The Existence of the Individual

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

This is why I'm unconvinced by intention-manifestation, because perceptions are malleable to an amazing degree, even within the bounds of natural human existence. It seems clear that we don't (and perhaps can't) really know the true nature of reality, but I'm yet to see a convincing argument for the lack of an external reality (which One vs. Many hinges on).

Mark, I agree with you on all of your points.

Question:

Do you think an external reality can exist without our presence to perceive it, and if it does, does it exist as a collection of molecules and atoms without our sense perceptions to give it definition?

[Mark Lapierre]

I think that an external reality can exist without our presence to perceive it, but I don't have any idea what form that existence truly takes. I think our perceptions influence the concepts we form, and those concepts dictate how we interact with that reality, and an attempt to understand the concepts, reality, and interaction, guide us into creating models which include molecules and atoms (and now strings).

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

I think that an external reality can exist without our presence to perceive it, but I don't have any idea what form that existence truly takes.

I agree. It's impossible for us to experience/observe anything other than within the context of our senses so I fail to see how others can be so confident in their opinions of what reality consists of. Certainly we can speculated endlessly and it's fun doing so, but given the confines of our physical existence we are rather limited. We would somehow have to figure out how to transcend our physical bodies.

[Mark Lapierre]

And if Antonio Damasio is right in his hypotheses about the inextricable influences our body, brain and mind all have on each other, that would make for a vastly different impression of reality. Not only in terms of the obvious differences in sensory perception, but it would extend to emotions, feelings, thoughts, reasoning, and everything else we associate with consciousness or the mind. Without a body all that would change dramatically.

Thankfully his hypotheses are testable.

[ZHereford]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And if Antonio Damasio is right in his hypotheses about the inextricable influences our body, brain and mind all have on each other, that would make for a vastly different impression of reality. Not only in terms of the obvious differences in sensory perception, but it would extend to emotions, feelings, thoughts, reasoning, and everything else we associate with consciousness or the mind. Without a body all that would change dramatically.
Thankfully his hypotheses are testable.

Very interesting!

Would it make for a different impression of reality or would it just expand our understanding of how we process sensory data? We still perceive what we perceive, we merely aren't aware of all the behind the scenes activity that is taking place with the brain, body, emotions etc. (according to Damasio's hypothesis).

[Iksander]

I think I am mis-communicating my point.

@ZHereford:

Aren't you making two contradictory statements - you know the word table because of consensus, yet it doesn't exist until it leaves an impression on your consciousness?

Everyone must perceive it in order to define it as a table (consensus), so therefore it must exist independent of your perceiving it.

I actually don't think I am making any contradictory statements. The word 'table' does in fact leave an impression on the consciousness whether the actual object connected with that word is or is not; for both to leave an impression, one would need to have a conceptual link - which is built from seeing, touching, or smelling the object.

I agree that consensus is required for a thing to be defined and have that definition be communicable, however, I do question whether the perception-independent existence of that thing is an actual state. The conflict that I DO find in my argument is this: the mere fact that I am conceiving of the concept "perception-independent existence" indicates that such a state does exist if it is leaving an impression upon my consciousness - yet at the same time it is reinforcing the statement that a thing only exists once perceived (leaving an impression).

That sounds fluid to me.

@Mark:

Yes, by fluid I mean changing - as being capable of taking on any and any number of attributes at any time.

Universal identity; as you said it.


I hope I communicated my point better in this post.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Iksander

I actually don't think I am making any contradictory statements. The word 'table' does in fact leave an impression on the consciousness whether the actual object connected with that word is or is not; for both to leave an impression, one would need to have a conceptual link - which is built from seeing, touching, or smelling the object.

I agree that consensus is required for a thing to be defined and have that definition be communicable, however, I do question whether the perception-independent existence of that thing is an actual state. The conflict that I DO find in my argument is this: the mere fact that I am conceiving of the concept "perception-independent existence" indicates that such a state does exist if it is leaving an impression upon my consciousness - yet at the same time it is reinforcing the statement that a thing only exists once perceived (leaving an impression).

That only indicates that such a conceptual state exists, but not necessarily in external reality. Just as conceiving of a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean it's real.

A conceptual link can be built from seeing, or otherwise directly perceiving an object. It can also be built from one's imagination. From the melding and morphing of various other concepts.