Prove you Exist.

[Willamena]

When you said "I am thinking," you assumed the existence of what you were trying to prove. The "I" of the conclusion, "I exist," was already included in the assertion "I am thinking."

Is there another concept for thinking other than thinking --one that I'm missing, perhaps?

What does it mean, "to think"?

 

[Willamena]

that still doesn't prove physical existence

It a logical "proof." That's what you asked for. It's only purpose is to provide a logical outcome within the context of the premises given.

M'thinks you shouldn't have asked for logic, as it won't satisfy what you want.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I am not able to post links, but there is a paper addressing this issue available if you google ... It is a pdf file

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Logic and Existence[/FONT]
Steve Kuhn
Department of Philosophy​

Georgetown University

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/kuhns/supp_files/logicandexistence.pdf

On first glance this is about Anselm's proof for the existence of God which has been proven to be unsound.

 

[doppelganger]

Existence is not a consequence of being known by properties, it is "being, known by properties."

But thinking is the organization of being, according to properties. So you've simply changed the definition of "existence" to mean "thinking" and you get the proof: "I think, therefore I think."

 

[Willamena]

But thinking is the organization of being, according to properties. So you've simply changed the definition of "existence" to mean "thinking" and you get the proof: "I think, therefore I think."

I'm more concerned with demonstrating that the statement doesn't contain two consequential ideas, but one whole idea, and so doesn't fit that particular fallacy.

I like that definition of thinking (very much), and I'm not necessarily agreeing with the premise that equates thinking with existing, just supporting it as logical.

I should probably shut up, now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Cogito ergo errato

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Anselm's proof:

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.
2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."
3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.
4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.
5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.
6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.
7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality. 8. Therefore, God exists.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Anselm's proof:

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.
2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."
3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.
4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.
5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.
6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.
7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality. 8. Therefore, God exists.

Only a fool is convinced by this argument.

 

[Willamena]

Anselm's proof:

1. The Fool asserts that God does not exist.
2. What is called "God" is "a being than which no greater can be conceived."
3. The Fool agrees that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" exists in the mind, since he understands the words.
4. To say that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" does not exist is to say that such a being is only an idea--it does not exist in the mind and in reality.
5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.
6. So, the Fool believes that "a being than which no greater can be conceived" is "a being than which a greater can be conceived" which is impossible.
7. Therefore, since "a being than which no greater can be conceived" cannot exist in the mind alone (because that is self-contradictory) such a being must exist in both mind and reality. 8. Therefore, God exists.

My first problem with that is that "greater" is ambiguous and not defined.

What do you think of this proof, Sandy?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

My first problem with that is that "greater" is ambiguous and not defined.

What do you think of this proof, Sandy?

It was accepted for almost 100 years. It has since proven to be flawed. I only brought it up as it seems that is what Red Phil's post was talking about.

Here are some criticisms of Anselm's proof:
Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Is there another concept for thinking other than thinking --one that I'm missing, perhaps?

What does it mean, "to think"?

Thinking wasn't called into question it was the use of "I" in both the premise and the conclusion which assumes your existence.

 

[Willamena]

5. But such a being, which exists in the mind alone, is in fact "a being than which a greater can be conceived" since it is greater to exist in both mind and reality than just mind alone.

What makes it "greater" to exist in both mind and reality, as opposed to just mind?

If it's "greater" because there is existence in two states instead of one, couldn't the same be said of something we don't yet know (i.e. exists in "just reality" but not in mind). Are those things "greater" that we know of than the ones we don't?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What makes it "greater" to exist in both mind and reality, as opposed to just mind?

That is one of the premises that was called into question.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It doesn't look like it. An "Affirming the Consequent" example goes: 'if she is studying mathematics then she is not studying English' and 'she is not studying English' so 'she is studying mathematics'. There is a consequence stated in the first premise that is drawn into the conclusion. That is not the case in what Fluffy said.

That is not the only usage of affirming the consequent:
"If Bacon wrote Hamlet, then Bacon was a great writer; Bacon was a great writer; Therefore Bacon wrote Hamlet."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It a logical "proof." That's what you asked for. It's only purpose is to provide a logical outcome within the context of the premises given.

Perhaps I hadn't thought the question through far enough. Physical existence of anything is what I was after.

M'thinks you shouldn't have asked for logic, as it won't satisfy what you want.

Actually it's the lack of one I might be looking for. I assumed, though, that one exists.

 

[Jistyr]

Logically, I don't exist.

Premise - At some point in time there was nothing, but I am here now.
Inference - Something cannot come from nothing.
Conclusion - I do not exist.

Yet, here I am.

Logic is about the worst tool for explaining existence, so I recommend that you actually leave room for other types of philosophy.

 

[Willamena]

Thinking wasn't called into question it was the use of "I" in both the premise and the conclusion which assumes your existence.

"I" understand "I" to be a placeholder for the identity of a conscious individual. It needn't be self-evident for the purposes of the proof, just a linguistic convenience (gotta call it something in order to discuss it).

Perhaps I hadn't thought the question through far enough. Physical existence of anything is what I was after.


Actually it's the lack of one I might be looking for. I assumed, though, that one exists.

"I" think you might find better answers looking to philosophy, but that's just what "I" think.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Logically, I don't exist.

Premise - At some point in time there was nothing, but I am here now.
Inference - Something cannot come from nothing.
Conclusion - I do not exist.

Yet, here I am.

Logic is about the worst tool for explaining existence, so I recommend that you actually leave room for other types of philosophy.

You can't prove that you don't exist. Proof presupposses existence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"I" understand "I" to be a placeholder for the identity of a conscious individual. It needn't be self-evident for the purposes of the proof, just a linguistic convenience (gotta call it something in order to discuss it).


"I" think you might find better answers looking to philosophy, but that's just what "I" think.

It may be that the lack of a formal logical proof for existence is important, ie. "There is no proof that God exists, therefore God does not exist." Assuming that what is being asked for to be possible, when it's not, can nullify that whole thinking of saying that one can believe in God because He logically doesn't exist (logically you can't prove that something doesn't esist). If nothing can be logically proven to exist then that form of thinking as the only basis for believing in something means that you believe in nothing.

 

[Fluffy]

This could prove that Socrates was mortal. So would tha concept that he is dead. It in no way proves socrates existed except as maybe as an idea.

I'm sorry about being pedantic but I have not been able to understand what you meant by a "formal logical argument" in your previous posts since we appear to understand some terms, such as "philosophy", "logic" and "reason" very differently. The intention behind posting that syllogism was to ensure that you accepted a disamis syllogism as a valid formal logical argument and not to prove the existence of Socrates. Since you agree that this does prove that Socrates is mortal then I assume that you do accept the disamis syllogism as a valid formal logical argument.

This is still a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent" which I have explained twice already.

Affirming the Consequent takes the following form:
P1 If P, then Q
P2 Q
C Therefore, P

If an argument is not in this form then it is not affirming the consequent because this is the definition of such an argument.

However my argument is in the form:
P1 Some P has the property Q
P2 All Q have the property R
C Some P have the property R
where P = I, Q = thinks, R = existance

The main difference is that my argument has 3 variables whereas affirming the consequent can only happen if the argument has 2.

The instantiation principle does not necessarily prove that something physically exists. It may only prove the idea that something exists.

The instantiation principle does neither of these things. It says that if something has a property then it necessarily exists since otherwise there would be nothing there to have that property in the first place.

In P1, I identify that something has a property. In P2, I identify that anything with a property must exist. C, follows from these premises.

I don't see this. Explain further please.

A disamis syllogism consists of a particular affirmative in the first premise, a universal affirmative in the second premise and a particular affirmative in the conclusion.

In my argument, the first premise is "I am thinking". This says that a particular thing (I) has a property (thinking). It is therefore a particular affirmative.
The second premise is "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists". This says that anything that has a property (thinking) is within a set (exists). It is therefore a universal affirmative.
The conclusion is "I exist". This says that a particular thing (I) is within a set (exists). It is therefore a particular affirmative.

When you said "I am thinking," you assumed the existence of what you were trying to prove. The "I" of the conclusion, "I exist," was already included in the assertion "I am thinking."

You are saying that the argument is question begging. It only matters that an argument is question begging if the assumption is unfounded. However, I justified my first premise. You'll need to show why my justification for P1 is insufficient.

You can't prove that you don't exist. Proof presupposses existence.

If socrates is a man and if all men are mortal then socrates would be mortal. I have just proved that scorates would be mortal if socrates is a man and if all men were mortal. Therefore, I exist.

OR

If you consider "You can't prove that you don't exist" to be proven then you have proven your own existence.

Logically, I don't exist.

Premise - At some point in time there was nothing, but I am here now.
Inference - Something cannot come from nothing.
Conclusion - I do not exist.

Yet, here I am.

Logic is about the worst tool for explaining existence, so I recommend that you actually leave room for other types of philosophy.

That is a perfectly fine argument. The problem is that you haven't demonstrated the truth of your premises and so it is not a proof. Either the premise or the inference is incorrect or you do not exist.