Prove you Exist.

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

that is a Red Herring. the contradiction to "I am thinking" is "Not-I is thinking" which still has what you are trying to prove, existence, applying to your premise.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says, and vanishes.​

 

[Popeyesays]

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

There is a me. I'm pretty sure, there's ayou.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

I'm pretty sure, there's a you.

What am I?

 

[Popeyesays]

What am I?

A solipsist.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

A solipsist.

Nope. Guess again.

 

[Random]

Identity is a fiction. Thus, how could "I" even begin to prove that "I" exist?

 

[doppelganger]

Identity is a fiction. Thus, how could "I" even begin to prove that "I" exist?

Exactly. And this is NOT solipsism.

How could a tool measure itself, when it has only itself as a measure?

 

[Francine]

Identity is a fiction. Thus, how could "I" even begin to prove that "I" exist?

By stopping payment on your mortgage. You get noticed real quick.

 

[doppelganger]

By stopping payment on your mortgage. You get noticed real quick.

Your account gets noticed.

 

[Francine]

Your account gets noticed.

It's not your account that gets phone calls from creditors.

 

[doppelganger]

It's not your account that gets phone calls from creditors.

From the creditors' perspective it is.

 

[Willamena]

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

What if the self one exists as is the entire universe. Is that sill solipsism in your book? Is that still egocentrism?

 

[Willamena]

My main point is that things can exist where formal logic fails. It is quite reasonable on the other hand to know things exist.

That's the same hand.

 

[Popeyesays]

What if the self one exists as is the entire universe. Is that sill solipsism in your book? Is that still egocentrism?

I live in a universe populated with many creatures--some undoubtedly as intelligent as I, some as unintelligent as a lump of basalt.

The universes are made up of "things". God is not a "thing".

Regards,
Scott

 

[Willamena]

I live in a universe populated with many creatures--some undoubtedly as intelligent as I, some as unintelligent as a lump of basalt.

The universes are made up of "things". God is not a "thing".

Isn't being a "self" inside the universe more egocentric than being the universe in "sefl"?

 

[Popeyesays]

Isn't being a "self" inside the universe more egocentric than being the universe in "sefl"?

No.

Regards,
Scott

 

[rojse]

I live in a universe populated with many creatures--some undoubtedly as intelligent as I, some as unintelligent as a lump of basalt.

The universes are made up of "things". God is not a "thing".

Regards,
Scott

Indeed God is - he is the thing of things.

 

[doppelganger]

Isn't being a "self" inside the universe more egocentric than being the universe in "sefl"?

Yes it is. In the former, the "other" things and people in the universe are replaced with one's own images of those things. In the latter, one is aware that those are images.

 

[logician]

Indeed God is - he is the thing of things.

What happened to "king of kings"?