Is Thinking Essential for Existence?

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

To prove anything, must one not exist beforehand?

it depends in your definition of exist and of prove.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I exist, the rest of you are just computer simulations created for my amusement.

Prove me wrong.

If i am 'computer simulations', then you must know what i do. For anysituation, you know my reaction. So give a situation and tell me my reaction. and also, can you prove you are not a creation of your creation ?

 

[lawtonfogle]

If anyone wants to prove that he/she/it exist, she/he/it must...

First prove that we can prove

second prove that we can exist

third prove that he personally exists

Can you prove without proving. you must use something else to make it known one can prove.

 

[lawtonfogle]

i exist in a way i can type post you can read, in anyother way, you must see me to prove i exist.

 

[shoopa]

to exist is to love, and bite fingers off.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

i exist in a way i can type post you can read, in anyother way, you must see me to prove i exist.

Ok, but you are doing the same error as everybody, and it is, that you are using something to prove your existence, which leads to an infinite discussion.....

you see, now you have to prove that this forum exists, and if you use the fact of internet, then prove that exists, then if you use the fact of computers, then prove that they exists...etzzzzzzzz

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

If i am 'computer simulations', then you must know what i do. For anysituation, you know my reaction. So give a situation and tell me my reaction. and also, can you prove you are not a creation of your creation ?

If that is true, it would bem an infinite paradox, because then you wouldn't know what came first, the creation, or it's creation, to say, the egg or the chicken.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

to exist is to love, and bite fingers off.

OK, now prove to love.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Can you prove without proving. you must use something else to make it known one can prove.

That's true. because it would be like using a word to describe or define that word.

 

[infidel]

You can see this post, right? Therefore I exist. QED.

 

[lawtonfogle]

here is the question, can you prove to me that i exist in such a way that i cannot prove to you that you do not exist, disproving your proof that i exist, making my proof that you do not exist not count, which would start the whole thing over.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ok, but you are doing the same error as everybody, and it is, that you are using something to prove your existence, which leads to an infinite discussion.....

you see, now you have to prove that this forum exists, and if you use the fact of internet, then prove that exists, then if you use the fact of computers, then prove that they exists...etzzzzzzzz

Maybe we should not prove there existence compared to everything

I know that the forums exist in such a way i can post on them, that the internet exist in such a way i can use it, i exist in such a way i can post and answer your questions, and that you exist in such a way you can debate me.

This does prove if you are man, machine, or a really smart monkey in some secret city

 

[lawtonfogle]

You can see this post, right? Therefore I exist. QED.

so, do you exist in a way i can see you are here you, you could be a computer program that exist only digitally

 

[lawtonfogle]

If that is true, it would bem an infinite paradox, because then you wouldn't know what came first, the creation, or it's creation, to say, the egg or the chicken.

now, (this is getting a little pointless, but we might hit something useful) prove to me that life is not a infinite paradox.

Maybe life is a paradox of are free will taking away or free will, of us using our free will to find out we do not have free will

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Maybe we should not prove there existence compared to everything

I know that the forums exist in such a way i can post on them, that the internet exist in such a way i can use it, i exist in such a way i can post and answer your questions, and that you exist in such a way you can debate me.

This does prove if you are man, machine, or a really smart monkey in some secret city

I think ou are not quite getting my point.

If the forums exists in such a way you can post, prove to post. If internte exists in such a way you can use it, prove to use, if you exist in suvch a way yo can post and answer me, prove to answer and again prove to post. But remember two things, my two only general points I'm trying to lead you:

1) Before you prove, you have to prove that you can prove, but then prove that you can prove that you can prove, etz....until you can demostrate without proving that you can prove...

2) to prove something or someone exists, you have to porve everything else without having end, and yes, life is an infinite paradox, because everyhing actually is, and you can't prove that you or something exists because you are IN that existence.

 

[lawtonfogle]

maybe i can disprove that i do not exist. so then i must exist. give to me ur standard of which some thing is poven to exist.

IN the end, it comes down to faith, hope (and love, though this has nothing to do with the rest)

 

[The Rev]

Of course I exist. I'm posting, aren't I?

i

The Rev

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

maybe i can disprove that i do not exist. so then i must exist. give to me ur standard of which some thing is poven to exist.

IN the end, it comes down to faith, hope (and love, though this has nothing to do with the rest)

yes, there we both agree, it is a quetion of faith, as well as everything else in the end. And this does scares a lot.

But I always think that if there is always something of one side, then everyhing automatically passes to be or to start the opposite side. I mean, that if everything is hope, then hope isn't hope, but it's opposite, which is the opposite of hope? I'km not really sure of knowing it, someone else? It is also one of the demostration I use to against god, (I knoe it has nothing to do with this, but...) because everything is imperfect, then everything is perfect, but is there is something perfect where everything else is inperfect, then nothing is perfect and everything becomes ilogical and the unvierse would autodestroy. but as god doesn't exist, we are ok.

 

[P-a-u-l]

I believe the author of the thread wanted to ask us people if we can prove to him that we exist. Thus, the answer "yes, I can prove I exist" is valid, but only if you're trying to prove it to yourself; If the one who answered wants to prove his existence to the rest of us, he'll have to make some explanations.

About pinching, cutting off fingers and etc.,
If you cut someone's finger and he'll scream in pain, that doesn't prove that you exist; it only proves that that certain man is able to feel pain.
He can easily say that his optical receptors detect a shape of a man with a knife in his hand cutting off what he knows is his finger and he can also say that he, simultaneously, feels pain.

The fact is that I may be a brain in a jar, with some wires connected to me which make me see, feel, smell, touch and hear reality.
Thus, everything else may be the product of my brain, including you or my hand pinching my body.

Another variant of this issue is: that everything exists as I know it, except that you are nothing more than automatons; robots, figments of my imagination, etc. Your bodies may well exist, but your minds are just dead.
Thus, if you prove that you think, you prove that you exist, as a mind.
This is the issue that Descartes, I believe, addressed.

My response to the question at hand is this:
I will use Ockam's Blade to prove that this is the "real reality" and that there is no other reality.

We know some things about the Universe - we know that it has a beginning, we know how life has appeared, we know how man has appeared, we know how man dies and why he dies and we know how the Universe will end (note that when we know that a human being physically dies, then, necessarily, we know that that human being also mentally dies).

If this weren't the "real reality", and I am, in fact, a brain in a jar, then I also have to prove (or at least, think about) how I have ended up in that jar, what kind of technology is used to make me believe that this is reality and the agencies that are doing this to me.
This, would just overcomplicate things - I'd be in the position to deny this entire Universe (which we have knowledge about) and then justify the existence of a new, more complex one.
Thus, there is only a small chance that this reality isn't the "real" one.

The only variant of the issue left out is the one that says that all of this is real except the fact that the rest of the people do not have a mind of their own.

About this I'd say that it's common sense to accept that we all think alike, act alike, and live alike.
Thus, if I say that you people are brain dead, then I have to alternatives:
Either I'm brain dead too (because I live my life just like the others do) or that you brain dead people are very good copies of me.
Now, I know that I have a brain (the physical part of my mind) - it functions through electrical impulses, carbon and may other types of substances - it's easy to prove that I have a brain by going to the neurologist and having him examen my brain.
I also know that the rest of the people have a brain and that their brain functions just the way mine functions - electrical impulses and etc.

Thus, there are a number of premises:
There cannot be another reality.
I act just like everybody else does.
I have a brain just like every body else does.

My conclusion, therefore, would be that you people are as real as I am.

I suspect that this argument has many faults, and I wouldn't mind if anybody points them out.

P.S. I haven't read the whole thread to see whether these facts have already been said, so, I'm sorry if you see your own words in my post.

 

[LindaGarrette]

The scientific method doesn't assume there is proof of anything, only uncontested evidence. If my hypothesis is that I exist, I must pose the null hypothesis that I don't and show evidence to the contrary. Since I am physical evidence, observable and testable, that I exist, the null hypothesis is proven false and the theory is accepted.

 

[Myriad209]

Maybe reality is simply brought about by consciousness and senses. If you've never heard sound before how could you really be sure it exists. If you've never seen anything before how could you really be sure it exists etc. Sense is the most fundamental aspect of reality (you can't describe to person without eyes what blue 'looks' like).

When you take away consciousness and all your senses, in your perspective, you no longer exist. Although someone seeing you dead, you seem to clearly exist.

 

[eNathan]

Oh no here we go again. This is my theory...

You can only prove that you exists -- however, you cannot prove anything around you exists.

I have though this out a lot, and this is the best I can come up with.

 

[Huckleberry]

Microburst: If I run up to you on the street and (in a fit of rage) I bite off your little finger, how much more real is it if you think I bit off your finger vs. you believe I bit off your finger?

Has anyone heard of the phenomenon of the phantom limb? Amputees can sometimes feel pain in a part of a limb that has been removed. One example I heard of was a man who felt that his hand was clenching and he was unable to unclench it. It was causing him physical pain in the place where his hand would have been if it were still attached. In order to cure the man's pain a mirror box was created. He would put his arms in the box (both the real one and the phantom arm) and the image of the existing hand was reflected to the empty part of the box containing the man's phantom arm. He clenched and unclenched his real arm and the image of his phantom arm would imitate the movements. This gave the man relief from his pain because he could believe that his phantom limb was unclenching.

So biting off a person's finger, or punching them in the nose does not prove or disprove existence. It is not necessary to have a physical cause to create a sense of touch. I think the same holds true for all the senses. (not sure about smell) A person can see things that are not real, hear things that make no real sound, touch things that aren't there and taste things that they have never eaten. They are all just sensory input into a complex chemical system we call our brains.

The question to prove we exist is to prove that what our brain is telling us is real or not. I can't think of a way to do this. For all practical purposes I assume that I exist and take that as a pretty good theory. If a person does not exist then who can prove that anything exists? Science doesn't exist. Your parents don't exist. Our senses sense things that we can not prove exist. Reality, to me, is a general social consensus on what we choose to define as real. A sort of majority rules.

I'm still jumping out of the way the next time a truck comes barrelling down the road at me while I'm trying to cross it. If I ever find an answer to this question then maybe I'll just stand there and wait for it.

edit- Now that I think about, smell can also perceive scents that do not exist. Tumors in the brain can create symptoms of strange smells that have no real cause.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Has anyone heard of the phenomenon of the phantom limb? Amputees can sometimes feel pain in a part of a limb that has been removed. One example I heard of was a man who felt that his hand was clenching and he was unable to unclench it. It was causing him physical pain in the place where his hand would have been if it were still attached. In order to cure the man's pain a mirror box was created. He would put his arms in the box (both the real one and the phantom arm) and the image of the existing hand was reflected to the empty part of the box containing the man's phantom arm. He clenched and unclenched his real arm and the image of his phantom arm would imitate the movements. This gave the man relief from his pain because he could believe that his phantom limb was unclenching.

I find things like this fascinating. It's as if the mind has to re-learn the body to adjust.

So biting off a person's finger, or punching them in the nose does not prove or disprove existence. It is not necessary to have a physical cause to create a sense of touch. I think the same holds true for all the senses. (not sure about smell) A person can see things that are not real, hear things that make no real sound, touch things that aren't there and taste things that they have never eaten. They are all just sensory input into a complex chemical system we call our brains.

In my response I was only asking for clarification to Microburst's desire to edit the original wording of Descartes:
"I think therefore I am" is wrong, it should be… “I believe therefore I am”..."
What does he really mean when he suggests there is this difference in "think" and "believe"? In the example of physical pain, I do not say "I think I am in pain" and I do not say "I believe I am in pain". Either I am in pain or I am not.

Aside from that, Descartes was trying to express that if he could shut out all his senses, he still could not stop his thinking. Thus the only thing he knew for certain is that he was a "thinking thing." To me, it does not really make any more sense in this case for Descartes to have said "I am a believing thing". A thinking thing could still have distrust of it's own thoughts and not believe them, yet be aware of that it was having these thoughts, believable or not.

The question to prove we exist is to prove that what our brain is telling us is real or not. I can't think of a way to do this. For all practical purposes I assume that I exist and take that as a pretty good theory. If a person does not exist then who can prove that anything exists? Science doesn't exist. Your parents don't exist. Our senses sense things that we can not prove exist. Reality, to me, is a general social consensus on what we choose to define as real. A sort of majority rules.

Well, sure, there's always that teeny tiny chance that you are a brain in a vat and everything you experience is being fed to you a la Matrix. But the least complicated explanation is that this is not the case and that you actually have a body and senses and are interacting with an environment.

 

[Huckleberry]

Hi MIH

I knew what you meaned by the finger biting rage. I just wanted to use it as an example of how something does not have to be real in order to be experienced. How could I ignore the funniest thing in this thread?

Hmm, brain in a vat? That does seem very unlikely. I'll still choose the red pill anyday.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I knew what you meaned by the finger biting rage. I just wanted to use it as an example of how something does not have to be real in order to be experienced. How could I ignore the funniest thing in this thread?

It all seemed funny at the time, but I think plover is still scared of me to this day.

 

[1+1=only1]

The whole universe is based on probability, if you believe quantum theory and string theory and the current scientific perception of the universe. So, proof beyond a shadow of doubt is impossible, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is possible. From all the evidence presented, I know most probably that I exist and I'm perceiving a universe that isn't just a figment of my imagination or our collective imaginations. And because other individuals have come to similar conclusions, I believe they are just like me and have the same belief in self existence that I do. So I've proven to myself beyond reasonable doubt that you exist. And since I am you parading around with a different set of eyes, then I have now proven to you (you have proven to me) beyond reasonable doubt that more than likely I (you) exist. If you're not quite sure what I mean by "I am you", look over my recent posts within a different thread.

 

[disturbed1]

existence, reality, and information

reality or existence which seem related to me, can be measured and confirmed by cubing information. I like the number 3. this leads to a very accurate perception of reality and existence. of course tools that are used to measure the information directly relate to its accuracy. Would you say that there is only so much information in this universe. could this number be increased, obviously never decreased. Perhaps some leaking of information from another universe. could this be the bible.
Reality is closely related. reality holds true information while we try to grasp it's real value. Reality is kinda trapped in time, and holds time constant. even information, speed of light, energy can influence but cannot change reality. Reality is at the tiniest measurement of time and is left in information.
I believe that information is a higher tool which is measured and left behind in the universe from energy and intelligence, over a period of time. information and energy can directly increase time value of the universe and life.
Would you not say that as we speak the universe is on a collision course for the end of time as the universe we know. Well, using information and energy the time of the universe supporting life could be increased. this sounds so out of reach but is true. the same proves true for life. with an increase of information and energy the life span of human beings has dramatically increased in the past century.
I would be interested to see if life span was increased by potential energy by traveling at high speeds. Perhaps life's biological clock would act different. Perhaps this could also lengthen the time of the universe.
I find it hard to believe that the speed of light will slow down time. Wouldn't this mean that time was slowed down all around us, as we are surrounded by light in the day time. I find it hard to believe in time travel as I see time as a constant dimension.

Please reply interested parties for chat
tks

 

[Rade]

I hold that Descarte has the logic backwards, the correct form of the argument is:
I am (that is I exist as a thing), thus I think
I hold that Descarte errors because a "thought" cannot be primary unless it first is a "thing" that exists. Now, if thinking is a "thing" that exists then Descartes argument is reduced to "I Am therefore I Am", which is a useless tautology. And if thinking is not a "thing" then by definition it cannot be primary, that is, a "no-thing" cannot come before a "thing", or stated otherwise, some-thing cannot come from no-thing.
This is called the argument from the Primacy of Existence, as opposed to the argument of Descarte (and many others) that hold the Primacy of Consciousness (that place thinking outside and prior to existence). From the argument of the primacy of existence, one must (by definition) hold the concept of existence as an axiomatic concept, one must take the position that: Existence Exists. And because this is an axiomatic given under this philosophy it cannot be logically discussed, it is just accepted, and then one develops their metaphysics and epistomology from this starting point. All philosophies MUST begin with these types of fundamental axiomatic concepts. Of course, YOU may not hold this type of philosophy, but then, this is what makes philosophy so interesting to study. For those that what to study a philosophy that starts from the Primacy of Existence read Ayn Rand.
On a personal note, I came to realize that I Am, that I Exist, not by thinking, but at the moment of my personal Existential Moment, which happened when I was about 11 years of age. For those that do not know this term, it is when you also have a feeling of being very small, usually happens before teenage years. Thus my personal experience proves (to me) that Descarte was incorrect since the perception of my existential moment came to me (to my consciousness) from my uncounscious, I did not think it (nor myself) into existence. My uncounscious informed my conscious that "I Am" during my existential moment and also at the same time informed that I AM one very small thing in a very much larger reality of many things. Now you can take this experience two ways, concentrate on the fact that you are small and like some Existentialists you kill yourself, or, concentrate on the fact that YOU EXIST and then go on with your life and follow your bliss.
Thus to answer the question of this thread, I hold that yes, one does prove to themself that they exist at the time and place when they experience their existential moment. Now I wonder if those that have never experienced their existential moment are those that look for prove of existence outside themself, perhaps in the supernatural ?

 

[disturbed1]

did you not exist before your existial moment. I'm sure other people that known of their existence would have known of your existence before you did. thus you did existe without knowing in your own mind.