How can we know other people other than ourselves exist?

[Ben_Sinner]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

Is there any way to gain a great amount of certainty that others exist?

The only things I can think of is:

1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions.
2. I came to this conclusion by accepting ‘facts’ created by alleged other entities…I learnt that humans perceive only what their senses communicate to them from a science book …if the science book is true, then the science book is nothing but an illusion created by my senses as well…The fact that I trust in what it says is a sign that the book is a separate entity from me…otherwise, what is the point in believing it?..if the book is separate, then other people can be too.

 

[Bahman]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

Is there any way to gain a great amount of certainty that others exist?

The only things I can think of is:

1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions.
2. I came to this conclusion by accepting ‘facts’ created by alleged other entities…I learnt that humans perceive only what their senses communicate to them from a science book …if the science book is true, then the science book is nothing but an illusion created by my senses as well…The fact that I trust in what it says is a sign and perceived evidence that its true is a sign that the book is a separate entity from me…otherwise, what is the point in believing it?

There are two separate things which you cannot have any proof for them. First, there is no proof for existing of objective reality, for example objects, people, etc. Second, there is no proof for existing of conscious being in objective reality. The only thing that you can be 100% sure is the existence of yourself exposed to objective things.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t think there is really a soluton to solipsism, Descartes demons, or the illusion of “The Matrix” (take which ever one you recognize). If you are looking for absolute certainty you might not be able to fine it. Many people take action without absolute certainty though. After doing it for a while you might get desensitized to it.

 

[John_Martin]

When I was a teenager I used to wonder if other people had thoughts like I had in my head. They seemed to be un-thinking, with words appearing from their lips, and moving around doing things. But, when there were no words or movements, they looked somewhat empty or devoid of intellectual activity. I could not experience or sense their thoughts, so, “were they thinking?”.

Perhaps through books, mainly fiction, I found descriptions of other people thinking - thoughts were quoted for the characters of the books, and not simply their actual words and actions described.

Later I came to find, mainly in the study of theology, that there are multiple types of thinking, and finally came to recognize the understanding that there is understanding and desire that are not perceptible to our own conscious thought - that the intellect and will are powers and acts of the soul and not the brain, but that the brain is the place where the soul manifests what it knows and experiments with what it wants to know, and the brain is not at all the place where actual understanding resides. The soul is the place where things sensed by the senses are understood as intelligible objects and the place where they are understood and/or believed to be reality (or not). Then, the soul moves the body to move about in the midst of what is sensed in the material world, and to interact with it, granting the material world the honor of being understood (not the “honor of being real”, but the “honor of being understood”). When my soul moves my mouth to say “Hello” to someone and moves my arm to reach out and shake hands with that material object, my soul is granting to material reality and to that specific material object (another person) the honor of being understood as a rational and conscious object also moved by a soul not unlike my own soul.

 

[smichhertz]

As others have noted you cannot give an absolute guarantee of truth.

However you can induce. For me, based on what I observe, it appears the images and things I see and interact with are independent of my will and therefore my mind. I cannot KNOW it to be true with an absolute guarantee of truth, but I WAGER it to be true as my best guess.

 

[Richca]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

Is there any way to gain a great amount of certainty that others exist?

The only things I can think of is:

1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions.
2. I came to this conclusion by accepting ‘facts’ created by alleged other entities…I learnt that humans perceive only what their senses communicate to them from a science book …if the science book is true, then the science book is nothing but an illusion created by my senses as well…The fact that I trust in what it says is a sign that the book is a separate entity from me…otherwise, what is the point in believing it?..if the book is separate, then other people can be too.

Common sense tells us that the objective world we perceive outside ourselves through our senses is real. It would be delusional to think otherwise and we don’t need a science book to tell us this, just open your eyes and look out at the real world. We also have God’s word that He created the whole universe of creatures including ourselves. If you want to know what truth is than study Holy Scripture which is the word of God and especially the life of Christ who is the Word of God and who said “I am the Truth,” and listen to what the Catholic Church teaches which is guided by the Spirit of Truth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

Is there any way to gain a great amount of certainty that others exist?

The only things I can think of is:

1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions.
2. I came to this conclusion by accepting ‘facts’ created by alleged other entities…I learnt that humans perceive only what their senses communicate to them from a science book …if the science book is true, then the science book is nothing but an illusion created by my senses as well…The fact that I trust in what it says is a sign that the book is a separate entity from me…otherwise, what is the point in believing it?..if the book is separate, then other people can be too.

I would throw that book out. What makes you think the people who wrote that book don’t have some agenda besides teaching you science. Don’t you realize that our whole culture it trying its best to make you disbelieve that God exists, that you can’t know right from wrong, real from unreal?

God created you, don’t you think he gave you a mind to know the truth about reality and about himself? He created your mind to know the truth about reality. And that is the bottom line.

Linus2nd

 

[oldcelt]

Unless we are existing in a permanent dream state, then we must accept that what we perceive is real. I can’t imagine any other possibility.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I would throw that book out. What makes you think the people who wrote that book don’t have some agenda besides teaching you science. Don’t you realize that our whole culture it trying its best to make you disbelieve that God exists, that you can’t know right from wrong, real from unreal?

God created you, don’t you think he gave you a mind to know the truth about reality and about himself? He created your mind to know the truth about reality. And that is the bottom line.

Linus2nd

Isn’t it kind of true though? When all our senses are put down, we go in a coma.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just trying to cover different arguments against it.

Also, how can we know we are not mentally insanse? There are people out there who halluncinate with all their senses and believe what they are hallucinating is objective reality.

How can we know our conscious perception is reality?

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Isn’t it kind of true though? When all our senses are put down, we go in a coma.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, just trying to cover different arguments against it.

Also, how can we know we are not mentally insanse? There are people out there who halluncinate with all their senses and believe what they are hallucinating is objective reality.

How can we know our conscious perception is reality?

I mean to say, how can assume that our senses perceive objective reality on the basis that God gave them to us…when there are people who have delusional senses that were given by God as well?

 

[dmar198]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.
• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

I think this form of solipsism involves a self-contradiction. You seem to have used your own reason to arrive at this form of solipsism, but this form of solipsism says that you cannot trust your own reason. If you cannot trust your reason to conclude other things, why can you trust to conclude this thing?

It seems to me that in order to firmly hold this version of solipsism you have to deny one of its central principles, the principle that you can’t trust your own reason. Because of this self-contradiction, I think you have no alternative but to place some trust in your own reason, at least a limited trust. You can rely on certain conclusions of your own reasoning – at least conclusions that seem as sound as the principles that have lead you to solipsism.

Does that make sense? Because I think that if you get that far, you’ll be able to use your reasoning to show that other beings do exist besides yourself.

 

[tonyrey]

I have been struggling with this and has been causing great anxiety.

Unnecessarily! If you don’t exist anxiety is an illusion.

Humans perceive everything through their own individual senses.

Not ourselves. We have direct knowledge of our mental experiences.

If this is the case, then wouldn’t it be impossible to have multiple beings be able to communicate and know each other since all they know and perceive is from their own individual senses?

We infer the existence of persons and things from the regularity and constancy of our perceptions. When we are dreaming they vary from one dream to the next. When we are awake we cannot change them unless we hypnotise ourselves - which demonstrates the power of the mind - but even then it is only a temporary state.

How can we assure ourselves that what we see is what the other person sees? What we feel is what the other person feels, What I hear is what the other person hears? etc.etc.

We can’t because no two persons have exactly the same perceptions but they are sufficiently similar to ensure they are not illusions. Otherwise we would be unable to communicate.

• I may see another person with my eyes, but that is just my sense of sight, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sight is not just my own relative illusion.

• I may touch another person, but that is just my sense of touch, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of touch is not just my own relative illusion.

• I may hear another person, but that is just my sense of sound, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of sound is not just my own relative illusion.

• I may smell another person, but that is just my sense of smell, which is fallible. I can’t prove that my sense of smell is not just my own relative illusion.

• I may taste another person (kind of weird, I know), but that is just my sense of taste. I can’t prove that my sense of taste is not just my own relative illusion.

It is not necessary to prove the facts on which communication is based. If we were imagining everything we wouldn’t have the same sensations over and over again. The sheer amount of repetition demands an explanation and the simplest one is that there are causes which are (relatively) constant and enduring.

• I may use my reason to compile evidence that other people exist, but reason is just a function of my brain, which is fallible.

That is an assumption for which there is not one jot of evidence. We **infer **the existence of the brain from our mental activity of which we have direct and immediate experience. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our stream of consciousness, i.e. our thoughts, feelings, choices and decisions.

I can’t prove that my reasons is not just my own relative illusion.

If they’re not yours whose are they?! They can’t exist in a vacuum because they have the same fundamental features time and time again. We wouldn’t be able to reason unless there is some continuity and (relative) permanence.

Is there any way to gain a great amount of certainty that others exist?

The only things I can think of is:

1. Have faith that the people who live on this planet with you are not illusions.

1. I came to this conclusion by accepting ‘facts’ created by alleged other entities…I learnt that humans perceive only what their senses communicate to them from a science book …if the science book is true, then the science book is nothing but an illusion created by my senses as well…The fact that I trust in what it says is a sign that the book is a separate entity from me…otherwise, what is the point in believing it?..if the book is separate, then other people can be too.

Precisely! We can be more certain of the reality of beings with minds than material objects. Even so our perceptions give us sufficient evidence that things are not illusions. They have a habit of forcing themselves on our attention regardless of whether they are desirable! If we try to pretend they don’t exist we are in for some very nasty shocks - and not only electric ones. Pain brings us down to earth with a bump…

 

[tonyrey]

I think this form of solipsism involves a self-contradiction. You seem to have used your own reason to arrive at this form of solipsism, but this form of solipsism says that you cannot trust your own reason. If you cannot trust your reason to conclude other things, why can you trust to conclude this thing?

It seems to me that in order to firmly hold this version of solipsism you have to deny one of its central principles, the principle that you can’t trust your own reason. Because of this self-contradiction, I think you have no alternative but to place some trust in your own reason, at least a limited trust. You can rely on certain conclusions of your own reasoning – at least conclusions that seem as sound as the principles that have lead you to solipsism.

Does that make sense? Because I think that if you get that far, you’ll be able to use your reasoning to show that other beings do exist besides yourself.

In other words the hypothesis is self-destructive!

 

[ChainBreaker]

I think this form of solipsism involves a self-contradiction. You seem to have used your own reason to arrive at this form of solipsism, but this form of solipsism says that you cannot trust your own reason. If you cannot trust your reason to conclude other things, why can you trust to conclude this thing?

It seems to me that in order to firmly hold this version of solipsism you have to deny one of its central principles, the principle that you can’t trust your own reason. Because of this self-contradiction, I think you have no alternative but to place some trust in your own reason, at least a limited trust. You can rely on certain conclusions of your own reasoning – at least conclusions that seem as sound as the principles that have lead you to solipsism.

Does that make sense? Because I think that if you get that far, you’ll be able to use your reasoning to show that other beings do exist besides yourself.

You can rely on your reason because you know you exist, insofar as you know that you are experiencing something. Reason begins with that knowledge. What it is that you are experiencing is the question.

I suppose this would start a debate as to whether or not reason is a product of faith.

 

[eViLpOpTaRt]

The assumption that we perceive actual reality is a construct that is convenient to adopt in order to deal with the world we do perceive. Naturally, we have to begin with Descartes’ cogito ergo sum.**

Life is filled with assumptions. These are necessary for survival, on the average. To be sure, we can be misled sometimes.

We just got to live with it.

 

[tonyrey]

Unnecessarily! If you don’t exist anxiety is an illusion.

I take it for granted that if we are thinking there is no reason to believe there is no one else who is thinking. Why should you (or I) be the only being that exists? It amounts to deifying ourselves and making reality egocentric. There are very good reasons to believe reality is not composed solely of one solitary individual who imagines everyone and everything else is an illusion. Why are we so frequently aware of others? Is there any reason? Why do they intrude on our privacy even if we do our utmost to pretend they don’t exist?

The best test of any theory is whether it works. If we don’t behave and live from moment to moment as if we are utterly alone it is a sure sign that we are deceiving ourselves. In a sense we are all trapped within ourselves. We cannot experience anyone else’s thoughts and feelings directly but there is one form of knowledge that unites us to others more deeply than any other. It is not scientific yet it is far more valuable and significant. Can you guess what it is?

 

[ChainBreaker]

The assumption that we perceive actual reality is a construct

Yep.

The only thing that we can be sure of is that we exist and that we are receiving information which we can interact with. In fact it would make no difference to the Catholic faith if the world we perceive is a kind of virtual reality in which we are all participants. So i don’t know why Christians freak out about this issue. Perhaps the universe is just information.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Yep.

The only thing that we can be sure of is that we exist and that we are receiving information which we can interact with. In fact it would make no difference to the Catholic faith if the world we perceive is a kind of virtual reality in which we are all participants. So i don’t know why Christians freak out about this issue. Perhaps the universe is just information.

I freak out because if my fear is true, than that would mean that Jesus, Mary, the early church fathers, the saints, and the catechism are just figments of my imagination and not separate entities from me…I worry about having a heretical outlook that would be a mortal sin if I believed in these solipsistic philosophies.

 

[Richca]

The assumption that we perceive actual reality is a construct that is convenient to adopt in order to deal with the world we do perceive. Naturally, we have to begin with Descartes’ cogito ergo sum.**

Life is filled with assumptions. These are necessary for survival, on the average. To be sure, we can be misled sometimes.

We just got to live with it.

St Thomas Aquinas would say that Descartes’ cogito ergo sum is backwards. Aquinas would say “I am therefore I think,” **not **“I think therefore I am.” You need to be or to exist before one can think.

 

[John_Martin]

I freak out because if my fear is true, than that would mean that Jesus, Mary, the early church fathers, the saints, and the catechism are just figments of my imagination and not separate entities from me…I worry about having a heretical outlook that would be a mortal sin if I believed in these solipsistic philosophies.

Your figments, in your imagination, require bodies to be real to you, just as to your figments, you require a body to be real, because in your figments both you and your Fantasy Fathers have (or had) corporeal bodies moving in a corporeal world.

Your intellect, has no determined form (it can understand more than just specific, pre-ordered, things). It is in potential to understand anything and all things that your senses sense. But to say “I understand”, your intellect is ordered to know it is, indeed, truth. If there is any uncertainty, your intellect will continue to say, “I do not yet understand”.

That is the Nature of your intellect. To understand all truth. It is not in the nature of something to act contrary to its nature. Therefore, if your nature knows the Fathers with corporeal bodies, and cannot know you, yourself, without always picturing you with your corporeal body, and if your intellect knows, “this is I”, then it must be true: Corporeal Material Bodies. Why? Because a thing (you) cannot act contrary to its Nature.

And, contrary to the implications of another post, since it is the Nature of the soul to desire to know all things, all truth, with its intellect, you will actually come to know all things (to your happiness - heaven -, or to your despair - hell -, but it is not in the order of nature to desire what is not attainable. Your intellect does know, correctly, that it is possible to understand all things. With the advent of Jesus to our senses, that understanding is provided for, since in his body he brings the truth about God to us.