A friend posed this question to me yesterday: How can we prove we exist?

 

 

 

I responded with: "We can see that we are made up of cells that move."

 

 

 

She said: "But how can you prove that what we see actually exists, and isn't just imagination (in the strongest sense)?

 

 

 

What are your ideas?

The first is very easily solved with cogito ergo sum.

 

 

 

The second is trickier because you'd have to find an objective proof.

 

 

 

But really, if you're looking for one of those, then the first isn't answerable, either.

You are one with the matrix.

The fact that we have intelligence is enough for me. I don't bother myself with these questions. I mean, I think that is is quite depressing that people need to answer it.

 

 

 

On other news...

 

BARACK OBAMA WON!

ha, whats up with these unanswerable questions recently..

 

 

 

There is nothing to prove.. Think about it.

Your question is a contradiction in itself. For one to have some kind of mental state, as you said imagination, one must exist. A mental presence is as much reality and existence as a solid-state presence. Both are real, neither can be there without the other. :roll:

 

These threads questioning reality, with unanswerable questions are starting to annoy me, they really have no point whatsoever.

TBH I have this big feeling that life is a big dream.

 

I'm just waiting for the moment when I get woken up by someone.

 

Therefore I treat life like a big dream / experiment.

 

 

 

I have heaps of random theories like that.

 

If I share them with you, you'll be weirded out -_-

If you want to be extreme you can pretty much logically say that you can't prove anything at all. It's all a question on how far you're willing to question things :P

If we wanted to prove our existence, we would have to find something that does not exist.

Well I'm no scientist or a smart student but I'm pretty sure that I exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

 

 

 

Not my cup of tea, but it's the kind of thing everyone should know about.

All of our senses are really just electrical nerve signals fed into our brain which are interpreted as sound, sight, touch etc.

 

 

 

The fact that they always seem to line up and coincide with each other is the only proof that we actually exist as we think we do.

If we wanted to prove our existence, we would have to find something that does not exist.

 

Please explain your poorly thought out statement.

Who cares really?

 

 

 

Life goes on, the same stuff happens, and will always happen(or appear to) whether we exist or not.

If we wanted to prove our existence, we would have to find something that does not exist.

 

Please explain your poorly thought out statement.

 

It's a pretty good an' old philosophical explanation of how we define things. Basically, we define things as what is and what is not "it".

 

 

 

Using a hypothetical should help explain it. Let's say we enter a room, and in this room there is nothing but a four-legged wooden thing with two carved planks placed perpindicular to each other atop the legs. We can look at that and call it a "chair", but with nothing else in the room of differing characteristics and no prior knowledge of such a thing we can't really understand what makes that chair a chair. Now, after much waiting and pondering, a desk is added to the room, and from this we can further understand what makes that thing in the middle of the room a chair- the desk may have four legs like the chair, but it has no set place for a person to rest on. So from that we know that a chair needs a place for a person to sit down. After a few minutes, a seat with one thin leg underneath it is added to the room. We try sitting on it, but it falls every time. After some thinking we can define another characteristic of a chair after encountering this new object- beyond having a place to sit on, a chair needs to be able to stand up under the weight of a person. With the addition of new things like couches and beds we can continue to further define what a chair is by comparing it to things it is not. Eventually this will result in a set definition for what we call a "chair".

 

 

 

Basically, if we can't define what something is not we can not truly define what it is.

I'm just waiting for the day climate change is solved and everyone lives in world peace, then everything gets deconstructed and

 

 

 

Level 2

 

 

 

appears right before we all perish.

If you can ask whether or not you exist, then you exist. Unless you can prove you live in a subjective reality, then you exist.

As the wonderful artist Just Jack says..."Life is but a dream."

I exist. What I exist in does not matter. I have a perception of where I exist, I exist for myself, and that's good enough to keep me occupied for the 80 or so years I will exist.

 

 

 

The deeper philosophical interpretations behind our existence do not bother me.

If you can ask whether or not you exist, then you exist. Unless you can prove you live in a subjective reality, then you exist.

 

"I think, therefore I am."

 

 

 

It works for most people.

"I exist" is the only thing you can know for sure. I dont know that anything else exists other than my own conciousness.

I don't know how to answer these mighty philosophical questions well.

 

So i'm going to say, whether we "exist" or not isn't important, compared to how we live out what we call our "existance"

 

 

 

I hope that was philosophical enough :shock:

As many people have already said, if there is no evidence to prove nor disprove an idea, there's no point beleiving it.

 

 

 

"I think therefore I am" has been used too. It basically means "Thinking about your existence is proof of your existence."

 

 

 

How could this be a dream? Dreams flow along swiftly - you have no memory in a dream and it's merely a sequence of subconcious thoughts. Life isn't. Even if it is, you'd need to be one hell of a great thinker to create an infinate universe with physical laws, undiscovered planet, eons of history and billions of humans all with individual personality traits.

 

 

 

I've had some people ask similar questions such as:

 

 

 

"I think the world is just a massive version of 'The Sims' video games"

 

"What if you're all robots, and I'm the only human?"

 

"Everything is a figment of my imagination"

 

"My life is just a movie being directed by some sick [bleep]. You're just an actor."

 

 

 

The list goes on...

If we wanted to prove our existence, we would have to find something that does not exist.

 

Please explain your poorly thought out statement.

 

Likewise.

 

 

 

How do we know what exists if we having nothing that does not exist?

 

 

 

But he explains it better:

 

If we wanted to prove our existence, we would have to find something that does not exist.

 

Please explain your poorly thought out statement.

 

It's a pretty good an' old philosophical explanation of how we define things. Basically, we define things as what is and what is not "it".

 

 

 

Using a hypothetical should help explain it. Let's say we enter a room, and in this room there is nothing but a four-legged wooden thing with two carved planks placed perpindicular to each other atop the legs. We can look at that and call it a "chair", but with nothing else in the room of differing characteristics and no prior knowledge of such a thing we can't really understand what makes that chair a chair. Now, after much waiting and pondering, a desk is added to the room, and from this we can further understand what makes that thing in the middle of the room a chair- the desk may have four legs like the chair, but it has no set place for a person to rest on. So from that we know that a chair needs a place for a person to sit down. After a few minutes, a seat with one thin leg underneath it is added to the room. We try sitting on it, but it falls every time. After some thinking we can define another characteristic of a chair after encountering this new object- beyond having a place to sit on, a chair needs to be able to stand up under the weight of a person. With the addition of new things like couches and beds we can continue to further define what a chair is by comparing it to things it is not. Eventually this will result in a set definition for what we call a "chair".

 

 

 

Basically, if we can't define what something is not we can not truly define what it is.

If we didn't exist then this discussion wouldn't exist.