Like many people on this forum, my reality is based on evidence. The evidence that presents itself to us is of course interpretable and sometimes, as I have found out on these threads too many times, a superficial interpretation rarely reveals other plausible options.
So, given that my only interaction with you all is in the virtual world and the majority of you are several thousand miles away from me, what evidence do I have that any of you actually exist? The evidence as presented on my computer screen, could just be one person - John Jackson, for example, pretending to be everyone else.
(Footnote: yes it is a bit tongue in cheek but it might fire an interesting debate - even if it turns out you are all just a virtual reality)
How can you acuse me of being real? I like the rest of the internet am merely a figment of your imagination. When you enter reality by going to sleep you will realise that the laws of physics etc are simply a bad dream induced by wakefulness.Originally Posted by Bunny
I am real, but then I would say that wouldn't I. Maybe they are making me appear real to you. If that's so, then maybe I'm not real ...
Dunno. I think I'm real, therefore I am ... or maybe Descartes was off his head ...
I'm a skeptobot.
.
Assuming you are real, the how do you know I am real?
Bunny,
If you were somewhere in the UK (or had someone you trusted in the UK), we could at least prove that there were numerous people somewhat under the influence of however many people actually post here, even if not necessarily that those people were all actual posters.
All we'd have to do would be all briefly call the trusted person at around the same time from landline phones (or phoneboxes, for those with privacy issues).
Just from the area codes, you could tell there were multiple widespread people involved, if you discounted the possibility of someone spoofing phone numbers just to impress you as being unlikely.
My first question, is does it matter? The quality of evidence you bring to the debate and the rigor of your questions are what counts here rather than independently verifiable humanity.
Now the next problem might be if there were a situation where identifying an individual became important, is it always possible? I think your IP address can be identified, but unless someone caught you actually inputting some information to this site it might not be possible to confirm that a given individual is the actual source - though you did give your email address to the administrators when registering.
To achieve anything comparable on a larger scale would probably require attending SiP or other get together, and then to probe various individuals on some contribution they have made.
My biggest problem with all of this - is can I prove I exist? Empirically I think I can, that is based on observation - and how do I prove that observations are valid?
You are René Descartes and I claim my €10!
When I originally posted what is admittedly a somewhat silly thread, I thought to myself - you are up against the impeccable logic of Pebble, so be careful. Thanks for not letting me down.
Perhaps, but I can't see those, only John can and he's a skeptobot.
My head is spinning and I have to go for a lay down.
There is a point to all this. I have challenged certain assumptions with people and they say "you've never been to Australia so how do you know it's there?" My reply is that I could go there if I chose; the existence of Australia is a verifiable hypothesis. I could arrange to meet many of you if I had the opportunity to get to the next UK skeptical meeting. I guess on balance it is more likely you all do exist, rather than you do not. I can see however how the balance of probability can go awry in some minds and we end up with conspiracy theories. The question I have asked is a bit like a conspiracy theory in reverse where instead of many conspiring to one end, one is pretending to be many for different ends (is there a name for that?).
Something I do wonder about - it is possible one person comes onto the forum in more than one guise? A sort of virtual double personality as it were. They could be skeptical in one persona and a way out nut-case believer in the other. I think John will spot this on the IP address but it would not be difficult to register in more than one location.
I guess the question is why would anyone do that, but just a thought (humour me)? Or indeed time for someone to confess
If we were all created by John it would sort of make him our god, therefore either we are real or god is. Or is it that if we are real and John made us, then he would be god?
Anyway, hi, my name's floppit and I'm Dr.B's sock puppet.
More seriously, surely likelihood comes into the equation? Forums are popular and tend to attract at least some visitors so why soak up time creating characters? I don't know for certain who's real and who isn't but I know the kind of things that increase my trust someone is genuine, things like consistency, things matching up, for example if a person says they have a doctorate but don't appear literate I tend to be a bit... ske.. skep... (nope been trained too well by john - can't say it).
I don't think the above is put in a very logical/formal way but I also don't think it's irrational.
Politicians caught on to this idea a long time ago, as amply demonstrated in Iraq's recent elections, there is no need to exist to vote. So if someone truly dedicated chose to register as a skeptic and a troll, moving on to new names now and again, this device could be used to draw others into discussion and to keep the site active.Something I do wonder about - it is possible one person comes onto the forum in more than one guise? A sort of virtual double personality as it were. They could be skeptical in one persona and a way out nut-case believer in the other. I think John will spot this on the IP address but it would not be difficult to register in more than one location.
I guess the question is why would anyone do that, but just a thought (humour me)? Or indeed time for someone to confess
If this happens in elections or competitions based on 'one person one vote' then our sense of injustice is activated. If it was happening here, one could simply view it as entertainment, background activity or even a valid way of exploring the position if 'devil's advocate'.
Well I've been lurking around for about an hour now so I thought I'd sign up and post!
So yeah, hey!
And yes, I am real. Unprovable, but real none-the-less.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, do you mean to prove your existence to yourself? Or to Bunny? Or just to create un-deniable evidence for your existence regardless of audience? I agree, proving observational evidence is rather difficult.My biggest problem with all of this - is can I prove I exist? Empirically I think I can, that is based on observation - and how do I prove that observations are valid?
Your best bet is a time-stamped picture of yourself holding a pineapple with Bunny carved into it =D
Anyway, I've considered whether people on forums are real before, sketchy. If you really think about it you start to feel alone, haha!
And also on the topic of forums 'fabricating' threads to interest new users and keep activity up. Would it last long on a skeptics forum? Someone would cotton on if they were truly skeptical about it.
Anyway I joined so it's working.
*x-files theme plays me out*
Welcome to UKS Sy1n.
I think I exist, if not, there are a lot of people out there having bad nightmares.
The people on this forum do exist, I've met at least 1 of them.
Welcome.
I think therefore I am. Neat but useless. I accept my existence, because I can make predictions about what will happen to me if I do various things. Overeat -> bloated; cut -> bleed etc. Independent observers come to the same conclusions - Walking into people always produces a response, usually negative, in random observers.
Is that proof - or delusion? Is this simply creating situations with apriori assumptions of the outcome - which are therefore self-fulfilling prophesies.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks