not possible for all 3 to be right. This example does not prove anything. In fact it is based on an assumption that can't be proven. That assumption is that the universe we live in is something that possesses the quality of being "absolutely real". But it does illustrate that very viewpoint. It's what I choose to believe not because I always have, but more so because I have been completely uncertain before, and through my experience in this world I have come to trust in it.

My belief is that we are all living in the same physical universe. If there was no being in it capable of experiencing it in even the smallest way, it would still be here. But there are beings here, and they are aware of themselves, the universe, and everyone else as being part of that universe. We all experience the same absolute reality in different ways because of our different experiences of it and the perceptions that stem from them. But if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still happens, and it still creates the compressed air waves that our ears are sensitive to, and that our brains interpret as what we call sound.

Bit of a shame to believe that actually. In some ways it would rock if reality itself (as it refers to the physical world) was actually a completely subjective thing. It would be like the Matrix, and you could do or change anything. Actually, from a Christian perspective, it's like the the universe is God's matrix. The bible says if you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can command a mountain to throw itself into the ocean. It also says that if you believe and don't doubt, God pretty much has to do what you've asked because unwavering faith like that is always rewarded. So what if you're driving down a highway and you really need petrol, but you know there isn't a petrol station for another 20 miles. You pray really hard for one, and never waver in your faith. Suddenly, a few hundred metres up the road, you see one. "Amen!" you yell, "Thaaankyou Jesus's's!". You pull over, get filled up, and as you pay the attendant you ask "How long has this place been here mate?". "About 10 years" he replies. What did God do? Change the entire history of the world to accomodate an additional petrol station right where you needed one? This is kinda tongue in cheek, but it's always amused me.

Sorry for the long post. I don't mind if nobody reads it all. Sometimes I just post cause it's fun :)

:My belief is that we are all living in the same physical universe. If there was no being in it capable of experiencing it in even the smallest way, it would still be here. But there are beings here, and they are aware of themselves, the universe, and everyone else as being part of that universe. We all experience the same absolute reality in different ways because of our different experiences of it and the perceptions that stem from them. But if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still happens, and it still creates the compressed air waves that our ears are sensitive to, and that our brains interpret as what we call sound. "

totally agree with above!

so how do i accept that, what i perceive, exists independantly of myself?
when others perceive the same thing too! by others i mean a sizable majority
of humans. otherwise that perception could be brushed off as a mass delusion/collective hallucination.....

ps: it would rock to create ones own reality. i guess tho that dreams are gonna have to do for now

As it stands, 'I think, therefore I am' is as big a proof we have of our own existence in philosophy. I and every other human being since Descartes have not been able to take this any further so I'm curious; has any philosopher taken the next step? After proving that I exist, I believe it would be an interesting to step to prove that my friend exists. So who's covered this with any kind of conclusion?

Now that Descartes is dead, do you think he can prove that he does not exist?

LOL!

You are definitely good value machaon :)

"If a tree falls in the forest...". I always think of that one when this topic comes up. I don't know who first asked that question, but I like to think it's the same as asking "If something happens, and there's no one around to experience it, does it actually happen?". To me, it's a question about the nature of reality, and whether or not there is what you might call an "absolute" or purely "objective" reality that is independant of any perceptions each of us might have about it.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, will it make a sound?. No. When the tree falls it will send out waves of compressed air. If someone is around the compressed waves of air will enter their ears. Those waves will be converted into "sound". If no one is around then those waves will not be converted to a system of measurment that we recognize as "sound". Therefore we should not think we are such an integral part of the universe that nothing can occur without perception lending aspect to the linear focus of the human mind.

I carry on sometimes and forget that people don't always feel inclined, and often simply don't have time to read long ramblings :) But I'm trying, I really am!


But if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, it still happens, and it still creates the compressed air waves that our ears are sensitive to, and that our brains interpret as what we call sound.

You're a someone who seems to embrace all the fantastic subjective aspects of what it means to be alive, while also standing firmly on the ground of the reality that is independant of our preceptions. I've always felt that that was "right".

Ramble on.

There is no proof of our existence. However, it's a good working hypothesis, especially if one does not presuppose either materialism or dualism as the foundations of existence.

There is no proof of our existence

I exist.

I exist.

Wheres your proof my imaginary friend?

When I fail to bathe, my crotch stinks, so I exist. When my friend doesn't bathe, his crotch smells even worse...as it is far worse to smell the unwashed crotch of another than one's own foul-smelling crotch, he too invariably exists.

Wheres your proof my imaginary friend?

I have no proof to give you. You might be the only one who is real. That's something I have to concede when looking at things from your perspective. However, I know that's not true, because I am real as well. I know that I'm real simply because I'm here. That's not proof from your perspective, but it's all the proof in the world from mine. So, if I'm real (and I am), and you're real (whatever you think just serves to prove it), then that makes two of us so far.

Maybe we can start some kind of club, and get some badges made up with "I exist" printed on them in big bold letters. That way we could seperate all the people that do from those who don't.

Damn, I just started another thread on this very premise, not realizing this thread was the same. I'll just carry my statements to this thread since it is already in the direction I was heading...

The color red. Does it exist? First thought would most likely be "Yes, of course". But let's think about this... Red is how our eyes recognise light waves reflecting off an object with certain physical properties. Thus, if there were no eyes to perceive it, would the color red still exist? (If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?) Probably not, just the light waves we perceive as red (or soundwaves from the tree)... Now this is pretty simple stuff so far... But everything we have ever experienced relies completely on our senses... And since I just showed that sight is simply perception, interpretation, what's to say the rest of our senses aren't as well? Space between two objects is how our brain links the 2 objects. So that falls in to the depth perception of sight. Feeling, such as pain, is simply our nerve endings' recognition of contact, but the feeling itself does not exist. Taste, just the taste bud's interpretation of certain chemicals. Same for smell. Sound is our ear's way of making sense of the soundwaves hitting it...

Well now that I've shown that all senses may be deceiving us, I will get to my (borrowed from great philosophers from the past, Immanuel Kant, for one) major point. Look at an apple and you now know the color red, in itself, does not exist. Nor the taste of the apple, etc... Well then, can you say with any certainty that the apple exists? That anything exists? Is our entire reality based on our senses!? Or maybe even STEMMED from our senses!!! This could mean 2 things...

Plato's "The Cave" deals with this by stating our reality is not the true reality, but the shadow... Our senses are holding us back from experiencing reality in it's true form...

Descartes was more of a skeptic, and suggested the possibility that our senses were not hinting at an underlying reality, but completely deceiving us all together. The only thing we can't succesfully doubt is our consiousness... Cause something has to be doubting it... (I think therefore I am). Thus even your own body is nothing but an illusion. Did notme2000 really type this post, or do you just believe notme2000 typed this post? Does notme2000 exist? I'll say in all certainty that I do, but what kind of proof is that to you, someone who does not share my consiousness or senses?

Sensations repeat themselves ---> leading to perception
Perceptions repeat themselves ---> leading to experience
Experiences repeat themselves ---> leading to knowledge

Putting this in reverse we see that ALL knowledge comes from sensations... It's not that hard to conceive the world as nothing but interpretations of signals from some outside source...


Question is, is the universe we perceive as 'real' the outside source? OR is the universe we perceive as 'real' the sensation?

(my post from the other thread)
You will never prove this becuase the only way you can precieve anything is through senses

You have a berry. It looks like a berry. It feels like a berry. It smells like a berry. It tastes like a berry. All evedence points to it being a berry. You have no proof that it is not a berry. It must be a berry.

Your senses may be tricking you, but you will not sense a lack of senses with touch, taste, smell or sound.

Any statement that your senses can't prove is a belief.

OG!

Any statement that your senses can't prove is a belief.

Can the truth be found beyond human sensation? Have we hade the evolutionary need to precieve such things, infa-red, really high pitched sounds, ultra-violet. Because we cannot sense those does that mean that they do not exist? If we where to base our senses on such things how would it change our perception of the universe? Can you tell what a berry is through infa-red? Can you taste ultra-violet radiation?


Your senses may be tricking you, but you will not sense a lack of senses with touch, taste, smell or sound.

Does a man who live in compete ignorance realize what he is ignorant of? Is it possible that we are just ignornate of certain senses that lead to a true perception of reality? Say if a man/women refuses to open their eyes because he/she belives they don't exist, is he/she blind?

An amoeba doesn't think therefore it doesn't exist.

The obcession of proving everything is absurd. Does a scientist have to prove everything that he learned for himself. Of course not. We have no choice but to believe. Although we can choose what to believe.

Is thought then just a way to verify ones existance? Is the gift of the human race that we know we are alive?

Perhaps it is the curse of the human race. Animals aren't burdened with all these questions, they just live...

Originally posted by axonio98
An amoeba doesn't think therefore it doesn't exist.

If existence applies to the independent consciousness and not the physical body, that's right; this was what Descartes was referencing. There are giant holes in his proof, but it was not intended to be all-encompassing; it was a response to early observations that one had no idea if the external world was a dream or a tangible, physical reality.

thus it is a question of wether an amoeba exists or is simply your dream...

Another way to look at it is: It does not think therefor the question does not exist. The amoeba still does.

Good topic to begin my career at sciforums :cool:.

This is a question that has haunted me in the past. I guess I had a habit of internalizing problems, philosophical problems included. Now, however fascinating the presented dilemma is...it totally failes to disturb my sense of reality. If the tree falls and no one is there to listen does it really matter whether it falls or not? Presenting this argument to a philosopher is never a good idea from my experience. But this is where my philosophy has lead. This is problem that every thinker must come into, and no one can solve it, but it evolves our way of thinking.

Cactus Jack, from my humble opinion, presented a very good argument for the existence of other people. If you can find a conscious being who can truly offer a new approach to life then I'd really like to consider him as an existing person. But it's no proof of course. I know that I interact with many people believing that they do exist. And I have to rely on that to make social interaction meaningful. Although whether they exist or not they still seem to have a lot to say.

welcome to sciforums Shai!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by prozak
[it was a response to early observations that one had no idea if the external world was a dream or a tangible, physical reality ]

maybe i'm God dreaming in heaven. :eek:

Do you only exist if you are consious of your exsitance?
Is is the knowledge of consiousness what truly makes us alive?

I believe so Emptry Dragon. I think the point is the self consciousness. Existence, the greatest dilemma of philosophy, can only be understood at some level when you consider the consciousness as "an element of existence".

You can only prove your existence if your conscious. If your not your existance can not matter to your self - there is no self. Your existence only has a significance to a self conscious being. In a void where there exists only unconsciousness the existence can not possibly have any meaning at all. Thus the unconsciousness existence without conscious existence may be, in practise, considered unexistent. Because that (unconscious)existence is not existing for anyone - it's not really existing at all. And if it exists, as said, it can not possibly have any other quality than mere existence. Even that can not be proved in this case. The void...is still a void without the consciousness.

For the second question. Yes...from my opinion.

Shai, Empty

If knowledge of consiousness creates existance, does that mean when you dream you are effectively creating a new existance that lasts only as long as your dream?

I might add that knowledge of existence creates the existence as we know it. Since we can't have knowledge of existence without the experience of existence. So it's next to impossible to observe existence without the subjective experience. This makes the problems of existence so difficult to answer.

But...I'd say yes. I believe that we, effectively, great a unique universe from our experience...and that universe is self in all of its forms. However, dream serves a purpose so the existence of dream will live on at some level. I suppose you could view the dream as an identifiable experience...to be temporary existence.

Well, you can not see me sitting at my computer, and while I can never prove it, let's assume I really am sitting at my computer. So this universe goes on wether you're looking or not... Does a dream? In a dream, does anything exist behind the door you decide not to open?

Originally posted by Shai


You can only prove your existence if your conscious.


I believe my fridge is conscious. Every time i open it's door a light opens. I can swear the bastard knows i'm there! :D

That's a point well put notme2000. My very limited explanation of existence is based on my personal assumption of "irrelevance of universe happening to unconscious". I can not possibly know if universe goes on and on without my own experience. I'm pretty sure my dream doesn't. But since for me universe exists only the way I can comprehend it...the difference is unimportant. For me, nothing happens behind the door I decide not to open, whether in "real" universe or in a dream, all same for me in the end. So I always try to open those doors where ever I see them...All in all, it's very subjective.

Just smash the light axonio and live a life not having to wonder if your fridge is conscious ;)

I understand your point, but things outside my view will eventually come to effect my life, which is why I am so interested in it...

If we exist, because of our thoughts. Then what about people that are unconsious or people that are in comas? They exist to us because we see them and know that are alive. If you're unconsious and you are not aware that you are, then do you exist?

It seems we are basing existance on the ability to question our existance... A person in a coma can not ask if he exists... Do you stop existing when you go to sleep? Are we all going to cease existing as soon as you die? Existance is something completely different than perception, no?

If we exist, and if the people around us are thinking the same thing as we are, then they must exist to.

Why does existence puzzel us so? Yes, you can't deny that you exist, but what lies beyond your own existence? A world that is made real by your senses? Or perhaps a semi-theoretical world made real by your sense and your knowledge that things that you can't perceive exist, and are the reasons behind certain events that you may perceive?
So does something exist to you if you are not told that it exists? No!
Could absolute truth be right there underneath your nose, but because you cannot comprehend it and are not told what it is, you unconciously deny it as a part of what you are percieving.
Most likely it is impossible to expalin what absolute truth is to a human, we are still too primitive:D.
I don't think it is possible to deny that an absolute and objective truth exists, even if you exist alone in the universe so does absolute truth, in a sense YOU then are the absolute truth and the universe.
And theoreticaly if you believe this with unwavering faith you then controll all the aspects of your own existence, believing that everything happening to you is a result, as opposed to a cause, of your conciousness.

Hmm, I hope that makes atleast some sense. (Thats another question why does something have to make sense to be real??)