The Instigator
Con (against)
6 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 72654
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (1)




As per the debate title, one cannot prove that their physical experience is absolutely true in respect to objective reality. One shouldn't be able to accept this, but If you choose to accept this challenge, you must agree to the definitions below. If you accept, please elaborate on your points so they can make more sense to others.


Prove : Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument. [1]

Absolute : Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. [1]

True : In accordance with fact or reality. [1]

False : Not according with truth or fact; incorrect. [1]

Reality : The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. [1]

Objective : Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. [1]

Physical Experience : Any and all information that is received by the brain of an individual though the use of bodily senses (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).

Acceptance of this debate places the burden of proof on Pro.

[1] Oxford Dictionary


is reality true? another option is that imagination is true, you know, where superman comes from and all that

close your eyes and read on, right now, close them and read, close them come on.... you are getting there....

logic is absolute, cause and effect is logic, i open my eyes and i see, cause and effect, i am not blind, i am life, and seeing is the confirmation of that, so that is to say if you close your eyes, it is possible, that you will never see again, but it is also possible that you will see, when will you know.. and if you choose to believe your eyes will never open again when you close them, why not just go ahead and read the bible to

if i am with you physically, and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, i am now, you cant argue with that

i could be a bot trying to make you think i am human, but i could also be a human trying to make you think i am a bot

to me, you are light on my screen and a story in my mind

fact=truth, not true and false

know=physical existence

true can not exist without false

anything that exist has an opposite for it to exist, true is the opposite of false and truth, and past is the opposite of future, now is matter.

if there is no false answer to 1+1, then how could there be a true answer, and how do i percieve of a false answer, equation without my imaginaition

objective experience, very much depends on a mind
Debate Round No. 1


Objective reality is true. It is our perceived notion of reality that is in question. There must be *some kind* of reality or else self cannot exist. Without a reality, self has no reference or comparison to determine existence, and would be an absolutely empty mind; nothing. All knowledge and experience that one possesses (whether true or false) is acquired from perception of some reality. Similar to your statement "true cannot exist without false", self cannot exist without non-self (reality). Even in extreme Solipsism, I would be doubtful that one can argue that *some reality* doesn't exist.

A common philosophical argument/concept is the "Brain in a Vat" theory [1], which is the premise for the popular movie, The Matrix [2]. This presents the possibility that you, in objective reality, are merely a brain that is being fed information that describes the reality that you are currently experiencing. If true, then that indicates that your brain is receiving fabricated information that is interpreted as sensory information, and that *everything* that you think you know and experience could then be false.

For example, you provide the statement that indicates that, due to my sight, I can see the words on my computer screen and know that they exist. There exists the possibility that the information I am receiving, via sight, is entirely false and is just fabricated by an unknown source and projected/fed to my brain, which then has no reason to not assume it is true. "Seeing" is not a confirmation that you can see, but rather, the confirmation that your brain is receiving information that it interprets as "sight".

You also gave example regarding logic, and 1+1. These things do not physically exist in reality. Logic is a conceptual tool employed by our reasoning, which exists only in one's own mind. Similarly, numbers are imaginary concepts that do not exist in reality. For instance, there can be two apples, but the concept of "two" without any associated, tangible element does not exist.

At the end, you use the term "objective experience". This doesn't make any sense, since experience exists within each individual's mind, which contradicts the definition of "objective", provided in Round #1.

In conclusion, the philosophy of the "Brain in a Vat" automatically casts a possibility of falsehood upon our physical experience, thus, undermining any argument you can provide that attempts to prove that your physical experience is absolutely true. In order to prove the premise of this debate true, you must be able to defeat the principle of this philosophical notion.

Note: I am not trying to use this argument as a cheap win, but rather to demonstrate that our perception is unquestionably fallible, and cannot be absolutely trusted to determine objective reality. I could also use lesser examples, such as, seeing a white shirt under a perfectly set blue light; your brain will "know" that the shirt is blue when, in fact, it is white in reality.

[1] Mind and Philosophy -
[2] Wikipedia -


information is false and truth, matter is true, 0 and 1

self=see life flow

to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary


know=no other possibility=true


a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory)

i know the light on my screen, certainty is a personal experience, i am certain that i have 5 fingers right now... and that im typing with both my hands, that im reading these words

so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything

my eyes do not recieve information, light is matter

destruction=turn my back

how do i confirm that i can see if seeing isnt the confirmation that i can see? .. or how do you determine the shape of a cloud

it isnt easy or natural to cut open a head, so as far as i know, i dont have a brain, nature flows in the path of least resistance

cause and effect is logic, reality is logic

numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear

logic+experience of it=reason(concept, simulation of logic)

there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive

sense=objective experience, does make sense....

is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object..

possibilities are imaginary, stories, not real

know is not possible, know is no other possibility, absolute. possibility has a positive and negative side
Debate Round No. 2


:: vi_spex said, "information is false and truth, matter is true, 0 and 1"

It is possible for information to be in agreement with reality, and is thus, not guaranteed to be false.
I can find no definition of the word "matter" that makes sense in the context you have provided.

:: vi_spex said, "to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary"

To say such a thing would mean that the reality that you *perceive* as true would be, in actuality, false. Since your sensory input is your "Physical Experience", your "Physical Experience" would then be false. Since this situation remains a possibility, then the proposition of this debate remains false.

:: vi_spex said, "a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory)"

All of the knowledge that you possess about brains and computers would be rendered completely invalid, as that knowledge is derived from your perception and experience of the reality that your perceive. All of that could just be fabricated (false) information that is being fed to your brain in a vat. Due to this, your reasoning does not disprove the theory.

To further delve into the principle of this theory, the title "Brain in a Vat" holds an assumption, in itself. This title implies that it is fact that a brain is required for existence, when in reality, we have attained this knowledge from our experience in our perceived reality. This means this information could be fabricated, as well, and that existence does not rely on a brain as we know it. The reason that the title contains the word "brain" is so that the concept is easier to grasp.

You stated that you *know* that you have five fingers, and that you *know* that you are [were] typing with your hands and seeing the words on the screen. You are convinced that this is so because there is no reason to doubt that the information [evidence] received by your brain is false. However, if all of the information [evidence] is false, then what you *know* will be false.

If all of your senses are falsified, your brain could be fooled into thinking that you had six fingers. You only know that you have five fingers because of all of the sensory evidence you have to support it. However, if all of that evidence has been fake this whole time, you could actually have six fingers but *know* that you have five.

:: vi_spex said, "so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything"

Your eye registers light that enter the eye and strikes the retina. Embedded in the retina are millions of light sensitive cells, which come in two main varieties: rods and cones. Rods are used for monochrome vision in poor light, while cones are used for color and for the detection of fine detail. Cones are packed into a part of the retina directly behind the retina called the fovea, which is responsible for sharp central vision. [2] Nerves that connect the brain with the eyes, ears, nose, and throat and with various parts of the head, neck, and trunk are called cranial nerves. [1] The information from the eye is sent to your brain via synapses along the cranial nerves. This leaves a gap between the eye and the brain where the information can change or be changed, resulting in a difference between what the eye "sees" and what the brain perceives.

All of your senses operate in a similar manner, so no matter what you believe you see, hear, etc. is being transmitted from the appropriate receptor cells through the cranial nerves to your brain. This leaves room for the possibility of error or miscommunication between the senses and the brain. The theory in question postulates that your nerves are "highjacked" and the transmission is replaced with artificial, fabricated information.

:: vi_spex said, "numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear"

You would still require experience or knowledge of what skin is in order to make that assessment. This knowledge is gleaned from memory, which is the result of previous physical experiences.

:: vi_spex said, "there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive"

How do you know that you can even die in reality? You only are aware of the concept of death because of previous physical experience, and only believe it because all of the knowledge you have gained supports the notion. However, if all of that information has been falsified, the reality of it might even be that you are eternal.

:: vi_spex said, "sense=objective experience, does make sense...."
:: vi_spex said, "is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object.."

That is not what the word "objective" means; it doesn't mean "relating to objects". Look the the definition in Round #1.

Round #2 Conclusion:
None of the statements provided have disproved the possibility of the "Brain in a Vat" theory, and thus, the subject of the debate cannot be true. Given that ALL of your knowledge and memories would be COMPLETELY fabricated in this scenario, you cannot use ANY knowledge or memories to disprove it. You have one more round to attempt to disprove this theory. Good luck!

[1] Merck Manuals -
[2]Live -


imagination is false, and physical experience is true, 0 and 1. know is true, belief is doubt

information is the opposite of matter

information is false and truth

you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental

in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not real

imagination is false

only know is true

i dont know information, know is matter, unknown is information

i have no conviction that my physical experience is real, it is by default

sensory experiecne is true, not false

i dont believe in evidence, i know my experience of now

i dont believe in cells, dna, particels atoms, all imaginary, not real

i am life, therfore i can die, if i couldnt die i couldnt be life, if i cant get sick i cant be healthy

physical experience is transformation

the matrix theory.. has just been disproved, you have done nothing to disprove it but assert you have disproved it
Debate Round No. 3


Look at the definitions of the words that you are using:

Imagination : The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. [1]

Note the portion "...not present to the senses." We are referring to the senses, in this debate. Imagination is totally irrelevant.

Belief : An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. [1]

You are erroneously using the word "Belief". If I understand you correctly, your definition is also irrelevant to this debate.

Information : Facts provided or learned about something or someone. [1]
Fact : A thing that is known or proved to be true. [1]

How is it that you can say that "information is false"?? You are wrong, here.
:: vi_spex said, " you havnt explained anything, data is not information, not mental"

data : Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis. [1]

This word, "data", is irrelevant to this debate. The main point of this debate is to bring to light that the "information" gather by your sensory cells must be physically transmitted to your brain. This transmission is subject to error (misperceptions).
:: vi_spex said, "in any case.. possibilities are imaginary, not real"

real : Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. [1]

If there are possibilities, how do you determine which one is "real" and that the others are "imaginary"? The information gathered by your senses determines what is "real". If you see a blue shirt in a store window as you drive by, here are two possibilities as to why it "appears" blue:

1.) The shirt is actually blue
2.) There is a blue light shining on a white shirt.

So, given these two possibilities, how can you possibly "know" which one is real? Both of them would fully coincide with the information gained from your eyes, so it is impossible to tell which is true and which is false. Do you just pick one to call real and deem the others imaginary?
:: vi_spex said, "i dont believe in evidence, i know my experience of now"

Evidence : The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
-or- : Signs or indications of something. [1]

Evidence is *why* you know. Your senses *are* a means of gathering evidence! Evidence does not exclusively mean physical evidence. The information gleaned from your senses is evidence.
The initial line of my argument in Round #1 is:
"one cannot prove that their physical experience is absolutely true in respect to objective reality."

P1 : Physical experience is sensory information received by the brain.
P2 : Objective reality is what determines what is true.
C1 : Physical experience is only true if it matches objective reality.

P3 : One's sensory information, or physical experience, of objective reality is not infallible.
C2 : By C1 & P3, one's physical experience can be false, and therefore, not absolutely true.


P1 : This is clearly defined in Round #1, which you have agreed to by accepting this debate.

P2 : The initial statement of this debate states, "...true in respect to objective reality". This means that the "correctness" of our perception is respective of the actual truth in the reality beyond the errors and limitations of our perception. By definition, object reality exists outside of the mind.

C1 : Based on premises P1 and P2, this means that something that is perceived is only true if it coincides with objective reality. If something is perceived differently than it is in objective reality, then it is not true.

P3 : It is possible for one to perceive reality incorrectly. One can be mistaken with one or more senses and thus, have an erroneous perception of objective reality.

C2 : The logical conclusion is that one cannot proof that one's personal experience is absolutely (100%) true regarding objective reality. The indisputable possibility that error can occur in our perception prevents the proposed statement from being true.

[1] The Oxford Dictionary


belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it

a fact is a past observation, fact=knowledge=memory of physical experience

i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it

possibilities are false, not real, as i dont know, possibility has 2 sides, imagination is unknown


facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory, truth is in the past, imaginaiton represent future

the light of the sun comes from the sun, i percieve it with my eyes, my eyes are true, i am my eyes, without light, my eyes would cease to exist in the long run

if the light of a match is wood burning, how can the light shine without fire, and how can there be fire without something to be on fire, like wood, so the match burning is light, light being the balancing point between the match, and the match burning, so light is matter, as light cant exist without matter

physical is something, mental is nothing

physical experience is matter, matter is the opposite of information, matter is true, information is false and truth

Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
nah i dont know man

to complicated for me
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i can say with certainty that a dog is charging me therfore its not religion for me to believe i should get out of there, becasue i know there is a dog charging me, unless i feel like being charged by a dog
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i can say with certainty that a dog is charging me therfore its not religion for me to believe i should get out of there, becasue i know there is a dog charging me, unless i feel like being charged by a dog
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
its a possibility that the dog can bite me, but the dog charging me is not a possibility
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
belief is not a choice
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
OK. So if a snarling dog is barking and charging at you, all you have is possibilities and beliefs available to you. You have no reason to react because the dog is not biting you now, and it's merely a possibility that he will bite you, but possibilities are false. You can imagine or believe that the dog is going to bite you, but that, too, is false and irrelevant.

By this reasoning, you will not move or evade the dog.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
now is true, possibilites dosnt happen in reality, if the sun explodes the sun explodes, but my belief, when or when not the sun will explode or not is irrelvevant to when it will explode if it even will explode..

only at the point i know it is true, did i just look at my dog?
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
To you, though, it should be outright impossible for the sun to explode at all, because to consider that a possibility (which is inherently false), that would entail the use of imagination and belief (false). Correct?

It would not become true until you experience the sun exploding "now". Right?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
it is impossible for me to see the explosion if i dont know the sun as it happens
Posted by Chaosism 1 year ago
But we don't have to worry about that, since possibilities are false. It is impossible for the sun to explode, then. To suggest otherwise would require your imagination and belief, which is also false.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con. Pro never rebutted any of Con's arguments, and Con rebutted Pro's solid. Overall, Pro's arguments didn't do anything to prove the resolution is valid. The resolution remains fallacious. Grammar: Con. Major grammar mistakes by Pro. Sources: Con. He used the only sources in the debate.