A Thunk is a beguilingly simple-looking question about everyday things that stops you in your tracks and helps you start to look at the world in a whole new light. © Ian Gilbert.
Thunk 30:
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?
91 comments:
Yes, it does exist.
There are some aspects of life that don't have to be seen or heard or felt etc for us to know that it really exists.
An example would be theories, or ideas, that haven't been formed or taken any shape but have been thought of by people.
Believing in the existence of something (that cannot be proven by sense of sight, smell, touch, etc) purely depends on an individual and their blind faith.
The best example is the idea of a 'greater/higher power' or the existence of a 'God', the Creator. You can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine, or experience Him, but a large amount of people believe that a God DOES exist, despite the lack of scientific or logical proof.
P.S.
The answer to this is subjective; it honestly depends on one's perspective, i.e. whether something has to match that 'criteria' for it to actually 'exist'.
Hope, faith, trust. Distinct human qualities that are neither seen, tasted, smelled, heard, imagined or experienced. But we know it's there, we believe.
I read those three words somewhere and it was related to WHY humans are different from all other life forms. And I would agree, those specific types of thoughts exist and make us different but not in any of those forms (Seeing, tasting..).
Believing in something's existence purely depends on one's, persepective, let's say, and the way into which he/she takes matters into consideration.
The simplest example is air. We cant see, taste, smell, hear nor imagine it. However, we know that it exists because of scientific proof.
Mehvash used God as an example, and ill elaborate on that. I KNOW FOR SURE that there is a creator responsible for day and night, the skies, revolving of planets, living organisms and survival. There is logical proof to God's existence, however, not scientific. The mere idea we have and the theories we come up with DO exist.
Emotions, they are felt. Not seen, tasted, smelt, nor heard. But they do exist.
So, yes, that something does exist whether it caters to all our five senses or not.
We think and have knowledge of our surroundings because of our senses. We learn everything and associate all the senses together to know what is what. It'd be impossible to have knowledge without them...
However , sometime we need to think outside the box. We may not personally have knowledge without our senses but that doesn't mean it will stop something from existing. Others matters in this universe are still capable of existing without out knowledge. There may be millions of "stuff" out there beyond our senses and imagination.
I'm going to go along the lines of hidden dimensions. Scientists tell us there might be higher dimensions curled up in the space all around us. What if there is an entire world out there (right here, every where) existing in the same time and space but just in higher dimensions. We could be walking through it every day, but because we can't experience it or even imagine what it would be like to live in dimensions beyond our own, then could it be that for us this world of higher dimensions doesn't exist?
How about the inside of a black hole. Everything - time, matter, light, energy... everything gets destroyed inside a black hole. No information of any kind - not even light - can escape a black hole. Can we ever know what's inside a black hole?
What about colours we can never experience. Bees and birds can see in ultraviolet. We can invent gadgets that can make ultra violet patterns visible but we can never see ultraviolet or even IN ultraviolet.
What about colours we can never see let alone imagine? Can we imagine sky blue-orange? Or baby-pink green?
I'd be interested in other unimaginable things that we can't experience with our senses or imagine in our minds.
Well, to determine this you would most definitely need an example. so taking heaven as an example, you can not see, hear, feel, taste or smell heaven. You can only simpl imagine heaven. Though millions of people believe in it. Why is that so. Well the conviction of its possibility had to of out wheighed other options. If a person can prove the connection of something being real then it can be believed in.
I think it does.
Since what we actually experience physically or mentally is only a fraction of what goes on in the universe. I think that there are loads of things going on in our universe that we cannot experience physically or see but it still exists. Humans have only discovered a tiny bit of our universe and just because we cannot experience or see what goes on beyond does not mean it does not exist.
Nikol 11g1
It's hard to imagine a whole different world out there, but that does not mean it does not exist.
We get so caught up in our own lives that we don't stop to think that we are only a small planet in an expanding universe.So yes, even though we may not be able to see,taste,smell,hear,imagine or experience something, it may exist.
HMMMM, This question put a hole through my brain. I think it does exist. We do not know every single thing on earth (and the earth is Million years old, it has its secrets). I believe it still exists. Because we dont think it exists doesnt me it doesnt. There are tons of things in our Universe wich will never be found. Since we cant use any of our senses to test the existence (and humans are the kind of "Unless i see it, its all lies" species) all we have left is our faith. Some believe the Black Hole exists. I personally don't.
I would say that it does; just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And even though it is nothing more than assumption, with things such as the blck hole, bermuda triangle, etc. we have reason to even assume that there may be a something that we can't "sense".
Yes, it does exist but not for me. Just because I can't see, hear, taste, smell, imagine or experience something, it does not mean that nobody else can either. It will be existing for that person but not for me. yet, I cannot say that it does not exist.
Aisha Bashir.
11g2.
This would have to be put into perspective in order to come up with a definate answer, but in the eyes of the person who doesn't have the senses, it doesn't exist. However, to the rest of society, it probably does.
Then there is the example of God. As Mehvash said, God cannot be heard, smelt, felt, seen, nor tasted. Not in the physical sense at least. But that is what makes God an icon of faith.
This thunk raises another similar thunk in my mind - what about things which you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience, but could do so at one point of time in the past. Do they exist? And that's where this thunk seems surprisingly similar to thunk 21. For those of you who have forgotten, thunk 21 was: If you don't remember a dream, then did you have it? It's all about whether your own awareness of the existence of something, or the lack thereof, should, or should not, determine that thing's very existence.
Then there is the matter of the inside of a black hole which I find very intriguing. Sure enough, there is nothing to stop us from imagining what the inside of a black hole might look like but what if we imagine it inaccurately, which is probably what always happens whenever we try to imagine what the inside of a black hole might look like. Then does that count as imagining? I know I'm raising more questions than I'm answering and so, I would say 'yes' as my answer to this thunk, just like I did for thunk 21.
I do feel that things exist even if we cannot sense them around us. Peace and harmony exists without us being able to see, feel or smell them, truth and prosperity exists without us being able to sense them…so why say that these motions do not exist? Happenings around the world and outside it take place where we are unable to sense them…therefore I believe that yes things do exist even if u cannot visualize or smell them around you.
I have to disagree with most of these comments; seeing IS believing. if you can't feel something and the impact it has on you, how should we know it exists?
For example, the belief in something such as miracles. yes, in religion we may come across a handful of "miracles", and people may re-account their miracles, but I myself, will not believe in religion let alone 'miracles' until i can see, feel and has an impact on me.
Yes, it does exist.. Its like outer space or supernatural powers. There must be things that we have not yet discovered, and not even imagined could exist. But that does not stop it from existing!
Just because we can't sense something or know about it does not mean that it's inexistent.
In my opinion, the whole concept of existence varies from person to person. What exists for another person might be impossible for me to believe in or let alone, see.
Humans have a very limited scope of discovery; there are loads of things we haven't seen or explored. Denying something's existence just because we can't sense it is narrow-minded and self-centred, since we can't let our beliefs and our experiences be the sole bases of an object's existence.
Think about a colour blind person who can't see red. Nothing we could say or do would help him to understand what the colour red is. Would red as a colour exist for him?
The problem is more telling with a person born blind. Do colours exist for them? What if every single human ever in existence was born blind. Would colour exist for us?
We know about sights, sounds, and smells. Might there be other ways of experiencing different aspects of reality that we are not aware of because we don't have the sense organs for it?
Personally i believe only a few things can exists if we can’t sense them, such as gods.
Nobody, not even science can provide an answer to the existence of god or gods. Something’s are will never be solved but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. On the other hand if we can’t sense something or even imagine it that how do we know that it exists? It all comes down to the individual’s beliefs and in some cases religion.
I think it would exsist if you believed it did. Some people believe that there is is life after death, they can't experience it but they believe it exsists. Same goes for God, it isn't proven that there is God but people believe God exsists. It is the same concept for a lot of things like the past and the future. So if you believe it exsists for you then it does.
Of course it exists!!!
Did we, humans know everything we know now, a mere hundred years ago?forget 500 years ago? NO!
But this whole time it was still there, it didn't come into existence as soon as we found it(or maybe it's the other way around?). Atoms were there even though scientists and mathematicians still thought the smallest particles were, say, specks of dust or even molecules.
We will continue to make new discoveries and life-altering research, but the facts will always be there even if we haven't happened upon them just yet:P
Yes, it does exist. This is sort of like that 'If a tree falls in a forest but no one hears it, did it really fall' thing. Even though our senses may have been deprived, it does not mean the tree didn't once upon a time, live, breathe, exhale oxygen and inhale carbon dioxide.
Likewise, with humans and their belief in god. The existence of god has not been scientifically proven but a majority of us still believe that there is a higher power. So yes, even through sensory deprivation, things still exist.
It all boils down to personal belief and perception and ones willingness to take things on face value.
That is probably the core difference between Theists and Atheists. You could probably convince a blind man of the existence of color, but he would only be going by what you said, and not from his own experience.
A theist likely doesn't need proof as to the existence of celestial entities, especially in a family where religion is taught right after "mama" and "dada." An atheist, however, is forever in doubt. Gravity has been proven by science, but God hasn't, so they will not believe in a higher being until they get that concrete evidence.
The answer to this question is purely based on ones personal views and is totally subjective.
Personally, I think it does exist, you cant see, hear or feel things like 'trust' or 'love' but people believe in them wholeheartedly. Even with God, the divine creator, there's no scientific proof that this deity exists, but a majority of people, myself included, believe that there is a higher power.
The answer ultimately boils down to belief and judgment.
NO! It doesn't exist because it doesn't give any proof to others that it is there and exists amongst us. Everything has a reason to exist whether it's alive or dead. But, if none of your senses can detect the object, then it doesn't have a reason to exist.
For Example: even silk has a reason to exist, that is wrapping around the nymph to form a cocoon while it evolves inside.
WE probably know why living things exist. living things exist to form the food chain and to prevent one species from growing too large in numbers.
I beg to differ, Girisha. Have you not read the above comments? Especially Edeline’s one which rather got me intrigued. “Did we, humans know everything we know now, a mere hundred years ago? No. But this whole time it was still there, it didn’t come into existence as soon as we found it”
Even if something has no proof or it does not exist amongst us, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. We humans have discovered a mere fraction of our expanding universe. We are only a sheer speck in a galaxy amongst millions and billions of other galaxies. So imagine what could be out there... or right in front of us! for the matter of fact. Just because we haven’t experienced it or seen it or even if there is no proof, I choose to believe that yes, it does in fact exist.
*sorry for the very late comment by the way*
Very interesting topic! My favourite to be precise! Anyways, as many above me have said, if we can't see, touch or feel it, it does not mean it doesn't exist!
I did a little research earlier about the existence of multiple dimensions. I was left quite confused but understood that 2 dimensional objects can see only single dimension, 3 dimensional objects( i.e = Us) can experience only 2 dimensions.
It is quite confusing, but if come to think of it it might make a little sense! Let me break down what I've said earlier.
2d obj: -They see 1 dimension.
-They move left, right, up
and down.
3d obj: -They see 2 dimensions
-They move left, right, up
down, back and forth.
A 2d object might not know what Back and Forth is cause it only exists in 2d, but that does not mean Back and forth doesn't exist, does it?
There might be other Dimensions that we can't experience but that does not mean it doesn't exist! :)
I think the reason we've never seen an alien is because they might exist in a different dimension!!
Just because you cannot have any physical interaction with it does not mean it doesn't exist, look at air for example you can see, taste, smell, touch or feel it but its still there.
We,human beings, are such skeptics.
It exists. Most elementary matters in life, as everyone mentioned;God,belief,hopes,dreams,
love-nothing is tangible. But you cannot deny their entities. It is there around us.
I don't think we should just rely on our 5 senses;these senses are fundamental. Maybe there are multiple dimensions out there, much intricate and advanced for our brains to fathom. Therefore, my answer is yes.
Maybe sometimes, we just need to believe.
It is rather strange and difficult to think about something like this.. but I do believe there are things that exist beyond the knowledge and thoughts of our minds.
So, yep, I do believe it exists, even though we can't know for sure.
This question is tough. Yes. I believe not everything can be seen, heard and so on however many of us tend to believe or say it does exist. It all is up to our brain and how we look at things. For example, the existence of god has not been scientifically proven however majority of us, including myself believe of the all mighty power. Therefore I personally think that it is all up to the amount of faith we have towards the unseen.
I believe it exists and i don't understand why it wouldn't.
There has always been gravity on the earth,you can't see it, feel it,smell it, taste it nor hear it, but it's always been around since the earth was formed.
We have developed tremendously through time, and the more advance we become the more we uncover and explain.
For this answer we must elaborate on the term ‘exist.’ Scientifically, exist could mean to be present whether or not humans can interact with it through taste, the eye, scent, sound, imagination, and experience. I’m confident when I say this is true, because science and technology have been developing over time, improving their standards and surprising us humans by showing us what’s really out there. Therefore this means that as development keeps moving forward, only then we will be able to see what is left to see, or experience, or imagine, etc. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist!
Nevertheless, if we look at it philosophically, it could mean something else. Personally, If I am not able to interact with something or someone in those following ways even though I might’ve tried, then to me it is of no use, so technically it doesn’t exist to me; I will just let it pass by unnoticeably if it ever comes again.
I’ve always wondered how I would be able to explain the existence of colors to someone color blind (or more accurately, color deficient). I’ve never really come to a conclusion to how I’d do it and I think most of what I really would use to explain - like associating the color blue to cold or red to hot - was systemic, or stereotypically learned through years and years of internalizing the normalcies of society today, and how it’s run. So really, I don’t think I would be able to convince someone that red is how it feels when you burn yourself, or so on, because these are perhaps patterns we’ve been force-fed. But I do know that color exists, and I do know I’ve experienced it everyday. However, to my color deficient friend, they cannot feel, see, touch, hear, smell, experience, or imagine it. In their world, color ceases to exist; color is a pigment (pun intended) of the imaginations of those around them.
And I think that’s how I would choose to answer this thunk: that there are other worlds I cannot experience yet, because I haven’t evolved the senses to do so as of now. Perhaps there are objects you know of in your own worlds that I have not seen or felt yet. Just as I know that I can only see a certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum, I also believe there are other species that can see other parts of it. Thus, the things my senses and my mind can experience may be limited, but the universe is an unlimited expanse that offers me more than my senses - at the moment - can behold.
I've contemplated this question for quite some time now. I must say, it has seriously stopped me in my tracks and encouraged me to perceive the world in a completely different way.
I believe this thunk can best be answered if it's split up into two significant instances.
The first instance involves the knowledge we have attained so far, and only that knowledge. It is within the current time period, wherein we cannot answer some really important questions.
The second instance involves the knowledge that we can attain, or that we are prone to attaining. It refers to a time wherein we can sit back, sigh deeply and conclude that we know everything about everything, and that we have found answers to every question.
It is also essential to decide whether technology is part of our senses. I believe so, since there are countless examples of people who use technology daily to enhance their senses.
In the first instance, I believe that just because we cannot see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something then it can exist and sometimes does. The best example I can think of is that of aliens. We cannot see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience them, but it does not mean that they do not exist. As of now, we lack the adequate knowledge to come to a proper conclusion.
In the second instance, things are quite different. As we are certain that we have found logical, accurate answers to everything, we can be sure that if we cannot imagine, see, taste, smell, etc. something then it must not exist. The use of technology plays a prominent role in this instance, because by that time, we must have developed such advanced technology that it would detect all things that we could not have even dreamed of.
And if in spite of all our technology, and our boundless knowledge that we do not find anything, not even a shred of evidence, we must conclude that something we cannot see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience does not exist...
Existence.
It's all subjective. Can I exist? Can you? Do we?
Imagine a world where there was no 'Blue'. The world continues pretty normally, and people reproduce. Children are born, people die. Suddenly, these people are discovered - by us - and we marvel at their ignorance of 'blue'.
Does 'Blue' exist? Even when the people can't see it?
Of course.
The expansive world of science is a great example of this. Beyond a certain point, science isn't intuitive. We can't feel the universe expand. We can't hear the collisions of sub-atomic particles. We can't see Dark Matter.
But we believe it all because it makes some kind of logical sense to us. And that's the key.
There's a lot to be said about 'belief in logic'. If A=Apple and B=Banana then A+B= Apple and Banana.The world applies this type of logical reasoning to a host of different scenarios. It's how a lot of people determine that things exist.
I don't know, it's just what I think.
Essentially , it depends purely on our belief. Whether we decide to base our believes on logical, scientifically proven facts, or our mere stubborn, ignorant selves. Suppose today i was to believe that a certain "thing" were to exist, merely because "i said so" , then according to me, it would exist. I may even be able to convince a gullible person that the "thing" exists and slowly a few more people and finally it would exist as a belief if nothing more.
I sit racking my brains for an example , and though there are so many things that we cannot hear, see, smell, touch, taste or even feel, there are way too many things we can experience. Personally i would like to experience a thing before i can believe it exists. However, i will not go as far as to say that if it does not affect me and is of no use to me than to me that would not exist. Here i would like to propose the idea of multiple, parallel universes. It may be many years before I could see another universe, chances are I may even die before that, but I do believe that at least one more does exist and hope that it is eventually discovered.
To summarize my opinion in the simplest way i can, i do NOT believe anything would be required to fulfill these categories in order to exist
First, we must establish what existence is. When I looked up the universal definition of the word ‘existence’, I found the following: existence is ‘the fact or state of living or having objective reality’. I find a few flaws in this definition: firstly, the objectivity they associate with existence, which can easily be proven to be false. For instance, I can still listen to music, even though people who suffer from hearing-impairment are not able to do so. In addition, the definition is incredibly vague in its characterization of the word ‘reality’. Recursively, it makes me question the definition of the definition itself: what is reality?
So what is the true meaning of existence? Existence can mean a lot of things. The entirety of the universe exists, even though we cannot see all of it and we cannot imagine what every single inch of it looks like. So does music, even though it isn’t tangible to the touch. So does colour, even though we don’t hear it.
Plato argued that existence is a direct cause of what he called the ‘realm of being’. This realm of being is a meta-physical world that governs our world. According to Plato, this realm is home to various ‘forms’, which embody physical traits and qualities of everything that exists. He formalized this argument based upon the fact that there must be some sort of hierarchy of worlds, where one world governs the entities that do exist in the other world. Thus, according to Plato’s theory, as long as a form exists in this meta-physical world, the physical thing will exist in our world, regardless of whether we can see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience it.
Existence isn’t completely subjective. A child might see and hear their imaginary friend very vividly. However, the child believing that the friend exists doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t actually exist. At the same time, the contrary is true. Even though the visually impaired cannot see the world, the world still exists. Thus, the correlation between physical existence and our ability to sense entities, is actually extremely loose. Moreover, existence is possible even without us seeing, tasting, smelling, hearing, imagining or experiencing something.
For thousands of years, mankind was oblivious to the existence of non-terrestrial planets like Mercury or Uranus. That doesn't mean they didn't exist. They existed even before life on Earth began. The universe, unfortunately, isn't anthropocentric.
Even if a blind person can't see colours, others can, and if we can't, animals can, and if animals can't, we still can't take away the fundamental property of red roses that they reflect the right wavelength that humans call 'red'.
Things we can't feel, see, touch and hear may be outside our realm of reality, but they certainly exist.
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?
By no stretch of the imagination, imagination is the most important aspect of this question. Anything we have experienced in the past, we can imagine. Many, many things we may experience in the future, we can imagine (sometimes, whether we want to or not).
The Imaginary Foundations says the goal of human imagination is to imagine, to conjure up all these delightful future possibilities, pick the most amazing and ecstatic one, and pull the present forward to meet that possibility. So it’s safe to say that what we can experience or imagine exists – even if only in our head.
The word “can’t” means the question is asking about entities we don’t have the potential to experience or imagine. This question isn’t about what does or doesn’t exist. It’s about the limits of human thought.
Do we, as a collective, have the potential to imagine everything that is, was and ever will be?
Individuals imagine individual things. But whether we have the potential to imagine something is determined entirely by the information we have on hand and our ability to extract meaning from that information. I cannot say that I know the true extent to which humanity will advance. Who the geniuses of the future will be, and what secrets of the Universe they will unlock. But I believe that with the right information and the right individual, humans have the potential to imagine anything that does exist. Therefore, if we as a species, past, present and future, consider every permutation and combination of every individual with every intelligence, skillset and all knowledge – if there’s something we can’t imagine, it cannot possibly exist.
However, I’m not arrogant enough to assume that humanity will ever be omniscient. At that point, this question would be irrelevant anyway.
Assuming our species never achieves omniscience, we must consider the possibility that certain things will escape the bounds of our imagination. If we don’t know everything, there must be certain things we don’t have the potential to imagine.
Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination, some things can exist that we cannot possibly comprehend, either in our eye or our mind’s eye.
Yes, I do believe that to a great extent, there are many things which we are unaware of that do exist. It ties in to the belief of our lack of knowledge on the undiscovered parts of the universe. If we can't imagine, experience, see, hear, or taste another aspect of the world, does that in any way lessen the validity of its existence ? I highly doubt it.
A tree falls in a forest, yet no one is there to hear or see the tree falling; that does not mean the tree did not fall. Applying that same principle, just because you cannot see, hear, imagine, or experience something – does not mean it doesn’t exist.
Let’s take the example of dark/anti matter; it is a type of matter in cosmology and astronomy to account for the gravitational effects that appear to be the result of ‘invisible’ mass. It cannot be directly seen with telescopes nor does it emit or absorb light or electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. But dark matter makes up a significant amount of our universe (almost eighty five percent of our universe for that matter – pun intended). Just because we cannot see, hear, imagine and experience dark matter doesn’t mean it isn’t present. Similarly, the visually impaired cannot see color just like the hearing impaired cannot hear sound although we can; again that doesn’t mean we don’t live in a multicolored world or that our next door neighbor loudly playing the drums isn’t. Existence is subjective.
The answer to this understandably varies from one angle to another. According to me, this could casually be narrowed down into two different categories. Firstly, it can be bounded by pure science, the power of evidences and the impact of definite proven facts with no room for myths or misguided believes. Whereas if we flip the coin, it could be solely based on cultural beliefs, a vulnerable mind or to some extents, even family values and norms. The key here, is most certainly ‘imagination’ the most wonderful, widest and wildest of all. However, there are things which have existed in the past beyond people’s imagination and so, they experienced it happening at some point. The same goes for us. Being a science student, I want to believe that if scientific reasoning and evidences are not involved, that particular thing, unquestionably does not exist. However, for the same reason mentioned above, being a science student, I know that there is so much out there that’s just unexplored, and that - does not make it non-existing.
The answer to this question is actually very objective, in contrast to other thunk questions. To answer this without any uncertainty, let us analyze the situation with pure rationality and logic.
I cannot hear you, neither can I see, Nor can I touch you. Does this imply that you do not exist? Absolutely not.
I might have never met a person or seen an object or a place or a thing in my entire life. However, this does not necessarily mean that such a person, object or place doe not exist.
There are millions and billions of objects and people we have never been subjected to with direct stimuli. Stating that anything we don't know or don't understand, does not exist would be ludicrous. We must acknowledge the possibility or even the mere plausibility of not having experienced everything there is to experience.
To conclude, the answer to this question is simple. If you cannot hear, see or touch something, that does NOT mean that it doesn't exist.
To me, I wouldn’t be bothered by something that I cant see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience because it wont change me, help or entertain me, so to me its useless. I won’t even notice it if it is in the same room as me because I wouldn’t be able to feel its presence through my senses. However, this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. As human beings our senses have a certain range and threshold, which means that we are limited by what we can do. This means that what we can sense is different to what other organisms and so in this sense, if we as humans can’t sense it, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
In science, things such as anti-matter, grey matter and some EM waves can’t be seen through the naked eye, sensed or experienced but it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They exist because they fit science’s explanation perfectly and so it could perhaps be said that they exist because it is more convenient to have evidence than not.
I guess the answer to this question also depends on each individual’s beliefs. If we take the example of culture and religion, I don’t think anybody has seen, sensed or experienced God, yet we believe that they do exist. Why? It is because we have been taught to believe that they have the power to change our lives.
Having read your previous thoughts on this, Sir, about not having a sense since birth eg being blind, I believe that for them colours do exist but in the form of words and description or an associated emotion and the same goes for the deaf, they associate the different types of sound with things they have felt before.
A blind person cannot experience colour.
Yet those who can, vouch for its existence.
A deaf person would never be able to comprehend music.
Yet again, many say that music is integral to their lives.
Those who experience limitations with particular senses may find it hard to grasp certain concepts - despite their existence being proven by others. These are examples of somethings individuals may not be able to see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience.
Now consider this: The Big Bang Theory.
It is not something that could have been experienced by us, however we do have scientific proof that it may have occurred.
One might say that due to it being a ‘theory’, it may not exist - however the theory itself in an idea. The theory does exist. Whether real or simply a theory, anything and everything can exist as an idea.
Take the example of a black hole. One does not know for certain what occurs, seeing as no human has experienced it, however theories exist. For example, the experiment of Schrödinger’s cat in a box. He places this cat in an airtight box, and in theory knows that the cat will die. But he does not know exactly when. Therefore, in the box, the cat could be both dead and alive, proving that the possibility for something to exist is always there, regardless of whether you experience it or not.
Just because I cannot see, hear, smell, imagine or experience something, the conclusion to be drawn isn't that it's non-existent or fiction. It simply means I am unaware of it's existence.
Air exists. Sure, we can feel it, we can hear it ( extremely breezy), we can experience it. However just because the wind stops blowing, doesn't mean air molecules vanish into oblivion. I'd like to echo what simrah said about dark matter. Although we can't see it, we know it exists and that a significant amount of our universe comprises of it.
It's like that old saying, " if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, has it really fallen?". I don't believe it's morally and logically right for someone to deny the existence of something that exceeds their present reality. Imagine a world where everyone lived in their own egotistical bubbles of reality. The only aspects of life they would firmly and obstinately accept are the ones they've heard, seen, imagined and experienced in their past. The idea of and hope for progression would not exist! Every time we'd come across something unknown and alien-like we wouldn't be intrigued and try questioning it further, we would be confused and most probably start doubting our own judgement. It's imperative for us to keep questioning and wondering, regardless of our experience or lack of imagination with it.
I know this is going to sound weird but I do believe Bigfoot is real. or something like a Bigfoot. Though I can't imagine exactly what it would look like and considering the fact I might never see or hear about Bigfoot in my life, I will still believe in it. I don't mean to sound ridiculous, it's just that so much of this planet has not been explored yet so to say Bigfoot doesn't exist makes no sense to me. The question we should be asking is why shouldn't Bigfoot exist?
I believe the same principle can be applied to emotions and people. Just because I don't experience love and kindness from a specific person, it doesn't mean they lack these feelings in general. if a person leaves for a time period it doesn't mean they don't care about you even though you aren't experiencing or witnessing the acts of caring. These elements still exist.
I do believe it's crucial for us to keep an open mind so that when we are confronted with surprises and the unknown, we don't block them out.
When a question like this is posed, a few other integral questions come to light; what is "real"? Reality is different from person to person, because of differences in perception. So with that school of thought, my reality can completely differ from yours. But to say that something doesn't exist at all because I cannot experience it, would be extremely egocentric of me. This is where science comes in- for example, the search for extraterrestrial life. Science says that there's not enough evidence to disprove it, however since it has not been found, I cannot perceive it. However, that in. no way means that the possibility of it existing is ruled out. So despite my first argument, I believe that yes, something can exist if you can't touch/hear/perceive it.
If I can’t see.
Can’t taste.
Can’t smell.
Can’t hear.
Can’t imagine.
Or can’t experience.
What am I doing in/to/with something?
I think I just believe in it.
Of course, that’s where the concept of God originates.
Other than rumors or tales,
Most people haven’t seen god. Nor tasted. Nor heard. Nor imagined. Nor experienced.
But does/do he/she/they exist?
Depends on whether you believe.
Anything can go from imaginary to real, or vice versa, in one split second.
And it’s only due to one tiny detail.
Belief.
Something as abstract as a unicorn can go from imaginary to real, if a child believes they can reach the end of the rainbow one day.
And something as real as a possibility of a god/gods can go from real to imaginary, if a person starts questioning why bad things still happen to good people.
It all adds up to what you believe.
So I think the real question is,
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something,
Then do you believe it exists?
The question can be answered with another question; Is it even possible for humans to experience each and everything in the relatively unexplored cosmos. It is impossible to contemplate the various marvels and dangers that lie out there. For awhile humans believed that the Earth was flat, the Americas or even a distant landmass wasn't even pondered upon in those times. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
Another thing to take into account is what if there were other ways to sense things. What if our definition of something being existential isn't complete? What if there were other planes of existence that our minds couldn't even imagine?
So it isn't necessary for something to not exist if we cannot fathom or sense it in any way possible.
Here, the question attempts to define 'existence' as an entity within the thresholds of the human senses. Although it may seem like a viable outline, it has two fundamental weak links which are, imagination and relativity. Because we live in such a diverse society of numerous beliefs, I will ignore any reference to religion as best I can.
Russell's teapot is a famous analogy which can provide a starting point for this argument. Bertrand Russell, a philosopher and mathematician of the 18th century, wrote that a teapot orbits the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars. He then went on to claim that because no one could disprove his theory, the teapot can be said to exist. To this day, the celestial teapot remains.
This is the analogy upon which many theories, even scientific, are based on. Particularly those considering the birth of our universe. What many scientists and innovators with a new idea do is formulate a presumable theory, then go about proving it with their knowledge on the subject. Both the Big Bang and Multiverse theory, although never fully proved with our senses, are deemed as facts by the general population.Thus we say that for something to exist, the human senses are not the only proving grounds. Imagination plays a big part in this area and cannot be ignored; however it is also wrong to base existence completely on this.
Another thing about existence is that it is always relative to the observer. Take for example two individuals in separate rooms, Man A and Man B. There is no way they can see anything happening in their opposite respective rooms. Their only form of communication is a walkie-talkie. Man A sees a cat in his room while Man B sees nothing in his room. According to the definition that the question provided, Man A thinks cats don't exist in any room and Man B thinks all rooms have cats.
The only way to prove the existence of a cat in the room of Man B is to tell Man A through a walkie-talkie. Man A now has the choice to believe or ignore Man B based on the information Man B has provided. In the same way, we don't know what exists outside our own plain of sight, touch, taste, ect. All we can do to prove the existence of such entities is rely on the information provided to us and our own imagination and intuition.
Well, sure it does, for others anyway. And I’m sure the answers before me have given absolute justification for that.
I, however, for the simple excuse of getting a fresh perspective, want to take a different approach – a more individualistic one. So for me, if I have never seen, tasted, smelt, heard, experienced or imagined something, it doesn’t exist. I read a quote somewhere and it went along the lines of ‘Your universe is only as big as your world view’. And I whole heartedly agree with this. Our universe, or what we think exists in the real world exists only if we have the capability to somehow experience it through our senses or our imagination. Without these tools to help us, those things simply do not exist.
Say, if I was born blind (not have gradually become blind in which case this argument is invalid) colours simply do not exist for ME. They may exist for all of you reading this (because clearly, you’re not blind) but I just will not be able to fathom (imagine) what colours even are because I only of eternal darkness. Even if you do a great job of explaining the abstract concept of colours (if you did, you have my respects. Here, have a cookie!), they wouldn’t exist for me, personally.
And isn’t that what defines existence, anyway? If we do not KNOW (by one or more of the senses) of something, it doesn’t exist to US. Till a few months ago, I didn’t know someone named Mr. Roberts (no offence, Mr. Roberts), so he simply did not exist to me specifically (once again, no offence Mr. Roberts).
If you were trying to get me, I reckon you would have done so by now. So, I won’t drag this out any longer than it needs to be. I will agree to disagree with any or all of you. After all, reality is so complex that even slight differences in its perception may often lead to entirely contradictory conclusions.
For me to answer this question I must first consider my position in this universe and my physical and mental abilities. I'm a human being with a body that can only survive on planet earth and a mind that is powerful enough to deceive itself.
Once upon a time we thought stars were our gods because they have lead us through the sea and the desert. Until we came to the conclusion that the moon and the stars were nothing but celestial bodies that swim in a sea of dark matter. But what could have helped us make such a discovery if it wasn't for instruments that surpassed our basic abilities and senses?
Not to mention, one of the greatest discoveries of our modern world, the dark matter or anti-matter. It is a mysterious cosmic phenomenon that can't be seen, heard, smelt nor imagined but its presence was noticed by scientists' observations of matter's behaviour around it.
The Scottish philosopher David Hume once said "A blind man can form no notion of colours; a deaf man of sounds. Restore either of them that sense in which he is deficient; by opening this new inlet for his sensations, you also open an inlet for the ideas; and he finds no difficulty in conceiving these objects."
In conclusion, putting for this amazing universe boundaries in accordance with our senses would not only let us miss out on what lies behind the door but also it would lead us to our own imprisonment. After all, what is there to discover in this world if nothing exceeded our abilities?
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?
In order for something to physically exist for me, it must be observable and undisprovable. This does not necessarily mean observable by our senses because they are intrinsically flawed. Colour, for example is a subjective experience, in fact, colour is just the labelling of different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum by our mind and seeing colour is not proof of the existence of it, it is the proof of the existence of light.
There are certain exceptions though, for example the famous analogy of Russell's teapot or the celestial teapot, an imaginary object that is said to orbit the sun and is unobservable by even the best telescopes. This teapot is, by no means, disprovable and yet, no one actually thinks it exists since it cannot be observed. In contrast, the neutrino, hypothesised almost a century ago, was virtually unobservable previously and yet was widely believed to exist due to logical proof. This shows that something might exist even if it is not observable.
For me, the only way would the existence of something, not observable or provable, be plausible is if the ideas or implications of the non-existence of that thing are more absurd than the existence of it like the neutrino and unlike the celestial teapot. In the end, all of this would only hold true if by existence you mean physical existence and since there are various other ways to look the word “exist”. I find the physical definition the most satisfying as it leaves room for exploration and tells us that there is more than we think we know.
I have never experienced or imagine or seen or witnessed in any way the country of Brazil. Does this mean that it doesn't exist? Of course not because in fact it does. We as humans do not have the luxury to only know what we experience, we have to rely on others. Our biggest advantage as humans is our sense of community, our trust and reliance on each other. None of us could even imagine what the moon's terrain looked like until we sent three astronauts to experience it on behalf of humanity.
This ideas relates to the question in that I would like to believe that things beyond our basic comprehensions could exist, I like to believe there are things that are maybe so microscopic or macroscopic that we will never know about, does this mean the idea of them are completely implausible. I don't think so. Although can I trust these observations, probably not. It isn't very easy to buy into something so unsubstantiated. And to me although I would like to believe something that I cannot personally validate, I don't think I will actually be able be convinced of its existence.
Seeing, tasting, hearing, smelling and experiencing are terms that have limits. As a human, who has no more than 3 colour receptive cones, I cannot see the colours that a butterfly, which has 5 receptive cones, can. I cannot smell what a dog can, I cannot hear what an owl can and I cannot experience what the rest of the population did. Still doesn’t mean that doesn’t exist. It all comes down to one word. “IMAGINE”. The limitations to the human imagination haven’t been discovered yet, but on a certain extent, I do believe it exists. Our imagination cannot extend beyond our knowledge. Before we discovered that other planets exist, we couldn’t imagine anything beyond a small blue world.
We cannot imagine something we are not consciously aware of; we cannot imagine something we don’t take the time to interpret. However,because of extended technology, we theorize the fact that there is matter and anti-matter, as well as dark matter. However, right now if I tell you that there might be a 4th type, you would imagine what it would look like, what it’d be called etc.
Without an extra conscious effort, of our thoughts and actions we wouldn’t have the capability to imagine something. Therefore something can exist beyond the comprehension of our senses imagination and experience.
If in fact we cannot feel or touch or ascertain any tangible qualities to a particular object it doesn't mean that the object doesn't exist . But if we cannot imagine or experience something that automatically means the object doesn't exist. The best example any counter argument would have to offer would be that of a higher power . However this higher power does not escape our power to imagine or experience .. Firstly we have imagined various forms and ascertained qualities to that form and hence from a strict interpretation of the question we can see that since we can imagine a certain aspect of God that truly does not enable that example to be used by proponents of the counter argument . In conclusion if an object exists without any tangible qualities and also we cannot imagine or experience it . the object simply ceases to exist
I would say that it is impossible for us to rule out the possibility of the existence of an object just by using our imperfect sensory perceptions as a basis. As Descartes had proved using the famous “Wax argument,” our sensory perceptions are imperfect and limited, and should not be used as the sole basis of judgement in many scenarios. Some examples could be considered to prove how there is the possibility of existence of something even if our sensory perceptions were to not comprehend the said thing.
One instance that can be considered is that of the indigenous tribes of Amazon, who have not been able to comprehend what lies beyond their habitat, with traditions that date back to aeons. We should place ourselves in their shoes in order to take perspective of this situation. If I were to be born and grown up in one such tribe, would I be able to comprehend what lies beyond the rainforest? Would I be able to imagine about novel yet impactful innovations such as the Internet or automobiles? Would I even be able to comprehend how many members of my fellow species would exist? The fact that I would not be able to imagine the existence of something like the Internet does not mean that Internet does not exist, as it is there to be seen by humans present in more modern societies.
An abstract notion that could be considered is that of a secret, which is defined as “not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others.” By the definition itself, a secret is a notion that exists outside of our knowledge (else it would not be called a secret). The very fact that secrets do exist completely disproves the idea that just because we cannot think of something denies its existence.
Various other examples such as the lives of blind people and belief of ancient populations on a purely geo-centric world lend credence to the notion that ideas and objects CAN exist outside the world we perceive.
Science has been extremely beneficial for humanity in terms of understanding the world we live in; however we must allow science to make more discoveries, rather than jumping to conclusions about existences of ideas or entities simply through the current level of knowledge we have. In fact, a recent revelation from scientists from CERN during the recent TED talk in Geneva supports this idea.
Particle physicists have expressed concerns that scientists may no longer have the ability to comprehensively answer questions posed by nature, such as the contradictions between the existence of Higgs field and Einstein’s theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics. With the current theories available, scientists have not been able to resolve such contradictions. To compound the issue, physicist Harry Cliff said, “We may be entering a new era in physics. An era where there are weird features in the universe that we cannot explain. An era where we have hints that we live in a multiverse that lies frustratingly beyond our reach. An era where we will never be able to answer the question why is there something rather than nothing.” The point here is that we have not been able to even figure out the limits of the universe we live in, what to speak of questioning the existence of something we do not know? Hence it is important to keep an open mind while trying to interpret such instances wherein there is not enough evidence to prove the existence or lack of thereof.
"If I can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?"
From how I see it, Yes. Yes, it does exist.
There are several ways to approach this question, a rational and simplistic one would be Regardless of whether I have smelt, felt, imagined or heard something this doesn't eradicate it's existence in the world. There are objects, I have not felt or seen or heard but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like in the Amazonian Jungles, things completely foreign.
It just means I have not encountered such objects. If we begin to compare the past and the present it is easier to understand how the Romans, or the Aztecs didn't imagine far beyond what was visible to the naked eye. The five planets. But this didn't mean the other three didn't exist.
This goes to show, what we know now is about a fraction of what is really out there, the things we cannot see,taste,feel etc.. For example colors the human eye fails to detect,it doesn't mean they don't exist just because we cannot see them.
Dear reader,
I can’t see or hear you. I certainly can’t smell or taste you either. My mind draws a blank when I try to imagine you. Do you exist? If you have managed to read this far, I guess it’s safe to assume that you do. I am, however, unaware of your presence. I don’t know who you are, but I know that you exist.
We could apply this line of reasoning to other things that we know to be in existence, but have never received any sensory stimuli from. For instance, we have not seen anything more than artistic representations of black holes. Nevertheless, most of us believe that they do, in fact, exist – and not without reason: the laws of physics and mathematics validate this.
It could also be the case that we are completely unaware of something’s existence. Not too long ago, when electrons were not hitherto discovered, people believed that atoms were the smallest ‘things’ that existed – the basic building blocks of other ‘things’. Many would not have entertained the notion of subatomic particles. To be fair, they wouldn’t have seen, heard, tasted, smelled or even imagined them. Modern atomic theory can, however, vouch for the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons.
All of this goes to show that just because we fail to observe/ experience something, does not necessarily mean that it doesn’t exist; unless, of course, we are referring to a zombie apocalypse. What exists, exists – regardless of our awareness (or lack thereof) of it.
This thought-provoking question can be answered within the context of an even broader one :
Can one prove that something doesn't exist??
For our purposes, we cant see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience this “something”. However, it is fairly rational to ascertain that if something truly doesn't exist, then it cannot have any characteristics at all. But when applying a conditional statement as such to our “something”, haven't we already assumed that it has certain characteristics? Thereby making it, at the very least, existent?
This is because existence is an axiom.
We can prove that something does exist. We cannot prove that something doesn’t.
So without me ever having seen, tasted, smelled, heard, imagined or experienced this something in context, “something” does and will continue to exist.
We cannot see gas, most gases don’t smell, and we can’t implicitly feel gas, nor can most of us imagine a gas, yet gas exists, same goes for atoms.
What about thoughts, we can see, taste, smell or hear thoughts (unless someone voices them out), but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
We are always learning about new things that we were oblivious to in our past, because we as a race as developing and accelerating, until recently, in terms of the Earth’s timeline, it was unknown that the Earth was in space, space is mainly vacuum. It is extremely hard to imagine a vacuum; you can’t see, hear or taste a vacuum because essentially a vacuum is nothing-nothing but empty space.
I think something can exist if we can’t hear, taste, see, smell or imagine it, simply because we don’t already know everything-knowledge is infinite.
Before attempting to finalise an answer on this topic, I want to establish what exactly the term ‘existence’ is. Dictionary wise this term means being in a specified place or under certain conditions or in essence to be found. To me, this is not entirely true.
Existence to me is quite a subjective term because something that exists to me might be a completely absurd concept to you and might not necessarily be a tangible item you can see and touch. In the scientific world, if there is not enough evidence to back up a theory, it has not been found and therefore you and me cannot perceive it.
My childhood was undoubtedly a culmination of Roald Dahl’s novels about a big friendly giant and a little boy winning the lottery ticket of his life. And sure, it is more than likely that these individuals might not exist in the minds of the many in the physical world, it is more than likely they play a large presence in our imagination and in the brains of millions of young, creative minds. Therefore just because one individual cannot fully comprehend the notion of this person or item existing, does not mean its entire existence should be eradicated and labeled as ‘inexistent’.
To conclude, yes, if I can’t see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, it does exist- probably in the mind of another individual.
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?
Yes, it does exist.
The idea of the existence of parallel universes has been around since 1957 and more and more research suggests that such parallel universes do exist. Although we can’t sense them we can say that they exist.
Further we can’t trust our senses at all. For all that we sense is modified by our perception. In the words of Bertrand Russell “When we perceive any object of a familiar kind, much of what appears subjectively to be immediately given is really derived from past experience. When we see an object, say a penny, we seem to be aware of its 'real' shape: we have the impression of something circular, not of something elliptical.”
Thus we never actually experience the ‘real world’, we only experience an image in our head. Hence if I can’t believe something exists then that is probably because I have never had a notion of it but somebody else must have and so it does exist in their mind.
For example, mantis shrimp have 12 colour receptors in comparison to the 3 colour receptors that humans have. As a result, they can see hues that humans can’t even fathom because we can’t think of something that we have no notion of. Therefore, even though we can’t see or fathom the hues we know they exist.
In conclusion I would like to quote William Butler Yeats:
“The world is full of magic things patiently waiting for our senses to grow sharper.”
If you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?
For thousands of years, people believed in things they couldn't experience first hand, they believed in heaven and hell, they believed in gods
I on the other hand believe in science and through science we have managed to prove the existence of things both too small for the human eye to see and too big for the human kind to really comprehend. I can't taste an electron, I can't smell it or hear it or even imagine it, yet, I m certain it exists. And the opposite can also be true. Some people would even go as far as arguing that nothing beyond each person's human conscious can be said to truly exist. This is called Solipsism, a philosophical theory, that even a scientific realist like myself, can't help but consider. Is it not possible that everything around us is nothing but a very intricate dream? So if when experiencing a different reality, like a dream, we can say that it did not exist, can't we say that something could exist without us experiencing it.
So which ever direction you choose when answering this question, the answer is always going to be yes, our senses of perception, which also greatly influence our imagination, aren't the only reliable source for information and knowledge.
We rely on our 5 senses primarily to help us experience new situations and make judgement from previous ones. To gain knowledge we use our senses which allows us to infer and analyse the surroundings. Without the five senses we won’t be able to have knowledge of time, age and self awareness. This is paradoxical to the term ‘human' as we won’t be able to be responsive to pain and pleasure which triggers our brain for memory and imagination, which is the base formation of experiences.
Never the less, even if we are unable to touch, smell, hear or experience something it still does exist. For example some animals have the ability to see colours that aren’t perceived by humans which allows them to view the world differently as their senses are altered by them. They may be able to see other objects and colours which we may be unable to view this shows that there are other things we may not be able to experience with our senses but they do exist.
Furthermore, we believe in many things that we are unable to experience such as many people believe in god; however, there is no physical evidence that can be touched, smelt or heard to prove this. But it is said that just because we have no evidence it doesn’t exist then it may exist. This is faith that is shown, which we can’t physically experience.
Yes, it does exist.
If I can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience it, it may exist for someone else. They may be able to experience it, but some of us may not be able to do so. If someone were to have scientific backing to their experiences to that "something", then we could say it exists. There have been species that have existed a while back and later have become extinct, just because I was not there for that period of time that they existed does not mean that I can say "I did not see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience those species, they do not exist." There are numerous microorganisms and insects that are formed almost every week, i'm not able to experience them but at the end of the day, they exist.
The human body has a propensity which is rudimentary to an extent. It's simply on the subject of what we generally perceive. The nervous system has a specific sensory system or organ, dedicated to each sense. Humans have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized senses. As well as our mind with the potential to imagine and envisage.
There are various beliefs kept by near antiquity(which has followed to the present time) by mankind are still with obscured and unevidenced of it "existing" at all, doesn't stop us from keeping them. And to think, yet there's something out there unimaginable, odorless, unseen, not have been experienced or heard or tasted or touched by any being; the past has taught us with certainty that these objects or outlandish are specified, sooner or later(Or it's left as a mystery undetermined). Also, anything unknown can be surprisingly unraveling especially when we're on our way to such an inevitable revamping future.
When divulging into the ways of knowing, we can treat our senses as a bridge between our minds and the physical environment, our senses are one of the many ways we build up our understanding of the world to incorporate into schematic knowledge.
Take the example of colour; the human eye has two photoreceptors which enable us to see a wide spectrum of colours whilst the mantis shrimp can have up to four photoreceptors giving it access to a plethora of shades that due to the limitations of our senses we can’t imagine, however to the mantis shrimp these colours exist even though we can’t perceive them.
The concept of “justified true belief” is a form of logic which is often used to validate our beliefs in things we can’t see, it utilises the idea that with rational justification combined with reason can be used by a subject to assert that a proposition is true.
To conclude, when considering other ways of knowing in conjecture with the ways of thinking of other species, it is safe to say that just because there is something I specifically can't comprehend, it can not be logically stated that it doesn't exist for anyone.
To exist means to have an objective reality or being. But perceiving reality is not as easy as we think. Our senses tell us that the earth is flat, but we don't believe that anymore. The senses tell us things have a certain taste, smell, size and texture. Maybe that's not the way they really are. After all, our senses can fool us and manipulate us into believing something quite easily.
Sir John Eckles who won the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine several years ago made the statement, "I want you to understand that there are no colors in the real world. That there are no textures in the real world. There are no fragrances in the real world. There is no beauty, there is no ugliness. Nothing of the sort. Out there is a chaos of energy soup and energy fields. Literally. We take that and somewhere inside ourselves we create a world. Somewhere inside ourselves it all happens."
Solipsism is a philosophical theory, which tells us that nothing exists, except the individual’s consciousness. George Berkeley, the father of Idealism, argued that everything exists as an idea in someone’s mind. People who take LSD, for example, say that they can touch the most convincing hallucinations. But to the rest of us, their visions are not “reality”. What we perceive in our dreams is what different sections of our brain tell us to. In such a case where our senses can be manipulated so easily, can we not doubt everything that exists? Each of us can only be sure of one thing, and that is our thoughts.
Everyone is interested in what happens to things when we aren’t looking at them. Scientists have carefully studied this problem and some of them came to a simple conclusion – they disappear. Well, not quite like “poof”. Phenomenalist philosophers believe that objects only exist as a phenomenon of consciousness. So, your mobile is only here while you are aware of, and believe in its existence, but when you turn away from it, it ceases to exist until you or someone else interacts with it. There is no existence without perception.
Thus, in such a case, is it not incorrect to base the existence of something just on our senses? Everything exists only as a thought or belief, and the fact that you question the existence of something without ever seeing it or touching it means you already have an idea of what it looks and feels like, which means, to you, it already exists as a thought, if not as a physical object.
Moreover, fictional realism, the most fascinating branch of multiverse theory, argues that given an infinite number of universes, everything must exist somewhere.
Smelling, Hearing, Seeing, Touching, Imagining are all human ways of knowing something exist. We use to things to validate if something is real, but if we can't do them it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example we see only a tiny part of all the lights present in the Universe. The visible spectrum for humans is very small because we only have 3 receptive cones but some animals on Earth have much more and their visible spectrum of light is much more broad. We can't see microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays, gamma rays, etc. but they do exist and because we don't see them doesn't means it doesn't exist.
There are many more examples like those, especially concerning the Universe and astronomy since there is a lot of assumptions, hypotheses, and theory involved. However we consider those things theories because we don't have proof from our senses or ways of knowing that those theories are true. Therefore they will always stay theories as long as we can prove its existance.
What I have not experienced or sensed might only be unique to me: it could exist for other people in different parts of the world. I haven’t seen all the different species of animals or insects, for example, but does that mean that they do not exist? Certainly not! Whatever I have not sensed or experienced, still has a probability of existing.
History is another good example: I only know about what happened “back in the days” by accounts of people, and in some cases, through preserved scribes, and that too is just a fragment of what happened in those times. However, I have not experienced or seen history for myself. Does that mean that all of history does not exist? Certainly not!
What I have perceived might only be a fraction of everything that exists, as there is so much out there that we human beings have yet to experience.
The moment I read this question, my mind set racing, and the first thing that came to me was the universe. Literally. I was never into science when I was young, leading me to drop all my science subjects for my year 11 board exams (I haven't studied science as a subject for almost 4 years). Of course, growing older, I realised I had begun having a colossal amount of interest in Science, especially in Physics, and even more in detail, Space. While my knowledge on space is limited, I know there are dimensions, planets, areas, life forms perhaps, that all exist out there, things beyond imagination. Of course, I definitely believe the universe itself is a prime example of something in existence that we humans can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience. It's remarkable.
In a comparitively smaller perspective, it is possible that things and beings as such can exist. For example, there are about 7 billion humans on the planet. It would be impossible for an ordinary human to have met, smelt, tasted, imagined or experienced all 7 billion. Yet, they exist. We 'imagine', and 'experience', as per our knowledge, which comes from our senses. If we haven't seen, smelt, felt, tasted, or heard something, we would not even be able to imagine it, let alone experience it.
As scary or intriguing this may seem, it is true. Things that we haven't seen, tasted, smelt, imagined or experienced, can exist.
Simple. There is an equal amount of chance that it both, does and does not exist.
For example, my fellow Cohort 3 mates. I had never seen, heard, felt, imagined, or experienced them in any possible way before GHP, yet they do actually exist.
My mind would have gone blank if I had ever tried to imagine a ‘Muraad’ or a ‘Medha’. Yet they exist.
But, there is a chance that I try to imagine another person, and they simply do not exist in this colossal world of 7 billion people.
Another is that: all blind men and woman can’t see, taste, feel or even imagine color, yet it exists.
There are thousands of theories to show that although we are unable to use our senses to detect the existence of something, it may exist. Yet, there is an equal amount of chance that it does not! That is why we can’t feel, taste, see or imagine it.
Thunks keep me going around in circles, trying to find an edge...
To answer this question, we must know whether something can exist independent of our perception of it. For example, over 80 years ago, when physicists were investigating radioactive decay, they found that particles after the decay had less energy than those before the decay. This should’ve been impossible, due to the law of conservation of energy, however, they could not detect where the missing energy had gone. They were unable to see, taste, hear, smell, imagine or experience what was taking that energy away. In 1931, a scientist named Wolfgang Pauli proposed the idea of a particle called the neutrino, which was thought to be responsible for that missing energy. It remained undetected until 25 years later.
This serves as a sort of proof that even though we cannot perceive something (yet or at all), that it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, because if those physicists had never experimented with radioactive decay, we could have remained completely oblivious to the existence of the neutrino to this day, even though it is, in fact, there. However, whether or not we are aware of this information, it remains a thing of existence. So yes, something you cannot see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience can possibly exist.
We humans use our senses and interaction with our environment to determine whether something exists or not. It would be easier to say that it does not exist if I cannot see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something. But that is from my individual perspective; there could be several other people who have encountered something unfathomable to me. Simply because I do not believe or imagine it does not mean there is no possibility that the thing exists. Take Tarzan for example. For almost his entire life, he lived in the jungle where his environment was the animals, the trees and Mother Nature. Would he have believed it if someone told him that objects such as computers existed? That he could travel across the world in a few hours? Or that he could communicate with a person in a whole different planet? Obviously, computers, airplanes and interplanetary communication systems do exist, but he may have never imagined such devices. Another example would be quarks and neutrinos. Even today, many people are unaware that such particles exist and are fundamental to the universe. Of course, there is a possibility that something does not exist, but the probability of it existing is higher than not.
If I can’t see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something it could still exist. There are many things in the universe that we can’t imagine, experience, smell , etc., but still exist. We are only humans. We haven’t gone very far in the universe. We really don’t know anything about the universe and can’t even imagine what could be there but it might exist. We have no way of proving that it does or doesn’t exist because we can’t see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience it.
Also, people in the past did not know what atoms were, they couldn’t see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience it but now we know what they are and that they exist. This therefore proves that it is possible for us, humans, to not see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something but for it to still exist.
Imagine a new colour...You probably can't. Yet tetrachromacy is a real condition that some women have where they possess four types of cone cells in the eyes instead of the usual three and so, they can see much more colours than we do. I cannot see, imagine or experience any colour that I have not seen before. But apparently, some women can. I would also like to point out that some people are born blind and they cannot see, imagine or experience ANY colours. Yet most of us can and we know they exist. Perhaps the "realness" of something depends upon an individual's capacity to perceive it.
What if there were things all around us? Things that do in fact exist in the universe, yet we lacked the organs to sense, imagine or experience them. Why wouldn't there be? The universe is extremely complicated and we barely know anything about it. Can we really judge the realness of anything in a world we know practically nothing about?
For all we know, a unicorn may be sitting next to you right now but you wouldn't know it since hypothetically, your sense organs are not enough to acknowledge its existence. Our senses might be extremely limited and we might lack the ability to experience some things in the universe. They might also NOT be limited and there might not be a unicorn sitting next you and we might be able sense and experience everything that exists in the universe. But if we can't, we (probably) will never know we can't.
This question brings me back to the Skype session with Michael Shermer, an anecdote he mentioned was the tale of the invisible, floating, cold-blooded dragon. His argument was based around the idea that sense perception is vital to the level of belief we should place in something.
Another way I approached this idea was through the lens of epistemology, which is that humans make sense of the world through eight ways of knowing: language, reason, sense perception, memory, faith, intuition, imagination and emotion. In order to make sense of the world through any of eight ways of knowing it is necessary to experience the sight, taste, smell, sound, of the experience.
Therefore, I come to conclusion that if I can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then it does not exist in my reality.
"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."- Reinhold Niebuhr
Belief, a strong word and sometimes one of the strongest governing forces in our lives. Whether we find it incoherent or not, belief in things we cannot experience isn't new. For a long time we had to believe in things without any proven evidence, we had to trust our instincts.
Believing in something we don't know of yet is something pretty common if we take a moment to realize that even believing optimistically in the future ,something we can't see neither experience but it's existence itself shapes the way we think and act.
Therefore we want to accept it or not we all do believe in things that don't "exist", believing in something that hasn't happened yet is something we all do.
No.
As many people have pointed out, things exist even if you haven't seen, tasted, smelled, heard, imagined or experienced them, for instance I would never be able to say that any person I've met has existed until I have met them. This, however, does not mean it doesn't exist.
The question is not "if you haven't seen, tasted, smelled, heard, imagined or experienced something, then does it exist?"
The question is "if you can't see, taste, smell, hear, imagine or experience something, then does it exist?"
If you can't do any of those, then no, it doesn't exist. There is no way to prove it exists, there is no way for it to have any kind of interaction with anything and therefore what does it even matter if it exists or not. Something that is unexperienceable can not exist.
This one wasn't too tough.
If you can't see, or experience something, it can still exist. What if I've never seen a type of animal because it isn't indigenous to where I come from? It would still obviously exist, although its existence would have no noticeable impact on my life (Not taking into consideration the godforsaken Butterfly Effect).
To decode what the prompt means, we need to take into consideration what it means to experience something. If we talk about it in layman's terms, all 'to experience something' would mean that the event or enlightens one's perspective or provides some sort of bias. That way, anything that we do not know or have heard about wouldn't exist to US. And by 'us' I mean different societies around the world. However, if we were to break down the prompt properly, 'to experience' would encompass us down to the molecular level. Therefore, with our current theories of science, atoms, cells, energy, etc.; all these would exist by statement of the prompt.
In conclusion, everything that exists in the universe, everything we know or do not know, exists. However, this raises the question of what can be classified as 'real'.
Seeing, tasting, smelling and hearing; each one refers to one of our senses and, were we to rely solely on these four as far as their human capacities extend in judging whether or not something exists, it cannot be doubted that much of the universe would remain unknown to us for we cannot see, nor taste, nor smell, nor hear much of what takes place on a microscopic level and, indeed, on a macroscopic level as concerns what takes place outside the range of our collective sense; outer space and beyond. To assert that even that which we can detect using any of these means does exist becomes futile within the philosophy of solipsism: that nothing but the self – ala the Descartesian “Cogito ergo sum” – can be known to exist. However, abandoning solipsism as a dead-end for the moment, it should be conceded that a lot of what exists and occurs in deep space might not have been known to exist save for these same senses, admittedly augmented by technology.
Whether imagination and experience, or the lack thereof, necessarily entail lack of existence is a different matter altogether. As for the former, I believe it is contingent on the body of knowledge available for the individual to draw from and, therefore, it can be asserted that a poverty of the imagination resulting from a lack of knowledge does not necessarily entail a lack of existence. To illustrate, imagine primal man, circa 10000BC; the knowledge is not available for him to imagine, or instance, the Oort cloud. Though it can be theoretically shown to exist and have existed during his time, the fact remains that we, with the conceptual foundation for such an idea, can imagine it while primal man cannot. On the other hand, we are very well capable of seeing imagining paradoxes and illusions – such as the artwork of MC Escher – and we know that, logically, these cannot exist in the manner in which we imagine them.
Thus far, we have established that that which cannot be sensed or imagined may yet exist, but what about experience? The distinction I would make here is that to experience does not necessarily entail active discovery in the same way sensing or detecting might. An example of this is the magnetic field; taking primal man again, his life would have been affected by the magnetic field in many similar fashions to how ours are and yet, we know of its existence while he does not. Therefore, experience necessarily entails existence, but what about the lack thereof? Let’s take an example of the universe outside the observable universe; we cannot, by any current or future means, experience it. However, say you were to be accelerated at obscure speeds until you move past the edge and then you could, theoretically, ‘experience’ it. Ultimately, whether or not an inability to experience implies inexistence depends on the leniency afforded to your definition of experience. Ambiguity aside, I’d argue that the only thing that truly cannot exist is that which cannot, at any given point in time, be logically established and consistent.
Our basic human tendency is to believe the legitimacy of our 5 senses instantly and therefore, illusions that make us question our senses and their reliability baffle us. Our primal instincts tell us to trust in these senses for our protection, so it seems natural to allow our active brain to say that phenomena that cannot be sensed do not exist, however, in the very figurative sense, if it “cannot” be sensed rather than “has not” been sensed, then the question changes entirely. If you cannot experience a singularity no matter what method is adopted, if you cannot prove such a sensation, then the odds are that it does not exist. I loosely classify it under the ‘depends’ category as by this very definition, I can neither classify its existent nor its lack thereof, given that proving a negative is impossible.
On the other hand, if we adopt a more wholesome view and look beyond the literary restrictions, there are plenty of happenings that we are yet to physically experience due to their intangibility, such as unquantifiable theories and ideas that exist independent of our perception of it. Our restrictions are bound by some or the other setback, may it be the miniscule precincts of atoms and molecules or the vastness of the cosmos. Most times, it also is the incapability of our human features that hold us back. A few well known examples are magnetic fields or the inability to experience color that hasn’t been perceived before. Other times, however, it’s the state of the particle in itself. For example, neutrinos are particles that unreactive to typical matter under most conditions. Neither will they interact with matter when they pass through it, nor do they ever "run into" a nucleus the way a neutron eventually does. Such a particle would be impossible to “experience,” under the set conditions of the topic, however, we are aware of its existence.
I would probably answer with a solid yes as I am aware that I can be ignorant about certain topics or that there are many things in the world we have yet to discover. Like wise, I think we can draw the parallel back to when people couldn't imagine us living in a heliocentric universe, because it seemed to go against everything they believed in. They couldn't see it (since the telescope wasn't invented yet,) they couldn't taste, smell or hear it (because...obviously?) and because of their previous beliefs they certainly couldn't imagine it or experience it (even though Copernicus could with the help of his mathematical calculations.) It was only until Galileo came along, that people were finally able to see/experience/imagine how the universe could be and knew it existed. Even if you take something like the multiverse theory, many people won't even be able to imagine it and might upfront say it doesn't exist, but in a few years time you may never know what data you have that has the capability to change your mindset. However, if no one can see, sense, hear, smell, imagine or experience something, it might still exist, until someone imagines something similar or "discovers" it.
If you can’t see, taste, smell, hear, image or experience something – then it doesn’t exist as none of your sensory imgery implies the existence of that thing. For example, if you think about something – whatever you think, imagine or dream about is derived from something you have seen, heard or experienced before therefore can create a combination of those items – although it also doesn’t necessarily mean that it exists. Another thing about this is that – if you’ve never experienced anything or have any sensory imagery of the thing, then you can’t prove its existence. The definition of exist states “having objective reality or being” and in order for it to be reality it should be “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them” therefore, just being a notion of an idea is not enough therefore that thing stated doesn’t exist.
Yes, as there are several things that human cannot sense, imagine or experience, but definitely exist. There are wavelengths of sound and light that our senses can’t perceive and our minds are incapable of imagining, but we have scientific evidence of. The absurdity of trying to use perception to justify existence can be easily highlighted by replacing the “you” with some other animal. If a fly can’t perceive the color red, does that mean it doesn’t exist? If a lizard can’t experience the range of emotion we can, does that mean said emotions don’t exist? It’s not too hard to envision an alien race so much more biologically advanced that we would be the extraterrestrial equivalent of ants to them. If they are able to perceive more of the world that we can, would those suddenly pop into existence?
The question pivots around a single word: cannot.
It is possible that I have not met, seen, heard, tasted, imagined, or experienced a person named Miley Cyrus, but that does not mean that twerking and the music video, Wrecking Ball, does not exist.
It is possible that I have not heard of a Miley Cyrus, but it does not mean I cannot.
Even if we haven’t personally witnessed a certain person, object, or phenomena, under the right circumstances, we can.
Otherwise, how do we validate it exists. If something exists that I can’t see, taste, hear, smell, imagine, or experience, then I don’t see how its existence affects me.
Heck, I can even imagine a unicorn-pooping, rainbow-haired, fire-breathing lion. So if something actually exists that I can’t imagine, then I guess it’s just out of luck. :P
Post a Comment