I KNOW I EXIST!

[Domh]

Originally posted by Paladin
People hold their religious views by faith, not reason. It is impossible to provide incontrovertible proof to someone who will not accept any reasoning that goes counter to his faith.

People hold all views by faith, including the view that 'their view' is the product of reason, when the only incontrovertibly reasonable view is that nothing can be wholly reasoned.

Every aspect of existence is wholly and irrevocably subjective. One perceives reality. It is not possible to prove a perception. You can spend your whole life - as all of us do to maintain our sanity - lying to yourself that 'reasonable arguments' explain your reality, but the only single reasonable argument in existence is that you can not know. You can assume, hypothesize, draw 'reasonable' conclusions, and believe whatever you want - but that doesnt mean you know.

The essence of faith, is assumption. Daily existence is a constant state of faith - not knowledge.

"The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates

[Steve]

I know when I have to pee really, really badly, and I never took a single philosophy course.

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
I know when I have to pee really, really badly, and I never took a single philosophy course.

Have you ever not peed? You dont 'know' you must pee, you 'think' you must, and so you do it. Without having not done it, to find out what might happen, youve only done half the experiment. Another assumption based on a physical perception. Sensory stimulation of nerves in the bladder signal the brain its time to pee, so you pee. Its another massive leap of faith to think that something as simple as peeing is an example of being able to 'know'.

Philosophy class? Are you pokin at me Steven? Sweet!

;)

[Steve]

Sure, I've not peed. It hurt. Badly. I know both conditions just as sure as I know my fingertips are touching my keyboard as I type and no amount of philosophical debate will ever convince me that the physical world does not exist.

That is why there is such a thing as incontrovertible proof, because incontrovertible things exist and if you pound your head agains a brick wall, it will incontrovertibly hurt really badly.

Now, if you are making a distinction between purely cerebral concepts versus interactions with the real, physical world, then I will certainly grant that, cerebrally speaking, one cannot know anything; postulates and assumptions are the best we can hope to achieve.

[Domh]

No, Steven, you have NEVER NOT PEED. You peed eventually - thats my point.

You concede that 'cerebrally speaking' postulates and assumptions are 'the best we can hope to acheive', but then postulate and assume that incontrovertible things exist simply because your sense of touch is functional. Illogical.

"Interactions with the real, physical world" ARE postulates and assumptions. Take away all of your capabilites to sense that 'real physical world' and it only exists as a 'cerebral concept'. You have no way to prove its still 'out there' and no way to hear somebody 'out there' tell you it 'is'.

Now lets all get drunk and play ping-pong!

;)

[Sarge]

Somebody has watched Matrix a few times too many!;-)

[Steve]

ATF, that's just what I was thinking!

Domhain, your argument breaks down at the point of death, assuming no afterlife.

A person in complete sensory deprivation ceases to exist when brain death occurs. That is incontrovertible proof that the physical domain exists.

Any other viewpoint requires belief in a higher state of being, an afterlife, the existence of a soul, if you will. And, those things are matters of belief, so it's a circular argument.

This world is real and everything my normal senses tell me about it is real. All else is little more than the musings of the human mind.

[Techie2000]

Originally posted by Paladin
It is my understanding that there is no such thing as "gravity." What we call gravity is actually an artifact of the curvature of the space-time continuum. Whatever you wish to call it or claim its a result of, you can't deny that it exists (or happens depending on your point of view)

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
A person in complete sensory deprivation ceases to exist when brain death occurs. That is incontrovertible proof that the physical domain exists.

Oof. Not even close. A person in complete sensory deprivation ceases to exist immediately. They exist to you only because you can sense them, and are operating under the assumption that 'things exist' simply because your brain and senses are doing their simple animalian jobs. You insist on attributing the factual existence of the physical domain to your personal interpretation of sensory data, and even go so far as insisting that 'reality exists and is provable' just because youve become used to the habit of sensing, interpreting and acting on data, the source of which you know almost nothing about! Illogical!

The person in complete sensory deprivation senses nothing, perceives nothing and therefore has no foundation upon which to formulate a sense of reality or existence - in other words, they finally have nothing to assume! All they have is memories of previously sensed and stored data. Their experience is immaterial. They cannot sense data, perceive data or communicate data. Shut off the senses and the stuff that makes reality goes away. Whats happening inside their heads?

People, this is existentialism 101. It hurts, but it isnt rocket surgery. All you have to do is deal with the only incontrevertible fact there will ever be in your whole life: YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING. Once you make that leap, the world and your place in it becomes a fasinating little journey, but making that leap is a tricky gig. Most folks blow their brains out. I got lucky.

And as for the Matrix, well - Sarge Im glad at least youre paying attention. Why is that movie so brilliant? Because its true. It may not be robots using our bodies for batteries and plugging us into some virtual reality machine, but it may as well be. Read Hawking. Read Einstein. At the very LEAST read ' The Tao of Physics'. The best and most logical minds who have struggled with the issues utilizing the scientific method, no less, find that everything in existence is either a conglomeration of, or a vibration of, one... single... thing - and they have no clue what that thing is.

Why do you insist that gravity exists and can be proven? Why do you have faith? Why do you believe in God? Because you like to sleep at night.

I envy you.

Now lets all go to Moe's

;)

[Steve]

DUDE! Stop bogarting the spleef, man! There are other people at this party, you know! :)

"Whats happening inside their heads?"

Nothing, if they're dead.  That's my point.  The physical world exists and I know it.  Those poor idiots who shed their mortal shell to join the mothership behind the comet missed out on that little fact.

Whatever may come after this life, this life is real.

 

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
The physical world exists and I know it. Whatever may come after this life, this life is real.

Heh, no thing is 'real'. 'Real' is nothing more than a sound in your head connected to a bunch of electro-chemical reactions.

If the kaya doesnt help you see that, try the shrooms. You think Im kidding? what do you think the line "and down will come baby, cradle and all." means?

OK - Ill stop, but dont say I didnt warn you. Ask Good Brother Bruzzes!

;)

[Techie2000]

Heh, no thing is 'real'. 'Real' is nothing more than a sound in your head connected to a bunch of electro-chemical reactions.Just because I am percieving the world through my brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Just because I'm not in a room when a glass falls and I don't hear it doesn't mean it didn't make a sound.

[Domh]

Originally posted by melpomene
"God" doesnt exist... sorry folks, this is true. He was, stressing "he", was invented many a millenium ago so that we dont feel so alone and isolated in the universe.

off to Moe's.

Heres your 12oz Pabsts. 5 BUCKS. NOW. Wanna pickled egg?

;)

Enjoy this link:

http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html

Those who can read and understand and argue logically and reasonably regarding Jaynes work, discussed on the web page above, in his book THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) get a 16oz of Duffs Best on the house, and the right to throw down some existential discourse worth consideration.

Maybe Ill bring you to the caves at Shanidar in Iraq. Seriously, Im planning a trip for 2005. If you can tell me why you NEED to come, not just want to, come Ill add you to the list. Fundraising starts soon.

I suspect that some think this level and timbre of discourse is simplistic fairy tale lunacy for fruitcakes and acidfreaks. Dont dismiss what you cant understand. Just be satisfied with mis-under-standing - its the most natural state, right?

:thumbsup:

[melpomene]

damn dom, put me on the list...............thats reason enough rofl

[bruzzes]

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

A greeks way of explaining a hindu concept "maya".

I stand by my previous response.

As long as there is a seperation between the essense of what we are [GOD] then there will be illusion.

If there is no seperation, then one IS and needs not teach as that ESSENCE is all.

[Techie2000]

YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHINGIf that were true, then how am I communicating with you? If that were true, then why do I have to go to school? If that were true, then how do we reproduce? I would like to think that I know nothing. It would make life so much easier. I could just sit home eating chips, steak, etc. all day, but there is one concrete fact I know of. I exist.

[Fiona]

Techie I was discussing Dom's words with a friend last night. As you can see I quoted them below... This friend also young and intelligent like yourself, thought the same as you, and didn't seem to get the intended point. He thought it meant to acquiesce(sp?) to give up learning- on the contrary!

i said i would speak to Dom to state it differently (havent done so yet)

The point is, when you reach the point of knowing you in fact know (FOR CERTAIN! ABSOLUTELY !100%) nothing, then you can move on with the quest for knowledge... I thirst for knowledge, seek it everyday... I love to learn. I could not be open minded and try to absorb so many different views if i did not accept that there is more to learn. and what i DO know is subject to change! :)

[Stiofán]

Geeze, this thread has taken me back to my study of Descarte, Hume and others. Alas, I too far removed from it to jump in here.

[bruzzes]

Never put Decartes before De Horst!

[Techie2000]

The point is, when you reach the point of knowing you in fact know (FOR CERTAIN! ABSOLUTELY !100%) nothing, then you can move on with the quest for knowledge... I thirst for knowledge, seek it everyday... I love to learn. I could not be open minded and try to absorb so many different views if i did not accept that there is more to learn. and what i DO know is subject to change!Now that's a whole different story. I don't know maybe I'm not getting it because I tend to interpret things very literally. But it sounds like what your actually trying to say, is that what we know, is only a small fraction of what we can learn. Much like the Earth is only a small fraction of the entire Universe...

[Fiona]

Originally posted by bruzzes
Never put Decartes before De Horst! rofl :thumbsup:

[Fiona]

Originally posted by Techie2000
... it sounds like what your actually trying to say, is that what we know, is only a small fraction of what we can learn. Much like the Earth is only a small fraction of the entire Universe... there's hope :) ;)

[Domh]

Techie2000 said:

"...there is one concrete fact I know of. I exist."

Lets look into that!

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Know
1. To perceive directly

Perceive
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

Sense
1. To become aware of; perceive.

Well, well, well - what a problem we have here! To know is to perceive and to perceive is to sense and to sense is to perceive, but to perceive... is to sense... but not KNOW.

Oh well that is most troubling isnt it!? Yet again, we are reduced to our senses. Without them, we know nothing - and with them, we know nothing, but percieve many things.

Sensory data provided to our brains is processed independently. There is currently no way to verify that the sensed data for one person is identical to the sensed data of another. Until we can get the brain to brain LAN working, we are out of options. We have no methodology with which to test our hypothesis that 2 individuals are sensing the same thing. The best we can do is ASSUME that they are sensing the same thing because their independent descriptors of it are so similar.

Assume
1. To take for granted; suppose

Suppose
1.To assume to be true or real for the sake of argument or explanation.

I think the point is clear. Knowledge itself, by definition, is supposition. It is "The sum or range of what has been perceived" and I think weve done a relatively good job, albeit quick and dirty, of showing that perceiving is not knowing, it is sensing.

I am confident that Techie senses he exists, perceives he exists, assumes he exists - does all that any of us can do... but he does not, and never will KNOW that he exists.

To know is not possible. There is only sensing, perceiving and assuming. Semantics you say? Most certainly - when it comes to things like 'I know I want to eat a hotdog' - but NOT when it comes to statements of weight and substance.

"I know I exist." is most certainly a declaration of weight and substance.

Theres much, much more, but I dont know if anybody is interested so Ill wait.

;)

[Stiofán]

So perhaps we are merely souls without substance. Our etheral mind (not physical, only thought) creates these sensations we perceive through our senses. You stand in front of me, but do you really exist, or are you just an image created in my conscious being.

[Domh]

Bravo Steve! Sweeeeeet. Indeed, the most logical supposition you have to deal with is that I do indeed exist only in your mind where the act of perceiving sensory data occurs.

Does that mean I 'exist'? That I am 'real'? The implication is that reality is something constructed inside of the mind, not something the physical body and brain exist 'within' and sense.

Hmm!

[mikeky]

Originally posted by domhain
Techie2000 said:

[b...]Know
1. To perceive directly

Perceive
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

Sense
1. To become aware of; perceive.
...
By the above definitions, if we can perceive something directly, we know it. Unless you have a different definition of know, at which point why cite the above?

[Domh]

Good point Mikey, and one often and well argued, but the definitions of these terms cannot work like muliplication in mathematics, where if 5x4 is 20, then 4x5 is also 20. 4 and 5 are absolute until it is agreed that they are not. Words are vastly more complicated than numbers. Its easy for us to agree that 4 is 4. Its nearly impossible for us to agree on a definition of a word.

The key is, what do the words mean?

Bonus points for why that question makes no 'sense'.

;)

[Techie2000]

I am confident that Techie senses he exists, perceives he exists, assumes he exists - does all that any of us can do... but he does not, and never will KNOW that he exists.Yeah but in the end, it depends on what the definition of know is. However I think that Rene Descartes put it best when he said "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore I am). If I percieve nothing, that doesn't mean I don't exist. It simply means I am not processing the world around me. You may not know I'm thinking, but that doesn't change the fact that I am thinking.

[Steve]

This silliness is all great fun, but if you guys are going to be silly, please be consistent, OK?

Domhain writes:

"Know
1. To perceive directly

Perceive
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

Sense
1. To become aware of; perceive.

Well, well, well - what a problem we have here! To know is to perceive and to perceive is to sense and to sense is to perceive, but to perceive... is to sense... but not KNOW."

You imply that the concept of "knowing" involves circular reasoning, but you do so by confusing the noun form of the word "sense" with the verb form. Two distinctly different meanings...

We all know what it feels like to NOT be shot in the head. According to this fallacious line of "reasoning", it's the same as being shot in the head. Bullet impact, urination, it's all the same: physical sensation.

It is real, it is here. I strongly suspect that blind people, or deaf people, or those with no sense of taste or smell or sensation, who formerly had those senses, would scoff at claims that the world only exists in our minds.

[Stiofán]

Descartes 101, from his 2nd Meditation:

...I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it not follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But {suppose} there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case too I undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

I believe that's how he got around the question of existance.

[valgore]

I think you guys have dropped too much acid. no joke!

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
This silliness is all great fun...

You imply that the concept of "knowing" involves circular reasoning...

We all know what it feels like to NOT be shot in the head. According to this fallacious line of "reasoning", it's the same as being shot in the head.

It is real, it is here. I strongly suspect that blind people, or deaf people, or those with no sense of taste or smell or sensation, who formerly had those senses, would scoff at claims that the world only exists in our minds.

Great fun indeed, but it sort of sounds like you have a bit of a hair across yer arse, my very good and respected friend! If you arent enjoying it, dont partake. ;)

We all know what it feels like to NOT be shot in the head? Illogical statement... unless you are telling me that you have at one time had a gun put to your head, had the shooter declare he was going to fire, and then NOT fired. Ever been there? If not, dont tell me we 'all know' because, well, we dont! Nowhere in this thread has there been any supposition put forth that being shot in the head and not being shot in the head are the same thing.

"It is real, it is here." Really? What is "it" and where is "here"? 'Fallacious reasoning' is better than no reasoning at all - it may eventually lead to understanding, or at the very least, well formulated and logical assumptions - the best anyone can hope for.

Nobody ever postulated that a person who loses their sight should believe that the world does not exist, but no matter how hard you try, youll never be able to prove to them that it does without finding a way to reconnect to the part of their brain that processes visual sensory stimulus. The only logical postulate is that they ASSUME the visual world is still 'out there' because they are receiving alternate sensory stimulus SUGGESTING that it is.

Most people illogically insist that their sensory perceptions of the world around them are infallible factual data of what IS and what IS NOT, what is REAL and what is FAKE. Psychologically, they have never gotten over their childhood terror that there is a monster in the closet... and as adults they are incapable of opening that closet door to look it in the eye.

Insistence, faith, religious scripture, stubborness and attempts to logically reason about a universe whose inherent nature seems to be pure chaos will never change the fact that you - dont - know. Thats the only logic and the only reason from which you might begin your attempt to deduce truth, if it even exists.

Like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night - I aint judging, just observing.

:thumbsup:

[mikeky]

Please give me your definition of <i>know</i>.

[bruzzes]

said by valgore:
I think you guys have dropped too much acid. no joke!


(wink)

...want some?

[Techie2000]

mikeky, are you addressing domhain or myself?

Most people_illogically insist that their sensory perceptions_of the world around them are infallible factual data of what IS and what IS NOT, what is REAL and what is FAKE. Psychologically, they have never gotten over their childhood terror_that there is a monster in the closet... and as adults they are incapable of opening that closet door to look it in the eye.If I go umm...borrow...a new Pentium 4 3GHz CPU, could I get out of taking the blame by arguing it doesn't exist?

[mikeky]

Originally posted by Techie2000
mikeky, are you addressing domhain or myself?

If I go umm...borrow...a new Pentium 4 3GHz CPU, could I get out of taking the blame by arguing it doesn't exist?
How the hell am I supposed to <i>know</i> who I'm addressing?!

Though since you're borrowing the Pentium, let Dom answer. ;)

[Domh]

Originally posted by Techie2000
If I go umm...borrow...a new Pentium 4 3GHz CPU, could I get out of taking the blame by arguing it doesn't exist?

That would depend on how good your argument is, and have nothing to do with truth, fact, or knowledge.

See what I mean?

You think you made a joke, Techie, but you actually offer a very valid and very pertinent philosophical postulate.

:thumbsup:

[melpomene]

Originally posted by domhain
Techie2000 said:

"...there is one concrete fact I know of. I exist."

Lets look into that!

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Know
1. To perceive directly

Perceive
1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.

Sense
1. To become aware of; perceive.

Well, well, well - what a problem we have here! To know is to perceive and to perceive is to sense and to sense is to perceive, but to perceive... is to sense... but not KNOW.

Oh well that is most troubling isnt it!? Yet again, we are reduced to our senses. Without them, we know nothing - and with them, we know nothing, but percieve many things.

Sensory data provided to our brains is processed independently. There is currently no way to verify that the sensed data for one person is identical to the sensed data of another. Until we can get the brain to brain LAN working, we are out of options. We have no methodology with which to test our hypothesis that 2 individuals are sensing the same thing. The best we can do is ASSUME that they are sensing the same thing because their independent descriptors of it are so similar.

Assume
1. To take for granted; suppose

Suppose
1.To assume to be true or real for the sake of argument or explanation.


;)

oi dom

how did ya know to sense the dictionary of its existance

...........................you guys done with knowing whether you have peeed or not. *rolls eyes* ..................mel goes and gets cleaning utensils. damn, i sure can sense them *humphf*

[Coot]

Ahhh...the old map and territory discussion. It inevitably narrows down to filtered symbolism. Perception then is the map, by which we evaluate events (the territory). Perception is not the event itself, inasmuch as the map is not the territory. Communication then becomes agreed upon symbolism the mind (or consciousness) uses to pigeon hole events. Thus the Buddha of the inculcating ego perpetually clubs the bodhisattva into holding map reading classes ad infinitum...East meets West and Berkeley, Locke and Jung rollover in their epistemology.

[Fiona]

Domhain, just in case no one mentioned it, I know You know I love you enough that I can say this. You are an ass. A complete ass. Not that you are wrong. Ohhh no! Just an ass. rofl

[Domh]

Coot - bravo!

Fiona - your just 'assuming' Im an ass... no - your right. Im an ass.

;)

[mikeky]

Originally posted by domhain
Coot - bravo!

Fiona - your just 'assuming' Im an ass... no - your right. Im an ass.

;)
So is that something we can <i>know</i>? ;)

[Biker]

Originally posted by melpomene
mel goes and gets cleaning utensils. damn, i sure can sense them *humphf*

You assume you sense them. How do you know what your senses tell you is correct?

[Steve]

Very well, Domhain, let's assume your postulate is true, that nothing truly exists, and we can never know for sure whether even that statement is correct.

What's the point of such a viewpoint? By any interpretation of it, even the journey is pointless, as each point along the journey, as well as the process of the journey, simply isn't.

The concept nullifies itself.

"I am lying right now." Reductio ad absurdum.

[Domh]

Originally posted by stevent
Very well, Domhain, let's assume your postulate is true, that nothing truly exists...

Steven, you assume that I postulated that 'nothing truly exists' when, in fact, I did not. I admire your impressive use of Latin, but you will have to do better than relying on your addiction to assumptive reasoning if you are to begin to understand the discussion.

Boo!

;)

[Techie2000]

fiona, are you sure domahin really exists? He could be a perl script I wrote up to confuse you all...:haha:

[Steve]

If we can never truly "know" anything, it follows, to me at least, that nothing truly exists, as we are incapable of fully apprehending it.

[Fiona]

Techie, he may not truly exist but he's one of my faverite illusions. and stevent - as one on your side, I think he means to ponder, to question, can not prove, therefor always open and seeking.

[Steve]

Always open and seeking is fine...within limits ;)

[Domh]

And what are those limits?

[Steve]

When the seeking prevents one from enjoying what is, and has already been found, then a limit has been reached. What's the point of seeking to the point of exclusion?

[Domh]

Heh - but what IS is only what you assume it is, not necessarily what it really and truly IS.

The point of seeking to the point of exclusion is almost the most important aspect of the entire philosophical process!

When one has drawn away all of the assumptions and guesses and comforting blankets of 'is-ness' and 'knowing' - one begins to seek for truth. It is a process of peeling AWAY the illusions of assumptive reality and existence and exploring what is left. You reduce and retract and tear away at the layers upon layers of 'ideas' and thoughts and all that stuff you truly think you know, but really - sorry - DONT... thats when you start getting to, as the saying goes, 'the heart of the matter'.

Youve made me happy, Steven. Youve fought tooth and nail to not arrive where you ARE. Im not surprised though, because when up against the wall, theres only one place to go.

:thumbsup:

[Techie2000]

Domhain, you claim that we know nothing. You claim that in fact nothing exists. If nothing exists, then how can we be in a state of non-existance? In order to define not being something, you need to first be able to define what being something is.

[mikeky]

Originally posted by Techie2000
Domhain, you claim that we know nothing. You claim that in fact nothing exists. If nothing exists, then how can we be in a state of non-existance? In order to define not being something, you need to first be able to define what being something is.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Fiona]

Ya know I've been using a sig line for years (elsewhere) I think I'll let that be my comment to this thread.

It's all perception!

[Domh]

Originally posted by Techie2000
Domhain, you claim that we know nothing. You claim that in fact nothing exists. If nothing exists, then how can we be in a state of non-existance? In order to define not being something, you need to first be able to define what being something is.

Read... THEN post, Techie. This is the second time tonight Ive had to point out that I did NOT&nbsp;'claim that in fact nothing exists'.

That you think I did is indicative of the ease with which most people rely on assumptive reasoning, instead of doing the difficult work that is logical inquest.

You assume you 'know' things with the same ease and nonchalance you assumed that I had claimed that 'nothing exists'. You are doing a great job of demonstrating the validity of my points, but - like I said above in response to Steven, this is basically a one-way street.

;)

[Techie2000]

I just had a thought. If you say you know that we know nothing, isn't that an oxymoron? Because you are saying that in fact that you know nothing, but if you know that you know nothing, then isn' t that in fact knowing something?

[Techie2000]

The only logical postulate is that they ASSUME the visual world is still 'out there' because they are receiving alternate sensory stimulus SUGGESTING that it is.It doesn't matter whether they percieve its existance or not. There are still different chemicals that convey different colors to our eyes. Objects still have different masses and dimensions. Think about dimensions. Suppose I had a two dimensional pet. He can only percieve two dimensions, height and width. He goes and he sees my computer. To him he only sees height and width. That doesn't mean it doesn't have depth, he just doesn't see that it has depth.

[ethics]

Several times in the course of the discussion Thrasymachus (Domhain) had made an attempt to get the argument into his own hands, and had been put down by the rest of the company, who wanted to hear the end. But when Polemarchus and I (the rest)had done speaking and there was a pause, he could no longer hold his peace; and, gathering himself up, he came at us like a wild beast, seeking to devour us. We were quite panic-stricken at the sight of him.

He roared out to the whole company: What folly, Socrates, has taken possession of you all? And why, sillybillies, do you knock under to one another? I say that if you want really to know what justice (existence) is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honour to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice (existence) is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy.

I was panic-stricken at his words, and could not look at him without trembling. Indeed I believe that if I had not fixed my eye upon him, I should have been struck dumb: but when I saw his fury rising, I looked at him first, and was therefore able to reply to him.

Thrasymachus, I said, with a quiver, [i]don't be hard upon us. Polemarchus and I may have been guilty of a little mistake in the argument, but I can assure you that the error was not intentional. If we were seeking for a piece of gold, you would not imagine that we were "knocking under to one another," and so losing our chance of finding it. And why, when we are seeking for justice(existence), a thing more precious than many pieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend, we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that we cannot. And if so, you people who know all things should pity us and not be angry with us.

--you know who

[melpomene]

oh dear, we are all still a bunch of monkeys hey?

(in the nicest possible way)

but our monkey brains, *sighs* can only process existance that is tangible..................where our monkey brains senses, feel, taste, see etc etc

catalogue that, database this, label that over there, file this

its scary man, scary...............how about if everything i have perceived is real and exists..............DOESNT

then where does that leave ME

[Fiona]

Oh man Michael. He's got you pegged. LOL rofl

that was well done Sir Leon :thumbsup:

(from one of the lowly masses)

[Domh]

"There are still different chemicals that convey different colors to our eyes."

Hunh? Blind people do not receive visual stimulus. Blind Willie assumes the visual world is still out there because his friend hobo-Jim tells him it is. Willie is making an assumption based on aural data from Jim. That means he is hearing about how the world is still there and looks nice, but it does NOT mean that Willie KNOWS IT IS... and now I am in that place where I am constantly repeating myself. Re-read until you understand. Dont assume that when you still dont understand, that means there is something wrong with what you are reading and you have a better explanation or answer... its just that you dont get it yet.

Keep trying, or take the road more travelled and forget about it. Your choice. These are simultaneously simple and challenging concepts. Some people understand them, some do not. There is a reason Socrates' quote has been the subject of extensive philosophical consideration for thousands of years. What is that reason?

"All I know is I know nothing." - Socrates

"The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates

;)

[Domh]

Originally posted by -you know who
And why, when we are seeking for justice(existence), a thing more precious than many pieces of gold, do you say that we are weakly yielding to one another and not doing our utmost to get at the truth? Nay, my good friend, we are most willing and anxious to do so, but the fact is that we cannot.

Ah but you are not willing - for if you were then&nbsp;comprehension would strike you like a fist to the head! You are indeed anxious, but not to ellicit truth -&nbsp;you are anxious to escape it because it leaves you bare and naked and alone - as you indeed always have, and always will, be.

Cannot? Rubbish. WILL not.

But I will gently let you be, as there are only as many days as there are - and we are all equally alone and afraid, and should be a comfort to one another.

-Thrasymachus

[Fiona]

This will probably start a new thread or be systematically ignored (which is usual) but
are you truly afraid? and believe everyone else is too? You know danged well that I support your views... I already spent my years in this philosophy stuff. My beliefs are a choice... without them... well it wouldnt be as nice a thought. But afraid? alone? PAH! I hear ya hun, but it just aint as scary for some i assume. If the days are few and the end is THE END, so what.

[ethics]

I don't know about others, but Thrasymachus was a great philosopher who didn't get enough credit. I don't know how many times I've read The Republic and each time I am sitting there and saying, you know, without Thrasymachus the book would be rather drab.

Anyway, I am dragging the thread a bit OT.

[Fiona]

the whole thing is a myriad of mingling topics ethics. I think it's necessary for healthy conversation.

[ethics]

ONE of the concepts behind existentialism is that we are slaves to the 5 senses. Once you rid yourself of the five senses you become the same person as the soldier in Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, at least he felt something, which you really do not. You are suspended and there were experiments in trying to mimic something like a machine (coffin like) where you would not see, hear, feel, touch, nor taste.

Without the 5 sense do we exist? I believe without 5 sense you do not want to exist.

Edit: had to replace a huge error.

[Techie2000]

You say I know nothing, yet I know I exist. If I know I exist (something that you've already stated you do not dispute), how can I know nothing, when certainly my existance is a something.

[mikeky]

Can I <i>know</i> anything with absolute certainty? Perhaps not. But I can form a hypothesis, gather data, process that data, and come to a conclusion, even very rapidly in some cases. Does this process allow absolute certainty? I suppose not. But with enough data collection and analysis, I can be increasingly certain of having knowledge about the particular system under study, for some things more than others.

For example, I can hold a fruit in my hand, collect the data that it is red, has a brown stem, smells like something previously known to be an apple, and indeed tastes like something previously known as an apple. I can therefore conclude that the item I am holding is indeed an apple. Could it be something else? Perhaps. But even if it is, should I care? Only if the outcome of eating this "apple" is different than that of eating other apples will I need to investigate further. There is no need to run other tests, e.g., GC/MS, moisture, sugar content, and so on, although these might indeed further serve as data that this is an apple, if eating this apple produces no noticeable effect compared to eating previous apples. For all practical purposes, then, I do know that I did eat an apple, realized using only basic senses data and historical data. Many other things can be likewise practically known, and are practically known, allowing us to exists without being in a state of paralysis by having to <i>know</i>, e.g., what it is we are about to eat, or for that matter, what is eating.

So pragmatically we do know many things, with the potential to know many more based on data input and analysis. And while questioning these <i>known</i> things was/is part of the process of data collection and interpretation, it cannot be the sole process in a non-paralyzed entity, as most times it is better to call an orange an apple and get on with eating as opposed to starving to death.

[jfcjrus]

Ouch, my brain hurts! (I think).
A fascinating thread, much of which is beyond my current learning.

But, what made it interesting to me was that the subject of discussion may help explain certain realities, or rather certain <i>perceived</i> realities).

For instance, in a hospital:
A little boy with polio suddenly does not have polio.
A cancer goes into remission for no apparent reason.
A written-off accident victim survives.
A severed apendage regains full funtionality without micro surgery.
etc, etc...

What's going on?
How do you explain these type of things?
Well, many ways;
- misdiagnosis
- strong will to live
- we don't know everything about medicine, yet
- friggin miracle
- or, perhaps, <i>perception</i> of reality was changed?

Now, I know next to nothing about the Christian Science religion.
But, I've been around them for many decades and have seen some weird stuff (all of the above).

Very, very, simply put (in MY words), they believe that man was made in the image and likeness of God.
And, well, can you imagine God being sick?
No? Well, then what you're seeing must be in "error".
So, get rid of the "error".
Get rid of the erroneous <i>perception</i> of what you see as this illness.
End of problem.

Need help in concentrating to get rid of the "error"?
There are 'practitioners" (folks that have this stuff figured out) that will work with you, help you focus.
You still can't pull it off?
Oh well, no harm done; then you put your faith in the doctor.

Yea, I know, a pretty crude summary of some folk's beliefs that I've come to respect.
I don't pretend to understand it (yet?), but I've experienced a bit of it.

So, that's why this thread, dealing with <i>perceived</i> reality was of some interest to me.
An interesting path, this quest to understand stuff.

Thanks, everyone, for a good debate.
Regards,

[Steve]

Domhain, you note: "The point of seeking to the point of exclusion..."

I characterize that as a mental illness, actually.

The unexamined life is, indeed, not worth living, but there can be no living if the examining takes one to the point of exclusion.

I prefer to go out and experience life, whether anyone else thinks it's "real" or not, than to quietly contemplate my belly button. Thousands of years and thousands of people have contemplated these questions while the rest of the world proceeded apace, confident that what is, can be enjoyed for what it is perceived to be.

Mikeky sums it up quite nicely with his apple analogy, thanks, Mikeky.

[Domh]

Originally posted by mikeky
I can therefore conclude that the item I am holding is indeed an apple. Could it be something else? Perhaps. But even if it is, should I care?

Contradiction. You say it IS an apple, and then say it COULD be something else. Not perhaps, but DEFINITELY it could be something else. Investigate theoretical physics. That 'apple' is more likely an amalgam of a single 'thing' operating under the principles of 'string theory'. Its your mind that makes it an apple - that doesnt mean it IS an apple, it means you are assuming it is an apple.

Should you care? I dont care if you care or not! I care because I find philosophy and theoretical physics a fascinating and worthy intellectual endeavor. Assuming is good enough for most, but its not good enough for me.

Originally posted by mikeky
"The point of seeking to the point of exclusion..." I characterize that as a mental illness, actually.

Yes, Steven Im not surprised you feel that way. Can you explain why many 'mentally ill' people, perhaps those diagnosed with psychotic dementia,&nbsp;are wholly convinced that they are indeed sane and see the world for what it IS and that those around them are crazies living an illusory existence? The 'mentally ill' arent 'wrong', they are just in the minority, and its their behaviors in response to the way they see the world that lands them in the bin. You can assume all day if you want, but youll never be able to prove that 'they' are 'crazy' and that you 'arent'.

Christians used to burn people&nbsp;at the stake because 'they' didnt 'fit the mold' of what the majority believed 'was or wasnt'. They also burned epileptics at the stake. The burnings are mostly over, but the mentality remains.

[mikeky]

Originally posted by domhain
[B]Contradiction. You say it IS an apple, and then say it COULD be something else. Not perhaps, but DEFINITELY it could be something else.
Ah, but I did not say it IS an apple, only that I <i>conclude</i> there is sufficient data available to treat the object as an apple until such time as other evidence indicates it is not an apple. It may very well be something else, but I will treat it as an apple until I have a compelling reason not to.

Investigate theoretical physics. That 'apple' is more likely an amalgam of a single 'thing' operating under the principles of 'string theory'. Its your mind that makes it an apple - that doesnt mean it IS an apple, it means you are assuming it is an apple.
I don't even have to go to string theory for that; it is very likely, although we cannot know, that the apple is composed of various organic and inorganic compounds. These compounds may also be composed of a fundamental set of atoms, which themselves may be composed of a fundamental set of neutrons, protons, and electrons, which themselves may very well be composed of smaller, more fundamental species (perhaps particles, perhaps waves, perhaps in-between, perhaps existing as yet undefined). Although we cannot know this is certain, observations are sufficient to allow one to make conclusions and suppositions that this might be so. As a matter of fact, an orange may very well consist of these same fundamental species. As may an elephant, and so on. It that sense then, an apple or an orange (or an elephant) in the most fundamental form are not apples, oranges, or elephants, but a collection of something, perhaps even something so basic to be the same no matter what the object. However, while this basic species may be the same, it can be supposed, based on observation, that it combines in different proportions and different energy states in such a way to produce a unique object, such as an apple, orange, or elephant. Not only that, once combined, observation has shown that most unique objects do not instantaneously transform into other objects; that is, these objects are stable. While we cannot know for certainty that an apple cannot change into an orange (or an elephant), the preponderance of the evidence indicates that this does not occur, giving more data to support that when I perceive an apple in my hand, it is indeed an apple with an apple's properties, even if composed of an amalgam.

Does string theory recognize that that which appears as an apple may be apple? If so, good. Does it indicate that an apple may be on a gross level something else (an elephant)? Although I believe you argue it does (correct me if I'm wrong), I don't think so, because to do so would disregard much observational evidence, greatly weakening it as a theory.

Should you care? I dont care if you care or not! I care because I find philosophy and theoretical physics a fascinating and worthy intellectual endeavor. Assuming is good enough for most, but its not good enough for me.

Then theoretical physics must be maddening for you because it requires many assumptions based on available direct and indirect observations of data to put forth the theories, data in many cases much more lacking than those used to identify an apple as an apple.

[bruzzes]

If a stick is placed upright in the water half in and half out, would not the stick look bent? The refraction of the light waves makes the stick look bent. The stick is bent. Do you not see that it is so? What keeps that stick straight was that you percieved it was straight before you put it in the water. Which is the true reality? Why both of them. Why is your sense of sight confusing you so?

The mind creates a false illusion of continuity. Derived by logic, without observed facts a priori, we fill in the missing datum and filter out the conflicting ones. When looking at a front view of a house and asked what color it is painted and say the color was white, 99% of the people would say the house is painted white. We assume that the other 3 sides of the square house is the same color. If we see a circle that is not quite finished but so nearly so and asked what that represents, 99% of the people would say it is either a circle, a zero or the letter o. In reality, it is none of those. Yet we fill in the missing section and call it so.

Senses and perceptions can create a false and frightening world if not for this a priori concept that there is continuity in our exsistence. Even if it is false.

When someone said "Ignorance is bliss" I have to laugh and agree with my brother Dom.

Every aspect of existence is wholly and irrevocably subjective. One perceives reality. It is not possible to prove a perception. You can spend your whole life - as all of us do to maintain our sanity - lying to yourself that 'reasonable arguments' explain your reality, but the only single reasonable argument in existence is that you can not know. You can assume, hypothesize, draw 'reasonable' conclusions, and believe whatever you want - but that doesnt mean you know

Maybe that is why "faith" exists. Without faith, why do we exist?

[Steve]

I'm just a simple man. Perhaps I'm missing some profound, life-altering "truth" in this discussion.

My reaction would still be "so what?"

So what if, at a quantum level, the apple could be something else, entirely? What I craved at the moment was an apple and my senses tell me that's what I'm eating. It is sufficient to the moment and, not only to the moment, but for all time. I need not ponder some ineffable essence of the apple to know that what I'm biting into satisfies my definition of what an apple should be.

The same applies to any other physical sensation I can reference. At some point, I am satisfied, I am happy, with what I perceive because it is only what I expected, and that is sufficient to this moment, and all others.

Now, when the concept of 'not knowing' crosses over to the mind, to matters of cognition, of being, of faith, all of which are pure abstractions and inapprehensible to us, then "not knowing" certainly applies, for what Man can imagine, can be expounded upon, expanded, and carried to infinity.

[mikeky]

Originally posted by bruzzes
If a stick is placed upright in the water half in and half out, would not the stick look bent? The refraction of the light waves makes the stick look bent. The stick is bent. Do you not see that it is so? What keeps that stick straight was that you percieved it was straight before you put it in the water. Which is the true reality? Why both of them. Why is your sense of sight confusing you so?

The mind creates a false illusion of continuity. Derived by logic, without observed facts a priori, we fill in the missing datum and filter out the conflicting ones. When looking at a front view of a house and asked what color it is painted and say the color was white, 99% of the people would say the house is painted white. We assume that the other 3 sides of the square house is the same color. If we see a circle that is not quite finished but so nearly so and asked what that represents, 99% of the people would say it is either a circle, a zero or the letter o. In reality, it is none of those. Yet we fill in the missing section and call it so.
The problem with this argument is not that there are two realities, i.e., the stick is both bent and straight, but that insufficient data was collected to determine more definitively the stick's characteristics. Removal of the stick from the water, measurement of the stick in and out of the water, total submersion of the stick, all would provide more complete data, leading to the conclusion that the stick was in fact straight, not dual-natured. The same could be said of the other mischaracterizations, as further data collection would result in a more correct determination of the house color or letter shape. But regardless of whether this further data is collected, the stick does not change its shape, the house does not change its colors, or the symbol its shape. That is, incomplete perception does not change reality or the more complete perceptions of others.

From Werner Heisenberg, <i>Physics and Philosophy</i>, 1958 (<a href="http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heisenb5.htm">source</a>):
The philosophic thesis that all knowledge is ultimately founded in experience has in the end led to a postulate concerning the logical clarification of any statement about nature. Such a postulate may have seemed justified in the period of classical physics, but since quantum theory we have learned that it cannot be fulfilled. The words 'position' and 'velocity' of an electron, € for instance, seemed perfectly well defined as to both their meaning and their possible connections. and in fact they were clearly defined concepts within the mathematical framework of Newtonian mechanics. But actually they were not well defined, as is seen from the relations of uncertainty. One may say that regarding their position in Newtonian mechanics they were well defined, hut in their relation to nature they were not. This shows that we can never know beforehand which limitations will be put on the applicability of certain concepts by the extension of our knowledge into the remote parts of nature, into which we can only penetrate with the most elaborate tools. Therefore, in the process of penetration we are bound sometimes to use our concepts in a way which is not justified and which carries no meaning. Insistence on the postulate of complete logical clarification would make science impossible. We are reminded here by modern physics of the old wisdom that the one who insists on never uttering an error must remain silent.
Perhaps a logical extension to the last sentence is that those who claim it is not possible to know will themselves never know.

[bruzzes]

My point exactly mikeky!

I was not trying to prove that there is two realities, a bent stick and an unbent stick, but based on the sense of sight alone you have two conditions or two realities. If one adds the understanding characteristics of light and it's properties [refraction] one can possibly explain why the straight stick bends.

The same with Newtonian physics. Some conditions would not fit within the parameters of an existing view, specifically microcosm properties, hence new characteristics had to be applied to explain them. [quantum physics]

The question Dom postulated was how do we "know" for certain that apparent characteristics are always true?

[Techie2000]

Call it strange, but as I was waiting at the Home Depot in line, Domhain's point came to me in an epiphany, and actually makes sense now. The problem is I was looking for a complicated explantion, when in reality, it really is quite simple...

[Domh]

Whoa!

Explain, good Techie. Please. I want to hear this. What was the epiphany?

[Techie2000]

It isn't so much like an epiphany in the religious sense, but more like it makes sense with no apparant reason type thing...

Anyways domhain you were arguing that we know nothing. I said that I know I exist. However when I had my "epiphany" it occured to me that existing isn't simply thinking. It's really much more than that. The truth of the matter is that I know nothing because I don't know if anything really is real or not, and that all our knowledge is based on what we believe is real...

[Domh]

Yep. You are on the right track in a big way - and might I add - what a keen pleasure it is to hear you say that, Techie.

And indeed, its really a very simple concept. Frightening as all hell to many, though. People make assumptions about what IS and what IS NOT. What is REAL and what is FAKE. They make these assumptions out of fear and/or ignorance - plain and simple.

Monsters in the closet.

Good for you Tech-man. First step on the most fascinating and rewarding road youll ever walk. You may not think so now, but keep walking the road and the rewards 'become' apparent.

:thumbsup:

[ethics]

Originally posted by Techie2000
Anyways domhain you were arguing that we know nothing. I said that I know I exist. However when I had my "epiphany" it occured to me that existing isn't simply thinking. It's really much more than that. The truth of the matter is that I know nothing because I don't know if anything really is real or not, and that all our knowledge is based on what we believe is real...

Well done!!!

[mikeky]

Originally posted by domhain
... People make assumptions about what IS and what IS NOT. What is REAL and what is FAKE. They make these assumptions out of fear and/or ignorance - plain and simple.
...
And of course never based on careful and considered observations. :rolleyes:

I now return to the dark path of fear and ignorance.

[Biker]

And those careful and considered observations are based on what?

[Domh]

Originally posted by mikeky
I now return to the dark path of fear and ignorance.

Cool man, Ill see ya there. Im a regular.

I aint' no better n' nobody else. Hell. Just thinkin' bout stuff&nbsp;is all. Its fun.

First rounds on me.

:thumbsup:

[Techie2000]

Ignorance is bliss...:)

[bruzzes]

Excellent topic!

I especially loved ethics Plato's Republic excerpt!

The simple Allegory of the Cave when understood shows how reality being perceived can seem real and yet not be real.
Accumulations of facts can determine a logical conclusion, but who is to say the facts themselves are real or correct?

I generally shy away from these type of discussions since I am a dunderhead and not very bright, but I enjoy reading these type of discussions and somehow by osmosis get a glimmer of understanding.

There are many ways to cross a river.
What is important is not how but by "being there". [Excuse the PUN Peter Sellers]

[mikeky]

Originally posted by Biker
And those careful and considered observations are based on what?
Reproducible data collection.