So, how CAN we prove that we exist?

[Kelloggs]

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!

If you kill yourself, would you then "wake up from this dream"?

 

[Ana.J]

That would seem to depend on what one meant by "we", etc. For instance, it is simple enough to observe that thoughts exist because the very observance of that fact is itself thinking. So if by "we", one means thoughts, then one can reasonably assert that we exist.

I do not associate myself with my thoughts. Because that would mean that if my mind is clear and silent I cease to exist. I think I am spiritual consciousness - infinite and loving part of God. But I cannot prove that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

'Real' and 'exists' are not the same thing.

That's a philosophical can of worms.

 

[Acim]

We can, if terms are properly defined.

I say, go ahead, give it your best shot.

The idea of "if terms are properly defined" would be at the heart of debate. I think you are saying if terms are allowed to be defined in a particular way.

'Real' and 'exists' are not the same thing.

I think for this type of debate, they are fairly close to the same thing. Otherwise, it then becomes a matter of "does this really exist?" Cause, one could say "if terms are properly defined, one can prove the existence of God." But denying or doubting certain definitions, I think would thrust the matter into contentious debate. Well, at least as much of my experience on RF has shown to be.

I'd come back to my conviction that we exist (physically) as illusion. If "we exist as illusion" equals "we exist," then I would agree that we exist can probably be proven. But leaving off the 'as illusion' part would mean to me anything currently in the illusion domain also "does most certainly exist." Pink unicorns certainly do exist.

 

[viole]

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

And I don't see a problem if God said: you do not think, therefore I AM.

Kidding, of course.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

I say, go ahead, give it your best shot.

The idea of "if terms are properly defined" would be at the heart of debate. I think you are saying if terms are allowed to be defined in a particular way.

We experience the world as sensations stored in memory, interpreted as mind. Additionally, memory harbours all those impressions that are *about* the world: judgements of all sorts, that result in assumptions, measures, values, biases, predictions, etc., that also make up the world. A picture of the world independent of us. Reality.

"Real" refers to truth, which is to say that its affirmation is going to promote an agreeable, sensical, and orderly picture of the world. To say that Bigfoot is real is to say that Bigfoot truely exists... Which is to say that "truely" is the manner in which Bigfoot exists. *That* Bigfoot exists is assumed in assessing the *manner* in which it exists: real or unreal.

Existence refers to thingliness. Bigfoot gets to be a thing as long as we need to assess the manner in which he exists. (The implication of "...exists to a mind" is a given.) When we've no need to think anything about Bigfoot, he is no longer a thing... Until we think of Bigfoot again. Existence is affirmed each time we think *about* a thing.

Things exist. Existence is nothing more than things.

(The OP refers to "realism," which is when we invest belief in that picture of the world independent of us, and imagine that thingliness persists.)

Similarly, that Bigfoot is unreal indicates a manner in which Bigfoot exists, one that doesn't fit into the big picture of orderliness. The big picture that comprises the world to each of us, composed on the canvas of the mind, is painted in truth/untruth.

As an example, "real" is the truth delivered to mind directly through the senses: the taste of an apple, the touch of another person. "Real" is truth deduced by mind with unbreakable correctness: the solidity of the ground under your step, or the "up-ness" of the sky. "Real" is truth that is fickle, as immediate and impermanent as truth itself.

I think for this type of debate, they are fairly close to the same thing. Otherwise, it then becomes a matter of "does this really exist?" Cause, one could say "if terms are properly defined, one can prove the existence of God." But denying or doubting certain definitions, I think would thrust the matter into contentious debate. Well, at least as much of my experience on RF has shown to be.

The addition of the word "really" adds nothing to "Does this exist?" because you're asking to be told the truth. I hope.

I'd come back to my conviction that we exist (physically) as illusion. If "we exist as illusion" equals "we exist," then I would agree that we can probably be proven. But leaving off the 'as illusion' part would mean to me anything currently in the illusion domain also "does most certainly exist." Pink unicorns certainly do exist.

It's only "illusion" if you take what is real and exists to be more than they are (realism). Otherwise, it is all that existence always has been.

Everything exists in some manner--existence itself is not a manner. Pink unicorns exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion, or as a fantasy, or as an imagining, or as an actuality, etc. Their existence, their thingliness, is not questionable, else we couldn't even talk about them. It's not their existence that is questionable, but the manner of their existence, no matter that it is left unsaid when a person asks, "Does this thing exist?" The manner is still implied there: actual, true, or real.

 

[Acim]

We experience the world as sensations stored in memory, interpreted as mind. Additionally, memory harbours all those impressions that are *about* the world: judgements of all sorts, that result in assumptions, measures, values, biases, predictions, etc., that also make up the world. A picture of the world independent of us. Reality.

"Real" refers to truth, which is to say that its affirmation is going to promote an agreeable, sensical, and orderly picture of the world. To say that Bigfoot is real is to say that Bigfoot truely exists... Which is to say that "truely" is the manner in which Bigfoot exists. *That* Bigfoot exists is assumed in assessing the *manner* in which it exists: real or unreal.

Existence refers to thingliness. Bigfoot gets to be a thing as long as we need to assess the manner in which he exists. (The implication of "...exists to a mind" is a given.) When we've no need to think anything about Bigfoot, he is no longer a thing... Until we think of Bigfoot again. Existence is affirmed each time we think *about* a thing.

Things exist. Existence is nothing more than things.

(The OP refers to "realism," which is when we invest belief in that picture of the world independent of us, and imagine that thingliness persists.)

Similarly, that Bigfoot is unreal indicates a manner in which Bigfoot exists, one that doesn't fit into the big picture of orderliness. The big picture that comprises the world to each of us, composed on the canvas of the mind, is painted in truth/untruth.

As an example, "real" is the truth delivered to mind directly through the senses: the taste of an apple, the touch of another person. "Real" is truth deduced by mind with unbreakable correctness: the solidity of the ground under your step, or the "up-ness" of the sky. "Real" is truth that is fickle, as immediate and impermanent as truth itself.


The addition of the word "really" adds nothing to "Does this exist?" because you're asking to be told the truth. I hope.


It's only "illusion" if you take what is real and exists to be more than they are (realism). Otherwise, it is all that existence always has been.

Everything exists in some manner--existence itself is not a manner. Pink unicorns exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion, or as a fantasy, or as an imagining, or as an actuality, etc. Their existence, their thingliness, is not questionable, else we couldn't even talk about them. It's not their existence that is questionable, but the manner of their existence, no matter that it is left unsaid when a person asks, "Does this thing exist?" The manner is still implied there: actual, true, or real.

I strongly commend you for this effort.

Based on what came before this, I see you saying "existence" as properly defined amounts to: Things exist. Existence is nothing more than things.
I find this a fascinating choice of words, as "nothing more than" uses the root word "things" within what is being claimed.

But I observe you jumping to conclusions, that I don't necessarily disagree with, but not sure how the leap in logic is made: such as "Bigfoot is unreal" or Pink unicorns exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion."
To me, this is not different than jumping to conclusion that trees are unreal, or scientific understanding exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion.

From what you say is real, then all things within a (night) dream are real, for the mind does sense taste of an apple, touch of another person. Therefore experience within a dream is (as) real (as experiences believed to not be in a dream world). Things most definitely exist within the (dream) world. Existence is things, or so you say.

I honestly don't see how you leapt from your first 2 statements, to "A picture of the world independent of us. Reality." - when everything that precedes this is clearly depending on "We experience the world as sensations stored in memory, interpreted as mind."

Your move.

 

[Willamena]

I strongly commend you for this effort.

Based on what came before this, I see you saying "existence" as properly defined amounts to: Things exist. Existence is nothing more than things.
I find this a fascinating choice of words, as "nothing more than" uses the root word "things" within what is being claimed.

But I observe you jumping to conclusions, that I don't necessarily disagree with, but not sure how the leap in logic is made: such as "Bigfoot is unreal" or Pink unicorns exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion."
To me, this is not different than jumping to conclusion that trees are unreal, or scientific understanding exist as an example conjured to demonstrate illusion.

They are not conclusions, just examples.

From what you say is real, then all things within a (night) dream are real, for the mind does sense taste of an apple, touch of another person. Therefore experience within a dream is (as) real (as experiences believed to not be in a dream world). Things most definitely exist within the (dream) world. Existence is things, or so you say.

Dreams are composed from memories, though obviously not in the same way as the "waking" world.

I honestly don't see how you leapt from your first 2 statements, to "A picture of the world independent of us. Reality." - when everything that precedes this is clearly depending on "We experience the world as sensations stored in memory, interpreted as mind."

Your move.

The world is the picture.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Chakra,

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!

Given our limitations as human beings, we cannot be 100% certain of anything. Yet it makes the most logical sense to me to assume material reality as our baseline for existence, and therefore that we do exist as physical beings. Certainly reality as we experience it is not exactly the same as actual reality, given how our brains and senses evolved to perceive and think in ways which enhance our survival, rather than to show us the real truth about reality. Yet the fact that we can observe a material reality which operates independently of our mental control clearly indicates a non-illusory reality, and not a dreamlike state which depends upon our thoughts and feelings or on some imagined deity. For instance, a person who dies clearly shows the signs that they have ceased to exist (i.e. the heart stops, the body begins to decay, there's no measurable brain activity), indicating that our minds depend on our physical bodies for survival, beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding. While we can intellectually speculate about various and even rather interesting metaphysical systems which might seek to explain material reality as illusory, I find that these basically amount to imaginative speculation.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Willamena,

Yes, but significantly, there is only evidence that we exist. There is none to contradict it. So, best case scenario, there should be no possibility to doubt.

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding the existence of illusions, eh? When you place a straw in a glass of water and see it displaced at the surface, that it's not truly broken doesn't impact the illusion, which occurs again and again. The displacement isn't real (which relates to truth) but the illusion exists (existence is independent of truth).

The real problem is a tendency to loosely conflate terms. That's something RF cured me of in my short tenure here.

I agree. I find that for those who postulate that material existence is an illusion, there's indeed a tendency to conflate differing concepts of illusion. Concerning the straw in a glass analogy, we can discern the "bend" in the straw is indeed illusory. Yet for some, they'd jump to the conclusion that the straw, the glass, and the water are therefore themselves all illusory. But this conclusion does not at all follow. The physical objects evidently exist, even though our perceptions of them can diverge from their real properties.

 

[Acim]

They are not conclusions, just examples.

So, then no proof being offered?

Dreams are composed from memories, though obviously not in the same way as the "waking" world.

This would be part of the proof. I've seen nothing you've presented that would distinguish between the two (experiences).

The world is the picture.

That depends on the mind, or how would you prove the picture is independent of us?

 

[Willamena]

That depends on the mind, or how would you prove the picture is independent of us?

The world is independent of us in the picture. It's a picture of the world independent of us.

 

[Scott C.]

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!

We have very limited intelligence and only five senses, all of which have very limited spectrum, to perceive our reality. It's probably best to not be too certain of anything.

 

[bobhikes]

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!

How I prove I exist.
I think therefore I am, I must exist is some form, it may not be what I perceive but I have a form.
How I prove I exist as I am in a reality I perceive.
The complexity of life, back in the day they couldn't travel the world or visit the stars. The more we learn, the more we find how complex this reality is. Each blade of grass, each individual, each sense is unique no program or hologram or demon could create such a detailed complete reality.

In the matrix even with years of trials and there best computer world people kept waking up. It would be the same for us, unless it was real we would wake up. So not knowing also proves its real.

 

[Chakra]

'Real' and 'exists' are not the same thing.

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

 

[Twilight Hue]

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!

Maybe it's worth concidering first that existance is essentally multifaceted and composite in nature.

Saint Thomas, also known as Aquinas, provides some interesting interpretations of existance as it applies with composite forms. Not sure what school of philosophy this would apply givin his religious affiliation with the church, yet I find him to have been quite interesting and quite adept.

 

[Acim]

The world is independent of us in the picture. It's a picture of the world independent of us.

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

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

 

[Segev Moran]

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!

Well.. That's a very hard question...
I guess it depends on what you mean when you say prove that we exist...
Its like the known question, If a tree falls in the forest and no being heard it.. did it really happen?

There is also a very interesting experiment with photons that shows us they change their behavior whether someone is watching the experiment or not...
When observed, they act like waves.. when not, they act like particles...
So you could argue that what you see is changing based on your thought or awareness about it.
Can you really know for sure that the universe exists behind you?
If you look forward, and there is no sound or smell or anything that you can sense behind you, Is it really there?
some more examples can be your own sound...
You sound differently than you think..
All of us actually live in the past.. It takes the brain a friction of a second (10th of a second or so) to process the image the eyes send to it.. It is today know that the brain "Guesses" what is happening in order to "Fix" this deviation..
So for example, If you fall from a building and get to very fast speed.. the brain will shut it self down a fraction before your body actually hits the ground.. as the brain "thinks" you hit the ground before you actually did...

I Think we can't really prove we actually exist until we understand what existence is...
Same goes for God.. we can't really prove It exists until we understand what it means...

The Term "I think therefore I Am" Deals with the question of the human mind...
Are you real or just the fact we think we are real is what makes us real?

I Define existence as something I can see, feel, hear, taste, smell etc.
So as far as I'm concerned.. a Dream is just as real of an experience as any other...
The thing is we Know that the dream is a fiction of our mind, but we can't really know for sure
Also, let's say Love.. I Know it exists.. I experience love (Every day thankfully )
and i know its a real feeling.. but on the other hand, I know it is a mechanism of the brain that makes me feel what I am feeling...

 

[Willamena]

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

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

I have not yet offered a proof, still considering. I've only defined terms. But it would be the question of self that I intend to base my argument on.

Dream isn't significant: dream is drawn from the same memories that give us the "waking" world.

 

[Acim]

I have not yet offered a proof, still considering. I've only defined terms. But it would be the question of self that I intend to base my argument on.

Dream isn't significant: dream is drawn from the same memories that give us the "waking" world.

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."