How can we know other people other than ourselves exist?

[jimmy]

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.

Are we to assume that the only way we can be sure of something is if we have a mathematical certainty? We have to do all the proper equations and then we can see yay or nay. If the equations don’t lead to yay or nay, then you can’t make a conclusion. That is pretty lame.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Are we to assume that the only way we can be sure of something is if we have a mathematical certainty? We have to do all the proper equations and then we can see yay or nay. If the equations don’t lead to yay or nay, then you can’t make a conclusion. That is pretty lame.

The only way to be certain of some-thing’s existence is to have metaphysical certainty. I am metaphysically certain that i am in a continuous state of becoming. I am metaphysically certain that i exist and that i am experiencing something. I am metaphysically certain that something one can call God exists.

Its not a matter of lame or great. The facts are just the facts. We accept the world to which we are presented because we have no choice but to interact with it. But we do not truly know for certain the objective nature of what it is that we are interacting with because regardless of what the case may be we only ever receive information despite whether that information represents objective reality as it truly is or not.

 

[jimmy]

The only way to be certain of some-thing’s existence is to have metaphysical certainty. I am metaphysically certain that i am in a continuous state of becoming. I am metaphysically certain that i exist and that i am experiencing something. I am metaphysically certain that something one can call God exists.

Its not a matter of lame or great. The facts are just the facts. We accept the world to which we are presented because we have no choice but to interact with it. But we do not truly know for certain the objective nature of what it is that we are interacting with because regardless of what the case may be we only ever receive information despite whether that information represents objective reality as it truly is or not.

What is lame is the whole idea that we need some kind of reassurance about the truth of the most basic things, like the objective reality of the world around us. There are some things that we accept simply because they are true. There has never been any reason to ever doubt the existence of the objective world. Everyone of my senses tells me the world exists, so I won’t doubt it. But maybe this is the difference between me and some of the ‘rational’ scientists who think everything must be proven before you can make a statement of certainty. I find it to be a waste of time trying to prove something I already know is true.

Solipsism is a divorce from reality. Not only do they doubt the reality of the world around them, but it is bourn from a divorce from reality. If people doubt the existence of the world around them, maybe they should try to spend more time living in the world and experiencing the world rather than trying to justify its existence through the use of meaningless arguments.

 

[ChainBreaker]

What is lame is the whole idea that we need some kind of reassurance about the truth of the most basic things, like the objective reality of the world around us. There are some things that we accept simply because they are true. There has never been any reason to ever doubt the existence of the objective world.

As lame as it may be for you, it’s a valid epistemological question about what we can know for certain. I am not arguing that it is unreasonable to assume the objective existence of the universe. However, in principle it could very well be a virtual world made up solely of information rather than solid external objects.

It’s not a matter of whether or not it is true that our experiences identify with something objective because we have no choice but to assume that it is real in the sense of being external to the information we receive. But we do not know for fact that it is real.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Solipsism is a divorce from reality. Not only do they doubt the reality of the world around them, but it is bourn from a divorce from reality. If people doubt the existence of the world around them, maybe they should try to spend more time living in the world and experiencing the world rather than trying to justify its existence through the use of meaningless arguments.

If you are not interested in philosophical questions such as this you needn’t get involved.

 

[jimmy]

If you are not interested in philosophical questions such as this you needn’t get involved.

There is a time for thinking and a time for action. People who get too into this question have spent too much time thinking and not enough acting. That is the real philosophical point that needs to be made. You can sit in your room all day and come up with all kinds of questions, but that doesn’t make them meaningful. If it doesn’t have anything to do with real life then it is meaningless. Anyone can come up with a conundrum that keeps them from living their life.

Philosophy, or love of wisdom, always leads to actions. It is about the way you live. It isn’t a useless mental exercise in which you come up with useless questions and doubts that offer nothing and really proceed from nothing but inaction. There is no validity in any question that neither proceeds from evidence nor leads to its integration in life. If it isn’t based on evidence and it doesn’t lead to action then it isn’t philosophy either.

 

[ChainBreaker]

There is a time for thinking and a time for action. People who get too into this question have spent too much time thinking and not enough acting. That is the real philosophical point that needs to be made. You can sit in your room all day and come up with all kinds of questions, but that doesn’t make them meaningful. If it doesn’t have anything to do with real life then it is meaningless. Anyone can come up with a conundrum that keeps them from living their life.

Philosophy, or love of wisdom, always leads to actions. It is about the way you live. It isn’t a useless mental exercise in which you come up with useless questions and doubts that offer nothing and really proceed from nothing but inaction. There is no validity in any question that neither proceeds from evidence nor leads to its integration in life. If it isn’t based on evidence and it doesn’t lead to action then it isn’t philosophy either.

I’m sorry but your objection to people discussing any particular philosophical topic on the unjustified assertion that its stopping people from living their lives is bordering on delusional. Who are you to dictate what is a valid philosophical discussion and what is not?

The question of epistemology (“what one can know”) is a valid philosophical topic and you are the only one here that seems threatened by it. The only thing i can think of is that you feel it is some how a threat to your faith; but then you can’t have much of a faith if that is true. I really don’t care about your negative feelings about this discussion and neither does anyone else who has a genuine appreciation of philosophy.

 

[religioussoup]

Super deep conversation! Since we are on a Catholic forum, let’s just take a moment to realize we have never seen Jesus, felt Jesus, heard Jesus, or smelled Jesus (or god forbid tasted Jesus) but we TRUST that he lived. In the same way, TRUST that other people exist.

This is a concept I have pondered before, but I have come to realize that I trust that other people exist. I totally see where you are coming from but I promise you, other people exist.

 

[openmind77]

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.

It is true that we can not prove that other people exist and they may all be illusions.

But I am quite certain they do exist because I know me - I am just not smart enough to imagine and invent everything and all of you.

And unless you are smart enough to imagine all us, it is very likely that we all exist.

BTW, it is basic Hindu philosophy that everything you see and don’t see (the Universe, the people, the gods, the angels, everyone) is an illusion. Only Brahman exists.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Super deep conversation! Since we are on a Catholic forum, let’s just take a moment to realize we have never seen Jesus, felt Jesus, heard Jesus, or smelled Jesus (or god forbid tasted Jesus) but we TRUST that he lived. In the same way, TRUST that other people exist.

This is a concept I have pondered before, but I have come to realize that I trust that other people exist. I totally see where you are coming from but I promise you, other people exist.

What makes it more likely, although not certain, is that we experience teleological information that can only come from an intellect.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . BTW, it is basic Hindu philosophy that everything you see and don’t see (the Universe, the people, the gods, the angels, everyone) is an illusion. Only Brahman exists.

From one soul to others unsure of my existence:

The understanding of eastern religions is only as good as your Guru.
Wikipedia = bad Guru.

Everything is illusory in a relative sense.

:twocents: My take on it:

Brahman is God and each deity represents some facet or quality of God. The particular idol - Ganesh, Shiva, etc would be a means to connect ultimately to God.

The Atman (external self - not ego/who you think you are) is one’s true self, eternal and spiritual in nature. It is unchangeable and some believe it takes multiple human form in reincarnation.
There may be only one Atman (each one of us its incarnation), there may be many, it may be Brahman Himself, it may exist to worship Brahman.
No Magisterium to clarify things, here.

Another tradition has Vishnu as the Supreme Identity.
He lies on a giant snake who eternally sings Vishnu’s praises.
As Vishnu dreams, a lotus bearing Brahma, the creator of any particular universe, grows from his belly. Brahma’s first sound is Om, which is the basis of all that exists.
From time to time, Vishnu awakens.

There’s a lot more. . . . have to cut it short.

So, one can consider all illusion, but in this case the biggest illusion would be oneself.

I have found that things are real.
And, what is real, is FREAKIN’ AMAZING!!!
And, The Catholic Church provides the surest and quickest way to connect with what is real.

We are communicating about the possibility that neither of us exists. :whacky: That is weird.

One has to remember that Heaven is a joyous place.

I tend at times to see all this as :egyptian: sort of a Divine joke :extrahappy: sometimes God winks at us.

Thank you for your time. :tiphat:

 

[openmind77]

From one soul to others unsure of my existence:

The understanding of eastern religions is only as good as your Guru.
Wikipedia = bad Guru.

Everything is illusory in a relative sense.

:twocents: My take on it:

Brahman is God and each deity represents some facet or quality of God. The particular idol - Ganesh, Shiva, etc would be a means to connect ultimately to God.

The Atman (external self - not ego/who you think you are) is one’s true self, eternal and spiritual in nature. It is unchangeable and some believe it takes multiple human form in reincarnation.
There may be only one Atman (each one of us its incarnation), there may be many, it may be Brahman Himself, it may exist to worship Brahman.
No Magisterium to clarify things, here.

Another tradition has Vishnu as the Supreme Identity.
He lies on a giant snake who eternally sings Vishnu’s praises.
As Vishnu dreams, a lotus bearing Brahma, the creator of any particular universe, grows from his belly. Brahma’s first sound is Om, which is the basis of all that exists.
From time to time, Vishnu awakens.

These are myths, not meant to be taken literally. But if you are interested in an analysis of the myths, see thehindugods.com. Brahman is discussed towards the end of the page as well as the question of one God or many.

There’s a lot more. . . . have to cut it short.

So, one can consider all illusion, but in this case the biggest illusion would be oneself.

I have found that things are real.
And, what is real, is FREAKIN’ AMAZING!!!
And, The Catholic Church provides the surest and quickest way to connect with what is real.

We are communicating about the possibility that neither of us exists. :whacky: That is weird.

See what today’s science thinks dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/08/is-our-3-d-universe-an-illusion-everything-could-actually-be-encoded-in-tiny-packets-in-two-dimensio.html

One has to remember that Heaven is a joyous place.

I tend at times to see all this as :egyptian: sort of a Divine joke :extrahappy: sometimes God winks at us…

Actually Hinduism does say that the universe is divine play (leela) - it is God playing with himself like a child. The only reality is Brahman itself (neuter noun)

 

[CaptFun]

When I see a self-deluding philosophical dead end of a proposition put forth as a profundity
… like I just did … I say to myself …

Well … I didn’t do THAT.

But somebody did.

That and other hints.

Like eating food I didn’t grow, watching baseball games I’m not playing in (by myself) … and one or two more.

Not convinced? Did YOU write this (slightly snotty) screed to yourself?

shaw: - “No charge!”

 

[CaptFun]

BTW, it is basic Hindu philosophy that everything you see and don’t see (the Universe, the people, the gods, the angels, everyone) is an illusion. Only Brahman exists.

If ever I owe a lot of money to a Hindu … I’ll remind him of this. And see JUST how good of a Hindu he IS!

Of course I would then be quite a bad Catholic. uch:

 

[openmind77]

If ever I owe a lot of money to a Hindu … I’ll remind him of this. And see JUST how good of a Hindu he IS!

Of course I would then be quite a bad Catholic. uch:

You still have to pay him back with illusory money. Luckily for you the eternal hell you may be sent to is also an illusion.

 

[Aloysium]

These are myths, not meant to be taken literally. But if you are interested in an analysis of the myths, see thehindugods.com. Brahman is discussed towards the end of the page as well as the question of one God or many.

See what today’s science thinks dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/08/is-our-3-d-universe-an-illusion-everything-could-actually-be-encoded-in-tiny-packets-in-two-dimensio.html) . . .

Been there, done that. There are far better sources than the web.

 

[openmind77]

Been there, done that. There are far better sources than the web.

As you please. But don’t expect to see a lotus or a snake somewhere in the sky.

Actually everything being an illusion does not mean all of us do not exist, it just means each of us in essence is a manifestation of Brahman. You are Brahman and I am Brahman, each talking to oneself without quite realizing that there is in reality no separation or distinction from the other.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Has this philosophy ever been discussed amongst church leaders and stuff? (people like Aquinas and Augustine, etc)

My mind keeps trying to find a “loophole” within this where somehow, I will think up of something that no other philosopher ever thought on this topic, which would somehow give conclusive evidence that I am all alone in existence. Has anyone else ever had those feelings?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Super deep conversation! Since we are on a Catholic forum, let’s just take a moment to realize we have never seen Jesus, felt Jesus, heard Jesus, or smelled Jesus (or god forbid tasted Jesus) …]

I totally am on board with what you said up to that point.

Some of us just haven’t gotten further than that.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Sorry for not becoming involved in this discussion earlier, but contrary to a previous post I do have a life that keeps me quite busy. But I have been keeping up with the discussion, and seeing as how I’m probably the only one here who describes themselves as a solipsist, perhaps I could offer a unique perspective. Let me address what I believe to be the most important question first.

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…

It’s a frightening thing to have to deal with, the possibility that everything around you may be nothing more than an illusion. That everything that you believed in, and invested your faith in, and grounded your hope in, may be wrong. That’s the true challenge of solipsism, to have the courage to question everything, not just the things that are easy, but the things that are hard, the things that matter. But it’s only then that you can truly know what it means to walk by faith. For he who is certain of his beliefs has no need of faith. But for he who’s certainty is tested, faith is everything. For when a man doubts, it’s then that he must choose, not with the vanity of one who is certain, but with the humility of one who isn’t. And it’s the humility that comes with the realization that you may be wrong, totally and completely, that’s the true measure of faith. Faith isn’t found in those who are certain, it’s found in those who aren’t. What’s found in those who are certain, is pride. But to find one, you must abandon the other.

You have questioned whether the world around you is real, and neither I nor anyone else can tell you. But having opened that door, you cannot close it again. Wisdom sometimes comes at a cost, the world will never again appear the same. But you can still have faith. You can still live as if the world is real, and love as if it’s real, and cry as if it’s real, and persevere as if it’s real. The only thing that you cannot do, is know, and in truth, you never could. What you have now is simply a deeper understanding of what it means to walk by faith and not by sight.

I worry about having a heretical outlook that would be a mortal sin if I believed in these solipsistic philosophies.

Are you concerned that God will reject you, or that you will reject Him? I cannot hope to answer such questions, but I suspect that if you ask Him, you will find the answer to both.