Your definition of existence and reality?

[Coelho]

I believe reality to exist independantly of humanity.

Well... its a belief shared by many... but its only a belief. I think we will never know for sure if its so or not , because we only percieve reality through our "human-ness", we only percieve the reality as human beings. As there is no way to abandon our human-ness to percieve the reality, there is no way to know for sure if the reality we percieve as humans depends or not of our human condition.



PS. Ok... don Juan teached Castaneda how to percieve the world like a crow does, but i think most people wont even believe or concieve that its possible... so i think this fact is not of much use here...

[slipknotpsycho]

you know i was going to say, my definitions are the same.... but...

i believe in karma, and i can't touch it, or see it.... so i really don't know how to answer that question.....

reality tho, is easy.... anything that can be proved without a doubt.... reality is something you can touch, see, feel, hear, smell or whatever... something that is tangible and right there....

[Hardcore Newbie]

you know i was going to say, my definitions are the same.... but...

i believe in karma, and i can't touch it, or see it.... so i really don't know how to answer that question.....

reality tho, is easy.... anything that can be proved without a doubt.... reality is something you can touch, see, feel, hear, smell or whatever... something that is tangible and right there....

I think that's a good definition and a bad definition, depending on the stance you take.

There are lots of things that exist in reality that we can't sense, like frequencies above 20000hz for hearing, ultraviolet light for sight, but we have instruments to detect them.

But since we're relying on these senses to perceive the world, how trustworthy are they? We're only sensing a small picture of what the world is really like. maybe we trust out senses too much, and the world and reality are entirely different than we perceive it.

[slipknotpsycho]

I think that's a good definition and a bad definition, depending on the stance you take.

There are lots of things that exist in reality that we can't sense, like frequencies above 20000hz for hearing, ultraviolet light for sight, but we have instruments to detect them.

But since we're relying on these senses to perceive the world, how trustworthy are they? We're only sensing a small picture of what the world is really like. maybe we trust out senses too much, and the world and reality are entirely different than we perceive it.

but those can still be proved.... i'm sure you know what i meant....

[Coelho]

but those can still be proved.... i'm sure you know what i meant....

Yes... but we only can search and try to prove the existence of things we think that exist.
If someone dont even concieve the possibility of existence of something, they will never try to prove or disprove that this thing exists or not.
So, our senses and our minds limits what we search for, and so, limit what we actually can know.

[Reefer Rogue]

I think the world (universe) would continue to exist regardelsss of me presence inside of it. We are in time. There was a beginning, we are in the middle and eventually, there shall be an end. An end to each and every one of us, one by one, day by day.

[WeedTillDeath]

Also remember that there are different phases of reality. We have physical reality, ie we can see, touch, feel, smell, etc... We have mental reality, a persons perception of reality is dependent on a persons ability and/or inability to think. And there is also metaphysical reality, which is something derived from emotion and feeling (cannot be proven). Our mental perception of the world, along with our physical surroundings and our spiritual opinions can all change reality for each individual. Which is why the answer to the question will never be solved. I, for example, will not believe in something until it has been proven, others may find it quite easy to believe in things they cannot see. Reality is relative.

[Kn1vez]

To me reality can be studied in a lab. Take for example quantum physics: Quantum scientists will tell you that if you claim to know anything about quantum physics you really know nothing about quantum, however it is still studied in a lab-proving its reality. Gravity and magnetism can be studied in a lab. All things we can't see but know exist. Not to say there aren't things we haven't discovered yet. But I certainly am not going to believe it until its discovered and studied.

Quantum Physicists quote the Heisenberg uncertainty principle when they say that to some degree, you can know the position of an electron, but you cannot know its velocity. Or, you can know its velocity, but not its position. You will always be unsure of it, you can never be certain, because an electron can act like a wave of energy, or a particle with mass. Electrons/Electricity can bounce off objects like insulators (i.e., rubber around a wire), or act like energy waves (i.e., light bulbs).

As for perceptions of reality, such things are subjective, as anyone who has had a vivid dream can tell you. Most people will see reality in terms of their own experience, a subjective viewpoint, or an emotional one. The best way to know how you feel about reality, or to know if something is real, is to look at a situation that DOES NOT AFFECT YOU.

You will be less interested in such an event, i.e., the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it. However, you still retain the option of seeing if the tree fell or not. Now, whether or not it affects you in the purest sense is debatable. You still had to take up your own time to see if the tree fell or not, and what if you had gotten hurt in the forest? It would seem more "real," would it not?

Even when we observe the stars we cannot be certain of a star's position, because light bends when it is near gravity. So, all of our perceptions of reality are subjective.

I cannot think of a single way to objectively or logically prove
that I myself exist.

We can, however, prove existence in various contexts, save for the ultimate context - Identity. That is the real question, does my IDENTITY exist, do I have meaning?

I could prove that I exist in at least one mathematical dimension by using my finger to connect two dots on a paper. That proves I exist one dimensionally. If I stand outside and I have a shadow, that proves that I have at least two dimensions. If I can drink water, and hold volume, that proves I exist in three dimensions. But how satisfying is that? Not much.

I think that when we ask ourselves how we perceive existence, We are also asking, in the philosophical sense, do we exist, do we have a purpose?

If I had to ask If I had a purpose, I would say yes. And that purpose is to improve myself.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

we define existence in our own ways with our own actions; our actions are the deffenitions of our (personal) existance(s).