[arkain101]

The question is, in scientific terms, what exists and how do we know that it does exist?

Let's discuss what exists, and how and why it does.

I believe this can be broken down into two categories.
1)What our senses can tell us exists
2)What reasoning, mathematics, and experimental data can tell us


Starting with #1, one way we can prove things exist is through our sensory capabilities. If we can see it (sight), touch it (spacial awareness), smell it (scent), feel it (texture touch), hear it (sound), taste it, then we can know that it exists. Why? I think if it can affect us, then it exists.


The other is when we exclude all our sensory methods. How then can we test and define that something exists?

One could say, we know something exists if it has the ability to affect other things that exist. Say what?

Let's try this again. What exists is, that which can have an effect on that which can have an effect on those things that produce effects on other things that have effects on others.

If I try to describe the universe when excluding the awareness produced by senses, that is, to exclude the consciousness, I end up with trying to explain that which is not absolute. For example, Let's say I know an object exists because it can have an effect on another object. This lets us know it exists but it does not define how. Or, I know light exists because it has an effect on an atom. But why do I know that atom exists? Because it produces energy?

Do we have nothing absolute to fall back on as to be positive? Even if we had a fundamental particle, in what way can we prove that it exists without falling into the trap of producing more questions?


The problem is, when something = something it is, duplicating the obvious. 1 = 1, which is to say 1 = 1, did I flip the numbers around? it is impossible to tell, and the whole of the equation simply means 1.


This takes me to a final query, When studying the physics of the universe, what are we studying? Things seperate of our senses or things produced by our senses?

Is there a field of study that truly excludes our senses? I believe this could be quantum mechanics (quantum material), and that may be why we can not understand it, that is, it behaves in ways that our senses disagree with.

This topic may jump around a little but let's discuss what exists, and

[modest]

Originally Posted by arkain101

The question is, in scientific terms, what exists and how do we know that it does exist?

[...]

1)What our senses can tell us exists
2)What reasoning, mathematics, and experimental data can tell us

Immanuel Kant said (and I agree):

Originally Posted by Kant

All our knowledge begins with the senses

Without them we would have no link to the natural world and knowledge of it would be impossible. Of course, this does not mean we need to observe each and every thing that we reason exists. The rest of Kant’s quote:

Originally Posted by Kant

All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.

This indicates to me that a person’s ability to reason allows them to deduce the existence of something they may have never personally experienced.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Starting with #1, one way we can prove things exist is through our sensory capabilities. If we can see it (sight), touch it (spacial awareness), smell it (scent), feel it (texture touch), hear it (sound), taste it, then we can know that it exists. Why? I think if it can affect us, then it exists.

Some forms of empiricism go as far as to claim that we can have no knowledge of the existence of objects outside ourselves—that we can’t know these objects in and of themselves. All our knowledge and understanding is of sensory perception, and that perception is all that we can prove. They say we can’t truly know an object, we can only know our perception of such an object.

For example, if we see and feel a raindrop then it is not the properties of the raindrop we are proving, but only the properties of our sight and touch which create a mental representation separate from whatever a raindrop really may or may not be. This is known as Phenomenalism or Subjective Idealism of which George Berkeley was a famous proponent.

I do not personally subscribe to this philosophy.

Originally Posted by arkain101

The other is when we exclude all our sensory methods. How then can we test and define that something exists?

One could say, we know something exists if it has the ability to affect other things that exist. Say what?

If I try to describe the universe when excluding the awareness produced by senses, that is, to exclude the consciousness, I end up with trying to explain that which is not absolute.

To completely “exclude all our sensory methods” or “exclude the awareness produced by senses” would make any determination about material existence impossible. Some things are not *directly* observable by the 5 human senses. A good example is radio waves. They are, as you say, found to exist by their effects—but, this doesn’t mean our senses are being excluded in the process. As with the case of radio waves, we are using our ears to listen to the radio to determine the waves exist.

Originally Posted by arkain101

For example, Let's say I know an object exists because it can have an effect on another object. This lets us know it exists but it does not define how. Or, I know light exists because it has an effect on an atom. But why do I know that atom exists? Because it produces energy?

Do we have nothing absolute to fall back on as to be positive? Even if we had a fundamental particle, in what way can we prove that it exists without falling into the trap of producing more questions?

The problem is, when something = something it is, duplicating the obvious. 1 = 1, which is to say 1 = 1, did I flip the numbers around? it is impossible to tell, and the whole of the equation simply means 1.

It is a conundrum, I agree. Nothing can be seen or said to exist in isolation and nothing can be seen or said to exist apart from observation. Philosophers might say that the one “absolute to fall back on” that you’re looking for is expressed by René Descartes in 1637: “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am)”.

Originally Posted by Descartes

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

-Descartes,

To put this in modern parlance, think of being in the Matrix (a computer simulation where everything that looks real is actually a simulated deception), nothing that such a person observes can be proved to actually exist in the common understanding of the word 'exist'. The only absolute that such a person can prove is their own existence. If the person can question their own existence, or the existence of anything else, then they must exist.

Originally Posted by arkain101

This takes me to a final query, When studying the physics of the universe, what are we studying? Things seperate of our senses or things produced by our senses?

Is there a field of study that truly excludes our senses? I believe this could be quantum mechanics (quantum material), and that may be why we can not understand it, that is, it behaves in ways that our senses disagree with.

It is possible (and even very probable) that physics describes the universe as it would be without human observation. But, I can’t think how this could be proved. Ultimately, testing the laws of physics is done with human observations—so, it’s impossible to take ourselves completely out of the equation.

I believe this would be true with quantum mechanics as well. The state of a quantum mechanical system which can be measured is called an observable. It is only through measuring and observing that we can infer the existence of anything quantum mechanical.

~modest

[Rade]

Originally Posted by modest

Immanuel Kant said (and I agree)
Originally Posted by Kant
All our knowledge begins with the senses

I do not agree with Kant here. I think it is logically true that knowledge cannot begin with the senses. To say one "knows" implies that first must be a 'thing' to know. Knowledge must begin with some'thing' that exists (let us call it an ontological element--this thing that exists) that senses can perceive that are given to consciousness to process as knowledge. In other words, existence takes priority over consciousness. Kant is the grand master of the flawed philosophic position in history of philosophy of the primacy of consciousness over existence.

I like this statement much better than Kant's

Originally Posted by Franz Brentano

.."every mental phenomenon includes something as object within itself"

My answer to the OP question--"what exists", is that "existence exists". This is known as an axiomatic concept--it does not require 'proof'--it is the basis of all philosophic 'proof'. The relationship between what exists (metaphysics) and how to know what exists (epistemology) derives from realization that consciousness not only functions to identify what exists external to it, consciousness itself exists--it is a faculty with a specific identity.

Consciousness has a job within living things, just as stomach and spleen and liver and heart etc.
Consciousness is not metaphysically active, it does not create what enters into it, it transforms in the same way stomach takes food molecules that pass though it and transforms them, or the heart takes blood that flows through it and provides energy to it. Consciousness is epistemologically active--it processes things that exists that flow into it via the senses and uses these ontological elements to form concepts. So, we can say stomach transforms matter, heart transforms energy, consciousness transforms information--simplistic but it gets the point across.

[Thunderbird]

For a thing to “exist”, which means perceived, it has to be assembled by consciousness in space time.

Consciousness is difficult to define but its primary tenant is that it exist as a point in space and time.

This point creates divisions, dualities, cycles and relationships.

Without the starting point observer in space time there are no divisions dualities, cycles and relationships.

Therefore outside of an observer is all time, all space at once.... infinity.

[Pyrotex]

This more or less agrees with much of the above, but I point you in the direction of Alfred Korzybski, famous Polish-American philosopher, and originator of "General Semantics".

Basically, he said that we do not and cannot have direct access to the objects of Reality (whetever they may be). Our minds have direct access only to the electrical/chemical signals from our senses. Our minds use that information to construct a simulacrum of the external Reality. We conduct our very lives inside the sim-Reality we construct. And as we on-goingly live and learn, we on-goingly construct our sim_Reality.

The success of our lives depends in an obvious way upon the high degree of correlation between real-Reality and sim-Reality.

Given the fact that the first proto-sim-Realities were being constructed prior to the Cambrian Explosion, we can make an Evolutionary argument that the degree of correlation is indeed very high, but only within the superposition of all sensory domains. In other words, our sim-Reality is near perfect to the extent of that which we can see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and kiness*. So, our sim-Reality works almost perfectly for baseballs traveling at 50 mph, but doesn't work at all for protons traveling at 50% of the speed of light.

*kiness, v. (kin-ess') = made-up word intended to reflect our ability to sense physical kinesthetic properties such as force, mass, weight, accelleration, speed, tension, body position, limb placement, etc.

Korzybski called our sim-Reality "the Map", and the real-Reality "the Territory". He coined the famous phrase "The Map is not the Territory" which became one of the core philosophical principals buttressing General Semantics. To make a long story short, the Map is constructed of temporal sequences of sensory memories/images, and of semantic structures.

That the Territory "exists" cannot be refuted. Walk off a cliff or drive your car into a tree. The consequences are quite real, both in the Map and the Territory. You might even speak of the Territory as "existence" itself. Existence exists. Self-evident axiom.

That the Map "exists" cannot be refuted. The Map is, in a very real sense, the Mind. I have one. Do you?

What can we KNOW of the Territory (real-Reality)? Damn near anything. Everything if you give us time enough. It's just a matter of devising the right experiments, that will generate the right data, that can be absorbed by our senses, which will enhance the correlation of our Maps. So, we can UNDERSTAND parts of the Territory that we can never experience or even sense. But that knowledge and understanding will be constructed of semantic structures. We cannot access Reality directly.

You were born into your Map. You will live your entire life in your Map. The only reality you will ever know is your Map. You will die when your Map fragments and fades.

So it behooves you to build the very best and the most accurate and complete Map that you possibly can.

Stop wasting your time jacking off with numerology, astrology, alien abductions, past-life regressions, Bigfoot, and right-wing conspiracy theories.

[modest]

It's been quite a while since I've read something explained so well, or that I agree with more. I'll have to spread around some Christmas cheer before "giving it to Pyro again", hence the open acclaim. Very exceptional post!

~modest

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

This more or less agrees with much of the above, but I point you in the direction of Alfred Korzybski, famous Polish-American philosopher, and originator of "General Semantics".....

Really great post Pyro, the best explanation of reality I have ever read (except for the part about aliens, get with the program dude! And everyone knows those damn right wing conspirators are ruining the world, or left wing or west wing.) anyway, I really learned something here, thanks.

[Pyrotex]

Thanks everybody! I'm glad you found that interesting if not enlightening.

The NOR (Nature of Reality) is a fascinating subject and has been discussed since the Dawn of Recorded History. Unfortunately, the attempt to combine discussions of NOR with theology brought progress pretty much to its knees for 1,000 years. Then DeCartes started the conversation again, and that eventually led us to Kant and Korzybski.

The NOR cannot be addressed without first discriminating the Human Mind, the organ that is attempting to understand the NOR. In fact, the Mind and the NOR have a kind of background/foreground relationship with each other. It's an Escher sort of thing, really.

DeCartes actually pointed us in the wrong direction by suggesting that the Mind was separate from Body. But at least he got us moving. Mind is indeed an aspect of Body, or at least the brain within the Body, making the Mind a subset of the NOR. Infinite regression, anyone?

The bottom line (from Korzybski's POV) is that the Mind does not observe the WOT (World Out There). It does not interact with Absolute Reality. The Mind is sequestered deep within a living blob of pink Jello, sealed inside a rock hard shell of bone. Nothing, but nothing gets to the Mind -- except for a very few neurological channels. And they do not carry substance or images. They carry data. Light hammers the retina, a jackhammer hammers the ear, a hammer hammer hammers the thumb. Cells react by sending unintelligible electrical signals.

Unintelligible to all except the brain. We haven't a clue what the code is.

The brain does not interpret this data. Surprised? There is no "interpreter" in the brain. The data is dumped (in real time) into a bubbling cauldron of signals and memories and cellular chemistry. That's from an "external" POV. But from the Mind's POV, what is happening is that experiences with the WOT are being recreated in the Map. Added to the Map. Experienced within the Map by the point of consciousness, the "I" within the Map, which is itself just another item within the Map.

All animal brains have stored temporal sequences of sensory memories/images. But only humans (??) also build a Map out of semantic structures. These are the "Lego Blocks" of the Mind and of the Map. Think of them as symbols, or even proto-symbols. They are at their most primitive just electro-chemical patterns. But they code. Not for sensations or emotions, but for relationships -- purported relationships -- among the purported "things" that make up the WOT, the Territory. And these codes are usable in a way vaguely analogous to the letters of our alphabet. Alone, they mean little. Arranged in the proper way, and they tell you that the object you are about to sit on is a "piece of furniture" -- also a "sofa" -- also "the sofa your mother bought on her first anniversary in Lansing, Michagan" -- also "the sofa that aunt Harriette is sitting on".

Don't think of semantic structures as just words. They are languaging. No. They are Languaging, the very atoms out of which Language (in all its forms) is derived. The human brain learned how to take hard-wired memories, with a one-to-one correspondence with some event, break them loose from their moorings, and use them like Guttenberg used movable type. It takes many, many of these atomic structures to make a "word", linking that word to sequences of tongue movements, certain marks we make on paper, linking it to past events, to concepts and ideas, to other words used in similar ways, or in similar circumstances -- an infinite spider-web of linkages extending all the way to the event horizon of our Mind. And these webs connect events and concepts to form something new and wonderful: Meanings.

From Korzybski's POV, the Mind is a Meaning Generator.

And at any given time, our Mind (from yet another POV) sits like an million-legged spider on a million such crisscrossing spider-webs (all made of semantic structures) where each leg keeps track of the Mind's "place" on that particular web.

From its own POV, the Mind is merely experiencing Reality. The WOT. The Territory. You're sitting on the sofa next to aunt Harriette, who still remembers the crush you had on her when you were fourteen.

Sound like the Matrix? It's no accident. The Kowalski Brothers read Korzybski.

It is the Matrix. It is the Mind. It is the Map. It is all constructed of temporal sequences of sensory memories/images, and of semantic structures. The sofa is a semantic structure. So is aunt Harriette. So is that memory of you spying on her in the bathtub when you were fourteen. So is the sunshine coming through the window. So is your entire life and all you hold most precious.

It is a simulacrum. A fantastic, dizzying, real-as-real reconstruction of the WOT, the Territory. There is nothing to be alarmed at. There is nothing wrong with this. It is how the brain works. You do not "have" a Map -- the Map "has" you. You live in the Map.

The only danger, as Korzybski warns us again and again, is constructing a Map that does not correspond adequately with the Territory. If you believe the cliff edge is half a mile in front of you when it is only one step past that hedge of prairie grass in front of you, then you have a real problem. If you are a Victorian lady of 17 who has been seduced, the resulting horror and guilt may lead you to suicide or a nunnery. Because you have "Meanings" that demand no less. If you are a 19th Century Samoan lady of 17 who has been seduced, you're probably running to brag to your parents and younger siblings. Different "Meanings". Different webs of semantic structures. Different Maps to live in.

Who says words make no difference. They make ALL the difference. The Territory may supply us the physical events that generate the sensory inputs to our brain. But our Mind gives those inputs Meaning at every level: the instantive experiential level, the associative level, the labeling level, the significance assignment level, the Meaning level. All done with semantic structures.

"What do I care for your pain and suffering? Pain is just input data from the senses. Learn to control your inputs, and you will become master of the output." Chairman Chiang, Alpha Centauri

"Take an algorithm of arbitrary complexity. Feed it sense data. Take the output, square it, and feed it back into the algorithm, along with another set of sense data. What do you have? The basic operating principal of the human mind." Acadamecian Zakharov, Alpha Centauri

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

Thanks everybody! I'm glad you found that interesting if not enlightening.

The NOR (Nature of Reality) is a fascinating subject and has been discussed since the Dawn of Recorded History. Unfortunately, the attempt to combine discussions of NOR with theology brought progress pretty much to its knees for 1,000 years. Then DeCartes started the conversation again, and that eventually led us to Kant and Korzybski...

Uh huh, tell me more about your Aunt Harriet and your self at 14..... another great post, I honestly never made the connection between the "matrix" and what we experience but it does make sense.

[Pyrotex]

We're gonna hafta start a separate thread about aunt Harriette. Maybe one with asbestos walls??