The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Impartial
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

existence=reality+experience

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 514 times Debate No: 77173
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro


existence is in contrast with experience, so true existence is my physical experience


with no one to experience it there is no one to verify that it exist


to worms, the beauty of rainbows dosnt exist


Impartial

Con

So by 'existence' do you mean objective reality or do you mean survival? I suspect you're refering to the former. If I'm correct, what you're talking about is similar to the question; "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Except you say that true existence (reality) is your physical experience. I don't really agree because as I said in the comment section, things still happen in the world regardless of whether we can or do experience them. My observable universe example shows that.

As for the comment about worms, a rainbow is visually unique to each and every person viewing it because of how the sunlight reflects off and refracts through water droplets. It could be argued that the perceived beauty of a rainbow exists in each individual's mind and so the worm is to the rainbow what humanity is to the depths of the universe.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

if a tree falls in reality it makes a sound, but only know is true

rainbows are physical, not mental, but i agree the worm example reflects my own limitation

life=true experience
Impartial

Con

Would you mind expanding on your first sentence please?

Rainbows are physical, yes, but the perception of their beauty is a mental construct.

Can you also explain what you mean by "life=true experience" and how it suports the title of the debate please?
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

beauty isnt a mental construct

only now is true

kNow=physical experience

reality=nature+experience

existence=nature+life+experience
Impartial

Con

What makes you say that beauty isn"t a mental construct? Beauty is an opinion. Something can be beautiful to one person but ugly to another. It"s subjective"

All I can see here is really simplistic deductive reasoning. What does "now is true" and "kNow=physical experience" mean?

"Reality=nature+experience" - this really doesn"t follow. Reality exists and continues whether you are there to experience it or not. I can"t experience what is happening 1,000 light years away. Does that mean reality is suspended there?

"Existence=nature+life+experience" - but the title says existence=reality+experience" I"ve already shown you that experience does not determine the existence of something, but it is an observation or perception of what is already existing in reality (nature and life).

Therefore existence=reality. I appear to have solved your simultaneous philosophical equation for you!
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

a rainbow is not beautiful if you have no eyes

know is physical experience, if i say i know you have 3 fingers on your left hand, is my claim true?

ups, reality=nature+life

existence=Reality+experience

truth is an experience

lies exist
Impartial

Con

You speak of beauty as though it"s objective. Again, it"s subjective and the state of finding a rainbow beautiful exists in the mind of each individual who shares that state of mind.

'know is physical experience', you mean knowledge? Not always. I know that 1+1=2 but it isn"t a physical thing that I can experience. I know that I don"t know if my neighbour is in. Again, there is no physical experience to speak of but I still have knowledge, do I not?

You"re going back to the same statement but you"re not providing an argument to support it. Nor have you provided a counter argument to mine. You have one more opportunity left, vi_spex.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

no beauty is clearly determine by my eyes..

a rainbow is an object, without it the beauti goes away.

1=something

know is the opposite of knowledge..

you have not been con so far
Impartial

Con

"no beauty is clearly determine by my eyes.."

Sure, you"d need to use you brain as well as your eyes, or your ears if it"s a beautiful piece of music.

"a rainbow is an object, without it the beauti goes away."

A rainbow isn"t an object, it"s an optical illusion. I could say that rainbows are beautiful in my opinion but not be referring to a specific rainbow that I saw in the past"

"1=something"

Yes, it"s a concept which you can"t experience physically.

"know is the opposite of knowledge.."

"you have not been con so far"

I don"t know what either of these mean. To conclude, you haven"t demonstrated why existence=reality+experience because the ability to experience something does not necessitate it"s existence in the world. If human experience determines if something in nature exists, all the stars and planets outside of the observable would not be able to exist as a result.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont have a brain
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know=absolute
past=Impossible
Posted by Impartial 1 year ago
Impartial
In most cases I would agree but then again I know that in an hour from now I will still know that I do not know what happened before the big bang.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i have no knowledge of the future, facts are past observations
Posted by Impartial 1 year ago
Impartial
No imaginary claim has been made. Let's say that it is a fact that my neighbour is at home. I could make a guess either way, but by telling you that I don"t know (which is a factual claim separate to the subject), I"m not expressing a position on the possibility of my neighbour being at home or not. If anything I'm avoiding having to provide an opinion about the probability of her being at home.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know negates belief, if i stab you in the hand with a pencil over and over Again you can imagine i am not doing it all you want
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
im talking about i dont know as a position on an imaginary claim
Posted by Impartial 1 year ago
Impartial
If I know my neighbour is at home, I can still imagine them there. Equally if I don't know they're there, I don't have to imagine that they are. What do you think this has to do with the existance of something?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know=i dont have to imagine it
Posted by Impartial 1 year ago
Impartial
Why?
No votes have been placed for this debate.