Can you trust your senses. Do you really know that what you see, feel and hear are true. Iv read books my whole life relating to this topic. Ones that come to mind are Jonathan Seagull, Illusions and the holographic universe. MageGreyWolf also sent some interesting links on this same subject.
Wow thanks for creating this great topic. I have talked about this to people before: Just because you see and hear and feel things doesn't mean that that is reality....like it is the reality you have come to know, but it could be a complete facade, or simulation, or test or whatever you want to call it. Computers are progressing very quickly and someday we may be able to simulate our own solar system as well.
It seems like many people become hostile when you tell them that whats in front of them could not be whats really there.
I always say that humans look for patterns, science is just our way of categorizing what we see into patterned behaviors and equations. Many people like to say that "ya it's a fact because we have science and equations and studies to describe it" and many religious people like to say "yeah its real because the bible tells us the story and details of how the world happened" ....we really don't know either way....just because we have gathered a some info does no imply that that's the only thing to observe.
Is everything to be taken for what we view it as? No.
Our eyes were grown during evolution, for one use and that is to perceive things on our wave length that our atoms cannot pass through. that's why there is nothing we cannot view that we can interact on a physical basis with.
the truth is, not only are we here, so are many, many, other things we have no possible way of viewing.
What's that philosophy where if it isn't in your view/isn't subject to your senses atm then you can't be sure it's real?
It's a form of idealism. That particular view has quite a few different theories and philosophers who have thought that way. Russell talked about sensibilia, or potential sensory experience. Berkeley, though, I think is the specific philosopher you're thinking of. But he had an interesting definition of existence where if I was in the room looking at the desk then I could see it. Making counterfactual claims like this of existence, though, is problematic. Sometimes this view is called Phenomenalism, but I don't really like the term or how it lumps these very different views together under one label.
Our eyes were grown during evolution, for one use and that is to perceive things on our wave length that our atoms cannot pass through.
Well thats deffo what the deal is with us and, I guess, most things on this planet, and I quite like thinking this way too.
Are we really here? Yes.
In one way or another we are, but thats not quite what Im questioning. Even if we were a simulation inside a simulation we would exist to some degree. Superman exists to some degree. Even the most impossible idea in my head exists in some way. so im kinda picking apart the idea of what we do and dont know. Which is why this...
Is everything to be taken for what we view it as? No.
is mucho more important.
It seems like many people become hostile when you tell them that whats in front of them could not be whats really there.
Too true. I understand because I have felt the uneasy grip on reality slip but, as Iv said before, I realised I quite like the way my senses give me info and I quite like feeling solid and sane. But I would also quite like to be able to shoot kikass beams of doom outta my eyes with no side effects (xept the bubbling death of my enemies mwahahahahaaaa).
Berkeley had an interesting definition of existence where if I was in the room looking at the desk then I could see it. Making counterfactual claims like this of existence, though, is problematic.
I would agree, and doesnt solve the problem of if, or even how, we are here. Reminds me of that matter shooting experiment, when the matter was observed it went straight thru the two slits and when not observed it acted like a wave. which leads back to this
Is everything to be taken for what we view it as? No.
Whew... thats my essay for the night. Im going to play with a Monomachine. And remember kids, in philosophy, there are no answers, only questions.
The question is not whether we are real, but whether our lives our worth living. We can control our lives, making them worth living.That is all that is important.
People what are we feeling hearing seeing tasting and many other things and why is everything so unpredictable? Like if a gangster shoots you on the side of the road what caused it?
Yep or if a terrorist bombs your home or you get thrown in jail for false charges what would th point of the computer doing that to your brain if we are just brains in jars
There have been some studies in the past few years showing that there is a high probability that this universe is a simulation
....explain these studies? xD
Aha... but without philosophy many of the great sciences may have never gotten started. Einstein may never have followed up his dream of ridind on a sunbeam. Imagion he said "there is no solid basis for my dream and therefore I will not make E=MC2 for the good people of earth to put in an atom bomb"
Maybe science is just another problem we have.
Ignorance is bliss.
Would the world not be perfect if everyone was in an oblivious state of perma-christianity? A perfect society? Possibly...maybe not knowing the truth is better...
This is a good topic, reminds me of the Matrix. What if what we perceive, feel, and hear is wrong? What if we are actually grown organisms whose energy is used to power world conquering machines but are relieved from the agony by living in a pseudo world which actually is our own...
