Existence

[dragoonson]

If we didn't exist,nothing could exist as a result of us.This discussion,global warming,and any offsping.There.

[matrix2613]

You are one with the matrix.

 

I'm gonna siggy that =P.

 

 

 

If we didn't exist, we couldn't proove that you didn't exist. If you didn't exist, you would not have asked that question. No question=no debate, so you must exist as much as I exist.

[Will H]

The cogito tells us that thoughts of some kind must exist, but it offers no insight into the existence of external objects. I could perceive a chair in Reb's room, but although I feel certain beyond reasonable doubt that what I am perceiving is a chair (and there must be some thought which represents the sensory image of a chair floating about somewhere), it does not prove that the chair itself as a physical object beyond human perception exists.

 

 

 

But that's what we have to live with while we're stuck behind the impenetrable veil of perception, we simply can't look outside our own bodies. Just be thankful that what appeared to us to be a chair also gives us the sensation of solidity when we sit on it.

[stevepole]

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

 

 

 

I haven't listened to Just Jack in a long time.

[Shinjula]

As far as im aware there are only three things we can prove.

 

 

 

1) I exist.

 

 

 

This one is self evident, you can't prove anyone else exists, although the turing test is quite useful for a day to day guesstimate of whether or not someone exists, but you can prove to yourself that you exist, simply by asking yourself who is asking the question "Do I exist?"

 

 

 

2) I percieve.

 

 

 

Although it is impossible to know whether or not your perceptions are correct representations of the world around you, it is true that you do percieve the perceptions coming in. If I percieve a chair, I cannot know whether or not it actually is a chair, but I do know that I percieve it as a chair.

 

 

 

3) Conditional Logic

 

 

 

If 1+1 = 2 and 1+1 + 1+1 = 4 and the rules of mathematics work the way I believe them to, then 2 + 2 = 4

 

 

 

 

 

As far as I'm aware those are the only thing we can be sure of, anyone got any more?

[aquariusman]

I posted something along these lines a while ago, I think called "Do We Really Exist?" It's dead, so don't worry about me trying to point you out.

 

 

 

The general opinion was "Stop thinking so hard". I'm serious. I've taken that advice and really do appreciate it. I've realized that it will be impossible for us to understand how we came to exist, whether we actually do exist, and why we exist. Makes me happy, because if we do ever find that out, what point is there in life. Ignorance is bliss, especially in this case.

[Kenshinjapan]

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.

 

 

 

That's Plato's theory that Reb explained if you/anyone else was wondering.

[EdgedThesis]

You don't exist.

 

 

 

At least, from my perspective you might not exist.

 

 

 

Screw it, I'll give up the charade and tell you that I am just a figment of your imagination, a splinter of your own personality, enlightening you upon your condition.

 

 

 

You are an ethereal being, floating through space, who has shut down all thinking processes in order to stave off insanity and loneliness.

 

 

 

Wake up.

[Ginger_Warrior]

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

 

Correction. The only thing you can be logically sure of by the existence of this debate is that you exist in some reality, not laura or any of the rest of us. How are you to know this isn't just some figment of your imagination, from which you will wake up in an empty room with no one else?

[dragoonson]

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

 

Correction. The only thing you can be logically sure of by the existence of this debate is that you exist in some reality, not laura or any of the rest of us. How are you to know this isn't just some figment of your imagination, from which you will wake up in an empty room with no one else?

 

 

 

If it was my imagination you guys would post an assload more often.[/asshatting]

[Kill_Life]

None of you exist.

 

You're all a piece of my imagination.

 

 

 

So yes, I'm must lickely an immortal being which is asleep and dreaming I'm writing this.

 

 

 

It's hard to prove, perhaps 'I know I exist, so what I see/touch/hear has to exist'?

 

 

 

Though, can we be sure of what we see?

 

As we don't see objects, we see the reflection of the light of those objects.

 

So how do you know your green isn't red for someone else? But both call it 'green'.

 

The brain can react different.

 

 

 

Hmm, the mystery.

[Zonorhc]

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".

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

The issue I have with Plato is that if you follow his reasoning, things are because they aren't everything else.

 

 

 

Which really doesn't go any way towards proving anything about existence.

 

 

 

The OP was asking how one can prove that one exists. Somehow, it seems to have been muddled up by your wanting to define what existence is.

 

 

 

And as nice as that explanation was, it simply doesn't say anything that actually helps.

 

 

 

How would finding something that doesn't exist (lol, Russel's teapot) prove that I exist?

[Lenticular_J]

I wonder...

 

 

 

Does gravity really exist? Maybe we all just expect anything we drop to fall, and that expectancy is what makes it fall.

 

 

 

Or maybe everything in the universe is scared of breaking the law.