-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Prove you Exist.
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Hi there. How are you?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Incorrect. See the previous post.
ManTimeForgot:
If the self did not exist why is there any thing occurring? Why are there ideas? You see I leave off the "within" in the first question, because I guess technically that assumes "the self." But the simple fact is in nature nothing exists which is not contained by something else; some rule set some exigent agency/circumstances which is responsible for it being at all.
Cottage:
My view is that very probably there is some cause, but I dont know why there are ideas. My argument, very simply, is that there is no provable or demonstrable self, independent or distinct from the ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Not it is not possible to know about the self, not that it cannot be shown to exist. It is a necessary feature. If you cannot show a possible way (as in it is impossible to do so) in which the self does not exist, then it must necessarily follow that the self exists.
Cottage:
With respect, that is fallacious on several counts. First there is the question begging, where the object in dispute is already assumed in your premise, and then there is the shifting of the burden of proof. By alluding to a failure to demonstrate the non-existence of x you assert that it follows that x must exist. Aside from the evident fallacy of demanding proof of a negative, there is no necessity involved in your assertion that the self exists, for if there were then a contradiction would be involved if denied. And if I ask you to prove the non-existence of God or unicorns, and you cannot, it most certainly does not follow that such things necessarily exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Premise 2 means that in order to have any qualities at all something must exist; it must be real. Non-real things cannot have any other qualities.
Cottage:
Thats not true. Metaphysical theories award all sorts of attributes and qualities to their subjects, but no existential propositions follow necessarily from what is propounded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Mind is just the ideas? What allows the ideas to exist? Why are they even able to exist in the first place? Sensation? Why is sensation possible? In order to have stimuli there needs to be something receiving the information. What is receiving the information? There is a framework of existence which is necessary to allow for ideas, memories, and sensations to even occur. What is that framework of existence?
Cottage:
Your question concerning what is receiving the ideas is to return to Descartes Cogito ergo sum and my original objection. He concluded that it was Descartes. But where in the thinking did he establish personal identity? The ideas perceived do not reveal any notion of the Self. Mind, as the collective noun, does not imply individualism and if the ideas are singular in form, then the perceptions may reasonably be said to be similarly composed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Not arbitrary, necessary. Something is responsible. There must indeed be an end, but it need not be "First Cause." Reality could be eternal and infinite and thus there is no "First Cause." But causality is inviolate. So something is responsible. We have no idea what, but something must be responsible. It could be the essential pasta bowl, but whatever "it" is it is still there.
What is a collection of ideas without agency? If these ideas cannot do anything, act in anyway, possess any capability, then they are defunct as explanatory devices. My argument is that something must exist, and whatever you call it, whatever it may be its reality approximates our notion of the self to the point that it is impractical to refer to it as anything else.
Cottage:
Certainly something exists. And it seems perfectly reasonable to me that something may indeed be its cause, but I do not see how we arrive at a self. By what chain of reasoning can we infer the concept of personal identity, when nothing is apparent but the ideas? The two components of the argument are the ideas and the self. But what is the concept of self, if not an idea?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Um... Axiom just means something that must be taken as true in order for the system as a whole to be true. The parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry is axiomatic. The system cannot show it to be true, but the system fails if the parallel postulate is anything but true. So yes premise 5 is an axiom. The conclusion is not "unsound." The conclusion is valid period, and sound so long as premise 5 is taken as true axiomatically. The onus is upon you to show how premise 5 can possibly EVER be anything but true (mind you anything which approaches the self in definition counts). If you can show how it is EVER possible for the self to not exist, then I will gladly admit that the self does not exist.
Cottage:
Forgive me, but this is what you offered as your premise: It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. As this is neither self-evident nor true by definition then the postulate itself requires proof, which actually puts the onus back on you. But in any case, in my response I provided an example that showed, using the argument from contingency, that the self is just an arbitrary conception and no contradiction is implied by its denial.
Finally, there is still a continuing confusion that needs to be addressed once and for all. Im not asking you to admit, gladly or otherwise, that the self does not exist. What Im asking for is evidence or argument to convince me it does exist. Do I doubt that Im typing this and you are reading it? No, of course not! However, my willingness to accept and share what every sensible person on the planet believes does not mitigate my scepticism or solve the philosophical controversy, which continues notwithstanding.
If the self did not exist why is there any thing occurring? Why are there ideas? You see I leave off the "within" in the first question, because I guess technically that assumes "the self." But the simple fact is in nature nothing exists which is not contained by something else; some rule set some exigent agency/circumstances which is responsible for it being at all.
Cottage:
My view is that very probably there is some cause, but I dont know why there are ideas. My argument, very simply, is that there is no provable or demonstrable self, independent or distinct from the ideas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Not it is not possible to know about the self, not that it cannot be shown to exist. It is a necessary feature. If you cannot show a possible way (as in it is impossible to do so) in which the self does not exist, then it must necessarily follow that the self exists.
Cottage:
With respect, that is fallacious on several counts. First there is the question begging, where the object in dispute is already assumed in your premise, and then there is the shifting of the burden of proof. By alluding to a failure to demonstrate the non-existence of x you assert that it follows that x must exist. Aside from the evident fallacy of demanding proof of a negative, there is no necessity involved in your assertion that the self exists, for if there were then a contradiction would be involved if denied. And if I ask you to prove the non-existence of God or unicorns, and you cannot, it most certainly does not follow that such things necessarily exist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Premise 2 means that in order to have any qualities at all something must exist; it must be real. Non-real things cannot have any other qualities.
Cottage:
Thats not true. Metaphysical theories award all sorts of attributes and qualities to their subjects, but no existential propositions follow necessarily from what is propounded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Mind is just the ideas? What allows the ideas to exist? Why are they even able to exist in the first place? Sensation? Why is sensation possible? In order to have stimuli there needs to be something receiving the information. What is receiving the information? There is a framework of existence which is necessary to allow for ideas, memories, and sensations to even occur. What is that framework of existence?
Cottage:
Your question concerning what is receiving the ideas is to return to Descartes Cogito ergo sum and my original objection. He concluded that it was Descartes. But where in the thinking did he establish personal identity? The ideas perceived do not reveal any notion of the Self. Mind, as the collective noun, does not imply individualism and if the ideas are singular in form, then the perceptions may reasonably be said to be similarly composed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Not arbitrary, necessary. Something is responsible. There must indeed be an end, but it need not be "First Cause." Reality could be eternal and infinite and thus there is no "First Cause." But causality is inviolate. So something is responsible. We have no idea what, but something must be responsible. It could be the essential pasta bowl, but whatever "it" is it is still there.
What is a collection of ideas without agency? If these ideas cannot do anything, act in anyway, possess any capability, then they are defunct as explanatory devices. My argument is that something must exist, and whatever you call it, whatever it may be its reality approximates our notion of the self to the point that it is impractical to refer to it as anything else.
Cottage:
Certainly something exists. And it seems perfectly reasonable to me that something may indeed be its cause, but I do not see how we arrive at a self. By what chain of reasoning can we infer the concept of personal identity, when nothing is apparent but the ideas? The two components of the argument are the ideas and the self. But what is the concept of self, if not an idea?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManTimeForgot:
Um... Axiom just means something that must be taken as true in order for the system as a whole to be true. The parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry is axiomatic. The system cannot show it to be true, but the system fails if the parallel postulate is anything but true. So yes premise 5 is an axiom. The conclusion is not "unsound." The conclusion is valid period, and sound so long as premise 5 is taken as true axiomatically. The onus is upon you to show how premise 5 can possibly EVER be anything but true (mind you anything which approaches the self in definition counts). If you can show how it is EVER possible for the self to not exist, then I will gladly admit that the self does not exist.
Cottage:
Forgive me, but this is what you offered as your premise: It is not possible for that which contains the mind to be anything other than the self. As this is neither self-evident nor true by definition then the postulate itself requires proof, which actually puts the onus back on you. But in any case, in my response I provided an example that showed, using the argument from contingency, that the self is just an arbitrary conception and no contradiction is implied by its denial.
Finally, there is still a continuing confusion that needs to be addressed once and for all. Im not asking you to admit, gladly or otherwise, that the self does not exist. What Im asking for is evidence or argument to convince me it does exist. Do I doubt that Im typing this and you are reading it? No, of course not! However, my willingness to accept and share what every sensible person on the planet believes does not mitigate my scepticism or solve the philosophical controversy, which continues notwithstanding.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
How about.....
Shared reality.
6billion people are alive on this planet.
If we could ask all of them, all at once, this topic at hand, what do you think the greater response would be?
Or perhaps you would argue, this entire planet, and all that is upon it, is an illusion. Shared illusion?...shared reality?
Or perhaps the stars above, are a dream.
Shared reality may be difficult to deny.
Of course, if you don't believe in life after death, we could wait for the moment when you die...then you are dust....and you don't exist.
Shared reality.
6billion people are alive on this planet.
If we could ask all of them, all at once, this topic at hand, what do you think the greater response would be?
Or perhaps you would argue, this entire planet, and all that is upon it, is an illusion. Shared illusion?...shared reality?
Or perhaps the stars above, are a dream.
Shared reality may be difficult to deny.
Of course, if you don't believe in life after death, we could wait for the moment when you die...then you are dust....and you don't exist.
McBell
Unbound
I doubt it.
AS presented it is nothing more than an appeal to popularity/numbers fallacy.
DarkSun
:eltiT
What if everyone believed that they didn't exist? Would that make it true?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
If we could say...with intent...
'The item at hand does not exist'....and it then disappears.....
Then the answer to your question would be.....'yes'.
The same ability aimed at your fellow man, or yourself, would then be as a sword.
Swords sever the living from the dead.
And Man is such a creature, hand him a sword and he will use it.
'The item at hand does not exist'....and it then disappears.....
Then the answer to your question would be.....'yes'.
The same ability aimed at your fellow man, or yourself, would then be as a sword.
Swords sever the living from the dead.
And Man is such a creature, hand him a sword and he will use it.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
If the "self" has traits or characteristics, then it exists.
Evandr
Stripling Warrior
Sorry Sandy but it is you that are incorrect - You cannot prove to me that you exist. You may be nothing more than part of a elaborate matrix or manifestation stemming from the need of a single, all inclusive intellect, without body, parts, or form, to have purpose, even if that purpose has no foundation or substance outside of the need. This conversation could be going on in the shadows of a dream world where there is the created illusion of a physical universe along with others (established to be second and third persons, the establishing intellect being the first person) who interact within the confines of the illusion. In other words, from my point of view, you don't exist as anything more than a thought programmed to respond with the pure intent to keep me occupied or, from your point of view I am an illusion. Its the ultimate day dream. Anything you say or do, including saying hello and waiting for a response, has no other purpose than to keep this "one intellect" soap opera on track.
Consider this, when you dream there can be lots of interaction with others in the dream who talk, have opinions, respond, act and interact, yet it is all a dream created by the mind to vent frustration and benefit the psychic of the dreamer by the reconciliation of disappointments and differences even though no such reconciliation ever really occurred in the waking world. Dreams are why daily experiences dont drive us all insane.
Who is to say that one of us is not merely the manifestation of a dream that has been taken to levels of consciousness far and above what one might experience in normal REM sleep? What we call REM sleep could be sort of a dream within a dream.
It seems particularly circular to say: Selves have characteristics, there are characteristics, and therefore there are selves. And in any case, if the concept of characteristics exists, like the Self, as an idea, then all this amounts to is one idea being said to prove the existence of another.
On the contrary, I think it quite reasonable to say one idea supports another.
Slapped face. :slap: What's the result? Pain! And what is pain, but a feeling, a perception...another idea!
Not really, it is something we experience. "Pain", "feeling", "perception" are not ideas, they are names on things we experience.
imaginaryme
Active Member
Since I don't exist, all these words and avatars surely don't exist. 
Evandr
Stripling Warrior
Oh contrair my friend, for you, you are the only one who exists. For me, I am the only one but you are only hearing me say that because it is what you require to propogate the illusion that others beside you exist. In an enviroment where intellegence seeks to discover itself this state of confusion prevents that from happening and that prevents the whole matrix of reality from being discovered and thusly dismanteled. :sarcastic Confusion rules and this whole thread is a waste of time.:yes:Since I don't exist, all these words and avatars surely don't exist.
imaginaryme
Active Member
But I like to waste time arguing with myself.
Evandr
Stripling Warrior
And what is the difference between things we experience and the names we give to the things we experience? We are simply distinguishing between the ideas by giving them names.