How Does One Prove One Exists?

[out of whack]

The problem is that we don't even have a good definition for what is existence

I don't see a problem. An ideal definition is not essential. We only need to agree that what does not exist does not have any property, does not do anything, does not matter. Don't we agree on this? If so then to prove existence you just have to pick "thinking" as a property or action, with a direct corollary that what thinks must exist. I could have picked some other property but "thinking" has the benefit of being impossible to deny, don't you think?

 

[mjsd]

This has been a good discussion

I don't see a problem. An ideal definition is not essential. We only need to agree that what does not exist does not have any property,
does not do anything, does not matter. Don't we agree on this?

since the OP referred to "the Matrix movie", i'll give you a link at the end of the post, but now let me just say this: it is often very difficult to agree on such issue because you/I may have a large/smaller set of properties you may want to test, and someone else may have yet another set in mind. You could feel that you exist as a "real" (the quotes because I haven't defined what I meant by "real") entity in your dreams, for you feel pain if someone hit you or you can feel your surroundings. But would everyone come to the same conclusion? In order to "prove" things you need to do it a way such that it does not depend on perspective, taste or envoirmental influences. That's the major obstacle. If everyone in the world has similar beliefs, we won't have war in the middle east!

If so then to prove existence you just have to pick "thinking" as a property or action, with a direct corollary that what thinks must exist. I could have picked some other property but "thinking" has the benefit of being impossible to deny, don't you think?

Now, the only question we need to answer here is that should we see computer characters with AI which reside in a virtual world "exist" in the same way that we do in our "real" world? mind you, different ppl may have different opinion on this.

see link
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000

 

[minorwork]

My first urge is to go with Kurushio95 #7 post suggestions. However, Consider that the prof'' is a solopsist. The proof he wants is one a solopsist is always trying to get. Not for himself though. The solopsist is the only existence he needn't prove. Lonely though. Always looking for evidence that all you zombies out there are real. Appear to the professor in his/her dream and give him a password. Put the word on paper and give it to him. If done correctly you'll ace that class.

Or, something along this line. I do not exist outside of your presence. When you leave I am but a ghost of memories that upon your death will be annihilated.

Or, check out this clip from Dark Star http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961917438060678292
Pretend you are Bomb20

 

[trueuniverse]

You can prove to yourself that you exist, and I hope you learn to be happy with that.

 

[vanesch]

If everyone in the world has similar beliefs, we won't have war in the middle east!

But we don't ! The middle-east doesn't exist! :tongue:

 

[CompuChip]

I don't want to spoil this thread with tasteless mathematician's jokes, but... try uniqueness first, I think it's easier.

(Sorry for interfering but couldn't let the chance go )

 

[trueuniverse]

Then have her co-host The View and explain how the Earth is flat.

This opinion sounds a little misogynistic.

 

[JoeDawg]

This opinion sounds a little misogynistic.

Since person a) used the same logic as person b) to defend their point of view.
And I compared person a) and person b) on that basis, your implication that my intent was based on hatred of a gender is nothing more than an insult. In which case, I will respond in kind.

Your opinion sounds a little stupid.

 

[sd01g]

You only have two choices: Either you are something or you are absolutely nothing. If you are aware that you have two choices then you are something (something that knows at least it has two choices). We are still trying to determine exactly what this 'something' is.

 

[JonF]

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.:rofl: So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

-The One Celled Brain

If “I” is allowed to be an indeterminate, look up Descartes’’ “I think therefore I am” argument.

 

[JoeDawg]

You only have two choices: Either you are something or you are absolutely nothing. If you are aware that you have two choices then you are something (something that knows at least it has two choices). We are still trying to determine exactly what this 'something' is.

And what nothing is.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

Ok I'm just going to throw this in...I define existence in two parts;one i exist in a conscious state and two i exist in a "physical" state (couldn't think of a more appropriate word). I think is important to first define the word "existence" because it makes it a little easier, kind of like a foundation to build on.
My definition is of course open to correction. :)
One Celled Brain

 

[sd01g]

And what nothing is.

Ultimate nothing: we do not know what it is or is not.

Primary nothing: empirical nothing--what is there when we can detect no thing with our senses or sensors.

Secondary nothing: a rational construct that describes the lack of something.

 

[out of whack]

Nothing: what does not matter.
Something: what matters.

 

[JoeDawg]

Ultimate nothing: we do not know what it is or is not.

Primary nothing: empirical nothing--what is there when we can detect no thing with our senses or sensors.

Secondary nothing: a rational construct that describes the lack of something.

ROTFL

 

[SpicyRamen]

Can't one prove their existence based on the acknowledgment of others. Certainly one cannot prove them self existing, and it would take more than one person to prove that they are existing. If only one person realizes your existence it's kinda like being an imaginary friend.It doesn't really count. But the fact that you have family and friends that acknowledges you, proves your existence doesn't it? If you look at it like your in the movie The Matrix, it still means that you exist, your just not fully aware of it and that maybe it. Some of the crazies of society might be the most ingenious, just because they can differentiate between what is real and what isn't, what exist and what doesn't.

 

[JoeDawg]

Can't one prove their existence based on the acknowledgment of others.

The question is, how do you know they aren't an illusion.
You can't know for certain.
But you can know for certain that you are thinking, because you are thinking about whether you exist and you can't avoid certainty of that.

 

[Ironside]

The question is, how do you know they aren't an illusion.
You can't know for certain.But you can know for certain that you are thinking, because you are thinking about whether you exist and you can't avoid certainty of that.

Try killing them, then spend the rest of your life in prison and let's see how much of an illusion that is. Sorry but I disagree with what you just said about the people around you being an illusion. That just adds more unnecessary questions and we would be going in circles.

 

[JoeDawg]

Try killing them, then spend the rest of your life in prison and let's see how much of an illusion that is.

Not a fun one, and neither is severe case of paranoid schizophrenia.

But, really, if all you are going to do is dodge the question, why respond at all.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

Wouldn't proving something exists also prove that it is real? Wouldn't a photograph also prove if something exist/real, since a camera only captures reflected light off of a surface?

 

[Ironside]

Not a fun one, and neither is severe case of paranoid schizophrenia.

But, really, if all you are going to do is dodge the question, why respond at all.

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.

 

[SpicyRamen]

The question is, how do you know they aren't an illusion.
You can't know for certain.
But you can know for certain that you are thinking, because you are thinking about whether you exist and you can't avoid certainty of that.

So by believing that you exist, you exist? 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.

What separates an illusion/dream from reality? Its the ability to feel emotion outside of our five sense. Our brains can be easily tricked, especially our five senses. One can recreate taste, sight,smell, hearing and touch. But one thing we can not recreate is love, hate,etc. If we were all born into this universe alone, and that everyone around us was an illusion, how would be able to experience these emotions? Emotions must be taught and experienced fist hand, if one was sealed away from the outside world these emotions would be unfamiliar to this one person because they would not know what this is. They would probably feel it but they would not recognize it. Haven't any of you watch a cartoon or movie where the little kid goes " It feels weird right here(points to heart)" and then the dad goes "You're in love son"

The reason we are aware of these emotions means we exist but it must be guided through another being that has also experienced it.. The love from your family directed towards you is clear, so in the process you learn what love is. Emotions is not something that can be recreated through a computer, or in our minds if we have not experienced it first hand with other beings.

 

[sd01g]

ROTFL

There was no Nobel Prize for Philosophy in 2007. I wonder why? Too much of philosophy is still in the seventeenth century. Just because you do not understand something does not mean it is not understandable.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

That was pretty well said SpicyRamen.

 

[JoeDawg]

Wouldn't proving something exists also prove that it is real? Wouldn't a photograph also prove if something exist/real, since a camera only captures reflected light off of a surface?

Assuming the camera is real.

 

[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?