Try not existing. Just try it. If you dissolve into nothingness, you can assume (well, not really, you won’t be there) that you do not exist. Otherwise, you exist. Deal with it.
Considering the phenomenon of “Nano”, for instance, I see myself (and any other “thing”, for that matter) as a set of habituated probabilities arising instantly form instant to instant.
It doesn’t fill my belly, though.
It does make my friends say, “Ooooooooookaaaay…” and turn to other topics.
\
THIS is what non-existence is like. Plenty of thoughts,
sensations, emotions, just nobody who has them.
In addition, there is a delusory sense that there
is somebody underlying it all. The only thing that
one can try is to dissovle the delusion.
Life goes on, though, just without
the delusion. Life, but no one who
lives it.
About Descartes:
Descartes maintained that ‘I think’ is indubitable,
becuase it must be true if I doubt it. It was pointed out soon after that all that
was indubitable is ‘There is a thought now.’
That’s what can’t be doubted.
It’s certainly conceivable that there is just
the thought and no subject that has it.
Similarly any Evil Demon worth his salt would
create the belief ‘I exist’ without any believer.
There would therefore be deception, the
false belief, but no one deceived.
Cranberry, who wrote your book? Or is it a
book of readings?
Mindless thoughts are like thoughtless minds; in this way, they are empty.
My view OC not Barney Bhudda’s.
A couple of non-Buddhist treatments of Descartes:
Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, by neurologist Antonio R. Damasio
Consciousness Explained, by Daniel C. Dennett
Also somewhat related:
The Blank Slate:The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker
Several books by Patricia and/or Paul Churchland–most of mine are out on loan at the moment, and I’m not sure which ones are most appropriate for this particular question. http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/EPL/Pat.html has info.
Cranberry, you might enjoy the Web site of one of my old college friends who has “been in and out of madhouses all over North Texas”. It’s at http://mysite.verizon.net/trcbmc/index.html and includes a novel-in-progress about the experience at http://mysite.verizon.net/trcbmc/id27.html
Sounds like an inside-out and somewhat more depressing way of stating that individual identity is the illusion…all are part of the whole(or whatever is) and and only perceive themselves as seperate entities.
That’s rather how later Buddhism went, Emmline,
but the Buddha’s teaching was different.
It isn’t that we are one with anything;
rather it’s that when you look within
you find that nothing lasts long enough
to be you. It isn’t that we become a
Big Self; it’s that nature is impersonal
through and through. Empty phenomena
rolling on.
Darwin, I just saw Dan Dennett a couple
of weeks ago. He gave a lecture here
in St. Louis. The Damasio book
you mentioned is said to be very good.
Whew…what a relief! All this time I thought it was I who spilled my drink on the good lady and called the Professor’s book “a failed attempt at onanism” in his presence. But now that I think of it, Bloomie, I don’t recall seeing you at the reception…
Will O’Ban
Yes, dependent orgination is all very well and good, but I, personally, see the tendency toward identification with “everything” as just another attempt to wring meaning out of the meaningless. (That is, I see “meaning” as coming entirely from within. It doesn’t need to be justified.)
Another way of looking at no-self is that everything (every thing) is a temporary composite of elements that are, themselves, temporary composites. I wrote a little something about it in an email to a friend (the same one I recommended to Cranberry), and it ended up at http://mysite.verizon.net/trcbmc/id35.html though I didn’t write it with the idea of having it published.
The identity of one of these “composites” as a unitary “thing” is, as Jim said, a useful fiction. In truth, our brains are “designed” to construct these entities out of the great seething mass of sensory input. This is particularly clear with regard to the visual system. Our eyes, optic nerves, and brains add emphasis to very particular facets of the overall visual experience while ignoring others. Edges and colors are experienced separately at the input level, and are then bound into visual objects, and we can scarecly escape the feeling of unity in those objects, even when our own analysis shows that unity to have no deep foundation.
But even our mental objects change with time. Our memories fade and shift. We may even remember events with details that never happened. Still, our mental objects commonly outlive the external circumstances that gave rise to them. They have a persistence and generate a feeling of reality that is extremely convincing and that seems intuitively “real”.
Darwin, I just saw Dan Dennett a couple
of weeks ago. He gave a lecture here
in St. Louis.
I’ve been a big Dennett fan for a long time, so it was interesting to read Paul Churchland’s On the Contrary: Critical Essays, 1987-1997, “Chapter 12. Filling In: Why Dennett is Wrong”, which is a classic case of scientific data “disproving” philosophical logic. (It’s about Dennett’s contention that the brain deals with the visual blind spot by simply ignoring it, while it seems that the evidence makes it clear that the brain actually “fills in” the missing data.)
I must say that his Self and Identity, which I read as part of a “Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence” class about a dozen years ago, seems pretty dated now. It’s part of why I prefer the uncertainty of science and Buddhism to the certainty of philosophers.
The Damasio book
you mentioned is said to be very good.
I enjoyed it. It fits nicely with Pinker’s book (as do the later Churchland works). His starting point is Phineas Gage, who lost part of his brain in an explosion that put an iron bar through his head. When I started reading it, I realized that I had seen a drawing of his skull, showing how the bar had penetrated it, in a copy of Ripley’s Believe It or Not that we had back in the late '40s or early '50s.
Ok, Cranberry, here’s the TEST:
- Stare into a mirror. If no one stares back, then it’s a pretty safe bet that you don’t exist – or you’re a vampire. In either case this could be seen as a problem.
- Stare into a mirror. If someone else stares back, then enjoy yourself as you spend the guy’s money and pig out on the food in his fridge.
- Stare into a mirror. If several people stare back, then poll them on whether or not you’re insane.
- Stare into a mirror. If you stare back, then head for the Funny Farm because life can’t be that boring!
Will O’Ban
Neurotics build castles in the air.
Psychotics live in them.
And psychiatrists collect the rent.
When I look in the mirror, there’s no one there. Just a picture of me that has no thoughts, no personality (or even a backside). Therefore I do not exist…No no… This is a bit hard to say: There is not me that does not exist. Or in the simple logical form ~E~(a)->E(a). So it seems that I do exist after all. And don’t. At the same time. Except it’s not me.
/Arto
Who or what finds it useful? A useful fiction of use only to other fictions?
A friend of mine tried to turn all terms into feature placing terms, ie to show that you could consistently speak as though there were no things to speak about and in some sense still say everything. So every sentence was a bit like ‘It is raining.’ There isn’t a thing which rains and there doesn’t have to be. The trouble with that project is when there are two simulaneous things of the same kind happening. It gets seriously weird. Instead of ‘I am thinking’ we say ‘it is thinking’ or ‘there is a thought.’ So far so good. But what if we are all thinking? Now we get something like 'It is thinking Wombattily, Stonishly, Bloomfieldilly, Emmliniarly … ’
My friend had to be institutionalised for a while. No, I’m not joking. He doesn’t do philosophy any more.
I’m sorry I didn’t feel like reading through the last 3 pages. Cranberry you are not crazy. Philosophy is an interesting pastime, but boils down to mental masturbation. Read Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts, very informative.
Other than that, take your mind with a grain of salt and follow your heart, its the true guiding light.
Jenn
Yeah, right. Every invention, every creature comfort, the technology that plays the CD soundtrack to your heart-following quest, all of these things can be traced back to numerous people who asked ‘why?’ with no interest in, or expectation of, material reward. But you don’t have to know that. You only have to hand over your dollars to the guy who now owns the patent.
Cran: if it’s the Bertrand Russell book that you’re wading through it’s a great choice. An easy place to start, and makes a good doorstop when you’re done reading it.
Whether or not you exist is probably one of the least helpful questions to ponder. Whether you exist or not, you still perceive that you have a life to live, bills to pay, whistles to play, sex to have, beer to drink, friends to love etc etc etc. To my simple mind, ole Rene’s cogito is all the existence I need: I seem to exist, so I might as well make the most of it.
Stick with it, there’s a lot of interesting stuff that is far more productive to consider: Bentham, Mill and even mad old Freddie N are good for a laugh. My favourite stuff isn’t really covered in the Russell book (if that’s the one you’ve got) - Satre, Merleau Ponty, Camus etc, a bunch of European existentialists and phenomenologists. In these ‘interesting times’, ethics are probably a more relevant aspect to explore than metaphysics - and not so hard on the brain.
I’ll reply anyway (but only because I got asked questions, of course). The book was Sophie’s World.
It only touched on a lot of things and people and didn’t go into more than a couple pages on each person’s thought…I read all 500+ pages in a few hours so I’m sure I didn’t absorb some things.
I don’t think just because something can and does think that it necessarily exists just because there are thoughts. Mabey the thoughts exist, but not me (but of course I’m not very learned).
Jerry, I personally can’t be occupied with what I am if I’m not sure that I am. I can look in the mirror and see myself but I’m still not sure that’s proof I exist. I look at a straw in a glass of water and it looks as if it’s bent but really it’s not at all. Human senses lie. And if my body does exist, “I” still may not.
My original question wasn’t about that, though. It was how the feeling of knowing you may not exist (which I felt all day yesterday) is any different from being psychotic (which I’ve also been smile, possums). Nobody really answered that, but I found the answer on my own, so nevermind.
OK. That’s fine with me. But I’m a little confused. What is it exactly that you’re not sure exists?
Best wishes,
Jerry
Ah… there’s the rub. (See my mirror test on page 2). Is the image that you see in the mirror really you, or is it actually someone else playing around with your sanity and just pretending to be you? Must give us pause…
Will O’Ban
PS: My son would like to know how you formulated the question or typed it into the computer if you do not, in fact, exist?
all your energy goes to your brains, you become very intelligent that way, but your body gets nothing.
time to do something fysical…
jim stone wrote:
We speak as though there are persons;
There is nothing in reality denoted
by ‘chariot’ ; it’s a useful fiction.
Same with "jim,’ ‘Bloomfield,’
and ‘Cranberry.’
Who or what finds it useful? A useful fiction of use only to other fictions?
Yes, or, to put it more precisely, there are desires and
interests that are served by such talk.
Cranberry, I don’t know if there is any special feeling
to being psychotic–but the bottom line is what makes
the difference between whether one is or is not
psychotic is what one actually does.
Darwin, myproblem with churchland and to some extent,
Dennet, is that they are so anti- CartesianCartesian that they either explicitly or implicitly deny the existence of consciousness.
as to philosophy being mental masturbation, a lot of my work as a philosopher has been in nursing homes developing resuscitation policy. best