1. To have actual being; be real. 2. To have life; live 3. To live at a minimal level; subsist 4. To continue to be; persist

To exist means to be perceptible.

I recall many decades ago being taught that the brain is a life-long fire that is "sculpted" into experiences by inhibition a la Eccles. For example, we were able to maintain C2-T12 deafferented moknkeys alive for over a decade without any self-mutilation. It was proposed that normally, with large fiber sensory input cut off, small caliber pain circuits fire constantly,as result ther monkeys mutilate their hands. But monkeys deafferented thusly in the 2nd trimester and reinsirted for normal delivery do not. Perhaps they don't associate released pain with the hands. But any monkey at any age, once it is using its hands functionally will not bite it. This may be a clue to the notion that to exist is, as some would suggest with the Default Mode Network hypothesis, that a certain experiencially shaped sense of "me" and "out there" is carved into some kind of consciousness. Perhaps the sub-pallidal telencephalon genrates intent based on analysis of incoming changes in the "heat & light" of the "fire in the brain." (what some deem decsyncronization). A lot of clinicasl neurosurgical cases upon recovery seem to suggest that. But one thing is sure, so far: the neat ascending and descending descrete columns of input and output seem to go exist only somewhat still at the level of the thalamus. So Plato's shaddows on the wall may well be what we preceive and, based on past inhibitory shaping, we experience. Suggestive work with brain sidedness is very suggestive. But the "soul" in the mind is ever vigilant, to frustrate neurobiologists just about when they are about to yell in delight: "Urika." If we're willing to give so much latitude and freedom from laws to the universe-- a concoction of OUR minds-- then let's start applying an "uncertainty principle to our CNS." The great late Prof Brodal sought to convey his experience with a unilateral strke. Perhaps therein lies a clue as ours is a two sided brain, so we might do well to review his experiences after a stroke. Clearly, so long as we can prevent "noise" from outside, to exist is based on the interactive clash of past and present craved into the anticipated future. What I dare not comment on is whether the past biases perception of the present. At least in deafferented monkeys devoid of vision, reaching and grasping clearly appear to be like walking in the scenes in one's head. Deafferent one side and once it is put back in action goal attainment does not seem systematic, but most certainly the brain exploits every failure to gradually approximate success. We may be, therefore just reinforcing old memories with ever less cues. The real issue, for which only Prof. Roy Wise may have something to say, is why do we bother at all so often and why sometimes we just give up. But I do not think that sensory begets consciousness but rather that consciousness makes sensory interactive. I may be wrong, but all I do is read and none of it has conviced me that even if I am anyone else is any more right. We are, afterall, slaves to simplification of our own data generating equipment. Since we've reached a point where we don't really know how our AI toys get so much "smarter," we certainly should not pretend that we've got our wetware any better fidured out than our hardware. What we really need is a lot more neurophilosophers to ever show us that the more it is obvious, the more it can't be right, as our senses indeed project shaddows on the cave wall and our brains mold them. Then comes existence.....but what about Grillner's lamprey eels?

I think... and therefore i am.

(Rene Descartes)

fleeting awareness of transformation - nothing more

1. To have actual being; be real. 2. To have life; live 3. To live at a minimal level; subsist 4. To continue to be; persist

The verb exist means to live, to have reality. It's not only "live" things that exist. The government exists, as does your fear of heights. Anything that can be acknowledged in the present, exists. Another meaning for the verb exist is to support oneself or survive.

It used to be said that we exist because we link our experiences into a cartoon. But, cut a hole in that tapestry and we fill it from memory. Look atAlzheimer patients who don't remeber whom you are but can engage you in conversation. Do they exist? Do you exist in their minds, given that they interact with you despite any memory of you. What if they never remember what you say, only what they wanted to say?

It's philosophical. Many forms of existence is beyond our current perception. What a person has not perceived (five senses) does not mean they do not exist. It can be an undiscovered species, stars, etc. Virtual forms of existence (virtual bots, virtual journalists, virtual assistant, etc) has emerged recently, so existence isn't necessarily related to a living entity.

With the hindsite of both cruel clinical lesions and controlled lesions in animals, what I found is that everything is under contineous review somewhere in a neural loop. But that's distinct from memory loop and far, far more plastic adaptive loops that all settle on a Baysian midhmosh. But how big the feedback hole and how tinny the amount of circuitry where the whole is captured for use. Too often repetition requires an amazingly small amount of the whole remembered and a whole lot of loops captivated (some temporarily borrowed to in massive collectives in order to have imaginative choice. But then the veridic statement of the problem and application to it of a useful response is not the issue but rather, how to use all data and structures to compose a new revolutyionary structure that better inculcates the past into the future. We don't always need a veritic representation of what caught our attention out there,

Dear Muneeb Faiq and readers,

There is a famous answer to the question “What does it mean to exist?” given by Willard v. O. Quine: To exist means to be the value of a bound variable. Or in his terms: “To be is to be the value of a bound variable.” (Quine, On What There is).

Without going into details, for Quine that basically meant that all there is are fundamental particles – and that’s it. There is much debate about questions of existence in contemporary philosophy and Quine’s account is by no means accepted, but it may serve as starting point for analysis.

So, following the basic direction, we can approach a point made by Muneeb Faiq in the referenced text:

“The question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is based on two fundamental suppositions viz. there is something rather than nothing and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are different entities. The first question should be the one that does not need to invoke any assumption. In the case of ‘The Question’ in focus, the underlying beliefs are:

• (1) something exists (or nothing does not exist) and
• (2) something and nothing are distinct entities.“

Quine’s reaction to the first claim (ignoring ‘nothing’ for now) would be as follows: Since there are true statements of physics, there are the entities referred to within these statements. Notice that Quine relies on First Order Logic (more precisely, Quantified First Order Predicate Logic) and in particular on the notion of ‘reference’. Reference is the relation between a term and a thing in the world. This notion is useful for analysis of the second claim: “Something exists.” can be translated into: For at least on thing x, it is the case that x exists. Notice that the way to represent “Nothing exists.” would be: It is not the case that there is at least one thing x and x exists. In other words: To speak of ‘nothing’ as a referring term is rather difficult to make sense of. What exactly does it means that there is an entity and that entity is nothing?

In the referenced text, Muneeb Faiq refers to Lawrence Krauss’s book, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. Notice that Krauss uses the term ‘nothing’ as a referring term within physics! As with any technical term, he is free to stipulate the reference relation in any way he wants. The caveat is that there is no need for any relation to an intuitive understanding of existence. Unfortunately, many philosophers think about the notion of existence based on an intuitive understanding of existence. So, when we try to analyze, say, Descartes’s famous thought experiment, we should keep in mind that there are two different conceptions at work: The meaning within physics and the common sense notion. To inflate these two notions might lead to problematic results.

Best,

Sven Beecken

A tangle or something glib seems to be the way. 'I think' always got me flummoxed before getting to the 'I am'. My 'I am' seems to be made out of someone elses 'I think' which got handed (wispered and cooed more accurately) to me when I was too young to be choosy. So now I use these inherited notions to define myself and my world. How do I transcend this state in order to see "reality"? Searching for absolute noumenological reality is something somebody (Kant) said will ultimately end in a waste of time (to paraphrase). As for the 'therefore'? Maybe Sartre or even Neitschze can shuffle up the deck and deal out a less lofty hand, one we can use to get through the moments, the days, attend to our most pressing needs and set-aside the eons and eternities for afterwards.

But, do we exist in a coma? When does a newborn conclude that it, its limbs and its perception of the rworld around it exist? When does one distinguish ME from OTHER? And then, is me changed by just knowing the difference between me and everything else?

Are wethe only animals that turn into mathematicalprinciples what our cerebellum teaches us about far but reachable as opposed to too far, too fast or too scary to reach for?

That which is perceptible, exists. Is a body in a coma perceptible? Of course, it is; and here is a proof: a skilled observer can conclude that an observed body is in a coma.

For a body in a coma to be non-existent, the body would have to physically vanish from the phenomenal realm, which is physically impossible, and upon waking up assume the physical form again, which is, again, physically impossible.

Is a body in a coma perceiving? Of course, it is. Every physical entity is perceiving: atoms in a molecule perceive each other; molecules close to each other perceive each other, and so on.

Easy .If you perceive, U exist.

Easy .If you perceive, U exist.

Existence requires no meaning. It's simply there.

Aryan Shahabian , is there anything in the phenomenal realm that does not have a meaning, to wit, purpose?

Yes@@

I should not have seen this question as it has been so all-consuming that all my circadian rhythms have been neglected. But here goes. Like a car we are multiple operating parts, each a manifestation of a physicochemic series of processes that interact Tolerances from the start are not only crude but become far broader in their homeostatic capacities. So long as we live within a multitude of ranges, then our house keeping physicochemical processes produce enough energy so that we may hone close to optimal the ranges of the base processes and the apical processes, the latter enable interactions with the environment and memorization of the experience. So we exist within homeostatic ranges and die out of them. But the path to death is most often a slow slope so we rarely die fast, suffering instead. But I regret that most of our existence in this universe too often is coincident as we really cannot focus on and extract all benefits and lessons from any one experience without the help of computers still on the drawing board. The inner me is too often utterly neglected for the odd datait provides while itself maintaining a homeostatic survival range. Often we exist aware of others but unaware of ourselves, hence we don't exist egocentrically, aware only that we just might get away with a lot more internal perturbation while chasing understanding of other existences. So to exist is to have a physical construction which serves well homeostasis on automatic so that we may go, see and contemplate: "What the Hell is that?"

The issue of live vs cadaveric organs raises yet another question as to whether the donor is dead (so not so good organ transplant) or brain dead (so organ transplant is assured to be long lasting But since at least 10% od"brain dead" come back o normal existence, one is left wondering at which point is organs snatching OK? To answer we had better find consensus on a much clearer and complete picture of EXISTENCE!

In mathematics, to be possible.

In ideas, to have been formed.

in our universe, to have energy.

Mathematical possibility is a theoretical construct and changes with time and ethos. For example gravity was a reality till yesterday and mathematics can be worked out for and against it. Regarding ideas, anything that has not been thought about can also exist. energy is not in any way a prerequisite for existence.

To ask what exists always requires an explicit or implicit assumption about the kind of world for which one is asking about the existence: this determines what "exist" means.

In math "to exist" means only "to be free of contradictions." There is no distinction between the possible and the actually existing inside mathematics.

Ideas are informational. An idea does not exist before it is had. But it is possible before it is had.

Nothing can exist in this universe without energy, except relationships between those things which do. Relationships are an idea we distill out by observing things.

Finally, rules can exist, such as the manner in which things always happen. But again, this is a distillation (into patterns- ideas and math) by us of what we see.

"Does this exist?" when asked often means "is this real?, which itself may be one of two intended questions: "is it true?" or "is this physically manifested somewhere or only imagined?" In the last case the idea will "exist" and the organized information representing it in the brain will "exist" and the physical makeup in the brain representing the information will "exist" but the thing imagined may not "exist."

I recall part of a story a friend would often repeat about 'Bertrand Russell sitting on the steps of parliament'. Any

student of philosophy will be aware of his work with Alfred North Whitehead, it's rigour and impressive

intellectual effort, also, to say the least, his involvement with Ludwig Wittgenstein; so to imagine such a great

individual making a public statement by sitting on the steps of parliament is curiously hard to appreciate.

Another story is reported to be the earliest in history and it speaks of Gilgamesh's journey, which seems to be

also followed by Zarathustra: back into the world constituted by others; back to family and community. I think

that's what Russell was saying about what it means to exist after his long and deep deliberation. We live in this

world, we each a part of it. Some transcendental vision, a psychopathy, an epiphany of life inside the vat; each

may have individual validity but we exist in society and must participate in the marketplace. For me the search

for the absolute is an infinite quest and therefore unanswerable and consequently meaningless in its pursuit.

The search for that God’s-eye-view of objective consciousness is not mine to have. So what it means to exist is

anybody's guess but, hopefully most can agree that it is something we share.

A footnote: The English philosophers and the concept of sense data should not be discounted. In my opinion

Berkeley and Hume are essential reading if one is to examine the important ontological and epistemological

questions. I found the work of G E Moore helpful in grappling with the elusiveness of sense data.