Do we really exist?

[LuvRPgrl]

Since our perception of reality, the fact that we believe it exists is based on our senses, and our senses dont detect the presence of something except as it is in the past, then do we really perceive the present at all?

In terms of past, present and future. When we "see" something, we say, thats the present state of it, thats reality. Yet, what we are actually seeing, occured in the past. Yes, maybe only a nanossecond in the past, but in the past non the less. So, since we cannot perceive something as it actually exists, (even touching something takes a nano second for the receptors to transmit the info to the brain) then does the "present" even exist?

And we also know that the past does not exist, its just something we remember. Hence the past and present dont exist.

And as for the future, we know it hasnt happened yet, by definition, so it doesnt exist either. And besides, how can there be a future without a present or past?

Hence, we dont exist.


OK OK, im leaving...... :

 

[dmp]

Often, our senses are simply 'wrong'. Ever see an 'optical illusion'? Seeing, for instance, isn't believing.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Since our perception of reality, the fact that we believe it exists is based on our senses, and our senses dont detect the presence of something except as it is in the past, then do we really perceive the present at all?

In terms of past, present and future. When we "see" something, we say, thats the present state of it, thats reality. Yet, what we are actually seeing, occured in the past. Yes, maybe only a nanossecond in the past, but in the past non the less. So, since we cannot perceive something as it actually exists, (even touching something takes a nano second for the receptors to transmit the info to the brain) then does the "present" even exist?

And we also know that the past does not exist, its just something we remember. Hence the past and present dont exist.

And as for the future, we know it hasnt happened yet, by definition, so it doesnt exist either. And besides, how can there be a future without a present or past?

Hence, we dont exist.


OK OK, im leaving...... :

You don't even visually experience something constantly, your eyes process at about 30-40 frames per second, if memory serves me. So, in theory, the car you're looking at could be changing to a pink flying elephant and back in the time lapse between your eyes refreshing the image. How's that for mindblowing?

 

[Abbey Normal]

If a man says something in a forest,

and there is no woman there to hear him,

Is he still wrong?




(Quote seen on a t-shirt)

 

[Nienna]

If a man says something in a forest,

and there is no woman there to hear him,

Is he still wrong?




(Quote seen on a t-shirt)

My nephew has this t-shirt. My nephew also hunts squirrels and 'coons. Coincidence?

Actually, I thought it was pretty funny.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Since our perception of reality, the fact that we believe it exists is based on our senses, and our senses dont detect the presence of something except as it is in the past, then do we really perceive the present at all?

In terms of past, present and future. When we "see" something, we say, thats the present state of it, thats reality. Yet, what we are actually seeing, occured in the past. Yes, maybe only a nanossecond in the past, but in the past non the less. So, since we cannot perceive something as it actually exists, (even touching something takes a nano second for the receptors to transmit the info to the brain) then does the "present" even exist?

And we also know that the past does not exist, its just something we remember. Hence the past and present dont exist.

And as for the future, we know it hasnt happened yet, by definition, so it doesnt exist either. And besides, how can there be a future without a present or past?

Hence, we dont exist.


OK OK, im leaving...... :

Only God knows for sure.

...but if you don't believe in God, I guess you're outta here!

 

[5stringJeff]

Since our perception of reality, the fact that we believe it exists is based on our senses, and our senses dont detect the presence of something except as it is in the past, then do we really perceive the present at all?

In terms of past, present and future. When we "see" something, we say, thats the present state of it, thats reality. Yet, what we are actually seeing, occured in the past. Yes, maybe only a nanossecond in the past, but in the past non the less. So, since we cannot perceive something as it actually exists, (even touching something takes a nano second for the receptors to transmit the info to the brain) then does the "present" even exist?

And we also know that the past does not exist, its just something we remember. Hence the past and present dont exist.

And as for the future, we know it hasnt happened yet, by definition, so it doesnt exist either. And besides, how can there be a future without a present or past?

Hence, we dont exist.


OK OK, im leaving...... :

First, your premise that we can only detect things that exist in the past is misleading, if not erroneous. For example, light travels at 316,000 mps. So when we see something, we actually sense light beams that bounced off of it. But, if you're seeing something that is, say, 20 feet away, the light beam bounced off of it in roughly 1 x 10^-8 seconds ago, which is such a small unit of time that one can say with certainty that little has changed between the time the light bounced off the object to the time the light reached your eyes. Even the spped of our eyes, which process at least dozens (I thought it was hundreds) of frames per second, give us an accurate and current picture of what exists in our world.

Second, you ask whether the past, present, or future even exist, because we cannot sense them. However, the existence of past, present, and future does not depend on whether there was someone there to sense it. For example, there were no humans on the earth for millions of years. Did time cease to exist during that period? Of course not. Past, present and future are distinctions of time based on one's current position in time; therefore, by definition, they always exist.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Interesting:

Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder. 1/100th of a second? Very difficult. Think of your 100Hz TV sets. They are called flickerfree, because at flicker rates of 100 times per second you stop to notice the blackness of the TV screen, though the TV screen isn't shining all the time, but pulsating 100 times per second. Brightness eats darkness.

This site makes the argument that the actual frame rate of the eye seems to not be so, pardon the pun, black and white.

We as humans have a very advanced visual system, please understand that a computer with all it's processor strength still doesn't match our own brain, or the complexity of a single Deoxyribonucleic Acid strand. While some animals out there have sharper vision than us humans, there is usually something given up with it - for eagles there is color, and for owls it is the inability to move the eye in its socket. With our outstanding human visual, we can see in billions of colors (although it has been tested that women see as much as 30% more colors than men do. Our eyes can indeed perceive well over 200 frames per second from a simple little display device (mainly so low because of current hardware, not our own limits). Our eyes are also highly movable, able to focus in as close as an inch, or as far as infinity, and have the ability to change focus faster than the most complex and expensive high speed auto focus cameras. Our Human Visual system receives data constantly and is able to decode it nearly instantaneously. With our field of view being 170 degrees, and our fine focus being nearly 30 degrees, our eyes are still more advanced than even the most advanced visual technology in existance today.

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? If current science is a clue, its somewhere in sync with full saturation of our Visual Cortex, just like in real life. That number my friend - is - well - way up there with what we know about our eyes and brains.

Here the claim is

When an image strikes the retina the nerve impulses last approximately

so perhaps there really is no clear answer as to the exact frame rate. I don't see any argument that we actually visualize real-time, it's always a collection of still frame images with some motion blur and other such things added by the visual cortex. I submit that no matter how high a frame rate we have, that car could still be turning to a pink elephant and back so quick that you'll never even notice. Hooray for philisophical quandries!

 

[manu1959]

the past, present and future all exist....as do an individuals perception of them.....unfortunately, the human race may simply be unable to experience them when they occur

 

[dmp]

Interesting:

This site makes the argument that the actual frame rate of the eye seems to not be so, pardon the pun, black and white.

Here the claim is so perhaps there really is no clear answer as to the exact frame rate. I don't see any argument that we actually visualize real-time, it's always a collection of still frame images with some motion blur and other such things added by the visual cortex. I submit that no matter how high a frame rate we have, that car could still be turning to a pink elephant and back so quick that you'll never even notice. Hooray for philisophical quandries!

...and of COURSE we just happened by accident...you know...Random chemicals in ooze suddenly becoming 'life'.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

...and of COURSE we just happened by accident...you know...Random chemicals in ooze suddenly becoming 'life'.

Are you ridiculing my post, or reveling in it? I can't tell

 

[dmp]

Are you ridiculing my post, or reveling in it? I can't tell

It's an addendum. A sarcastic reply because the sheer complexity of Human life leads people away from 'accidental' in terms of how life began on earth.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

It's an addendum. A sarcastic reply because the sheer complexity of Human life leads people away from 'accidental' in terms of how life began on earth.

Reveling. Cool.