ok, so i had another drunken inquiry.....this may be retarded, but what the hell......

us humans seem to recognize at least two realms pertaining to existence: physical and metaphysical. humans seem to inherent both realms, we live physically and think/dream metaphysically......when we consider God, or anything of the such (the necessary being) we tend to view of them as more metaphysical than physical.....if we look at the movie concept, The Matrix, it seems that this kind of existence is more physical than metaphysical.....

so, what if their is an evolution of existence.....where as an example is provided here on earth: metaphysical (God), physical and metaphysical (humans), physical (computers).....although this example of evolution limits us to earth, or its galaxy, but what if existence in general evolves as thus?

ask Neo

It seems to me that existence itself cannot evolve since it hasa only 2 states: you exist or you dont.

The matrix itself seems to have more incommen with the metaphysical plane than the physical. Your mind is there but not your body, the only difference that we have observed the matrix and understand it since it came from our own mind. The metaphysical world is unknown to me and therefor more illustrious.

Evolution dictates change in a forward direction. Existence cannot evolve in my opinion because of it's boolean nature and thus cannot change.

well, as we infer evolution to be a change in direction, therefore implying time, undoubtedly existence also changes (existence as life), for universes, galaxies, organism, metaphysical and physical realms, all come to be......what i was trying to say is that it seems to be, at points of "time" during existence, certain realms could, and seem (case point earth) to be more prevailant, i.e. evolving........

also, the matrix (the computer) is more physical than metaphysical, to us humans it is metaphysical, to the matrix it would be physical (running programs).....

also, concerning existence having two states (existing or non-existing) is something i also would like to bring up, for it seems to me that there IS only Existence, for anything consider "non-existing" implies it exists as such......sort of the correlation of opposites......you can have one without the other.....

I AM, THEREFORE I THINK.

hows that...

what.....you implying that if you cannot think, then you aren't?

You stated non-existence therefor it exists. according to you that is. stop contradicting yourself.

and the rest just believe what you wanna believe the rest of the world does so as well.

uh, i fail to see how contradicted myself?

If you imply non existence to nonexist it exist according to your statement.

yes......that's what i said

Welcome to philosophy

correct, is a computer a computer if it can't 'think'?
for that matter, what happens to you if you cannot think(brain stops functioning)? then you cease to exist as that entity..
I.E. i am, therefore i think..

oh, no, i must disagree.....granted descartes was a great philosopher, cogito ergo sum is nothing more than a way of proving existence, specifically that something individualistic exists.....however, things still exist within some form whether or not we prove they do.....you telling me that a tree only exists because we think it does? whether or not we think, surely existence exists anyway.....what is a tree other than physical existence? what is god other than metphysical existence? what is humn pther than both? thinking is merely a way for us to just and prove something exists; besides, if the entire "thinking" species were to suddenly become existinct, you think there would not still be existence? we have already used thinking to prove it, once proven, it is a sense of truth......

cogito ergo sum is about subjective existence: knowing you exist. We define our reality around us, if we were not sentient nothing around us would exist since we cannot acknowledge it's existence even we would not exist in that manner. Descartes theory has more to do with sentience rather then existence imho.

and never mind 666

yeah, never mind 666.......i'm so fucking stupid that i am getting my PhD......

anyway, despite any argument, especially Descartes--who, in cased you've missed it, is only one man covering one mode of philosophy, although cogito ergo sum seems to be one of those hollier than thou proofs, yet that does not mean can not be refuted......

anyway, suggesting that there must be a sentient/metphysical-sense being in order to prove existence must i accept? i would think it is foolish of us to say that the whole of existence lies on a sentient being, i.e. man! i'm sorry, i love philosophy, almost more than drugs, but to suggest that nothing, nothing at all, no planets, molecules, sense of time, et cetera, that nothing ever, ever existed until man went *poof* i had a thought, sounds just somewhat
ludicris......

also, if cogito ergo sum is the argument to proving he existed, and it took thought to do so, then surely the existence of him was there prior to him thinking......

Im not stating that something has to be proven to exist for it too exist, im stating that sentience is the only way to prove something to exist. Descartes viewpoint is valid, if he did'nt think he could not have known he existed.


If there is no sentience then does it matter whether it exists or not.

i never descartes was not valid with cogito ergo sum, yet it still can be refuted......although i would not justly try to......anyway, ok, great, we're on the same page, shit exists whether or not sentience is around........but for you to say that if there is no sentience then who cares is odd.....for, you must think of existence prior sentience, such as the wrold before man, if it had not been for this existence no evolution towards sentience could have occured..........