Prove you Exist.

[Popeyesays]

We could all be taking part in a virtual reality game thousands of years into the future. It is so sophiticated we really believe that the game is reality!

I thin k Occam's Razor is a very useful tool. It seems to me that on most any level whatever is convincingly real IS real.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Somkid]

This is probably one of the silliest arguments which is why we don't even bother with it in philosophy however the obvious answer without getting into great detail is, give me all your money if I don't exist I can't take it if you won't give it to me it means you think I exist.

 

[Melancholy]

If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
I say the universe must have a cause.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Therefore, I exist.

 

[Draka]

Other people still exist in this world because of me. Things I have done in my life have helped to insure the safety and the lives of certain others. Their continuing existence affirms mine.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

I'm only interested in someone presenting a formal logical argument for existence. No more, no less.

That would be philosophy, my friend.

Do you want me to prove that "I" exist to "you," or that I exist to myself?

 

[Draka]

That would be philosophy, my friend.

Do you want me to prove that "I" exist to "you," or that I exist to myself?

Or more specifically: Which "I"? Are we to prove the existence of our physical selves, or the mental/emotional selves that make up our personality?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This is probably one of the silliest arguments which is why we don't even bother with it in philosophy...

How is it silly?

...however the obvious answer without getting into great detail is, give me all your money if I don't exist I can't take it if you won't give it to me it means you think I exist.

"I," "you," and "money" are mental constructs. I would just be transferring one mental construct to another.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Or more specifically: Which "I"? Are we to prove the existence of our physical selves, or the mental/emotional selves that make up our personality?

Excellent idea! You're right; which aspect of the Self is Mr. Whitelinger interested in proving?

 

[Fluffy]

Logic is a branch of philosophy. It is a system of axioms and laws that attempts to formulate a rigorous treatment of reason. Therefore, I don't understand what you mean by a formal logical argument that is not a philosophy nor a reason. Do you mean a syllogism?

 

[Popeyesays]

Logic is a branch of philosophy. It is a system of axioms and laws that attempts to formulate a rigorous treatment of reason. Therefore, I don't understand what you mean by a formal logical argument that is not a philosophy nor a reason. Do you mean a syllogism?

I offered him Descartes classic syllogism. I have no idea what he wants, and neither does he I surmise. A syllogism is however, a deductive logical argument.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Fluffy]

Whilst philosophers after Descartes have attempted to analysis the cogito as a syllogism, I don't think that this was the formulation in which it was intended. Descartes never states it as a syllogism with a minor premise followed by a major premise followed by a conclusion. Indeed, if I state the cogito as a syllogism then it looks pretty weak as the major premise is surely not indubitable.

 

[Anti-World]

That's a tough argument.

We all exist because we present new information that had not already been known in the universe. New information including, but not limited to, our position in space and time.

Unfortunately, thanks to our limited capacity, most of the universe does not exist to us because we only have our five senses to retrieve information. To us, our imaginations are just as real as anything else.

However, with our collection of consciousnesses we are capable of accepting much as existing without actually retrieving perfect sensory information from them.

Nonetheless, if the information is there, it exists.

Now, trying to prove to *you*, specifically, that I exist is impossible. You have to accept that the information is valid and I have no way of knowing if what is coming through your senses is even correct.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

That's a tough argument.

We all exist because we present new information that had not already been known in the universe. New information including, but not limited to, our position in space and time.

Hm...that still depends on what "you" is being proved to exist.

 

[Anti-World]

Ya, I didn't explain fully so I edited it, sorry about that, I was trying to be quick.

 

[Somkid]

How is it silly?

"I," "you," and "money" are mental constructs. I would just be transferring one mental construct to another.

The problem is when we deal with real philosophy questioning the existence of something that can be perceived by simple senses is not considered a worthwhile argument. It was suggested to me some ______ years ago, well a really long time ago, in my first philosophy class to put forth such an argument is a waste of time and furthermore to argue that some one does not exist is silly because you have already set the premise for the persons existence when you put forth the proposition "prove to me that you exist" or you are simply delusional talking to thin air but in either case you have proved another's existence with the question or you are just stark raving mad.

To conclude, can I prove I exist? Yes, I am writing a response to your post on the topic, that in itself essentially proves I exist! The mere process of thinking proves one’s existence. Descartes proved this (albeit unintentionally, using my interpretation) using his famous “I think therefore I am”. Yet, thinking does not (and will not) prove the reality (or context) in which they are thinking.

I would also suggest, It is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one and no Matrix, benevolent deceiver nor evil genius is controlling it that one you have to deal with personally.

 

[doppelganger]

Is it more useful to remain in the imperfective state of becoming than to exist in a state of "I am"?

 

[Popeyesays]

Is it more useful to remain in the imperfective state of becoming than to exist in a state of "I am"?

I am becoming.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Somkid]

Is it more useful to remain in the imperfective state of becoming than to exist in a state of "I am"?

I would agree with your statement/question to a certain degree from a Buddhist prospective as it is better to extinguish "self" however; in philosophy (Western) this is not a valid statement nor does it matter what you "want" it is what it is.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The problem is when we deal with real philosophy questioning the existence of something that can be perceived by simple senses is not considered a worthwhile argument. It was suggested to me some ______ years ago, well a really long time ago, in my first philosophy class to put forth such an argument is a waste of time and furthermore to argue that some one does not exist is silly because you have already set the premise for the persons existence when you put forth the proposition "prove to me that you exist" or you are simply delusional talking to thin air but in either case you have proved another's existence with the question or you are just stark raving mad.

To conclude, can I prove I exist? Yes, I am writing a response to your post on the topic, that in itself essentially proves I exist! The mere process of thinking proves one’s existence. Descartes proved this (albeit unintentionally, using my interpretation) using his famous “I think therefore I am”. Yet, thinking does not (and will not) prove the reality (or context) in which they are thinking.

Well, it is true that by asking "you," I am making the assumption there is a "you" to ask. But it is asking whether or not "you" are something beyond a mental construct.

The question has deeper implications that whether or not a person exists.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is it more useful to remain in the imperfective state of becoming than to exist in a state of "I am"?

Yes and no. "I am" is a declaration of being. "I become" is a recognition of process. My experience is that they are one in the same.