Ship of Fools: Do You Exist?

Thread: Do You Exist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026688

Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :

Behavourists say Consciousness is an illusion. Most of these theories neglect the fact that we spend time asleep. And clearly something interesting happens when we wake up. Do you exist part-time?

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

Is it even possible to be aware of your non-existence? Surely awareness is a pretty good indication that something is there knowing that it exists.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Behavourists say Consciousness is an illusion. Most of these theories neglect the fact that we spend time asleep. And clearly something interesting happens when we wake up. Do you exist part-time?

Repeating myself: give me a reference to a behaviourist who believes this. Behaviourists believe that consciousness cannot be scientifically studied, not that it doesn't exist. There is more to life than science, including consciousness.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell
Do you exist part-time?

Whom are you asking? [Confused]

[ 13. January 2014, 17:37: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Frank Mitchell: Do you exist part-time?

Y s.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
And clearly something interesting happens when we wake up.

Er, no. Not unless you count staring blearily at the clock, muttering something unprintable, and getting ready for the morning journey to work.

quote:
Do you exist part-time?

It really depends what you mean by "exist". Please define what you mean by "exist" and let's see if anyone here feels that definition fits them.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

I thought Descartes solved this problem. [Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I thought Descartes solved this problem.

Although some people think that he ballsed it up, by starting with 'I think ...' or 'je pense', since this assumes what is to be demonstrated.

Another criticism is that since there are thoughts, one might not assume that there is a thinker. In other words, Descartes should start with 'thinking is occurring'.

But many people have criticized it, including Hume, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. I think.

[ 13. January 2014, 18:14: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
... And clearly something interesting happens when we wake up. Do you exist part-time?

Mostly what happens to me when I'm asleep is more interesting than what happens when I wake up.

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Do you exist part-time?

Who wants to know?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Mood altering substances and late nights were the source of this question in the past. The threat of non-existence, such as physical pain or gasping for breath usually phenomenologically convinces that the answer is yes.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I thought Descartes solved this problem.

If I only think part-time, then I only exist part-time.

So the simple answer is yes, and some of us more (or less) than others.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I thought Descartes solved this problem.
Although some people think that he ballsed it up, by starting with 'I think ...' or 'je pense', since this assumes what is to be demonstrated.

Another criticism is that since there are thoughts, one might not assume that there is a thinker. In other words, Descartes should start with 'thinking is occurring'.

But many people have criticized it, including Hume, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. I think.

OK then. I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. Is that better?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If I only think part-time, then I only exist part-time.

No, because things exist that don't think at all. By that logic anything that didn't think, like your bed or alarm clock, couldn't exist because they didn't think.

OTOH, it does depend on your definition of existence. Many inanimate objects are perceivable by your five senses, which is what are often used to determine existence. However, there are things that are not perceivable by your senses which still exist.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I thought Descartes solved this problem.
Although some people think that he ballsed it up, by starting with 'I think ...' or 'je pense', since this assumes what is to be demonstrated.

Another criticism is that since there are thoughts, one might not assume that there is a thinker. In other words, Descartes should start with 'thinking is occurring'.

But many people have criticized it, including Hume, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. I think.
OK then. I think that I think, therefore I think that I am. Is that better?

It's quite brilliant, and cuts through centuries of turgid waffle. It doesn't show that you exist, but for God's sake, I'm not greedy. Yes, you are; no, I'm not, yes, you are. Hey, who's boss around here? We are!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Film yourself when asleep - I think you'll find you're still there.

Odd question.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I think Frank M is going with the old "does something exist when it's not perceived" argument.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I can hear the old bishop* calling out in a quavery voice, esse est percipe, to be is to be perceived. Often said to be irrefutable, but useless.

*Berkeley.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Interesting, if very general topic.

Here is a link to some info re Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

And what the heck are qualia and do they exist.

[Warning. This stuff can do your head in if you are unfamiliar with it.]

"I" may be just as controversial as "think".

Semi-independent agencies in the brain. Some kind of "committee system" with no permanent "overseeing chair"?

Might be something like that.

One of my sons is a Dennett fan and I read the book at his prompting some time ago. Told him it confused me, but I still thought Descartes had provided a more accessible explanation, regardless of the "I" problem.

He groaned, wondered if I'd fully grasped Dennett. Tongue in cheek, I asked, "How am I supposed to answer that given I might not be an "I"; then "which Dennett anyway?" and "who are you?" We had a good laugh and moved on to talk about how his research was going.

Have you read Dennett, Frank? Or has anyone else? I'm not sold on his views but they are nicely provocative. Make us think. Whoever "us" are and "think" is.

[ 13. January 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

yup and Anthropologists say we are monkeys and Scientologists say we came from space.

I am not an unconscious space monkey!

I just do a really good impression of one.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Barnabas62

Yes, Dennett's book is interesting, although have you heard the joke title it is given, 'Consciousness Explained Away'? Or, more specifically, that he dismisses the notion of subjectivity as non-scientific. Well, maybe, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

This is the old problem of third person and first person - science normally conducted in the former. But I don't live in the third person.

Now, qualia, I have had many discussions about them, and I think it is an interesting topic.

I usually enjoy Chalmers' films and articles, the long-haired one.

Posted by Grokesx (# 17221) on :

quote:
Yes, Dennett's book is interesting, although have you heard the joke title it is given, 'Consciousness Explained Away'?

To which Dennett says something like you can only explain consciousness in terms of things that aren't conscious, or else it's not an explanation. To explain is to explain away.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:

quote:
Yes, Dennett's book is interesting, although have you heard the joke title it is given, 'Consciousness Explained Away'?
To which Dennett says something like you can only explain consciousness in terms of things that aren't conscious, or else it's not an explanation. To explain is to explain away.

I sometimes think that it's a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. But I only think that some of the time.

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

Frank Mitchell, you don't like behaviorism?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If minds don't exist, who the hell is doing the science?

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

If consciousness can't be measured, how do we know it exists?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Fool on the hill: If consciousness can't be measured, how do we know it exists?

If happiness can't be measured, how do we know it exists?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I like this. If now can't be measured, how do we know it sucks?

Posted by Fool on the hill (# 9428) on :

Happiness can't be proven.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

But we all want it.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

OK, that was fun! But more Circusy than Purg. Let's try to keep it Purg if we can, or if we can't the thread will drop out of sight soon enough.

There are more options than just Dennett and anti-Dennett, or Descartes and anti-Descartes. Not saying you want to go there, or have to go there, of course.

[ 13. January 2014, 21:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But we all want it.

Nice reply. But not true - I know people who positively abhor it.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
Do you exist part-time?

That depends what bit you think is 'me'.

My computer still sits here when it's not turned on, and the hard drive still has all the necessary information for getting the thing up and running again, but until I press the 'ON' button it looks remarkably like the bits and pieces of former computer in the spare room that are incapable of whirring into operation again.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

I kind like the fact that the bacteria in my bowel outnumber the cells containing my DNA. So I am a symbiote.

But I try not to let them speak on my behalf and just quietly, in the dark of night, I am afraid they will discover democracy.

To answer the OP, we exist.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
And clearly something interesting happens when we wake up.

In your own case, what would that be?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The thing is, there is a strong argument that existence is all in our mind - because we only relate to anything outside our mind through our senses, the only thing we know exists is our own mind. Everything else is a construction made by our minds based on our senses.

The problem is that we have to define "existence". It doesn't really matter how we define it, within reason, but it will serve to answer the question as to whether I exist and whether you exist.

Then again, everyone I interact with on the ship is only an illusion, a facade. I am not saying it is not an accurate presentation of how you see yourself, but is it you? That is getting into my favorite philosopher Baudrillard, and hyperreality.

But in the end, it depends on how you define your terms. I define my terms so you the concept referred to as I has the attribute defined as existence, and everything else is merely the product of a deranged imagination. I have yet to work out if that deranged imagination also belongs to the concept of "I".

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

My computer still sits here when it's not turned on, and the hard drive still has all the necessary information for getting the thing up and running again, but until I press the 'ON' button it looks remarkably like the bits and pieces of former computer in the spare room that are incapable of whirring into operation again.

Yes, but when you are asleep you are not switched off. You are still breathing, digesting, dreaming etc etc. Just a small part of you is resting, because it needs to.

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I kind like the fact that the bacteria in my bowel outnumber the cells containing my DNA. So I am a symbiote.

But I try not to let them speak on my behalf and just quietly, in the dark of night, I am afraid they will discover democracy.

To answer the OP, we exist.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Echo the [Overused]

for Patdys's brilliant and funny observation. I'm not going to forget that in a hurry. Worth having this thread for that post alone.

Posted by Frank Mitchell (# 17946) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Frank Mitchell, you don't like behaviorism?

I read Skinner's book, and Pavlov's later studies, the ones quoted by William Sargant. Pavlov's dogs had more sophisticated behaviour-patterns than Skinner's pigeons. Sargant's observations on Brainwashing and Religious Conversion suggest that humans are more sophisticated still. And all these results seem to be affected by unnatural conditions.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I'm attracted to Aristotle's dictum that "Man is by nature a Political (Social) animal", and that Decartes' formulation, "Cogito Ergo Sum", does not take that properly into consideration. It seems to me that my existence is not demonstrated by my own private self-consciousness but by the acknowledgement of my existence by others: Sumus Ergo Sum.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

If only my creditors believed I didn't exist.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Frank no longer exists as far as The Ship is concerned.

[ 14. January 2014, 14:45: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I'm attracted to Aristotle's dictum that "Man is by nature a Political (Social) animal"

I can't find the quote now, but I'm not sure that it is correct to summarise Aristotle like this. For him, politics (in the sense of running the polis) was the ultimate and master science.

A man was only truly a man when he was engaging with his civic responsibility for his polis, according to Aristotle.

I'm not sure that is the same point you are making about humankind being quintessentially social. I don't see that Aristotle really thought like that - or at least, not in my reading of his Ethics or Politics.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm leaving this open for a while, despite its origins. Maybe too wide a theme, but not a daft thread and some interesting comments. Just remember, no Frank to interact with.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

In case anyone is interested, the 'political animal' thing comes from Aristotle's Politics Book 1, part II

Posted by Clotilde (# 17600) on :

I couldn't help but think of this quote from Alice through the Looking Glass. Alice, Tweedledum and Tweedledee encounter the Red King smoring:

quote:
`He's dreaming now,' said Tweedledee: `and what do you think he's dreaming about?'

Alice said `Nobody can guess that.'

`Why, about YOU!' Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. `And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?'

[the rest can be found here]

[edited long-ish quote]

[ 14. January 2014, 22:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Clotilde I'm sorry to cut that short, but we get nervous when long chunks of anything get quoted. It might be less than x% of the book, and the book might be in the public domain (I'm honestly not sure), but Ship's policy is to err on the safe side, and that felt a bit long to me. I've added a link to somewhere the rest of the quote can be found.

/hosting

[ 14. January 2014, 22:09: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If minds don't exist, who the hell is doing the science?

Two white mice from another dimension, the computer Deep Thought, and another computer that includes life in its very matrix?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Screw Descartes.

I'm sleepy* therefore I am.

__________________
I can prove I am sleepy by the fact that I am sleepy. I have met all pre-conditions to the existence of sleepy as regards me.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam.

Posted by pydseybare (# 16184) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clotilde:
I couldn't help but think of this quote from Alice through the Looking Glass. Alice, Tweedledum and Tweedledee encounter the Red King smoring:

quote:
`He's dreaming now,' said Tweedledee: `and what do you think he's dreaming about?'

Alice said `Nobody can guess that.'

`Why, about YOU!' Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly. `And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?'

[the rest can be found here]
[edited long-ish quote]

All of Lewis Carroll's works are long out of copyright. Due to the law when they were written, the last works went out of copyright in 1948, but even using today's rules would still have been out of copyright in the 1990s.

See
section on the Lewis Carroll society website.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

Thanks for that information, but as indicated above (and, by the way, discussed at great length in the Styx not so long ago), while copyright infringement is a very real concern for us, the Ship's policy on directly quoting external sources is not designed to be an accurate reflection of the copyright provisions of any given jurisdiction.

As a rule of thumb, links to external sites are to be preferred to lengthy quotes in the body of a post.

I don't think this policy is likely to change any time soon, but if you wish to discuss it further, the Styx is the place to do it.

/hosting

[ 15. January 2014, 08:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0