can you prove you exist?

[gla22]

There is discussion about cogito ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) which basically states because you think you must exists. We know our "reality" is merely stimuli of nerves and neurons making anything we perceive possibly "non-existent" in the way that it might not contain any matter. However, how do we know this information about perception and "reality"?
It comes from knowledge that was gained through this imperfect system of knowing what is real or what is not, by that meaning the previous statements involving neurons and stimuli. So that brings us to cogito ergo sum, our perception of thought and our consciousness , which is also based on this imperfect system, the perception of ourselves and our consciousness is based on this system of stimuli and neurons which is only proven true by circular logic, so is cogito ergo sum sound? Do we even exist?

[Bastable]

Oh I know I exist, but do you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

We discussed this brainless argument of Descartes' a few weeks ago:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/certain-t70369/index.html

His reasoning has not improved much in the intervening time.

[Holden Caulfield]

i know i exsist, how i exsist and why i exsist i do not know, yet still i am knowing that i exsist,

although i could be wrong,

[Led Zeppelin]

Sartre rejects the old "dualism of being and appearance," which began before Plato. "For the being of an existent is exactly what it appears." He disclaims the Aristotelian "duality of potency and act, " saying, "The act is everything." Sartre's idea of reality parallels Descartes', "I am, I exist, I think, therefore I am; I am because I think, why do I think? I don't want to think any more, I am because I think that I don't want to be."

Sartre was right on this; I choose therefore I am.

[Plagueround]

The easiest way to prove you exist is to have someone stab you. You'll forget the existentialist conundrum you were contemplating and focus on your reality.

Trust me. :cool:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unfortunately, comrades, whatever 'proof' you try to concoct, it won't match the level of certainty you already have that you are human, have a name, and are not dreaming, for example.

Even if that certainty (for you) is not very strong, it beats out of sight anything else any of you can come up with -- including the rather weak examples given above.

But, this was all established in the thread I linked to in my last post; why are we still trying to beat this moribund idea to death?

In fact, it died the moment it was born (as I demonstrated in that thread).

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You would not be able to contemplate this question if you did not exist. You can speculate about whether or not you're dreaming, or you're a brain in a vat, or whatever you will, but you must at least exist in some form.

-Alex

[apathy maybe]

You would not be able to contemplate this question if you did not exist. You can speculate about whether or not you're dreaming, or you're a brain in a vat, or whatever you will, but you must at least exist in some form.

-Alex
Yeah, I was just about to post something that said basically this.

I know I exist, because I do. Even if that existence is merely a matter of electrons moving in some computer (no worse existence then electrons and protons and neutrons etc. moving apparently independently).

Indeed, this question is really silly. I know I exist. It is the rest of you I'm not so sure about (you may have existed, and then ceased existing, you may be merely well programmed computers, which I concede, would then still exist or whatever).

But heck, this line of questioning and thought is pointless, and can't come to an end.

And no, you don't have freewill, even if you think you do. There is merely a simulation as such. (In a physical universe, without any dualist crap, the concept is ludicrous.)

[Module]

I can 'prove' that I exist in the same way that I can 'prove' 1 + 1 = 2.
In any meaningful, relevant sense, I exist. Because I am here, in my reality, I experience myself; within my own reality I exist.
I don't really know how else to explain it.

The contemplation of this seems almost ridiculous.
Almost like, how do you know that chickens aren't just giraffes that human beings just for whatever reason can't see (... for example ...) ?
In all relevance to myself, to my life, to my reality I exist. I don't see what importance there is 'proving' that elsewhere.

[TC]

Unfortunately, comrades, whatever 'proof' you try to concoct, it won't match the level of certainty you already have that you are human, have a name, and are not dreaming, for example.

Even if that certainty (for you) is not very strong, it beats out of sight anything else any of you can come up with -- including the rather weak examples given above.

But, this was all established in the thread I linked to in my last post; why are we still trying to beat this moribund idea to death?

In fact, it died the moment it was born (as I demonstrated in that thread).

I'm not going through a ten page thread (link to posts not to threads Rosa!) but I love how you think you can personally reach final, comprehensive, last word solutions to major issues in contemporary analytic philosophy. Its so arrogant its cute.

Its also totally inaccurate, the question is much more sophisticated then the Great Rosa would lead people who haven't studied the issue to believe. I'd post more but I have to run.

[Holden Caulfield]

Unfortunately, comrades, whatever 'proof' you try to concoct, it won't match the level of certainty you already have that you are human, have a name, and are not dreaming, for example.



never suggested i was human, i don't know anything exsists outside of myself, i know i exsist as i know it myself, i cannot prove it to you and you cannot disprove it to me,

i know i exsist therefore i do, it is entirely subjective.

i do not care for your interpretations of the words of great men as there meaning has long ago drowned under such interpretations and lets face it they might not even exsist...

[gilhyle]

You guys do know that this whole philosophical debate is not about whether we exist, its about what proof procedures we can carry out.....you do know that dont you ?

[apathy maybe]

You guys do know that this whole philosophical debate is not about whether we exist, its about what proof procedures we can carry out.....you do know that dont you ?

I think, therefore I am?

How else would you suggest that you "prove" that you exist. You can't "prove" anything except mathematical truths and other deductive truths.

Induction just doesn't cut it.

So yeah, can you prove that you exist? (You can prove that 1+1=2.)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Things must be bad -- TCP has raised her head in Philosophy:


I'm not going through a ten page thread (link to posts not to threads Rosa!) but I love how you think you can personally reach final, comprehensive, last word solutions to major issues in contemporary analytic philosophy. Its so arrogant its cute.

Its also totally inaccurate, the question is much more sophisticated then the Great Rosa would lead people who haven't studied the issue to believe. I'd post more but I have to run.

I do not reach conclusive 'solutions' in philosophy, I just use the material language of the working class to show that every single philosophical 'problem' is entirely empty, and based on systematic confusion. That is no more a conclusive 'solution' than feeding a car into the crusher is repairing it.

And if you can't be bothered to read threads, go somewhere else to spout your ignorance.

Oh, and just make sure keep running...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoEtc:


never suggested i was human, i don't know anything exsists outside of myself, i know i exsist as i know it myself, i cannot prove it to you and you cannot disprove it to me,

i know i exsist therefore i do, it is entirely subjective.

i do not care for your interpretations of the words of great men as there meaning has long ago drowned under such interpretations and lets face it they might not even exsist...

I hope, however, you are human! Perhaps you can confirm it in some way...

I am sorry, but you have a rather odd idea of proof -- apparently, when you were taught this word many years ago, you required someone to prove to you that this word meant what the rest of the English speaking world means by it.

Don't tell me you took your parent's, teachers and peer's word for it, without proof (!), that 'proof' does not mean what you now seem to think it means?

Or, is it that you now have you own idiosyncratic understanding of this word, one you cannot share with the rest of us, since you cannot prove to anyone that your memory is perfect with regard to that idiosyncratic understanding?

After all, you might mean today somethihg different by your use of 'proof' from what you meant yesterday, that is, if you did mean anything by it 24 hours ago, or even if you mean anything by it now...

[Notice how, when you begin to use words in odd ways, everything falls apart -- we established that in the 'certainty' thread.]

[Dystisis]

I know I exist, because I do. Even if that existence is merely a matter of electrons moving in some computer (no worse existence then electrons and protons and neutrons etc. moving apparently independently).
What are you trying to say here? How can we define what is a "worse" existance and what is not? Fact is that reality consists of atoms+, but it is the way they are arranged forming geometry (ala molecules) into "bigger" structures that is what creates the life we see. Which is why some (aka me) would say organization ala geometry and numbers are a huge deal. Also of interest is the fact that organization is reflected through all scopes of reality.

[trivas7]

"can you prove you exist?"

Proof presupposes existence. If existence isn't axiomatic, nothing can be proved and no one can prove anything.

[nvm]

"can you prove you exist?"

Proof presupposes existence. If existence isn't axiomatic, nothing can be proved and no one can prove anything.


I would make a similar argument to this.
This basicaly kills everything you were saying before.

[apathy maybe]

What are you trying to say here? How can we define what is a "worse" existance and what is not? Fact is that reality consists of atoms+, but it is the way they are arranged forming geometry (ala molecules) into "bigger" structures that is what creates the life we see. Which is why some (aka me) would say organization ala geometry and numbers are a huge deal. Also of interest is the fact that organization is reflected through all scopes of reality.
I meant that being a "brain in a vat", or "part of the matrix" (living inside the machine) is not anything that is bad or worse for a person then actually having the physical existence they think they have. Merely because there is no way to no either way.

From the position of the person, their mental arrangement is no different, and thus can not be better or worse.

[Holden Caulfield]

[Notice how, when you begin to use words in odd ways, everything falls apart -- we established that in the 'certainty' thread.]

i have subjective certainty that cannot exsist outside of myself, was what i was trying to say,

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HeWhoEtc:


i have subjective certainty that cannot exsist outside of myself, was what i was trying to say,

But, if you have a defective memory, you might have been trying to read the shipping forecast, for all you know.