| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ume$h" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2006 07:00:58 AM |
| Object: |
Do we exist? |
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
.
|
|
| User: "Bretts Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 07:12:03 AM |
|
|
To do is to be. -Descartes
To be is to do. -Voltaire
Do be do be do. -Frank Sinatra
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 10:29:43 AM |
|
|
Bretts' Ghost <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
To do is to be. -Descartes
To be is to do. -Voltaire
Do be do be do. -Frank Sinatra
Don't bogart the doobee. -- Humphrey
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thisbe" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 10:26:51 AM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Depends upon what you mean by "we". If you're referring to the common
conception and appearance of a human, then yes. But if you go beyond
the everyday appearance and concept and reveal an organization of
organs and tissues hidden beneath the skin, then no. Or as the body
being a metazoan community of cells, then no. Or as a complex
configuration of interacting atoms or particles, then no. Antirealism
usually has more to do with whether a specific linguistic concept or a
phenomenal appearance has concrete existence rather than such mental
symbols correlating to nothing at all that's pecerptually independent.
The issue can usually only be pragmatically settled by a particular
level of something being *effectually real* when that level is what one
is dealing with at the time. Due to the fact that we really don't know
where the underlying explanations and appearances may stop (if ever),
or what the ultimate condition of anything's existence is.
..~*~.Thisbe.~*~.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 10:36:25 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 08:26:51 -0700, "Thisbe" <thstl@coldmail.nu> wrote:
Depends upon what you mean by "we". If you're referring to the common
conception and appearance of a human, then yes. But if you go beyond
the everyday appearance and concept and reveal an organization of
organs and tissues hidden beneath the skin, then no. Or as the body
being a metazoan community of cells, then no. Or as a complex
configuration of interacting atoms or particles, then no. Antirealism
usually has more to do with whether a specific linguistic concept or a
phenomenal appearance has concrete existence rather than such mental
symbols correlating to nothing at all that's pecerptually independent.
The issue can usually only be pragmatically settled by a particular
level of something being *effectually real* when that level is what one
is dealing with at the time. Due to the fact that we really don't know
where the underlying explanations and appearances may stop (if ever),
or what the ultimate condition of anything's existence is.
How about the fact that you are self aware? Isn't that sufficient to
convince you that you exist?
Why make the problem any more difficult than it is. If you are self
aware then you exist.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thisbe" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 11:34:17 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 08:26:51 -0700, "Thisbe" <thstl@coldmail.nu> wrote:
Depends upon what you mean by "we". If you're referring to the common
conception and appearance of a human, then yes. But if you go beyond
the everyday appearance and concept and reveal an organization of
organs and tissues hidden beneath the skin, then no. Or as the body
being a metazoan community of cells, then no. Or as a complex
configuration of interacting atoms or particles, then no. Antirealism
usually has more to do with whether a specific linguistic concept or a
phenomenal appearance has concrete existence rather than such mental
symbols correlating to nothing at all that's pecerptually independent.
The issue can usually only be pragmatically settled by a particular
level of something being *effectually real* when that level is what one
is dealing with at the time. Due to the fact that we really don't know
where the underlying explanations and appearances may stop (if ever),
or what the ultimate condition of anything's existence is.
How about the fact that you are self aware? Isn't that sufficient to
convince you that you exist?
It depends upon whether subjective experience is a completely emergent,
autonomous level that is not ontologically dependent upon the
biological or the physical. If underlying explanations continue
forever, then one indeed might as well embrace parallelism and say that
all levels are equally existent. But it has not been determined yet
that there is not a primary level whose relationships create the
*illusion* of all the others.
Why make the problem any more difficult than it is. If you are self
aware then you exist.
Which is why that view is part of the pragmatic approach, rather than
dogmatic certainty. I have no problem saying, in practical terms, that
I'm "effectually real", but I'd be a bit of a kook to pretend that my
consciousness is unaffected by what happens to my brain, and that my
brain has the capacity to decompose, that it is a community of
micro-entities. Kooks suffer from a pathological belief that they are
omniscient, there is no "doubt" or "uncertainty" in their conceptions.
Like March hares, they flounce about on both sides of the secular and
non-secular fence.
..-*-.Thisbe.-*-.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 11:52:38 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 09:34:17 -0700, "Thisbe" <thstl@coldmail.nu> wrote:
How about the fact that you are self aware? Isn't that sufficient to
convince you that you exist?
It depends upon whether subjective experience is a completely emergent,
autonomous level that is not ontologically dependent upon the
biological or the physical. If underlying explanations continue
forever, then one indeed might as well embrace parallelism and say that
all levels are equally existent. But it has not been determined yet
that there is not a primary level whose relationships create the
*illusion* of all the others.
If you are self aware, you exist. End of story.
Why make the problem any more difficult than it is. If you are self
aware then you exist.
Which is why that view is part of the pragmatic approach, rather than
dogmatic certainty. I have no problem saying, in practical terms, that
I'm "effectually real", but I'd be a bit of a kook to pretend that my
consciousness is unaffected by what happens to my brain, and that my
brain has the capacity to decompose, that it is a community of
micro-entities. Kooks suffer from a pathological belief that they are
omniscient, there is no "doubt" or "uncertainty" in their conceptions.
Like March hares, they flounce about on both sides of the secular and
non-secular fence.
If you are self aware, no matter what the condition of your brain is,
you exist. End of story.
I spotted at least a dozen straw men in your comments.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thisbe" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 12:43:36 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 09:34:17 -0700, "Thisbe" <thstl@coldmail.nu> wrote:
How about the fact that you are self aware? Isn't that sufficient to
convince you that you exist?
It depends upon whether subjective experience is a completely emergent,
autonomous level that is not ontologically dependent upon the
biological or the physical. If underlying explanations continue
forever, then one indeed might as well embrace parallelism and say that
all levels are equally existent. But it has not been determined yet
that there is not a primary level whose relationships create the
*illusion* of all the others.
If you are self aware, you exist. End of story.
Why make the problem any more difficult than it is. If you are self
aware then you exist.
Which is why that view is part of the pragmatic approach, rather than
dogmatic certainty. I have no problem saying, in practical terms, that
I'm "effectually real", but I'd be a bit of a kook to pretend that my
consciousness is unaffected by what happens to my brain, and that my
brain has the capacity to decompose, that it is a community of
micro-entities. Kooks suffer from a pathological belief that they are
omniscient, there is no "doubt" or "uncertainty" in their conceptions.
Like March hares, they flounce about on both sides of the secular and
non-secular fence.
If you are self aware, no matter what the condition of your brain is,
you exist. End of story.
Well, that's a fascinating piece of dogma: "....no matter what the
condition of your brain is". So if the brain dies or is damaged
severely, this *self* or *you* still exists? You just absolutely know
that, because --gasp-- you're ominscient?
I spotted at least a dozen straw men in your comments.
You spotted them using what? A paint-gun? What color did you use? Was
any of them named Ray Bolger? Geez, it would be amazing if you actually
posted a definition of that fallacy to demonstrate that even the
simplest sarcasm has ample overhead clearance with you. Ta, ta, Mr.
Militant-Kook-Troll; but by all means continue to have fun with anybody
else who wants to buy into the act. Was partially amusing til your
masque fell off. :)
*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 12:23:24 PM |
|
|
In article <4489952b.183030156@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
(Bob) wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 08:26:51 -0700, "Thisbe" <thstl@coldmail.nu> wrote:
Depends upon what you mean by "we". If you're referring to the common
conception and appearance of a human, then yes. But if you go beyond
the everyday appearance and concept and reveal an organization of
organs and tissues hidden beneath the skin, then no. Or as the body
being a metazoan community of cells, then no. Or as a complex
configuration of interacting atoms or particles, then no. Antirealism
usually has more to do with whether a specific linguistic concept or a
phenomenal appearance has concrete existence rather than such mental
symbols correlating to nothing at all that's pecerptually independent.
The issue can usually only be pragmatically settled by a particular
level of something being *effectually real* when that level is what one
is dealing with at the time. Due to the fact that we really don't know
where the underlying explanations and appearances may stop (if ever),
or what the ultimate condition of anything's existence is.
How about the fact that you are self aware? Isn't that sufficient to
convince you that you exist?
Why make the problem any more difficult than it is. If you are self
aware then you exist.
Ah, but he didn't ask if "he" existed, he asked if "we" existed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 11:34:48 AM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Existence is a human concept.
So, yes. Naturally.
http://cloudmusiccompany.com/science/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 11:54:05 AM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 09:34:48 -0700, wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Existence is a human concept.
Then when you cease to conceptualize existence, you no longer exist.
Being is ontological not epistemological.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "MobyDikc" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 01:12:06 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 09:34:48 -0700, wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Existence is a human concept.
Then when you cease to conceptualize existence, you no longer exist.
Being is ontological not epistemological.
Suppose, just for argument, that there could be different kinds of
being; maybe one ontological and at least one epistemological for you.
If that's the case, then which being and existing are we referring to
by default, without anytype of qualification?
The epistemological one, I'd say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gods Creator!" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 01:35:18 PM |
|
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<big><font color="#330099"><b>MobyDikc wrote:</b></font></big>
<blockquote
cite="mid1149876726.631017.324850@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font color="#990000"><b>Bob wrote:</b></font>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font color="#990000"><b>On 9 Jun 2006 09:34:48 -0700, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mobydikc@gmail.com">mobydikc@gmail.com</a> wrote:
</b></font>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font color="#663366"><b>O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.</b></font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><font color="#006600"><b>Existence is a human concept.</b></font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><font color="#990000"><b>Then when you cease to conceptualize existence, you no longer exist.
Being is ontological not epistemological.</b></font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
<font color="#000099"><b>Suppose, just for argument, that there could be different kinds of
being; maybe one ontological and at least one epistemological for you.
If that's the case, then which being and existing are we referring to
by default, without anytype of qualification?
The epistemological one, I'd say.
</b></font>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div align="center"> <big><big><b><font color="#993399">Thus
Spake: God's Creator!<br>
</font><br>
</b></big></big></div>
<br>
<div align="center"><font color="#330033"><big><b>BOTH... and and
infinitely more.</b></big><br>
</font></div>
<font color="#330033"><br>
</font>
<div align="center"><font color="#330033"><b>INFINITY has no
LIMITATIONS <br>
</b></font></div>
<div align="center"><span class="moz-smiley-s11"><span> 8-) </span></span><br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<big><font color="#993399"><b>God's Creator!</b></font></big><br>
(<b><font color="#cc0000">That was my only sin...</font></b>) <span
class="moz-smiley-s2"><span> :-( </span></span><br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="77">--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<font color="#330033"><b>Psstt.... Hey! ---> <font color="#990000">USED GODS SALE! : ---></font> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.godchecker.com/">http://www.godchecker.com/</a> </b></font>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
</pre>
</body>
</html>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Playfullminx" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 01:20:00 PM |
|
|
Nope...not me. I'm a figment of my own imagination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 02:02:05 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 11:20:00 -0700, "Playfullminx"
<playfullminx01@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nope...not me. I'm a figment of my own imagination.
But you must exist for that to be.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
10 Jun 2006 06:22:49 PM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
OK. I'm thinking about your question, so I know that I'm thinking
about the problem. If I didn't exist, I couldn't be doing that (by
definition; I couldn't be doing anything). So I exist - more
precisely, my consciousness exists - and as a bonus, I/it knows that
something exists.
Whatever affects my consciousness also exists, as it couldn't be
affecting me as doing that. Some things exist as ideas - that's their
reality - but some other things don't - for example, my body exists as
more than an idea; I'm not aware of it the same way I am of ideas - it
has a different reality, which I'll call 'physical existence.' In
turn, everything that affects my body has physical existence.
To make a long story short, your posts have physical existence; and I
infer, by analogy, that your posts came about in the same way as mine -
they were produced by a consciousness with a physical body similar to
mine. So, yes, I'd conclude that you exist, too.
(That last conclusion is much weaker than the original one, though. So
to that extent, I have to agree with Daniel T.: I know that I exist,
but I'm not completely sure about you. 8)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 11:39:59 AM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 12:25:06 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 09:39:59 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
It could have been written by a machine, or maybe a monkey typed it in
randomly.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 12:31:21 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 09:39:59 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
It could have been written by a machine, or maybe a monkey typed it in
randomly.
The machine has to exist. So does the monkey. How have you refuted my
assertion?
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 01:58:25 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 10:31:21 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
It could have been written by a machine, or maybe a monkey typed it in
randomly.
The machine has to exist. So does the monkey. How have you refuted my
assertion?
I did not intend to refute anything. I am a supporter.
However we cannot know for certain if the alleged poster is a real
self aware being.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 07:34:24 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 10:31:21 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
It could have been written by a machine, or maybe a monkey typed it in
randomly.
The machine has to exist. So does the monkey. How have you refuted my
assertion?
I did not intend to refute anything. I am a supporter.
However we cannot know for certain if the alleged poster is a real
self aware being.
This much I do know: if the original poster wasn't real, there'd have
been no header and
hence no thread.
W : )
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 08:09:34 PM |
|
|
On 9 Jun 2006 17:34:24 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
This much I do know: if the original poster wasn't real, there'd have
been no header and
hence no thread.
That is not necessarily true.
You forgot to consider zombies - like those who voted for Gore and
Kerry.
They aren't real in the normal sense of the word.
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
10 Jun 2006 11:34:34 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 9 Jun 2006 17:34:24 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
This much I do know: if the original poster wasn't real, there'd have
been no header and
hence no thread.
That is not necessarily true.
You forgot to consider zombies - like those who voted for Gore and
Kerry.
They aren't real in the normal sense of the word.
So they're real in an, um, abnormal sense of the word?
W : )
--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable."
--Sun Tzu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dee" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 12:24:34 PM |
|
|
Wordsmith wrote:
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
The person who wrote "Do we exist?" as the header for this thread must
exist. How
could non-existence have written it?
W : )
:D opinions change, evidents change, but what doesn't change I think
is that there are only 2 outcomes when one joins a thread - one is
ideas are being shared, the other one is when people attack each other
in a form of debating competition. If the outcome represents the
purpose of doing something (which it might not), e.g. discussing a
topic, then it really doesn't matter what we're discussing - be it 'do
we exist' or 'does god exist' or other, we should be asking instead
whether we are using this discussion for sharing ideas or for attack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "musicmonk" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
09 Jun 2006 09:22:40 PM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Try the following experiment: Next time you get your bills, don't pay
them. Instead scribble the following on each of them: "Dear Sir or
Madam: How do you -know- I exist?" Then send them back and see what
they have to say.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "facilitator" |
|
| Title: Re: Do we exist? |
10 Jun 2006 02:07:01 PM |
|
|
ume$h wrote:
O geniuses out there! Please answer if you have any answer.
Yes "we" exist. Since "we" can redefine existence to anything "we"
like and in anyform "we" choose. It becomes a "self" replicating
paradox.
The real question is: Are there geniuses?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
