Can you prove your exsistance?
 

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.

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! ;) )

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

That is all that matters to me.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

wait ... do i ... no ... uh ... :rolleyes:

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

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?

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.

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

"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.

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?

...since when does thinking disprove existence?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?".

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

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

but woldent it be nice to be real?

I am just as existant and nonexistant as everything else.

Reality is 100% perception and nothing more.


Is there such thing as original thought?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.....

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...

:-)
 

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.

Hmm...
 

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.

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.

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.

Hey folks, haven’t been here in a while.

Roadkill. It’s quite simple.

You exist because you are self-aware.

The mistake is thinking that flawed perception equals lack of existence. The fact that one cannot know the true state of one's existence doesn’t mean one does not exist. In the end you are obviously something because you are aware of something.

Lets say you are part of a dream. If you discover this fact, you will not stop being real, you will simply change your state of self-perception.

Other people are just as real. I may be human, A.I., demon or a part of your imagination. On this forum I exist simply as a “poster”. My “true” nature is irrelevant unless we interact in other ways. If we were to meet and you all found out I was an A.I. running from a desktop then I would not cease to exist but your perception of me would change.

It proves that B "me" was not a figment of A's imagination. Now, since you said that C does not know about A or B then I cannot be a figment of his imagination, so I must exist.

Hey, and you didnt die, so you're happy ;)

If I am me, and you say you are me, and I say you are they and you say I am here and we agree that we are both here how can we counteract two non-existential agreements to say we are not here thus proving we exist.

Or something like that.

What is existence, what is real? If i read your post you only exist to me as a poster, with the assumption that you are a human sitting at a computer behind it. I think therefore i am, if i perceive things, they exist, even if only in my mind. So even if i dreamt you up and you where never in this thread, you still existed as a thought of mine.

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster "a: to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist> b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
"

In this context I do not need to prove my "existence". I percieve my own thoughts and actions in my mind. If nothing else I exist in my mind which I realize could simply become a mirror within a mirror but at that point the discussion is completely pointless. Even if I'm only shadows on the cave wall I still exist as a shadow, a representation of something else, either an idea or a physical reality. Either way, I exist, other exist in the same way. I can interact and respond to them if only in my mind. I will continue to do so until my physical being or shadow is destroyed.

Would it be correct to say that the problem lies in the language itself and not in the actual question?

How about, "Everything exists, nothing is real"

"Exist:To be as a fact and not as a mode; to have an actual being, whether material or spiritual."

"Real: True; genuine; not artificial."

The question "Can you prove your existence?" should always have a positive answer. Yes, I can prove I exist. I don't have to provide the proof, because it is by definition correct. If I was wrong and I did not exist, then I could not be wrong because I never existed.

For you to think, there must be substance that you link up with, therefore you exist.

to prove that others exist they must effect your life in some way.

for all i know i could be sitting here talking to myself on my computer as long as it does not affect anything i do, like go to the movies tonight with my girlfriend.

My old french teacher told us one of her stories from college, told us that her friend was taking a psychology class and the final exam had one essay question: Prove you exist.

Her friend wrote:
"By grading this paper you verify my existence".

She got an A+

Frankly I don't care about proving my existence, as long as I'm moving onward through "life" in a way that makes me happy and content, I won't worry on whether or not proving my existence is possible, for it's not necessary.

You should read the whole Descartes essay (Is it an essay?).

"I think therefore I am" is just the tip of the iceberg.

"I think, therefore I am" is such a flawed statment.

I never understood why people dont use "thought, therefore existance" as a translation for Descartes' "cogito ergo sum".

Because cogito is a verb conjugated for the first person singular, rather than a noun, and latin allows for understood subjects, which English does not.

i think there for i am, but if i dont think, am i not?

if you have a dream, and in this dream you are another person, does this person exist; is this person real? how can you prove that you are not simply someone else's thoughts, and exist only as long as this greater form of existence makes you exist. Any thought you have could be attributed to whatever it is that is dreaming you.

What is meant with "I think thereforefore i am" is that he is human because of his ability to reason, and to think.

What sets us as humans apart from animals is our ability to think. We are the only creatures on earth with a concept of ourselves. We know we are human and we think about being human.

i exist therefore i think in circles.

But it doesn't prove that A was a figment of your imagination, and since C was illreavent to A or B then C didn't affect any of it.

I can prove mine, I just can't prove yours...

You seem to be stuck in a position one step beyond solipsism. I have not seen this one before.

Simply put, you know you exist because your ability to actually question that demands it.

Proving that anything outside your own awareness exists is somewhat tougher but I suggest we get you out of this one and into solipsism/radical skepticism first

To the people in the future that you will meet, you are non-existant. If someone were to show you or anyone the name of their future spouse, that's all they would be, a name, not a person, not anything. People become real as you encounter them for all your lives' intents and pourposes.

"A implies B, therefore not A implies not B" is faulty logic.

i drink therefore i am drunk

if i think you don't exist then you don't correct?

I don't think I exist. But the IRS disagrees.

Bravo!

As much as I love philosophy, the question of how to prove one's existence is a silly one. Anybody who claims they can't figure out whether or not they exist needs a slap in the face as their only answer. No need to mess around with Descartes (mis-)quotes.

Of course, the question is mostly posed to escape from the paranoid exceptions. "What if I'm just a part of someone else's dream?" or "What if I'm in a giant computer simulated reality (like The Matrix)?" What does it matter? Does your reality change after asking the question?

No, it doesn't. Even if you were part of someone's dream or imagination you still wouldn't be able to fly. You still have to pay your bills or else your power gets shut-off. Murderes won't get freed because their victims didn't technically exist.

There are many more interesting ethical & moral questions to ponder about that actually may make a difference in your life.

The only way i could prove it to myself is. When I step into traffic, people honk and avoid me. Therefore i exist to other people.

If this is a dream state, I think the fact that I even ponder such things as this is sufficiant enough evidence to myself that I exist. If I dont actually exist, and this is a dream state, I deal with complex enough issues on a day to day basis to make myself feel whole, so either way I'm happy with where I am.

Sorry if this isnt that... on point right now.

No, I can't prove my existence. I can establish that I am aware of my self, but I can't prove it to another self, or prove that any other self is real.

But really, it's just a lot less painful to apply Occam's Razor and assume that you and everyone else around you are tangible, distinct and contiguous. I'm with Unright.

What is "proof"? I leave fingerprints, I have my own DNA, I work a job, I live in a house, I pay my taxes, so, at least in the eyes of the good old US of A, I exist. I've also done my fair share of drugs, had several out of body experiences while hanging from hooks in my back and my chest, and have had visual and auditory hallucinations on several occasions, so don't take my word for it. ;)

Honestly though, I think I exist if only for what I've experienced and endured. My body is almost completely covered in tattoos, scars, brands, piercings, implants, and modifications and I've felt and endured every one of them. I've suspended more times than I can count, and once while performing in a show I hung over 500lbs on 2 hooks in my back. I've sat through many many many hours of excruciating pain including having my tongue split and my penis filleted open (look up "subincision" or "meatotomy"). you'd think that if this existance was all a dream then I'd have woken up from it already.

Jason

i know that this post isnt real, i mean the page is dark, the letters are white, but still I know there is not yet a cure for cancer. i think i'll live here and now and leave it at that!

If i didnt exsist then what would I be and why would i be here and why would i just be some dream that goes on and you get older in your dream and its so complex, dreams arent that complex, and they dont last as long as life does. It just wouldnt make since for this to be a dream, do you think when you die you just wake up? ANd then what? I mean something has to exsist for the dream to be there right?