Things that do exist don't exist...hmmmmm?

[Willieh]

Okay here's a thought.

 

Do things that exist not exist?

 

Now of course you look at that and say "What in the funk? Give Grampa his pills..." but before you stop reading, consider what I'm about to say.

 

Things do exist to us physically. But without a mental comprehension of that things existence...does it really exist? We only know things exist because we have evidence logically and physically that the things exists. But if we aren't thinking about that particular thing...does it even exist to us? Let's say that you are sitting in your house in front of a computer moniter. Now I'm sure that you aren't thinking about air hocky tables. So in a sense, air hockey tables don't currently exist to you whilst you arent thinking of them. The only thing that exists to you is you and whatever you are concentrating on. If you are sitting down to eat you probably aren't thinking about that computer (if you are you really should get out more unless it's something really urgent...). So at that instance the computer doesn't even exist to you. You do have the actual memory of that computer, but you aren't thinking about it so it doesn't exist.

 

This is the opinion of many people on the earth. In fact the idea was spread to me by Static, who had it spread to him by a YouTuber named Dendrophilian. Here's another way to look at the situation:

 

The memory of that object grants it's existence. If it didn't exist to you, then your memory of it would not be there. Looking at it from one, more easy to explain angle, I've set up this scenario. You are walking through the mall. You of course are mounted to the ground beneath you by gravity. However you are not thinking about gravity, you are thinking about buying whatever the hell you are looking into buying. Of course gravity exists, but you aren't thinking about it. It still has an effect on you physically; but mentally you are oblivious. It's nothing to you then.

 

I'm going to present you with a question. Which theory do you think is the most sensible one. Number 1 or number 2. Nobody's wrong because both of them are true in a way. Just explain your answer in a reply.

[Aximil]

I would have to say that something will always exist to you. You're mind saves every memory that you've ever had. You still know everything that you've heard, read, touched, smelled, or seen. It just takes something to access that certain memory. So, I would say it's some combination of both.

[2sick4u]

Designated an object as "Existent" whilst it's currently in your thoughts or focus is logical.

But..

Saying, whilst an object is out of focus, is non-existent, is flawed.

The object exists all the same.

It's just not currently your objective, nor focus. =/.

Okay.

Let me put it another way:

I agree with what your saying, an object not being a focus of thought is.. non-existent to that individual.. I just disagree with the usage of existent. The object's perfectly existent, whilst it's been forgotten about by the mind of the individual. I'd say it's more.. Forgotten. Yeah. The main concept of this is the fact that item's not being focused on at an individual level, which I think half the posters in this thread will forget, seises to exist. That could never be true, at least, at our current understanding of life.

Lets put this in motion on an.. Living organism perspective.

Okay.

Let's say I'm out, and forgot about my mother wanting me home by 7.

She's all pissed.

As soon as I get home and see her face, existence of my memory of her ruling reappears, whilst her existence to me does not.

I'm just splitting hairs here though.

Either way.

It's a pretty fundamental theory. ;].

Something which you seem to have a shitload of. O.o.

[Willieh]

Designated an object as "Existent" whilst it's currently in your thoughts or focus is logical.

But..

Saying' date=' whilst an object is out of focus, is non-existent, is flawed.

The object exists all the same.

It's just not currently your objective, nor focus. =/.

Okay.

Let me put it another way:

I agree with what your saying, an object not being a focus of thought is.. non-existent to that individual.. I just disagree with the usage of existent. The object's perfectly existent, whilst it's been forgotten about by the mind of the individual. I'd say it's more.. Forgotten. Yeah. The main concept of this is the fact that item's not being focused on at an [b']individual[/b] level, which I think half the posters in this thread will forget, seises to exist. That could never be true, at least, at our current understanding of life.

Lets put this in motion on an.. Living organism perspective.

Okay.

Let's say I'm out, and forgot about my mother wanting me home by 7.

She's all pissed.

As soon as I get home and see her face, existence of my memory of her ruling reappears, whilst her existence to me does not.

I'm just splitting hairs here though.

Either way.

It's a pretty fundamental theory. ;].

Something which you seem to have a shitload of. O.o.

 

The question isn't whether or not it exists physically in the world. More or less its a question of whether or not an object exists to YOU while YOU aren't thinking about it. :P

[2sick4u]

Designated an object as "Existent" whilst it's currently in your thoughts or focus is logical.

But..

Saying' date=' whilst an object is out of focus, is non-existent, is flawed.

The object exists all the same.

It's just not currently your objective, nor focus. =/.

Okay.

Let me put it another way:

I agree with what your saying, an object not being a focus of thought is.. non-existent to that individual.. I just disagree with the usage of existent. The object's perfectly existent, whilst it's been forgotten about by the mind of the individual. I'd say it's more.. Forgotten. Yeah. The main concept of this is the fact that item's not being focused on at an [b']individual[/b] level, which I think half the posters in this thread will forget, seises to exist. That could never be true, at least, at our current understanding of life.

Lets put this in motion on an.. Living organism perspective.

Okay.

Let's say I'm out, and forgot about my mother wanting me home by 7.

She's all pissed.

As soon as I get home and see her face, existence of my memory of her ruling reappears, whilst her existence to me does not.

I'm just splitting hairs here though.

Either way.

It's a pretty fundamental theory. ;].

Something which you seem to have a shitload of. O.o.

 

The question isn't whether or not it exists physically in the world. More or less its a question of whether or not an object exists to YOU while YOU aren't thinking about it. :P

Lol.

I know. ;].

It's what's pissing me off right now. =/.

I disagree with the Non-existent part.

But I can't prove grounds as to why. ~_~.

Tis Bullshit. =].

Okay.

This theory is essentially stating when somethings forgotten.

=/.

It leaves your current train of thought until re-occurrence by something that would aid in the remembering of the subject.

=/.

Bah.

.. I still don't like it. >_>.

[Willieh]

I didn't come up with the first theory. I actually kind of forged the second one based off of what I knew about the first one. My assumption at first was "Ahh this is complete crap, of course it exists to you" but I couldn't really elaborate on why exactly it was crap. Then I actually thought about the fact that as long as you are oblivious to it, it doesn't exist. Like when you're asleep nothing happening in the real world exists to you; whatever the hell you are dreaming about exists to you.

 

Very confusing for me to come up with a sturdy conclusion on either side :|

[2sick4u]

Lol.

4 stars FTW.

Anyway.

Decided to edit what I last put here, since I feel like my point is still foreign.

In the mental aspect, all that isn't apparent in the mind is forgotten, and thus, if it's not apparent in your mind, it's not apparent anywhere, besides physically.

But.

Sub-consciously, it's always apparent.

For example, my memories of my child-hood will always be mainly forgotten by me, the detailed happenings in them invisible. But, my child-hood still exists to me.

The general idea of an object or something of memory can never be non-existent whilst not in focus, however, it's details and/or ideals will. It's like.. You're sub-conscious is a fridge, and everything you think about is a beverage. You can only have so many beverages at once, so you store one away, and grab another.

However, the fridge always mentally exists to that person, as a focus of that persons routine.

Our sub-conscious houses the thoughts of something whilst it's not being.. used. =/.

Meaning.. Nothing thought of will never be non-existent, only, forgotten.

=/.

I think that's what I was trying to say.

[Cyber Altair]

If i'm getting your point right then your saying that if i'm not thinking/touching/looking at something it doesn't exist? cause if that's your point of view then i really disagree...

 

Tell me what's your exact point so i may join =D

[Willieh]

Lol.

4 stars FTW.

Anyway.

Decided to edit what I last put here' date=' since I feel like my point is still foreign.

In the mental aspect, all that isn't apparent in the mind is forgotten, and thus, if it's not apparent in your mind, it's not apparent anywhere, besides physically.

But.

Sub-consciously, it's always apparent.

For example, my memories of my child-hood will always be mainly forgotten by me, the detailed happenings in them invisible. But, my child-hood still exists to me.

The general idea of an object or something of memory can never be non-existent whilst not in focus, however, it's details and/or ideals will. It's like.. You're sub-conscious is a fridge, and everything you think about is a beverage. You can only have so many beverages at once, so you store one away, and grab another.

However, the fridge always mentally exists to that person, as a focus of that persons routine.

Our sub-conscious houses the thoughts of something whilst it's not being.. used. =/.

Meaning.. Nothing thought of will never be non-existent, only, forgotten.

=/.

I think that's what I was trying to say.

[/quote']

 

Things that are forgotten don't exist to you right now. To break down my side of the argument I'm going to put it in simplest terms, if I didn't I would sound like a retard who got into mommy's cabinet. Okay here's my point on the first side of the argument.

 

-Nothing exists to you if it doesn't exist to you. We can agree on that can't we? I'm going to assume that not believeing in something is the result of logical miscomprehention of how the scenario could even take place anyway. Now this is irrelevent right now.

 

Anyway, you are sitting down at a table. Nothing is in front of you. Suddenly you see a penny. Then you start thinking about money. Then someone runs into the room and screams "Donkey!" as loud as they can. Immediently you will probably think about donkeys. Now the fact of the matter is that, donkeys didn't exist to you until this person served as a stimulus to activating the memory that was previously stored.

 

Basically the only thing that exists to you in your world is the only thing that exists to you in your world (as dendrophilian put it). Had we never heard the word donkey, we wouldn't have thought about donkey, thus donkey would have been non existent to us until that memory was called for again.

 

In even simpler terms, whatever you are thinking about exists to you. Whatever you are not thinking about doesn't exist to you. If you don't think about something you are not believeing in it.

 

To make it any clearer than that is impossible for me. However I'm sure that is very hard to understand because half of it was hard for me to understand while writing. :| But...oh well. Lol...

[2sick4u]

Lol.

4 stars FTW.

Anyway.

Decided to edit what I last put here' date=' since I feel like my point is still foreign.

In the mental aspect, all that isn't apparent in the mind is forgotten, and thus, if it's not apparent in your mind, it's not apparent anywhere, besides physically.

But.

Sub-consciously, it's always apparent.

For example, my memories of my child-hood will always be mainly forgotten by me, the detailed happenings in them invisible. But, my child-hood still exists to me.

The general idea of an object or something of memory can never be non-existent whilst not in focus, however, it's details and/or ideals will. It's like.. You're sub-conscious is a fridge, and everything you think about is a beverage. You can only have so many beverages at once, so you store one away, and grab another.

However, the fridge always mentally exists to that person, as a focus of that persons routine.

Our sub-conscious houses the thoughts of something whilst it's not being.. used. =/.

Meaning.. Nothing thought of will never be non-existent, only, forgotten.

=/.

I think that's what I was trying to say.

[/quote']

 

Things that are forgotten don't exist to you right now. To break down my side of the argument I'm going to put it in simplest terms, if I didn't I would sound like a retard who got into mommy's cabinet. Okay here's my point on the first side of the argument.

 

-Nothing exists to you if it doesn't exist to you. We can agree on that can't we? I'm going to assume that not believeing in something is the result of logical miscomprehention of how the scenario could even take place anyway. Now this is irrelevent right now.

 

Anyway, you are sitting down at a table. Nothing is in front of you. Suddenly you see a penny. Then you start thinking about money. Then someone runs into the room and screams "Donkey!" as loud as they can. Immediently you will probably think about donkeys. Now the fact of the matter is that, donkeys didn't exist to you until this person served as a stimulus to activating the memory that was previously stored.

 

Basically the only thing that exists to you in your world is the only thing that exists to you in your world (as dendrophilian put it). Had we never heard the word donkey, we wouldn't have thought about donkey, thus donkey would have been non existent to us until that memory was called for again.

 

In even simpler terms, whatever you are thinking about exists to you. Whatever you are not thinking about doesn't exist to you. If you don't think about something you are not believeing in it.

 

To make it any clearer than that is impossible for me. However I'm sure that is very hard to understand because half of it was hard for me to understand while writing. :| But...oh well. Lol...

You're correct on the point of things being existent on when stimulated by something else, but.. That's not what I was arguing.. ^_^.

I was arguing that nothing can be non-existent prior to stimulation.

In other terms, I was saying the understanding humans have of everything makes

nothing non-existent, both mentally and physically. Refer to my fridge example.

 

Whatever you're not thinking is like being a judge at a talent show.

Basic human knowledge makes you know what's going on, and what not.

One contestants on stage, with all focus from the judge diverted to them. However, the judge still mentally knows that there are other contestants to compete, knows they're existent, no matter what surplus of focus is put on the current contestant. The current focus and attention of people doesn't differ from what knowledge is also had. Mentally, things around us that are void of focus aren't non-existent in our minds, rather, neglected in use.

 

Bah. I feel like the point I'm trying to make isn't designed to be made. =/.

 

Meh.. I concede with the theory. I guess it's.. Stupid to debate something that I kind of only half-assed knew about.

[tonisanoob]

actually its more of the case nothign exists

 

atoms are made out of ebergy

 

but energy has no mass

 

thus nothign technically exists

[Neiko]

well of course it exists. So the person who made this is saying if i think of a random Folk-Lore Monster or whatever it suddenly exists saying hi to the world? i think not.

 

Also im not think ing about mods of this forum does that mean i can spam? X3

 

Willie you have a tendancy to post stuff like this dont you Xd

 

Cool theory anyway.

[Silencerleader]

Sophisms...they make me laugh.

If I love my mom, but my mom hates pie...then I too hate pie.

Anyway...your point of view made me giggle. I kinda have to agree.

[End Of The Abyss]

To much logic! lulz

 

But I totally agree with that.

[「tea.leaf」]

For all you know, it doesn't. To any person, existence cannot be verified unless that person's perception acknowledges it. However, this makes it impossible to definitively prove that anything exists, since existence is evaluated by subjective perception.

[Mikaeo]

I believe that if you can truly believe something doesn't exist then it wont to you.

If you believe it does then it does.

 

Gravity as an example, although you arn't thinking about it directly, ur subconscious (spellcheck) is thinking about it in some way. If you could completely break your belief that gravity exists, it would no longer have a hold on you.

 

Any questions can be asked in PM about what I think/believe.

 

And to anyone reading this, please dont call me an idiot for thinking this as I wouldn't bash ur beliefs.

[Lazer Yoshi]

Will, you're one clever and smart guy! Yes, I completely understand this. We hardly notice when we get up and walk somewhere. Or when we are breathing. Or when we are watching TV, we dont notice anything under our noses. It's quite weird :S

[「tea.leaf」]

I've noticed this forever. It's just thought this so damn obvious and irrelevant that there's no point in talking about it.

[Death Metal]

*Head Explodes*

 

Can you repeat that in the dummbed down version?

[Guest Tiger]

Hmmmmmm. I guess that this is possible.