define 'exists'

[swilow]

I suppose this does emphasise the inherent absurdity in trying to define something that is ALL things. I often think that all philosphical debate is really about language.

We've got no real framework to conjecture reasonably about the state if non-existence, so the two opposite ends of the spectrum are not even comparable. I wonder if its inherent non-duality- that is, that existence can only be, and its lack is not actually its opposite- has any deeper meaning. An object that cannot be rotated and viewed from 360 degree's might not even be an object in this universe. Anyway.

The mind cannot truly understand consciousness because it has an inherent 'conflict of interest'; the mind must use consciousness to further understanding of consciousness without having some some altering effect upon that very thing, and this creates an unresolvable loop... Perhaps actually existing precludes us from the objectivity required to accurately define it.

 

[methamaniac]

We know something "is".

But you can't say "I" , the most basic axiom in all of philosphy is that there is something, but beyond that, saying "I exist " is a loaded statement.
For one, we don't know what is this "I", and secondly, we don't know what does it mean for this I to "exsist".

Ontologically speaking, yes, it is justified to say THAT 'something' exists. However, if 'something' is a basic axiom, it seems to me ' I ' is just as much a basic axiom. Epistemologically speaking, I don't see how you can know/prove 'something' exists anymore than you can 'I' exists. IMO , The inability to define, with words, doesn't mean something has a less probability of existing.
There very act of questioning the existence of ' I ' strongly suggests 'I' is currently in existence.
( i.e "I think therefore I am")

I suppose this does emphasise the inherent absurdity in trying to define something that is ALL things. I often think that all philosphical debate is really about language.

I view philosphy as the 'mathematics' of words as opposed to mathematics of numbers ( if that makes sense) They are both the processing of information.
Language is just a systematical way of conveying information. Some languages convey information much better than others.

 

[murphythecat]

I

The mind cannot truly understand consciousness because it has an inherent 'conflict of interest'; the mind must use consciousness to further understanding of consciousness without having some some altering effect upon that very thing, and this creates an unresolvable loop... Perhaps actually existing precludes us from the objectivity required to accurately define it.

so I guess you think we are doomed and we cannot know the truth of what we are?
the loop can be stopped, but as long as mindfulness is not there, forget about it. the broken record will keep on turning.


If anyone were to really observe the ''I'', they would see how impermanent, illusionary and unsolid it really is. theres really no-self in anything.

 

[murphythecat]

Ontologically speaking, yes, it is justified to say THAT 'something' exists. However, if 'something' is a basic axiom, it seems to me ' I ' is just as much a basic axiom. Epistemologically speaking, I don't see how you can know/prove 'something' exists anymore than you can 'I' exists. IMO , The inability to define, with words, doesn't mean something has a less probability of existing.
There very act of questioning the existence of ' I ' strongly suggests 'I' is currently in existence.
( i.e "I think therefore I am")





I view philosphy as the 'mathematics' of words as opposed to mathematics of numbers ( if that makes sense) They are both the processing of information.
Language is just a systematical way of conveying information. Some languages convey information much better than others.

everything that exist is conditioned.
you think therefore you think you are.

where is you when you sleep? where were you at 5 years old? are you the same you as when you were 10, or 20, or 30? the self is a thought, always changing in every moment.
the believe in a self, a entity inside of us is the biggest illusion of all.

 

[methamaniac]

everything that exist is conditioned.
you think therefore you think you are.

where is you when you sleep? where were you at 5 years old? are you the same you as when you were 10, or 20, or 30? the self is a thought, always changing in every moment.
the believe in a self, a entity inside of us is the biggest illusion of all.

If somehow the mind has bought into an illusion of self, how would it go about proving self doesn't exist? How does a unicorn prove unicorns don't exist?
The very idea that somehow a situation has occured where an illusion (of self) is trying to disprove itself, is kinda absurd to me.
Self is a thought? Do you mean a wave/stream of thoughts? I get what your saying, but intuitively it doesn't seem as simple as saying self is an illusion.

Where was I when I was 5? I suppose in that present reality. Where is myself when I am sleeping? Not sure , a guess would be resting/recharging ☺
good questions/points. Not any easy answers.

You say self is always changing. But your questions seem to indicate that self needs to remain static to exist. I don't see why self (in respect) has to be defined in terms of an immutable object. ' I' could be different at 10, 20, and 30.
I have often thought self is a thought of a higher entity manifesting itself. The observation ( not necessarily visually) of self is what allows self to exist. I tend to think our perception of reality is more the illusion. I think there is a higher/truer reality that exists.

 

[Anamo7tram]

I suppose this does emphasise the inherent absurdity in trying to define something that is ALL things. I often think that all philosphical debate is really about language.

I often wonder about this, and it bothers me. Becouse in a way it's true but it doesn't feel right. Like, language is this thing we use to hopefully transfer mental content but when we focus on the language, which.although makes logical sense, you kinda restrict yourself to the scope of the language and not beyond, ex: if I discuss consousness with a philosophical zombie, we can define consousness and argue from there but 1. Our argument are restricted by the language and 2. I don't think you'll get as far as discussing it with a consouse person. I guess, to go far in an investigation with someone, is to assume much about his mental content and be content with intution about concepts rather than a full defention.

 

[murphythecat]

If somehow the mind has bought into an illusion of self, how would it go about proving self doesn't exist? How does a unicorn prove unicorns don't exist?
The very idea that somehow a situation has occured where an illusion (of self) is trying to disprove itself, is kinda absurd to me.
Self is a thought? Do you mean a wave/stream of thoughts? I get what your saying, but intuitively it doesn't seem as simple as saying self is an illusion.

Where was I when I was 5? I suppose in that present reality. Where is myself when I am sleeping? Not sure , a guess would be resting/recharging ☺
good questions/points. Not any easy answers.

You say self is always changing. But your questions seem to indicate that self needs to remain static to exist. I don't see why self (in respect) has to be defined in terms of an immutable object. ' I' could be different at 10, 20, and 30.
I have often thought self is a thought of a higher entity manifesting itself. The observation ( not necessarily visually) of self is what allows self to exist. I tend to think our perception of reality is more the illusion. I think there is a higher/truer reality that exists.

if when you sleep, when you were 5, 10, 15, is definitely not the same self as the self you think you are now, it would be equivalent to say that you would have had, have and will have many self. the self at 5 is definitely not the same as 10, as 30 or will it be at 50. how could we be all those selves, those thousands of selves. it seems very contradictory. when you sleep, the sense of self is not resting, it simply is not there at all.

where will be our self when we will die, or before this life?
your body clearly have changed and your mind clearly have changed. where was that self all this time? ever changing? the mind and the body is totally conditioned by your body. the mind is nothing more then a sense contact. the mind is very strongly generated by the thought.
as soon as we dont think for a while, the sense of self dissipate and all there is is awareness of what you observe.
the thinker creates the self. when you become the observer rather the the thinker, the thinker is gone and the observer can merge with the observed. observer and observed can merge to ebcome one, a unity. but this needs practice.



I also believe that there are truer reality that exist within reality, subtler sensation to be felt, different state of awareness, but why awareness would equal self? when theres no awareness, as you can see when you sleep, you are not a self anymore.

If somehow the mind has bought into an illusion of self, how would it go about proving self doesn't exist?
by practicing mindfulness. if you practice minfulness of thought now, label each thought that comes into the mind, within minutes, you will see that you can change your mind. if each time you have a negative thought, you replace that thought as fast as possible with a beautiful thought, ou will see that you dont have to think negative thoughts. then, if you go back to the mindfulness of the body and able to stay within it, the self becomes much more transparent, malleable and change completely.

if you are able to mediate and able to reach concentration (that means having no thoughts at all in the mind), if only for 10 seconds, this experience should give you some very interesting insights about a lot of our wrong believes

But your questions seem to indicate that self needs to remain static to exist

I certainly dont think that.
however, in order to realize what we really are, we have to develop calm, stillness and peace within. we have to develop a lot of factors in order to see reality for what it really is.

Self is a thought? Do you mean a wave/stream of thoughts?

what I mean is that the sense of self, the idea that we are a entity formed of a body and mind is a wrong view mainly supported by our thoughts. we think we are a body or that this body belongs to us and we think that our mind is ours and belongs to us, just like we also may think we own our thoughts. All those believes are wrong.

 

[Foreigner]

Well, since we're dealing with semantics, I would say that "exists" defines something that is happening in reality, since "exists" is a verb, which means an action is taking place.

Whether or not a reality is occurring in which "exists" has relevance, is another story altogether. Assuming said reality is happening, then anything observed within it can be said to exist.

If reality is transient or perhaps an illusion, then that line of thinking is pretty fucked and so are we.

 

[Tachyon]

Everything excists and always has.lol om!

 

[Jabberwocky]

^ nicely said. I agree with that. I'm gonna take a crack at it too.

Anything we experience is subject to our perception of it. So our perception is our primary criteria for whether something exists. Now lets say we carry an illusion in our perception. For example, we look at one of those optical illusions and conclude we are seeing something that isn't really accurate once someone explains how the illusion works. Would we say that illusions exists? If you read some of the more transcendent texts they say things like "Space and time are illusions." Most of us dismiss it as crackpot theories because it violates our perception, but then someone like Einstein comes along and bends our perception of space and time and we now take it for granted even though we can't directly perceive it except for through metaphors. So I'd say something exists if it continues to exist outside of perception, since as we all know perception is subject to illusions. Obviously this isn't incredibly practical since the vast majority of people believe that sensory perception is taken for granted as our proxy to physical reality and physical reality is the only reality that exists.

 

[methamaniac]

if when you sleep, when you were 5, 10, 15, is definitely not the same self as the self you think you are now, it would be equivalent to say that you would have had, have and will have many self. the self at 5 is definitely not the same as 10, as 30 or will it be at 50. how could we be all those selves, those thousands of selves. it seems very contradictory. when you sleep, the sense of self is not resting, it simply is not there at all

I do not believe I am many "selves" per se.
I believe I have one essence.
I may have, let's say, different opinions/views than I did when I was 10; but my essence is the same.
'I' is just being put into different 'situations' and given additional knowledge/information. 'I' is being allowed/given the opportunity to grow
(We are getting into the territory of what I really identify self as - soul)
Similar to a seed, self/soul has everything it needs to become its full potential, so long as it it is nurtured with the right 'nutients'.
I don't believe we are mearly our thoughts.
So we don't differ much there. Our consciousness is constantly making choices and forming ideas based on the input from our senses. I don't see any contradiction believing in a self that is allowed to evolve/grow based on its essence.

mind and the body is totally conditioned by your body. the mind is nothing more then a sense contact. the mind is very strongly generated by the thought.
as soon as we dont think for a while, the sense of self dissipate and all there is is awareness of what you observe.

I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems like you are trying to suggest there is a difference between consciousness and awareness. I may be wrong.

thinker creates the self. when you become the observer rather the the thinker, the thinker is gone and the observer can merge with the observed. observer and observed can merge to ebcome one, a unity. but this needs practice.

What is the difference between a thinker/ an observer/ a self? How are they different?

also believe that there are truer reality that exist within reality, subtler sensation to be felt, different state of awareness, but why awareness would equal self? when theres no awareness, as you can see when you sleep, you are not a self anymore

Where does self go when you are asleep?
The same place awareness goes. It is not being asked to observe or perceive anything. 'I' goes into a state of stasis. Possibly into another dimension where as there would be no passage of time.
This could explain why no time is perceived to have passed from the time you sleep until you wake.

You do understand 'awareness' has the same problem of seemingly popping in and out of what we perceive as existence as 'self' does, don't you ?

practicing mindfulness. if you practice minfulness of thought now, label each thought that comes into the mind, within minutes, you will see that you can change your mind. if each time you have a negative thought, you replace that thought as fast as possible with a beautiful thought, ou will see that you dont have to think negative thoughts. then, if you go back to the mindfulness of the body and able to stay within it, the self becomes much more transparent, malleable and change completely.

This sounds great and all, but I don't see how this practice disproves a self exists. It may show
that self is able to change, which I agree with, but as I said above I don't see how self being non-static is contradictory to its existence or intrinsicness.

certainly dont think that.
however, in order to realize what we really are, we have to develop calm, stillness and peace within. we have to develop a lot of factors in order to see reality for what it really is.

What exactly is 'we' in respect?
How do you know what 'we' need to do?
If 'I' is an illusion, how can you trust your perceptions/awareness is not trying to get you to buy into another illusion?

what I mean is that the sense of self, the idea that we are a entity formed of a body and mind is a wrong view mainly supported by our thoughts. we think we are a body or that this body belongs to us and we think that our mind is ours and belongs to us, just like we also may think we own our thoughts. All those believes are wrong.

I agree we are more than our body. Our body is just a vehicle/tool to help our self develop.
Defining self certainly is not easy.

 

[murphythecat]

yeah, I guess I dont know much more either. however, I tend to believe that we dont have a essence, we are totally empty, without any self. awareness is not a self, the observer is gone when it merges with the observed, it becomes unity consciousness. I have had very profound experience, under psychdelics, where it seems to point to the buddha teaching.

I personally have not had a experience of that as its only a stream enterer which is the first of the 4 steps to enlightenment that you experience the experience of having no-self within. I guess I take the many buddhist testimony about what they call a path moment, where ''you'' experience first hand what is it have ''no-self''.

having the experience of no self is exactly like having experienced nibanna. only a stream enterer, a once returner, a non returner or a arahant that can have this experience. its been said that once you have had the experience of ''no-self'' or nobody there in the mind, that you become instantly a stream-enterer.

 

[murphythecat]

I believe I have one essence.

thats another way of saying that you have a ego, a me. ''your'' essence.

IS your ''essence'' constituted of senses, of a body, of thought, of feelings?

I may have, let's say, different opinions/views than I did when I was 10; but my essence is the same.

your essence was the same that it is now?
essence is the same as saying you have something different and we all have a different essence. so we all have a different essence?

I don't see any contradiction believing in a self that is allowed to evolve/grow based on its essence.
that essence, its constantly changing? or its underneath it all, during all your life? therefore you think that your essence cannot change?

You do understand 'awareness' has the same problem of seemingly popping in and out of what we perceive as existence as 'self' does, don't you ?

theres different type of awareness, some very gross awareness like the sense contact, but theres also very subtle type of awareness where the ''self'' has simply dissapeard. when you get concentrated and fully absorbed in meditation, all that retain is the awareness of each moment of the breath, without any thoughts in the mind, nor any concept. the observer (the ego) or the Knower has completely dissapeard and all that retain is the breath. awareness indeed pop in and out as long as the mind is not still. but in meditation, you learn to not let awareness pop in and out and be aware of only one thing in the universe. you leave the duality anndd the diversity for the unity.
the Knower, the observer, the self, cannot happen at the same time when you are fully concentrated and absorbed.

This sounds great and all, but I don't see how this practice disproves a self exists.
you will have to try it because theres no way you can understand what it is to be fully concentrated by just reading about it.
but those experience clearly show that the self, your essence, may not be a ''solid'' as you think it is. and if you would be able to stay in a concentrated mode all the time, the self is not there all along, where did your essence go?
therefore if the idea of self dissapear when you sleep, when you die, when you werent born, when you are concentrated, it becomes quite logical to imaging that the self, the ''Essence'' you think you have is simply created by some type of mechanism in the mind, especially by your thoughts.

What exactly is 'we' in respect?
How do you know what 'we' need to do?
all beings.
the search of contentment, inner joy, happiness seems universal in all beings.

I agree we are more than our body. Our body is just a vehicle/tool to help our self develop.

sure, everyone agree with that, but do you live in accordance? or your mind do everything he want and the body follows. are you sure you have seen the distinction between the mind and the body?
the mind sets the pace and the body follows.

 

[methamaniac]

A lot of this can be hard to put into words.
But I'll give it a try......

thats another way of saying that you have a ego, a me. ''your'' essence.

You can call it what you want. I believe 'I' has intrinsic God given attributes.

your ''essence'' constituted of senses, of a body, of thought, of feelings?

My essence transcends all of these.

essence was the same that it is now?
essence is the same as saying you have something different and we all have a different essence. so we all have a different essence?

Yes, my essence is the same as it was.
I believe we are made in the image of God, but we are all obviously not the same.
It's possible we and given different measures of the essence of God. I don't see a problem with having unique attributes. It wouldn't necessarily mean we are unequal in some way. Just different.
I'm not God so I can't say for sure.

essence, its constantly changing? or its underneath it all, during all your life? therefore you think that your essence cannot change?

Essence is a big part of what makes up what the self/soul really is.
It's the attributes/characteristics given to me by God. The self is what is formed from conscious interpretations based on interactions of different essences in different environments. I can choose to hate someone else, but this doesn't mean I am or have an essence of hate. I just chose to act in a contrary manner to the essence of love that was instilled in me.
You can live contrary to your essence by not trusting/living according with the full potential of your essence. Self can be in a state of flux. It exists, but you are who you truly are (suppose to be) when self is inline with your essence. You can have a false sense of self, as many narcissist do. Pride is an example of something that causes you to believe you are something you are not.

theres different type of awareness

Are there different types of awareness or different degrees of awareness?

very gross awareness like the sense contact, but theres also very subtle type of awareness where the ''self'' has simply dissapeard. when you get concentrated and fully absorbed in meditation, all that retain is the awareness of each moment of the breath, without any thoughts in the mind, nor any concept. the observer (the ego) or the Knower has completely dissapeard and all that retain is the breath. awareness indeed pop in and out as long as the mind is not still. but in meditation, you learn to not let awareness pop in and out and be aware of only one thing in the universe. you leave the duality anndd the diversity for the unity.
the Knower, the observer, the self, cannot happen at the same time when you are fully concentrated and absorbed.

I'm having a hard time following. Maybe you could distiguish the difference between the thinker/ the knower/the observer/ the stream enterer/ the self/ the ego/, a little more. Which do you believe are illusions? And how exactly do you know which one to trust?

This goes back to the questions I posed above:

What exactly is 'we' in respect ( to self )?
How do you know what 'we' need to do?
If 'I' is an illusion, how can you trust your perceptions/awareness is not trying to get you to buy into another illusion?

will have to try it because theres no way you can understand what it is to be fully concentrated by just reading about it.
but those experience clearly show that the self, your essence, may not be a ''solid'' as you think it is.

What do you mean by "solid"? Illusions?
If these are illusions, what exactly is the the "reality" then? Does anything exist apart from the material?
What do you mean by "concentrated"?
What is concentrated and into what is it condensed?

therefore if the idea of self dissapear when you sleep, when you die, when you werent born, when you are concentrated, it becomes quite logical to imaging that the self, the ''Essence'' you think you have is simply created by some type of mechanism in the mind, especially by your thoughts.

With sincerest respect,
you are beginning to sound like a materialist.

sure, everyone agree with that, but do you live in accordance? or your mind do everything he want and the body follows. are you sure you have seen the distinction between the mind and the body?
the mind sets the pace and the body follows.

Yes, I know the distinction.
You seem to be leaving important variables out of the equation tho..... mind, body, soul, spirit ( a topic all to itself)

 

[murphythecat]

I will suggest to you accestoinsight. I cannot give a complete teaching about my belief system and it has been already very well teached by various and way more experienced practionner. My favorite teacher is Ayya Khema, she has about 230 talks all recorded.
http://dharmaseed.org/teacher/334/
I recommend, even if you dont believe in all the buddhist concepts, to listen with attention what she has to say on how to practice mindfulness, especially.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm following this discussion but seems like there are some disagreements on the meaning of terms. With regards to "essence" I do believe this is a fundamental aspects of reality. In other words, essence exists for the sake of this thread. Methamaniac describes essence in a way that is closer to my own understanding. It's an often loosely used term with different meaning for different people, but its meaning has been made very precise by some. My favorite teacher on the subject is A.H Almaas. He has written books about essence and done a wonderful job of identifying various facets of essence. He has a couple short essays on the subject on his website that are nice introductions. http://www.ahalmaas.com/bio/god-as-essence and http://www.ahalmaas.com/articles/yoga-journal-1990

 

[yotreeman]

I would define existence as that which you, through rational thought and logical process as a result of one's own demonstrable sentience, can ascertain as being real.

 

[Anamo7tram]

Methamanic, you can believe whatever you want but it's not fair to bring god into a philosophical discussion, since your adding something that will change any topic to the question of god. Which has been argued to death by now.

I understand essence (atleast in philosphy of mind) as that property which can not be explained without assuming the other person is self aware. Or perhaps that which can not be broken down to its components.

Assuming the "I" exsist, which I still claim is very presumptuous, you can not claim it is a static thing, even in essence. There is an exception here that I find intresting, which is that if we strip everything from the mind but the essence, all human beings are the same, sort of like a form of consousness, plato style.

 

[methamaniac]

Methamanic, you can believe whatever you want but it's not fair to bring god into a philosophical discussion

First, respectively, this is one of the most absurd things I have heard on this forum in a minute.
Second, I "brought God" into the intial discussion of- what does it mean to exist?- in the context of the existence of "I", or what does it mean for "I" to exist?
(or what do -I-mean when I say "I" exists.)

Like I said to you earlier, you can not prove 'something' exists anymore than I can prove 'I' exists. All we have to go on is what our consciousness decides on what it precieves
the brain is telling it. All our brain has to go on what it determines our senses/nerves are telling it. You think you know that something like a rock surely exists, but I'm saying you can not. You have never truly experinced a rock. Only what your mind thinks a rock is. You would have to be the rock to truly experience a rock. But for the sake of argument, let's assume for a minute both a 'rock' and a 'you' exists as most would define them;
IMO it is absurd to say there is really no difference between a rock and you apart from an illusion of 'I'.

since your adding something that will change any topic to the question of god. Which has been argued to death by now.

I'm not ( and its not) changing the topic. We are still having a philosophical/theoretical/metaphysical discussion on existence.
You may give your musings without the positing of God/supernatual.

understand essence (atleast in philosphy of mind) as that property which can not be explained without assuming the other person is self aware. Or perhaps that which can not be broken down to its components.

Assuming the "I" exsist, which I still claim is very presumptuous, you can not claim it is a static thing, even in essence. There is an exception here that I find intresting, which is that if we strip everything from the mind but the essence, all human beings are the same, sort of like a form of consousness, plato style.

Allow me to make an imperfect analogy to help you understand my interpretation of essensce.
( bear with me and keep in mind I said imperfect☺)

Essence would be kin to your DNA. It is the unique information/attributes given to you by God ( your parents in respect to DNA). Your DNA remains basically static throughout your life. (or at least the body does its best to keep it static) It can sufffer from entropy/degradation, but it basically remains static with respect. You staying alive kinda depends on it staying as static as it possibly can. ☺
Now, the cell would be kin to 'I' ' s awareness/interpretation of reality.
You entire body as viewed as a whole would be kin to 'I'.
Interestingly, the cell has been shown through epigenetic studies to be influenced by the environment. The cell seems to have awareness of the environment (including response) but we have no scientific explanation for why this is.
You could say that humans are really nothing more than DNA because if you stripped us down to our "essense" we are all DNA. The "selfish gene" concept if you will. But we know that DNA in itself is inert-lifeless. If you put DNA in a petri dish with all the nutrients you wanted, no matter the timespan it would never do anything. The cell is what is really alive/having the experience. If you removed the DNA from a cell, the cell continues to function fine physiologically, but is screwed without DNA when it needs to make new proteins. It ( the cell) can function for a short time without its essence (DNA), but its existence is wholly dependent on its essence/DNA.
We are made of trillions of cells based on the information of the DNA that was inserted into the cell, but we are more than just our cells. Our cells make up a single person. There is a singularity that exists above the components that make 'us' up
-IMO.

 

[Anamo7tram]

I don't think it's absurd at all, it's litearly a sure way to derail any philosophical discussion to the question of god. Also, I never said our perception of rocks is real, I view the "I" to be as proven to exsist as a rock, In fact, my main point was that proving "I" exist is no more easier than proving a rock does.

Secondly, am not sure you explained essence, you talked about the DNA anology, but it's still not clear beyond saying, we are god's spirit .