Prove you Exist.

[cottage]

I think the better question is: Can you think of a way in which there can be no I that still explains the subjective experiences "supposed individuals" have? I spent several months in philosophy class in college while studying Descartes wondering the same thing: "Perhaps it is only our preconceived notion that there is an I which leads us to conclude this. Just because we don't know how there could be no "I" doesn't mean that there is an I." But in the end I had to give up on this line of thinking simply because it lead no where.

Even when I supposed that we all did not in fact exist, but rather were emblematic extensions of some super cosmic consciousness, it did not negate the existence of an I because even if we weren't technically an individual it did not undermine the mere fact that we have subjective experience and in order to experience anything something must be doing the "experiencing."

MTF

But what is subjective experience, and how might it prove the existence of an essential self? Even those those who want argue for such a thing have to admit that we can each have another's experience. Hume's Bundle Theory suggests experience is simply just a bundle of ideas; no evidence for an essential Self and therefore no implied ownership.

 

[DarkSun]

Reality: Everything around us which may be perceived by our senses.
Mind: The sum of all cognitive functions of the central nervous system.

1. Suppose reality exists independently of the mind.

2. The Uncertainty Principle seems to suggest that a particle cannot be isolated because the moment we do, our perception of that particle interferes with its characteristics. Therefore, our perception of reality can in fact affect aspects of reality.

3. The evidence suggests that reality is dependent on the mind.

4. If we exist independently of everything around us, then we must exist, and the question becomes rephrased as: "how do we prove that reality exists"?

 

[rojse]

How about a good slap in the face?

We're talking philosophy here. Slapping isn't allowed unless you disagree with someone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Could someone please offer a sound logical argument that they, or anything for that matter, exists. I'm not looking for philosophy or reason just a well formulated logical argument.

(ben d emboldments)

Hi sandy whitelinger, it would appear that the caveat you applied to the question needs some clarification since as it stands, the constraints preclude a proper well formulated response.

My 'WordWeb' dictionary has this definition for Logic;
1.The branch of philosophy that analyses inference
2. Reasoned and reasonable judgment

It has this definition for Argument;
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning

It has this definition for Reasoned ;
1. Present arguments
2. Think logically

 

[DarkSun]

We're talking philosophy here. Slapping isn't allowed unless you disagree with someone.

But if the person being slapped doesn't really exist anyway, and the person doing the slapping doesn't exist, then isn't it fair to say that no one was ever slapped?









...

 

[DarkSun]

Should I take it no one likes my image of an exploding head?

 

[Kerr]

Should I take it no one likes my image of an exploding head?

I don´t get it to be honest .

 

[DarkSun]

I don´t get it to be honest .

There's not much to get. My head exploded in confusion and I'm in the process of sticking it back together with cello tape right now.

Anyway. Since I don't exist and you don't exist, and everyone else reading this doesn't exist, then my head never really exploded to begin with. So I probably shouldn't worry too much.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Of course we don't exist. That's why murder, rape, infanticide, child molestation, cannibalism and incest are perfectly fine; none of it is real anyways so you may as well embrace gang-bangers and saints alike. And that's why questions like "do we exist" are neither clever nor stupid. Right?

Um, I don't know where you are with this but the reason I offered this was because so many are trying to come up with proof or dis-proof of this or that. The ultimate point is that while some things cannot be proved by a formal logical argument they may well be reasonable. Unfortunately, Fluffy offered the proof for existence and threw a monkey wrench in my plan. I'll need to come up with another example of something that is reasonable yet unprovable in logic. Something like, "Angellous is your Daddy."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If I don´t exist, why do I perceive I do and why does the post exist? Why do what I have done for the world exist? How come there is pain and joy in my life, if I didn´t exist I wouldn´t have any of them. I am the proof that I exist.

That's still not a formal logical argument. Do you know what one is?

 

[YmirGF]

That's still not a formal logical argument. Do you know what one is?

Sandy, can I ask you a question?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

See that tree over there? Want to prove it exists? Put your head down and charge...

That's not a formal logical argument. I could argue the stupidity of it though.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

(ben d emboldments)

Hi sandy whitelinger, it would appear that the caveat you applied to the question needs some clarification since as it stands, the constraints preclude a proper well formulated response.

My 'WordWeb' dictionary has this definition for Logic;
1.The branch of philosophy that analyses inference
2. Reasoned and reasonable judgment

It has this definition for Argument;
A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning

It has this definition for Reasoned ;
1. Present arguments
2. Think logically

From wikipedia:
"
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises."

Argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A correct argument has been offered.

 

[YmirGF]

*begins jumping up and down*

Um... Sandy, can I ask you a question?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Should I take it no one likes my image of an exploding head?

It's gross.

 

[Kerr]

There's not much to get. My head exploded in confusion and I'm in the process of sticking it back together with cello tape right now.

Anyway. Since I don't exist and you don't exist, and everyone else reading this doesn't exist, then my head never really exploded to begin with. So I probably shouldn't worry too much.

Lol, yeah, I don´t have to worry about my own confusion now, I don´t exist... so I may go and play a non-existing game on my non-existing laptop later. Sounds like non-existing fun to me.

 

[Kerr]

That's still not a formal logical argument. Do you know what one is?

Not really, but it is logical, maybe not formal.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

*begins jumping up and down*

Um... Sandy, can I ask you a question?

You just did. Would you like to ask another one?

 

[YmirGF]

You just did. Would you like to ask another one?

*Smiles sweetly*

Given the fact that I got your attention is indicative that I exist as a separate entity unless, of course, you are prone to talking to yourself. In that I am aware of my own existence and choose to interact with you, but more importantly, receive feedback from you, is evidence that we are, in fact, both self aware entities acting independently of each other, as neither knows precisely how the other is going to react.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

But what is subjective experience, and how might it prove the existence of an essential self? Even those those who want argue for such a thing have to admit that we can each have another's experience. Hume's Bundle Theory suggests experience is simply just a bundle of ideas; no evidence for an essential Self and therefore no implied ownership.

As I said before show me a way which will work. I studied Hume and Descartes in college and at no point could I arrive at something which would allow for a self to not exist. Hume's work despite being rather difficult to penetrate (his skepticism is incredible) does not actually claim that an essential self does not exist, but rather that we know nothing about it. See here:

Bundle of ideas? And just how do these ideas exist (why are they even able to exist in the first place)? What is their medium of existence? Why are they there (what impetus is there for idea creation)? What is "there" in the previous question? What does "ownership" of an idea mean (how can idea exist without being owned)? What is the mind? How can there be a mind if there is no being/person? What is doing the perceiving (what is receiving this information)? What is able to later reflect upon the impression (his word for sensory perception) and thus create an idea?

The challenge is to think of a way in which it is possible for there to be no "I." Hume did not accomplish that. He showed that we cannot actually know anything about the "self" through rationality or introspection (all we have is a bundle of ideas and impressions to work with, and those are not the self).

MTF