Future Timeline

[morvelaira]

Let's see how this conversation works out as a Litmus test as to whether this whole thing will implode shall we? :)

Honestly I think everyone is mostly too afraid to post in this thread, beyond a chosen few, of course. I'd wade in with something deeper than my personal experiences, but you guys are waaaaaay over my head at this point. This aspect of things is just something I've never looked deeply in to - I have enough problems without trying to determine the existence of reality.

[Zhil]

Let's see how this conversation works out as a Litmus test as to whether this whole thing will implode shall we? :)

Good idea :)

I have enough problems without trying to determine the existence of reality.

I completely believe in the existence of reality, I just don't think we can believe our perception of it.

[gftweek]

I had a brief stint with solipsism in college when I came to the conclusion that the universe of my perceptions was absurd and therefore solely existed in my imagination for my own amusement.

I told my friends that they didn't exist, but they just told me I was an idiot and walked off. Since I found this less amusing than expected, I found my previous epiphany to not hold strictly true.

I haven't studied philosophy (or religion for that matter), so can't contribute at the same level, but for me belief is essential to existence (deity-worshipping or otherwise), as we can never "know" anything, at most we can decide that things are most probably true based on previous experience and logical prediction.
We effectively have to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow as it always has and we can't dispute the physics behind it, but since nothing outside our mind can be experienced except through our limited senses we can never say that this will be true.

I know little about Descartes other than the "I think therefore I am" statement, but to me it seems to be a bit ridiculous and egotistical to hold the belief that you are the sole mind in existence. Yes, you can't be sure about other minds that you perceive, but likewise you can't claim to understand all that other minds come up with nor comprehend the complexity of interactions between them that you perceive.

It boils down to, other people must exist, because I would never imagine people to be so stupid as many appear to be.

Edit: Upon re-reading the above ramble, I am not sure it makes sense, so I therefore submit this as proof that I exist due to the virtue of stupidity.

[Zhil]

It boils down to, other people must exist, because I would never imagine people to be so stupid as many appear to be.

That right there, that won the thread

[FlowerChild]

I told my friends that they didn't exist, but they just told me I was an idiot and walked off. Since I found this less amusing than expected, I found my previous epiphany to not hold strictly true.

Believing others don't exist is not the same as not believing that they do man.

It's pretty much the same thing as not believing in god not necessarily meaning that you believe there is none. That's basically the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

You don't have to believe one thing or another in anything really. There's always the third option, and the one that I subscribe to, which is just to say "I don't know".

As for people reacting negatively to your opinions, from the standpoint of Solipsism, it's rather irrelevant. If you accept that dreams exist solely within your own mind, and accept that includes nightmares, then you already have an example of the occasional masochistic tendencies of your own mind.

[BinoAl]

Obviously, I enjoy discussing these subjects (as I do politics), it's all a matter of what risks breaking out into open argument and disrupting the community.

Yeah... I really do hope this topic stays respectful. I'd love to be able to discuss things like this freely

[gftweek]

I told my friends that they didn't exist, but they just told me I was an idiot and walked off. Since I found this less amusing than expected, I found my previous epiphany to not hold strictly true.

Believing others don't exist is not the same as not believing that they do man.

It's pretty much the same thing as not believing in god not necessarily meaning that you believe there is none. That's basically the difference between atheism and agnosticism.

You don't have to believe one thing or another in anything really. There's always the third option, and the one that I subscribe to, which is just to say "I don't know".

True, but this seems like a bit of a cop out to me where you refuse to make a decision one way or the other. I get that you like the unknowability of it all, but at a certain point it boils down to you either arguing with yourself (which leads to implications of insanity), or that you don't fully control your thoughts (leading to the below), or that others must be providing responses that you are experiencing.

As for people reacting negatively to your opinions, from the standpoint of Solipsism, it's rather irrelevant. If you accept that dreams exist solely within your own mind, and accept that includes nightmares, then you already have an example of the occasional masochistic tendencies of your own mind.

But then can you define between a dream and reality? The usual distinction is that in reality you have free will and are in full control of your mind, but if you can't predict or control what you perceive then you either are still dreaming, or have no free will, which then sheds doubt on you actually existing at all other than as a disembodied perception centre where everthing you perceive even if you think it is your own thought is just random nonsense.

[BinoAl]

So admitting you can't ascertain the details of existence and religion is a "cop-out"? Sorry, that part just sort of irked me. I actually think it's a smarter and more logically sound decision to realize you can't possibly know for sure how everything began and not act on it as a result, rather than force yourself to draw conclusions from nothing

[Zhil]

So admitting you can't ascertain the details of existence and religion is a "cop-out"? Sorry, that part just sort of irked me. I actually think it's a smarter and more logically sound decision to realize you can't possibly know for sure how everything began and not act on it as a result, rather than force yourself to draw conclusions from nothing

Sorry, but I find that post a bit offensive. You basically just said that having faith is not smart or logically sound, whether that faith be in a deity or a concept.

[BinoAl]

So admitting you can't ascertain the details of existence and religion is a "cop-out"? Sorry, that part just sort of irked me. I actually think it's a smarter and more logically sound decision to realize you can't possibly know for sure how everything began and not act on it as a result, rather than force yourself to draw conclusions from nothing

Sorry, but I find that post a bit offensive. You basically just said that having faith is not smart or logically sound, whether that faith be in a deity or a concept.

Sorry, didn't mean it that way :p I merely meant that agnosticism is a perfectly legitimate belief, and not at all a cop-out

[gftweek]

So admitting you can't ascertain the details of existence and religion is a "cop-out"? Sorry, that part just sort of irked me. I actually think it's a smarter and more logically sound decision to realize you can't possibly know for sure how everything began and not act on it as a result, rather than force yourself to draw conclusions from nothing

As I said above, nothing can be known, at a certain point, everything is a belief, including that you yourself exist. To me it just seems logical that what you perceive contains more than what you can imagine and therefore implies that others must be included in that perception. Perhaps you have a better imagination than me, but if I can't understand what people are saying about a topic that I have little experience of, it seems more real to me than that I am imagining there are people talking nonsense.

To be honest I am willing to believe that there could be a god, but can't state that there is one (or more), so perhaps my "cop-out" statement was a little strong, but I think the evidence that others exist is stronger than the evidence for a deity, even if it is just through a difference perception of it.

[Zhil]

Sorry, didn't mean it that way :p I merely meant that agnosticism is a perfectly legitimate belief, and not at all a cop-out

I know, but you should refrain from commenting on which theory is "smarter" or "less crazy" if you want to have these discourses without devolving into shouting contests

[Zhil]

As I said above, nothing can be known, at a certain point, everything is a belief, including that you yourself exist.

Yeah, I don't agree to this actually, "Cogito ergo sum" should be read as: "The act of thinking proves that I exist". It's meant to be a proof for existence and it's very hard to even try and refute. It's as close to an accepted theory as you'll ever get in philosophy.

The fact that you can actually believe in your own existence is a very important part of all this. It changes everything, to me.

[Fracture]

Yeah, I don't agree to this actually, "Cogito ergo sum" should be read as: "The act of thinking proves that I exist". It's meant to be a proof for existence and it's very hard to even try and refute. It's as close to an accepted theory as you'll ever get in philosophy.

The fact that you can actually believe in your own existence is a very important part of all this. It changes everything, to me.

I think gft is right, actually. That we exist is an assumption, but one we have to make. There can be no absolute truth, only truth that is beyond reasonable doubt, and we need to accept one as an axiom of our existence in order to function. The "fact" that we exist is similar to the "fact" that we cannot divide by zero. Without making that assumption, the entire system of mathematics would break down and we would be incapable of going anywhere.

Likewise, if we do not simply accept that we exist as a fact, how would our philosophy advance? For all we know we could be the dreams of a disembodied consciousness-- but that is a doubt that is unreasonable.

[Zhil]

Likewise, if we do not simply accept that we exist as a fact, how would our philosophy advance? For all we know we could be the dreams of a disembodied consciousness-- but that is a doubt that is unreasonable.

Which is still existence. A disembodied consciousness is still a form of existence. I am only stating that "cogito ergo sum" is a valid, absolute truth that proves existence.

You can try to refute it if you want, but I'd need more than just "I don't accept it". That's not how proofs work.

[gftweek]

Likewise, if we do not simply accept that we exist as a fact, how would our philosophy advance? For all we know we could be the dreams of a disembodied consciousness-- but that is a doubt that is unreasonable.

Which is still existence. A disembodied consciousness is still a form of existence. I am only stating that "cogito ergo sum" is a valid, absolute truth that proves existence.

You can try to refute it if you want, but I'd need more than just "I don't accept it". That's not how proofs work.

I couldn't remember the latin "cogito ergo sum", so was using the most common translation of it, which I imagined was wrong.

I would posit though, that while a disembodied consciousness is existence, it does not stand that it exists through thought, what you perceive as your own thoughts may just be experiences from external sources, but this then implies external sources exist and that are able to provide you with those experiences. I would say that perception is more of a proof of existence than thought.

Most people will agree that all life perceives, but that lower lifeforms (insects and smaller can probably be agreed upon, if not animals) do not experience thought, and yet they exist (at least in our perception).

[FlowerChild]

Which is still existence. A disembodied consciousness is still a form of existence. I am only stating that "cogito ergo sum" is a valid, absolute truth that proves existence.

You can try to refute it if you want, but I'd need more than just "I don't accept it". That's not how proofs work.

Yup, I agree with Gil here. In the breadth of philosophy, and despite whatever differences may exist between belief systems, I think it's the one accepted known fact that no one really disputes.

My mantra is pretty much "I know nothing". *Except* for that.

Most people will agree that all life perceives, but that lower lifeforms (insects and smaller can probably be agreed upon, if not animals) do not experience thought, and yet they exist (at least in our perception).

The difference being we don't have absolute proof of their existence, whereas you do have absolute proof of the existence of your own (and only your own) mind.

[Fracture]

Likewise, if we do not simply accept that we exist as a fact, how would our philosophy advance? For all we know we could be the dreams of a disembodied consciousness-- but that is a doubt that is unreasonable.

Which is still existence. A disembodied consciousness is still a form of existence. I am only stating that "cogito ergo sum" is a valid, absolute truth that proves existence.

You can try to refute it if you want, but I'd need more than just "I don't accept it". That's not how proofs work.

could be the dreams of a disembodied consciousness

If you are nothing but the dream of another, would you consider that existence? Pretty sure that would make waking up an act of mass murder :P

Yup, I agree with Gil here. In the breadth of philosophy, and despite whatever differences may exist between belief systems, I think it's the one accepted known fact that no one really disputes.

I accept that I exist, because as I said, I need to. I wouldn't be able to reason properly if I didn't. I do, however, dispute that it is an "absolute" proof. I don't believe in the relativist stance of "what's true for one person may be false for another", but I do not believe there is such a thing as an absolute truth; there are just truths that cannot be doubted reasonably.

Again, all I ask is would you consider being nothing but a figment of another's imagination to be existence? And if not, how could you prove that you are anything more than that?

[Zhil]

The difference being we don't have absolute proof of their existence, whereas you do have absolute proof of the existence of your own (and only your own) mind.

Yep, exactly. Descartes was of the opinion though, that a few concepts were so unmistakably part of that existence that we should accept them as axioms or dogmas (I think he originally thought about three: the existence of reality, the existence of other conscious entities and the belief in something more, aka god).

I will not get into the hairy situation that is Descartes' belief in god :)

[FlowerChild]

Yep, exactly. Descartes was of the opinion though, that a few concepts were so unmistakably part of that existence that we should accept them as axioms or dogmas (I think he originally thought about three: the existence of reality, the existence of other conscious entities and the belief in something more, aka god).

Yeah, well, after verbalizing a universal truth, I can forgive the guy for flaking-out afterwards ;)

[Zhil]

Yeah, well, after verbalizing a universal truth, I can forgive the guy for flaking-out afterwards ;)

Well, to me, it IS a pretty valid reason for believing in god. If you are one of the brightest people to have ever lived and you look into your core existence and study the essence of what you are, and what you see is the presence of god, then, yeah, I think it's valid you believe in god :D

[FlowerChild]

Well, to me, it IS a pretty valid reason for believing in god. If you are one of the brightest people to have ever lived and you look into your core existence and study the essence of what you are, and what you see is the presence of god, then, yeah, I think it's valid you believe in god :D

I wasn't talking about god above, more the existence of anything beyond your own mind ;)

[Horizon]

Be nice to others. Why make what little time we have on earth miserable?

[MoRmEnGiL]

Things are very simple. Electrochemical reactions transfer stimuli from our senses to our brain, where more electrochemical mumbo-jumbo happens and we come to conclusions. All of which are just that, electrochemical reactions in our brain. God? Friendship? Good? Bad? Love? Hate? People? Earth? All in our heads. For all intents and purposes all of these things are subject to personal malfunctions.

Happy new year. :D

[Zhil]

Things are very simple. Electrochemical reactions transfer stimuli from our senses to our brain, where more electrochemical mumbo-jumbo happens and we come to conclusions. All of which are just that, electrochemical reactions in our brain. God? Friendship? Good? Bad? Love? Hate? People? Earth? All in our heads. For all intents and purposes all of these things are subject to personal malfunctions.

Except there is that one little part of ourselves, the existence of consciousness, that science can never explain. We can explain the influence our body has on perception, but not consciousness itself. Being in tune with that part of ourselves is what I call spiritualism. If there is something such as a "soul", that is it for me. Don't mistake that for a religious statement. It's not meant to be one. It's just something interesting to think about.