Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

Descartes argued that the only thing that we can be certain in is our own existence, or more precisely the existence of our self / our thoughts / consciousness.
Cōgitō ergō sum

And Descartes lived before we knew maggots didn't spontaneously sprout from rotting beef so maybe we don't care.

 

[abaddon]

This will immediately dissolve into semantics but... I sorta kinda disagree, but cards on the table it's largely a difference of definition.

I doubt we will disagree.

There was a quip that Zach Weinersmith made/shared on his Twitter a few days ago that said; paraphrased; that nothing exciting ever happens in chemistry because if anything exciting happens in chemistry it's classified as biology. (Or something to that effect, I can't find the Tweet I'm remembering)

No worries. I will take you at your word. Why? Because you are not stupid.

Had some wingnut claimed that, for example, that Drumpf was appointed by gawd, we would both be saying "got any evidence?" and we would both be certain there was none.

Meh.

I sort of feel the same way about philosophy. Nothing intellectually meaningful ever happens in philosophy because if it does it's no longer philosophy, it's science.

Philosophy always declares itself the winner of everything by defining itself so broadly as to be meaningless. All thought, all thought about thought, all thoughts about thoughts about thoughts, etc are "A type of philosophy" which is why all arguments with the Philosophy Fan Club always involve the "You can't criticize philosophy because what you are doing is a type of philosophy because everything is philosophy because some philosopher once said so" argument.

At this point regardless of what it is via technical dictionary definition, what it used to be, what is was meant to be, or what it is intended to be, Philosophy now on a functional level nearly never raises above the level "labeling and categorizing all the wrongness and trying to pretend that makes them all valid alternative forms of rightness."

Decades ago, I worked as a programmer with a guy who had a PhD in philosophy. I asked him. Why is some bloke with a Phd in philosophy working as a jobbing programmer?

His answer? "I learned that philosophy cannot put food on my table."

 

[suren]

And Descartes lived before we knew maggots didn't spontaneously sprout from rotting beef so maybe we don't care.

Even if this philosopher wasn't correct in some regards it doesn't mean that all his (especially philosophical) ideas were wrong. If you have better ideas about this epistemological problem I'll gladly accept them.

 

[Venom]

Your tangible experience is very real. There are some aspects of biological experience that are somewhat of an illusion. You can touch your nose before you feel the sensation of it. Your neurons fire before you're aware of lifting your finger to touch your nose.

Or do you think the mind is independent of its substrate?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

How "real" is reality, is a red herring, unless that makes any difference to any practical situation.

It could be all field resonances that we call particles, it could be a simulation, or it could all be in your dream. The point is that you can't control any of that. If it's your own dream, then it's a part of your brain you can't actually control. If it's a simulation then you don't have admin rights to it.

If you get shot, it will still hurt like hell. If you jump off the house you might break some bones. Simulated or not, it will still happen just the same.

Simulated or not, if you don't pay your electricity bill, your lights, computer and even fridge will stop working. Simulated or not, if you put diesel in a petrol car's tank, it won't work. Simulated or not, if you forget your dinner in the oven, it will get burnt. Simulated or not, if you plug your 110V laptop power brick in a 230V socket in Europe, it will at least blow a fuse.

Unless you can show that you can control any of that, then guess what? It still works by the same rules that we call physics. And in fact to make anything work, you still have to apply the same science.

If it's a simulation, then that's the rules that it's programmed with. If it's a dream, then that's the rules that that part of your brain sticks religiously to. If you want to get anything done, and/or avoid harm, you still better learn and apply those rules.

So essentially the whole exercise is pointless, since it makes no measurable difference whatsoever.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But basically, to be less nice, one of the reasons this keeps popping up is that some people seem to think, basically, "maybe it's not really really real, therefore magical thinking." No. That's two wrongs in there already.


1. "Maybe" is not sound reason to base any conclusion on.

Maybe I'm really a nigerian prince, but that doesn't mean you should give me your bank info. Maybe I'm the emperor universe, but that doesn't mean you should just start paying your taxes to me. Etc.

To have a SOUND logical inference, the premises must be shown to be true, not just "maybe" they're true.


2. Even if you could prove with evidence that it's all a simulation, the "therefore magical thinking" part still doesn't follow from that. A simulation doesn't have to be written in such a way that it's your personal Santa and bends its own rules to give you whatever you wish really hard for. In fact, a good simulation will have code that's there specifically to prevent exploits.

World Of Warcraft is a simulation (of a much simpler world, but still a simulation,) but that doesn't mean you can be invulnerable by just thinking you are. War Thunder is a simulation, but your tank's armour doesn't become impenetrable if you think really hard that it is. Or your plane doesn't become able to fly with its wings blown off, if you just wish it really really really hard. Etc.

Unless you can actually show that you can use the simulation/dream part to actually bypass the normal rules, then there is no "therefore magical thinking."

 

[Thor 2]

I had a dream last night in which I was having a discussion with my ex philosophy teacher. She said nothing exists and gave the name of a philosopher as a reference to that viewpoint. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name.
Does anyone know of a philosopher who held that view?

"I had a dream ...."

Sounds like Martin Luther King to me.

I said in the dream, I exist because I think therefore I am, and my mind is not capable of creating all that I perceive. But I do believe that Gods mind is capable of sustaining creation and the laws of physics that support everything we observe. However everything is an illusion, and it is not what it appears to be to our senses.

How you build all this from you dream experience is a source of wonder to me, and I suspect to many others here.

Actually pain is nothing but an electrical signal sent up the nerves to the brain which interprets it as pain. Some yoga masters can overcome pain, as can be seen by Buddhists monks who immolated themselves in petrol in protest at war. They overcame the pain sufficiently to sit quietly in the lotus position while they burnt to death. Ordinary humans would have screamed and writhed about.

"Pain is nothing but an electrical signal" ....... but, but, but ......... electricity is power usually quantified as watts, and a watt is one joule per second. The joule being a unit of energy. Mass and energy are interchangeable.

So there, things do exist.

 

[Trebuchet]

If "I think, therefore I am" is correct, I'm pretty sure several posters on this forum don't exist.

 

[Belz...]

Descartes argued that the only thing that we can be certain in is our own existence, or more precisely the existence of our self / our thoughts / consciousness.
Cōgitō ergō sum

Descartes was a man of his time, and philosophy moved on after him. I wish people would stop quoting him as a relevant authority just as much as I'd like people to stop quoting Freud as if his view on psychology still matters.

 

[Belz...]

How "real" is reality, is a red herring, unless that makes any difference to any practical situation.

It never does.

 

[Myriad]

The question isn't whether anything exists, it's whether anything exists context-free.

Harry Potter doesn't exist as a person in the real world (yeah, yeah, a loaded term, but this is just making a comparison) but he does exist as a character in various works of fiction. Also in the context of intellectual property law. Sexy Draco Malfoy Who's Secretly In Passionate Love With Harry Potter doesn't exist even in that context, but does in the different context of works of fan-fiction. Pain exists in the context of conscious experience. Scorpion's ex philosophy teacher exists in the context of Scorpion's dream; and a different entity matching that description may or may not also exist in the real world.

So, what context does the tree I'm looking at exist in? Only in my perception? No; there's plenty of evidence that a material object somewhat matching my perception actually exists there, that's actually quite a bit more dynamic and complex than my immediate perception of it. Does that mean the tree, or at least the material it's composed of, exists apart from any context? Does there have to be a simulation that encodes it, or a deity that contemplates it into existence, or is it just there?

So far, there seems to be no advantage to proposing any special context in which I or the tree exist, apart from as a result of the evolution of the quantum fields of the universe since their origin.

 

[suren]

Descartes was a man of his time, and philosophy moved on after him. I wish people would stop quoting him as a relevant authority just as much as I'd like people to stop quoting Freud as if his view on psychology still matters.

I did not claim to agree with all of Descartes' ideas. For instance, some of his dualistic ideas are incompatible with modern neuroscience and some of them only raise more questions.

But we are only discussing the claim "I think, therefore I am" and I want to know what's wrong with this.

 

[Belz...]

I did not claim to agree with all of Descartes' ideas.

I didn't say you did. My response is about Descartes, not you.

But we are only discussing the claim "I think, therefore I am" and I want to know what's wrong with this.

Depends. Are you just going to quote that small bit, or larger part of his argument for me to critique?

 

[arthwollipot]

Even if this philosopher wasn't correct in some regards it doesn't mean that all his (especially philosophical) ideas were wrong. If you have better ideas about this epistemological problem I'll gladly accept them.

It's only an epistemological problem if you want it to be. And sure, wanting it to be an epistemological problem is fine, but if you go down that route, sooner or later you'll fall into the drainhole of philosophical irrelevance that is solipsism. We're circling that drainhole in this thread already. Far better to just walk away.

 

[LarryS]

I had a dream last night in which I was having a discussion with my ex philosophy teacher. She said nothing exists and gave the name of a philosopher as a reference to that viewpoint. Unfortunately I cannot remember the name.
Does anyone know of a philosopher who held that view?

I said in the dream, I exist because I think therefore I am, and my mind is not capable of creating all that I perceive. But I do believe that Gods mind is capable of sustaining creation and the laws of physics that support everything we observe. However everything is an illusion, and it is not what it appears to be to our senses.

Note, she was speaking from within a dream, and she's right on the money regarding the stuff dreams are made of. Regarding dreams, interesting that we create the entire contents of the dream, and then, seemingly forget that, to become an observer in the world we just created. hmmm, is that how God pulled it off?

 

[smartcooky]

OMG, not another ******* interminable solipsism thread

Does anything exist?

Answer: Yes

I exist
My family exists
Our houses and places of residence exist
My country and everyone and everything in it exist
The world and everything on it and in it exist
The universe and everything in it exists

/thread

 

[angrysoba]

Have we got to "What do you mean, mean?" yet?

It's a perfectly cromulent question.

Look:

 

[smartcooky]

The Boltzmann brain, I can't wait for Scorpio to tell us all about the Boltzmann brain

NABSG

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I said in the dream, I exist because I think therefore I am, and my mind is not capable of creating all that I perceive. But I do believe that Gods mind is capable of sustaining creation and the laws of physics that support everything we observe. However everything is an illusion, and it is not what it appears to be to our senses.

Well, clearly special pleading exists, if nothing else.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, clearly special pleading exists, if nothing else.

BOOM!