roadkill

I can't prove mine, no matter how hard I try, I can't find a way to prove that I'm real or that what I'm seeing isn't a dream, or something else.

Lets see if we can prove ourselves.

Silvy

I live by the quote:
"I think therefore I am", proving my own existance.

By the same reasoning: no one can prove his/her existance to me, and neither can I prove my existance to them.

(of course, they all believe I exist, cause it's my dream dammit! )

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

tecoyah

Simply by reading your post...and replying, I have proven to myself that I exist.

That is all that matters to me.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

ARTelevision

The problem here is in the language used that is unexplained, as in what the thread stater means by "proof" and the means by which said proof is to be demonstrated. Scientific "proof" on this question is not difficult, for example. Stating a question in such a vague and unspecified way does not further a solution.

__________________
create evolution

asaris

The "I think therefore I am" argument is invalid. From the premise "I think", all that can be concluded is "There is thought". That being said, there's no need to prove one's own existence or the existence of anyone else. It's self-evident.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

John Henry

I think therefore there is thought.

I am aware of this thought.

There is awareness.

Therefore I either exist and contain this awareness or I am this awareness.

I exist either way.

__________________
"No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

Bill O'Rights

I dunno...my pain seemed pretty real this morning, after I stubbed my big toe on the damn bed frame...again!

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

kwoodmex

Similarly real pain here, while totally missing the 3rd to last step on the stairs and falling the rest of the way. Yes I was still half asleep as I left for work this morning.

apeman

wait ... do i ... no ... uh ...

aren't you assuming an "I" to begin with there? i think that's one of Nietzsche's counter-arguments anyway ... only one i remember off hand

Bill O, that sounds like Johnson's refutation of Berkleys subjective idealism, but he uses it to demonstrate the existence of the world outside out consciousness

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

rsl12

When you write down a proof for a geometry theorem, you don't have to prove that the pen you're writing with exists. Why?

__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Silvy

That is because the writing, the paper and the pen are only a means of communicating and not the proof itself.

The pen, paper and ink might not even exist, but if the proof is communicated, it is (in whatever shape or form) sufficient.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

roadkill

You didn't prove your self, because I could accuse you of being an A.I. program designed to reply, how aren't you?

braindamage351

"I think therefore I am" is actually solid logic. It doesn't prove that you are an individual or what you think you are, but it does prove that you exist in some form.

roadkill

yes you have to exist in some form, but how bout this... " I think I am we. We think you don't exist, you must not exist because we are greater than you." So how do you exist now?

ARTelevision

...since when does thinking disprove existence?

__________________
create evolution

apeman

I am a nobody
Nobody can run a 3 minute mile
Therefore I can run a 3 minute mile

logic is a much misunderstood discipline

roadkill could be arguing from a subjective idealist standpoint, in which his consciousness is the only certainty.. that might work?

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

asaris

Part of the difficulty is that the Cartesian argument depends on consciousness being completely present to itself. This leads to, among other problems, a problem reconciling internal representation with an external world. If the mind is completely present to itself, it is divorced from the world. If instead we put the mind in the world, such that it perceives things (and not just its representations of those things), the mind cannot be completely present to itself. The musings of Derrida only serve to underline this point. But if the mind is not completely present to itself, the cogito only proves that there is thought, since it cannot be shown for any instance that a given thought is really my thought.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

roadkill

we obviously exist, but where in what way can you prove it... yes you can say that you think, but so can computers... are they human then are they living because they think? What can you say/do to prove without a doubt that you exist? Thats what i've been trying to get at, rather than just saying "I think therefor I am." we all konw that what can you say other than a quote to prove it?

SuperJay

I believe "I think therefore I am" is better worded as; "I have original thought therefore I am."

Original thought is the proof of existence. Think of something that is totally and completely yours and you will have proven your own existence. Unfortunately, as others have said on this thread, you can only prove your existence to yourself. That being said, I can prove that I am or am not a figment of your imagination simply by being at your funeral.

__________________
Round and round the shutter'd Square
I stroll'd with the Devil's Arm in mine
No sound but the scrape of his hoofs was there,
And the ring of his laughter and mine.

roadkill

this is the type of things i'm looking for to answer this question

:::OshnSoul:::

I close my eyes and see the light inside. I quiet myself and hear the voice of Love. What can be more real than feeling? It's not what you see in a mirror, it's not what you hear outwardly, it's not what you do or say- you are stifled by this existance of yourself, because the body is not yours. It is a costume to wear as your Soul walks the earth to experience Life. The Soul is who you are- and all you have to do is BE.

SuperJay

Sounds like self awareness to me. The existance of a soul is a totally different topic in my opinion. I believe that feelings and imagination are original thought. They are the things that let us do the impossible and challange the unstopable. This is also why I believe that when someone dies it proves their existance, still only to themselves, and verifies the existance of everyone that knew them.

__________________
Round and round the shutter'd Square
I stroll'd with the Devil's Arm in mine
No sound but the scrape of his hoofs was there,
And the ring of his laughter and mine.

Halx

I could kick you in the nuts if you need some confirmation.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

losthellhound

The question is not can I prove my existance.. it is.. Can I prove yours..

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

SuperJay

First, let me address the question, can I prove I exist?

I think a far better argument can be found with a nuanced look at the statement "I do not exist", which is ultimately, a meaningless statement, in that by saying "I" you are ascribing existence to a self prior to denying it, and the statement is contradictory. To discuss one's unbeing, one must be. So the question of existence becomes less of a true/false thing, and more a necessity, as there is not an alternative.

In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, there were something on the order of 30 tenses to take in account the strange causalities and timelines associated with time travel. Similarly, present-day English and most other languages limit us in philosophy. Language is based upon making assumptions before you say something and stating a clear subject. That aside, as any good philosopher will tell you, the weakness of any philosophical statement is the fact that you have to make an assumption to prove anything. For example, "thought exists". It's dang hard to say anything without making an assumption, because at the root of it, that is what all knowledge is based on. Without the assumption, for example, that gravity is a force, newtonian physics doesn't exist. Without the assumption that time exists, Einsteinian physics falls apart. Even the concept of "space" is technically an assumption. Proving the existence of the self reaches the limits of philosophy. We can only think about it in the limited terms of our own minds. So, it is inherently a circular argument, since the whole argument is based on the assumption that "I think".

I am still working on "can I prove you exist?".

__________________
Round and round the shutter'd Square
I stroll'd with the Devil's Arm in mine
No sound but the scrape of his hoofs was there,
And the ring of his laughter and mine.

losthellhound

The reason I state.. can I prove you exist is for the following..

I know I exist. The truth of the statement is based only on my own thoughts, my own dreams, and my own perceptions. I do not however know if you are real, or if anything around me is real. Perhaps, as it has been aptly put.. I am a brain in a jar. A system feeds me impulses that reflect an envorinment that is either an experiment, or a very subtle joke.

I'm not going to get into the Matrix.. it was an adaptation of the theory and has way too many religeous and social angles..

There is also the theory that things only exist when they are perceived by my senses.. The person I speak to now may disapear when they are no longer in my perception. I dont base any credibility in this because Im certainly not THAT ego-centric

__________________
"Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?"
-- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

Thomas Heretic

Not sure you need to prove you exist. If you can't tell the difference it doesn't matter.

roadkill

but woldent it be nice to be real?

YzermanS19

I am just as existant and nonexistant as everything else.

Reality is 100% perception and nothing more.


Is there such thing as original thought?

__________________
the light that burns twice as bright
burns half as long

and you have burned so very, very brightly

Rekna

Let me see if i can remember the Decartes arguement that spawned "I think therefore I am"

I could not ponder my existance without thought.
but I am pondering my own existance.
Therefore I am thinking.

Therefore there exists a thinking being and I am the thinking being.
Therefore I exist.


It is something like this it has been quite a few years since I had my philosphy class.

ARTelevision

The problem here is the useless concept that existence requires proof.

__________________
create evolution

SuperJay

Does existence require proof? I don't think that it does, but then what would be the point of this thread?
I think the real point of discussing an issue like this is that it will spawn further ideas, make people contemplate life in general and help to define who you are as a person. I believe that philosophy can be a very useful tool as long as those involved keep an open mind and learn from the discussion.

Anytime intelligent people get together to talk, something worthwhile can be taken away.

Is there something as original though? I would have to say yes... just ask DaVinci, Franklin, Edison or the person who first used a rock to break open a coconut.

__________________
Round and round the shutter'd Square
I stroll'd with the Devil's Arm in mine
No sound but the scrape of his hoofs was there,
And the ring of his laughter and mine.

roadkill

no but if we can't prove our own exsistance then what is the point of exploration if we can proof something else but not the person that found it.

analog

Electron microscope, someone to read it, some spare time. That's all you need to prove you are real.

:::OshnSoul:::

Because we're not looking past the clouds that hide the mirror.

"There's more to see than meets the eye"...this quote comes in handy right about now.....

Sit quietly and close your eyes. Quiet your mind and listen....then open them and just observe.....

apeman

yes, i personally don't stay awake at night worrying whether i do in fact exist

i guess it's a hangover from that period when scientists and philosophers thought that everything could be derived from first principles...

__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

xepherys

How does this prove what to who?

Three people, A, B and C.

A poses this very question that you did roadkill.

B is SuperJay

C is me.


A dies and B goes to A's funeral...

A is dead and therefore learns nothing of this.

C is not there and learns nothing either.

B makes the ASSUMPTION that A once existed but can no longer prove it.

C knows not of A or Bs existance.


Nobody is any the wiser.

xepherys

One could say that proof and logical are both non-existant.

Take for example this:


Color is dependant on wavelengths of light reflecting fmor a surface, entering your eye, fed through the optic nerve into your brain and processed into what you see. "Red" is a set wavelength of x nm. How, in the end, you interpret that wavelength may very greatly. Colorblindness is a perfect example. Cones or rods (forget which) do not work properly or are missing, and therefore some colors appear the same. But less specifically, how is it that you can guarantee what you see as red is the same as what I see as red? We've both been "trained" to say red when we see a specific color. But what I see as red, you could see as blue and vice versa. I'd still always call it red, and so would you.

This is a poor example for the overall, but it makes a simple point. You're proof and your logic might not be mine and that doesn't nessecarily make one right nad one wrong. Realistically they could both be right... or they could both be wrong. Or, perhaps there is no right and wrong...

Proof is only what it's allowed to be to you... Logic is just the way you let it be believed.

Rodney

I don't actually care whether I can prove my existence or not to any one you. Whether I actually exist or whether my words are nothing but phantoms floating on the surface of your cornea -- input is input. Information is received.

wonderwench

For some reason, this thread reminds me of the Werner Herzog film "The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser". (If you've never seen it, I highly recommend it).

One day, out of nowhere, Kaspar Hauser appears in a small town. He cannot speak and seems barely human. Fascinated, the town tries to civilize him. But soon they begin to treat him as a fantastic wild animal, passing him around for amusement. Inspired by a true story, Werner Herzog creates an unforgettable classic of the New German Cinema.

In one scene, a Professor of Logic tests Kaspar to see if he is retarded. The scholar poses a famous logic question regarding the city of liars and the city of truth tellers. Upon meeting a man on a road, the puzzle is to determine a question to ask the man in order to know to which city he belongs.

Kaspar comes up with a unique question, which is rejected by the Professor of Logic:

"Are you a frog?"

I wonder if some clever TFP member can emulate Kaspar for the current debate.