Is Thinking Essential for Existence?

[Imparcticle]

this is why i propose a 5th dimension called reality. a realtive fundamental technique could be used to determine differences in reality. thus reality could be measured

Nice idea. But, if I'm right (on my previous post) and reality and existence are interdependent and perhaps the same, then (and since all x dimensions exist already), then the 5th demension (which you have proposed to be reality) is the same as each of the other x demensions.

 

[disturbed1]

it may not be a dimension but can obviously be measured, and I can't see why a huge model isn't started to begin measuring it in space

 

[Imparcticle]

That is reallly vague you know. Measuring reality is ambigious because reality constitutes many different things such as computers and people. Though the aforementioned constituents seem like diverse portions, they are related in one way or another. Everything is also related one way or another. This leads to the conclusion that everything exists on a set basis which is common to all things that exist. (Of course, this is true for a particular reality only; in this case it is this one in which we reside and thus have in common)
The diversity can be linked to the complexity of the universe; which in turn arose from a simple set of rules to guide the evolution into complexity --> chaos. With this train of thought, we come to the one and only (and unknown) TOK. It is a Theory of Everything and theoretically would describe everything that exists by generalization. The generalization looks at the big picture, reality. I don't know if this is the same as measuring though.

 

[Sabine]

well Jameson this is one hell of a question, u said that having the ability to think is a proof for existence. well this means that everything that cannot THINK does not exist and that's totally wrong. i want to remind of this sentence said by a big french philosopher: "Je me révolte, donc je suis" i totally forgot his name. for now i believe in itbut i cannot assume the real answer because myself i do not know it. and for those who said that living freely is equal to existing let me tell them that in the current definition of FREE no one is free @ all. we are guied by our needs (eating drinking sleeping) our feelings, our minds. Therefore we are not free.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"can you prove you exist?"

yes, i can.

 

[Imparcticle]

well Jameson this is one hell of a question, u said that having the ability to think is a proof for existence. well this means that everything that cannot THINK does not exist and that's totally wrong. i want to remind of this sentence said by a big french philosopher: "Je me révolte, donc je suis" i totally forgot his name.

That would be Albert Camus according to Google. Any way, translated, the quote means "I offend myself therefore I am". I don't understand what it has to do with your argument that you don't have to think to exist (which is something I agree with).

for now i believe in itbut i cannot assume the real answer because myself i do not know it. and for those who said that living freely is equal to existing let me tell them that in the current definition of FREE no one is free @ all. we are guied by our needs (eating drinking sleeping) our feelings, our minds. Therefore we are not free.

Free will exists. We are guided by our instincts, which form the basis for our decisions particularly our choices. Whether or not I choose salad for lunch can be predicted to a certain probablity, but with no absolute certainty. I choose, according to what it is I feel like eating at the time. If I am not a vegetarian, I can eat meat, which adds to the list of possibilities. My not being a vegetarian is based on a series of causal motivations, which in turn are derived and interpreted through instinct. But the final decision can only be approximated (before it is made by me) by a set of probabilities.
Even the very desire to be able to choose according to one's pleasure or neccesity is a derivitive of instinct itself. Free will exists, but it is a complicated topic.

 

[Sabine]

well weel well 1st of all thank u for the translation i forgot to do it, then i has nthg to do with what i said i was giving another idea.
about eating that salad u r jst prooving that u ain't free, to be free we should definately change the definiton of freedom.

 

[Imparcticle]

define freedom. Let's go from there. But I should note you should seriously start another thread concerning this, as we are going off topic.

edit: NEVER mind! I have been reading a very interesting essay (well, its sort of an essay; its titled "Notes..." ) about free will. I have started a thread for you (aren't I nice?) and I plan on writing a very descriptive mini essay about exactly why I'm so sure there is free will. I will post it soon when I am finished (one or two days, 2 being the max). the thread BTW is titled "On free will" . it's in this General Philos. forum--can't miss it with that title.

 

[phoenixthoth]

"can you prove you exist?"

yes, i can.

Can't you post anything with more meat in it than that? lol

The point is I can prove to myself that I exist much more easily than I can prove to you that I exist, though that I exist (as a computer program or a human being or something) should be evidenced by your own observations at this very moment!

How did I prove to myself I existed? Well, I decided, rather arbitrarily, on the criteria for what constitutes proof of existence, convinced myself that I satisfied those criteria, and called it a day.

So if you tell me what your arbitrary criteria for what constitutes proof of existence are, I'll tell you honestly whether I can prove to you that I exist.

How do you prove anything at all exists? What are the criteria of proof? Are those criteria universal which is closely related to would/should/will everyone accept those criteria?

Then, can we apply the answers to those questions to proving that the Earth and sun exist? Then, you, me, and God?

On the other hand, how do you prove that something does not exist? It seems to me that observation is insufficient and, consequently, logic is the only reliable means for this. A square circle comes to mind. What I'm getting at is that perhaps I should start a thread called, "Can you prove you do not exist?"

And, if you can't prove it, does that imply that you do exist?

Or does that just imply that you can't prove it?

Perhaps the proposition is logically undecidable?

Or forget all that nonsense and just use observation. What you're reading right now should constitute proof that I exist. Now proving I'm human is not so easy...

 

[Imparcticle]

Could you just say, "Since you did not write this post, something or someone else who exists wrote this post."?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Could you just say, "Since you did not write this post, something or someone else who exists wrote this post."?

I said that, too

Or forget all that nonsense and just use observation. What you're reading right now should constitute proof that I exist. Now proving I'm human is not so easy...

I will press my earlier point:

How do you prove anything at all exists? What are the criteria of proof? Are those criteria universal which is closely related to would/should/will everyone accept those criteria?

Now that you're reading this, keeping in mind what Imparcticle and I have said, how to you know that what you're reading isn't a hallucination? Or, to you, are hallucinations real and maybe they do exist?

 

[FulhamFan3]

I can convince you that you exist. Next time I see you I'll punch you in the face. If you don't exist than you have nothing to worry about.

note:I do not advocate violence. Even to people that ask pointless questions that take up the majority of posts on this board.

 

[phoenixthoth]

What's an example of a pointless question?

Lol

You can punch me now.

 

[Imparcticle]

I said that, too

Sorry. I obviously did not read that post. (I have now)

How did I prove to myself I existed? Well, I decided, rather arbitrarily, on the criteria for what constitutes proof of existence, convinced myself that I satisfied those criteria, and called it a day.So if you tell me what your arbitrary criteria for what constitutes proof of existence are, I'll tell you honestly whether I can prove to you that I exist.
How do you prove anything at all exists? What are the criteria of proof? Are those criteria universal which is closely related to would/should/will everyone accept those criteria?

Clearly, you did so more by the modus aprandi of "I think therefore I am" which asserts that [If (If I am alive, then I think) then I exist]. But how do you prove existence without being alive? well you clearly cannot prove that if you're not alive. lol. BUT, there is a very simple manner in which to prove something else exists by reductio ad absurdum. If x does not exist, then x would have to be in a state of non-existence, which further implies that x exists since it exhibits a state. This contradicts the initial statement that x does not exist in a given reality.
The bolded words are very important because without them, there is one counter argument that could make the aforementioned argument not neccesarily true. A unicorn does not exist, yet it can exhibit a state in a fantasy which is one form of reality. Recall my earlier post about the relativity of existence and reality:

previously posted by Imparcticle:
Defining existence is the same as defining reality; they are converses of each other. If reality is the context of existence as you have implied, then reality is a function of anything that exists. IOW, something exists given a particular context of reality, thus making existence dependent on reality. This gives rise to the question: Is existence definite? answer: yes, given a particular reality.

Now to continue...


[/quote]
Then, can we apply the answers to those questions to proving that the Earth and sun exist? Then, you, me, and God?
[/quote]
Ah, interesting. I believe the only way to prove something exists is to prove it interacts with its environment.

On the other hand, how do you prove that something does not exist? It seems to me that observation is insufficient and, consequently, logic is the only reliable means for this. A square circle comes to mind. What I'm getting at is that perhaps I should start a thread called, "Can you prove you do not exist?"

Doing so would be the negation of "I think therefore I am" (as you are asking something to prove itself non-existent, this something must be alive and so be able to use "I think therefore I am" in its proof) : "I think not therefore I am not" which is absurd as I showed before about nonexistence.

And, if you can't prove it, does that imply that you do exist?

It depends what you mean by that. A unicorn cannot proove its existence in this reality.

Or does that just imply that you can't prove it?

Yes. If you can't prove something, you can't. Nothing more.

Perhaps the proposition is logically undecidable?

I don't think so. This is a question for Tom Mattheson.

Or forget all that nonsense and just use observation. What you're reading right now should constitute proof that I exist. Now proving I'm human is not so easy...

Have you heard of the...I believe it's called the Cura test or something. It was proposed by ( i believe) Robert Penrose. Basically, you have one person sitting in front of a wall and a computer on the other side. There is someone who is asking both the computer and the person the same question. The person listens to the computer speak and vice versa. Then the person is supposed to decide whether or not the computer is a person or not. The plot proposed by the scientist who came up with this is in the form of a question: can there exist a computer which can memic the nature of a human perfectly?
But, with the current technology, anyone could see that someone on the internet is human by testing them in a psychological manner, can they not? Not neccesarily physically. (NOT rhetorical question)

Now that you're reading this, keeping in mind what Imparcticle and I have said, how to you know that what you're reading isn't a hallucination? Or, to you, are hallucinations real and maybe they do exist?

(Reality <--> existence is relative. (That is, [reality if and only if existence] is relative.)

 

[phoenixthoth]

If x does not exist, then x would have to be in a state of non-existence, which further implies that x exists since it exhibits a state. This contradicts the initial statement that x does not exist in a given reality.
The bolded words are very important because without them, there is one counter argument that could make the aforementioned argument not neccesarily true. A unicorn does not exist, yet it can exhibit a state in a fantasy which is one form of reality. Recall my earlier post about the relativity of existence and reality:

Let me play with this argument just so I can understand it better. Let x=me, phoenixthoth. If I do not exist, then I would have to be in a state of non-existence, which further implies that I exist since I exhibit a state. This contradicts the initial statement that I do not exist in a given reality.
The premises here that I have problem with are:
1. anything exhibiting a state exists (well, this is ok I think)
2. non-existence is a state; ie, if x does not exist then x exhibits a state.

I think that if I let x=you we get equivalent results. Similarly, if we let x=unicorn (or a square circle), the main idea you seem to be getting at is that it does exist but not in this reality. Indeed, it is (IOW it exists) only in some fantasy reality.

Am I using and understanding the argument so far? If not, let's stop here and please correct me because I'm about to abuse your argument, hopefully not to make a straw man out of it, and exploit it to prove God exists in this reality. This is, for me, self defeating because I disbelieve premise #2 above, that non-existence is a state. Indeed, I would call that a lack of having a state but perhaps one can be in a state of lacking a state. That seems like a strange loop to me and paradoxical.

God exists (in this reality and not just fantasy).
"Proof"
For sake of argument, let God be any omnipresent being. This argument shows that any and every omnipresent being exists. This is my working definition of God.

Use the argument above plus omnipresence to show that God exists in this reality. IOW, x=God implies x exists in a given reality. Now, by the omnipresence of God, God exists in thisreality.

Ah, interesting. I believe the only way to prove something exists is to prove it interacts with its environment.

So then you seem to be requiring observation to be integral to a proof of existence. The criteria for proof are arbitrary though someone's criteria may be someone else's garbage. I wonder if this statement goes hand in hand with the relativity you're asserting.

Have you heard of the...I believe it's called the Cura test or something. It was proposed by ( i believe) Robert Penrose. Basically, you have one person sitting in front of a wall and a computer on the other side. There is someone who is asking both the computer and the person the same question. The person listens to the computer speak and vice versa. Then the person is supposed to decide whether or not the computer is a person or not. The plot proposed by the scientist who came up with this is in the form of a question: can there exist a computer which can memic the nature of a human perfectly?
But, with the current technology, anyone could see that someone on the internet is human by testing them in a psychological manner, can they not? Not neccesarily physically. (NOT rhetorical question)

It's the Turing test and I think you might like to go to www.a-i.com to chat with alan or some of his brothers and sisters. I don't claim they would pass the Turing test but if I project 10, 20, 30 years down the road, I think they'll defeat the test.

 

[Imparcticle]

Let me play with this argument just so I can understand it better. Let x=me, phoenixthoth. If I do not exist, then I would have to be in a state of non-existence, which further implies that I exist since I exhibit a state. This contradicts the initial statement that I do not exist in a given reality.
The premises here that I have problem with are:
1. anything exhibiting a state exists (well, this is ok I think)
2. non-existence is a state; ie, if x does not exist then x exhibits a state.

I think that if I let x=you we get equivalent results. Similarly, if we let x=unicorn (or a square circle), the main idea you seem to be getting at is that it does exist but not in this reality. Indeed, it is (IOW it exists) only in some fantasy reality.

Am I using and understanding the argument so far? If not, let's stop here and please correct me because I'm about to abuse your argument, hopefully not to make a straw man out of it, and exploit it to prove God exists in this reality. This is, for me, self defeating because I disbelieve premise #2 above, that non-existence is a state. Indeed, I would call that a lack of having a state but perhaps one can be in a state of lacking a state.

Yes, you have misunderstood the argument. In fact, you're just trailing around the core idea, and I believe it is my folly . I failed to point out something very important and I will point that out in bold in the following restatement of the argument (which will be short, don't worry):
The following must hold for "existence":*
[(x exists<--> x exhibits a certain state) <--> in any reality] since "existence" is a function of reality, (thus indicating that for every existent thing, x, there is exactly one reality) the aforementined relationship in bold is true for all realities, including those where pi is an algebraic number. IOW, for something to exist (in any reality), it must neccesarily exhibit a state. Why? Well, anything that exists takes up space (this is a restatement of what I just said, BTW) and if it does, then it has those properties of taking up space. By definition, such things are called "matter". All matter exhibits a property.

The problem of non-existence is that if you say "X is non-existent" then you are also saying that "X exists so that 'X' --> does not exist" which is clearly self contradictory in all respects, especially semantically. You won't believe how much rewording I had to do just to get the absolute terms out.

I hope that makes things clear.


* Please note that the reason why I have the word "existence" in quotes is for grammar reasons. Some people get confused when I do that, but I do it any way for the sake of correctness.

That seems like a strange loop to me and paradoxical.

Yes, it is actually an infinite loop (i.e., a paradox of infinite preplexity).

God exists (in this reality and not just fantasy).
"Proof"
For sake of argument, let God be any omnipresent being. This argument shows that any and every omnipresent being exists. This is my working definition of God.

The proposition (I don't see how its an argument) shows any omnipresent being exists not neccesarily every. I'm not sure about this here. The words "any" and "every" seem to imply different things, yet lead to the same conclusion.

So then you seem to be requiring observation to be integral to a proof of existence. The criteria for proof are arbitrary though someone's criteria may be someone else's garbage. I wonder if this statement goes hand in hand with the relativity you're asserting.

No, I'm not requiring observation for a proof of existence. The interaction of anything is not dependent on observation, and observation does not signify existence (except for quantum mechanics...). I have no more time to post, but consider reading about complexity theory + self organising systems and you'll get an idea of the relativity I'm asserting.

 

[theriddler876]

"X is non-existent" then you are also saying that "X exists so that 'X' --> does not exist


that only applies to x not exsisting in a material form in a material form

for example "a time machine does not excist" by that logic I just created a time machine by denying it's exsistance.

the original quesion this should have asked can you prove you exsist in the physical world.

 

[Tasthius]

As Canute points out, an external proof isn't possible. You are right too that in order to think a thinker must exist (anything that "does" or manifests is proof the thing exists). However, often this debate is about whether thinking itself is what defines existence, and that is definitely not true because if it were, then one would cease to exist if one stopped thinking. It is quite possible to learn to stop thinking, and when one does one becomes more aware of one's existence, not less aware. In terms of existence, all thinking makes one aware of is the existence of thinking.

Possible to stop thinking? I think you misunderstand Descartes' definition of "thinking." Thinking is used more in the sense of consciousness in the Cogito proof. Once you lose consciousness (as in death), how do you prove your existence?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

let's try to rephrase the question, and see if you can answer it.
can you prove within my belief system (i.e logic, private belief etc) that i don't exist?

to do this you need to try the ad absurdum proof method, i.e, try to prove i don't exist with the opposite that i do exist and then logically prove that it is contradictory, can you hope to this?

 

[Locrian]

However, often this debate is about whether thinking itself is what defines existence, and that is definitely not true because if it were, then one would cease to exist if one stopped thinking. It is quite possible to learn to stop thinking, and when one does one becomes more aware of one's existence, not less aware. In terms of existence, all thinking makes one aware of is the existence of thinking.

Hmm, would you care to elaborate on this? I can't see any reason to accept it as true that one can stop thinking at all, much less still be aware of anything once one does.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Imparcticle]

"X is non-existent" then you are also saying that "X exists so that 'X' --> does not exist

Also, (though this may seem redundant, I would still like to emphasize this) X=X . Furthermore, by ad absurdum proof, the statement you made is self contradictory. So it is false for anything to exist and not exist at the same time.

that only applies to x not exsisting in a material form in a material form

What do you mean by material? If you mean matter, then yes because that is the only way anything can exist. Furthermore, it seems that you have "energy" (which is not a form of matter and therefore does not exist ) in mind. It doesn't exist, it is merely a concept

for example "a time machine does not excist" by that logic I just created a time machine by denying it's exsistance.

NO. "x" cannot exist and exist at the same time (with a definite probability). prove this otherwise if I am mistaken.

the original quesion this should have asked can you prove you exsist in the physical world.

Is there anything besides the physical world? This depends on the definition, so...
physical- anything which exists -->interacts with the environment.


I have a proposition. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS DISCUSSION IS FUTILE SINCE IT CONCERNS SOMETHING WHICH MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE? How can someone prove they do not exist, when doing the task requires a conscious being to do it?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Possible to stop thinking? I think you misunderstand Descartes' definition of "thinking." Thinking is used more in the sense of consciousness in the Cogito proof. Once you lose consciousness (as in death), how do you prove your existence?

I going to have to disagree with you on this one. For Descarte (as echoed by some functionalists today) thinking is consciousness. Personally I don't believe that for a second. Thinking is something consciousness can do, but it doesn't define it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hmm, would you care to elaborate on this? I can't see any reason to accept it as true that one can stop thinking at all, much less still be aware of anything once one does.

You mean you can't stop thinking. There is a long history of the practice, and successes. I stopped my mind from thinking earlier this morning, and I do it every morning. It takes practice, but it is possible. If you want to read a little more about it, I talk about it in the "panpsychism" thread in this general philosophy area, and in the "mind to mind" thread over in metaphysics.

 

[theriddler876]

what I mean exsist in material form is that you can have ideas, and unless you reguard an idea, ideas aren't made in the "physical world" for example say you have a drawing of a concept car, technically the car does not exsist in what we are used to cars exsisting as, but the idea is something in itself and it cannot be denied, so even if it doesn't exsist out of aluminum and rubber, it exsists as a concept or idea.


for example if I say, a zxcvbnm doesn't exsist, then you ask well what is an zxcvbnm, and I'll say, it's a mind reading device that is shaped like a pink poodle, I mean sure a fully funcional prototype hasn't been created, but it still something, an idea

 

[Rybo]

I think about something ergo i am

I've heard the phrase "I think therefore I am" as a proof of existence, but I do not find that very sound (and i think i heard that Descartes didn't exactly say that phrase).
Jameson

"I think about something, ergo, I am a viewpoint/point of view, with both metaphysial, and physical aspects/attributes" (Rybo)

There is the metaphysical "I" and the physical "I" that are eteranlly complementary to each other.

Something is a physical thing i.e. some-thing.

Experience preceeds thought i.e. there can be no thinking without a minimally the something to acccess thoughts(mind) with and something to think about(brain).

"X" is only an intellectual, metaphysical, mathematical abstraction that can be representative of a physical something.

Rybo

 

[Enos]

I can absolutly say that no one can prove that they exist.

 

[TheoryMan]

I agree with Enos.

 

[phoenixthoth]

I can absolutly say that no one can prove that they exist.

And I can say: prove it.

 

[vincentchan]

i think therefore i am
i can't prove your exist, but i am pretty sure i exist

 

[Enos]

Relativity proves it. Light has a fixed speed limit and time exist and is measured by this speed limit. Now the time it takes for someone to try and prove they exist and the time it takes for someone to receive the proof can only attempt to prove things but only in the immediate past. So one can only prove that they did exist but can never prove that they do exist.

So rather then the saying "I think therefore I am" a more true statement would be "I think therefore I was"