who exists?

Quote axl roses wife:

Just trying to rule out a psychological disorder.

LOL Cinn, yes I thought that's what you were doing.

I suspect a severe case of Teenagus Precocia.

Axl: Thanks for the logic trail; I think I understand your position better now. However, I still disagree. Here's why:
You exist. Since all created things have a creator, there was someone who created you. Because of the biologic drive to protect one's species, these creators would have stayed around while you developed.
Who has been present throughout your development? Your parents. So, we know your parents exist as well.
Starting off from that jump point, anyone your parents talked to that you could both see has to exist also, so add everyone you and your parents have ever met to the list of people who exist.
Then, use the same jump point for all the people who your family has met. Who have they met? This train continues indefinitely.

This being said, however, I completely acknowledge a few logical gaps. What if you were schizophrenic, and the instant you were born, you imagined everybody, and your true parents are really visiting their crazy daughter in an asylum as she imagines a world full of imaginary people, including fake parents who look nothing like her real parents?
What if we lived in the matrix, and it was all a lie?
Those are all perfectly logical points, and I applaud you for bringing them up.



This statement epitomizes the problems with this train of thought, though. While you are right in thinking that you cannot, to a perfect, empirical, 100% objective truth, prove that anyone else exists...you also cannot prove they don't exist. That was the crux of my argument. In the end, while you can doubt the nature of your existence(and of God's, since you brought that up), and that questioning is very healthy(keeps you open to alternative ideas), you cannot prove either side.

Have I proved myself as a "true philosopher" now? :wink:

No we dont. we know that i have imagined things callled parents, as Eorl said, Parents are just 'others'.

I think a lot of this debate about existance is really a debate about how we define existance.
I define it two different ways, existing like i see you exist, and existing like i know i exist.
However I do agree, no-one can be sure of anything, i think i may just settle for an agnostic middle ground here, although this doesnt anwer my question really.

So what would convince me to believe in others in the way I believe in myself?
I can only think of a few aspects that could ever convince me otherwise:
1. If i become phycic and am able to 'touch' other peoples minds. Like that guy who bends spoons....who is he? ah, thats it: Uri Gellar.
2. the concept of imagination. This would mean that if the world is inside my imagination, then i have an imagination inside my imagination (how weird):

hey, goin of on a tangent here: prehaps this is true for not just me but everone (depending on if you exist or not) and maybe the closer that your two imaginations are to each other, the more intellegent you are, or the more imaginative you are. Ooooh, and im goin off on one here!! Maybe if those two imaginations meet you go mad or something, because you reach the absolute truth (relative to yourself) maybe the gap between these two imaginations is bridged by realisation, or by drug induced states!!! Im gonn ahave a think about this one, before I say nemore, because its getting hard to understand.

anyway, so back to the thread.
I cant think of anything else which would make me believe in other people. Can u???

I seem to detect two issues here... one is "the definition of existence" and the second is "the concept of certainty". Existence needs to be defined, I venture to say that something has to have mass, in order to exist. Mass implies matter, matter that can be measured on a scale, and is tangible. So in order to prove to yourself that someone else really exists, you need to touch and measure them, say on a scale. Sure you can still say that maybe you were just imagining yourself measuring them and touching them, so they may not be real.... What you need now is "certainty". Unfortunately, nothing can be 100% certain. We live in a world of probability. But most of us are quite ok in accepting that if something is say 95% probable, then it can be taken to be true, or certain. So to achieve certainty, you need to go back to the scale and keep measuring again and again until you are satisfied that 95% of the times, what you measured remained consistent and true.... Hehehe, I know that I went overboard there, because most would simply use common sense to tell themselves if something is real or not, no need for all the hasles.

Axl said:


No, actually, you don't "know" that. You suspect that they don't; you might even believe they don't, but you don't know it for a fact.



Could you explain this further? It sounds interesting, but I don't have a complete grasp of what you're trying to say yet.



I don't know. Do you think you're crazy? That's the only way we could all be figments. If you think you're not crazy, then haven't you proved(to a limited degree) that other people do exist?

No I am not crazy
because although I dont relally belive in other people as such. I dont go shouting it around, or making weird noises in the street, and i dont treat people differently just because i dont believe in them.

I think a more consise and sensible way of describing other poeple'not existing' would be, prehaps, not being relative to me, or their concious minds not vbeing visible to me.

however, whowever brought up the idea of common sense, thats quite a good argument. Howeer, commaon sense inst a universal quality and isnt the same ammount in each person. Common sense would tell me not to murder anyone, however, would obviously not tell a murderer to do the same. In the same way, your common sense tells you that I exist, but my common sense doesnt tell me that you exist.

An Imagination inside an imagination:

What I meant was that if this whole world was in my subconcious imagination then my concious imagination, that allows me to paint write etc. is inside my subconcious imagination. I just thought that if this was true then it would be a bit weird, thats all. (its an argument for the existence of others)

Ethically and morally speaking, there really isn't much of a problem anyway. Ethically and morally you'd still have to answer to the shells that have authority over you.

Unglaublich! Book Mark...

I believe every possibility is worth considering when you have nothing better to do... though only the most likely should be bothered with if time is a pressing issue.

I've idly mused about the possibility that I'm the only person in existance, (after all, I can not prove that I am not)... however I don't seriously propose it as it seems relatively unlikely. I assumed your post was more idle musing than anything else.



Lol, okay. I don't seriously want you to. Just momentarily got overly into character as a voice in your head :wink: No reason philosophy shouldn't be combined with a little humour. (Hmmm, intriguing that I naturally cast myself as the psychotic murderous voice...)



... I consider it far more likely that I am the only being in existance, why? I know I exist. All I'd be doing is subtracting the existance of dubious unproven elements. I would be supposing even further to assume an EXTRA being exists beyond the human race, one which I've never experienced nor have evidence of.

However this thread isn't a discussion of the existance of gods, so I'll try not to bring that up too much.

....

Oh and Eorl, I was actually referring to the really bad Dune film by David Lynch in which Linda Hunt keeps saying "I am the housekeeper" the way other people would say "I will kill you where you stand".

Frank Herbert is a good author, though he gets a bit... weird, at times. (imagines the sex scene at the end of "Heretics of Dune").

good thankyou, but although this theory is not gonna make much difference to my life, its still gonna bug me, Lol!!!!

I have often said to people that they cannot prove their existance without using my sense's , I have said I am the only person who exists.

what do you mean, they canot prve their existance without using YOUR senses??

If they say something it is communicated by you sense of hearing. If the push you it is your sense of touch etc.

oh,so they cannot prove their eistence to you without using your senses. I get that. its completely right.

If you are the only one who exists, than there are no others to "take out of the equation". Thus whatever conclusions you have on ethical and moral issues are absolute. You have no dilemma.

yeah, gonna give me confidence isnt it? lols.

Carditel, LOL on your signature

Let me jump in with a question.

If only you exist then what is your purpose?

If you are the only being in existence doesn't that leave you with nothing, as nothing. If your purpose is to create others then it would mean we exist. If you have no purpose then there is no reason to create us.

While it is an interesting exercise to question if others exist. It really leads nowhere to come to that conclusion.

Today is the first day of all of our existences, there may well be a circuit problem with your programmed memory board axl rose wife. You most certainly will not be the only one with a malfunction. I would suggest you create a further thread with people programmed exactly from your date of origin and compare historical knowledge. This should be repeated with family members and similar comparisons made. Taking it slowly your malfunction can be brought up to date on a regular basis which in turn should help you overcome the obvious levels of psychosis you are subject to. It's basically re-booting the system which is required.
The forum type developments are known to be of assistance in matters of educational prowess, this is why The Oxford and Cambridge Don's enter so much discussion. It will also aid your brain in not making rash or dangerous decisions. I wish you well dear girl. By the way, I would like to add, your husband made a superb job of Zimmermans 'Knocking on heavens door'