A Thought on Existence

[RobertoIlias]

Considering how critical some are of beliefs in a god or anything paranormal for that matter, I have often wondered what do I really know for sure?

I have concluded that the only thing I or anyone else can know to be a fact is that "there is consciousness" because it is undeniable that something is happening.

Anything past this statement is conjecture. You cannot even be sure of your own existance, because there is no way to know your thoughts are your own.

I just hope that puts some things into perspective.

[nohands]

there is only one thing i know too that is when

i was not living i did not see nothing

[t100]

Considering how critical some are of beliefs in a god or anything paranormal for that matter, I have often wondered what do I really know for sure?

I have concluded that the only thing I or anyone else can know to be a fact is that "there is consciousness" because it is undeniable that something is happening.

Anything past this statement is conjecture. You cannot even be sure of your own existance, because there is no way to know your thoughts are your own.

I just hope that puts some things into perspective.

O but that's not true, there is no way to verify consciousness. We could very well be biological machines with a very intricately spiritually deluded mind which could be the result of some psychological illusion we've built up over time or an endless amount of other possibilities. Furthermore as it seems you are aware, you can not know anything. You must fully leave behind the idea that you can understand anything. psychologically, it is bad to hold onto anything. It's better to be in doubt of everything. 2 points for the Ayn Rand quote btw.

[RobertoIlias]

there is only one thing i know too that is when

i was not living i did not see nothing

Diasgree, You dont know what went on while you were not living. Perhaps your spirit could see.

O but that's not true, there is no way to verify consciousness. We could very well be biological machines with a very intricately spiritually deluded mind which could be the result of some psychological illusion we've built up over time or an endless amount of other possibilities. Furthermore as it seems you are aware, you can not know anything. You must fully leave behind the idea that you can understand anything. psychologically, it is bad to hold onto anything. It's better to be in doubt of everything.

Again Disagree, even as a machine perception of reality deluded or not is consicousness. And I can indeed know something, I know that because thoughts are present there must be a consciousness.

2 points for the Ayn Rand quote btw.

2 points for recognizing it.

Edited December 15, 2008 by MindFire

[t100]

Again Disagree, even as a machine perception of reality deluded or not is consicousness. And I can indeed know something, I know that because thoughts are present there must be a consciousness.

I agree with the above. I think we disagree on a more basic level. Once you start questioning reality, everything becomes theoretical. There are things that are logical and things that are not so much. However, nothing can be verified. Just like in physics we make a model from what we know even though we can't really prove it. So to get around this, we use whatever model works.

[RobertoIlias]

However, nothing can be verified.

Thats all I was saying, people who want to accept certain things as facts are merely calling their conjecture truth, when in reality the only thing you can know is that there is consicousness.

You see, believing in God is just as silly as believing in yourself.

Is that an unfair statement?

Edited December 16, 2008 by MindFire

[Leonardo]

The proof of consciousness lies not in the experience of it, but that you are able to question that experience.

Even considering we are a projection from a greater consciousness and 'we' don't really exist, that projection itself is sufficient to fulfill the definition of 'consciousness' (self-defined, though it is) and so we still exist.

[RobertoIlias]

yes, but not in the "true" reality... we would be only thoughts, and our thoughts mere thoughts of thoughts.

So having about as justifiable of an existence as a character in a book who thinks to themself "do I exist?".

Not much of a reality to me.

In order to question wether or not you are experiencing reality you must have first experienced it.

Edited December 16, 2008 by MindFire

[Leonardo]

yes, but not in the "true" reality... we would be only thoughts, and our thoughts mere thoughts of thoughts.

So having about as justifiable of an existence as a character in a book who thinks to themself "do I exist?".

Not much of a reality to me.

In order to question wether or not you are experiencing reality you must have first experienced it.

What are you trying to determine, MindFire? That existence as consciousness is true or that a reality in which that consciousness exists can be objectively determined?

The first is self-evident (and is not at all as a character in a book), the second can never be objectively proved true.

[RobertoIlias]

The first is self-evident (and is not at all as a character in a book), the second can never be objectively proved true.

Thats exactly what I am saying.

I just feel that it puts things into the proper perspective all things considered.

[Leonardo]

You cannot even be sure of your own existance, because there is no way to know your thoughts are your own.

Your quote, and untrue. the existence of 'you' is the only thing you can be sure of, regardless (as I pointed out) whether you consider 'you' to be a projection of a greater consciousness.

You see, believing in God is just as silly as believing in yourself.

The statement continues your theme of negativity. 'Silly' implies you don't believe in the existence of 'you'. That is an invalid assumption.

[RobertoIlias]

The first is self-evident (and is not at all as a character in a book), the second can never be objectively proved true.

It is like a character in a book though, because you cannot prove your own exitence in a true reality so there always exists the posibility of your reality being a imagined event in the mind of another.

The parallel drawn is very fair.

[Leonardo]

It is like a character in a book though, because you cannot prove your own exitence in a true reality so there always exists the posibility of your reality being a imagined event in the mind of another.

The parallel drawn is very fair.

Show that a character in a book can question their own existence and I might accept the analogy has some validity. I would accept equating the existence of 'I' with the existence of an imagined persona - both are, after all, constructs of thought. The imagined persona is not, however, a character in a book. It is a character in your consciousness.

[RobertoIlias]

Your quote, and untrue. the existence of 'you' is the only thing you can be sure of, regardless (as I pointed out) whether you consider 'you' to be a projection of a greater consciousness.

But if the possibility exists you cant be sure. Hence, "there is consciousness".

The statement continues your theme of negativity. 'Silly' implies you don't believe in the existence of 'you'. That is an invalid assumption.

It seems a logical possibility. As does God or you or anything else.

[RobertoIlias]

Show that a character in a book can question their own existence and I might accept the analogy has some validity. I would accept equating the existence of 'I' with the existence of an imagined persona - both are, after all, constructs of thought. The imagined persona is not, however, a character in a book. It is a character in your consciousness.

Easy, the author writes it. Feel free to liken this to God and fate.

[Leonardo]

Easy, the author writes it. Feel free to liken this to God and fate.

Who is the author?

It seems a logical possibility.

No. The non-existence of 'self' is a logical impossibility. Consciousness has a definition (actually, many definitions) and regardless of whether our perceived 'self' is a construct of another it meets that (those) definition(s).

Read this... Consciousness

[RobertoIlias]

Who is the author?

Its of no consequence.

No. The non-existence of 'self' is a logical impossibility. Consciousness has a definition (actually, many definitions) and regardless of whether our perceived 'self' is a construct of another it meets that (those) definition(s).

Self in the most absolute reality. My book character dosent really exist. That is to say, he is there but only conceptually and only in print.

[Leonardo]

Its of no consequence.

True, but why?

Self in the most absolute reality. My book character dosent really exist. That is to say, he is there but only conceptually and only in print.

Once you have answered the "Why?" above, tell me again why the book character (the imagined persona) doesn't really exist?

[RobertoIlias]

True, but why?

because its just a correlation to help illustrate my point.

Once you have answered the "Why?" above, tell me again why the book character (the imagined persona) doesn't really exist?

I dont see how repeating myself is of any benefit here.

[t100]

No. The non-existence of 'self' is a logical impossibility.

Observing yourself observing when yourself doesn't exist, now there's a paradox. To not get caught in major logical problem, it's important to remember that: In theory, everything is theoretical. In reality, everything is real.

[Enigmatic Ghost]

Perhaps in the shedding of the Physical Shell, this alters our consciousness upon a level for which did exist while within the Physical however could only in part be reach this Spirit freedom to will where and what is and so be it, in part only reached when certain inhaled or ingested or ijected stimuli were administered into the physical body which polluted or distorted the Perception of other realm/realms of non physical consciousness and being…when only free from the Physical factors needed to support life within the body say as example in part body temperature and such then we are there….

Pavot

Edited December 17, 2008 by Pavot

[t100]

Perhaps in the shedding of the Physical Shell, this alters our consciousness upon a level for which did exist while within the Physical...

Consciousness is simply observation and nothing more. What we observe and how we observe it is what changes. My observation is no different from a frog's, in fact it is the same.

[Enigmatic Ghost]

Consciousness is simply observation and nothing more. What we observe and how we observe it is what changes. My observation is no different from a frog's, in fact it is the same.

Edited sorry I have to that because of the wiring...

I am going to have to say that I am mixed upon you speculative analogical opinion, I believe most other species would think for say as Humans and humans believe themselves to be upon a higher Conscious level of thinking and perceptual level they the other life forms are not for the most part capable to communicate or perhaps they do but for the most part the busy human being do not take the time to notice them and read what they the “Lesser creatures” have to say and show us in their spider webs and nests of birds and in their songs, it is wrong that Humans believe them selves far superior and greater than all other life forms because they the Humans put themselves upon a higher position upon the food chain some higher than others upon the food chain by choice. Many Humans claim that they are far superior than other human beings because of their Cognitive and communication skills and advantages yet they wonder why in return they are not met with the same respects. I do not believe that Humans are the only pieces capable of abstract thinking, I have come across statements in the past from zoological experts schooled or self proclaimed experts that believe animals do not love nor have the same emotive spirit as humans do if at all, personally my believe is all mammals and rodents and other spieces do, but most not all Humans as in my opinion are Pompous (Self-important) of which I am perceived at times do to my Odd Wirings and neurological disorders…

Please forgive my grammar and spelling errors…now as to what is consciousness that I can not further speculate upon… as to how the frogs perceive say a human being or say a horse is something none of will know although we can speculate we don’t know…

Pavot

Edited December 17, 2008 by Pavot

[Cebrakon]

I agree with the above. I think we disagree on a more basic level. Once you start questioning reality, everything becomes theoretical. There are things that are logical and things that are not so much. However, nothing can be verified. Just like in physics we make a model from what we know even though we can't really prove it. So to get around this, we use whatever model works.

Don't hold up physics as a model of science. Hold up astronomy, cosmology, plate tectonics and molecular biology. Physics jumped the tracks in 1927 at the fifth Solvay Conference, when they decided to incorporate a logical impossibility into the logical structure of physics. Einstein objected, of course, and gradually drifted out of the mainstream of physics, devoting himself to philosophy.

Only a few years later, in 1931, Kurt Goedel proved several theorems that apply to any logical system, including Quantum Mechanics.

One of these theorems is that if you incorporate a logical impossibility into a logical system, no matter how small or large, you can use

it to prove anything, such as that 1 = 2, or black = white. And isn't that what we have seen in the development of elemental physics

after 1927? String theory owes its entire existence to this quality of the Standard Model.

Heisenberg started things off properly by applying the quantum uncertainty rules to the vacuum. These rules are:

dt*dE = h, and dx*dv = h.

Apply them to the vacuum, and there is nothing to limit the range of dt or dE, since the vacuum has no momentum, and

thus no de Broglie wave. If you make dt very sharp, dE becomes broad enough to allow the momentary existence of a

pair of particles, whose lifetime is dt. This leads to virtual particles. But it also has the consequence of making the

energy of the vacuum infinite! This is a complete reductio ad absurdem. A mathematician would say, therefore there are

no virtual particles. But the physicists liked virtual particles so much, they went ahead and incorporated it into the Standard

Model of physics. There are many other examples.

~~~Cebrakon

[nohands]

nah i got it............