Do we really exist?
 

When our eyes see things, they are merely acting as a lens. Kind of like a CD player lens reads a CD. Your brain then processes the information provided by your visual cortex and finally tells you what you are seeing. If you had a grasshopper, cat and a human all looking at the same "red" flower, the grasshopper would see it as red, the cat would see it as black and white, and the human would see it as red.

Every experience we have in this world through our 5 senses is all determined on how our brain is set up to receive the information. Obviously all animals are set up differently, so that is why i used the example above.

Everything we see that exists, is just a thought. A figment of our imagination. How could it not be.

So my question is, do you think we really exist? Or is everything we know just a product of our imagination?

Oh no. Not again.

Did you just finish watching The Matrix trilogy?

Never even seen the matrix.

I think therefor I am. Weather my reality is real or not is impossible to answer without knowing what real means. You might want to look up the word consciousness.

I think not!

i do

you don't

That kind of speculation is rather fruitless because there's no evidence that supports the hypothesis that we don't really exist. Actually, the universe behaves relatively predictable and so you still have to play along with the rules. You're probably not gonna say "this is all a dream so I might as well kill myself". Either way, you have a life and you're living it.

All that hypothesis can give you aside from cheapening our general understanding of the universe is perhaps a feeling of solipsism and existential dread.

i think we exist because we're the only species (as far as i know) that can recognize that it can go extinct.

You need to stop getting your philosophy lessions from science fiction movies.

I think rousseau had this idea as well.

Well it's true that things like color and sound is based on our own senses and perception. And god how stupid you'd have to be to just figure that out.

The whole idea that we're just figments of our own imaginations is just some stupid conclusion that pretentious stoner idiots come to after dropping a sh*tload of acid and reading one too many Phillip K Dick novels.

What I really don't understand is your logic in this question. This is how I would explain it: If I'm thinking and know something, therefore I must have a brain of some kind, and therefore I must exist in some form or another.

Can we get a Darkest Hour filter installed?

What a splendid idea.

So yeah, Yac, please do that.

Isn't there an ignore list or something?

uh...

LIFE doesn't have a fucking ignore list.
My statement was a social commentary.





I'm so totally using that as an excuse for everything I say that people misunderstand, from now on.

Oh please everyone, this is a valid philisophical question. It's called solipsism, and the writers of the Matrix definitely had nothing to do with the formation of the theory. Of course, it's fairly safe to assume that we'll never know for sure (in fact, we probably wont ever know ANYTHING for sure) but i find it fun to play in the world of Quantum Physics and ponder on the fact that we as humans are both incredibly small and yet contain unimaginable potential that we haven't even come close to unlocking.

Our individual perceptions of reality are all we have to work off of. Everything that our minds or spirit or soul knows is based off of the signals we recieve from "reality." The real question arises when we stop to consider who "we" are -- the observer. Personally, i don't believe that a series of incrediblly complex chemical reactions suffices to create the creative observer that I know myself to be. Therefore, i believe in a soul. Whether or not my soul is the only one that really exists (or if it exists at all) is a bit confusing, but i happen to believe that i live in a realm of energy, with all the other souls of the universe (which includes the alternate dimensions that may or may not exist). Whether or not "Earth" actually exists or not is quite beside the point, because it is the way in which we experience one another -- nothing more, nothing less.

anyone else care to speculate?

Veggie... if you believe in anything at all, then you believe that you exist.
If you think reality isn't valid, then you aren't either. In which case, what you just said doesn't apply in this conversation. So go on not existing elsewhere.

i dont believe the topic brought up was "do i really exist" or "do you really exist", I believe the thread is called "do we really exist" unless I am mistaken, WE refers to a group of people, ie. PLURAL. Just because I exist doesn't mean you exist. If you do not exist, there cannot therefore be a WE.
Also, the original post refered to the fact that everything the observer (ie. me) knows is based on signals recieved by the brain, thereby refering to the philisophical theory known as Solipsism which suggests that anything outside of the mind is unjustified. I believe that my comments were therefore, not only more on topic than anyone elses, but also a lot more helpful to the original poster.

I do actually know what I'm talking about.

Come on guys, it is a valid philosophical question even if most of us feel it's a silly one. Be nice.

This puzzled me a bit. What do you mean? Could you elaborate on this statement?

When i think about how little humans have actually managed to "prove" in comparison to how much is acutally (or potentially) out there, it is possible to feel very very small and insignificant both as an individual and as a species. On the other hand, every once in a while a human comes along that has managed to tap into the vast bank of knowledge (or energy or capability, whatever you want to call it) and completely baffels everyones expectations and challenges everything we "know" about the human mind. Yet even these individuals are only using some ridiculously small portion of the brain. When we think of all that brain power thats going unused, we realize the full potential of humanity and can feel very very big.

that help?

Let's first determine the definition of the word "we"...
Without going into detail, and if you're speaking in a general sense, WE can assume you mean everyone INCLUDING yourself. (That is, after all, the standard usage of the term.)

And if you refer to Solipsism that states everything outside the individual mind is unjustified, then to me, you're unjustified, and vice-versa. SO... Naturally, with everyone having that perspective, no one would exist.
But fortunately, not everyone has that perspective except a relatively few um... "people" who have nothing to do with their time and are logically challenged.

So I guess, by your argument, that your point is moot. Especially since I think it is and you don't exist, according to Solipsism.

I think Carneades, from the branch of academic skepticism said it best:

"Nothing can be known, not even this."

A bit of a dim, dogmatic proposition, but I find it to be nonetheless refreshing.

Let's see your evidence that we only use a ridiculously small percentage of our brain... and I'm NOT talking about the percentage we use SIMULTANEOUSLY.
I'm scared that you're about to make the 10 percent mistake. Please don't.

Well, he does only use 10% of his brain.

There is a reason I didn't offer any specific percentages as to how much of our brain we actually use. For one thing, I don't think the experts know for sure, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I know. I am however, under the impression, that humans have not even begun to tap their cognitive potential.

As for my point being moot, well. I can exist with out a we. But we cannot exist with out me. Therefore, while we does in fact include me, it does not neccesarily mean that i dont exist if i say we dont exist.

I am not solipsist (i guess thats what you'd call it), and so I am not going to try and convince you that solipsism is the "right" way to think about life. I just find it quite entertaining to ponder such theories. While you may see things a certian way, there is really no way to prove that it is reality. There is a certian amount of faith required to traverse the world of Quantum physics at all. Even if I believe that I exist, does that hold any merit if no one else thinks I exist? Its very rough territory, and not everyone likes to think of existance in such abstract ways. Assuming your close minded approach ("don't comment if you don't know what you're talking about" without any evididence that i dont, in fact, know what im talking about) i would guess that you are one of those people who prefer to dwell in the realm of "concrete fact." If that is case, you may wish to follow your own advice.

Yeah the whole "we only use a small portion of our brain" thing is just a myth, I guess it was created to promote pseudoscience bullsh*t, you know, like if you managed to use 100% of your brain you can use telekinesis, telepathy and sh*t like that.

*Waits for Darkest Hour to call me closedminded.*

I'm not going to pretend either. We know we use roughly 100% of our brain.

you find me the qualified refrences and I'll change my outlook on life.

Either way, humans are capable of a lot more than we generally achieve. And if not, well, there's a nice little piece of humble pie for the entire race.

EDIT: Ok, i found myself the qualified refrences. Here is a point when i shouldn't be arguing something i dont know much about (Freebase_Dali...) If we do in fact use 100% of our brains (which we do according to Scientific American) then that just makes our untapped potential all the more confusing. the existence of telekenisis, savants, etc. suggests to me (in my uneducated state) that a lot more is possible than generally accepted by modern science. It's just speculation, but maybe we don't understand (and may never understand) the entire spectrum of "things" that combine to provide us with consiousness.

Yes, the brain thing is a myth. Different parts of the brain do different jobs. Your speech center is not going to be operating at 100% if you're not in some kind of extreme language/understanding challenge. The same goes for the rest of parts of your brain. This somehow gave rise to a stupid myth that says we only ever use a small part of our brains which is frankly ridiculous. We wouldn't have that much brain if we didn't use it.

I see the pursuit of solipsism as one that is highly unlikely to bear any fruit. All it can do is make you doubt things that you likely benefit more from believing or even taking for granted, such as yourself, the banana you ate last tuesday or all the stuff you learned in science class today. Because it can't be proven or disproven, I doubt there's much wisdom to tap into there. As I wrote earlier, you may feel some existential dread I guess.

You're so dumb that a site made to teach children knows this. Yes, even kids can wrap their mind around the fact that we use 100% of our brain matter.

please read my edit. I've found that very little of anything productive ever came from calling someone an idiot/stupid. Excuse me for having teachers who where a little behind the times. Thanks to you guys, I am now a little bit more educated, but its not because you called me stupid.

If you all want to accept reality without bothering to wonder what exactly it is, well congratulations, you're an average human. As for those of us who do like to ponder the unknowable, we should be allowed to do so (even on MB, its the PHILOSOPHY section) without being called idiots.

VeggieLover is right, it is the philosophy section and it should be possible to have discussions and disagreements without throwing words like "idiot" around. Anymore of that and I'll start handing out infractions.

Pondering how much of our brain we actually use when we have hard data to suggest 100% of it doesn't seem very philosophic.

I'm not sure we could ever conclude what exists without first proving there is actual reality though. That seems like the tricky part.

I'm loling so hard right now.

I apoligize for bringing that up when i didn't actually have any current refrences to back it up... if it was true (which its not) then it would be philisophical, but moving on...

Until we accept a definition of reality, we cant "prove" anything. Proof only exists if we accept it as truth, same as religion etc. There are of course differences, and they require different types of faith, but nevertheless, both can be "disproved" by simply accepting a different definition of reality. I'm fairly certain we'll never really understand. But, just because we can't understand doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

"I think therefore I am" is probably the most basic realities I accept. everything else goes from there.

It's part of what I don't like about philosophy like this. Veggie, you say you like to ponder our existance but if you think about it, a hypothesis like solipsism doesn't actually promote any kind of inquiry, for example scientific research. Rather, it pacifies by playing with or accepting the idea that nothing is real and proving stuff or finding things out is fruitless and pointless.

It's oh-so counter productive.

It is only through that passage of time does our expirences slowly become a figment of our imagination. It does mean at the time we are experiencing it, it wasn't real.

Veggie lover... I assume you believe that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, that it doesn't make a sound. (If I'm wrong, correct me, but I'm using this as an example)

When the tree falls, it does produce the vibrations that, because of compression in the atmosphere and the behavior of waves, produce the physical phenomena we perceive as sound.
Now... You, or someone else, may argue that if we're not there to perceive it, that it does not exist.
But logic argues against that, simply by science having proven that this occurrence is inevitable and fact. Just because we are not there to acknowledge the fact does not mean it is no longer a fact.

What that means is that regardless of whether we philosophically believe we exist or not, can we simply disregard the physical evidence to the contrary? If we do, then we nullify every scientific discovery or knowledge ever acquired.
I'm pretty sure you solidly believe in the reality of certain things. You wouldn't put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, or walk out into a busy intersection because you know the physical repercussions of what would happen.
How can you deny that?
When is real real enough for you?
What is the point of questioning that and how far do you take it?