I'm not sure my point is to be productive, its just fun. Solipsism is just the tip of the iceburg, and i actually don't think about it as much as the other philosophical theories. Most of my intrest in these subjects was sparked by the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" which we watched in my English class last year. You don't have to agree with it, but there are in fact a great many scientist who are not only inquiring deeper and deeper into these types of things through scientific research, but who are also doing the exact opposite of accepting things passivly. If i was smart enough, I'd want to do that for a living.

I don't think anyone here has said "don't do your homework or go to work or pay your bills, it doesn't matter, it's all in our imagination." Whatever you believe about reality, these things do appear to exist, and so to maintain OUR apparent existence, they are neccesary.

a CD player can't think for itself.

/thread.

and here we finally come to the root of the issue (yay!) (no sarcasm intended).

I do, in fact, believe in the same basic reality that you accept. For one thing, its easier, thats what most people believe, including most of the scientists that established what is now considered basic knowledge. In this reality that you and I accept, yes, a tree will fall in the forest and make quite a loud noise.

HOWEVER, when we stick our big toes into the warm waters of alternate perceptions of reality, the issue of the tree becomes infinitly more complicated. The question is no longer 'does a tree falling in the forest still make a sound if no one is there to hear it' but 'does the tree fall at all?' or 'is there a tree?' You and i accept the fact that gravity pulls things toward the center of the earth and that evey so often an old tree will succumb to this force, fall, and make a noise. But, just because we accept it doesnt mean its "true." There are a whole manner of things that "disprove" common scientific beliefs. polarity therepy helps hundreds of people and manages to "exist" in the same reality where gravity holds things down and energy is what makes the lightbulb work.

Western science ignores skads of things, things that eastern science has incorperated for centuries. While im no expert, my step-dad was a polarity therapist, and experienced first hand things that "modern medicine" often writes off as witchcraft or nonsense. The whole concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" challenge a good deal of what we thought we knew.

It doesn't matter what you believe, there is always going to be some evidence somewhere in some form that could be used to inspire doubt in that foundation -- thus the neccesity of faith. Regardless of what I believe, or what you believe, it is important (in my eyes) to be able to take a step back and see the world in a new and alternative way. It excersises the mind, strengthens the faith, and gives you a new perspective as to whats important in life. It helps you to learn and reduce your ignorance factor. I can maintain the integrity of my basic beliefs while still exploring the possibility of others. If something comes along to change my mind, all the better.

Darkest Hour you are a ****

My favorite post for the day

Not only does CD player not think, it's a laser not a lens that scans the CD. I guess lasers shoots out of his eyes?

We know that we ourselves exist because we think for ourselves. But everything else around us is just an image in our brain; we will never truly be able to see or know the 'real' thing.

ur kinda helping his point u know. He was comparing the human mind to a cdplayer in the way that it only functions because it gets input from a cd. In a similar way we get input from our world. If we're all just "reading CDs" what can we really be sure of? Of course the human mind is much more complex than a cd player, but at the basic level, similar. Think outside the box willya?

Definitely... I agree that the human mind is way more complex than a CD player. Because a CD player doesn't think for itself and know that it exists. That's how we know that we exist. But as for everything else around us... we only get the image from our mind.

my post was directed at Sodacake and Neapolitan, bad post timing on my part.

I agree with everything uve said thus far Lateralus

One sentence of Descartes should have cleared this one up for you.

...je pense donc je suis.

Or Plato's Cave.

im ignorant...what?

"And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind."

The thing is, regardless of what you believe, science has made observations that are based on known physical laws. We've observed things, made conclusions, and all agreed on them.
I understand the idea behind illusory perception, and there are a lot of things we could be wrong about... But our very existence as a matter of factual evidence is hardly eligible for debate.. All philosophy aside, it is a matter of simple observational logic that you are able to know you exist. To assume that you don't exist, you effectively nullify the logic that allows you to assume as much, thereby nullifying your assumption.
The fact that I'm replying to something you've typed and you're reading it creates an observational fact between you and I personally, and others who read it, in a spectator sense. If you never read this, it does not change the fact that I typed it, nor does it change the spectators' experience of reading it.

I just have a problem with the argument that everything else in existence is the product of someone's imagination. That would imply that only one person in the universe exists, for he/she would have to be capable of imagining the rest of us. Is it you? Is it me? Who decides?

If this is all a dream, then I guess we have to assume that the person who's dreaming us is god.
You better hope he doesn't wake up...


I just don't think that's an intelligent way to think.

Well, according to modern physics everything is 'energy' moving about in predictable 'patterns.' Now switch 'energy' with 'God' and 'pattern' with 'thought' and you get idealism. Switch pattern with 'logos' and you get the intro to the Bible. Switch 'energy' with 'blah' and pattern with 'boredom' and you get nihilism. What does it mean to ask 'do we exist?' If I take 'Tom' to mean a static entity with a permanent essence, then no, Tom does not exist, because the entity which others refer to as 'Tom' is constantly changing and reinventing itself. However, this entity does have a certain degree of continuity and to some extent contains previous versions of itself within itself. The same can be said for the environment which 'Tom' is a part of, as well as the components which are a part of Tom. Hence something exists, and this something seems to continually overcome itself through self-reflection. Any existent which is not self-reflective has no experience, and hence only exists through other existents--that is, it is nothing. This means that there is no dichotomy between the 'mental' and the 'material,' since 'material reality' is just a mental schema for organizing experiences. Regardless, there is still a duality--subject/object, self/other, whatever. For language and experience to be possibilities, there must be at least two 'entities.' However, this does not rule out the possibility of a primal emptiness, Godhead, or sunyata as it is known in mahayana Buddhism, which lies somehow 'beyond' the sensory realm of existenz.

Here are some interesting dialectical patterns in reality
quantum mechanics v general relativity
(wave v particle) &&& (space v time)

in philosophy
materialism breaks down into those who believe reality can be fully understood through reason, and those who think reality cannot be fully understood (skeptics)
v
idealism breaks down into those who take a positive attitude of 'will' (god, energy, whatever) where beauty and bliss are its fullest expression, and those who take a negative attitude towards 'will,' where our true purpose is to renounce it and slip back into nothingness.

philosophy itself breaks down into those who are more concerned with perfecting and helping themselves, and those who want to perfect and help society/mankind.

now if you take a hegelian standpoint (thesis/antithesis/synthesis), all these dichotomies will purposely resolve themselves and ultimately lead back to the unity of reality.

i hope that was clear enough. for anyone truly interested in these issues, german idealism is a good place to start, the pre-socratics (heraclitus and parmenides in particular), hinduism, taoism, buddhism, and a liberal reading of christianity all have a good deal of wisdom, and Wittgenstein, existentialism and poststructuralism give a good sense of where we are today.

the meaning of 'reality is an illusion' is much the same as 'that movie is an illusion.' not that reality doesn't exist, but that it isn't what it appears to be. that should be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied quantum mechanics or even atomic physics. it gets even more obvious when you realize 'quarks exist, quarks are energy (e=mc^2), so what the hell is energy?' and unfortunately you have no way of finding out (no logical/scientific way, at least).

if all the stuff that we experience and see everyday is not really there, then what is? That is more of the main point. I don't see how electrical signals to our brain can determine what is really there in front of us. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course, we were programmed like a computer by some higher intelligence to experience what we do.

It all seems to good to be true to me.

and what programmed the experiences of that higher intelligence? for that matter, what is intelligence and how 'high' can it get? (pun intended folks) you need to figure out the questions before you can get to the answers. the sensations you experience, pain and pleasure, curiosity and boredom, longing and satisfaction, are obviously real, and no amount of words or scientific/logical systems will allow you to understand them any better than you already do, simply by existing. there is nothing 'beyond' them. alternately, there is nothingness beyond them.

The placebo effect says that any medicine (sugar pills, fake surgery, magic etc), even if inherently ineffective, may work if the reciever believes it will work and has expectations. It gives credibility to many types of healing that you can otherwise prove have no significant effect beyond the placebo effect. The norm for any treatment which is not too harmful is that it will have a net beneficial effect. It takes testing to find out if this effect is real (from the treatment) or if it's simply produced by the patients themselves.

When they've tested polarity treatment, so far they haven't found any significant effect beyond placebo. That's why the treatment is not supported by evidence.

First, I think you have to organise your thoughts a bit. Saying electrical signals determine what the world is sounds a bit weird and perhaps a bit simple. Such signals run along our nervous cells (neurons' axons) to send signals to other cells, but it's not just electricity. These signals cause the release of neurotransmitters by cells and the electrical potential difference (or whatever you call it in english) outside and inside any cell serve as a gradient over which different ions either want to travel in or out of the cell. The point being there's a lot of complex chemistry involved not to mention evolution which explains by natural cause and consequence how something like us might develop over time. I think the reason you find it so incredible is because you lack a theoretical background that gives credibility to such theories.

It becomes more understandable with understanding evolution because evolution says by, almost like a law, that if you have something which replicates, can change to become more or less effective at replicating and can pass on those changes to it's copies/offspring, then you have something which can evolve. If you put such things in an environment where they compete for resources, they will improve over time. This doesn't only apply to what we think of as "life", but we assume that when certain molecules of old went through this process, they gained complexity over time until they transitioned into what we think of as something which is living - and then kept going.

The point is, if you can accept that there is a process that orders and builds complexity in things like replicative molecules over time, then it should become appearant that after billions of years, that complexity can become rather considerable.

However, you don't necessarily get belief in evolution or any science for free. Even though this particular process is testable and can be proven, unlike religions and hypotheses like this solipsism idea, evolution won't be immediately understandable. You have to study it before you know what it is and most people haven't, including yourself. The point I'm trying to make is that it's fully understandable if it doesn't make sense to you, but maybe it would with with more knowledge/understanding.

Traduisez la citation en anglais.
Les règles de forum spécifient vous signalez la traduction en anglais

It's a quote, troll. Va t'en.

I ignore it every time you say that so let move on, you know I'm not and you are ruining possibly what could be an awesome friendship.

I said 'Translate the quotation into English. The rules of forum specify you announce the translation in English ' It was a silly little joke. Life is short laugh a little.


N.B.
• If you are going to post non-English on these forums, please also post an English translation of your post.

Owned.

Ahh...the presence of brains so obviously more experienced and learned than mine is refreshing.

Freebase Dali, it consistenly sounds like you're trying to convince me that solipsism is completely bogus and that even idiots could see that we exist. Well, for one thing, I dont need convincing, i do not believe in solipsism! However, I am not going to write off the theory as completely bogus because A) the theory wouldn't exist in any form of relevancy if it was in fact as simple as "i do (or don't) exist, end of story" and B) I don't consider myself experienced enough (or really, humans in general experienced enough) to reach a conclusion absolutly, and C) If someone somewhere believes in it, then it is my self given duty to try and understand that from an empathetic point of view, if only for a few minutes.

Everything we learn is built upon what we already know. If we don't know anything for 100% sure (which, in my opinion, we don't) then we can't define "laws" or anything. There's a reason everything is called a theory in science, we can't know for sure! We can gather "scientific evidence" that makes these theories make enough sense to be assumed true, but there is (almost) always some exception to the rule. If these exceptions are taken into account, our "knowledge" can maybe become more and more accurate, but our little human existence hasn't been scientifically inclined for nearly long enough.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the world is square or that it doesn't exist at all, for all practical purposes, evidence indicates a spherical world that we all live and breathe on and yes, it does exist. I am willing to work inside Newton's laws and all the other theories that have been accepted into the scientific community. But, if we take a second to think outside of the box, to disregard the common and accepted, everyonce in a while we'll come across something revolutionary, or at least interesting, to build off of and test and theorize about. In my mind, its all about remaining humble enough to learn from what we don't know about yet.

So i am taking it that just about everyone in this thread thinks reality has a true appearance. And we are experiencing this true appearance?

I don't think so.

True. We are not experiencing the real appearance and we will never be able to because we will always see the world through our eyes which means everything is simply an image filtered to us from our brain.

However, this doesn't mean that we can't know if we exist or not.

Consciousness is existence

It's easy to "exist", having a meaningful life is different.

Since humans invented the concept of reality, and there's no logical way to prove it either way, I can't see why this is a relevant question, let alone important.

We are experiencing the real objective reality. Do you define real as something that cannot be sensed by humans? Basically, you are saying that because we can sense reality, it must be not real. You believe that human senses are tainted when compared to what type of sense?

Well, if you look away from the unproductive ideas that nothing can ever be proven yadda yadda, obviously we do find some objective truths despite us to a large degree relying on our perceptions.

For example, you can percieve the colour blue. Yet, we know from studies that blue is actually electro magnetic radiation with a frequency which is within a certain spectrum (~440–490 nm). That's not something you'd know from looking at a blue car, but we can still figure it out.

oh this question is simple....no we don't exist. So if I cut off your arm don't worry about that pain sensation you feel. it doesn't exist either.

This is getting boring.

suit urself, it's my absolute fav :) (ok, maybe second or third fav)
still, maybe MB is not the best place, we seem to be going in circles.
k, with that said, I'm done :)

VL, I don't really think your arguments make much sense to start with.

So observational evidence that everything falls downwards is not good enough to start formulate a theory of gravity. We can't know that such a law is correct, so there's no point, no practical use?

I don't agree, we figure out laws and we put them in practice and in the end, we get stuff like the computer you're using now. Even if the law of gravity is not formulated with 100% correctness, we can put people on the moon or send satellites to Jupiter. It sounds like you're insinuating that despite all the knowledge and obvious benefits, there's no point in the pursuit of knowledge.

"Theory" is used in scientific termonology. Just in case you don't know, "theory" is the highest level of credibility you can get to in science. They are supported by hypotheses which are typically based on observational evidence and experiments.

I just want to specify that the theory of gravity is not called a "theory" because we're unsure of wether or not you're gonna fall a long way down if you jump off the empire state building.

To think of the pursuit of knowledge as pointless or fruitless unless you can understand everything is dumb. Just look at all the technological thingies we surround ourselves with and for the most part appreciate.

There is no spoon

Oh my, some how I've managed to totally misrepresent my point. In no way shape or form am I saying the pursuit of knowledge is pointless. Indeed, I am saying just the opposite.
Yes, I am aware that scientific theories are generally accepted as fact, and I'm not saying thats a bad thing. Where would I be if this here computer in front of me didn't exist because people thought that curiousity was pointless? You ask any scientist on the earth, and ask them if these theories are fact...100% true...and I can bet you they will say something along the lines of "no, we can't know anything for 100% sure and we're still learning, but we can gather enough evidence to form theories that appear to be true." assuming you word your question in a consice fashion.

My point is that we as humans, we with the scientific minds, need to remember to be humble about what we do and do not know. By being open to the exceptions to the rule, by thinking "well maybe if this theory was this way and this something or other did this...what would happen?" we can discover and learn so much infinitelly more than if we stayed within the confines of our own assumptions (whether they be "true" or not). Think outside of the box, and we might even find that we aren't the only box out there in the universe. (and my box I mean the conventional pieces of our own dimension and the world in which we are all accustomed to living).

You'd be amazed at home much more you can learn if you look at things from 7 different perspectives than if you looked from just yours -- Even if yours happens to be the "right" perspective, or the one you end up coming back to anyway, that theory is strengthened by experience.

It's good to see you agree that inquiry and open mindedness is important. However, it's not the only thing you need to keep in the back of your head.

Critical thinking is also very important in science. There are several ways to be critical and many reasons to do so. One such problem/reason is people. You could say humans are a huge source of error. When we watch a phenomenon, we don't just observe but we taint our perception with notions and ideas. Preconcieved ideas, bias, desire to produce a certain data or more can corrupt scientific results. Because of this, scientific methodology is designed to minimize the human error factor. Also part because of this, scientists on the whole are critical thinkers - we learn to be sceptical. It's not the same as being close-minded, it could mean that you question things such as the effectiveness of a treatment method or an animal species' place in current taxonomy.

Usually, in order for something to be accepted as "true" in science, it has to be tested and proven. It's a filter that's supposed to separate fact from fiction, but many things people tend to be open-minded towards such as astrology, the effectiveness of certain homeopatic treatments or ghosts - these things have not passed that filter yet, despite testing. If you ask me why I'm close minded when it comes to those topics, that's why. As a young biologist, I apply the same filter for what I think I should believe in - or not - as I've learned in science.

In fact most of my friends who are pursuing careers in science are of the same sceptical nature I am. When we work, we do so in a field where we always try to remove that human error. Out there in the real people's world with TVs, movies, market interests, stories - most people are nowhere near that critical. When the "people" say scientists should be open minded, they usually mean they should be open minded to the possibility that the stuff they believe in is true. They don't want scientists to be open minded to the possibility that the crystal treatment they pay 100 dollars per hour for to their local quack really doesn't work, that their religion is wrong or that the protective spirit of their long dead grandmothers only exist in their heads.


Sorry if this is getting lengthy, but there's another point too and it's that scientists have to be critical in how they interpret their own data as well. For that, we usually use principles of parsimony. Occam's Razor is an example. It means that if you have more than one way to explain a phenomena, you choose the one that makes the fewer assumptions. You go for the simpler solutions. It's not because truth is always simple, but it's because there's a smaller chance of messing up.

You can apply parsimony to real life as well. If you are alone in a spooky house at night and suddenly a door closes .. you can have several hypotheses to explain why. Let's say nr. 1 is that the wind did it, nr. 2 is that it was closed by a ghost. Choosing to believe nr. 1 is better by principles of parsimony because you know that wind can close doors and so the only assumption you need to make is that there's a draft. In order to beieve in hypothesis nr. 2, you would have to accept that there's a life after death and that ghosts are capable of closing doors. Your world view has potentially turned untestable and you no longer know what you believe in. Even though the simple solution (nr. 1) seems smarter, because you are human and got spooked when the door closed, you are likely to believe a bit in nr. 2, at least until you can get away from the situation which scares you. Again, it's the human error.

In this thread, we've been chatting about a hypothesis that says nothing is real. Although it may be an interesting conundrum in philosophy, it's not so interesting in natural science because it is untestable. You can't prove if it's true or not. If you choose to really believe in it and accept it, you would have to make assumptions that would come into conflict with everything you think you know.

Bottom line, it wouldn't be very scientific at all.

I guess thats the point then isn't it. Probably I haven't done a good job of sticking to the threads original topic, but hey, philosophy etc. tends to run in circles right?

I think that the way scientists are trained (and in some cases they are born this way) to think is not neccesarilly closed minded, but maybe a little bit limited. A lot of what we use (or at least i do) to function in our daily lives can't really be defined or proven at all. Since we can't really explain it using conventional scientific methods, we can either assume that it doesn't exist, challenging nothing, or we can speculate that there is a realm (and i use that term both figurativly and literally) of abstract spirituallity -- of energy really -- that cannot now and will probably never be "proven" with physical evidence. What we call the sugar pill effect might be totally true, or it could be just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to polarity therapy etc.

We don't have to believe in all the myths and spooky ghost stories, but there is evidence, though perhaps minimal and non-conclusive, of such things. One cannot seperate completely these two different worlds, but they do exist very differently (the way I see them). There is no way to prove it -- true; but maybe if we let ourselves see different kinds of proof, we'll unlock it a little more.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you of anything. After all I'm just a sixteen year old high school student with a strong sense of the spiritual. You are studying to become a biologist (think thats wut u said) and have not only the evidence but the experiance to back up your convictions. There is a point wher having a critical mind crosses over into having a closed mind. I'm not accusing you of this, or any scientist, im just saying humans do have that tendancy.