Are we really here?

Is what you are reading right now really written by another person? Another whole true entity? Ive been in thought about the subject, and I was wondering, how do we know that the world in which all of us see is what everyone else lives? What if everything youve ever seen is all just a world created by our "minds"? What if what I perceive as a house or a cat or as black isnt what the rest of the world would think of it as? What if this strange little series of questions was allready in your brain since you were born, but it was just now unlocked?

I dont think this theory holds much weight. As someone two expert artists to draw the same house from the same perspective, I guarantee the images will look very similar.

Did you just watch the Matrix?

^Thats what i was thinking. n0w 5p34k 1337.

HAH HAH no but i had just taken my meds for the night

wasnt there a scientist or something that asked that question? and came up that nothing is for sure except that something is asking these questions.... like the matrix we could all be somewhere else all imagining this world... who knos though lol not me thats for sure

Rene' Decartes said the first thing he could be sure existed was the fact that he was doubting everything else.

wouldn't it be pretty fu*ked up if you just woke up NOW.

haha.

OK, so Descartes doubted everything except that he doubted. Whoever doubts exists. This is true, but limited. Descartes wanted to assemble a set of philosophical principles which no one was capable of doubting. It was an interesting project, but the projected was doomed from the start. People can doubt anything, even what they previously knew to be true. The chief limiting factor of Descartes' approach is that it's self-centered: it strives to deduce everything we need to know in order to be happy from the fact that one exists. It does not allow for the data of experience, thus it does not allow for knowledge to come to a person from the outside. How can we break out of a philosophy centered on ourselves? It seems to me that the immediate answer lies in a happy medium of trusting both our senses and our rational capabilities.

wouldn't it be pretty fu*ked up if you just woke up NOW.

haha.

Oh hell yeah man! The first thing i do when i roll out of bed is run to the comp and check out the new threads!!!! AF PR1d3 y0!! :lol:

How about this, reality as you or I know it, only exists because we perceive it to exist this way.

Everything in our "lives" is only brought about by our individual perceptions. Thats it. Blank slate to be filled with whatever we see fit.

We are not living beings having spiritual experiences, we are spirits having a "life" experience.

The notion that things are perceived into existence was Berkeley's central thesis. His philosophy cannot be demonstrated to be plausible, because existence precedes action. We observe that the individual things in our surroundings are finite: they cannot explain their own existence. These things transcend our knowing them: they exist whether we perceive them or not. How could anyone fall in love if the one you love keeps vanishing from existence every time they're out of your sight? The notion that one's mind creates its surroundings is bad physics. It cannot explain the coherence of the physical world. British empiricism (the category of philosophy to which belong Berkeley and Hume) is adequately refutely, I think, every time someone stubs their toe and discovers that something really exists outside them.

Parm, are you in philosophy class? Anyway, the idea is that we only experience the outside world through our five senses. We have no real way of proving that what we sense is real, or just a sense. The matrix is a perfect example, the fabricated sensory imputs to fake a whole world. Berkeley was basically saying we have no way to prove the world is real or an illusion like the matrix. When someone stubs their toe, the sensory imput is touch, including pain. How do you know that is really happening or that someone simply imput that sensation directly to your brain to give you the illusion. Honestly, this is an unanswerable question.

"Hail and well met," as the Romans would say. My background is in Aristotelian philo (mostly metaphysics). Perhaps that might shed light on the optimism with which I receive the sense data that my toe sometimes hurts.

I like Hume's admission the introduction he wrote to his essay "An Inquiry into Human Understanding." Hume's framing of sensory knowledge is, as you know, a form of skepticism: he doubts everything except present sense data, and he receives that only for what it is, something felt. He says that he tries from time to time to adopt the skepticism he describes in the essay as a practical way of living. He admits that he cannot keep it up for more than a few fleeting moments and then he "surrenders himself to the amenities of life and drinks his tea." He says that "in the midst of his philosophy, he must still be a man." It looks to me like a frank admission that genuine Humean skepticism (that is, denying the coherence and transcendance of things) is not practicable. Hume would die of thirst not knowing what the source of his discomfort was, if he successfully enacted his skepticism.

The closed argument that sense data alone cannot prove its veracity is, as you are right to point out, air-tight. My contention is that we do not merely receive sense data (passive knowledge): we also reach into the sense data received and abstract real knowledge of the thing sensed from the data (active knowledge). An evil genius could only cast a cloak of deception over our senses: he/she could not also interfere with what we do with our sense data. The data necessary to recognize the deception would be implicit in the deception itself. (I speak of sensory knowledge, here.) We would have a fair chance to take the cloak away and wrap it around the genius' head rather tightly. Perhaps this is the history of philosophy. Parmenides3

PS-Glad to have you at AF!

I agress with your arguments because I doubt the world is just an illusion. I think it was Berkeley that said the only thing we could be sure of is the contents of one's own mind. This is really an unanswerable question... there is no way to prove that anyone or anything exists beside your own mind!

If you're reading this you are God... don't let you trick you. The world around you is an illusion. I am the part of your mind that is trying to tell you the truth. It's like a larger scale of the the Truman Show. You've created us out of the figment of your imagination because you are a loser lost in your own little world.

Time for a smoke.

Often times, I use the word "proven" to mean "demonstrated as true." I can't keep anyone from doubting anything. Still, even if one misinterprets the sense data one receives, whatever is stimulating the senses must surely exist. We reflect on the data and the mode of its reception...even if we're totally wrong about what the thing we sense is, we're still having a real encounter with another existing thing.

We can appeal to some logically necessary principles: "Nemo dat quod non habet," "nothing gives what it does not have;" or similarly, "Nihil ex nihilo fit sine causa," "Nothing comes from nothing without a cause." The sense data cannot be divorced from the thing sensed, because the data comes to us from the outside. The data doesn't just spontaneously appear in our minds. As soon as we receive the sense data, which comes from an existing thing, we're poised to exercise reason in regard to the thing.

I regret that I'm not saying anything new here. All I'm saying is that we are not merely sense receivers (like the animals). We freely reflect, interpret and intuit. We also exercise free will, which explodes the "sense alone" axis. We are thinking subjects. Perhaps the best evidence is when we encounter another thinking subject, and observe them operating above the level of mere sense. Consider the data that selfless love is among the highest of human goods. Love comes about as much in reflecting on the the other in their absence as in actually spending time with the other. Parmenides3

Ok, I understand, but then there is no way to prove that it is actually what you "think" you are senses, say a wall, that is theactually producing the sensations. One thing we can be sure of, something is interacting with us to cause the sensations, wether it be the wall, or the "matrix"... we have no way to distinguish. So as of yet, we have to way to prove that the physical world IS how we perceive it. BTW, did you major in philosophy Parm?

I majored in philo only as an undergrad. That's why my responses are so rudimentary.

Regarding "The Matrix," notice that there are mechanical connections to one's nervous system which circumvent actual sense data (the feeling of being in a fluid-filled cocoon) and replace it with manufactured data (a complete animated computer-world). This becomes a practical issue when Descartes' demon or Hume's skepticism turns up. How, precisely, would the evil genius go about deceiving us? The way we receive sense data seems to offer its own credentials: the senses cannot err. They do not interpret: they only convey stimuli. The question is whether the stimuli could be divorced from the object, such that we could sense an object falsely. I suggest that the only thing that could produce a certain set of stimuli is the corresponding object...a wall is going to feel only like a wall, and the only way to produce a complete set of wall-like appearances is to construct a wall. Granted, additional experimentation would be needed to verify the wall; and this, of course, returns to an Aristotelian epistemology of "moderate realism," of real knowledge mediated through the senses. So proving the deception is possible should be just as difficult as proving it impossible. Peace. Parmenides3

BTW-"Whose hands are these?" is an old joke in my class...the philo dept chair was a bit foggy, and we always imagined him getting so lost in thought that he'd forget about his own hands.

Two things... first, what field did you do your graduate work in?
second, so now the question becomes one simply of... "Can the complete sensation of an object/event be reproduced by anything else other than the object/event itself?"
My answer to this is Yes... because the nature of an illusion is tricking the senses into perceiving one thing as some thing else it is not. So I still hold to the notion that there is no way to prove the physical world truly exist... the only thing you know for sure exist is your own mind. To answer the question of are we really here... well, if your own existence was an illusion, it would need to be fooling someone, namely you... I'd say then that "I think, therefore I am" holds heavy weight, and that we ourselves individually must exist, at least that can be the only thing one can be sure exists.

Grad work: Sacred Theology. Lots of little degrees, but no Ph.D. or S.T.D. I'm a Catholic priest, a station in life which is necessarily a "jack of all trades and master of none." Since we have to cover several areas in order to prepare for priestly ministry, there isn't any way to concentrate on one area enough to develop a doctoral program within our regular formation. So I just try to read a book every once in a while.

I think you've done a fine job of laying out the Cartesian skeptic's major boundary, the "split" between mind and body. Since I'm using an Aristotelian epistemology of mediated knowledge, I think we've reached a friendly impass. Aristotle's epistemology works like this (and skip this if it's nothing new to you...).

Real things are composed of form (a sort of "spiritual" blueprint, an organizing principle which designates a thing as what it is) and matter (a substrate which receives form or is "informed," and is organized and designated by form. Form is in a state of act; matter is in a state of potential. Together, form and matter form one substance, one concrete existing thing. When a substance (an object) comes in contact with the body, it stimulates the senses. The senses collect the data of experience and synthesize the various pieces of data into a "phantasm," an interior likeness of the exterior object. Aristotle regards the phantasm as a real thing present in or to our minds, and the phantasm is a material and formal "echo" of the thing it represents. The passive intellect receives the data and forms the phantasm; and then the active intellect reaches into the phantasm and abstracts the form of the phantasm, which is actually the form of the (original) object present in a diffused or communicated way. When the active intellect grasps the form of the thing, the knowing subject has real knowledge of the thing mediated through the senses. The act of grasping the form is a concrete "intuition."

To give this dead horse one more kick, I'm skeptical that an evil genius could somehow disconnect the sensory function of my body and replace my nervous connections with an alternate flow of sense data. The evil genius would have to intervene in between the body and the mind (not just the brain, but the mind...the brain is material); and he/she would also have to intervene in between the active and passive powers of our intellect, so as to avoid our recognizing the deception. Because the knowing subject is a living substance, the interior division necessary for the deception to succeed seems logically impossible to me. But one has only to dispute that the mind has both passive and active functions to take us back to square one. Thanks for the opportunity. Parmenides3

Hey, if you don't mind me asking Parm, doesn't philosophy conflict with your calling? I mean, philosophy seeks to answer through reason while religion seeks to answer through faith. I always thought that these two idealologies clashed?

Philosophy and theology are distinct disciplines, to be sure. But they are not opposed, since both aim at the appropriation of truth. For centuries, Catholic clergy have been required to study philosophy before studying theology. Philosophy aims to learn the truth through the natural light of human reason, unaided by revelation. Theology begins with revealed truth and reasons towards a deeper understanding of it. Philosophy begins with the data of experience, and ascends; theology begins with revelation, and descends. Both use human reason, but what is a premiss for theology is often a conclusion for philosophy. But there can be no contradiction between sound philosphy and sound theology, because God created human reason (and expects us to use it) and authored revelation; and God tells no lies nor contradicts Himself.

The 12-to-1300's was a time of great energy and creativity (rivaled, I think, only by the present) in which Catholic "scholastics" engaged human reason and divine revelation under the vigorous axiom "fides quarens intellectum," "faith seeking understanding." This might sound like theology on top of theology, but it actually signs a relationship between to two disciplines which overlap somewhat yet remain un-mingled. Probably the best articulation of the boundaries and relationship of philo and theology comes from this era, and is found in the first question in St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologica." There is a fairly standard philo text by Frederick Copleston (History of Philosophy, Vol. 2) which gives a handy summary.

I hope you'd be pleased to discover the significant portion of Western philosophy's organization and terminology which is specifically Catholic in origin. For example, the term "person" is an invention of the Catholic Church. It generally takes at least three years to meet the minimum philo requirements in the Catholic seminary program. Since I came in as a college freshman, I took the 4 year BA program in philo. I enjoyed studying philo immensely, as did most of my classmates. I miss evenings of gorging on truth with human reason in the company of my class. The honor society's motto was "dei epitatein sophon," "it is fitting for the wise man to put in order." Good will to you. Parmenides3

What about philosphies or reasonings that dismiss the existence of God. I mean, in ancient greece, philosphy arose as intelligent logical individuals were not content to accept the theological answer to their question. "Where did we come from?" "Why are we here?" These can be answered simply by religion... because of God/the gods and the logic is simply faith, because there is no reason or proof, that what faith is, you just believe it. But then philosophy seeks to answer the same question through reason, not faith. A lot of things I've learned in philosophy class undoubtedly contradict what I learned in religous school, what I leraned from the bible. Isn't this Y most philosphers/scientists were considered heretics by the church, and had to resind or suffer the consequences, Galeleo had to beg forgiveness on his knees for his pursuit of what we know as scienntific truth. I do believe in God, but being a math major am i very logical thinking person, and must admit that God is unscientific, but philosophy seeks to use science, science and reason... thoughts???

Hey, Joseph1082. Good stuff. You raise many topics...
1- Either there is a God or there isn't. Any statement contradicting the actuality will be false, whether the statement is formed as a phl or thl statement, or of physics for that matter. Reasoning from premisses to a logical conclusion does not prove the founding premisses to be true. Many things we hear give the appearance of a contrad., and often the contrad. is real. In a real contrad., one or both propositions must be false. If I'd found anything absurd in my religion, I would have left the whole of it. Similarly, what led me to Aristotle, St. Thomas and co. was a drive for coherence.
2- Phl and thl do not differ in their object (what they study), but in the means used to grasp it. A statement about God is not necessarily thl.
3- Aristotle, Plato, and all the great ancients were interested in God in their work. Aristotle (Unmoved Mover), or Plato (Divine Ideas), for example. Good luck finding an ancient phl that dismissed the existence of God. :smile: Aristotle was definitely dismissive of the Pantheon, as any sane person must be, but much of what Aristotle said about the one God is right on target.
4- Faith is not without logic. "Faith" that believes randomly is not faith: it's insanity. We would agree, I think, that something proposed for faith ("Believe this!") which is contrad. to reason ("God is all-good and hates you."), then we should not assent to it. I brought a vast skepticism into my studies of phl and thl, and after 10 years, I have yet to find a single contrad. in Catholic belief. Catholic belief may transcend reason, though. We'll never have the Trinity all figured out, but what is known about God is perfectly reasonable.
5- Simple history. Galileo was never punished for proposing that the sun is the center of the universe. He was punished for breach of contract when he started teaching his Scripture students that Scripture is not divinely inspired. Of course, we now know that the sun is the center of the solar system, but not the center of the universe, as Galileo had proposed. Contradiction between sound phys. science and divine revelation is impossible, because God authored both realities.
6- Two qualities of a science are systematic inquiry and rigorous application of that system. Phl is a science, and a good one. And so, we have this conversation in our capacity as scientists. Parmenides3

Greetings again, Joseph1082. I just realized that I got carried away on something. You're already on top of the fact that phl and thl differ in the mode of pursuing truth rather than in the object pursued...you just said so. Your insight serves you well, as Yoda would say. Parmenides3

Parm, with no disrespect intended, you must admit that the church was not w/o its corruption. Mideval Church was as much a political organization as a religious one, and the Pope was at one point the most powerful monarch in Europe. I do believe the church was after galileo for political reasons, he'd upset the balance of power. Spinoza also had to escape, I know there are so more, but i can't think of any more off the top of my head. You are a truly disciplined mind and a true philosopher... with that in mind I would hope you could be honest about the short-comings of the history of the institution you serve, which is only made up of men, noble men, but men, who according to the Bible are born into sin, and are not perfect, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. So the church is just as capable of the evils of man as the secular world

Sure, I have no problem admitting that I am a sinner, and that members of the Church have done horrible things over the years, and that some popes were elected after they murdered all their rivals, ca. 800 AD.

I wouldn't single out the Medieval Era as a phase in the Church's history in which she used political influence...ever since Constantine made bishops magistrates of Rome, Catholicism has had a lot of political sway. And to say that some Church leaders have used her political influence to do harm is no great shock. But Galileo's trial was definitely about his abuse of his teaching position, not about his speculations. Spinoza got in trouble for teaching pantheism. Similarly, Charles Curran was stripped of his license to teach in the name of the Church fairly recently...he's a nut. To use political power in dealing with an issue with political implications is no scandal.

My point is this: Catholics have committed every sin in the Book, but that doesn't invalidate the Book. I fall short every day, but my struggles do not mean that that the creed I profess is false. The Church is the Body of Christ on earth. Christ is without sin. (Brace yourself...) The Church is completely without sin, even though her members sin daily. My sins have no place in Christ: that's why they're sins. Repentance is returning to Christ. For a scriptural basis, check out the wedding feast of the Lamb in Rev. Anyone wanting to shame the Church with the failures of her members should read more history...there's always something more embarassing to bring up. When the New World was discovered, some bishops weren't sure if the natives could be baptized! But it all comes back to this: not the most wicked, depraved pope ever taught any error...not because they had good intentions, but because the teaching office of the pope is backed up by the Third Person of the Trinity. All archeological data supports my assertion, but certainly I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it. Proper regards, Parmenides3.

Well, I just wanted to point out that the church is not perfect. Since I can look at it form a more objective view (at least my subject veiw i think is objective in all fairness) I do think that a lot of matters were more political than spiritual. And I did not single out the power of the Mideval Church in particualer... I was taught in more than one
western history class that the height of Papal power was the mid-middle ages, this was the time when popes were more powerful than kings, and were telling kings what to do. But a lot oftimes I think the church has behave more like a nation-state rather than a religious institution. Inqisition?
just my $.02.

You know, I should apologize...I write too much when I get interested in something. I don't mean to make a good conversation lop-sided.

OK, Catholic persons have done a great deal of wrong over the centuries, right up to the contribution I make with my own faults. The question of whether this amounts to the Church herself being flawed is a matter of debate. And I have to set aside for a moment the fact that the Church has done far more good in the service of humanity than harm. The broader question is this: is it possible that the Lord would establish a Church wisely and well, and yet allow that Church to struggle with sin through history? Is it possible that the sometimes dirty face of the Church is the face of incarnate love, the face of Jesus beaming at us even as we wound Him?

Health and happiness to you. Parmenides3

Parm... believe me, you can write as much as you want... it is nice to have intelligent discourse. I would expect your views to be subjective, you are a priest after all. To let you know my background is protestant... it is my grandmother's dream for me to become a pastor, but she realizes as of yet I have not heard the calling.
I know the church has done way more good than harm, how I see it, the church itself, being an institution of prominence during post-roman european history, was as much political as religious, perhaps even more. While the low-level members of the church were out doing god's will... the upper levels were a bunch of politician, right down to being elected to office. In the Middle Ages, I'm sure one did not want to be Pope simply to do God's will... I'm sure being the most powerful man in Europe had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for your generosity about my tendency toward high volume...

We all use it, but I've never been fond of the term "Middle Ages" and all the rhetoric that goes with it. It isn't clearly defined time, but it's called "Middle" or "Dark" as pejorative for "Christian." Despite wars and civil unrest, the writing and art of these years was rich, not dark.

Before you commit too firmly to gauging the motives of the clergy over the late medieval era, you might skim a few of their writings and life accomplishments. Some are edifying, others not. Priests having mistresses was a big problem into the 1200's, and the level of formation they received varied greatly. Many studied in schools, and many did not study at all. But through it all, the faith was vibrant, and the people were fairly well catechized; and this fact rests squarely on many mission-minded men and women religious, including many high-ranking officials.

The popes are especially well documented. The bad ones are fun to read about...their stories show how the Church survives the very worst that her own people can do to her. A definite low point was when pope Stephen VI held a bizarre trial for his deceased predecessor, pope Formosus. Yeah, it was gross. But the good popes are as impressive as the bad ones are disturbing.

The daily prayers of Catholic clergy often include excerpts from the writings of popes through the ages. I like Leo the Great's reflection on the passion. Leo took his life in his hands to meet with Attila the Hun and plead for the safety of Rome, having written about Jesus' deliberation "What should I say, Father, save me from this hour? It was for this hour that I came into the world." I like that. Peace. Parmenides3

Hate to interrupt the discussion, but going back to the question... I like the idea that reality is based on sensory input, but our senses can be wrong, at least the way we interpret the senses can be, like with optical illusions or with hearing sound waves that reflect off of objects when there origins are from elsewhere. Considering that, perhaps there is a possibility that everything that we know to exist as we do now really doesn't exist like we thought. So in turn, assuming that we could eliminate all senses somehow without tampering with the function of our minds, would we still exist? I often wonder what it would be like to be born blind, would we still see mental images? All a born-blind man knows of an apple is what it feels, smells and tastes like, but take away taste, then all he knows is what what it smells and tastes like. Take away those too, and what is this man left with? What is an object that you cannot sense? And if you cannot sense it, does it still exist? To this individual, saying it did exist would be like one of us saying that some object exists that is floating around that we can't sense. Wouldn't we call someone making such a claim crazy, but is this theoretical man that can't sense the apple and says it doesn't exist any crazier? I guess all I can say is my existence as I see it is based on senses and assumptions based on those senses. I can't say what I have sensed is accurate though.

Back to the topic of the thread...

So we sense and we reflect. Does our present experience suggest a relationship between sensory experience and the existence of things? Perhaps our senses and our other rational faculties are telling us more than Berkeley credited.

Oh, I don't know if I mentioned this, but I think that we have to be here. If your existence was an illusion, it would be fooling YOU, to be fooled you need to exists, correct.

wow

OK, as the Dread Pirate asked in 'Princess Bride,' "What are our assets?"

(A little re-cap here.) Worse-case scenario, we know we exist. We know that if we are being fooled then the one fooling us must also exist. We know that whatever is necessary to effect the deception exists. We know that, even if what we perceive is false, our means of perceiving it are essentially truthful (otherwise we would not even be rational enough to be genuinely deceived).

I think this last point holds promise. There is a metaphysical principle to which the Scholastics would appeal, that "evil does not exist as a thing but as a privation within a (good) existing thing." In order for a lie to "exist," it woud have to be a corruption of something truthful. If all our experience is a lie, perhaps there are truthful things within the lie which we can recognize as true, based on their coherence. My more Kantian friends critique my epistemology as an assertion of correspondence to reality based on coherence. I'm OK with that, because I accept Aristotle's notion of objective intuition (his doctrine of abstraction). Real knowledge, moderated through the senses, can be summed up "the known is in the knower according to the mode of knowing." Parmenides3

PS-I'll probably have to excuse myself from AF for a while, because Holy Week is coming and things are really hopping here in the parish. Thanks for a fun and refreshing visit to the Platonic Academy!

If our minds create the world we see today, your mind would make your life seem happier and you would only hear music you like. I'm not sure if I made sense but you might figure it out.

Nice quote about the street racing

Sure, our minds "distort" "reality" in order to suit its needs. Sure, everything around us may in fact not be "genuine."

But I don't think the reality of reality matters in the least. I might live in the Matrix, but I can learn, grow, offer insight, philosophize. I live in a web of interrelated beings. While I exist first and foremost as an "individual," and maybe it is true that I cannot ever step into another's shoes and connect to their existence, I can at least affect the lives of others. Even if it isn't in the way that I desire, my existence has ramifications on the universe. Regardless of the reality of reality.

BTW, sorry about the quotes. It's just that this sort of discussion tends to use hackneyed words.

You have no proof you existence affects anything but yourself, that's the irony about it. The only sure thing you know of is your own mind... I have no way of knowing you are actually there or if you are a product of my mind.

I don't know, I'd say that even if I am just a product of your mind I affect you. In the most extreme sense, if I take out a gun and shoot you, wouldn't you feel pain? I wouldn't. So wouldn't you exist independently of me then?

If YOU shoot me, how can you prove you really affect another actual person, all you have is what you have seen, heard, etc. Re-read my past posts in this thread and Berkeley... the only proof you have of the world is from your FIVE senses... if I can fake them a la matrix style, then one could perhaps be in a virtual world... so what makes that different from the REAL world. What you call the REAL world is meanly a collection of five different types of sensation, that is all.

the point there is that "You have no proof you existence affects anything but yourself" also applies to YOU in refrence to everyone else. how do you know we aren't all figments of your imagination?

Goddamnit. I hate this question.

<Cries, then does a toilet>