How Does One Prove One Exists?

[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.

 

[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? :tongue:

 

[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.:rofl: 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".