Do we exist?

[RobinDenstro]

Look at your hand. It's on your arm, right? Now, good sir (or ma'am, depending on your gender), explain to me how you know your hand exists.


What's to say that your hand isn't simply a figment of your imagination? Heck, that everyone around you isn't simply a figment of your imagination? And you have such a deep belief that they exist that you can't... well, not believe they exist.


Physiologically speaking, our brain is designed to relay information from the outside world into our personal understanding of everything around us. In reality, every person you ever meet might appear differently to another person. We all might think one person is beautiful, but all of our imaginings of said person could easily all be different. Everyone might define the color "red" as being hot, warm, and bright, possibly signifying victory, blood, or war, but whats to say that red is actually... red?


What if red looks differently to someone else? What if the color red, to another person, is warm, and hot, and bright, and signifies things such as winning and blood. But what if their red, to us, is our blue? What's to say that it isn't? They might think blue is hot, and that red is cool. They might live in a world that's a photo-negative of yours, and you would never know it. Because what you call red, just so happens to be what they call red, too.


This brings us back to my original point. The fact that everyone you see could simply be a figment of your imagination. Like a dream, almost. Your brain creates a series of images, places, people, and so forth, and you simply believe it to be true.


Even better: you know how by the time you wake up from a dream, about ten or so minutes after you awaken, you forget most of your dream? Heck, give it an hour, and you'll hardly remember a thing about it? What if the same was reversed? What if, in our dreams, we're told that it's reality? That we live separate lives that we simply can never remember, that we pawn off as dreams?


Lets get even spookier. Memories, by themselves, are just a collection of connections within our brain that exists as a physical representation of what we remember. And, if we sit and think long enough, we can remember things such as our first kiss, our first love, our first video game, the last thing we ate, and so on. But what's to say we ever did any of those things. For all we know, some benevolent God could have simply created the entire universe five seconds ago, and everything you've ever done was created by him (or her, I'm not here to discriminate), and our memories were miraculously created and placed in your brain so that everything flowed together. That first kiss? Never happened. The other person you kissed remembers it because she was equally created with said memories. This God is good. (Though possibly not without mistakes. What's to say that some people we see were simply given the wrong memories at the wrong time, and so we constitute them as "insane?" For all we know, they could be as equally as moral as we are)


Even better, what's to say you ever read any of this? How can you prove that you weren't just spawned right now, and that all you remember about reading this are simply memories this God (or the Universe, or Science, or what-have-you) plugged into your brain upon your creation just now.


Anyone that can prove me wrong gets a cookie-cake and a pat on the back.

 

[MegaMightyMay]

Wow that is scary to think about. If we never figure out stuff about if soul exists or not (like how they try to make a human on Fullmetal Alchemist) then we really just won't know. But even if we have knowledge about soul and we create a human or something, who knows if its just another memory that was created for all by this god.


It seems like everything is infinite, first it was the molecule as the smallest, then they found out about atoms, maybe next they will find a even smaller unit that creates atoms. We don't know if the universe is infinite or we are just so small it seems infinite so I guess about this existing versus not existing it just depends on how you think of the term "existing". If you see it as a concept, then whether we are ourselves or just instant ramen a god created, we exist either way, just in a different fashion.


It is a good point about insane people but in the end we don't know about the human mind like we know about building a car engine and I guess if we knew enough to make a human mind, then we will have situations like iRobot. Maybe insane people are "messups" by that god or it is simply the misconfiguration of the human mind who knows.

 

[RobinDenstro]

I enjoyed considering your examples to the theories I outlined. "The Full Metal Alchemist" series does dabble in many areas involving the creation of life, and the ability for one to create another through the art of equivalent exchange. Such an idea could even be plausible, really; people have already looked into creating life and cloning devices.


"I, Robot" is also a decent example. Though, rather than the "spontaneous creation" theory, it looks more into the "multiple perspectives" theory (in my opinion). I mean, if you look at all of the robots in that world, you'll realize that they're all after a singular goal without anyone ever knowing about it. While one does indeed stray from the path that everyone else takes, that's because he was given the gift of emotion. And, well, was simply never told about the master plan.


Fun thought; what if the world is just like that? Say, a small handful of people out there simply weren't given the manual. We call them "Philosophers" and "Geniuses." They were never told to aimlessly walk a simple path, ultimately moving toward an all-powerful and all-consuming goal. What's to say that anyone of us aren't simply those that didn't receive the manual, and everyone around us are all secretly striving toward this unspoken goal, and will lash out at us if we mention it?


Hmmm?


I love random theories like this. They're odd to think about, but not entirely impossible,

 

[Raito]

... I'm more interested in how did you come up with this theory.. I mean, did you read this somewhere else? Or maybe this came into your mind because you were terribly bored and had nothing to do... Perhaps you had odd experiences that led to think about this..?


Personally, I think that humans can't perceive the 100% of the existent reality, so who knows...

 

[Hexed]

I have thought about this before. It seems that its all real but who can tell you'll never know until you 'wake up' will you now so we all have to just guess and keep guessing until we figure it out.

 

[RobinDenstro]

Though I came up with most of this myself, I did happen to stumble upon something strikingly similar to my theories a few hours ago. I'm not much of a Science person, though I definitely enjoy the psychological and philosophical thoughts of the world, and so look up multiple PDFs on such research.


To back up my theories, I uncovered this video. Enjoy!


[media]



[/media]
(Funny thing, it even starts off the same way my theory does. Though instead of asking where your hand is, it asks where your fingers are)

 

[MegaMightyMay]

Thanks Robin, I enjoyed your post too, I love to think like that during class sometimes about things that don't get thought about usually. It is scary how possible stuff like The Matrix could be. Maybe we are all logged in when we are awake and our players log us out when we go to sleep. I hear some MMORPG have the "dream" option where even if you are logged out, it still gains exp.


By the way, what game is that in your signature? It looks scary but interesting

 

[Quill]

Actually, colors can be specifically identified by their different wavelengths. Certain cones in the brain pick up certain wavelengths. It's simple, and I feel it excludes the idea that people would perceive blue instead of red.


When you snap your fingers, sound waves are produced. The main difference between what does and what does not "really" exist is whether something can interact with the world surrounding you. If you hallucinate a ghost, the ghost is not real; no one else around you will be able to see that exact image, because it's a figment of your imagination and you should definitely see a professional. But when you snap your fingers or high-five someone, any living thing or even machine present with the senses to pick it up will do so.


It seems somewhat fallacious to me to assume that just because you perceive the world around you means the real existence of the world around you is dependent on your perception. Rather, it's the other way around – your perception depends on the world around you. As such your interpretation may be imperfect or affected by mental or physical imbalances in your body, but there's no need to deny that the real world exists. I suppose it's possible, but the sheer number of living things as well as inanimate objects and even theoretical forces that observe the same laws make it so unlikely it would require rock-hard proof to seriously entertain, IMO.

I'm not much of a Science person, though I definitely enjoy the psychological and philosophical thoughts of the world

…Psychology is science.

 

[Mitheral]

I think; therefore I am. If I think the same thing in a few minutes it will still hold true.


How about going in the other direction and see where that gets ya? It would kinda make this thread senseless.

 

[Quill]

"The Full Metal Alchemist" series does dabble in many areas involving the creation of life, and the ability for one to create another through the art of equivalent exchange. Such an idea could even be plausible, really; people have already looked into creating life and cloning devices.

The ability to "create another through the art of equivalent exchange" is impossible in our world because our universe obeys the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. This means no matter can be created or destroyed. We cannot "create" life. When scientists clone animals or manipulate embryos, they're not creating anything, they're putting ingredients together and letting nature take its course. In a broad sense that could be termed "creation", just like one might "create" a cake out of a recipe, but you're not actually making something new, just changing what's already there. Currently, the scientific community knows only one way that might have led to the existence of life: the evolution of life from entities that were not alive. We haven't quite mastered that art yet.

I think; therefore I am.

Nice point. Although Descartes was referring to consciousness, and consciousness is not a prerequisite for existence. A rock does not think, but a rock could still exist.

 

[RobinDenstro]

Crap. I might be owing people cookie-cakes soon.

When you snap your fingers, sound waves are produced. The main difference between what does and what does not "really" exist is whether something can interact with the world surrounding you. If you hallucinate a ghost, the ghost is not real; no one else around you will be able to see that exact image, because it's a figment of your imagination and you should definitely see a professional. But when you snap your fingers or high-five someone, any living thing or even machine present with the senses to pick it up will do so.

The fact that others in the world around you can tell that you exist does not prove that you exist. I can pick something up and throw it across the room, and it can remain there, but that doesn't mean that such isn't simply my imagination in the first place. The brain is made up of a set of nerves and connections that we believe allows us to see the tangible reality around us, but what's to say that we're not sitting on a couch in a different universe right now, strapped to a machine, with this apparatus telling us;


"Yep! That's really. That burger you're not actually eating? Well, you think it's there, because I'm messing with your taste-buds. I'm telling you that it is delicious, and that every time you take a bite, a little bit of it disappears. And you can't tell the difference, because all you are is a bundle of nerves that, when manipulated, can make you think whatever I want!"


Also, if you see a ghost, how do you know it's not real? There might as well be an entire spiritual realm that we don't even know about. And this "figment of our imagination" is actually someone trying to communicate to us in a personal fashion. Pawning it off on the fact that it's a hallucination is just a generalization; something that's easy to believe.

…Psychology is science.

Blah, you knew what I meant! I'm not very interested in the biological and chemical existence of things. Well, I take that back as well. I enjoy studying the brain, and how it works (such as in psychology), however, I'm not too interested in anything that doesn't have to do with personal thought.

I think; therefore I am. If I think the same thing in a few minutes it will still hold true.


How about going in the other direction and see where that gets ya? It would kinda make this thread senseless.

I apologize, but this is simple enough to refute. As Quill explained, it doesn't take thought to prove that you exist. And, though I might consider trying to prove that we do indeed exist, that's not quite the point of this thread. I mean, it's so mainstream to simply presume that you exist, and that you were born, and that everything is real, and yadda yadda. I'm just the mad fool posing the question; "What if you're wrong?"

It seems somewhat fallacious to me to assume that just because you perceive the world around you means the real existence of the world around you is dependent on your perception. Rather, it's the other way around – your perception depends on the world around you. As such your interpretation may be imperfect or affected by mental or physical imbalances in your body, but there's no need to deny that the real world exists. I suppose it's possible, but the sheer number of living things as well as inanimate objects and even theoretical forces that observe the same laws make it so unlikely it would require rock-hard proof to seriously entertain, IMO.

I definitely respect your opinion. The world around you and your own personal history, naturally, takes a key role in how you perceive the world. One man might have loved eating Twinkies as a child, and holds them in high regard, being often reminded of happy memories when he thinks of them. However, another man might despise the sound of hearing the word Twinkie, as it could have simply been a nickname bullies used to taunt him with as a child, simply because of his prior weight or obesity.


Be it as it may, your thinking is not always influenced by the world around you and its experiences. Simply being a male or a female in two separate circumstances already destroys that theory. These two think in different ways, naturally.


I'll be honest; I don't have any overwhelming facts to prove that the world around you doesn't influence you in every way. But I'm not here to argue that the world doesn't completely influence us, merely to propose the idea that we may not truly exist. Just an alternative perspective, that's all.


Also, given the same exact life experiences, what are the odds that the same test subjects will always choose to avenge their mother upon seeing her untimely demise? Some people are just born with a thicker skin, and might take that and bottle it up. Some might wish to carry on her last will, but it whatever it may. Suggesting that the outside world influences everything we do just seems odd to me (and I don't like the idea that I'm defined by what experiences I have, simply because I don't like it. *grumpy face*).

Thanks Robin, I enjoyed your post too, I love to think like that during class sometimes about things that don't get thought about usually. It is scary how possible stuff like The Matrix could be. Maybe we are all logged in when we are awake and our players log us out when we go to sleep. I hear some MMORPG have the "dream" option where even if you are logged out, it still gains exp.
By the way, what game is that in your signature? It looks scary but interesting.

Ah, interesting thought. It might simply be possible that we're a collection of pixels set in a previous or futuristic time period. However, having to think about it, our lives are relatively boring compared to the games people could be playing. And the thought that they spend a good several hours of the day playing us, every single day?


...We could just be a bunch of NPCs, actually. A ridiculously elaborate set of non-playable characters, placed in a world to make it seem like an actual world and versatile environment, built solely for a multitude of players... or simply one player, to have fun!


Or we could be a world of test subjects, designed a certain way to see what would happen. Some all-powerful alien race could easily be watching us from afar, testing us, observing us. Hooray for random far-fetched theories!


Oh, and the game in my signatures is Dark Souls. It can get a bit scary at times, but not eerie or anything. It's a lot of fun, and I'm personally addicted to it. Try it out for yourself if you're interested, though A) It's known to be a very difficult game, and B) Don't get the PC port. It's slow and awkward. Play it for either the PS3 or XBox360 if you can. I personally play it on the PS3.

 

[Mitheral]

LOL, I was quoting two movies. (And one of those was quoting Descartes.) But as simple as the statement is, it holds true, and validates that rock as well. For if I can perceive myself and I exist, then I have perception. If I can also perceive the rock, quantify its existence, then it, too, is real.


Simply put, we've been asked to disprove a negative. And like disproving the existence of God, which is a matter of faith. Reality is a matter of perception. Again, if we perceive ourselves and can quantify the universe - or at least a segment of it, then it too is real.


We go on to quantify the behavior of reality. We have determined through experiment that light has a distinct behavior. And from that we conclude that the light from starts have been moving toward us for years. If everything else we perceive is real, then it stands to reason that existence didn't suddenly happen just now, but is a matter of causality.


Basically this is the Shroedinger's Cat concept. How do we know if we exist? Not if we just came into existence, but do we not exist now, and won't exist for another 3 days? Or wait, what if we never existed at all? I say I am alive. I have been alive for over 50 years. And the cat in the box is still alive (I hope).

 

[Quill]

LOL, I was quoting two movies. (And one of those was quoting Descartes.) But as simple as the statement is, it holds true, and validates that rock as well. For if I can perceive myself and I exist, then I have perception. If I can also perceive the rock, quantify its existence, then it, too, is real.

That's an extrapolation of Descartes's statement. The quote alone does not support the existence of unthinking entities unless you also think that perceiving something and quantifying its existence makes it real, a definition of reality which I'm skeptical of, since humans can imagine, dream, and hallucinate, among other things.

Basically this is the Shroedinger's Cat concept. How do we know if we exist? Not if we just came into existence, but do we not exist now, and won't exist for another 3 days? Or wait, what if we never existed at all? I say I am alive. I have been alive for over 50 years. And the cat in the box is still alive (I hope).

The Schrödinger's Cat concept parodizes the pervasive uncertainty around the state or position of particles in quantum physics, criticizing it as unscientific because the quantum physics model in this thought experiment would require the (real) cat to be in a mixture of states, which is logically unfeasible, according to Schrödinger. I don't know how the concept is applicable here, but maybe I missed something?

but what's to say that we're not sitting on a couch in a different universe right now, strapped to a machine, with this apparatus telling us;

Because it's absurd to assume that. Ockham's razor is a key element of the rational approach to theories and states that no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. What kind of apparatus would be able to artificially simulate the entire universe? What kind of thing would be able to make such an apparatus? What would motivate the apparatus or its owner to spend all this time, energy and productivity on sitting there inducing flawlessly realistic dreams in people? How does the apparatus work? How does it manipulate our body? When we scan brainwaves and dissect humans, is the apparatus preventing us from perceiving its influence in ourselves or others? If so, why? What possible motive would it have to remain secret? Why does it wish to mess with us? Unless you can convincingly answer every one of these questions, all of these assumptions are, in my opinion, staggeringly superfluous and far-fetched to the point of science fiction. I respect your right to believe in these ideas even without answers supported by evidence, but I reserve the right not to find these ideas persuasive in the absence of such proof.

Also, if you see a ghost, how do you know it's not real? There might as well be an entire spiritual realm that we don't even know about. And this "figment of our imagination" is actually someone trying to communicate to us in a personal fashion. Pawning it off on the fact that it's a hallucination is just a generalization; something that's easy to believe.

Again – why would we bother believing in a supernatural plane if nothing cannot be explained based on the assumption that there is only one plane? It's not a "generalization" to pawn off seeing things that no one else can see as hallucinations. In fact, that's the scientific definition of a hallucination, and brain scans show us evidence corresponding with that theory: during hallucinations, the brain is active in areas that cause you to hear music or see things which do not exist in reality. When scientists stimulate a specific part of your brain with an electrode, you start hearing music, and can recite the melody for others, but no one else can hear what you are hearing, and the solution that makes the most sense and is based on the fewest, most likely and logical assumptions, is because you're imagining it. Until logical or scientific evidence of an entire spiritual realm appears, all this supernatural stuff is just based on way too many assumptions that are unnecessary for understanding the world, because our current scientific systems, which are based on the natural alone, are more than adequate.

Blah, you knew what I meant! I'm not very interested in the biological and chemical existence of things. Well, I take that back as well. I enjoy studying the brain, and how it works (such as in psychology), however, I'm not too interested in anything that doesn't have to do with personal thought.

I'm not sure I knew what you meant. As you yourself conceded in the next sentence, biochemistry is essential to psychology. The scientific study of the human mind and its functions is hitched to the cart of the scientific study of the brain, the nervous system, and the endocrine system. If you don't care to be informed in all those things, technically speaking it's not psychology you're interested in.

Be it as it may, your thinking is not always influenced by the world around you and its experiences. Simply being a male or a female in two separate circumstances already destroys that theory. These two think in different ways, naturally.

That proves, not destroys, the idea that your thinking is influenced by the world around you. Your body and gender is part of the "real" world around you. Your genes and hormones are part of your heredity and your environment, and are affected and stimulated by your experiences. Everybody thinks in different ways. That's why we perceive things differently. But perception means picking something up; processing and interpreting something. In order for perception to occur, that something has got to be there unless you're hallucinating, and that possibility is excluded when machines, science, other living things, and logic can prove that they all perceive something as well. Sure, maybe some people hate Twinkies while others love them. But they're both perceiving Twinkies. No one is questioning the real existence of Twinkies. Assuming that the real existence of Twinkies is based on a unanimously identical perception of Twinkies is a backwards definition of perception.

Suggesting that the outside world influences everything we do just seems odd to me (and I don't like the idea that I'm defined by what experiences I have, simply because I don't like it. *grumpy face*).

When did I suggest that? Like the current consensus in the scientific community, I agree that your personality and experiences and behavior are affected by a complex interplay between genetics, physical environment and culture (the "mental environment"). What I did say was that our perception is always, to a degree, influenced by our physical environment – but it's also influenced by genetics and culture.

I'll be honest; I don't have any overwhelming facts to prove that the world around you doesn't influence you in every way.

I do know several pretty persuasive facts to prove that your environment doesn't influence you in every way. I agree entirely on that count and don't believe I made a statement to the contrary.

 

[RobinDenstro]

Because it's absurd to assume that.

If you don't care to be informed in all those things, technically speaking it's not psychology you're interested in.

Just for the sake of keeping things calm, I do wish to remind you that this is simply a friendly conversation about the possibility and impossibility about our existence. I'm simply trying to explain the idea that the world around us may, in the end, truly not exist, given simple theories and ideas. I'm not going to supply you with a list of facts, merely a few humble possibilities that can simply be taken into consideration.


And, yes, I am indeed interested in Psychology. I hope to major in it. The fact of the matter simply being that I'm not interested in any part of the anatomy of a human being besides the brain and the nerves. I care little for the knowledge of animals, rock formations, atmospheres, and so forth. I don't care how the man runs, I merely am curious why the man runs.

When scientists stimulate a specific part of your brain with an electrode, you start hearing music, and can recite the melody for others, but no one else can hear what you are hearing, and the solution that makes the most sense and is based on the fewest, most likely and logical assumptions, is because you're imagining it.

Also, you just supported half of my theories with this statement alone. Suggesting that someone can actually create a system that can completely and seamlessly set forth a world identical to the universe, this would be how they would do it, and how they would pretend that it's real. Now, saying that it's absolutely impossible to do so is absurd; a mere hundred years ago, people would think it absolutely hilarious if you proposed to them the idea that you could call someone half-way around the world in less than ten seconds with a small, cellular device (which can also use a calculator, send text messages, compile notes, play games, and so forth).


The inventions of the world are becoming much more elaborate with each passing day. How are we supposed to know that we aren't indeed strapped to a machine in the year 5035 or some such? You can't simply prove that such doesn't exist.


Now, that being said, one's imagination is also true. One person can see something that another does not. That happens. Some people hallucinate. Some people are just bonkers. But hey, you can't simply refute the fact that there could be an entirely separate spiritual dimension simply because a single dimension proves everything.


We, as people, have faith that atoms exist. How do we even know atoms exist? Do they, really? It makes sense, it fills in many blanks in the scientific world, but we don't have any real, hard proof. The fact that it supports your theories doesn't mean that it's the only logical explanation for our existence (not that I'm suggesting we exist. I'm still trying to push that the world around us could easily be a figment of our imagination).


Now, several hundred years ago, it was believed that the world was flat. Soon after that, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the galaxy. Both of which were proven to be false. So, why were they used in the first place if they weren't true? Because, at the time, they made sense. Given a few centuries or even decades, scientists could easily turn around and say "Uh, yeah, this is going to sound bonkers, but we opened a portal to a realm of demons, and now we need someone to kill all of the monsters coming through and kill them." (Doom reference, because I can)


I would also like to note that real, tangible thought (and even memories) are merely a connection of nerves in the brain, to other parts of the brain. If you received a square punch to the middle portion of the frontal lobe of your brain (or simply, head) you would receive a medical impairment known as "amnesia." The effects, naturally, would differ depending on how hard you were hit, at what angle, and so forth, but imagine that! A mere bump on the head, you could forget who you are, where you are, what you've done or accomplished for a substantial amount of time.


Now, I can easily take it a step further and push the possibility that we're all just a jumble of nerves locked in a brain in the body of an animal, and that none of us have souls, but that's not what I'm trying to say. Merely that relying so much on our ability to think, and using it to prove that we exist, doesn't completely pan out.

 

[Jadewoof]

I feel like this thread is a drug and I just overdosed. OMG like I can't even make a strong debate because of how crazy this is to me.


b-but..... IM CONFUSED AAAAAH :0

 

[Drifter]

Only the degree of reality is undefinable, *Function & Cohesion "denote reality a verifiable determing factor of existence ; The fact that you used symbols in a cohesive function to write this article & multiple people have responded with the same cohesive symbols verifys multiple cohesive realities in one function.


Therefore Decartes modified "We think therefore we are." 
 
The writers whole argument is based on illusory or a possible psuedo existence, none the less even if that form of existence is the truth the beings experiencing that form of existence are still exsiting.