Are We Really Here?

The questions have always been there. What is life? What is its meaning? Why are we even here? But when we stop and actually THINK about what we're all talking about, we realize that we might not even really be here. In all actuality, we might not even exist. Think about that. For all we know, none of this is even real.
But then there are those people who feel that they can't do anything, that they're being controlled by some higher power. And maybe to some extent, we are. But who's to say for sure? Surely none of us are. So, if we all come together and post on here, maybe we can solve the mystery that's always been there, haunting us from the background. Let's see what we can do.

Life is what you're doing and see happen every day.
There is no meaning for it, no greater purpose.
It just is.

Though, that hasn't stopped many a people from pondering it anyway.

My two cents on the subject.

THATS WHAT IM SAYING. are we really even here? when i am sleep, am i more awake than when i am in the waking life? When i talk to someone and relate what im going through do they really udnersatnd what i say or do they believe just because i say it in a way that is believing? When someone questions, is there really an answer? when one becomes something more than what he/she is allowed to be? is that what they look for in life? what does this have to do with anything? not quite sure because, id rather understand that everything has to do with everything and nothing is left untalked about in a matter of speaking. what is This? a concept of what i think i know in comparitsion to what i think and what i think need to said in a conversation that knows something that the other party does not? who knows. cuz i sure as fuck dont.

I'm sure you all have seen the Matrix or Inception. Another movie that might peak your interest on your subject, and IMO pulls it off a lot better, would be eXistenZ.

About the whole... am i really here? thing.

My beleifs are rooted in existentialism and nihilism, so they're pretty self explanatory. Though I am interested to see where this topic goes.

Going from a philosophical standpoint, there are several ways people see it. The questions posed by the one I gave and the replies I have received on the subject just help to reaffirm my position. But in truth, ARE we here? I agree completely with you, artho. I mean, it seems like people only believe us because we say things in a believable way. In retrospect, that actually does seem to be the case. Of course, who are we to pass judgement on this subject?

Eh? If we're not here, not real, then we must be someone's imagination, because if we don't exist, we aren't anything, we're nothing, but we're us, right? So, we're someone's thoughts. But that would mean that either another imaginary person was thinking us up, or someone exists and are real and are imagining us, but what does that mean? What does it mean when something is or isn't real?

Haha, I'm confusing myself now.

I think about this everyday of my life. And when I bring it up to people, they look at me as if I'm insane.

We know that something exists, the 'I' which asks the question "Do I exist?" There is an 'I' which questions, even if every part of our sensory experience is false. So the issue doesn't bother me all that much.

How do we know we're not just the product of someone's imagination? I don't know about anyone else, but inside my head there's a pretty detailed, intricate world. Why couldn't we just be inside someone else's head? Or what if we're all actually in a dream? I've often thought about the idea that we could all be in a story, and someone is writing our story - not in the sense that there's a God controlling us or anything; just in the sense that we're all characters in a work of fiction. After all, when I write characters, they become 'real' in my head. So who's to say that we're real, and they're not?

I've always just assumed that yes; we are here; we do exist; we are real. But maybe that's not the case at all. This topic has got me thinking...

Reality is subjective and therefore non-existent.

I'm not sure that logic works. A lot of things are subjective, that doesn't mean don't exist. Pain is subjective. Offence is subjective. Morality is subjective. Culture, in some ways, is subjective. We can place a video camera outside our house, go in for a snack, emerge and look at the footage that occurred while we were not there. (Please answer this if you can) How do you think that's possible, if there is not an external reality occurring/existing beyond our subjective selves?

"I think therefore I am"
Going by this logic, as I have noticed some were, one could argue that because there is SOMETHING, whether it is God's creation, a narrator's story, or an external imagination, there is something; therefore existence exists.

However, one could also pose the question: what is existence? This question requires that existence be defined before assumed. The fundamental problem with the first argument is that it assumes that existence is reality (what we feel, see, touch, etc.)... but then, what is reality?

As we can see from the second argument, a clear definition is needed. The problem is, though, that each definition is defined by something else: existence-reality-our senses-organism-etc. There needs to be a single, fixed source from which all else stems.

But then, what is that source? Though I think, rather than asking what that source is, a better question would be: is there such a source? And we are back at the beginning of the whole debate...

So let us address that source hypothetically in three different logical angles.

1) The source is infinite.

2) The source is finite.

3) The source does not exist.

Assuming that the source is infinite, we would have to concede to the idea that everything exists. But then if everything exists that would include nonexistence and if nonexistence exists, nothing would. See how this theory breaks down?

To say that the source is finite would be two assume two things: that there is a realm of existence and one of nonexistence. BUT if there is a place where things don't exist, then everything that doesn't exist in that place would actually exist in a form of nonexistence; what is finite becomes infinite in the mixing of what exists and what does not!

Lastly, let us look at the thought that the source does not exist. Oh wait- how can we? If the source does not exist than nothing exists, thus we do not exist to contemplate existence.

To conclude, I think that option number two (the source is finite) is, so far, the best explanation. I do see that that theory is slightly skewed due to the idea that existence and nonexistence would mix but it is very possible that my whole idea of nonexistence is flawed. Maybe it is nothing, not a realm of nonexistent concepts, but absolutely nothing. But then how can nothing exist in the presence of everything? Wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

Let me know what you think; I would love some input on these three ideas. Which idea do you think is the most probable and why? Or maybe you don't think that any of them explain existence. Give me your thoughts.

Thank you,
~May

I don't really understand your post, sorry.

ddr4dancer:

"I think therefore I am"
Going by this logic, as I have noticed some were, one could argue that because there is SOMETHING, whether it is God's creation, a narrator's story, or an external imagination, there is something; therefore existence exists.

'I think therefore I am' is a response to theories doubting the reliability of sensory information. If we are sick, or under the influence of a drug, or dreaming, or in some other way incapacitated, what we think that we see, feel, smell, hear, taste, may not be there, or may be different to how our brain processes the information. And it's possible all sensory information - which is the only way we connect to the outside world - is false. Therefore all we can be sure of is that there is something - an I - which thinks about it. It doesn't tell us the nature of the thinking 'I', or the nature of the world the thinking 'I' inhabits (if it inhabits; if there is a world to inhabit.) It is not attempting to answer more than what it does, which is a fairly reliable (in my opinion) argument for our own subjective personal existence, if nothing else.

ddr4dancer:

However, one could also pose the question: what is existence? This question requires that existence be defined before assumed. The fundamental problem with the first argument is that it assumes that existence is reality (what we feel, see, touch, etc.)... but then, what is reality?

What do you mean here? By "the first argument," do you mean cogito ergo sum? That assumes our existence, as a fact which demonstrates itself. It doesn't assume more. You're correct if you are saying it doesn't tell us about the nature of 'reality' (beyond our minds) but I guess, from the cogito, you could say that we think about what we process, and that is our reality. Which is true: even if you are asleep (dreaming), or on drugs, or feverish, that is - at that point - your reality. And when you (think you) are sober, that it the reality your brain is processing - day, night, school, work, banality. We don't personally have any greater access to the world, than that.

ddr4dancer:

As we can see from the second argument, a clear definition is needed. The problem is, though, that each definition is defined by something else: existence-reality-our senses-organism-etc. There needs to be a single, fixed source from which all else stems. But then, what is that source? Though I think, rather than asking what that source is, a better question would be: is there such a source? And we are back at the beginning of the whole debate...

What is "the second argument" here? Do you mean the query you posed? Why does there need to be a single, fixed source? You say "there needs to be" one but why, if you don't even know what the source would be? I think this was where I lost your train of thought, because you've introduced this 'source' idea seemingly for no reason (if it, instead of resolving any questions, brings us back to "the beginning of the whole debate".)

ddr4dancer:

So let us address that source hypothetically in three different logical angles.

1) The source is infinite.

2) The source is finite.

3) The source does not exist.

Assuming that the source is infinite, we would have to concede to the idea that everything exists. But then if everything exists that would include nonexistence and if nonexistence exists, nothing would. See how this theory breaks down?

No, I don't understand your theory. What is this 'source', what is its function for reality / our reality? Do you mean how did life begin? Or where does our consciousness arise from? You haven't described/defined what exactly you mean by 'the source' so, for me at least, it is impossible to engage in discussion about it.

Personally, while I see the philosophical merit in "all you can know is that your 'I' exists, all sensory input may be wrong", for us to function in reality we have to accept, at least provisionally, until further evidence is presented, that more than just ourselves exists. The fact that there are (theoretically) 6 billion other thinking feelings beings means that we have a) our own sensory information, b) others' own sensory information, and we also now have c) technology that can make observations when no humans are around. I don't think they had video cameras when they were discussing whether a chair still exists in a room when you leave the room. (I guess you could still make an argument for things only existing while something observes them, though.) So if we accept as fact that we ourselves exist, and provisionally accept that other people exist, then we can say, "Do you see that huge spider?" and they can say, "Yes, I do, let's go back inside" or "No, I do not, that's enough LSD for you buddy." We can make personal observations, and have them confirmed by others. Of course, that other person may not exist. In which case you would have to ask another person, "Hey Paul, does Brian exist?" and Paul would say, "No, Brian died three years ago, let's up your medication
or "Of course Brian exists, have you been on philosophy forums again?" Of course, Paul may not exist. So basically constant engagement with society, theoretically, is the most reliable method of confirming sensory perception (assuming you are not in fact alone in a dark room, thinking you are in a crowded cafe) because you will hopefully notice when you are the only person talking to a person or someone will correct you when you bring up the 30-ft spider monster crashing through the trees towards you. You can also record things on film, and present that as "objective" evidence to others.

If you can clarify your 'source' theory I might be able to engage with it more satisfactorily, sorry.

pravda.:

I'm not sure that logic works. A lot of things are subjective, that doesn't mean don't exist. Pain is subjective. Offence is subjective. Morality is subjective. Culture, in some ways, is subjective. We can place a video camera outside our house, go in for a snack, emerge and look at the footage that occurred while we were not there. (Please answer this if you can) How do you think that's possible, if there is not an external reality occurring/existing beyond our subjective selves?

All we experience, document and understand about this world is filtered through our own cognitive, social and perceptual biases. Whilst I think that it is feasible that there is a shared environment, calling it reality or claiming objectivity about it is not appropriate. I cannot legitimately say that if more than one person experiences x about the universe then it is true. Look at the Ancient Greeks, they called the sky bronze coloured. who are we to say that their observation is correct or incorrect since we have essentially been programmed to see the universe in a certain way. It's why I believe that objectivity is not possible - a collaboration of many subjective view points do not make an objective view point.

Causality is another issue - modern Physicists see that in quantum mechanics, defining cause and effect is difficult and with the uncertainty principle, how can we say legitimately that we are all experiencing the exact same universe? If we cannot say what an electron is doing and where it is, if we can flip between waves and particles as descriptor of photons as we please then how much can we understand the wider universe if such basic components of this are not all they seem? Essentilly, there is an elemetnt of Schrodinger's cat about it: if we cannot know something until it is observed with all our pre-existing presumptions and biases then what reality can possibly exist?

I think my argument is that reality as an objective thing is not valid. There probably is a shared environment but that does not mean that it is reality or anything else.

And I thought I was the only one who thought about stuff like this...

The Master.:

I think my argument is that reality as an objective thing is not valid. There probably is a shared environment but that does not mean that it is reality or anything else.

If there is a shared environment, why not label that 'reality'? Unless you feel that 'reality' has a definition which assumes certain things that you think cannot actually be assumed, but, obviously, we shape defining. And I'd argue that the, a, definition of reality is, more or less, general consensus. If you and a friend think something is a certain way, your perspective is considered stronger than one person (ignoring individual variables, like maybe they have better sight or more information or something); if a thousand people have a different perspective to you and your friend, their perspective is 'reality'. Subject to evidence, i.e. if there is evidence of evolution or climate change, many people - even a majority of people - believing that it isn't 'real' doesn't make it so. Then again, in a way it does. If we're functioning with no actual objective reality.

Anyway, I don't see how we could ever be more objective than a) consensus and/or b) observation, which you seem to acknowledge, but I'd argue that, in that case, combinations of a) and b) are at least the closest we can get to objectivity. We already know, with the cogito, that we can't actually know anything beyond that there's something wondering what we know. That's not a new concept. I'm sure people are experiencing the universe differently - the old 'you are taught that colour is blue, so you call it blue, but you see it how I see red' notion, to be simplistic about it - but. I guess I don't see the point in philosophy that isn't just not practical, but defies any sort of practicality by conclusions like "nothing is objective and you can't say it is." If you learn something through an experiment, and everyone who replicates the experiment gets the same results, is that still not objective? (Even if they didn't know what results to expect?) What about laws of mathematics, regarding circles and triangles and such? We devised numbers, yes, but does the system not function objectively, since definition? (Does it alter, do others experience it differently?)

-shrug- what exactly do you mean by 'objective'? That might help. If you're going to say 'reality' cannot be guaranteed to exist 'as an objective thing', how are you defining objective? (And, again, how do you define 'reality'?)

The Master.:

Causality is another issue - modern Physicists see that in quantum mechanics, defining cause and effect is difficult and with the uncertainty principle, how can we say legitimately that we are all experiencing the exact same universe? If we cannot say what an electron is doing and where it is, if we can flip between waves and particles as descriptor of photons as we please then how much can we understand the wider universe if such basic components of this are not all they seem? Essentilly, there is an elemetnt of Schrodinger's cat about it: if we cannot know something until it is observed with all our pre-existing presumptions and biases then what reality can possibly exist?

Just because we don't have the tools to observe the universe objectively yet doesn't mean that the universe doesn't exist - objectively - outside of human observation / experience. We didn't have the tools to observe subatomic particles until recently, but that doesn't mean that they only started existing in the last few years - they were always there, we just didn't see them. This is very 'if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it', I feel that letting the existence of the whole universe (which is a vast, vast space) be decided by the perceptions of a tiny number of beings on a tiny planet is human vanity - there is no reason to assume universe exists for or only through us.

Also, we know that the colour blue is always the colour blue whether it's called blue, blau, azul or kék (linguistic fun-fact, some languages don't make any distinction between blue and green, Old Welsh has the same word for both) because we know blue is just a name for light with the wavelength of 450–490 nm and we not only have all kinds of modern machinery to measure the wavelength of light, but we also know how our eyes and optic nerves always process light of certain wavelength in a certain ways.

kafka.:

Also, we know that the colour blue is always the colour blue whether it's called blue, blau, azul or kék (linguistic fun-fact, some languages don't make any distinction between blue and green, Old Welsh has the same word for both) because we know blue is just a name for light with the wavelength of 450–490 nm and we not only have all kinds of modern machinery to measure the wavelength of light, but we also know how our eyes and optic nerves always process light of certain wavelength in a certain ways.

Ohhhh right yes. I forget that colour is science too.

Hello, thank you for responding to my post.

First, let me start by saying that I have in no way attempted (at least not in this topic) to try to understand the nature of the thinking “I”. It could be that everything we know through our senses is true. It could also be false. Assuming cogito, I only wish to argue that something does exist. And yes, when I say ‘first argument’ I am referring to the first argument I made in my post (aka. cogito).

I would be glad to at least know that SOMETHING exists, even without knowing the nature of that something, but I don’t think cogito even proves that there is something (a thinking “I”). See, because, as you said, “That assumes our existence…” existence is assumed. But the problem with that is that it does, in fact, assume existence. But how can it do so if we know not what existence is? Don’t we need to first identify existence even if we don’t attempt to understand it? We need a solid definition.

This is what I mean by “source” (sorry for not clarifying this). Source- as in a single, defined truth that IS. Whatever the source may be, whatever its nature, it is or it is not. One might call it a singularity. It is basically another word for existence but I didn’t want to call it that because ‘existence’ may be used in a number of different situations with slightly tweaked meanings. Also, yes, the second argument is the second argument in my own post.

The reason we need a fixed source is because there is no other option. Either there IS or there ISN’T (I terms of existence). The source is the IS. This is why we are back to the beginning of the argument- IS there or ISN’T there? The source is not the problem though (since it is unavoidable), but rather our way of reasoning. This is why I took a different approach to this topic by analyzing the way in which the source might existence. And since existence only comes in three forms: infinite, finite, or its opposite (nonexistence), I thought it’d be better to see in which form it could exist without logically ‘destroying’ itself.

pravda.:

Personally, while I see the philosophical merit in "all you can know is that your 'I' exists...

The thing is though, that I don’t see the merit in this way of thinking. That is so because to say, “I think therefore I am” is to say ‘There is therefore there is’. This is a logical fallacy grounded on the basis of nothing in that it assumes there is something (the thinking ”I” being the something). We know we exist because we think? How do we know we think? Like you said, all sensory input may be false- we hear, we feel, we see- but what if our thoughts are also false?

As for other people, that is a whole other topic. I hope to first verify my own existence, and then work on figuring out whether or not they also exist.

Thank you,
~May

We know we think, because we are thinking. That sounds circular/unsatisfactory, but, though we might be wrong on what that means or how it's done or other things about it, it proves itself - whether you approve or disapprove of the notion of self-evident things, how could we wrongly think that we are thinking? (The act is the act.) I don't see how that would be possible without a fairly extreme (or tremendously strict) redefinition of presence/existence. Mistrusting sensory input is not the same as doubting whether thinking occurs. Thoughts may be based on sensory experiences, on unpacking them perhaps, but they are not the same. I would call your 'source' - which I still don't think I'm grasping - our consciousness, maybe - which, again, I consider self-evident. The point of cogito is that even were we to doubt whether we are actually doubting, something is doubting that doubt. I'm not sure you grasp cogito if you think it's somehow not evidence enough that something exists - I don't know what sort of evidence you want, here? We might be mistaken about everything about our nature - we might not 'exist' to others, in a sense of existence as corporeal, living, speaking entities; we might be a ghost - but we definitely, each of us, have some kind of existence, if we can ask whether we exist. And since I have an existence, rooted in thought, embodied in, ah, body, and you have the same, from there we can less comfortably discuss what we think we are seeing/hearing/discovering. (Our consciousnesses could be in the Matrix, we could be a brain in a jar, all that.) But I don't understand how you could possibly dispute that you have some kind of existence, as that disputation requires a something to form the argument and articulate it.