So, how CAN we prove that we exist?

[Willamena]

So, all this is debatable, as in I'd like to debate it (or already have). Thus coming back to the "properly defined" language you used before is, IMO, the first hurdle you are yet to get over. But good luck!

I do like how "waking" is in quotes, cause in my night dreams I am "wide awake."

Only if you consider the coming to terms as debatable.


If you do, then debate is defeated.

 

[Acim]

Only if you consider the coming to terms as debatable.

If you do, then debate is defeated.

Then the debate is defeated. The notion of "properly defined" can't be one-sided, can it?

If I "properly define" God as all that exists, then have I not plenty of evidence of God's existence? What atheist could 'lack belief of God' if God is properly defined?

 

[Willamena]

Then the debate is defeated.

Yes.

I "properly define" God as all that exists, then have I not plenty of evidence of God's existence? What atheist could 'lack belief of God' if God is properly defined?

If you say so.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Funny. I was just yesterday reading an article on physicists who were asking much the same question. i.e. how do we know anything is real.

That's not quite the same thing .. existence itself does not rely on physical reality.
I personally don't see why a proof is necessary. Without existing, we wouldn't experience anything

 

[Acim]

We can, if terms are properly defined.

If you say so....

 

[Sunstone]

That's not quite the same thing .. existence itself does not rely on physical reality.
I personally don't see why a proof is necessary. Without existing, we wouldn't experience anything

I've gone back and edited my post for clarity since my use of the term "real" seems to have thrown you and perhaps some other people off the scent, so to speak.

 

[ThorirTheHound]

Funny. I was just yesterday reading an article on physicists who were asking much the same question. i.e. how do we know anything is real, or in what sense does the universe exist.

Well, they're poor physicists then and they're wasting their time and investments. They should be fired.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, they're poor physicists then and they're wasting their time and investments. They should be fired.

You seem to consider what is termed as pure sciences, theoretical science as useless. Einstein was wrong to have speculated in 1905?

 

[ThorirTheHound]

You seem to consider what is termed as pure sciences, theoretical science as useless. Einstein was wrong to have speculated in 1905?

I never said anyone is wrong.. I said it's a waste of time and pointless. Childish questions that obviously cannot and will not ever be answered. It's like asking an Atheist "Can you prove there is no God?"

Shouldn't we focus on more important issues?

I could care less if Einstein asked those questions.. Big deal. What does that have to do with the fact it's a pointless question?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I was pondering further on Descartes' "I think therefore I am".

Is it really thoughts that lead to the sense of "I am", or does it go deeper? Does that sense of "I am" really go away when we are not thinking? I would say that the sense of "I am" dissipates when the mind is still and thought-free, but it is still there in the background, like a deep-seated assumption, almost instinctual.

 

[Willamena]

Do you mind elaborating a little? This is really interesting!

Sorry to delay responding.

Existence refers to things, where reality refers to truth. For the philosophical 'realist,' for whom the truth of things extends beyond what is verifiable (i.e. by a person), they can be conflated: "things" truly exist; so only "true" things exist; and the picture of the world encompasses true things.

Things are mental objects. Truth is things cast outside the mind to become reality.

So, the question remains, how would this be proven?

Again, wouldn't a night dream be depicting the same picture?

It is demonstrated with definition. With proper terms defined, the picture of the world is framed cohesively and doubt is unnecessary, even impossible.

 

[Willamena]

I was pondering further on Descartes' "I think therefore I am".

Is it really thoughts that lead to the sense of "I am", or does it go deeper? Does that sense of "I am" really go away when we are not thinking? I would say that the sense of "I am" dissipates when the mind is still and thought-free, but it is still there in the background, like a deep-seated assumption, almost instinctual.

It's language, and our investment in an ability to properly portray the world in words (instilled from our first moment of sucessful communication), that leads to Descartes's conclusion: every verb (to think) has a corresponding subject (the thinker).

 

[jonathan180iq]

I still don't see a problem with Descarte's 'I think therefor I am'.

I don't often agree with George, and I do here.

So, you can be pretty certain that this is the right answer.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think the best test for whether or not something is real is logical consistency.

I have expectations about myself and the world around me when I wake up in the morning that are very similar to what I expected and experienced the day before. I can do this because I have observed and experienced these same set of consistent things on a daily basis from the day I was born. Similarly, people around me expect and experience things in much the same way as I do, allowing us to come to collective agreements about things. For example, we all know and agree on what grass is. We all know and agree on what trees are. We all know and agree that they are mostly green... These consistent and shared experiences are what allow things like language to exist, etc.

This constant logical consistency is what we bank on for determining what is real and what isn't. Dreams, coincidentally, are inconsistent and often illogical - so we recognize what happens in our dream worlds as not being real or tangible, but are projections and illusions of our minds. This is very different from the independent world that surrounds us on a daily basis.

 

[gnostic]

That's a philosophical can of worms.

Then you will have another problem...

...next, you will be asking if the question is the "can" real? Or do these "worms" exist in the "can"?

Is it a wonder that I find philosophy to be nothing more than sophistry?

I get a terrible headache from all these questions and challenges from all sides, where they (arguments) are all true...or all false...depending on how you look at things.

Arrgh!

 

[Acim]

It is demonstrated with definition. With proper terms defined, the picture of the world is framed cohesively and doubt is unnecessary, even impossible.

So, by this logic God exists and doubt of God's existence is impossible. All things within night dreams are real, and doubt is impossible.

 

[Willamena]

So, by this logic God exists and doubt of God's existence is impossible. All things within night dreams are real, and doubt is impossible.

Real and exists are different things. Night dreams do not have to be real to exist. God does not have to exist to be real.

 

[Acim]

Real and exists are different things. Night dreams do not have to be real to exist. God does not have to exist to be real.

What are real things that don't exist? Please explain that.
I get how existing things don't have to be real.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is mainly related to arguments that say that "there is no way to prove that we exist" or that "the universe is a projection/illusion". I remember reading somewhere that Descartes had an argument against this notion as he believed that you can't deny your self when your self is doing the denying in the first place. Realist philosophers from India had arguments using specific topics such as Apratak Siddhi etc. While these arguments seem quite logical, I am wondering if there are flaws in them and if there are better arguments.

So, from the various schools of philosophy out there, have you come across any argument that you believe logically proves that we exist (realism) and have kept your sanity at check? I would also be interested in hearing the opposite side of the argument as well.

Thank you!

I am not philosophical much anymore. Unless we think of ourselves as an illusion or our perception of what is real physically doesn't exist, I don't see much argument in whether we exist or not. Unless you feel we are an illusion or sci fi, we exist just by us being here. I think Decartes has a point. I dont understand how anyone can argue against it.

 

[Willamena]

What are real things that don't exist? Please explain that.
I get how existing things don't have to be real.

Real refers to the truth of a thing. Abstracts, like properties or numbers, are an example of real "things" (symbolic entities) that have no inherent existence.