The Nature of Our Existence

[riboflavinbob]

We must remember that our reality is only precieved by means availible and possible by us mere humans.

How can we be sure that we earthlings and those who are not share the same universe and concepts of reality?

The notion of "x" is only precieved by humans through means availible to our planet and our logical processes.

How do we know that "x" also exists the same way it does apart from within our local space-time.

Even the notion of "existence" may only be a human concept.

Do we truly aquire empirical knowledge if the world passes only through our preceptions and limitations?

Does that not mean that we are simply interpretors of assumed ideas and we can never attain the absolute and truly objective?

Your thoughts?

 

[manhunter098]

Well its certainly possible, but I dont think its likely. I believe that we can see the world for what it is and the evidence to support that claim is the fact that we can make machines which can analyze the world in a similar way to ourselves. Physics and chemistry also provide an objective basis for analyzing the world and simply because we created it doesnt mean that its inaccurate, the fact that we can use science to accurately explain how the world works also is evidence of that.

Furthermore just because existence is a concept doesnt mean its not correct, we created the idea of existence for sure (not to say that other sentient life forms, earthly or otherwise, cannot create a similar concept), but that doesnt mean its incorrect. After all we are only using it to describe something that is already present.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You basically just summarized in your own words what Philosophy is all about. Read books about it or learn about it in school - nobody can answer these questions for you as they are completely abstract. If you're really interested in this subject you should get familiar with all kinds of Philosophy: The ancient Greeks, the god-centered philosophy of the middle ages, the rationalism vs emprism of the early ages of the modern times, Immanuel Kant, modern / post-modern philosophy and ethics.

That's really all I can say about it atm...Although I have lots of knowledge about this I have no intention to debate it unless I know that you know a lot about this subject yourself already - which I doubt after reading your post (no offense). If I knew which philosophic approaches you're familiar with and which book you've read I'd gladly debate this but right now there is no point in doing so - unless you prove otherwise.

 

[riboflavinbob]

If I knew which philosophic approaches you're familiar with and which book you've read I'd gladly debate this but right now there is no point in doing so - unless you prove otherwise.

Well I've never studied philosophy or anything of the sort.

But is philosophy really just about learning philosophical approaches of others through their literature? Of course you can get ideas to think about from these books, but does philosophy really have to be based on a medium or someone elses ideas? Why not debate about our own philosophies and not that of those learned from reading text?

What are your own personal philosophies, not those learned from a book or based on the ideas of others? Can we not debate using improvised processes, or must we stick to the books, limited by the ideas of others?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Why not debate about our own philosophies and not that of those learned from reading text?

You won't find one. What you think have been thought of before in 99% of the cases. Trust me, read first what you can get and is considered important as far as philosophy goes. Then you'll probably find something you'll agree with. It doesn't work the other way round...

 

[riboflavinbob]

You won't find one. What you think have been thought of before in 99% of the cases. Trust me, read first what you can get and is considered important as far as philosophy goes. Then you'll probably find something you'll agree with. It doesn't work the other way round...

I don't mean certain ideas formulated by an individual but a collection of ideas organized by an individual. Surely no one has the exact same set of ideas that you have. I don't mean personal philosophy as "a singular idea explaining or questioning a subject". If it were so I would only be speaking in terms of metaphysical naturalism, for I agree with it. However, it is only part of my personal philosophy.

But it seems that a conversation (according to your terms), if it is not based on clearly established, singular approaches and ideas, is not a philosophical one.

What do you think about the questions? It's not like you have to answer them definitively, as you said.

 

[mc4]

Well its certainly possible, but I dont think its likely. I believe that we can see the world for what it is and the evidence to support that claim is the fact that we can make machines which can analyze the world in a similar way to ourselves. Physics and chemistry also provide an objective basis for analyzing the world and simply because we created it doesnt mean that its inaccurate, the fact that we can use science to accurately explain how the world works also is evidence of that.

Furthermore just because existence is a concept doesnt mean its not correct, we created the idea of existence for sure (not to say that other sentient life forms, earthly or otherwise, cannot create a similar concept), but that doesnt mean its incorrect. After all we are only using it to describe something that is already present.

very good point.

 

[illinialex24]

I believe we do exist but beyond that, I really have no idea.

 

[Darkurai]

I recall a line from The Matrix.

What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can hear, what you can smell, taste and feel then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

It's hard to say whether we truly exist or not. In all seriousness, I sometimes have the belief that we are nothing more than a game of The Sims, so to speak.

The fundamental constants are exactly what they need to be for us to live. Like the force inside atomic nucleii for example. If it were just the slightest bit stronger, it would boost up the burning of stars so much, that they would explode only seconds after they were formed. If it was just the slightest bit weaker, it would be too weak to hold together elements like the heavy hydrogen isotope deuterium.

It seems to be just perfect. But that also seems highly improbable for such a thing to happen naturally. And it's more than just the example above. Too many things are like this for me to believe it's just coincidence.

In truth, we don't know what really "exists" and what "doesn't". We could just be a game of Sims, or a real-life Matrix.

 

[~Peachy~]

Hmmmm...this topic is very interesting..... it really makes you think about the world, life, and everything else in it.

Anyway, I think the view of "do we really exist" depends on a person's beliefs/ethics/morals.

To some, "we" can be the rulers of life. We control the majority of things. But to others, we might just be marionettes controlled by a puppet master. And then there are those in between those two ideas and the ones who think "absurd" thoughts.

In the end though, I think we can't truly know "everything" and our "logic" is limited to what we learned. Even now, something that may seem like the true, right answer now may be the complete opposite in a couple of years.

 

[Zero Beat]

It's not that we can't know "everything." Things are not unknowable, they're just not known yet.

something that may seem like the true, right answer now may be the complete opposite in a couple of years.

Unless you provide a lot of examples with explanations, I'd have to say it depends, because that notion hasn't happened much anymore.

 

[~Peachy~]

On a side-note, I really love how you challenge my ideas, Zero. It gets entertaining! ^__^

It's not that we can't know "everything." Things are not unknowable, they're just not known yet.

I believe that there are things unknowable. There are a lot of things that we didn't know then, we don't know now, and we're not going to know in the future.

We all know about lost civilizations. Although, many (or all) of them we don't know what truly happened at that time. (yes that can be said about all history).All we have are a few relics, some accounts, and maybe a scripture here or there. For all we know, what is "history" isn't really history. No one in today's world will ever truly know exactly what happened.

Another example is religion. Is there a way to prove that God, Heaven or Hell exists in this life beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don't think so.

Disproving that statement will just lead to science fiction. ^__^

Unless you provide a lot of examples with explanations, I'd have to say it depends, because that notion hasn't happened much anymore.

There are many things that seemed true in the past, but now those ideas sound completely (or at least partially) absurd in the future. Here are a few:

The Sun revolves around the Earth : disproved.

The Earth is flat: also disapproved.

Pluto is a planet: disproved again.

Carrots improve your eyesight: This list can go on and on...

 

[Hive]

It's not that we can't know "everything." Things are not unknowable, they're just not known yet.

what do you mean? I thought there are tons of things that aren't knowable bc we are limited by our perceptions...? even science can't ever claim to know everything, much of it has been decided that it can't be knowable.... (i.e. dark matter, things smaller than plank length, what happens inside of a singularity, dimensions outside of our universe, rules outside of our universe, ethics, what happens after death, identity... even m-theory and science in general is starting to look as if it will be blackboxed soon... many scientists actually already claim it is.) more scientists are starting to think that we live in a simulation as well, due to results of various things in quantum mechanics.... we are severly limited by our perceptions.... most people confuse science with a way of determining everything about the universe, but this isn't the case.... science is more about determining all of what we can figure out given our circumstance.
given that this is the case... we can't know by any means of logic if this is real or if we exist...

...but we do believe these things anyways... simply because it is pointless to believe otherwise... (Cogito ergo sum)

afterall if we didn't exist, it really wouldn't matter if we thought we existed or not, now would it ^^
also, whether or not its a simulation or not, I believe its still real to us regardless... though I do think its more possible its simulated than not...

edit: dang peachy! beat me to it :D

 

[Zolga Owns]

I don't know if anyone has thought this before but I'll say it anyway.

During my quiet times (usually when I'm gaming or making a Signature) i tend to ponder why we exist. Time and time again I've came to the conclusion that some race of beings has put us here as an experiment. I'm not talking little green men or anything. Some kind of being must have made us/moved us here to see what would happen. By us I don't mean humans I mean the bacteria/molecules/whatever that started life.

I don't believe in "God" in the scriptural sense but I do believe in us being somethings creation. All of these God myths and deities have some truth in them.

ill go more on topic now, in my opinion reality is whatever we think it is. Reality is defined by our perception of what we see, hear, smell etc. Some people like myself think that reality is created by our minds. I don't mean we dreamed up life I mean that we choose to perceive things as they are.
One of the ways that we do this is through Art. Did you know Leonardo Da Vinci made his students stare at old brick walls for inspiration. Leonardo thought that if you opened your mind to see things in the cracks and chipped stones you would see true inspiration.

 

[AltF4]

What the heck is this thread even about? I've read it and I don't even know. Everyone just says "Yea, that's real deep. I guess I don't know..."

The OP is just about the most vague thing ever. Where's the debate here?

 

[~Peachy~]

Hmmmmmm... I think it's a "Do we truly exist? Or do we just think we exist?" Debate....

At least.. I think so! ^__^;

 

[Darxmarth23]

This is where religion clashes in. I would say that the nature of our existence is for us to fulfil our undeiable rights.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Knyaguy]

If any of you have looked at the work of french philosopher René Descartes particularly his treatise Discourse on the Method, you may be familiar with the statement "Je pense, donc je suis" or "Cogito ergo sum". This means that to look for our proof of existence, in and of itself proves our existence.

 

[AltF4]

Yea, Descartes. I was going to say the same thing. The only existence we can be sure of is our own. It of course doesn't answer the question of "what IS existence" but we can be sure that we have it, whatever it entails.