Reply to comment

Perception and existence are frightening things to think about. Several people have commented on this already, but the more I sit here and think about them, the more confused and baffled I become. Part of me says that the tree falls whether or not I am there to experience it. That makes sense, right? A part of me that begs for normalcy, consistency, and predictability wants the tree to fall so badly. But another part of me questions it. If nobody sees it fall, hears it fall, or otherwise, then how can we say what happened? Niqui also ventures to say that a person exists even if she never knows him, never hears him, and never sees him. He exists still. But does he? If somehow nobody in the world ever knows of, sees, or hears this one single person, then how can he exist? So define existence. Legally its having records. Having a name, an age, a family. Socially its being seen and heard and noticed. But if you have none of that? He exists only to himself, to his own mind and to nobody elses. And when he dies? When the only record of his life is erased, could this really mean that he never existed at all? But I can hear Niqui now....Physically, he took up space, his body was created out of matter that existed and will decompose into matter that still does exist. Matter cannot just form from thin air and disappear when it so chooses. So then it becomes clear: existence is two-faced. Physically he exists, but that pile of decomposed person doesnt say anything about the thoughts that went along with him. There has to also be a more psychological, or philosophical existence that accompanies this.... This isn't to say that I'm not still confused-- because I am-- this is just to say that maybe Dickinson was right, there has to be a mind behind the physical matter to make things plausible....