[mobcdmoc3]

"Cogito ergo sum"

If that's not enough, then we'll need the squirt bottle.

Ditto. I think, therefore I am. Perhaps it is impossible to trace the true genesis of our sensory perception, but at the least, we can prove our minds exist.

[Bobboau]

What do you think?

that could perhaps rule out the 'having a dream' type possibilities, but it does not rule out the 'stuck in the matrix' type ones, perhaps you could not think of it but that does not mean that some thing else (aliens/machines/demons/computer scientists) could not think of it and put you into a dream world populated by it.

[Unknown Target]

What do you think?

that could perhaps rule out the 'having a dream' type possibilities, but it does not rule out the 'stuck in the matrix' type ones, perhaps you could not think of it but that does not mean that some thing else (aliens/machines/demons/computer scientists) could not think of it and put you into a dream world populated by it.

Hm...true, if they could conceive of beings that do not conform to your belief standard, then they could populate the world with them. However, that means then that there is at least a universe outside of your own mind for those aliens to exist in. Whether or not you experience their reality or a giant simulation is unknown, though.

I think the best way to solve these sorts of puzzles is to attempt to find recursive solutions that prove themselves. I'll have to think about your problem more.

[zookeeper]

There's no way to know or prove that you're not "in a matrix". Fortunately, it doesn't really matter whether you are or not.

[General Battuta]

There is no way to prove you're not a Boltzmann brain, which requires neither an outside reality nor an agent controlling the simulation. Nor is it limited by the capacity of your imagination.

It's the ultimate extension of this thought process.

[castor]

Something seems to exist

perception is not reality, how do you know that what you sense is true.

It is true that reality is the reason for your perception. Not really helpful.. this thread is in desperate need of some unwarranted claims regarding properties of reality!

[deathfun]

Something seems to exist

perception is not reality, how do you know that what you sense is true.

It is true that reality is the reason for your perception. Not really helpful.. this thread is in desperate need of some unwarranted claims regarding properties of reality!

re·al·i·ty
   [ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
1.
the state or quality of being real.
2.
resemblance to what is real.
3.
a real thing or fact.
4.
real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5.
Philosophy .
a.
something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b.
something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

[Bobboau]

It is true that reality is the reason for your perception.

this is what we are trying to prove.

[samiam]

The basic problem is this, we cannot confirm our senses independent of our senses. i.e. we might all be in a matrix, or having a dream, or be characters in someone else's dream. Can we know that reality exists at all?

No.

If we define reality as the physical universe it appears to be, then I don't think we can, however, if we define it slightly looser, maybe as 'the source from which our sensory information originates' then perhaps we can? if this works, and we can know that reality does in fact exist, can we know if our actions truly are effecting it?

No.

we have some philosophy majors here right?

Fortunately not.

[Bobboau]

I thought we had two or three...

and could you elaborate on you second answer?

[Aardwolf]

I'ma go with reality = "the source from which our sensory information originates". We must make do with the inputs we have available to us.

How does one determine that an input is unreliable, if not by reflecting upon previous input?

[castor]

It is true that reality is the reason for your perception.

this is what we are trying to prove.

But what is there to prove? Something that exists created your inputs. What exists is part of reality.
I guess you're actually asking, can you really know the meaning or ultimate cause of your inputs? I don't believe you can. Even if you created a theory that explains every detail of the observable universe, how would you know it's not just a projection of a larger reality?

[Scourge of Ages]

[philosph]
"I think therefore I am" is useful, but you also have to believe that everybody else also exists. Reality is not just about what you can observe, but the belief that there are things happening that you can't observe. Other people's thoughts, physics, trees falling in forests, and what not all will happen without you around, and will continue happening after you're gone.

A dream wouldn't do that. A simulation with you as the only entity wouldn't do that.

A 'matrix' or simulation where all entities are sentient would be, by all definitions, real. Or at least real enough to not matter.
[/phil]

[Bobboau]

How does one determine that an input is unreliable, if not by reflecting upon previous input?

all that tells you is it seems consistent, not that it is true.

how would you know it's not just a projection of a larger reality?

you would at least have a very useful tool for manipulating that projection to your liking.

you also have to believe that everybody else also exists.

no you don't. I wouldn't recoment holding that position, but there honestly is no way for me to know for sure that you are actually a living human being.

A dream wouldn't do that. A simulation with you as the only entity wouldn't do that.

how can you know that? first off how do you know that the world doesn't disappear when you aren't looking at it, and then reappears in a state consistent with it's previous state when you turn back and look at it again? more importaintly, why would you assume a simulation wouldn't do all of that?

[Scourge of Ages]

you also have to believe that everybody else also exists.

no you don't. I wouldn't recoment holding that position, but there honestly is no way for me to know for sure that you are actually a living human being.

Exactly! I know I exist, because I'm sitting here thinking about existing. You know you exist (I assume) because you're doing the same thing.
I don't know you exist, because I can't see inside your brain that you're thinking about existing, and vice versa. So I am forced to believe that you, and everyone else, exists and experiences and defines reality by their thinking, the only logical alternative for me being malignant narcissism.

[samiam]

I thought we had two or three...

and could you elaborate on you second answer?

No redefinition of anything is going to make certain that "our actions truly are effecting it."

Christopher Hitchens would probably agree.

[Bobboau]

So I am forced to believe that you, and everyone else, exists and experiences and defines reality by their thinking, the only logical alternative for me being malignant narcissism.

you are not forced to anything, you totally can go on not accepting reality, it just is not practical. being impractical does not mean you are forced not to believe it.