I find the traditional question quite interesting, just because there are so many ways to think about it. I tend to think of most things in the most abstract way possible, so I ask now, if we can't see, hear, or otherwise perceive something in the present moment, can we ever be truly certain that it's still there?

Right now, my computer, my window, and my backyard are all in my field of vision. How can I possibly know that my bathroom, kitchen, and front yard are still where I remember them to be?

I know this is a completely pointless question, but it's fun to think about nonetheless

Can we ever be truly certain of somethings existence even if we can see, hear or otherwise perceive it?

Doubt, doubt and doubt some more.

Regards,
Dan.

If you mean by "certain" without the possibility of error, probably not. But if you mean just "know", well yes, of course. We don't have to be certain in order to know. Science gives us a lot of knowledge without certainty. Everyone would say that we know a lot more today than we did 100 years ago. And most of the knowledge comes from science. You would not say that we do not know more today than we did 100 years ago, would you?

Equally though, we could all be inside the matrix, or the test subjects of a mad scientist.


Dan.

If you mean by "certain" without the possibility of error, probably not. But if you mean just "know", well yes, of course. We don't have to be certain in order to know. Science gives us a lot of knowledge without certainty. Everyone would say that we know a lot more today than we did 100 years ago. And most of the knowledge comes from science. You would not say that we do not know more today than we did 100 years ago, would you?

And, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bicycle. But there really is no reason to think my grandmother has wheels. In fact, there is a lot of reason to think she does not.

I don't really follow. >.>
Dan.

To clarify, I mean 'know' as in completely certain.

And to be honest, in a way I DON'T think that we 'know' more than we did 100 years ago. Or even 1000 years ago. Science, in my opinion, can't prove anything. It can only make educated guesswork.

If I drop a ball 100 times and it falls downward each time, I can't be entirely sure that it will fall the same direction the 101st time. All practical reason and common sense would tell me that it will, but there will always be the doubt of reason. In fact, I wouldn't be able to be completely certain that the ball I'm dropping is even there.

My main problem with science, even though I will admit that it's useful, is that it's always too sure of itself. People hear "scientifically proven" and they automatically accept it as absolute fact.

At times I almost think that science will never make any form of progress at life's tough questions in the long run. Who's to say that, in 500 years, everything we think we know now won't be completely disproven and that people will look back and think "How stupid were these guys to think that diseases were caused by virus's and bacteria?"

As in: just because something could be, it is no reason to think it is?

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still exist?

And if red is not the color of blood then nothing is red. And if science does no give us knowledge, then there is no knowledge.

So, the question is this: is it more likely that knowledge is certainty, or that we know nothing, and science does not give us knowledge? What do you think?

Well, if you think about it, the color of blood is NOT red. The color of blood is red to 'normal' human eyes. The color of blood certainly isn't red for a completely colorblind person.

In other words, we can only be sure of something based on our perception. We can never be sure that the way we perceive something is correct.

If a completely alien creature that had none of the human's five senses "looked" at blood, red wouldn't be anywhere close to a characteristic of it.

Well of course if by existence we mean actual in the now perception, then no. But what that reveals is what we dont mean by exist, because in some other sense the tree does exist as a direct assumption of the question itself. Or in other words, "is there a sense in which the word existence cannot be used to an unpercieved object that could be percieved if a being were close enough to have percieved it"?

This is semantics surely? After all the natural way to ask the question is "If a tree exists in the forest and falls down and nobody hears it, does it still exist?" well yes obviously since the question cannot be considered meaningful unless we accept the first four words of the question to be true.

Surely the real question is "can anything exist outside the mind?"

If that is the real question, then surely the answer is, yes. For example, the head exists outside the mind, since the mind is contained in the head.

hi



uh...... well actually it does make sense that the head does not exist! If you look you can see this clearly. Not for the faint hearted though. So perhaps i shouldn't have mentioned it. If you are interested there is a great little book called "on having no head" and the authors surname is harding i think. ...... But it isnt for the faint hearted.

Incidentally, by logic, if the mind is contained in the head then the mind is absolutely huge. The size of a lanscape, as far as the stars. Which is almost the same as seeing that you haven't got a head if you think about it, bar a few semantic quibbles. But go careful! This stuff is amazing and can bring about extreme reactions such as catatonic states, hysteria, laughter, tears, meglomania and so on. All very zen. ...... and dont panic. The mind will bring you back to common sense if you do experience no head, and all is mundane and hunky dory again. Except that it isnt

But going back to the question whether anything can exist outside of the mind. It is this question that highlights the amazing discovery of the unconscious. We now have more possibilities since Freud.

a the tree falls outside of minds whether they hear it or not.

b the tree falls outside of the conscious mind whether it is heard or not, but does not exist outside of mind generally.

c the tree only falls when in the conscious mind irrespective of its existence in the unconscious mind or outside of mind altogether.

In other words the roots of the trees existence now has three possible realms. Is it a matter of urgency to know which one is 'true'?