DOES NOTHING EXIST???

How can you be conscious of the absence of information unless there was information in the first place? If there was no information in the first place there can be no possibility of information about the absence of information.

well, here's a scenario.
ask someone something that they dont want to answer, but dont want to lie about either. they probably dont answer, and that silence is just a conformation.

A possible or probable confirmation but you can never know for sure. You are inferring a possibility. You do not know because if the person doesn't answer you cannot know.

You have to be conscious of something; you can't be conscious of nothing i.e. consciousness needs an object not the absence of one. The absence of something that was here but is now missing can be inferred but one cannot be conscious of nothingness itself.

how so ?

so what does this have to do whether " nothing " exists or not ?

Every being is nothing, including you and me, because nothingness in turn is any and every being, so being and nothingness continuously become each other. Any being (including you and me) is both a being and nothing, which is precisely what makes it a temporal being.

We usually thing of being as independent of time and "immersed" in it. This is wrong: time is being, precisely because being is nothingness, which makes being and nothingness perpetually become each other, originating time.

Your difficulty results from the old habit of thinking of being as "just being" and of nothingness as "just nothing," as if being and nothingness were totally alien to each other. This way of thinking ultimately divorces both being and nothingness from time--their becoming each other despite still different--while creating what Heidegger would call their "metaphysics."

The only way out of this "metaphysics" is then to reinsert time into the heart of being, which is only possible by reinserting being and nothingness into each other's heart.

(What people usually mean by not being able to "understand" the identity between being and nothingness is their inability to grasp it under a static view--what you call a "setting." This is understandable, since that identity constitutes time, and regarding time a "static view" is forever impossible.)

Nothing can exist so long as we agree on it non existing. Its just a word our language needed to employ to explain something. And that something is nothing. We need to define "nothing" and if we agree on the definition then we agree it exists. Question. "whats in that cup"? answer >>"nothing". You look in the glass and agree. Then nothing exists in that empty cup and therefore nothing exists

It exists because we need it to or else the language wouldn't have created a word for it. If we agree that the glass is empty then we agree that nothing exists in the glass. which means we agree that nothing exists. Nothing exists like anything else as long as we agree upon it

Some could agree on the existance of the tooth fairy but some might not. The mere paradox of no-thing is interesting cos it could be seen both ways as existing and non existing. Is the glass half empty or half full?

I can not find any official document on any existing person today that can use telepathy
but I found Vinko Rajic and Uri Geller and they are talking that they can use telepathy.
Why they do not make research on it? Many Schizophrenic are coming with similar story.
Can it be that some Schizophrenics are just receiving from some other head?
James Randi offer 1000000$ for evidence, but Vinko and Uri can use telepathy or maybe NOT?

Who you really are is no 'thing'(not a thing), however somewhere along the lines no 'thing' became a 'thing' called 'nothing'.

Traditional thinking tells us that 'nothing' is a void that exists but apparently cannot be found, we make the assumption that there are 'things' and therefore there 'has' to be 'nothing'.

The process of elimination to come to 'truth'(commonly mistaken for facts) only works within your own 'self', when you 'step out' of the masquerade that is traditional thinking/existing you will dis-cover who you really are.

Pre-existing conclusions and presuppositions only allow 'you' to go as far as they have been thought out, your reliance on the worlds' definition and 'proof' really doesn't do you any good and provides no resolution.

I agree. The parodoxical nature of this exercise in some respects forces you to confront the only possibilities in which we can concieve and never beyond the limit of human thinking/introspection. Anything within or beyond what we can describe on the 'subject' makes words futile in even attempting to ascribe knowledge with it. Who we are is still debatable, for existing is a paradigm of paradoxical proprotions. Who you are, repectfully, is up to you.

its more then just some that agree on an exsitience of something, or in this case "nothing" . Here we need everyone to agree that nothing exsists in the glass. And therefore it exsists. The tooth fairy analogy doesnt fit because you state 'some' agree on the existence of that.

...the existence of words its not the existence of non existence which is a contradiction...that much I grant you to be true.

I imagine at this rate we would fall directly on "silence is golden"

...

There is nothing paradoxical about 'you', Be-ing. In fact, who you really are knows nothing of 'paradoxes', nor did 'you' have anything to do with its conception.

There is no 'human' thinking. There is only 'you', 'thinking'(Be-ing). (The word 'you' could be interchanged with 'thinking') i.e. You are thinking, there is no 'you that 'is' thinking', you are 'your' 'thoughts'.

'Within' and 'beyond' are just concepts used to define and explain(prove) the existence of the one who did the describing through identification with the others who 'had to' agree. The labyrinth of concepts that 'we' have created are for the purpose of proving the existence of that which cannot accurately be proven, and that is 'you', Be-ing.

Who you really are, is un-covering(Be-ing/thinking) the 'nuggets' of existence. These 'nuggets' are really the closest you'll ever come to a 'thing', this is 'why'(clumsy word) you are no 'thing' and all this definition(your attempted 'paradoxical', 'paradigm', 'human', etc etc) provides 'you' with no resolution and leaves you wanting more.

Correct! Who you are is up to, but you'll notice that it really has always been that way, hasn't it? What's the use in posting what you already knew? LOL

is there a point of view that proves that nothing does actually exist beyond any doubt ?

no

I think we can have paradoxes of the mind, unbeknown to us or not. I don't think we are just our thoughts, we may go 'deeper', if you will, than just 'thinking' beings. What it is, may remain unamable. This in a way reflects on north's question. So I'll grant you that 'we' (we meaning anyone's 'being') could be 'no thing' in as much as nothing can't be proven to exist beyond any doubt.

I said 'who you are is up to you' cos when you said 'when you 'step out' of the masquerade that is traditional thinking/existing you will dis-cover who you really are' makes it sound like we are what you say we are and to think of it like an absolute truth is unlike the elusiveness of 'no thing'.

There really is no 'mind'.

'Mind' is an ethereal concept where it is assumed 'thoughts' are stored. It is just so naturally presupposed that 'thoughts have to come from somewhere', so we had to 'create' a container for them.

'Mind' is commonly regarded as some 'thing' that exists within the skull of man, although its existence has not been proven in over 2500 years.

So if 'mind' doesn't exist, it couldn't possibly be 'paradoxical', now could it?

I hope you're following me here, 'paradoxical' is just a concept on top of another concept. It's part of the 'house of cards' that humanity has been building for as long as you can remember. 'Man' creates concepts in hopes of making predictability and safety for the for-see-able 'future'.

You will have noticed though, that no matter how many concepts 'man' creates, the next moment is still not promised and cannot be predicted by any means.

A 'paradox' is simply some 'thing' that 'you' can't come up with an explanation for, or at least one that the majority of the planet will agree with you on.