Do things exist?
If yes, what exists?
If what exists, why does what exist?
>>887932
Yes. Things exist if they *are*--independent of the mind
See above
'Why' is a meaningless question in this instance. 'How' is a more appropriate one. In which case, that discussion still goes on.
Define exist. What makes something exist and what makes them not exist.
![[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_21.33_[2015.04.21_14.49.25].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vb0BcK5.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_21.33_[2015.04.21_14.49.25].jpg")
>>887932
Define "things".
>>888366
>mfw people base their rankings on memes instead of actual character depth
>>888366
>Now THIS is a question.
Indeed
>>888156
Define "define".
ITT
>>888401
If you want me to get technical, "things" is all you can feel with your empirical senses, all that you can imagine, everything you see and touch. Basically, it's a codeword for "everything".
Also,
>reina fagg bullying slacky chan
Yes, because if everything didn't existe, the non-existance of everything would exist and so it is a contradiction.
>>888425
>things are things
The dick
![[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 05 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_20.06_[2015.05.05_18.13.25].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Ks6YlDL.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 05 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_20.06_[2015.05.05_18.13.25].jpg")
>>888425
What? So things by definition exists.
this thread btfo is 3..2..1
The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.
21
>>888471
>eastern philosophy
>>888480
eastern philosophy seems to be a lot better than the fags in this thread "so things are things huehue"
the Tao was written 2000 years ago so it is better than the shitposts i can read today
>>888464
But just how can you know if they really do exist when you cannot trust your empirical senses.
What if everything we feel is a lie.
What if we're some sort of metaphysical beings living in a Matrix.
So this whole thing is about defining "exists" to decide whether or not a chair or something exists, right?
Why not just have separate words for it? A chair exists(definition A) because the matter is there, and also exists(definition B) because people sit on it. That bypasses the whole "do objects "really" exist(definition ambiguous) question entirely.
>>888487
are daoists just confusing everyone into thinking they are smart? this kid at college is a big doaist and when he showed me it was all just seemed like the complexity hid the fact that the lao tzu guy did not know shit.
>>888502
who said anything about being smart?
i wouldn't be surprised if Lao was the first dude to say "keep it simple, stupid"
that sounds like his style. it's all about the middle way
>>888488
>Words always refer to the kinds of things they were coined to refer to, thus the kinds of things their user, or the user's ancestors, experienced. So, if some person, Mary, were a "brain in a vat", whose every experience is received through wiring and other gadgetry created by the "mad scientist", then Mary's idea of a "brain" would not refer to a "real" brain, since she and her linguistic community have never seen such a thing. Rather, she saw something that looked like a brain, but was actually an image fed to her through the wiring. Similarly, her idea of a "vat" would not refer to a "real" vat. So, if, as a brain in a vat, she were to say "I'm a brain in a vat", she would actually be saying "I'm a brain-image in a vat-image", which is incoherent. On the other hand, if she is not a brain in a vat, then saying that she is a brain in a vat is still incoherent, but now because she actually means the opposite. This is a form of epistemological externalism: knowledge or justification depends on factors outside the mind and is not solely determined internally.
![[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_20.31_[2015.04.21_14.48.05].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/qJbO9Bv.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 03 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_20.31_[2015.04.21_14.48.05].jpg")
>>888488
The only relevant sense of existence is our own
>What if we're some sort of metaphysical beings living in a Matrix.
>le brain in a vat maymay
Stop
This thread reminds me of how stupid philosophers are. How can you argue about all of this bullshit when you have no evidence to support your claims. Y'all need mental help. I shouldn't have left /sci/.
>>888509
Strange approach at memeing here, but effective
>>888509
Sorry to tell you, but positivism is refuted and dead.
>>888509
you're wrong, but i keked nonetheless. (YOU)
>>888507
>The only relevant sense of existence is our own
But that's I've been saying since the beggining of the thread..
Cogito ergo sum.
However, that being said, how to tell if other things exist?
Because a rock does not think, it doesn't exist?
What guarantee do I have that you really think, rather than your mind just being the process of several eletronic impulses?
What guarantee do I have that the same applies to me?
(physicalism + cogito ergo sum = nothing exists).
>>888156
We all have a tacit understanding of what it is to be.
Any definition you make of it, would be less accurate than that intuitive silent notion.
>>888537
>What guarantee do I have that you really think, rather than your mind just being the process of several eletronic impulses?
If the mind were the result of electrical impulses that would not entail that it does not think. It's different levels of description.
This is the same bullshit that peopel pull to try and show that that the universe is meaningless. The statement, "Everything is just matter being pushed around in a void," is just one way of talking about the universe.
![[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 04 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_14.04_[2015.04.28_20.59.19].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k05ip2e.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 04 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_14.04_[2015.04.28_20.59.19].jpg")
>>888537
>But that's I've been saying since the beggining of the thread..
It isn't. Neither is it cogito ergo sum. Existence isn't completely subjective.
>>888564
>If the mind were the result of electrical impulses that would not entail that it does not think.
Not necessarily. You either don't understand biological evolution or you're thinking of divine desing, in either case, I think you're, um, wrong.
>It's different levels of description.
What does this statement have to do with anything. I don't see how this is an argument at all.
>This is the same bullshit that peopel pull to try and show that that the universe is meaningless.
And? Not an argument.
>The statement, "Everything is just matter being pushed around in a void," is just one way of talking about the universe.
Yes, there are many ways to talk about the Universe, I could talk about the Universe as though the Sun is a giant fireball and the Moon is made of cheese. There may be different interpretations but most of them end up being wrong.
>>888480
>Taoism
>Tibetan
>Tibetan
>Named "Deng Hsu"
>Being is desire
>Buddhism
>>888575
>But that's I've been saying since the beggining of the thread..
>"It isn't"
Well, right, I didn't really say it, but it was one of the things I thought that lead to making the question in the OP.
>Existence isn't subjective
I was going to say "but thats fucking wrong" but I am a polite person, so I'm going to say it's just very wrong.
You see, Alfa Auriga.
To this moment, you didn't know of this name.
It didn't exist to you.
Now it exists.
What does Alfa Auriga mean?
It's the name of a star.
Oops! That star now exists, for you.
Until very recently, it didn't.
But now it does.
>b-but just because you don't know of something, it d-doesn't mean it doesn't exist!!
>i mean, there are a lot of things i know that don't exist, but they do!!
Oops! Looks like I predicted a possible argument. If you want me to do so, I can refute it easily, but you might not want to use this argument.
>>888614
>I can refute it easily,
Do so.
>>888591
>Not necessarily. You either don't understand biological evolution or you're thinking of divine desing, in either case, I think you're, um, wrong.
???
>What does this statement have to do with anything. I don't see how this is an argument at all.
I could describe the mind in different ways. I could describe it in the neuroscientific way, that the mind is a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses. But I could also describe it in the psychological way, that the mind is comprised of thoughts and emotions.
I could describe the cars on the road at 5 PM either as moving hunks of self-propelled metal or as "rush hour traffic".
The mind is both electrical signals and thinking at once; it's sense and reference.
>>888622
1) Your argument itself is contradicting. How can you know something exists when you don't know them?
You well might respond by saying something "I can have clues that lead me to believe X exists".
This seems reasonable, but then, you know that X exists. If you didn't have any of those clues, X wouldn't exist from your perspective. You'd never guess that Alpha Aurigae, aka Capella 13, has a spectrum of type G-0-III.
Until now, you didn't know about that. This piece of information did not exist for you. It did for me, but nor for you.
2) If you look at it from a deep point of view, your idea of existance is based on empirical knowledge. For example, you would say a cube exists because you see it.
What if you're blind?
Someone would tell it exists.
What if you're deaf?
You could try touching it.
What if you don't have haptic perception?
Hm...
Let's imagine if someone was born without any of the 5 empirical senses.
From that person's point of view, I must ask you, anon, would anything exist at all? Please, think about this question, and what its answer means.
From this logic, existance comes from our empirical perception, and the teaching/learning that comes together with it.
Therefore, at the same time, for someone born without any of the 5 sensorial abilities, something can exist, and at the same time, from the point of view with all of those, it can exist. As you can see this logic is clearly fllawled.
One last question.
If not just one person, but all humans were destined to be born without any empirical sense. Not just humans, but all living things. Would anything exist at all?
If from one person's point of view, that person being devoid of empiricity, nothing exists, then if everyone had the same condition, nothing would exist at all.
my dick exists inside your waifu's pusy
LMAO WEEBS BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>888056
> Yes. Things exist if they *are*--independent of the mind
This is retarded, there's a lot of mind-dependant things that exist.
>>888685
The telos of my dick is to pleasure your mother.
![[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 04 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_13.30_[2015.04.28_20.57.55].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/LTQmGP9.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hibike! Euphonium - 04 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_13.30_[2015.04.28_20.57.55].jpg")
>>888614
Lack of knowledge does not equal non-existence you idiot. I don't understand how you can conflate the two.
>b-but the observer effect
Fuck off.
>>888679
Not that guy but
>conflating existence itself with knowledge of existing things
>>888691
lol, this kid uses a Greek word and thinks he's delivered a good line
let's put it like this: if you watch anime, your virginity certainly exists and will never not exist
>>888504
why inst taoism more popular?
>>888679
Let's talk about Bob. Bob is a middle aged man, going about his business. One day, Bob visits his doctor, who informs him that he has advanced, inoperable cancer and about six months to live. The doctor's prediction is correct, Bob's condition quickly deteriorates and he is dead in six months. What would be the most accurate descriptor of the sequence of events?
A) Bob's cancer developed spontaneously as his doctor informed him of it. It began killing him the moment Bob became aware of it (existing "to you.") If the doctor had said nothing, the cancer would never existed to Bob, and he would still be alive. The doctor is a murderer. Awareness is the same as existence.
B) Bob had developed cancer long before his diagnosis. It had been killing him for a very long time, he was just not aware of it. His doctor simply informed Bob of something that already existed. Awareness of something (existing "to you") is not identical to that thing's actual existence.
>>888639
>????
You appear to seem confused.
Re read our conversation on that topic.
What you said is that the mind would not entitle itself to thinking it does not exist.
But that's very wrong.
The problem with very wrong mistakes is that they're hard to explain, mostly because most people never make them, so nobody goes trough the bother of correcting them.
So here's a genetics and evolution 101:
>we are DNA
>this DNA duplicates to transmit information
>this DNA is made up of nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorus and some other compounds
>small things called nucleotides are the smallest transmittors of information
>when DNA duplicates, there can be small changes that completely change the genotype, and therefore, good part of the phenotype of a species
>this is called "evolution"
>this is a simple, physical, process
>atoms are not sentient
>they don't talk, don't think, they just hang arround in a deterministic way
>this is called post quantiatism
>theres nothing stopping these atoms from arranging themselves in such a way they make the next individual question his own sanity
This is why I said you might not understand evolution at all.
Unless you believe in divine design, which could explain the incompatibility of the premises
>me
>existing
>questioning my own existance
But this is illogical in many more ways than the previous "argument".
>The mind is both electrical signal and thinking at once; it's sense and reference.
Would be a good point if one didn't rule out the other.
Is the mind a lot of eletronical impulses because it thinks, or does it think because it's a lot of eletronical impulses?
Your answer is predictable, you normally would say the second option is right instead of the first one, but you'd end up accidentally siding with me on this debate. Oops!
>>888731
holy shit you're a fag
I'm here and you can read this right?
>>888702
Did you read anything what I typed?
Do you happen to know the omniscient observer of quantum mechanics has been being debunked by quantum mechanics itself?
Do you know how relevant this information this is to this discussion?
>>888705
Wow. This is very funny.
Not only you did use the argument I predicted you'd use, but also, you failed to read my refutation on it.
Maybe it was too long.
I'm sorry.
Let's keep it shorter.
How about it being put this way:
If you did not know of anything at all, that is, being born without any of the empirical senses (blind, deaf, can't taste or smell, no feel when touching anything), you'd not know of anything.
Nothing would exist.
Therefore you're wrong, and I'm right.
>>888728
This is an excellent argument but thanks to relativistic cosmology, it can now be easily refuted with multiverses and temporal transmutations.
>Bob has not a cancer to this moment
>He is diagnosed
>He is now aware that he has a cancer
>George Ellis's Big Crunch spawns
>All this information is transported to the past
>A new timeline is formed
>It existed all along
You might want to check this before claiming I'm stupid: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/ellis-maartens-maccallum-relativistic-cosmo.pdf
>>888731
>What you said is that the mind would not entitle itself to thinking it does not exist.
I said no such thing. All I am saying is that the mind is the activity of the brain and this can be described in multiple ways.
Your statement was
>What guarantee do I have that you really think, rather than your mind just being the process of several eletronic impulses?
Electrical impulses ARE thinking in the brain, so your question doesn't make sense.
I still fail to see the point of your tangent about evolution.
>Is the mind a lot of eletronical impulses because it thinks, or does it think because it's a lot of eletronical impulses?
I don't think you're using my definition of mind.
>>888737
>I'm here
You aren't.
I'm a solipist.
>>888784
>He is now aware that he has a cancer
So then, it is the act of being informed that he has cancer that causes this new retroactive time line to be produced? What about the doctor himself gaining information that Bob has cancer, but failing to inform him? Does this cause another time line? Does Bob die of cancer in that timeline, given that "Bob's cancer" exists for the doctor but does not exist for Bob himself?
>>888789
the fuck you are, mate
the universe didn't make you a fucking microcosm
just so you can deny evidence there are other microcosms
>>888789
I used to be a solipsist
when I was 7
>>888788
So apparently I made a misunderstanding.
But that misunderstanding is a misunderstanding that you made out of something I said, and that happened because I wasn't clear with my main point that cogito ergo sum is a lot of bullshit.
See, let's start this over.
I started with "What guarantee (...) eletronic impulses."
What I meant with this is that
1) Our brain functions on atoms, eletrons and, to some very limited degree, subparticles
2) Our thinking is a direct result of that
3) Unanimated objects like rocks, computer screens and planets are also made up of these same things
4) These unaminated objects don't think
These 4 premises are widely accepted as being true by most people on Earth.
However it makes no logical sense for them to all be true at the same time.
If rocks are made up of atoms and our thinking is a result of our brains being made up of atoms, then either rocks think or we don't think at all.
To wrap this up, I have two questions for you.
1) What exactly is thinking?
2) If thinking is merely a physical process like all others, then why is it so important?
>>888784
>If you did not know of anything at all, that is, being born without any of the empirical senses (blind, deaf, can't taste or smell, no feel when touching anything), you'd not know of anything.
>Nothing would exist.
>Therefore you're wrong, and I'm right.
In that situation I would lack knowledge of, at least, many things (it's another debate what we can know un-empirically). For the sake of argument, I'll just go along with your deduction that I would know nothing.
It does not follow that "Nothing would exist," in fact your entire argument depends on that. It could be said that I would know nothing, but that of course is not the same as nothing existing, although you seem to think this. Of course, I have to exist in order to know nothing.
>>888806
this nigga is an excellent example of how debate skills work
>>888818
>If rocks are made up of atoms and our thinking is a result of our brains being made up of atoms, then either rocks think or we don't think at all.
Atoms and electrons do not think. Atoms and electrons working together in extremely specific patterns cause thought. Rocks do not think for the same reason humans do not flow like plastic at mantle temperatures. The atoms and electrons are doing different things.
>>888819
>"Nothing would exist,"
I read that as the non-exsistance of your asphia would naturally lead to you having supressed senses
Wow, fucking miracles
>>888821
thanks, I appreciate it
>>888818
I agree with all of those premises.
>If rocks are made up of atoms and our thinking is a result of our brains being made up of atoms, then either rocks think or we don't think at all.
We think because our minds and rocks are made up of different arrangements of atoms. Think back to the dear old Atomists; they said things differ in that they are different arrangements of atoms.
>1) What exactly is thinking?
An activity of the brain
>2) If thinking is merely a physical process like all others, then why is it so important?
Well, that would be a matter of value. I would say that it is important because it is closely tied in with my experience as a human and my sentiments and feelings towards said experience.
>>887932
Duh.
Idk.
Because reasons.
>>887932
Well wouldn't you be a thing? or the fact that you are aware entails something being there at least?
![[HorribleSubs] Hello!! Kiniro Mosaic - 06 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_17.23_[2015.05.10_15.49.54].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lt4Dfvu.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Hello!! Kiniro Mosaic - 06 [1080p].mkv_snapshot_17.23_[2015.05.10_15.49.54].jpg")
>>888784
You seem to be confused. You're unable to form sentences and even make points without resorting to contrived rhetorics.
Also cosmology doesn't mean what you think it means.
>multiverse
>in a GR model
Hilarious.
>temporal transmutations
>transmutations
Literally no one uses this word.
>thinks big crunch is relevant to our particular universe
>thinks big crunch will create another timeline
Now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>887932
There is no why.
Why is this thread full of anime pictures
hibike is fucking SHIT
>>888558
If we assume the answers to be simply what common sense tells you, then why the fuck would philosophy or science be a necessity?
>>888056
Prove any thing isnt mind dependent- go on, i'll wait
>>888425
So do concepts not exist? Does mathematics exist?
>>888852
Then what is it about those particular arrangement of atoms that differentiates it from other arrangements of atoms? Your answers have no explanatory power at all.
>>890506
It is not merely the arrangement of atoms, but also the arrangement of electric pulses. When either is disrupted, (physical trauma or drugs altering firing patterns) thought is disrupted.
ebin perkele kousaka beats the fuck out of slacky fags hot action
>>888819
honoka worst girl
>>887932
>Do things exist?
Strictly speaking, no. There is only flow.
On the narrower perspective of the individual, yes. But they exist interdependently with the observer.
>>890517
Then my calculator is self-aware?
>>890129
you are fucking SHIT
>>889754
Because this is an anime site.
I get the idea that OP is right in saying that a lot of things do not exist. Rocks don't exist because they don't think. Cogito ergo sum. And that makes him a solipist. It's actually starting to make sense now.
>>890535
>
![ca4ab18d-e81e-45f7-94a7-8ab5416c58f7[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pcJbniX.jpg "ca4ab18d-e81e-45f7-94a7-8ab5416c58f7[1].jpg")
>>890807
>Rocks don't exist because they don't think. Cogito ergo sum.
I would say this is bait but I'm sure there's some retard out there that actually believe this.
>>890526
No, because the pulses and atoms of your calculator are not arranged correctly. They are arranged in a format that allows then to accurately calculate inputed values, not to think. For a calculator to be self-aware, it would need atoms and impulses arranged differently in place of / in addition to its current components.
>>887932
>Do things exist?
My observations and the observations of billions before me would almost unanimously say "yes."
>If yes, what exists?
That which can be observed by any physical means, regardless of whether we are currently capable of measuring it. Although admitted, if we are incapable of measuring a "thing" with current physical means, we cannot say for sure that said thing exists, but it does not mean that it cannot.
>If what exists, why does what exist?
By "what" I'm assuming you mean the previously mentioned "thing." And there is no real answer. Physically, it exists because certain atoms coalesced following the natural laws of physics. Metaphysically, none can say for sure, as we are "things" ourselves and have little to no insight the nature of that which is eternal and infinite, which is to say the universe, or deity if you so believe.
>>891818
So what about the arrangement makes brains consciousness? Your argument is like saying "rain only happens when certain clouds are in the sky", well duh, what is it about those clouds then?
>>891865
Depending on your exact definition of conciousness (are animals concious, if so which ones?) it probably has something to do with the frontal lobe and neocortex.
>>891865
That's something that would require further physical study of the human brain and of electrical systems in general. In reference to your analogy, those certain clouds that are capable of rain are similarly incapable of knowing why it is they create rain, barring of course that they are incapable of knowing anything at all.
>>891860
> Observing something by physical means
I'm fairly sure you've no idea what you're talking about.
>>887932
1. I'm not sure
2. I don't know
3. Hmm...
Well, there is my answer. Nice thread btw, OP!
