To be experienceable, an object must disturb its surroundings and such change in the environment must be experienced by something other than itself.

I don't think it is the actual act of being experienced per se that constitutes something's existence, but rather the potential to be experienced. — Pfhorrest

I also do not think that the existence of an object depends on it being experienced. An object must exist before it is experienced. I completely agree with you in this matter, and I believe this to be a fact.

On the other hand, the idea that the potential-to-be-experienced determines the existence of an object with the potential to be experienced assumes the existence of the potential before the existence of the object, and how can a potential be a quality of something that does not yet exist? How does the potential exist prior to the object? Maybe I am wrong in assuming temporality in this case, but no matter how hard I try, I am not able to imagine a potential as being a quality of something that does not exist.

I would instead say not that to be is to be perceived, or that to be is to be experienced, but that to be is to be experienceable. — Pfhorrest

To be experienceable, an object would require the future existence or the present (concurrent) existence of that which will experience the object. This idea assumes an interaction as you mentioned. I agree in that this interaction is a requirement for the existence of the thing in question.
You say that it is its potential to be experienced and not the interaction per se which constitutes the existence of an object, correct me if I am wrong.

According to your view, a single object in the universe, a unity, a particular, may exist even if other things do not exist because it has the potential to be experienced in the future. But the potential must exist before the object (again, I might be wrong in assuming temporality).
I'd say the existence of the interaction constitutes the existence of the interacting objects. From this would follow that a single object, a unity, a particular, cannot exist.

Again, in my view, it is not interacting what determines the existence of things but the interaction itself; in this case the interaction does not exist prior to the objects since it would be impossible, but the objects' existence depends on them interacting, which again assumes the necessity of multiple things existing.

How can something affect something else without them interacting?

So, is existence dependent on interaction? as in, a thing that does not interact with something external to itself does not exist; and existence requires more than one thing to become-it is impossible for a single object to exist in the universe.

.

I'd change that last part a bit and say that faith, in itself, is for fools.

When I grew up, I understood that my life is mine and only mine.
I would die for it. I'd beg for it, I'd fight for it, I'd run for it. I'd do whatever it is in my reach to keep it with me. This survival instinct, I cannot say that it was given to me by a god since I cannot say that gods exist. However, it comes naturally to me as it comes naturally to any other living thing there is. This constantly-present wish/desire to keep my life is as mine as my own life is. Again, I cannot say it was given to me by a god because I do not know if gods exist.

Each of us is unique. There is no arguing that. Hence, each idea we have is also unique. The way we observe and think about the world is unique. There are very similar thoughts but never two thoughts are completely the same, not even in the same head. So, each of us, inherently, has something we can contribute to the world we live in (regardless its apparent usefulness). After understanding the extend of our uniqueness (which is not easy because it is so intrinsic that we give it for granted), I believe the next step is to look for that in us that makes us unique (that which I can call mine and only mine) and find a way to apply it to the world we live in. This takes time, lots of it.... lots of it. But I believe that if you live life with this idea in mind, it becomes easier since it gives you purpose, and the same idea makes society less unnatural since it helps you understand that society is the way it is because many of us have not realized that we have something unique to offer (not the only reason, maybe). A bit off topic, but I think it might help you. Cheers.

Is it possible that all the things that the universe throws at our minds/brains are causal dead ends - producing no effects on our brains/minds? — TheMadFool

I don't know if I understand what you are trying to say, but I'd say that the mind/self itself is the result of the interaction of the external environment with our bodies. We are the effect of such interaction. The self is also a cause for many things. So, I'd say we are not dead ends. Again, I am not sure if I understood you correctly.

As for the analogy of the block, if there was no friction (or no other force opposing the applied force), would this still occur? Because I think the block does not move not because there is no effect, but because the cause is not enough to overcome friction or any other opposing force and make the block move. Right? So, I think that in this case the lack movement is not a lack of effect, but a lack of visible effect. At the microscopic level you must be breaking billions of bonds. My speciality is not physics, btw.

I'd say they affect the self. That said, I believe the self to be different from other thoughts, although I think it is a thought itself.

Can you (or anyone else that reads this) think of something that exists and does not interact?

Yes, that is the question. But I'd ask, just to be more general (less specific), if that's possible:

does every thing that exists interact?

makes sense? as in, to interact is a condition of (for) existence.

Is to have a relation to something the same as to interact with something, though?

kind of... I wanna ask something more like: is everything that exists a cause?
but now I'm realizing I am confused about what I really wanna ask; it's hard to put into words.

Maybe: is it necessary for something to exist to be a cause, that is, to have an effect on something else that is not itself?

All goes back to my believe that for existence to occur at least two objects must interact since a single entity cannot act on itself and therefore cannot exist. As in a single thing (a unity, not a composite) cannot exist. OR only composites can exist.

could you help me rephrase the question from the point of view of that which is affected, but using the thing that affects as the subject of the question? I dunno if that makes sense.

I guess I should have asked: Is every thing/object/entity perceived by at least something else that is not it?

I am assuming for this question that everything that affects something is perceived by such something.

What about this version? Does everything that exists interact with something different to itself?

Question: Would you be able to tell you are a first person perspective if there were no other first person perspectives?

Please also think before reporting posts you think are inappropriate or before lashing out at people like you just did. People must learn to recognize what information they can trust, and not what they can say or they cannot. The first approach fights disinformation, the second generates oppression. Don't you think?

Would you call consciousness divine if it was something that existed somehow beyond time — neonspectraltoast

Yes. It wouldn't be natural if it were not affected by time.

I'm not ruling out the possibility of it being divine. However, the things I know seem to indicate the contrary. I am conscious. I change. Time applies to me. Then, time applies to my conciousness. I'm not always conscious of the same things. And I'm certainly not divine.

It is hard to swallow when you think it occured in one day. The universe is quite old. It took billions of years for consciousness to evolve. That is a lot of time for anything to happen. A lot of time. Unimaginable.

So reproduction just naturally led to consciousness? — neonspectraltoast

No. It was the process of evolution.

So yes, my thought is, wasn't it fortunate that a blind process led up to any degree of awareness at all. And the question is, how did that happen? — neonspectraltoast

It is fortunate; but remember that fortunate is a human concept. And how did it happen? That's what we are trying to understand. The fact that we don't have an answer for it should not push us towards the assumption that consciousness has divine/supernatural origin since assuming that takes all the fun away.

If making copies is the only goal, why consciousness? — neonspectraltoast

Consciousness would be an alternative outcome of the process whose "goal" is to make copies. There are different ways that goal can be accomplished, as evidenced in the diversity of life. An organism can be defined as a set of traits. The composition of such set depends on the environment and random mutations (selection); and as the environment changes and new random mutations appear, the composition of such set changes. The randomness of the process and the dynamics of the environment provide the means for the diversity of sets. Each set of traits is unique and this set defines the behaviour of the organism. A virus is a virus, a monkey a monkey, a dog a dog. Even within a species, sets of traits are unique. We are defined by a set of traits. Not all behaviours are compatible with the environment that surrounds them. Not al viruses, monkeys and dogs reproduce/survive. We are constrained by the environment. If being conscious is to be aware, and being aware to experience, then consciousness is defined by the same set of traits that defines individual experience, and it is thus a random, alternative outcome of the process whose goal is to make copies.

It might be a trait under sexual selection (although I think it is under all kinds of selection since it is very complex). So, consciousness (the self, your personality) might not be very advantageous in terms of our physical interaction with the surrounding environment (as an opposable thumb might be, for example), but it helps us get laid, and thus pass our genes. I think of it as a version of the peacock's tail.

I am just trying to show you that you are not the only thing that exists.

Even without senses, the mind could still imagine and find some level of understanding. — 3rdClassCitizen

Imagination is made of ideas, the substance of which comes from experience. In the complete absence of experience, there would be mindless brains. We are consequence of the static around our bodies.

It observes itself. — bizso09

Before being able to observe itself, it must exist. Don't you agree? The question is how can it exist before being subject to that first observation that you say is required for its existence?

You say things exist because they are observed by a first person perspective and that things do not exist when they are not observed. Additionally, you say that such first person perspective is the only perspective, and all that exists. If being observed is a requirement for existing, what observes that unique first person perspective?

Hello, I just wanted to add one more question to the list.

The question is: what is the nature of that which we are aware of?

My answer (not comprehensive, off course): we are aware of things that we are not. In other words, we are aware of things that are completely external to us (as in to be an object of awareness, a thing must be extrinsic to the thing that is aware). I know this answer sounds completely obvious and shallow (maybe erroneous if you ask yourself how you are aware of yourself), and thus you (the reader) may think it is not worth your time contemplating. However, I'd like to ask whoever reads this to ask yourself that question and give me your answer, and to think about my answer and give me your opinion.

So, according to what you said, there are at least two kinds of conscious experience: one that is universal and the other which is not. For one to be universal and the other not to be universal, there must be something that is part of one but that is absent in the other. Since this thing exists (there are at least two kinds of conscious experience), then it must be conscious experience of the non-universal type (it is present in one but absent in the other). In addition, since it is non-universal, it is limited conscious experience. Now, what do you think is the nature of that which limits limited conscious experience? would it be also a kind of conscious experience or could it be something different from it?

You say that

b) All knowledge comes through conscious experience. — h060tu

and that

c) Nothing can be known outside of conscious experience. — h060tu

and that

d) Conscious experience is all that exists. — h060tu

So, that which is known is conscious experience since that which is known exists; and since it is known, it must have been consciously experienced (according to b).

Could I conclude that that which is not known is not conscious experience, and hence it does not exist? or can something be conscious experience without being consciously experienced first?

To be honest, I'd like to hear the reason you believe this is true. There must be something that forms the foundation of your belief (an experience, perhaps), and I'd like to know that something if you want to share it with me.

So, you are consciousness experiencing consciousness? or are you different from consciousness?

consciousness is all that exists — h060tu

Hello, I just wanted to ask you if you could elaborate a bit more on that. Specifically, I'd like to know what it is that makes you believe that consciousness is all that exists.

Sure. But what's your point with regards to this discussion? — Samuel Lacrampe

It seems to me that you are placing humans in a pedestal by assigning to us a non-physical entity (the soul) and taking it away from other animals, as if we were not. Just because other animals are not humans, it should not be assumed they don't have their own "humanity".

dogs can have dreams, but not free choices. — Samuel Lacrampe

We are also animals.

If this is supposed to mean that the ideas, themselves, are passed along through one's genes, then I wouldn't agree. That sounds too much like instinctual behaviour. — CeleRate

Not the ideas themselves but the machinery that makes them possible. If the machinery that makes ideas possible is constrained by natural selection, then the ideas that it creates must be constrained by natural selection, too.

A finite brain will surely have a limit, no? — TheMadFool

Yes. And what is it that limits it? It'd say it's the force of evolution. If it is evolution, I'd say that then every idea, which is also limited in itself, including the concept of truth, is a product of it. Every concept exists because it can be thought, and thought is a product of evolution.

Knowing truths extend our lives and the longer you live, the more truths you can access — TheMadFool

But is there a limit to the truths you can know? And what determines such limit?

I like this idea. I believe live is the result of the universe trying to understand itself as if to attain complete knowledge is the end and beginning of the universe (I know it sounds very hippy). It could be said that evolution is the increasing acquisition of knowledge (or truth) and that mutations that allow for this to happen become more common in a population, and it makes kind of sense. I think you should work more on that idea.

And in that sense it may very well be the case that the notion of God, or gods, is a result of the specific way in which the brain evolved. — Echarmion

Isn't this true of every notion we have? And if so, how does this affect our notions of knowledge, Philosophy, Mathematics, etc. I mean, if my ideas, or my potential to imagine, is constricted by evolution, how far can I question the reality of my existence and how confident can i be of my assertions? even better, how sure can i be of my self? Is the self also a notion that arose because it gave an advantage to the organism that posses it? Am I a trait under natural selection? I am sorry if I make no sense, it is just that the idea is kind of hard to express and im too lazy rn to put serious thought into it.

What evolutionary advantage do you think a belief in God gives? — Katie2

Well, for example, let's say if you don't believe in God, you are hunted and killed by some sort of group. Believing in God helps you survive and gives you the chance to reproduce. Eventually, the idea of God stays in the population because of this.
Or the idea of the supernatural may make you stay away from bad things, and thus you have better chance of surviving and reproducing. There are many examples of how an idea may help you pass your genes. It is for sure more complicated than how i am expressing it, but i think it makes sense. I mean, if we are under the effect of natural selection, then everything that comes from us must be also, no?

I had never herd of memes in that context and it is an interesting concept, i gotta give it a read. Another thing that im trying to say is that the amount of knowledge you can acquire is limited both in quantity and in the nature of that knowledge by natural selection. What i mean is that what you are able to learn is constrained by your brain just like what you are able to experience is constrained by your senses. In turn, this things are defined by evolution and so the pool of ideas that exist in today's society is nothing but the product of evolution.

Again, I am sorry guys cause i know im not being very thorough i just wanted to share this.

According to you, what are the conditions for considering something to be alive? I ask because, for example, in my opinion, I believe something must be carbon-based, able to generate electrochemical gradients on its own and able to replicate itself to be considered alive.

Colours are electromagnetic impulses associated by the self to the objects that produce them.

Yellow does not exist (as you said, it is EM waves); but the idea that the word "yellow" represents does exist (the nerve impulses that EM waves produce exist). What I think troubles us is not understanding what connects the idea to the cause, "making us see yellow".

So if rejection of difference is genetic, it would have to be a feature of more populated areas where there's competition for gene expression instead of need for diversity because of the threat of in-breeding. — frank

Or a feature not shared by all gene pools, taking into account that populations next to each other tend to share more genetic markers between them than with populations located farther away (I think). Think of a population as an animal with a number of traits; if certain traits promote its survival, those traits may be favoured by some kind of population selection phenomena. Maybe in the evolution of the native American tribes there was not a selective factor for racism but there was one for other populations. A selective factor could be population size or in-breeding (against?), as you said. Others could be terrain, reproductive availability (if you know what i mean), resource availability, or a mix of all these, making it a very very complex trait, as any other behaviour, right?