Do we really exist?

Inuzuka Skysword · 08-29-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lateralus

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.

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?

Guybrush · 08-29-2009, 09:33 AM

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.

djchameleon · 08-29-2009, 10:51 AM

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.

Freebase Dali · 08-29-2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeggieLover

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.

This is getting boring.

VeggieLover · 08-30-2009, 11:28 PM

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

Guybrush · 08-31-2009, 02:45 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeggieLover

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeggieLover

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.

"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.

Zer0 · 09-02-2009, 11:20 AM

There is no spoon

VeggieLover · 09-03-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

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.

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.

Guybrush · 09-03-2009, 10:03 AM

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.

VeggieLover · 09-03-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

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.

08-29-2009, 09:33 AM	#72 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	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. __________________ Something Completely Different

08-30-2009, 11:28 PM	#75 (permalink)
VeggieLover Music?! Lets boogie! Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: CO Posts: 215	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 __________________ "Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you."

09-02-2009, 11:20 AM	#77 (permalink)
Zer0 ∞ Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ireland Posts: 3,792	There is no spoon __________________ Last FM \| RYM \| The Final Sound

09-03-2009, 10:03 AM	#79 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	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. __________________ Something Completely Different

08-29-2009, 10:51 AM	#73 (permalink)
djchameleon A.B.N. Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: NY baby Posts: 11,451	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.