Philosophy Now Forum

Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons. The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

This all depends on what precisely you mean by exist.

Kant distinguished between the phenomenon (all the events of the mind) and the noumenon (everything else).
He held that the noumenon is unknowable in all its details and that all we can know of it is that it is.

I would agree with him there, as the mind, as it is experienced, does not encompass enough to explain its own existence. Hence, there must be something else 'out there' which, at least in part, produces the mind. That part which is directly responsible for the mind I call the 'noumenal brain'; a stripped down definition of brain with none of its biological implications

There are also elements of the mind which slip in and out of our awareness, we always assume them to be there when out of the pinhole gaze of our awareness, but this is somewhat assumptive. We can, however, know from this that there is a part of the mind which is not within our awareness. If you would prefer to reserve the term 'mind' for that which we are aware of then we could perhaps instead say that there is 'stuff' out there which has the potential to arrive within our awareness.

I am not, in any way, arguing that 'things as we experience them' in any manner can be demonstrated to exist 'out there'. If that's all you are trying to say, then I most certainly agree

However, there are also various other ways in which things can be classified as existing, but I tend to mix my epistomology and my ontology.

For example, a unicorn can be said to exist in a number of ways that something self-contradictory (such as the Christian God or a square triangle) cannot be said to exist.

A unicorn could be said to have potentially existed, though archeological evidence is lacking, or to potentially exist should there be a creature exactly as the myths describe living outside of our view, such as on a planet far away, or to exist purely in potentia as something which we may one day create.
This is still, however, conceptual and epistomological and, hence, within the mind with its justification reliant upon some referent being discovered, a referent which can only be found in the mind.

There is another thing I will mention though, namely the multiverse. The way I use the term 'universe' is to describe a discrete set of causally linked elements, i.e. all that part of the noumenon which we could potentially come to influence through our actions, or come to be influenced by through its events. Hence, another 'universe' is inherently something which could never be observed in any manner, even as an element of the mind, because it cannot in any manner make an impression. Hence, such other universes exist purely in potentia, never capable of falsification or verification, or as an impression within the mind. But then, perhaps, still an epistemic, and hence mental, classification of the capability we have to find referents for a concept.

Anybody want to contend?

burden of proof is on you.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons

have you seen any electrons? please show me some.

Jester wrote: have you seen any electrons? please show me some.

Have you seen the far side of the Moon? I'll bet you its there.

I have, it houses a secret soviet base housing legions of zombie stalin clones.

The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist.

But the mind is nothing except experiences of things like chairs. So the chair is nothing outside the mind, and the mind is nothing outside the chair.

So the mind and the chair are so mutually dependent as to be indistinguishable. Does the mind-chair exist? I don't know what your experience is, you only know for yourself. Perhaps you wish to deny even experience?

There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

Conventional wisdome has it that movement can only be perceived through memory - by the comparison between where the object is now and the memory of where it was. And yet memories can only occur as present experiences - after all experience can only occur in the now. How is it possible that a memory and the present occur simultaneously - how does the comparison take place. Well, maybe the lapse of time is the illusion - maybe the present and the past are really contemporary, and movement exists only as a consequence of the illusion. Sages throughout hsitory have spoken of the changless view from eternity - outside of time. Maybe this is the possibility?

Best, Nikolai

John W. Kelly, the burden of proof is on kake. he claims:

show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electron

I want him to show me the electrons, I never saw any

also

Anybody want to contend?

burden of proof is not on us

Jester you sure?

He is arguing against the belief in external stuff. Typically when one argues something exists the burden is on them to prove it. You know how you tell me to prove God exists.

yes, fool. He makes assertions and wants us to disprove them. this is wrong on his part.

Actually he is questioning the assumption that the phenomenon of a chair is necessarily a referent to anything, especially anything resembling the phenomenon of a chair.

The burden of proof is squarely on anyone who defends the thesis that the chair is necessarily a referent.

The burden of proof is squarely on anyone who defends the thesis that the chair is necessarily a referent

show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electron

Yes moron, and I asked him to show me some electrons
then I'l show him a chair perhaps

And what? You failed to read on and see where he said 'electrons don't even exist'.

Short attention span or what

how does he see electrons, then in the next sentence say they dont exist.



he should make up his mind.

I see billions of electron

Because he was developing his account.

Tada.

I mean what, I have to do ALL the work for you?

kake wrote:For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons.

Have you considered going to one of them eye-doctors?

When I look at a chair, I see no electrons at all. I see a chair.

The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

When I look at a chair, I see a chair. I do not see my mind making a structure out of it - the experience is that of seeing a chair. Whatever data processing may happen in my brain is not part of my experience at all.