How can I prove that everything I see really exists and isn’t just an illusion/ image created by my brain? How can I really know that once I look away from something that it is still there and doesn’t turn black? I thought about the mirror, but maybe the image in the mirror is also just created. The people I hear talking behind me could also be gone but I only hear the audio and once I turn around they appear visually. I thought about using a camera but the content that is saved on the camera could also be fake.
Can someone tell me how to prove that others really exist?
How can I really know that people are responding to this question and not only AI? I have absolutely no proof that this forum could be real. Look at ChatGPT.
I have so many questions.
Consider this: What does it matter if everything is an illusion?
Does it change anything? Would the answer give any insight or provide any value?
I’m generally of the opinion that, no, the answer to the question doesn’t matter. Even if everything is an illusion, then that just is reality. Whether you think things exist outside your mind or whether you believe everything is a figment of your imagination, both are reality. Knowing which of the two is true makes no difference.
I love the movie Inception, but the “fans” of it drive me crazy because (for a very long time, at least) nobody seemed to get that this here was the point of Cobb’s arc. Everyone was debating what was “real” and what wasn’t, but completely missed what the character himself figured out and came to peace with.
I think I need to watch it again, I didn’t really understand it the first time. Thanks for the reminder! :)
I chose the red pill.
You can’t really, as others have pointed out, but I like Philip K Dick’s definition of reality: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
The philosophical question you’re raising is known as solipsism, which is the idea that one can only be sure of the existence of their own mind and not of anything external to it. While it’s an interesting concept to explore, proving the absolute reality of the external world can be challenging.
Philosophers have debated these questions for centuries, and there isn’t a definitive answer. However, there are some common responses and arguments:
Pragmatism: While you might not be able to prove the absolute reality of the external world, it is generally more practical and beneficial to assume its existence. The way we navigate and interact with the world is based on the assumption that it is real.
Consensus Reality: The fact that multiple people can agree on the existence of certain things suggests a shared reality. If others can perceive and interact with the same objects or events as you do, it adds weight to the argument that there is an external reality.
Scientific Method: Science provides a systematic way of understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and verification. While it may not provide absolute certainty, the scientific method has proven to be a reliable way to gain knowledge about the external world.
Testability: While you may question the authenticity of your perceptions, you can still make predictions and test them against your experiences. For example, if you drop an object, you can predict that it will fall, and when it does, it provides some validation of the external reality.
Regarding your doubt about whether people are real or if the responses are from AI, the same principles can apply. If there is consistency in responses, coherence in conversations, and a shared understanding among users, it adds credibility to the reality of the interaction.
It’s important to note that these responses don’t necessarily provide absolute certainty but offer practical and reasonable ways to engage with the external world. The nature of reality is a complex and debated topic in philosophy, and there may never be a conclusive answer.
Nah sorry just kidding around, I think you stumbled upon a classic philosophical problem. You cannot 100% truly know that your senses are correct. I agree with ChatGPT on pragmatism here: you can try proving it all you want, you will never get there. Better to just look at all those pretty flowers nature created in this weird universe!
I was about to down vote as I read your comment, realizing it was AI generated, but the joke is appreciated haha
I completely fell for that
This is a great philosophical question, people have been asking themselves this for a very long time. Some have answers: You may have heard “Cogito ergo sum.”, by Rene Descartes. The context of this quote is that it is a logical conclusion, after the border began purposefully trying to show what really REALLY exists, as he chose to doubt about the existence of everything.
After a lot of thinking and writing he came to the conclusion that there is no way for you to know that your life isn’t just a hallucination, projected unto your brain by a daemon, however, there is one thing you CAN be sure of: If you are asking yourself these questions, you are thinking, that is undeniable you 100% experience your thoughts first hand, and therefore it is safe to say that because you can think, you can be sure you exist. Cogito, ergo sum. (I think, therefore I am)
Descartes didn’t use that as a conclusion; he used it as the basis from which he built up to “prove” the existence of God.
That said, that’s still the only conclusion I can reach with certainty, making me a weak solipsist.
I mean… A statement can be both a conclusion and an argument… But sure.
If we don’t have the baseline of trusting our senses, which should include perception of our own thoughts; how can we make that statement? Why should one trust perception of thought over other senses?
Who is to say that the words in your head is even your own? Maybe you are just along for the ride.
Correct, but you exist for sure, because you are hearing that voice, whatever it actually is. Even if it is a hallucination, it is you perceiving it. So at least of your own existence, you can be sure.
It doesn’t include “perception of our own thoughts” because they’re not a thing to witness like a smell or visuals. You manufacture them immediately yourself, you don’t observe them. That’s Descartes entire point.
“Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me.”
You can’t. But it wouldn’t make a difference if it were a solipsistic reality or not. Just don’t be a dick. For all appearances, you and I both exist.
What’s the point of me trying to prove something to a figment of my imagination? Nice try, brain image. You almost had me.
You can’t. Best you can do is learn not to think about it.
Dr. Samuel Johnson (writer of the original English dictionary) was posed this theory. In response (probably a little drunk) he ran up and kicked a giant stone, saying “I refute it thus!” He broke his foot.
Probably don’t do that but I guess you see his point.
Read some complex scientific stuff, e.g. physics. Try to really really understand the formulas AND the meaning behind it. Ask others for help and explanation if you can’t understand it yourself, but don’t give up until you got it thoroughly.
Then ask yourself if you (your brain) would have been able to produce this.
No? Then there must be someone with a bigger brain than yours.
Do the same with some truly creative art.
Or watch some really amusing comedy live show.
Or a circus.
Or…
Just the complexity of all the things that happen in the world and individual lives when I’m not looking is enough to do that for me. Like, if I smashed in the door of any random house I would find new and different furniture and random strangers doing whatever it is they’re doing at that time of day because everybody is living individual lives. Sure, I could be hallucinating that too, but really I do not think I am creative enough. I’ve also worked in multiple positions that had more opportunity than most to peer behind the curtains into people’s private lives to the point where I easily accept that life is happening all over the place.
The shared simulation is much more plausible to me than me existing in an individual universe. I don’t really think it’s true either but that’s more of a bias.
I mean… Your brain is just making shit up.
Color? It’s the brain interpreting the visible wavelengths of light. Maybe what you see for red isn’t the same as anyone else. Maybe the difference between high and low pitched sounds, sound different to each individual because the experience of hearing a sound is, again, just the brain’s interpretation of data.
The data can be the same for everyone, and the experience can be totally different because the brain interprets that data differently for each person. It certainly would explain why some people like subjective things and others do not; such as colors, music, flavors, etc.
I can’t prove that I exist, let alone that you exist. Maybe neither of us really exist and this is all just a simulation. Maybe it’s not even a real simulation, but a figment of the imagination of another being who is simply dreaming about a simulation.
Nobody even knows why (evolutionarily) we have to sleep, just that bad things will happen if we dont
It seems to be connected with forming long term memories.
We don’t even know what the deal is with hiccups. Like, we know the mechanism that makes them happen, but not why it exists.
There are as many universes as there are beings to perceive them.
The only thing you can know for sure is that you exist.
Absolutely nothing else can be proven to exist with 100% certainty.
Is that Descartes?
The only thing you can know for sure is that you exist.
Or maybe not, depending on your definitions of “you” and “exist” :)
You’re actually a Boltzmann brain that just randomly popped into existence thinking all your past interactions were real.
More important question: If we didn’t exist who are you talking to?
Speak for yourself, I am just an entity created by OPs mind.
Define ‘prove’.
Before you can determine how to prove something, you must determine what evidence would constitute proof and under what conditions you might be able to collect that evidence.
To put it another way, if you want to prove something to be true then you must be able to imagine a situation which would prove it to be false, which is to say that it must be falsifiable.
And then apply Alder’s razor:
If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate.
