Can you prove Reality, exists (without refering to reality)?

[juvenissun]

As of know, both my achilles heels hurt.
What do you mean - "you", "I", "life", "physical"? Are you talking about some sort of reality, or is this just non-existent babble in the absence of anything?

I´m either not understanding your question, or I am completely clueless what it has to do with anything.
Are you suggesting that it was a memory back then? What was being memorized, who memorized it? What is a memory, in your understanding?
Are you suggesting that the fact that something is memorized there never was anything?
Are you, by any chance, making the argument that just because everything is in permanent change and transformation there is nothing at all? If so, I fail to see how that follows. For there to be change and transformation there would have to be something.

Please clarify.

Apparently you make a distinction between "existing" and "really existing" (with "really existing" coming with additional standards). Care to clarify?
And what´s next? "Really real existence?" "Truly really real existence?"

And when you ask me to consider "TIME" (no idea if the all-caps is supposed to distinguish it from ordinary "time"), are you arguing from something non-existing?

And just to make sure you are not barking up the wrong tree: I am not arguing that our concepts of reality are necessarily accurate. I am merely arguing against the non-concept that there is nothing at all.

Very simple. Look at a chair in your room. Does it really exist? Or is it just a temporary illusion like that in one of your dreams?

It did not exist before, it will not exist later. So, even you can feel it when you touch it, does it really exist? Did the chair you sat on when you were 3 really exist?

Don't play smart with the words. Think about the issue.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, I find this view particularly surprising coming from a theist.
So, what do we make of the bible? Doesn´t exist (because there exists nothing, anyway)? Um, ok.
What do we make of stories told in the bible? We can forget about them because they never happened (because nothing ever exists, anyway)? Ok.
What do we make of the laws and command given in the bible? Non-existent by default, and pointing to something non-existing, by default?
How could we possibly abstain from doing this or that when nothing exists at all, anyway?
And reiterating your initial example of harm/pain: What is it with all the advice not to inflict harm on others? Completely absurd, obsolete and misleading - because nothing exists anyway?

Walk me through this. Let´s take the sin of theft. What is theft, in the absence of anything existing?

You are not a theist. So you do not understand the essence of theism. This idea of emptiness is, in fact, the theme theology shared by both Christianity and Buddhism.

What really exists is something independent of time. In your world, there is no such thing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is memory physically?

Its physical aspect most likely has to do with the operation of neurons in the brain.

If memory can be physically identified, then God exists without any question.

I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Please elaborate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Very simple. Look at a chair in your room. Does it really exist? Or is it just a temporary illusion like that in one of your dreams?

I have experience with chairs. I am sitting in one now, and not falling to the ground. Is there any good reason I should take the illusion theory seriously? Does it have any evidence in favor of that theory at all? Why should I count it higher than my long experience with chairs?

Please take this reply seriously. I have long pondered this sort of issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I don´t know. You brought it up in defense of the notion that there is absolutely nothing existing. This certainly needs explaining.
And how did the qualifier "physically" suddenly come here?


Huh?

Because I said that memory does not exist. He said it does. So came the question.

 

[juvenissun]

I have experience with chairs. I am sitting in one now, and not falling to the ground. Is there any good reason I should take the illusion theory seriously? Does it have any evidence in favor of that theory at all? Why should I count it higher than my long experience with chairs?

Please take this reply seriously. I have long pondered this sort of issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is not a theory. It is an experience. "Now you have it, and now you don't." That summarized what does the existence mean to you.

I am serious 99% of the time.

 

[juvenissun]

Its physical aspect most likely has to do with the operation of neurons in the brain.



I don't understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Please elaborate.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Memory is not any neurons. Physically, it "might be" something like an electric potential (I don't even know what I am talking about here. But it is something like that). If you try to retrieve it, it will be converted to a tiny electric current and gone. All one might be seeing is a electric pulse shown on a screen.

If you think that is something you remembered as a reality, then so is the idea of God in my head.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is not a theory. It is an experience. "Now you have it, and now you don't."

I experience standing up from a chair, but I have never verified the existence of non-physical chairs seen during my waking life. I have never attempted to sit down in a chair and fall through it to the floor.

So, you are not posing anything corresponding to my experience of the world.

That summarized what does the existence mean to you.

As Aristotle pointed out, to be is to be something. In other words, to exist is to have characteristics. Any proposed entity that has no characteristics whatsoever would have to be viewed as non-existent. It would be a non-entity.

Existence to me does not mean "what I personally believe exists" or "what I personally experience". It means the sum of all entities that exist whether I believe in them or experience them or not. Perhaps the Universe qualifies as Existence, assuming that it contains everything that has characteristics.

Also, I do not limit existence to physicality. That is only one aspect of existence. Mentality is another aspect, although IMV mental powers are dependent on brain-like physical structures and are therefore emergent in the Universe, rather than a basic power that exists everywhere.

So, for me, memories definitely do exist. Subjective experience exists. These things have characteristics, and aren't "nothing".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Memory is not any neurons.

I'm not saying that it is. Memory is an aspect of neural functioning. It isn't the neurons themselves, but is something that the neurons do.

If you think that is something you remembered as a reality, then so is the idea of God in my head.

Yes, the idea of God definitely does exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Very simple. Look at a chair in your room. Does it really exist? Or is it just a temporary illusion like that in one of your dreams?

This is not the question discussed.
The claim in discussion is "There is no reality.", and since the claimer so far refused to define "reality" for purposes of his claim, I am assuming (and said so) that he is using it in the most common definition of "that which exists", IOW I am assuming he is proposing that there is nothing.
That´s what I am arguing against. I am arguing that the assumption that something exists is logically necessary.
I am not arguing for a particular thing to exists, I am not arguing for a particular model of reality.
I am not arguing that chairs exist, or that what we conceptualize as a "chair" is a chair, or something to that effect.

So, again: You are barking up the wrong tree.

When you postulate that it´s an illusion like a dream, you are implicitly assuming something to exist that has or produces this illusion.

Don't play smart with the words. Think about the issue.

Don´t be condescending, don´t make assumptions about my intentions, and on top don´t blame me for your unwillingness or unability to define your terms properly. Thanks.

 

[quatona]

You are not a theist. So you do not understand the essence of theism.

Doesn´t follow. You´d be surprised. However, the topic is not theism vs. non-theism. So please keep your proselytizing in check.

This idea of emptiness is, in fact, the theme theology shared by both Christianity and Buddhism.

Yes, I´m pretty sure there is no need to lecture me on Buddhism. I am familiar with it, and I agree with it in essence.
"Emptiness" is not the same as "there is nothing, there is no reality", though. Emptiness implies there to be something that is empty.

What really exists is something independent of time.

So something does exist, i.e. there is a reality. QED.

In your world, there is no such thing.

You don´t know squat about my world. I suggest you read my posts more carefully and respond to what I write instead of making assumptions about me. Thank you.

 

[The Engineer]

Memory is not any neurons. Physically, it "might be" something like an electric potential (I don't even know what I am talking about here. But it is something like that). If you try to retrieve it, it will be converted to a tiny electric current and gone. All one might be seeing is a electric pulse shown on a screen.

That's like saying, if you remove your hard drive from your computer, you can't read it anymore. This has nothing to do with the pictures of cute kittens on it being more than electric currents, it's simply because you don't have a medium to read it anymore.

Same with memory. Just because humans can't read them without a brain doesn't mean they are anything but neurons firing.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what is interesting, in this discussion so far, is that people are very happy to point to derivatives of reality - their experience, their understanding - as if that somehow proves reality (but not within the rules of the game, which are very quickly considered to be irrelevant).

I would have taken a different approach, I would have said that there are things outside of reality, which properly considered, necessitate that reality exists, because they have the power to create it (since it is easy to assume something outside or above reality, somehow exists in its own right).

I am not going to say one way or the other, whether the conversation is going as I expected it to, as I was largely guessing that there was even enough for discussion, to begin with (some people have already speculated that the conversation brings itself undone at the mere mention of "reality", but I think that is a little unfair).

The definition I am working with is basically "reality is that which exists in accordance with the law of reality, which is that if it exists within the grasp of something else in reality, it is real" You will see from this that I have actually been asking the impossible, as far as men are concerned, since they have only reality to go by - but by the same token, this is fair, against people who would ask the impossible of God, viz., that He prove himself in a way that both evidences His existence and does not violate the freedom of that which He has created, at the same time.

If you feel you are getting the rough end of the stick, in this conversation, I hope you understand, I am not trying to make fools of anyone, who can simply accept that to understand reality requires faith.

 

[The Engineer]

I think what is interesting, in this discussion so far, is that people are very happy to point to derivatives of reality - their experience, their understanding - as if that somehow proves reality (but not within the rules of the game, which are very quickly considered to be irrelevant).

It proves reality, and a lot of people told you how. If you can experience something, then this means at the very least that you must exist. This means that reality, as in the entirety of existence, exists.

I would have taken a different approach, I would have said that there are things outside of reality,

You have no evidence for this.

which properly considered, necessitate that reality exists, because they have the power to create it

Again, evidence?

(since it is easy to assume something outside or above reality, somehow exists in its own right).

So something that is outside of reality somehow magically has to exist for no reason?

I don't think reality, as in the entirety of existence, allows for something to stand outside it, anyway.

I am not going to say one way or the other, whether the conversation is going as I expected it to, as I was largely guessing that there was even enough for discussion, to begin with (some people have already speculated that the conversation brings itself undone at the mere mention of "reality", but I think that is a little unfair).

Why?

The definition I am working with is basically "reality is that which exists in accordance with the law of reality, which is that if it exists within the grasp of something else in reality, it is real"

I've never heard that definition before, it doesn't make much sense to me and it seems pretty arbitrary. I'm also stumbling over the word grasp, because it has several definitions, all of which could be used in your definition of reality:
grasp - definition of grasp by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You will see from this that I have actually been asking the impossible, as far as men are concerned, since they have only reality to go by

Winning an argument by using definitions you just made up is easy.

- but by the same token, this is fair, against people who would ask the impossible of God, viz., that He prove himself in a way that both evidences His existence and does not violate the freedom of that which He has created, at the same time.

I'm not asking for God not to violate my freedom, and I don't see how God presenting evidence of himself would violate my freedom in the first place.

If you feel you are getting the rough end of the stick, in this conversation, I hope you understand, I am not trying to make fools of anyone, who can simply accept that to understand reality requires faith.

I do not accept this, as it is clearly false, and you have been shown why.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would have taken a different approach, I would have said that there are things outside of reality

To me, reality means all that exists. That means that there can't be anything outside of reality, by definition.

necessitate that reality exists, because they have the power to create it (since it is easy to assume something outside or above reality, somehow exists in its own right).

It's just as easy to assume that reality exists in its own right.

The definition I am working with is basically "reality is that which exists in accordance with the law of reality, which is that if it exists within the grasp of something else in reality, it is real"

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. This strikes me as a confused and circular definition.

You will see from this that I have actually been asking the impossible, as far as men are concerned, since they have only reality to go by - but by the same token, this is fair, against people who would ask the impossible of God, viz., that He prove himself in a way that both evidences His existence and does not violate the freedom of that which He has created, at the same time.

Huh? Freedom? What?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

We are talikung about propositional knowledge right (statements being shown to be true). How can I demonstrate "x exists" without being able to use the term "x"? Is that what I am being asked to do?

Yeah, I had the same thought, at least a similar one. Before we can prove reality he'd have to define it for us. And to be fair to the original question, he'd have to define it without referring to reality. Good luck with that.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would have taken a different approach, I would have said that there are things outside of reality

This doesn't parse for me. How is something that exists outside reality?

 

[juvenissun]

I experience standing up from a chair, but I have never verified the existence of non-physical chairs seen during my waking life. I have never attempted to sit down in a chair and fall through it to the floor.

So, you are not posing anything corresponding to my experience of the world.



As Aristotle pointed out, to be is to be something. In other words, to exist is to have characteristics. Any proposed entity that has no characteristics whatsoever would have to be viewed as non-existent. It would be a non-entity.

Existence to me does not mean "what I personally believe exists" or "what I personally experience". It means the sum of all entities that exist whether I believe in them or experience them or not. Perhaps the Universe qualifies as Existence, assuming that it contains everything that has characteristics.

Also, I do not limit existence to physicality. That is only one aspect of existence. Mentality is another aspect, although IMV mental powers are dependent on brain-like physical structures and are therefore emergent in the Universe, rather than a basic power that exists everywhere.

So, for me, memories definitely do exist. Subjective experience exists. These things have characteristics, and aren't "nothing".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Your memory is only your ... yes, memory. It is not even anything you can find by any means. To everyone else, it does not exist at all. If you call that as existence, then God certainly exists.

And, you only live at the very moment, not a minute earlier and not a minute later. That is your "existence".

For me, I call it mirage.

 

[Gottservant]

No one has really taken on the challenge, for some reason. Just prove reality, without referring to reality.

Reality is something that exists to itself.

It can be done, just not with legalistic attributions of reality, from one part of reality to another.

I'm not even setting out to make things unduly hard, think about the fact that until now, you have always thought reality was real "because its real" (as people have abundantly tried to point out)... now, keep believing, but don't say that. Simple!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your memory is only your ... yes, memory. It is not even anything you can find by any means. To everyone else, it does not exist at all. If you call that as existence, then God certainly exists.

I have no evidence to support God's "certain" existence. I do have evidence of my own memory, and other people show external evidence of remembering their past.

And, you only live at the very moment, not a minute earlier and not a minute later. That is your "existence". For me, I call it mirage.

For me, I call that existence (without any scare quotes). That is all existence has to be in order to be fully existence. I fail to see how reality is lacking if past, present, and future don't exist simultaneously (if that even makes sense).


eudaimonia,

Mark