Can Anyone Help Prove My Existence?

[JoeDawg]

What I'm trying to say is, if someone might be illusional ( like you are suggesting) then how do I know you're not fake and how do you know I'm not fake. Doesn't add up. If a living thing is illusional, then so is nature, the Earth and pretty much the whole universe.

That is the exact idea. Descartes used that assumption, that he as being decieved, not to figure out a theology, but to figure out if there was anything that could be known 'for certain'. Not evidence, not probable or likely, but certain.

Sure we have lots of evidence and indicators that things are this way or that, but he wanted to know what if anything he could be certain of. This way, he could use that as a foundation and avoid making errors. Its a high standard, but when one is talking about first principles they have to be high.

 

[JoeDawg]

So by believing that you exist, you exist?

No, but the act of believing means you are something that believes, so you must exist as something that believes.

That would just mean that that inside this vast universe only you are the only one that exist, because you wouldn't be able to prove the existence of others, just yourself.

You can't be certain that others exist, but there is lots of evidence and indicators that they do.

Emotions must be taught and experienced fist hand

They must be experienced, but taught? I don't think so. Putting a name on an emotion is just acknowledging it, not creating it.

 

[JoeDawg]

Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is not understandable.

Ditto.

 

[SpicyRamen]

No, but the act of believing means you are something that believes, so you must exist as something that believes.

So your saying that I exist because I believe or that I have this need to believe that I exist for I must exist as something that believes. So the food that we eat or the computer I'm typing on has the will to believe it exist? But what if it doesn't? Does that mean that I'm typing on nothing, a non existent object? So? A dog exist because believes it will catch it's tail, doesn't actually mean it will. By believing simply alone, it does not establish the fact of your existence. We all have free will and thought, that means everyone in this thread can believe that they exist, and if they believe they exist and I believe I exist, that means we're all existent. So when you say that camera is an illusion or the people I talk to is an illusion, how do I know their illusions and not real. How do I know your not an illusion? Just because you say your not and that you believe in your own existence?

They must be experienced, but taught? I don't think so. Putting a name on an emotion is just acknowledging it, not creating it.

Going back to the Child. The child obtains this feeling(Experiences it) after seeing the girl of his dream, but he will not recognize what it is until the father actually tells him what it is(Teaching part). If the child is not taught and continues to grow up, once he hits puberty, he won't know the difference between love and just being horny. If we were born in a virtual world, and your the only existent person, you'll still experience all five senses(which can be tricked by the mind, but when you experience love you won't know what it is. A computer can detect how acidic a food is and how sweet it is based on it's molecular structure which it can use this to trick your taste, or it can play with your vision, like a mirage. It however cannot create an illusion that will tell you what you are feeling, like when you feel love, because a computer itself would not know how that feels. So if my dad was an illusion, how would he be able to have these range of emotions. If he was an illusion made, not by a computer, but my mind, still how will he be able to feel this or comprehend and relate to me? If all of this was created by my mind alone, what everyone else knows is only limited to my own knowledge and understanding.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

Assuming the camera is real.

ahhhhh i see

 

[minorwork]

Existence comes down to an objective verifiability by being published in a peer reviewed journal? Well I was in the high school yearbook.

Nobel prizes are rewards given to the most existing individuals via the most existing work that they have done.

 

[JoeDawg]

So your saying that I exist because I believe

You can be certain that you exist, because you have the ability to think about whether you exist.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

So have we all established that at least our mind/consciousness exist because we are able to ponder the question Do I exist??

 

[out of whack]

No, not all of us. Many are still asking the question...

 

[minorwork]

I heard in another room the phrase, " I exist because I can question my existence." But when I opend the door I found a recording device on "play." Has the recorder solved its' existence?

 

[out of whack]

I read it on a wall so the wall must have also figured it out.

 

[minorwork]

So maybe the professor wants the students to pass a Turing test.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

I heard in another room the phrase, " I exist because I can question my existence." But when I opend the door I found a recording device on "play." Has the recorder solved its' existence?

I read it on a wall so the wall must have also figured it out.

Explain what you guys are trying to say.

 

[minorwork]

As the professor judging whether the student had completed the assignment I want the student to convince me he/she is more than an Artificial Intelligence or a clever recorder playing back internet sources. I do not consider AI to be aware of its' existence. So the student must convince me he is not AI. Being solopsist, I don't think he can do it but I like to see the dance. I embrace the illusion of his independent existent and feel less alone that he is in step with me. The student must express emotion and feelings as well as thought. My standards are mine. Something like Groucho Marx's show "You Bet Your Life" where I am waiting to hear the secret word. Now if the student's prose is such that it resonates with the idea/word I have picked in secret I will come to attention. Then rule out chance unless I have other things to do. So after discovering I have been fooled by a playback I jestingly say, "The recorder has solved it's existence."

 

[Questman]

You do realize that everything you say is based upon our perception of the universe. If you take that as read, how can you not assume that any animal, say elk, has the perception in their own world and universe of thought that they exist.

 

[vanesch]

What I'm trying to say is, if someone might be illusional ( like you are suggesting) then how do I know you're not fake and how do you know I'm not fake. Doesn't add up. If a living thing is illusional, then so is nature, the Earth and pretty much the whole universe.

You've got it. That viewpoint is called solipsism. Well, solipsism of the hard kind. There is also a softer form of solipsism that recognizes the existence of a material world, but takes it that you are the only conscious being around and all others are zombies.

 

[vanesch]

So your saying that I exist because I believe or that I have this need to believe that I exist for I must exist as something that believes. So the food that we eat or the computer I'm typing on has the will to believe it exist?

No, there is not necessarily a computer, or food, and you do not necessarily have a body, and you don't necessarily live in a universe. You may be a unique entity of which the only property is that it has a lot of illusions, one of it being that it has a body that lives in a universe where there are others around and that that body is typing on a computer and eating food. So you can put in doubt all the existence of all of that, but NOT that you are some kind of entity which has experiences/illusions/whatever. So *something* related to your subjective experience exists. It might be that the experiences it has, are ALSO related to things that exist, and it might even be that it turns out that they exist more or less the way the experiences seem to indicate that things are ; in other words, it is not completely impossible that you do, after all, have a body, and that there is, after all, a universe. But all that is speculation based upon your subjective impressions. It's reasonable speculation, but nevertheless speculation. However, your subjective impressions themselves exist, as impressions. And that's undeniable.

 

[out of whack]

I heard in another room the phrase, " I exist because I can question my existence." But when I opend the door I found a recording device on "play." Has the recorder solved its' existence?

I read it on a wall so the wall must have also figured it out.

Explain what you guys are trying to say.

The fact that someone has apparently recorded a thought that you now hear, or written a thought that you now read, does nothing to indicate that the medium in question has consciousness or even exists. You can only know what you know, you cannot know what is known by something else, or even if something else even exists. Proof of existence is proof of your own, not of anyone or anything else's.

 

[minorwork]

from out of whack
The fact that someone has apparently recorded a thought that you now hear, or written a thought that you now read, does nothing to indicate that the medium in question has consciousness or even exists. You can only know what you know, you cannot know what is known by something else, or even if something else even exists. Proof of existence is proof of your own, not of anyone or anything else's.

The medium in question whether a recorder, a smart AI computer, or human can not indicate it has consciousness or even exists. Yes I agree it is a lost cause to convince me of your independent existence by reason. I jestingly ascribed the same characteristics to the recorder in, I thought, a sarcastic manner.

The physics community seems to be exploring the concept of entanglement. Local causality, at least at the photon level, looks to be in trouble. Entanglement misapplied could give cause for a signal deep in the noise such that I could know what is known by something else.

 

[Ironside]

You've got it. That viewpoint is called solipsism. Well, solipsism of the hard kind. There is also a softer form of solipsism that recognizes the existence of a material world, but takes it that you are the only conscious being around and all others are zombies.

I just don't really agree with it. I know what you're saying, but in the softer form of solipsism, I'm conscious and you're a zombie right? So wouldn't you think the same thing? Which one is which. Also, in the solipsism of the hard kind, if i understand correctly, if everything is an illusion, then I'm an illusion too?

 

[minorwork]

"Illusion" is not powerful enough. "Projection" better.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Ok, just think through this for a second here. Let's simplify this. Let's just say I don't really exist. If that's the case, yet I believe I exist then how come everyone else is aware of me and has the same image of me? If I was really the imagination of myself then how could I possibly look the same to everyone else without there being any differences in image?

 

[vanesch]

I just don't really agree with it. I know what you're saying, but in the softer form of solipsism, I'm conscious and you're a zombie right?

Well, you can try to convince me that you are not a zombie, but I will then say that you are just a heap of molecules which behave the way your body behaves because of the physics of it, in the same way that a falling stone behaves or a computer behaves because of the physics of its internal workings. It is not clear to me that you are having subjective experiences in that body. If I talk to you, I could in principle follow the nerve pulses from your ears to your brain, and if I had a good enough description of your physical brain, I would understand the mechanisms that make nerve pulses go out also of that brain, and actuate certain muscles (like your vocal cords and so on). In other words, if I knew enough of the physics of your body, I would be able to understand why you utter these or those words ; I could even simulate it on a computer probably. So I would not be tempted to assume that there's some subjective experience going on in the physical structure that I have in front of me. The only reason to assume that is by analogy, because your body ressembles mine, and that I *know* that I have subjective experiences.

Now, of course, from your point of view, you can take the same attitude, and then you'll never be able to find out whether inside my body, there are really subjective experiences, or whether all this is "just mechanics" in a way. Even my bodily reactions which could be qualified by "emotional" would just be physically explainable by the internal physical machinery of my body, in a similar way as the fall of a stone would be explainable.

So wouldn't you think the same thing? Which one is which. Also, in the solipsism of the hard kind, if i understand correctly, if everything is an illusion, then I'm an illusion too?

Yes, you are an illusion in my "imaginary world", just like a figure in a dream of mine. Now, maybe you have a subjective experience (I'll never know). Then I could very well be a figure in your "dream". There's no way for you to find out, because your dream will be consistent with me being real.

 

[vanesch]

Ok, just think through this for a second here. Let's simplify this. Let's just say I don't really exist. If that's the case, yet I believe I exist then how come everyone else is aware of me and has the same image of me?

You don't know that everyone else is not just a figment of your imagination! You might be "dreaming" that there are other people around, who have some image of you.

 

[minorwork]

Kinda like the earthworm that, seeing his tail, says "Hello."

 

[LightbulbSun]

You don't know that everyone else is not just a figment of your imagination! You might be "dreaming" that there are other people around, who have some image of you.

So who's imagination is it then? Yours or mine? This is why the imagination theory is way too muddled for me to buy.

 

[minorwork]

You are the ony one that is. Your ability to control your projections are rather limited. You might have a weight problem, car problem, in-law problems, IRS. Enough about mine, the point is made. You know of me and the world through your senses that you have made beginning from a single viable cell in order that you might gain knowledge of yourself.

Yes it is best to grab the concept that you are not alone in the wilderness. The world is not imagination, but imagination can shape the world. You do have some control. More than you think, but effort is required. Ethically, if you are making the world, you have the power to change the world. Give it your best shot.

 

[vanesch]

So who's imagination is it then? Yours or mine? This is why the imagination theory is way too muddled for me to buy.

What makes you think that my imagination exists ?

 

[vanesch]

BTW, before people get a wrong impression, I'm not pushing solipsism as some kind of truth. Only, conceiving solipsism, and realizing that there is no proof of its failure, is IMO a necessary mental exercise to realize the part of arbitrariness that will always remain in any ontological hypothesis. In that way, the exercise is useful, because it liberates oneself from "sticking to certain elements of ontology at all cost".

 

[Sean Torrebadel]

What about asserting that you cannot prove that you exist. That you were here but now you are there. The role that time plays in your existence. You cannot prove that you were there, and neither that you are here. Existence appears to be one of constant change.

The only reason we know that stars exist is because of the light that they have given off. Since it takes time for the light to travel, we are seeing not that the star exists, but that it used to exist-with no guarantee that it now exists.

In a similar vein we can only attempt to prove to others that we existed. By giving off our own light. For instance, we know that ancient eqyptians existed because they created the pyramids. In that respect, our existence can only be proven to others by the things we created, the light that reflects what we created. It could be as simple as taking a picture of yourself, a video. Perhaps we can only prove that we existed. And if we cannot prove it to ourselves then perhaps we can prove it to others.

Its strange that we say that we come from nothing. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. For to say that we have become is to say that we end. In that respect, perhaps we do not exist, a stationary state, " we are existing". It may be that just as the our Universe is existing we are existing, that there is no beginning and no end to either. If we are a part of that existence, we have always been a part of that existence.

It is difficult wrapping the mind around such things.