Nothing exist until after we perceive it

[Upchurch]

You know, I think I've come to realize something, Franko. You're not an immaterialist (or amaterialist, if you prefer) at all. You are a materialist. You believe that physical things exist. I mean, how many times have your agruments relied on the existence of atoms and gravitons and cars and so on? You just have a different concept of how the physical world came about and what some of the elements of it actual are.

We need to get an actual immaterialist like hammegk or Ian on this thread to explain the disparity.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I second Upchurch.

It seems to me, Franko, that your position does not differ significantly in application to a materialist's. In the case of Shirley and the brick, for instance, the materialist takes the view that a physical brick is thrown from Bill to Shirley. In your view (it seems to me) information about a brick is passed (through TLOP) from Bill to Shirley. That nothing has physical form seems inconsequential. TLOP, as a conscious entity, could continue perceiving the brick (as information) in the absence of both Bill and Shirley. The difference only seems to be one of form. To the materialist, the brick is physical; to you it is information (logical, perhaps).

Again, if I've muddled your views in any way, please clarify.

Well, if I explained my worldview a little more thoroughly and completely I think you might begin to see that it is a moot point from my POV.

Feel free to do so...

 

[whitefork]

While the logic of geometry is consistent, it's still only true if the premises are true. We have no experience or perception of a straight line except what we receive through our senses. If our perception of a "straight line" is really just an illusion, then what does geometry prove?

The theorems of geometry are valid even if there are no straight lines - and of course, there are in nature no straight lines as defined by Euclidean geometry.

You're closer to the mark by suggesting that we can prove that a logical system (e.g. geometry) can be shown to be self-consistent, but here again, how do we know that our perception of consistency isn't, itself, another illusion fed into our brain?

No fair! You know I can't answer that one, except by falling back on the argument that the more times the consistency of a system is demonstrated, the more reliable it is that those doing the demonstration have not erred. Can one know that one is not in error, when the word "know" is taken to mean "it is impossible to be mistaken about this"? I think not. That is too restrictive a definition of knowledge to permit anything to be known, even the fact of one's own existence.

 

[uruk]

Well I would contend that Materialism/Atheism is telling you even less than what I am. For example how do oscillating photons traveling at the speed of light with a wavelength of 6500 angstrom go from being photons to being Red?

Where exactly is the “red” coming from? What happened to the oscillating photons? What is the intrinsic, inherent color of a photon? What would one look like if it was the size of a basketball?

This is a common fallacy that immaterialsts make.

The lable "red" is just what we call a photon with a wavelength
of 6500 angnstroms as it acts upon our retinas and is processed
by the brain.
There is no inherent color to a photon. the statement is meaningless as it is an incorrect assessment of the properties of a photon. The problem your having is with the lable
"Red". It is nothing more than just a description that has no bering on the state of the existance of the photon. The photons which ocsillate at that particular frequency still exists wether
there is anyone to observe it or not.

How do I know that they existed before I became aware of them or for that matter before I existed?
When I look at a distant star through a telescope, the photons emitted from the star striking my retina took millions of years traveling through the universe to reach me. I am not millions of years old. Therefore they existed before I did.


True if there is noone around to percieve the photon there will be noone to call it "red". So What. How does that negate the existance of the photon?

What we call a thing or how we percieve a thing has no bering
or effect on that thing. If I call the star we are orbiting "freddy"
how does it change or affect the star? My "mind" can percieve the visiblel spectrum as well as feel the thermal radiation emitted by the sun. How does the application of the lable "sun light" or "warm" affect the sun? How can that mental perception create the physical sun?

Each consciousness is in reality a Graviton and TLOP would be just another Graviton.

Which definition of "graviton" are using? The generaly accepted one: Graviton: A massless particle hypothisized to be the quantum of gravitational interaction.; or do you have one of your own. Please clarify.

All gravitons (or Souls) exist in the ultimate reality known as “the Omniverse”. In this reality Minds are the only “matter” (only particles/entities) which exist.

Why the extreaneous reality? and what evidence do you have to believe that it exists? You just seem to be substituting one reality
for another. Why would the "ominverse" be any more real than our own? Couldn't the "omniverse" be the illusion and this existance the "realiy"? Why can't we just percieve the "omniverse" and just do away with this illusion?

As for Godel and formal systems, BOTH your worldview and mine would qualify as “formal systems” and by subject to Godel’s theorem (Godel’s Law), however your worldview asserts the self-existence (the preeminence) of “matter” beyond the scope of observation or perception

But as upchurch suggested, and by using your beliefs> How would you know that your world view is the same as upchurch's.
Your world view is being supplied by TLOP as is Upchurch's.
How would you know that TLOP isn't feeding you one world view
and feeding upchurch a different one" You and upchurch communicate via the TLOP, right? How would you know if upchurch existed or not? Could'nt upchurch just be some illusion that TLOP is feeding you?.

You claim that your telling me more than what materialisim / athieism (science) could tell me. I'm sorry but I can't agree with you.

Also, You haven't even answered my questions on how mental illness and retardation figure into your "omniverse". Or why
any physical damage to the brain can cause such a profound affect on the mind. And how about the blind and deaf? Did TLOP just decide not to send those minds those particular information?
Why? And why just the five senses? Why not 10 or 2?
Science has theories and experimental evidenceon all of those subjects. Not just hypothesis. You haven't said anything on those subjects.

 

[Yahweh]

You know, I think I've come to realize something, Franko. You're not an immaterialist (or amaterialist, if you prefer) at all. You are a materialist. You believe that physical things exist. I mean, how many times have your agruments relied on the existence of atoms and gravitons and cars and so on? You just have a different concept of how the physical world came about and what some of the elements of it actual are.

We need to get an actual immaterialist like hammegk or Ian on this thread to explain the disparity.

Damn, I was going to post the same thing yesterday. I had made another one of my large analzyed posts. Unfortunately, I as I was writing it, my internet connection became unstable and I was unable to post for a while. But I do have the post saved on my harddrive... hardly seems worth posting after Franko has been defeated (again... well, this time its a "special" kind of a defeat).

Edit to add: I feel dirty for using the word "defeat" in that way... naughty naughty...

 

[gentlehorse]

*snip*
That is too restrictive a definition of knowledge to permit anything to be known, even the fact of one's own existence.

Guffaw. You guys kill me.

If there's one thing I know, it's that I exist. In fact, it's the only knowledge I possess that isn't probabilistic. I know I exist. It is impossible for me to be mistaken. I have direct access to the experience of being me, and that's all I need in this case. All the word play in the world won't change that one.

When you've fiinally managed to convince yourself that you might not exist, it's time to back up and take a good close look at things. At some point you should find yourself saying, "Hey, wait a minute."

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa, you are correct in a sense that ”matter” exist independently of consciousness. The matter in this universe exist independently of Your consciousness, but that is because Your consciousness is NOT the consciousness that is generating the “matter”.

The problem with your statement is that there are no evidences for it. What evidences you have that a conscience has generated any matter?

Think of this reality (the Universe) as a hologram, and the Algorithm that is generating that hologram is called TLOP. Except TLOP is not really a giant computer somewhere, She is a mind inherently just like yours.

One of the ways to define entropy is (on a very simplified way) the ammount of information that can be stored at a certain section of the universe. This, on a very simple way, is what's behind the "holographic universe" concept. Now, this concept has nothing to do (and does not requires) either with "intelligent design" or the gender of a supposed creator of the universe (BTW, could one use terms such as gender to an entity capable of creating the universe?).

Originally posted by Franko
Pain is ultimately a mental phenomena caused by negative Inputs (or feedback). Both positive and negative inputs are generated by all formal systems (all sets of “laws of physics”).

Why do you qualify pain as a "negative impulse"? Does this implys that when one feels pleasure (eating a tasty fruit, for example) one feels a "positive impulse"? And when one sees something that is irrelevant its a "neutral impulse"? Are you sure you are not using concepts based on your cultural and social background to define or classify things that have nothing to do with it? Pain means only "Warning, your body is being damaged". Its not good or bad. Good and bad (among many others) are just human concepts, that chance according to social and cultural framework.

Originally posted by Franko
If you can stop thinking of “matter” as matter for a moment, and instead think of it as information, you could consider drugs or alcohol as a meme (or algorithm) that is run in your consciousness. Many drug-memes alter (or adversely effect) the connection between your own consciousness and TLOP’s. Your mind does not have a good connection to the source of information about reality, and so it makes up things (hallucinations) to fill in the gaps.

The analogy beteween drugs and algortithms is incorrect. Drugs alter the brain's chemistry, changing the way it works. They will cause many different effects, ranging from slight mood changes to hallucinations. Not all drugs alter the perception of external inputs. In many cases the hallucinations are not caused by alteration of external perceptions or on the processing of data coming from sensorial organs. If this were true, the use of drugs on a person deprived of external sensorial inputs would not cause hallucinations. As a matter of fact, people deprived of sensorial inputs quite often experience hallucinations. Think of some LSD or peyote-induced hallucinations- its like the brain starts to generate its own data, based on what is stored within it, quite like in dreams.

Originally posted by Franko
If that is the case, then why did the universe spawn/create or bring you here?

If you want to claim it was a purely random and unplanned event, then you might as well claim that all of your actions and words are similarly unplanned and random.

Does the universe really needed to have had the will or intent to crate me? I don't think so. I exist and I am here by sheer chance. If something had gone slightly different 39 years ago, another spermatozoid would have won the race and I would not be here. The second part of you argument is the old "clock without a maker"argument. I am typing this because I planned to do so. But a crystal has an organized molecular structure, and when magma crystallizes, it does not plans to create feldspar crystals... Not all organized structures are designed. As a matter of fact most are not. OK, your next point will be that the crystal lattices are organized, are information, obey laws, and therefore its a sign of intelligent design. I will agree with you untill the words "therefore its a sign of intelligent design". The patterns of nature do not indicate or require a maker (or that this maker has a gender). Even random events may generate quite complex or non-random patterns if they repeat themselves for sufficient long period of time. If you let a monkey type for a long time, you'll find among countless pages fulled with meaningless letters, words and even sentences. Do they have any real meaning? No. They were formed by pure probability. But you may eventually interpret them as having a meaning, that the monkey was really trying to say something, or as a mark of the creator of the pages... But they will be nothing but randomly-generated sequences of letters.

Originally posted by Franko
you mean in the same way it is irrelevant to YOU whether or not Me and everyone else exist?

No. I just written that our existence is irrelevant for the universe. If we all die, the universe will still continue to exist. The universe does not "cares" (thats a human feeling, and such concepts can not be used litterally for the universe othern than as an analogy) about me, you, the whole human race and all the living beings in out small planet.

Originally posted by Franko
And you have determined this how exactly?

By looking everyday at rocks that are 2.4 billion years old...
By my eyes capting photons that were emmited by stars that ceased to exist before we existed...
By knowing that the stars will still be burning nuclear fuel for a long time after I die.

Originally posted by Franko
Some of the world was created in advance, before the Dungeonmaster really got the game going, and other things She “dreamed up” as the game went along. But until someone asked her where some untravelled path lead, no one really knew where the path lead.

And you have determined this how exactly?

edited to correct some typos- but never mind, the texts still has a lot of them...

 

[wraith]

Hi Franko! Good to see you back in the game

CFLarsen: Here's an experiment I would like those who claim this to participate in. Let's take Shirley MacLaine, one of the more prominent people who claim this. Let's choose a suicidal person, too, and call him Bill.

Shirley and Bill are standing in a field, a few yards apart. Bill is facing her, she is standing with her back to Bill. Unknown to her, Bill picks up a brick, and throw it at her.

Bill knows that the brick is flying towards her, so the brick exists, because Bill thinks of it, and is aware of it. To Shirley, the brick does not exist, because she doesn't know it does.

Before the brick hits Shirley, Bill shoots himself in the head, and is dead instantly. Bill stops thinking about the brick. Ergo, according to Shirley's claim, the brick ceases to exist.

Is Shirley going to be hit by a brick or not?

Just because Shirley doesnt perceive the brick (because she is facing away from Bill) that doesnt imply that the brick doesnt ultimately exist. Bill and Shirley are experiencing the same universe/reality. Surely the information/energy that makes up the brick must exist whether WE perceive it or not because of TLOP.

When you close your eyes, does that mean that everything around you ceases to exist? No, everything is still there as energy/information due to TLOP. It's not till you open your eyes that you perceive that information as being a "chair" or "table".

So to answer your question, I believe that Shirley will get hit by the brick.

Marquis de Carabas: How do you know dreams, hallucinations, and delusions are derived from one's own mind? Why not postulate another entity (let's call her The Capricious and Whimsical Laws of Physics) who occasionally wrests control of your inputs from TLOP and starts screwing with your head?

Sure, why not postulate a "dream god" that controls your every movement in your own dreams, in the same way TLOP controls you when youre awake. Perhaps TLOP is responsible for your dreams, so there is no need for a "dream god", since when you dream, your brain is in a certain brain state and your brain obeys TLOP.

Perhaps youre responsible for your own dreams and your create the physics in those dreams?

This asks the question, if TLOP is indeed conscious (God), then what would it be like to perceive things as God? If God doesnt physically take form in this universe then does God have a brain? Would the brain of God obey a different set of TLOP in the same way our brains obey TLOP in this universe? Maybe God doesnt have a brain? Maybe we could perceive things without the aid of TLOP when we are "powerful" enough? (Just like God?)

Perhaps TLOP is here for the time being to "teach" us to perceive things without the need for a brain in the same way that a mum or dad would take the training wheels of their childs bike and guide them initially till the child got his/her balance and then the parant would let go?


You know this asks a different question. If our consciousness is algorithmic in nature and TLOP is deterministic in nature, this would certainly point to the existence of God?

 

[CFLarsen]

"...One cannot say that mind exist or not exist for it is absolute reality."
some Taoist sutra I read a long time ago.

A skeptic is walking down the street and passes several houses before he comes to a stop. He looks around and shouts, I have stopped!!!
I most surely have stopped. A little boy with a propeller cap looks at the skeptics and says, mr you have not stopped you are still moving. Nonsense young man, the skeptic exclaims, as he stamps his feet onto the ground. I have stopped, and i have concrete and verifiable evidence. The skeptic then looks in his pocket and pulls out a ruler a lays it parallel to his feet. You see young man, there is no evidence that i have travelled because had I traveled i would be able to measure the distance by this ruler. But i am stationary, can you see that young man"? The little boy proceeds to explain and says: You have stopped only in relation to your surrounding but in fact you are still in motion. The earth revolves and so you being on the planet earth you are still in motion. The skeptic stamps his foot even harder saying. Can you see how concretely I have measured the lack of movement. I have not moved one inch, how can you say i am moving. The little boy says, you have only stopped in relation to the ruler and the immediate surrounding but you are still in motion because the galaxies solar system is in motion and so are the galaxies. In fact the concept of "stop" has no intrinsic existence, it exist only in relation to some other attribute. This is the way it is for everything that we call conceptual reality. This inability for us to know anything intrinsically may not be the way the universe is but a phenomena resulting from the thought process.
Rastabastapaperclip says the skeptic., now madder and more furious than ever, you clearly do not understand the fundamentals of science and of mathematics. There are specific laws of science which are universal whether we observe them or not. They are concrete, like my measurement of my lack of motion. You need education boy.
The skeptic clearly infuriated begins to walk away and as he walks away he says to the little boy, "you see now i am in motion!

Yes, that's nice. Could you please answer the question?

Let's say that you go there later, to discover Shirley dead, her head smashed by a brick.

Who killed Shirley? A, Bill, by throwing the brick? Or B, you, who perceived the brick in Shirley's head?

If you choose A, then your claim is wrong. If you choose B, then you are saying that you can - without perceiving it - perceive the consequences of the actions of another person, even though that person is dead. Which is self-contradictory.

I am talking about a perceived event. Not something "undefined". You are there, Antonio. You perceive that Shirley is lying there dead, with a brick in her head.

Who killed Shirley, Antonio? You or Bill?

 

[whitefork]

Guffaw. You guys kill me.

If there's one thing I know, it's that I exist. In fact, it's the only knowledge I possess that isn't probabilistic.

If that is all that you know in the most strict sense, then what do you mean by "exists"? The I that you know (strictly)has an existence shared by nothing else. Nothing else exists in that sense. I argue in that case, the word "exists" has no meaning. The I is the thought that's happening exactly now - it has no connection to the I of 5 minutes ago or the I five minutes from now. If all that you know is that which you think now, you know nothing.

That's my point.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, looks like Franko really is back, along with his other screenname.. Wraith. Both of his accounts are still on my ignore list.

 

[Tricky]

Not my point of view, but very appropos, n'est ce pas?

There once was a man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If He finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the Quad.”

“Dear Sir: Your astonishment’s odd:
I am always about in the Quad
And that’s why the tree
Will continue to be,
Since observed by, Yours faithfully,God.”

---Monsignor Ronald Knox

 

[wraith]

Wow, looks like Franko really is back, along with his other screenname.. Wraith. Both of his accounts are still on my ignore list.

Do you want a medal or something?

 

[Yahweh]

Do you want a medal or something?

 

[Psydox]

Oy! this thread is giving me a headache so here's my revenge .. Yar !!!

I finally had to just give up reading the posts after a certain point. If someone has already posted what I am about to write then forgive me as I was not aware of it's existence *smirk* However, I am able to conceive the possibility that a situation such as this could occur because that possibility is within reason.

Where the Shirley -n- Bill situation is concerned I would have to say that much like the "is there a God or not" situation, we can not know the answer with absolute truth because the circumstances are also based on a conceptual situation. Unless anyone would like to volunteer to participate in a Shirley -n- Bill experiment how can anyone know for certain if Shirley would be hit by the brick or not since the Shirley of this conceptual situation is not available to identify if it hit her or not. In other words, we only have cause at this point not effect.

Now back to :

I am able to conceive the possibility that a situation such as this could occur because that possibility is within reason.

Taking that into consideration with the conceptual situation of Shirley -n- Bill I want to take the concept a bit further and include effect. Say the brick did smack Shirley in the back of her head and as a result we now have proof. This would still only serve to prove that Shirley was hit despite her ability to perceive the brick on a Conscious level.

now more theory to throw on the concept.....

If we then question it by asking why it was possible, would it not be feasible to say that the reason is because the possibility that a situation such as this is conceiveable within reason.

Therefore I would define existence as :

that which is made manifest through conception of reason.


In thinking of existence as being defined like that, I'd like to say this :

Imagine now what could exist tomorrow if only our reasoning would allow it.

No I don't believe reasoning is limited but I do believe we limit our ability for it.


.....I'm going to stop here cause I'm to tired to think about "what if" it didn't hit her..... LOL

 

[gentlehorse]

If that is all that you know in the most strict sense, then what do you mean by "exists"? The I that you know (strictly)has an existence shared by nothing else. Nothing else exists in that sense. I argue in that case, the word "exists" has no meaning. The I is the thought that's happening exactly now - it has no connection to the I of 5 minutes ago or the I five minutes from now. If all that you know is that which you think now, you know nothing.

That's my point.

Heh. The "I" that I know exists, as you say, "exactly now". "5 minutes ago "and 5 minutes from now" are convenient abstractions that we agree upon. I exist "exactly now". In case you hadn't noticed, it's always "exactly now".

You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.

If you want to argue that the word "exists" has no meaning, dandy. You could write an eloquent book, using beautiful descriptors and flawless logic, explaining exactly how it is that I don't exist. I might be moved to tears by its beauty and awed by its logic, but upon finishing the book I'd still exist (providing I hadn't kicked the bucket upon finishing the book). A few hundred pages explaining why I don't exist doesn't hold a candle to my direct access to the experience of being me. Sorry. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't exist, it's okay with me.

 

[Yahweh]

Heh. The "I" that I know exists, as you say, "exactly now". "5 minutes ago "and 5 minutes from now" are convenient abstractions that we agree upon. I exist "exactly now". In case you hadn't noticed, it's always "exactly now".

You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.

If you want to argue that the word "exists" has no meaning, dandy. You could write an eloquent book, using beautiful descriptors and flawless logic, explaining exactly how it is that I don't exist. I might be moved to tears by its beauty and awed by its logic, but upon finishing the book I'd still exist (providing I hadn't kicked the bucket upon finishing the book). A few hundred pages explaining why I don't exist doesn't hold a candle to my direct access to the experience of being me. Sorry. If it makes you feel better to think that I don't exist, it's okay with me.

You are entirely correct, the only thing you can truely know with 100% certainty and accuracy is the fact of "I exist" (try explaining that to a Nihilist).

I do have a few problems with Solipsism however, its the way it assesses skepticism. If "I exist" is true, can it ever be known with any certainty whatsoever that I will "stop existing" (I chose the word "exist" because being unconscious is not the same as not existing, during 4 out of the 5 stages of sleep, you are unconscious, during the 5th stage of sleep - REM sleep - some would disagree to whether you are conscious or not)? What do Solipsists think of the possibility of others existing (ignoring whether they exist in material or immaterial form)?

I'm not entirely sure (I can never be 100% sure ), but would I be correct in assuming Solipsism is similar to agnosticism (Solipsism doesnt say "the rest of you dont exist", its more closely related to "I dont know if you exist"... kinda in the same way agnosticism says "I dont know if god exist")?

 

[c4ts]

You know, it's interesting how Franko has never submitted any evidence that TLOP are conscious, nor has Wraith given us as much as a link to a single Logical Deist website... and they never will. So let's all follow Thaiboxerken's example.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Say, Frank: What were you doing while you were away? Did you not think of one single new thing? Most people, especially at your age, evolve a bit over time. But I guess you were always a one-trick pony. A very complex and initially entertaining trick to be sure, but you know, in the end everything gets boring.

Still, I quess you merit at least one reply:

Hypothesis: A (MRC)
About a billion years ago, give or take a few, there was no life on Earth. Yet it [the Earth] must have existed, otherwise life would not have appeared. So, without anybody/anything percieving it, Earth existed. -And, I consider Earth to fit the label "matter".

Hypothesis: B (Franko)
A single entity “appeared” (call her TLOP) instead of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and conceived of the Entire Earth (or entire universe), and now you are just receiving information from that entity (you’re a figment of his/her/its imagination).

Hypothesis: C (Franko)
The Earth doesn’t exist, and life never “appeared” on it. You “appeared” all by yourself, and now you are just imagining the rest.

I’m not adding anything that you haven’t already asserted. Your explanation calls upon TLOP, and so does mine. Your explanation is the UNPARSIMONIOUS version, in that YOU are asserting an entire universe filled with self-existing “matter” something you have absolutely no evidence for, and something which is completely untestable or verifiable.

No. You are adding a hypothetical entity to imagine matter. We have no evidence that matter should not be ably to self-exist. True, we can only observe matter with our mind, but we can make predictions on how matter must behave, and verifiy them. These observations are all very consistent. So consitent that we can formulate a set of laws that appear to apply universally to all matter; we call them "the laws of physics".

All of who’s observations MRC? Your own? If you only have YOUR OWN observations to rely on, then YOUR OWN observations are the ONLY observations you have to rely on. That is EXACTLY what Hypothesis C is stating.

Really Hypothesis C is just a mathematically simplified version of YOUR Hypothesis A.

Could you please explain again how the simpler version of the theory is actually the more complex version of the theory?

I already did. The complexity of the entity capable of IMAGINING the universe must be at least as great as the universe, so mathematically, YOUR version is at least twice as complex (Imagining entity + imagined universe).

Unfortunately for you TLOP is not so easily swept from observation.

And TLOP is undoubtedly the source of ALL your information about this reality.

Or you could say that TLOP is basically WHAT I observe. And?

Really? Then please explain how we can observe “matter” existing independently of consciousness, or please provide the experimental evidence that conclusively demonstrates “matter” making consciousness?

I could advice you about such an experiment, but it would be against board policy because it might be dangerous to your health . As for "matter makes consciousness", no, I have a better idea: How about you providing evidence for consciousness existing without matter?

Hey that’s funny, because I also act as if I exist, yet you have been unable to prove that I actually do as anything beyond a figment of your imagination!

Meet me on the corner, and I will

Hans

 

[whitefork]

There has to be a pony in here, somewhere.

You say that this means that my "existence is shared by nothing else" and that "nothing else exists in that sense". This sounds a bit like solipsism to me, so I'll just assume my way out of it, if you don't mind. I assume my way out of solipsism because to do so is convenient and functional. Any knowledge I gain is based on this assumption and is therefore probabilistic in nature. The knowledge that I exist, however, is not.

I'm delighted to acknowledge your existence in all its manifestations - it's your extrememly truncated view of what can be known that I take issue with. I don't think that the concepts "I" and "exist" and the relationship between them are primitive and irreducible, but that they are quite abstract and assume a great deal of prior knowledge and experience. Without all that - your assumptions if you like - I don't see what you have left to know.