Convince me of your existence

[Fist and Faith]

I'm quite certain I don't have the imagination to be coming up with all of this stuff if I'm the only thing that truly exists.

[Xar]

On the other hand, if you are the only thing that truly exists, then it shows that you HAVE the imagination required to make up all this stuff, because otherwise it quite simply wouldn't be here

[Zarathustra]

I'm quite certain I don't have the imagination to be coming up with all of this stuff if I'm the only thing that truly exists.

I don't know. I dream a lot of stuff that I have no idea where it came from. I'm not convinced by the "argument by lack of imagination."

why should we bother? No matter what we do and say, you can always claim it's an illusion anyway

To continue claiming that others are illusions when they are very "things" (subjects, actually) with which we have our deepest, most meaningful relations is just plain lunacy. You might as well claim that you don't exist, yourself and give up ontological investigations because you're hopelessly ill-equipped to distinguish reality from illusion in the first place. The word "real" begins to lose any meaning whatsoever if you can't acknowledge the most real things in your life. If this is illusion, then "illusion" and "reality" are meaningless. What would it mean for something to be more real than the people whom you love and with whom you share your life? If you can't specify what would make them any more real, then questioning their reality is absurd and pointless.

[Xar, I know you're not claiming this. Just using your remark to make some points.]

[Sevothtarte]

Thanks to everyone, I didn't really know what to expect when I started this thread, but there have been some great posts. And I don't just mean the one about poop.

Then of course, if you believe you might be the only thing existing in the whole universe, and ask us to prove our existence, why should we bother? No matter what we do and say, you can always claim it's an illusion anyway

Fair enough. This won't work if I simply insist, because there is no perfect tangible proof. So let's rephrase: Give me a good reason why I should chose to believe in you and the rest of supposed reality. Is it impossible for me to find meaning in my existence unless I acknowledge everything I perceive as indeed real?

How about . . . your question presupposes that which you doubt? If you're asking ME to prove my existence, then you are already assuming I exist just by asking the question.

Sure, for now I need to assume you exist to maintain my sanity. Suddenly being hit with the perfect realization I am all alone and nothing I thought was real is actually real and therefore meaningful would be a bit of a bummer. Assuming does not mean being convinced though, and I might change my mind regarding reality.

Not very satisfying, huh? Okay, how about this: your being-in-the-world is fundamentally, existentially being-with-others. Forget whether or not I'm real as an objectively present object, or whether I'm a figment of your imagination. Instead, realize that this being-with-others is a necessary structural feature of your consciousness, necessary in the sense that you wouldn't BE without this as a feature of your experience. What you are is intimately tied to your being-for-others. If it weren't then this question couldn't even be framed. You wouldn't even have the conceptual framework to ask this question, because the possibility of the existence of others wouldn't be known.

The question is asked from a perspective of "stepping back" from your involvement with others. Your involvement with others is primordial, just like your being-in-the-world. That fact of your involvement already-always exists, and in order to ask the question of whether or not we're real, you have to take a step back and enter into a reflective attitude towards that involvement. This reflective attitude is a kind of "secondary" being-in-the-world. It is not primary. It takes an effort to step back and reflect. In a sense, merely asking the question is inauthentic, because it is a denial of a primordial, previous form of being: the being-with-others. The "doubting you" is less authentic than the "interacting you," because the "interacting you" came first; it is where you originally started when you stepped back, and it is where you will return once your reflective attitude ceases (by lack of applied concentration). You interacting-with-others is the ontic fact of your Being, a fact towards which you develop a reflective, analytical attitude (by "stepping back") in order to ask the question in the first place. And even when "stepping back," you are still fundamentally involved in a relationship with Others even in the act of doubting their existence.

That's roughly what Heidegger would say on the matter.

Very impressive. I don't think I can come up with an adequate reply.

Now it's your argument that seems to be rooted in presupposing. You just suppose the "real me" is the one which is with others, and the doubting me is the result of stepping back, a me that is merely reflecting upon that which you take to be the ultimate reality. Is it not possible for my all-alone mind to be evolving, the me that is with others to be the inferior one, the one trying to make sense of (or cope with) the state of the real me? Maybe I'm still at a stage where it needs to create an artifical reality for me to exist in, banishing the truth to my subconscious, for otherwise it would drive me mad. If I work out the truth on my own, that I am indeed all alone, I might be able to stomach it and reach a new, higher level of existence, one at which I'm not dependent on illusions anymore.

really, what difference does it make?

It makes every difference. Ask Mr Covenant wether it matters if the land you find yourself in is real. If I find that you are not real but a mere illusion, my behaviour towards you is freed from moral constraints, it does not matter how I treat you, if I kill you. If I find that my suffering and its causes are not real, I can rise above them and be free. If I find that everything I value, everything I live for, is a mere dream, it might make my existence pointless.

Think of all the people that you can see via media and out in public who you will never know...who will never know you. Why would you imagine disinterested strangers? There are people whom you see and whom you know, and who know you as well in the world.

I just need a horde of potentials. People who might never matter to me, but who could become people that matter, whenever I'm in need of a new addition to my life, a person that embodies whatever I need or think I need at that time. Since for some reason I have chosen to believe in a world with certain laws of nature, these people can't just pop into existence.
I have picked a world where I am humble, one of many, not a great leader. This works better if I'm one among billions, not one among the mere hundreds or so that actually make a difference to my life.

Given that we haven't much in the way of a priori knowledge about a person before we've spent some time around them, how is it that we pick one from the other to know, how do they pick us? If it's all created by the mind, or by a disembodied thought, would we bother imagining people in the world whom we'd never imagine interacting with?

In other words, why should I bother imagining you? Just for this one post here? Not that much interaction, after all.
This strongly depends on the scenario we're in. Sorry, the scenario I'm in, you're just an illusion.

1) A real world very much like the one I experience right now exists. I exist in this world, you do. In this world, I entered a virtual reality, and willingly or forcibly I abandoned all knowledge of being in a VR, so I believe everything I experience now is the ultimate, the "real", reality.
My VR might be a game, and you a predetermined NPC. Your characteristics were chosen by the computer, how I react to you is my choice, another player might react differently.
My VR might be a recreational perfect world. Your are an NPC whose sole reason to be is to entertain me for a bit by participating in this thread. Or maybe you're my soulmate and perfect partner in this world, and we just had to meet somehow. The future will show.
My VR might be a test. Maybe I'm on trial, maybe military scientists want to see if I'm able to overcome my conscience and turn into the perfect killer. You might not really matter at all here, you're just one more detail that makes it all seem real to me so that the conditions remain authentic.

2) I'm God. My mind is the only thing that exists. I'm imagining everything else, maybe to stay sane, maybe to be entertained (maybe I don't imagine but actually create it, giving it form and substance. Does that make any difference (from the moral point of view)?). I might not realize it all and still be in need of development (see above), or I might have chosen to purposefully "forget" my true nature for some time to enjoy the show. Being God, I can destroy and instantly recreate the world whenever it starts to bore me or causes me displeasure, maybe I'm recreating it all the time and there'll ultimately be a world in which you are more to me than a fellow user here, in which every being and every occurence has a direct relation to me, and is therefore meaningful. We're just not there yet.

If we've imagined both, wouldn't we, being semi-rational, at least give those strangers some quality by which they were obviously not of our interest and we obviously not of theirs? But this is not the way of our imagination of things, so it becomes a bit hard to believe that this all a consequence of imagination I think.

Is this not what we do? Why do you not talk to everyone you meet in the street, is it not because they apparently are of no interest to you? Still, you need them as potentials, and you need them to give those that are interesting meaning. If pretty and smart people are interesting (;)), you need people who aren't either or both, otherwise everyone's the same and the ones you value aren't at all special. Why value them then?

Did any of this make sense? I think I've got a headache now.

[Queeaqueg]

I think the world around us is real and not an illusion, etc because if everything is an illusion then there must be a real world out there e.g.
I have a coin in my hand and I claim that it is a counter-fit coin, then you ask 'where is the real coin?' and I say 'there is no real coin', so how can the counter-fit coin be a counter-fit because the real doesn't exist and cannot be compared with. Same with illusions n stuff, you can say 'This world is not real, it is an illusion', well where is the real world? If you can't show me the real world then how can the world I see be an illusion because they cannot be compared. If you get what I mean.
As for whether I exist, I think Descartes point works quite well.

[The Laughing Man]

How can I know that on the other side of the screen, there are so many people and not just one person pretending to be alternatively Avatar, you, Loremaster, Lucimay, and so on?

isn't this what God does?

[Zarathustra]

Now it's your argument that seems to be rooted in presupposing. You just suppose the "real me" is the one which is with others, and the doubting me is the result of stepping back, a me that is merely reflecting upon that which you take to be the ultimate reality. Is it not possible for my all-alone mind to be evolving, the me that is with others to be the inferior one, the one trying to make sense of (or cope with) the state of the real me? Maybe I'm still at a stage where it needs to create an artifical reality for me to exist in, banishing the truth to my subconscious, for otherwise it would drive me mad. If I work out the truth on my own, that I am indeed all alone, I might be able to stomach it and reach a new, higher level of existence, one at which I'm not dependent on illusions anymore.

I'm not presupposing anything. I'm merely looking at Being and describing it. It is a fact that our being-in-the-world and being-with-others is primordial compared to the reflective, analytical attitude which questions the fact of our Being. Our participation in Being is a fact that is always-already there, even when we are sitting in our chairs and doubting it. Even our act of reflecting on it is a kind of participation with it. So we have here two different kinds of participation: one is passive and reflective, one is active and immediate. You doubt the active one, but for some reason you're not doubting the passive one. Why not suppose that your reflective attitude represents a false way of being? See, you can enter into a reflective attitude towards your first reflective attitude, and the doubting never ends. In fact, in performing this infinite regression, you retreat farther and farther from where your life is actually lived. So there is no reason to suppose that this "style" of participation in the world--this reflective attitude--is more real than active participation in the world. In other words, there is no reason to suppose that this is a retreat into "higher truths" because it is in fact a retreat from your life as it is lived, a retreat into . . . what exactly? This infinite regression of reflective activity can only be described in negative terms, a diminishment of Being. In the end, the reflective attitude is done within the framework of being-in-the-world. You can't escape it even when you're questioning it, though you can become increasingly inauthentic towards it. When presented with a world, and presented with the choice of either being in it or doubting it--and those really are the only two choices--how can doubting it be seen as anything else than a denial of Being? This is not a higher truth.

[Zarathustra]

How can I know that on the other side of the screen, there are so many people and not just one person pretending to be alternatively Avatar, you, Loremaster, Lucimay, and so on?

isn't this what God does?

I really like that, Esmer.

[The Laughing Man]

thank you, God.

[Fist and Faith]

I'm quite certain I don't have the imagination to be coming up with all of this stuff if I'm the only thing that truly exists.

I don't know. I dream a lot of stuff that I have no idea where it came from. I'm not convinced by the "argument by lack of imagination."

My dreams aren't particularly detailed. I could only dream up pretty basic things. You, for example.



















Sorry. Couldn't resist the obvious response!

EDIT: Heh. *ahem* OK, then. Now I have time to actually write down a thought.

On the other hand, if you are the only thing that truly exists, then it shows that you HAVE the imagination required to make up all this stuff, because otherwise it quite simply wouldn't be here

True enough. There's no way to argue with that position. In truth, the real me could, indeed, be a sleeping being that's just dreaming all this. (I say "sleeping" because it's a frame of reference I assume we all understand. Very often, the protagonist in my dreams doesn't know lots of things the waking me does. If I am the only thing that exists, and all of reality is my imagination, then the imaginer is hiding things from the me that is typing this, just as the me that is typing this hides things from the protagonist of my dreams.)

However, as I said in my first post of this thread, I have no reason at all to assume things are not exactly what they seem. I exist, you exist, Sev exists once again.

[Loredoctor]

How can I know that on the other side of the screen, there are so many people and not just one person pretending to be alternatively Avatar . . .Loremaster. . .

Man, that's just offensive!

[Worm of Despite]

As I've said many times before, I believe I'm a product of someone else's mind--just not sure who. Doubt I'll ever find out, as the person who's created me--and possibly all of us--is completely unaware of the fact. Just another Dick (or Jane) wandering the streets. Where are you, O suzerain creator of life. Are we but an idle whimsy, a forgotten petree dish?!

[Fist and Faith]

really, what difference does it make?

It makes every difference. Ask Mr Covenant wether it matters if the land you find yourself in is real. If I find that you are not real but a mere illusion, my behaviour towards you is freed from moral constraints, it does not matter how I treat you, if I kill you.

Morally, perhaps. But the jail you find yourself in will likely be unpleasant, whether it's imaginary or not.

[Tjol]

If we've imagined both, wouldn't we, being semi-rational, at least give those strangers some quality by which they were obviously not of our interest and we obviously not of theirs? But this is not the way of our imagination of things, so it becomes a bit hard to believe that this all a consequence of imagination I think.

Is this not what we do? Why do you not talk to everyone you meet in the street, is it not because they apparently are of no interest to you? Still, you need them as potentials, and you need them to give those that are interesting meaning. If pretty and smart people are interesting (;)), you need people who aren't either or both, otherwise everyone's the same and the ones you value aren't at all special. Why value them then?

Did any of this make sense? I think I've got a headache now.

No it is not what we do. We meet people, sometimes very much worth meeting, sometimes not worth meeting. That all is easy enough for us to imagine for ourselves... for variety. But the people you don't meet, some are worth meeting as well, and some not... which is learned easily enough from shared experience with other people who have known people you did not. There isn't much reason for an individual to imagine people worth meeting and not also imagine knowing them.

The hole in imagining that we don't exist, is that it really doesn't make any sense, that if all these things were under the control of imagination, we would deliberately imagine people worth meeting, and also imagine not meeting them... why bother imagining such things?

I understand what you say about the strangers we do decide to meet, but what about the ones whom we never imagine being in the same place as us, and so never imagine meeting, all while imagining other people who do imagine themselves in the time and place to meet those other people, who, by other people's descriptions were very much worth meeting if you would have imagined yourself the chance to do so.

We are rational, we do have will, we do have sense of self, all these things are incongruous with imaging things that we will never bother enjoying the imagining of. (Or something like that, lol)

Consider a diagramatic explanation...

Let us say we had an infinite bunch of legos spilled about the floor, with which at the flicker of our will, we can form into anything. To build an image of something with those legos, requires us to have knowledge enough of that image to create it. We can forget that we created that image, but we cannot forget what it is made of, because in order to make that image, we had to know the flicker of thought that would create it.

So then, all these other people we imagine, we'd have to know what they were in some sense, even if we'd forgotten that we ourselves had made them. So not only would it be impossible for us to not know that these created individuals were worth meeting, but it would be impossible to create something that one enjoys while at the same time imagining it undiscovered. It would be like imaging that 2+2=7 while at the same time imagining that neither 2 nor 7 represents anything worth symbolising.

[Avatar]

How can I know that on the other side of the screen, there are so many people and not just one person pretending to be alternatively Avatar . . .Loremaster. . .

Man, that's just offensive!

ROTFLMAO!!

Esmer, Malik, "Thou art god"?

--A

[aTOMiC]

It is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond your personal perception of your own being. Your senses are subject to data input that can always be called into question by your own reasoning that said data could be false.
Like a refrigerator door closing, does the universe disappear when you lose consciousness? Maybe. How would you know for an absolute fact? If it can disappear so suddenly it can be restored just as quickly when you awake. You can’t prove it didn’t happen. Better to just forget this question was ever asked.

[Zarathustra]

It is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond your personal perception of your own being.

But your "own being" includes the world and includes others. A human is not like a stone in the field. We are more than merely "objectively present." We are subjects which take in the world, which move out into the world. A human's Being transcends his limited self. Your Being includes your relations with others, your relations with objects, and your relation to the world.

Yes, we are nothing more than our experiences. But an experience is two-fold: it is both the "appearing-to" and the "appearance of." There is the componant that is directed to you, making the experience yours. But there is also the componant directed away from you, the content of your experience. Rather than thinking of perception as the appearance of Being, it is more useful to think of the Being of appearance. Appearance IS Being. We do actually perceive the world.

We can look at this problem in several ways. We can pat ourselves on the back for being clever enough to realize that the Being of the world can never be proven. We can fall into a depressing solipsism. We can shrug and go on with our lives, forgetting that the question was asked. OR we can realize that--given the facts a) it can never be proven and b) we still transcend ourselves to reach the world--we are thus doing something very special with our lives, with our participation in the world. Rather than cynical doubt, we should be reveling in our "miraculous" transcendence. We shouldn't forget that the question was ever asked, because in seeing how the question can't be answered, the majesty of Being is revealed. We're doing something special with our consciousness. Something truly wonderful and "miraculous" is happening here. Something which should be impossible. We are a glorious paradox.

[aTOMiC]

It is impossible to prove the existence of anything beyond your personal perception of your own being.

But your "own being" includes the world and includes others. We are a glorious paradox.

All true. I'm forced to restate that all of the input to your brain can be called into question in one way or another therefore you cannot be absolutely certain about anything. I may not be typing this. I may only think I'm typing it. The good news is that (like my motto explains) if you can't tell the difference what difference does it make?

[Avatar]

Well, we perceive something at least Malik. We choose to call it the world, and to assume that it has existence seperate to our perceptions.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

Esmer, Malik, "Thou art god"?

--A

Yea, Lord. Have Thee forgotten Thyself?


it's really true, Av, even if "God" is just an organi-mechanical explosion.....