Does reality exist?

[Smartteaser192]

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.  

[Niniva]

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Yes. Descartes...first meditation.

That which is impossible to doubt must be the case. Let us do an exorcise. If it is possible to doubt something then let us go with our doubt on the matter and assume the worst. If I can doubt it then therefore I will assume it will not exist at all and be something made up in my mind. If we stick to this stringent of a skepticism about the world then what do we have left?

Well.....I have left nothing save for the singular fact that I am doubting. If I am doubting then there must be an agent driving my doubt. I refer to that agent as "me" or "I" so therefore I exist because I cannot doubt that I am doubting.

Venturing further into this I attempt to doubt myself, doubt my own existence and I always stumble back onto one thing....I am the one who is trying to doubt myself. I am the agent of the doubting and so therefore I cannot doubt my own existence. If the truth of something cannot be doubted then it must be true. Therefore I exist.  

[Wakarimasen123]

Niniva

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Yes. Descartes...first meditation.

That which is impossible to doubt must be the case. Let us do an exorcise. If it is possible to doubt something then let us go with our doubt on the matter and assume the worst. If I can doubt it then therefore I will assume it will not exist at all and be something made up in my mind. If we stick to this stringent of a skepticism about the world then what do we have left?

Well.....I have left nothing save for the singular fact that I am doubting. If I am doubting then there must be an agent driving my doubt. I refer to that agent as "me" or "I" so therefore I exist because I cannot doubt that I am doubting.

Venturing further into this I attempt to doubt myself, doubt my own existence and I always stumble back onto one thing....I am the one who is trying to doubt myself. I am the agent of the doubting and so therefore I cannot doubt my own existence. If the truth of something cannot be doubted then it must be true. Therefore I exist.

An "exorcise"? Where's the demon? rofl
Yeah, but proof of own existence was fundamentally derived by Descartes, and it's pretty much taken as unquestioned truth now. But the interesting part is that nothing else necessarily has to be. To illustrate this, I could simply be in a giant dream, or this may all be virtual reality. My past and myself as I know me may not be real, (false memories) but the fact that my viewpoint exists is undeniable.  

[Niniva]

Ehkiru

Niniva

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Yes. Descartes...first meditation.

That which is impossible to doubt must be the case. Let us do an exorcise. If it is possible to doubt something then let us go with our doubt on the matter and assume the worst. If I can doubt it then therefore I will assume it will not exist at all and be something made up in my mind. If we stick to this stringent of a skepticism about the world then what do we have left?

Well.....I have left nothing save for the singular fact that I am doubting. If I am doubting then there must be an agent driving my doubt. I refer to that agent as "me" or "I" so therefore I exist because I cannot doubt that I am doubting.

Venturing further into this I attempt to doubt myself, doubt my own existence and I always stumble back onto one thing....I am the one who is trying to doubt myself. I am the agent of the doubting and so therefore I cannot doubt my own existence. If the truth of something cannot be doubted then it must be true. Therefore I exist.

An "exorcise"? Where's the demon? rofl
Yeah, but proof of own existence was fundamentally derived by Descartes, and it's pretty much taken as unquestioned truth now. But the interesting part is that nothing else necessarily has to be. To illustrate this, I could simply be in a giant dream, or this may all be virtual reality. My past and myself as I know me may not be real, (false memories) but the fact that my viewpoint exists is undeniable.

The demon is within you and must be purged......the power of Christ compels you!

In any case I agree with the statement above accept for that it creates a circular situation. For example....."There is no truth." If there is no truth then the statement "There is no truth." is also false and thus....there is truth?

This is the reason I believe there must be knowledge that is undoubtable and attainable somewhere. Never will I say "there is nothing I can know" but I will say stupid things like "All I can know is what is not the case." because I like the scientific methodological way of disproving rather then proving. The real problem with truth is that via Hume, you really can't ever PROVE it for real without making inferences you aren't entitled to make because you do not know the future.

But you can prove things false. Falsification is why we have theories. We don't call them truths, we call them theories because we don't really know if they are true, but when they are falsified we do know they are false. Well there's some knowledge. We know what is not the case.

This is a little off topic but I thought it was worth pointing out.  

[azurerogue]

Niniva

Ehkiru

Niniva

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Yes. Descartes...first meditation.

That which is impossible to doubt must be the case. Let us do an exorcise. If it is possible to doubt something then let us go with our doubt on the matter and assume the worst. If I can doubt it then therefore I will assume it will not exist at all and be something made up in my mind. If we stick to this stringent of a skepticism about the world then what do we have left?

Well.....I have left nothing save for the singular fact that I am doubting. If I am doubting then there must be an agent driving my doubt. I refer to that agent as "me" or "I" so therefore I exist because I cannot doubt that I am doubting.

Venturing further into this I attempt to doubt myself, doubt my own existence and I always stumble back onto one thing....I am the one who is trying to doubt myself. I am the agent of the doubting and so therefore I cannot doubt my own existence. If the truth of something cannot be doubted then it must be true. Therefore I exist.

An "exorcise"? Where's the demon? rofl
Yeah, but proof of own existence was fundamentally derived by Descartes, and it's pretty much taken as unquestioned truth now. But the interesting part is that nothing else necessarily has to be. To illustrate this, I could simply be in a giant dream, or this may all be virtual reality. My past and myself as I know me may not be real, (false memories) but the fact that my viewpoint exists is undeniable.

The demon is within you and must be purged......the power of Christ compels you!

In any case I agree with the statement above accept for that it creates a circular situation. For example....."There is no truth." If there is no truth then the statement "There is no truth." is also false and thus....there is truth?

This is the reason I believe there must be knowledge that is undoubtable and attainable somewhere. Never will I say "there is nothing I can know" but I will say stupid things like "All I can know is what is not the case." because I like the scientific methodological way of disproving rather then proving. The real problem with truth is that via Hume, you really can't ever PROVE it for real without making inferences you aren't entitled to make because you do not know the future.

But you can prove things false. Falsification is why we have theories. We don't call them truths, we call them theories because we don't really know if they are true, but when they are falsified we do know they are false. Well there's some knowledge. We know what is not the case.

This is a little off topic but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Umm I know this may seem kinda stupid but because you can prove something to be false isnt that in and of itself a truth? and by proving that there can be a lie doesnt that mean that something exists besides yourself?Thus proving that we exist?  

[Niniva]

azurerogue

Niniva

Ehkiru

Niniva

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Yes. Descartes...first meditation.

That which is impossible to doubt must be the case. Let us do an exorcise. If it is possible to doubt something then let us go with our doubt on the matter and assume the worst. If I can doubt it then therefore I will assume it will not exist at all and be something made up in my mind. If we stick to this stringent of a skepticism about the world then what do we have left?

Well.....I have left nothing save for the singular fact that I am doubting. If I am doubting then there must be an agent driving my doubt. I refer to that agent as "me" or "I" so therefore I exist because I cannot doubt that I am doubting.

Venturing further into this I attempt to doubt myself, doubt my own existence and I always stumble back onto one thing....I am the one who is trying to doubt myself. I am the agent of the doubting and so therefore I cannot doubt my own existence. If the truth of something cannot be doubted then it must be true. Therefore I exist.

An "exorcise"? Where's the demon? rofl
Yeah, but proof of own existence was fundamentally derived by Descartes, and it's pretty much taken as unquestioned truth now. But the interesting part is that nothing else necessarily has to be. To illustrate this, I could simply be in a giant dream, or this may all be virtual reality. My past and myself as I know me may not be real, (false memories) but the fact that my viewpoint exists is undeniable.

The demon is within you and must be purged......the power of Christ compels you!

In any case I agree with the statement above accept for that it creates a circular situation. For example....."There is no truth." If there is no truth then the statement "There is no truth." is also false and thus....there is truth?

This is the reason I believe there must be knowledge that is undoubtable and attainable somewhere. Never will I say "there is nothing I can know" but I will say stupid things like "All I can know is what is not the case." because I like the scientific methodological way of disproving rather then proving. The real problem with truth is that via Hume, you really can't ever PROVE it for real without making inferences you aren't entitled to make because you do not know the future.

But you can prove things false. Falsification is why we have theories. We don't call them truths, we call them theories because we don't really know if they are true, but when they are falsified we do know they are false. Well there's some knowledge. We know what is not the case.

This is a little off topic but I thought it was worth pointing out.

Umm I know this may seem kinda stupid but because you can prove something to be false isnt that in and of itself a truth? and by proving that there can be a lie doesnt that mean that something exists besides yourself?Thus proving that we exist?

Yes, which is why I said repeatedly

"All I can know is what is not the case." These things certainly seem like Truth, but then again you can always doubt that they REALLY are not the case, for what....after all....makes them not the case?

But in a sense I find myself compelled to go by the assumption that things can never be proven right, only wrong, and that by proving something wrong we have discovered a sort of truth......we have discovered that it is wrong.  

[Pinny Nickels]

I think our natural, unmodified senses are very accurate perceptions of what's actually there. It might not be exactly the same; maybe every creature in existance (yes, existance) senses things somewhat differently. Maybe we'll never even know reality for exactly what it is, but I do believe that reality is there.

If you're tripping on shrooms then your senses and perceptions are altered severely.  

[Raticiel]

Penny Nickels

I think our natural, unmodified senses are very accurate perceptions of what's actually there. It might not be exactly the same; maybe every creature in existance (yes, existance) senses things somewhat differently. Maybe we'll never even know reality for exactly what it is, but I do believe that reality is there.

If you're tripping on shrooms then your senses and perceptions are altered severely.

Yay, hooray for "What is it like to be a bat?" 4laugh

I personally prefer Kant's and Wittgenstein's view - even if it might make me a solipsist. I can't be one, I'm actually writing a post and pimpin' my avatar on gaia, hello? I'm so frivolous today, sorry.  

[Raticiel]

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Everytime I'm thinking about it I start to think about Condillac's statue.
I tried to imagine what it would be like if I couldn't even feel the scent of that one rose... If I could be completely out of senses... I'd probably never started studying philosophy wink or asking myself anything. Then, there's no a priori... There must be at least one single perception of anything... At least I must know language in order to think about "to exist" or "to think". It leaves me with a sad feeling, tough. Even if there are people who can't perceive from their birth we can never ask them. Sad. emo  

[Niniva]

Raticiel

Smartteaser192

Greetings people! I have just one question for all.

Is it possible to affirm or justify your existence without the biases of your sense? Pls. explain.

Thank You.

Everytime I'm thinking about it I start to think about Condillac's statue.
I tried to imagine what it would be like if I couldn't even feel the scent of that one rose... If I could be completely out of senses... I'd probably never started studying philosophy wink or asking myself anything. Then, there's no a priori... There must be at least one single perception of anything... At least I must know language in order to think about "to exist" or "to think". It leaves me with a sad feeling, tough. Even if there are people who can't perceive from their birth we can never ask them. Sad. emo

Two things, I believe you have a wrong understanding of "what it's like to be a bat" and second, you're right, you can't imagine what it's like to not have sense, but that does not mean it is not a possible way to exist.

@Penny

Quote:

I think our natural, unmodified senses are very accurate perceptions of what's actually there. It might not be exactly the same; maybe every creature in existance (yes, existance) senses things somewhat differently. Maybe we'll never even know reality for exactly what it is, but I do believe that reality is there.

If you're tripping on shrooms then your senses and perceptions are altered severely.

No matter what you think you'll never be able to prove it and thus this is just a statement of faith, a statement of your world view, based on zero evidance other than a circular arguement.

"I believe that my senses are sensing an acurate picture of what is there, because my sense tells me they are."

What logical process leads you to assume, knowing already that your senses have the capability of being decieved, that they are ACTUALLY sensing things correctly or accurately. You can only assume thats how things actually are, you could never know it.

However, it's impracticle to live like you percieve everything wrongly. That would be an odd sight.  

[out of the woods]

We each make our own realities. Sure, we all share the commonalities of sensing with our fantastic five the similar environment around us, but as for if it really "exists," that's completely up to us. We can either accept that it is, or accept that it's not, and try to find other explanations. As far as we know, ALL of our individuals could be true; we could all be in our own little dimension. As just as much as that could be true, it ALL could be false, and we're all being led to believe something's there when it's not. When it comes down to it, we shouldn't kill ourselves too much over it. We should be confident that what we know and see and think is all REAL, even if only to us.  

[Fallenarchangel999]

The term Real is rooted in perspective, and even then is rediculously difficult to define. If we limit Real to just that which we sense, then real is purely sight, sound, smell, feel, and taste. But then when one dreams, does not one percieve the dream as real? If you can disdinguish between the dream and your waking world while in the dream, what does that make the dream?  

[Smartteaser192]

After all this time, I do recognize that we can be rationalists and empiricists. Every Philosopher from Thales to Plato to Hume to Kant to Schopenhauer to Descartes have had their own contributions to constitute what reality really is.

Kant proposed transcendental idealism as a way to combine both rationalism and empiricism which was revolutionary in his Critique of Pure Reason. Thus began German Idealism.