bungalow

One sentence of Descartes should have cleared this one up for you.

...je pense donc je suis.

Astronomer

Or Plato's Cave.

__________________

VeggieLover

im ignorant...what?

__________________
"Not remotely! Because iocaine comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you."

Dr.Seussicide

"And so something which I thought I was seeing with my eyes is in fact grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind."

__________________

Freebase Dali

The thing is, regardless of what you believe, science has made observations that are based on known physical laws. We've observed things, made conclusions, and all agreed on them.
I understand the idea behind illusory perception, and there are a lot of things we could be wrong about... But our very existence as a matter of factual evidence is hardly eligible for debate.. All philosophy aside, it is a matter of simple observational logic that you are able to know you exist. To assume that you don't exist, you effectively nullify the logic that allows you to assume as much, thereby nullifying your assumption.
The fact that I'm replying to something you've typed and you're reading it creates an observational fact between you and I personally, and others who read it, in a spectator sense. If you never read this, it does not change the fact that I typed it, nor does it change the spectators' experience of reading it.

I just have a problem with the argument that everything else in existence is the product of someone's imagination. That would imply that only one person in the universe exists, for he/she would have to be capable of imagining the rest of us. Is it you? Is it me? Who decides?

If this is all a dream, then I guess we have to assume that the person who's dreaming us is god.
You better hope he doesn't wake up...


I just don't think that's an intelligent way to think.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

Well, according to modern physics everything is 'energy' moving about in predictable 'patterns.' Now switch 'energy' with 'God' and 'pattern' with 'thought' and you get idealism. Switch pattern with 'logos' and you get the intro to the Bible. Switch 'energy' with 'blah' and pattern with 'boredom' and you get nihilism. What does it mean to ask 'do we exist?' If I take 'Tom' to mean a static entity with a permanent essence, then no, Tom does not exist, because the entity which others refer to as 'Tom' is constantly changing and reinventing itself. However, this entity does have a certain degree of continuity and to some extent contains previous versions of itself within itself. The same can be said for the environment which 'Tom' is a part of, as well as the components which are a part of Tom. Hence something exists, and this something seems to continually overcome itself through self-reflection. Any existent which is not self-reflective has no experience, and hence only exists through other existents--that is, it is nothing. This means that there is no dichotomy between the 'mental' and the 'material,' since 'material reality' is just a mental schema for organizing experiences. Regardless, there is still a duality--subject/object, self/other, whatever. For language and experience to be possibilities, there must be at least two 'entities.' However, this does not rule out the possibility of a primal emptiness, Godhead, or sunyata as it is known in mahayana Buddhism, which lies somehow 'beyond' the sensory realm of existenz.

Here are some interesting dialectical patterns in reality
quantum mechanics v general relativity
(wave v particle) &&& (space v time)

in philosophy
materialism breaks down into those who believe reality can be fully understood through reason, and those who think reality cannot be fully understood (skeptics)
v
idealism breaks down into those who take a positive attitude of 'will' (god, energy, whatever) where beauty and bliss are its fullest expression, and those who take a negative attitude towards 'will,' where our true purpose is to renounce it and slip back into nothingness.

philosophy itself breaks down into those who are more concerned with perfecting and helping themselves, and those who want to perfect and help society/mankind.

now if you take a hegelian standpoint (thesis/antithesis/synthesis), all these dichotomies will purposely resolve themselves and ultimately lead back to the unity of reality.

i hope that was clear enough. for anyone truly interested in these issues, german idealism is a good place to start, the pre-socratics (heraclitus and parmenides in particular), hinduism, taoism, buddhism, and a liberal reading of christianity all have a good deal of wisdom, and Wittgenstein, existentialism and poststructuralism give a good sense of where we are today.

the meaning of 'reality is an illusion' is much the same as 'that movie is an illusion.' not that reality doesn't exist, but that it isn't what it appears to be. that should be pretty obvious to anyone who has studied quantum mechanics or even atomic physics. it gets even more obvious when you realize 'quarks exist, quarks are energy (e=mc^2), so what the hell is energy?' and unfortunately you have no way of finding out (no logical/scientific way, at least).

Darkest Hour

if all the stuff that we experience and see everyday is not really there, then what is? That is more of the main point. I don't see how electrical signals to our brain can determine what is really there in front of us. It just doesn't make sense, unless of course, we were programmed like a computer by some higher intelligence to experience what we do.

It all seems to good to be true to me.

__________________

cardboard adolescent

and what programmed the experiences of that higher intelligence? for that matter, what is intelligence and how 'high' can it get? (pun intended folks) you need to figure out the questions before you can get to the answers. the sensations you experience, pain and pleasure, curiosity and boredom, longing and satisfaction, are obviously real, and no amount of words or scientific/logical systems will allow you to understand them any better than you already do, simply by existing. there is nothing 'beyond' them. alternately, there is nothingness beyond them.

Sodacake

Guybrush

The placebo effect says that any medicine (sugar pills, fake surgery, magic etc), even if inherently ineffective, may work if the reciever believes it will work and has expectations. It gives credibility to many types of healing that you can otherwise prove have no significant effect beyond the placebo effect. The norm for any treatment which is not too harmful is that it will have a net beneficial effect. It takes testing to find out if this effect is real (from the treatment) or if it's simply produced by the patients themselves.

When they've tested polarity treatment, so far they haven't found any significant effect beyond placebo. That's why the treatment is not supported by evidence.

First, I think you have to organise your thoughts a bit. Saying electrical signals determine what the world is sounds a bit weird and perhaps a bit simple. Such signals run along our nervous cells (neurons' axons) to send signals to other cells, but it's not just electricity. These signals cause the release of neurotransmitters by cells and the electrical potential difference (or whatever you call it in english) outside and inside any cell serve as a gradient over which different ions either want to travel in or out of the cell. The point being there's a lot of complex chemistry involved not to mention evolution which explains by natural cause and consequence how something like us might develop over time. I think the reason you find it so incredible is because you lack a theoretical background that gives credibility to such theories.

It becomes more understandable with understanding evolution because evolution says by, almost like a law, that if you have something which replicates, can change to become more or less effective at replicating and can pass on those changes to it's copies/offspring, then you have something which can evolve. If you put such things in an environment where they compete for resources, they will improve over time. This doesn't only apply to what we think of as "life", but we assume that when certain molecules of old went through this process, they gained complexity over time until they transitioned into what we think of as something which is living - and then kept going.

The point is, if you can accept that there is a process that orders and builds complexity in things like replicative molecules over time, then it should become appearant that after billions of years, that complexity can become rather considerable.

However, you don't necessarily get belief in evolution or any science for free. Even though this particular process is testable and can be proven, unlike religions and hypotheses like this solipsism idea, evolution won't be immediately understandable. You have to study it before you know what it is and most people haven't, including yourself. The point I'm trying to make is that it's fully understandable if it doesn't make sense to you, but maybe it would with with more knowledge/understanding.

__________________
Something Completely Different