Is Proving Your Existence Pointless? The Limitations of Memory and Science

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Kakorot
"I exist" is an axiomatic statement. It cannot be argued, because, to argue it, you must first assume it is true. It must be true.

- Warren

But how do I know that we're not in some matrix world or something similar. There is no way to prove anything real. Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't mean to sound arrogant or anything, I'm simply stating this one thing as an "axiom" That nothing can truly be proven... (and I know about the whole implications of it being a paradox, there's no need to talk about it, I already understand it)

I tend not to deny my own existence, but just everybody else's!

I gauge other existence's by my interactions with them? if someone asks me a question, I do not accept this as proof of their existence, but if I ANSWER their question I take this as proof of MY own existence!

I have no memory of a 'Past Death', I therefore take this as another proof of my present existence, this does not deny the fact that any person Dead, may be contemplating a 'Past' memory of their once Life?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
If one accepts that evidence alone can constitute a proof, I still don't see anything wrong with saying that one can prove one's own existence to one's self. It can only be a 1st person proof, however, and I suppose this is where you draw your distinction: you say that 1st person proof is not a proof, it is direct knowledge. To me they seem to be the same thing. Again, it just depends on the definitions you use. [/B]

That's true I suppose, but science doesn't define it that way so I'd rather call 1st person proof 'direct knowledge'.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Kakorot
yes it is possible to "prove" you exist. But as soon as your done proving it, then it becomes a memory. Simply a memory, nothing more. (a memory could be a photograph, audio recording, mind memory, etc..)
It doesn't matter how you prove it, because as soon as you are done, it is a memory. And the universe could have been created the instant you think you were done proving you exist. Therefore there is no permenent evidence of your own existence.

Is not memory also knowledge. Knowledge is knowing and can be recorded in a many facit way. Does not knowledge have a specific position in our space=time matrix. Through hypnosis specific information about the I can be obtained and verified by second parties, which we can then, localize that information in a specific space=time. This is permanent evidence of a existence. It is evidence of the particpant in our matrix but not necessarily evidence of "Reality"