{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/12/2015 5:41:27 AM
1
But it could just be I that exists. Or the other way around. In which case the other does not "exist".
Responses and words are poor examples. They are perhaps the easiest of all things for out brains to produce. So if I talk to myself, does that mean that there is someone really existent answering me?
You can I both know the answer. We can flit around the truth all we want, but we know the answer is and always will be no. Why? Because one intelligence can not exist as two separate entities, each with independent thoughts and emotions.
English
-
Edited by Sheogorath : 2/12/2015 6:07:27 AM[quote] one intelligence can not exist as two separate entities[/quote] Yes it can. Taking a break from philosophy, lets look at psychology. Ever herd of John Nash? He suffers from extreme schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and paranoia. Throughout college, he had an imaginary friend whom definitely existed within Nash's mind. This imaginary friend had a separate mind, life, and emotions from Nash's and Nash truly believed that that friend was real. Even though his friend was never "real", he still existed even if only within Nash's mind. Another example is in computers. A computer (if advanced enough) can formulate other intelligence within its intelligence. (an AI within a computer creating other AI) Your argument is once again, invalid. These things that I am talking about are well proven, just look them up in a proper source rather if you still do not believe me. In fact, it is impossible for me to now prove to you that I [b]don't[/b] exist, but you wont see logic...
-
What is real in one man's mind does not mean it's real in all men's minds. Like I said, existence is what we have to form a line between what is actually and objectively real, and what is just perception and subjectivity real.
-
Edited by Sheogorath : 2/12/2015 3:35:48 PMNot at all. It may not be real, but it definitely exists to the observer. Existence does not depend on "realness" as what is real is not always clear. And back to your original question, you asked me to prove my existence, not whether or not I'm real. Back to your comment, in philosophy, existence only requires recognition by the observer. [quote]“Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this thing is. For otherwise what would exist would not be the same as what I had thought in my concept, but more than that"[/quote] This was taken directly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As I said, these things I'm talking about are well proven. Your argument rendered invalid once again...
-
But again, that's all subjective. Subjective is not reality. Objective is.
-
No it's not. Subjective means that something is based on opinions or influenced by personal opinion. None of these concepts that I've been talking about are in any way opinions or personal, biased thoughts. They are quite concrete and based on pure logic that has been proven and is irrevocable. This is what philosophy is, the study of knowledge, reality, and existence, all [b]proven[/b] through logic.
