Prove you Exist.

[Godfather89]

If I can perceive the world subjectively and I do perceive something whether it be the world or my mental model of the world. Therefore, I exist...

The term Solipsism rings a bell with this thread for something... Its the belief that you are the only thing that does exist and everything around you is fake...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

I'll accept that.

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 need to prove you exist before you can prove that the "I" in P1 is actually thinking. Assigning it a property does not prove it's existence.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I don't know; I've never been fond of proofs. I think evidence is far more fun and interesting to play with, and results in far more things to believe in. The world is evidenced to us in things like physical sensation, the ebb and flow of life, and the moving words and brilliant ideas of the people around us; we are evidenced to us in our knowledge of our "self" and our active participation in the world; and we evidence the world with our being (what some, I believe, call "witness"). And that we evidence things in logical proofs to me only represents a small portion of things to believe in.


And PS, I do believe in nothing (that's the mystic's bane).

 

[Willamena]

You need to prove you exist before you can prove that the "I" in P1 is actually thinking. Assigning it a property does not prove it's existence.

That's why I questioned "thinking", what is meant by it.

 

[Fluffy]

You need to prove you exist before you can prove that the "I" in P1 is actually thinking. Assigning it a property does not prove it's existence.

Either:
a) I am not begging the question and the argument is valid and sound in which case the conclusion "I exist" is true
b) I am begging the question but P1 is true and so "I exist" is true
c) I am begging the question but P1 is false and so "I exist" is not necessarily true

For the sake of argument, lets assume that a) is not the case.

I said:

If P1 were not the case then its contradiction "I am not thinking" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P1 is the case.

Since P1 must be the case, and you feel that P1 is already claiming my existence, this is sufficient to prove my existence and so P2 and C are unnecessary. P1 does it all for me.

If P1 does not claim my existence then I am not begging the question and a) is the case.

In both cases, I have proven that I exist.

 

[Jistyr]

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

You can't prove that you exist either.

 

[Fluffy]

You can't prove that you exist either.

The hole in the proof that I provide in this debate is yet to be identified.

Can you prove anything? If so then if "Proof presupposes existence" then one only needs to prove something in order to prove their own existence.

 

[Popeyesays]

Main Entry: so·lip·sism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-ləp-ˌsi-zəm, ˈsä-\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self Date: 1874 : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

emphasis added

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

Main Entry: so·lip·sism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-ləp-ˌsi-zəm, ˈsä-\

What if one can't even prove the self exists, Scott?

 

[Darkness]

If I do not exist then non-existence is quite good. The whole idea is a semantic play. Whatever you label this, existence or non-existence, is utterly meaningless. If that is hard for you to understand then think of this: is a dream real? People might quickly say no, but what they really mean is that a dream is not real in the sense that the people, places and things are not made up of the same atoms that your mental eye perceives them to be made of. However, it is made up of electrical impulses and you do experience a dream. Ergo, while it is not real in the sense another person is real, it is real in another fashion.

 

[Popeyesays]

What if one can't even prove the self exists, Scott?

I'm sorry, I have no doubt whatsoever that I exist. I don't have to play solipsism sweepstakes this year, I've paid my dues.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rojse]

I could duck.

Still, it proves that you are able to perceive outside stimuli other than yourself.

 

[gnostic]

I had blister on my foot about a month ago. That prove I existed....painfully so.

 

[blackout]

.....

 

[doppelganger]

I'm sorry, I have no doubt whatsoever that I exist. I don't have to play solipsism sweepstakes this year, I've paid my dues.

The point is, you're misusing the word "solipsism", Scott.

 

[Popeyesays]

The point is, you're misusing the word "solipsism", Scott.

I am using it precisely, Dop.

Main Entry: so·lip·sism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-ləp-ˌsi-zəm, ˈsä-\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self Date: 1874 : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism
— so·lip·sist \ˈsō-ləp-sist, ˈsä-ləp-, sə-ˈlip-\ noun
— so·lip·sis·tic \ˌsō-ləp-ˈsis-tik, ˌsä-\ adjective
— so·lip·sis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

The fact is that when you pay the band to play the Solipsism Tango, you have no one to dance with.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

I am using it precisely, Dop.

You are using it imprecisely, Scott. The fact is, if there's no you, there's no dancing at all.

 

[Engyo]

All of this is a very nice proof of the Buddhist concepts of impermanence or anicca, and non-self or anatta.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

What if one can't even prove the self exists, Scott?

that doesn't mean it doesn't exist only that logic cannot prove it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All of this is a very nice proof of the Buddhist concepts of impermanence or anicca, and non-self or anatta.

I don't see that. My main point is that things can exist where formal logic fails. It is quite reasonable on the other hand to know things exist.