Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Theory of Inexistence

  1. #1 Theory of Inexistence 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2
    hi.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Your premises are flawed, therefore your conclusions is invalid.

    Infinity is quite impossible, because that would mean there are infinite copies of the world we live on.

    It would not mean that at all. The set of infinite even numbers does not contain any odd numbers. Duplication of identitites is not an automatic consequence of infinity.

    This means means there are an infinite number of planets with a population that only wants to destroy the one we live on.This is a wholly nonsensical conclusion. The existence of identical planets does not automatically mean they will wish to destroy each other.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    The universe can only be defined as nothing if nothing is defined as the universe. The true definition of it, though, is spacetime. Particles are merely bendings in it (fourdimensional bendings ie. moving objects). That spacetime can be defined as empty since it is all there is, would indeed mean that the universe is "empty" in the sence that everything is roomtime ie. an object can only have dimensions, whether growing or not. But the conclusion that something is nothing does not change the parameters in something, even if we are an empty space, that space has still got properties comparative to empty space elsewhere, the properties of spacetimebend compared to another spacetime bend, no matter if the property dimension itself has no properties except the property dimension itself (ie. spacetime is not an invisible web, it is a spacetime) are still different since the spacetimes are comparative in extension.

    The empty set in this case is compareable to itself ie {0}/{0} =/= 0,
    {0}/{0} = x.
    Hence we exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Powerdoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    270
    A great philosopher, named Pascal resolved this problem many years ago : I think, therefore I am.
    Pascal was a genius, therefore you can trust him.


    Just a question, how can you think, if you don't exist ? :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Powerdoc
    A great philosopher, named Pascal resolved this problem many years ago : I think, therefore I am.
    Pascal was a genius, therefore you can trust him.


    Just a question, how can you think, if you don't exist ? :wink:
    I believe the philosopher you are referring to Doc is Rene Descarte, not Pascal. :wink:

    And I totally agree. Descarte stated that the only thing that was certain was that "I" existed simply because "I" think. The senses from which we gather all of our knowledge of the world around us are often wrong. For example, we can see water on the road on a hot day, but it's simply a mirage. How can "I" know that "I" am not dreaming? Overall, the only thing that cannot be in doubt is that "I" exist.

    Also, the translation of "I think, therefore I am" is a little off. It is actually " I think. I am"


    If you say "therefore" you would be implying a premise and a conclusion. "I think. I am" was simply meant to be a truth in and of itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2
    bye.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zetanor
    How can you be sure other persons/characters in your dreams don't think. They do not exist, they were created and will "disapear" at the end of your dream.
    That's quite possibly the worst philosophically ignorant statement I'll ever read. Not only do you ignore the possibility that your mind will create those characters and keep them within memory, as well as think for them, etc, you are also oblivious to the possibility that your dreams aren't really fictitious.

    Furthermore, the characters within ones dreams may very well exist, you can't prove otherwise. Especially since you've yet to define existence properly.
    While the immortal words are "I think, therefore I am" (It flows better when translated improperly) there are other factors to consider aside from the possible illusion of consciousness. First, the definition of being is highly important. None of you have defined it thus far.

    If you can claim inexistence, then first you have to explain being, abstract and logical thought, perception, etc. Most importantly, define inexistence itself!

    And as a final note on philosophical terms, there is another possibility that we are a dream, or rather living in one. The question then lies in who is the dreamer. Most would readily agree that each person is a possible dreamer, or that they all are. Since each has their unique perception each would have a unique "dream." That being said, claiming that are dreams are fictitious is basically denying all other philosophical probabilities with a blind eye.

    And yes, it's a highly summarized, poorly written, garbled mess of text. Damn I need to improve my vocabulary/grammar <.< >.>.



    Something more plausible is that if the universe is a "dream", concidering Dreams have limited bounds because brains have limited capacity, infinity is impossible. (I'm not talking about solving who or what "dreams" about us.)
    You, sir, misunderstand infinity. Infinity is perfectly possible in a finite mind or set/category. comprehending it is the difficulty. Ones mind can easily create that which is infinite, but one cannot comprehend the infinite in such an easy way. In all philosophical discussions where infinity is involved (like the concept of God), it usually ends with an infinite loop of "why" that never arrives anywhere.

    That being said, the mind can easily devise infinite situations. Since the characters in the dream do not exceed the intelligence capacity of the persons brain, naturally they can't comprehend those infinites.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Imaplanck.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    344
    Jesus Shouldnt this claptrap be in the philosophy section? Astronomy & Cosmology is science and science is about measurement of which we perceive, not philosophizing on whether we really can know whats real or not.
    "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Imaplanck.
    Jesus Shouldnt this claptrap be in the philosophy section? Astronomy & Cosmology is science and science is about measurement of which we perceive, not philosophying on whether we really can know whats real or not.
    Actually yes it should. I didn't notice it was in astronomy & cosmology O.o
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Yes ofcourse it should, the property of nature that we are discussing is the lack of properties in themselves and not the comparable properties of objects found in the nature or universe, ie. Astronomy/cosmology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    zetanor; there are various forms of what i think your suggesting. I've seen nothing bringing the universe into it, nor would it seem necessary.
    we do live in the subconscious state much of our life and as you get older this is more so. i think the subconscious works on, after any form of dementia sets in and that person lives in that world. sleep is a desired state of some one in this state and older age almost compels it.

    this has nothing to do with a life being a dream, a movie or a book as others suggest. it would be as easy to suggest, after death and your brain turns to mush, then dust...you live on in some state of dreaming.

    in a stretch, if your suggesting a dream about people or things now gone or dead and the content of your dream and their thoughts are somehow real...there is no answer. i am sure some would agree or say thats possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    For all that matters, we could all be dead and not noticing the difference since our peception is interconnected with our status. But god must be really nice if he lets dead people live on as if they were alive. My fear would then be what would he want in return? Have we ever done anything nice that equals the focus needed of god to preserve the human mind of any believer given that he would have somewhat limited means. Is our destructive behavior contageous to god and is it in itself such a laugh to god that he preserves us. How else could this be a dream without god? And with god out of the question, can all of this be true?

    Concluding it is not, that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    Also, the translation of "I think, therefore I am" is a little off. It is actually " I think. I am"
    You may be correct. However......

    I believe the original was Cogito ergo sum

    This translates, as far as I can see as, I think, therefore I am.

    Now while my Latin is very, very rusty (I haven't used it for real since the Romans left Britain) the therefore definitley seems to be there.

    So which is wrong? My translation? The original quotation, not actually being the correct original? Or, is there a third possibility?



    Tesco ergo sum.I shop therefore I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Tesco ergo sum.I shop therefore I am.
    Well put! being is just as important element of thinking as it is for shopping. I can also see the irony, that if you don't think when you shop, then you might not be anymore. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    in the early 90's, Bill Moyer's interviewed a theology professor (don't recall name), which was rerun for years on PBC. "Religion and Myths".
    it was several hours long and quite interesting.

    his idea of mankind's life on earth, was an experience. that is we came from heaven (as reward, so to speak) and played out this experience.
    he was very skeptical of mans inability to evolve religion with their brains or intellect. anyone interested in the Greek mythology and its influence on modern religion, would enjoy this piece.










    '
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    Also, the translation of "I think, therefore I am" is a little off. It is actually " I think. I am"
    You may be correct. However......

    I believe the original was Cogito ergo sum

    This translates, as far as I can see as, I think, therefore I am.

    Now while my Latin is very, very rusty (I haven't used it for real since the Romans left Britain) the therefore definitley seems to be there.

    So which is wrong? My translation? The original quotation, not actually being the correct original? Or, is there a third possibility?



    Tesco ergo sum.I shop therefore I am.
    Actually, your latin seems to be fine. However, the phrase Cogito ergo sum is not the actual phrase used in Descartes' most famous work Mediations on First Philosophy from which "I think. I am" is derived. In my many readings on his book, I never actually saw anything to imply the "therefore."

    I know this sounds trivial and stupid, but that "therefore" makes a big difference. It suggests that Descarte drew the conclusion "I exist" from the premise "I think." In reality, Descarte meant "I think. I am" to be true in and of itself- a point of certainty to begin with. From this point of certainty, Descarte goes on to show that nothing else can be know indubiously.

    I searched google to see if I could show some proof other than quoting long passages in his book. I found this on Wiki:

    The phrase "cogito ergo sum" is not used in Descartes' most important work, the Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. Descartes felt that this phrase, which he had used in his earlier Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he changed it to "I am, I exist" (also often called "the first certainty") in order to avoid the term "cogito".
    The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Guest
    I disagree. Stating "I think. I am" is a fallacy. If one thinks, does that define that you are? No. However, "I think, therefore I am" says something different: It says that on the premesis of thought, it proves existence.

    However, according to the philosophy of the argument it is arguing the existence of the self. Otherwise "refutations" about rocks and crap may hold merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I disagree. Stating "I think. I am" is a fallacy. If one thinks, does that define that you are? No. However, "I think, therefore I am" says something different: It says that on the premesis of thought, it proves existence.

    However, according to the philosophy of the argument it is arguing the existence of the self. Otherwise "refutations" about rocks and crap may hold merit.
    First, I was merely correcting the assumption that "I think, therefore I am" was Descartes' argument. Whether you agree with his arguement or not is not the question.

    Secondly, you stated
    Stating "I think. I am" is a fallacy. If one thinks, does that define that you are? No.
    I disagree. Could "I" that does not exist question whether "I" exists or not? Of course not. The mere fact that "I" can ask myself whether or not "I" exist proves that I exist. So YES, if "I" think", I KNOW that "I" exist.

    Also, a fallacy implies an error in the logic of an arugment. "I think. I am" is not an argument. Instead, Descarte believes it to be a Fact that no one can dispute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    Beware, I'm running on no sleep. I may be talking bullocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    First, I was merely correcting the assumption that "I think, therefore I am" was Descartes' argument. Whether you agree with his arguement or not is not the question.
    Fine.

    Stating "I think. I am" is a fallacy. If one thinks, does that define that you are? No.
    I disagree. Could "I" that does not exist question whether "I" exists or not? Of course not. The mere fact that "I" can ask myself whether or not "I" exist proves that I exist. So YES, if "I" think", I KNOW that "I" exist.

    Also, a fallacy implies an error in the logic of an arugment. "I think. I am" is not an argument. Instead, Descarte believes it to be a Fact that no one can dispute.
    [/quote]

    How does it prove you exist? A character in ones dreams may ask the question "is it true that I may exist because I simply ponder that which is existence" yet that does not prove this character exists outside of ones own mind. Nor that it really has an "I." It merely proves you can question your existence, not that you exist. Ones definition of "existence" is also important here.

    Thinking does not imply "I". Thinking only implies an ability to create ideas through any process of the mind (or otherwise) via deductive logic or other means. This "I" which is spoken of cannot be conveyed in such a simple form.

    And with the fallacy bit, it is an argument. Assuming he actually does regard it as fact, then he has very little foresight. One cannot be so bold and arrogant as to assume ones own idea is entirely indisputable. It is common among philosophers, because of this, to arrange their ideas and sentences in such a manner that is more open.
    According to this, " I think therefore I am" holds more weight, because it suggests that the premises of thought implies the self. To say "I think. I am." implies that you think, so you are. It doesn't imply the self (through thought) as much, either, it simply implies existence.

    One of them is philosophical. The other is just ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Guest
    I think therefore I can formulate a reply..

    I think the wording has become 'I think therefore I am', which I was told actually means "I think therefore I exist" and was the answer to the question "How do you know you exist?". A stone cannot think (so far as we know) so it does not know it exists. We know we exist solely because we can think, I think...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Beware, I'm running on no sleep. I may be talking bullocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    First, I was merely correcting the assumption that "I think, therefore I am" was Descartes' argument. Whether you agree with his arguement or not is not the question.
    Fine.

    Stating "I think. I am" is a fallacy. If one thinks, does that define that you are? No.
    I disagree. Could "I" that does not exist question whether "I" exists or not? Of course not. The mere fact that "I" can ask myself whether or not "I" exist proves that I exist. So YES, if "I" think", I KNOW that "I" exist.

    Also, a fallacy implies an error in the logic of an arugment. "I think. I am" is not an argument. Instead, Descarte believes it to be a Fact that no one can dispute.

    How does it prove you exist? A character in ones dreams may ask the question "is it true that I may exist because I simply ponder that which is existence" yet that does not prove this character exists outside of ones own mind. Nor that it really has an "I." It merely proves you can question your existence, not that you exist. Ones definition of "existence" is also important here.

    Thinking does not imply "I". Thinking only implies an ability to create ideas through any process of the mind (or otherwise) via deductive logic or other means. This "I" which is spoken of cannot be conveyed in such a simple form.

    And with the fallacy bit, it is an argument. Assuming he actually does regard it as fact, then he has very little foresight. One cannot be so bold and arrogant as to assume ones own idea is entirely indisputable. It is common among philosophers, because of this, to arrange their ideas and sentences in such a manner that is more open.
    According to this, " I think therefore I am" holds more weight, because it suggests that the premises of thought implies the self. To say "I think. I am." implies that you think, so you are. It doesn't imply the self (through thought) as much, either, it simply implies existence.

    One of them is philosophical. The other is just ignorant.

    I disagree.

    How does it prove you exist? A character in ones dreams may ask the question "is it true that I may exist because I simply ponder that which is existence"
    I think you are having trouble with the "I" concept. "I" implies the thinking being. I know that I exist right now because I am writing this post to you and thinking about these questions. "I," however, do not know that you exist. You could be merely a "character" in my dream.
    The only think I know about anything is that "I" am a thinking something


    You stated a character in one's dream may ask "do I exist" but who is dreaming it? The Dreamer exists for certain!! He is dreaming.

    Is it possible for something that does not exist to Dream a character that asks himself if he exists?[/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I think therefore I can formulate a reply..

    I think the wording has become 'I think therefore I am', which I was told actually means "I think therefore I exist" and was the answer to the question "How do you know you exist?". A stone cannot think (so far as we know) so it does not know it exists. We know we exist solely because we can think, I think...
    Actually, it doesn't mean that. It means what it says. In thinking he knows that he is, not in a manner of only existence, but in all manners. A rock doesn't think, therefore it doesn't know if it exists or not. That doesn't mean it does not exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by kosta
    You stated a character in one's dream may ask "do I exist" but who is dreaming it? The Dreamer exists for certain!! He is dreaming.
    You are having problems with abstract thinking m'boy. How does the dreamer know he/she is in the dream? Is the dreamer even thinking? Is the dreamer really the one dreaming, or is it the character in ones dreams, and you are the figment of it's imagination?

    Sufficed to say, try not to think in such an empty manner. Philosophy is much more fun when it's broad.

    I think you are having trouble with the "I" concept. "I" implies the thinking being. I know that I exist right now because I am writing this post to you and thinking about these questions. "I," however, do not know that you exist. You could be merely a "character" in my dream.
    But are you actually thinking? Does thinking prove the "I" exists? How can it, when your thought may be the figments of another's dream? Or what if they are the illusion of being?

    Questions can continue for ages. As I said, "I think. I am" doesn't hold much weight. In reality the illusion of existence is simply what you tell yourself to sleep at night. "I" do not exist, since it is absurd to believe that over the amount of possibilities against. The "I" only exists in our wildest imaginations, and unless you believe in the concept of the soul (which can also be considered imaginary), will never really be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by kosta
    You stated a character in one's dream may ask "do I exist" but who is dreaming it? The Dreamer exists for certain!! He is dreaming.
    You are having problems with abstract thinking m'boy. How does the dreamer know he/she is in the dream? Is the dreamer even thinking? Is the dreamer really the one dreaming, or is it the character in ones dreams, and you are the figment of it's imagination?

    Sufficed to say, try not to think in such an empty manner. Philosophy is much more fun when it's broad.
    The dreamer does not really know whether or not he is dreaming. But the mere fact that he is conscious of the fact, or is being deceived into thinking he is by some illusion, proves to him that he exists. Something that does not exist cannot be deceived, or misjudge.

    In order to dream one must think, yes. Even if he is not the one actually producing the dream, he must think to perceive it and there must be something that exists to perceived the dream.

    Unless you are prepared to argue that a figment of some one's imagination can be aware of itself, I don't see how your last hypothetical works.

    I think you are having trouble with the "I" concept. "I" implies the thinking being. I know that I exist right now because I am writing this post to you and thinking about these questions. "I," however, do not know that you exist. You could be merely a "character" in my dream.
    But are you actually thinking? Does thinking prove the "I" exists? How can it, when your thought may be the figments of another's dream? Or what if they are the illusion of being?
    Even if I am really perceiving something else's dreams, or if I am experiencing an illusion of existence, I have to exist in order to experience those things. Unless you are arguing that illusions and other being's thoughts can act on and affect nothingness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    You are making such far jumping asumptions, you people. Try to prove some of it. I would like to see you attempt. "I think. I am" = "I bite. I'm a dog"
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Mathe...eing-4746t.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    I think therefore I can formulate a reply..

    I think the wording has become 'I think therefore I am', which I was told actually means "I think therefore I exist" and was the answer to the question "How do you know you exist?". A stone cannot think (so far as we know) so it does not know it exists. We know we exist solely because we can think, I think...
    Actually, it doesn't mean that. It means what it says. In thinking he knows that he is, not in a manner of only existence, but in all manners. A rock doesn't think, therefore it doesn't know if it exists or not. That doesn't mean it does not exist.
    You imply I said a rock does not exist, whereas I said "it does not know it exists" which is different. I said "I was told", I did not categorically state what it meant, I would not presume so - Des-cartes is dead so his work is open to free interpretation - he cannot be consulted as to what he may or may not have been implying ergo his words may be taken literally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    You are making such far jumping asumptions, you people. Try to prove some of it. I would like to see you attempt. "I think. I am" = "I bite. I'm a dog"
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Mathe...eing-4746t.php
    "I bite. I am a dog" is false, and a terrible comparison to " I think. I am". Things that bite are not necessarily dogs. But something that does not exist cannot think. Therefore: if I think, I know that I exist; "I" defined as: "Something that thinks".

    So, what far reaching assumptions have I made?

    Can something that does not exist think? The answer is no. Thought springs from things capable of thought.

    I know that I exist, that I am not false, because I am thinking. I am doing it now.

    But how do I know that I am thinking what I believe I am thinking? I don't know for certain. But even if there is something implanting thoughts in me, I know that I must exist; otherwise I could not be deceived.

    So what are the assumptions?
    In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe. - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    That depends on how you define thinking. Verces changing which is the reall source of consciousness. And if you wanted to know if you exist or not, then all you have to know is that d(x) =/= 0. But why think? And surely the point of his words were surely to prove that he is seperated from let's say a rock because he thinks. In the sence you talk, we know for certain that everything that exist exists, even if it does not think. So you have to develope your thoughts a little further. What's indicating that he is a conscious being because he thinks? Perhaps because he defined being conscious as thinking.

    I think. I think.

    But being conscious is equal to changing as much as being conscious defines. Thinking only implies a somewhat complex being with the ability to interact as much as thinking defines and these two only equals if changing would become defined as thinking. So the conclusion he drew is really irrelevant. Unless you can prove the opposit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    That depends on how you define thinking. Verces changing which is the reall source of consciousness. And if you wanted to know if you exist or not, then all you have to know is that d(x) =/= 0. But why think? And surely the point of his words were surely to prove that he is seperated from let's say a rock because he thinks. In the sence you talk, we know for certain that everything that exist exists, even if it does not think. So you have to develope your thoughts a little further. What's indicating that he is a conscious being because he thinks? Perhaps because he defined being conscious as thinking.

    I think. I think.

    But being conscious is equal to changing as much as being conscious defines. Thinking only implies a somewhat complex being with the ability to interact as much as thinking defines and these two only equals if changing would become defined as thinking. So the conclusion he drew is really irrelevant. Unless you can prove the opposit.
    Perhaps you are right, I have to develop Descartes' thoughts more for you. It would be best, though, if you read Mediations of the First Philosophy for yourself. However, after reading your post, I believe that you do agree with me and Descarte, you have just made this argument more complex than need be.

    First, the point that Descarte was trying to make is that one knows nothing about anything except that "I exist." The reason why "I" cannot be certain that of anything is becasue the way in which I understand things is through my senses. The Senses are unreliable. To make this short, all of this could be a dream and I would never know.

    This idea is encompessed in the Matrix movie. All of those people that hte robots enslaved were born and died in a artifical dream and never knew it.

    So, the question right now to ask yourself is "how do I know that I'm not dreaming or in somekind of artifical dream created by evil robots? "

    The answer is- you cannot possibly know. Everything you have to go by can be doubted- i.e. your senses.

    Next Question: Is there anything that you can know for sure?

    Answer: Yes! I know that "I" exist. Even if I'm in some crazy dream or not, I know that something that DOES NOT exist cannot ask ITSELF this question.

    You said it yourself LeavingQuietly
    Thinking only implies a somewhat complex being
    You're Damn right it does! And that is the point. Only something that exists, can think. I KNOW that "I" am thinking because I know what's going on in my head.

    When I look at my mother, I have no idea if she is real or a dream or anything. But I know that "I" exist because I'm thinking.

    I dont know if ANYTHING exists except "I" because "I" think.
    In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe. - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    As long as we have eachother :-D

    Peace, love and understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    As long as we have eachother :-D

    Peace, love and understanding.
    :-D :P
    In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe. - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Thinking of life as being someone's dream is about the least practical concept I have ever heard of! It is not only useless but is unprovable; you do not even have any evidence for that. It raises more questions than it can ever answer. What a downer! Seems to me the smart thing to do is figure out cause and effect in our world and give up on "other worlds" . . .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by charles brough
    Thinking of life as being someone's dream is about the least practical concept I have ever heard of! It is not only useless but is unprovable; you do not even have any evidence for that. It raises more questions than it can ever answer. What a downer! Seems to me the smart thing to do is figure out cause and effect in our world and give up on "other worlds" . . .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Well then, if you had it your way, we shouldn't be thinking or talking about anything that we cannot prove. Any reasonable person would see the flaw in that schema of thought... I will leave it at that.
    In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the Universe. - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Why bring "proof" into the discussion? we never really prove anything to be the absolute truth! We just keep on piling up evidence that gives us always a more accurate understanding of things. You may say we proved the Earth is round, but it is not totally or completely round. Nothing is.

    I know this is not for the simplistic-minded, but you can grasp it. They want to have the whole scheme of things figured out completely and finally in their own little minds.

    We don't need to make that mistake, to have that illusion. It is more real to see a changing universe that we will always need to keep learning about so we continue to gain a more accurate understanding of it. This means that we will never know everything about anything or anything about everything, so we'll always have a need for science.

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •