Can Anyone Help Prove My Existence?

[minorwork]

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.

Yes, you speak of the Word or Logos. Heraclitus around 2500 years ago left some thought on your assertion. Very influential. Unfortunately his work and thought are referred to by other later men only.

The Complete Fragments: William Harris translation and commentary

The Fragments of Heraclitus

Of course Parmenides thought that "existence as change" preposterous.

 

[LightbulbSun]

What makes you think that my imagination exists ?

What makes you think that I have an imagination?

 

[vanesch]

What makes you think that I have an imagination?

What makes you think that I think that ?

 

[out of whack]

What makes you think?

 

[LightbulbSun]

What makes you think that I think that ?

What makes you think that I think? ;-)

 

[minorwork]

I thought I thaw a puddytat.
I think I saw that.
But what do you see
when you think of me
and I'm not where you're at?

 

[Owen Holden]

So ya...my philosophy teacher assigned me to write an essay proving that I exist. Being fairly new to philosophy I've got no idea how to go on about proving that I exist, which sounds pretty weird. I've been around the philosophy section of this site a few time and I got to say some of you guys have given me more to think about then any other human being I've ever known in my life. I think there are some great minds here. To get to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I haven't thought this much about my existence since the last time I saw The Matrix while high. So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

-The One Celled Brain

x exists, means, there is some confirmable property that x has.
(E!x =df EF(Fx)).

If it is true that x thinks then x exists.

We cannot deny our existence, because the process of denying requires existence.

If there is anything that x does or says then that x must exist.

 

[minorwork]

X=U Not I.

 

[DaveC426913]

We cannot deny our existence, because the process of denying requires existence.

Ah but since we're not denying (since we can't), that does not prove anything.

 

[out of whack]

Ah but since we're not denying (since we can't), that does not prove anything.

Ah but we're objecting to the proof (since we can), this does prove something.

 

[SonicDream]

The way I see it, "exist" never really existed before we created it, and because we created something, "exist" in this case, well then we ourselves must exist too ...

 

[minorwork]

The Void, the absence of anything, will be aware of a single thing by the distinction of itself from something. Absence is the seat of awareness. Of existence.

 

[out of whack]

 

[minorwork]

A watchman told to watch a room from a window for any change is initially watching "nothing." Any change is cause for alarm, or a notice of a distinction of the initial room and the room with the pancake rabbit. The void is the initial room. And it is the basis of the room with the wabbit. The distinction is of an empty room and the rabbit room. It is the change that fosters existence by drawing a distinction. The starting point is the null set.

 

[Dragonfall]

You'll have to define "proof" and "exist".

 

[minorwork]

If I get into the void as the seat of awareness formally, it will have its own thread. Besides I feel very humble today.

 

[Fizzicist]

As Descartes said, "I think therefore I am", and you could not have consciousness if you did not exist. So you yourself know that you exist, but it's impossible to prove that you exist to someone else as they have no way of knowing that an objective reality even exists apart from their sensations. You could just be a sensation that they experience with no actual basis in an objective reality. Of course, this would still mean that you exist as a sensation, so I suppose in that sense you could show them that you exist, but to show them that you are an actual person is impossible.This raises an interesting question...what does it really mean to exist?

 

[minorwork]

If I can give what you could not get yourself, would that satisfy?

 

[Lord Ping]

I'm sympathetic to the Malcolm/Wittgenstein view that words have no meaning if divorced from their acceptable usage. An acceptable usage for "prove" is one where practical doubt can be settled by investigation, so to ask someone to "prove" they exist is a meaningless abuse of language.

Descartes' argument doesn't cut it at all.
"I think therefore I am"?
Well, let's rephrase that. "I think" surely already assumes that I exist. What Descartes apparently means is:
"Here is a thought, therefore I am"

This doesn't really follow. The content of "I" is supposed to be something more than a single thought. "I am" is a claim about the existence of a mind over a period of time which thinks continuously. The existence of a single thought hardly proves that. So all Descartes can really conclude is:
"Here is a thought therefore here is a thought."

 

[ripcurl1016]

1. I think
2. If I think, I exist
3. I exist

1. If I doubt I exist
2. If (1), then I am thinking
3. If I think then I exist

 

[GleefulNihilism]

I'd just tell him non-existant people can't pay tuition, so you don't pass the test you demand a refund.

 

[Laozi]

this discussion reminds me of the matrix. we can't truly prove that we exist. Everyone says that if you think you exist. but what if we are some illusion created by a being that is more powerful that we are imagined to be. we have bodies and minds and we can think, but this may not be of any significance in a much larger reality than ours. but that is my imagination speaking

 

[singleton]

I do not think one can 'prove' anything (let alone existence) in the absolute sense. I have faith that I exist, however.

 

[octelcogopod]

I do not think one can 'prove' anything (let alone existence) in the absolute sense. I have faith that I exist, however.

How can you "have" anything without first making the assumption that you exist?

 

[singleton]

How can you "have" anything without first making the assumption that you exist?

What makes you think / take the step between 'have' and existence? Same goes for the step of thinking -> existence in terms of Descartes' quote. That is just what most people 'believe' with common sense, but can they prove absolutely that one depends on the other?

That could go back into an infinite regress I suppose and get nowhere ;)

 

[out of whack]

Same goes for the step of thinking -> existence in terms of Descartes' quote. That is just what most people 'believe' with common sense, but can they prove absolutely that one depends on the other?

It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of understanding what you mean whey you say you "think", which makes it a matter of definition. "Thinking" is assumed to involve rationalizing, analyzing, in other words the processing of ideas (thoughts). The basic characteristic of the process is that you change what's in your mind: if you did not change what's in your mind in any way then "thinking" could not be happening. I don't know what the word would even mean. Besides, if nothing in your mind ever changed then there would be no point in discussing ideas like we do. When we have a common agreement that the word "thinking" involves changes, we see that it also involves existence since a change of nothing that exists has no discernable meaning. Descartes' proof relies on an assumed common understanding of the words he uses.

One might have a different understanding of what it means to "think" but if so then this other definition should be explicitly stated. Some who object to the proof sometimes argue on definitions more than on logic, in which case they should be providing these definitions so that their rationale can be subjected to analysis. Failing to provide clear meaning suggests emotional rather than rational objections, as in "I know it makes sense but I don't like it" type of position.

 

[Pelt]

1. An unjustified epistemology can be true.
2. <some unjustified metric for weighing unjustified epistemologies that always results in I exist>
C. I exist.

Call it the "who gives a crap?" solution.

 

[JoeDawg]

this discussion reminds me of the matrix. we can't truly prove that we exist. Everyone says that if you think you exist. but what if we are some illusion created by a being that is more powerful that we are imagined to be. we have bodies and minds and we can think, but this may not be of any significance in a much larger reality than ours. but that is my imagination speaking

Toss that matrix dvd in the trash where it belongs and read Descartes.

 

[Hillary88]

So ya...my philosophy teacher assigned me to write an essay proving that I exist. Being fairly new to philosophy I've got no idea how to go on about proving that I exist, which sounds pretty weird. I've been around the philosophy section of this site a few time and I got to say some of you guys have given me more to think about then any other human being I've ever known in my life. I think there are some great minds here. To get to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I haven't thought this much about my existence since the last time I saw The Matrix while high. So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

-The One Celled Brain

well, you can't...i don't think...or at least not in the way you think you exist all you can prove is that something exists. although we can never prove or even accurately contemplate the actual state of that something, it must exist because we can recognize it..?..for example, when I walk down a city street, I can experience it via 5 senses. While these sensory experiences tell me close to nothing of what is actually present, I know that something exists because I'm immersed in it. In other words, I personally think (and encourage disagreement from you guys) that Descartes was onto something ;) , but that the statement should be changed to "I think, therefore I know I exist, just not in the way I think I do"...you probably don't exist as a singular, independent being, but you do exist as something, even if hypothetically as everything.

 

[JoeDawg]

In other words, I personally think (and encourage disagreement from you guys) that Descartes was onto something ;) , but that the statement should be changed to "I think, therefore I know I exist, just not in the way I think I do"...you probably don't exist as a singular, independent being, but you do exist as something, even if hypothetically as everything.

Descartes wrote this particular quote in Latin, Cogito Ergo Sum, so there are many ways to translate the actual phrase. In the meditations however, he specifically creates an argument against radical skepticism.

Skeptic: How can you not doubt your existence?
Descartes: If I can doubt anything, I must be something that doubts, therefore I exist, without any further qualification, as something that doubts, or even more basically, I exist as doubting.

Now Descartes goes much further with his reasoning later on, physical objects...god...etc... but the idea is that he recognizes consciousness as primary, because consciousness is conscious of itself and that is 'unavoidable', or self-evident.