Proof

Prove to me that you exist.

prove to me I don't.

prove to me I don't.

I can't prove to you that you don't exist.
however, that doesn't prove to -ME- that you exist.

As of yet, I cannot think of any way to prove to you that I exist. The only thing I can do is prove to myself that I exist, but that's beside the point here.

None of us exist. This is all a pig's dream.

I am, therefore I exist.

As for proof I think giving any answer to that question is enough proof of existence.

I am physically comprised of carbon based atoms.

How about I go over there and punch you in the face, is that enough proof for you?

Behave. This is Elitist Debate, not the sewers.


The most plausible method of proving that one exists is a common quotation of today: "I think, therefore I am". You are a thinking being, therefore you exist in some way (even if only in some sort of dream). However, this only applies to you as an individual, not to others around you. You cannot prove that they too are thinking beings. Thus, as far as can see so far, there is no way for me to prove that I exist to you. It's all a matter of what you choose to believe.

It doesn't really matter if I exist or don't. Even if I do, it's only for a short while, and I will soon go back to not existing.

I sometimes wonder if life is just my own thoughts. I don't seriously consider it to be true, but it's interesting to think about.

Is there a name for people that believe this? o=

Egotists

I am too tired to exist.

I don't have proof. My lack of a camera to photograph whatever does not make for a reasonable response.

As for the thinking thing, I think far too much. I'll elaborate on some random smear on the sidewalk for ages. So i suppose i am more existent than some people =O.

But what do you know? what do you care? Maybe this is all just an elaborate setup made by roph and only roph in order to get donations from the few real users on here. Yeah that's right. This could just be a scam for your money.

In the meantime, while you consider that, can you prove to me that YOU exist, Namkcor?

I am, therefore I exist.

As for proof I think giving any answer to that question is enough proof of existence.

you could simply be a bot.

I am physically comprised of carbon based atoms.

how do I know that?

How about I go over there and punch you in the face, is that enough proof for you?

won't prove a thing.

In the meantime, while you consider that, can you prove to me that YOU exist, Namkcor?

I cannot, just as you cannot prove to me that you exist.

it's simple.
you can only prove to YOURSELF that you exist
it is impossible to prove this to anyone else.

Zylos hit the nail on the head.

I am, therefore I exist.

As for proof I think giving any answer to that question is enough proof of existence.

you could simply be a bot.

I am physically comprised of carbon based atoms.

how do I know that?

How about I go over there and punch you in the face, is that enough proof for you?

won't prove a thing.

In the meantime, while you consider that, can you prove to me that YOU exist, Namkcor?

I cannot, just as you cannot prove to me that you exist.

it's simple.
you can only prove to YOURSELF that you exist
it is impossible to prove this to anyone else.

Zylos hit the nail on the head.

Oh now I see where you're going with this.

I am physically comprised of carbon based atoms.

how do I know that?

Because we -are- comprised of carbon based atoms. If you tell me that it all isn't real i'm going to call shenanigans and label your thread as fucking trolling.

I am physically comprised of carbon based atoms.

how do I know that?

Because we -are- comprised of carbon based atoms. If you tell me that it all isn't real i'm going to call shenanigans and label your thread as fucking trolling.

it's not trolling it's psychology.
it's possible that the entire world unto itself is an illusion, making the idea that you are comprised of carbon based atoms part of said illusion.

Zylos has the correct answer.
if it were trolling, there would -be- no correct answer.

also, lol @ sword

SHENANIGANS

SHENANIGANS

sword's example is perfect

There really is no correct answer. It depends on what you intend by saying "exist". Something existing and something being real are relative terms. A dream is a real thing, and it happens to most people, but the things that occur in the dream aren't "real" per se. Until recently, nobody knew that there were ice geysers on Io, but now that we know about them, they exist to us. Existence is only gained by ultimate knowledge, and there is no possible way for humans to have omniscience. It is a waste of time for us to contemplate the unknowable.

Zylos has the right answer if you're a cartesian. The problem is in the question, in that it asserts that something can exist only if it is independent and objective. Ultimately, it is an empirical question upon which there is no basis for empiricism. It is a very simple fact that all perception is mediated by a mental faculty that can completely reproduce that perception without a corresponding object. This, ultimately, includes the self.

"I think, therefore I am" is not an observation, it is a definition. Further it is a definition produced by thought, which implies two things: (a) that thought precedes existence and (b) that thought produces existence. This constitutes what is essentially self-production - we assert that we exist because of our own thoughts that thinking is sufficient to prove existence. Under this model, a thought is enough to grant something existence, and by that same token why can we not say that our conception of any other person is enough to consider that existence. If I conceive of something, it exists if only as an idea. Similarly, any idea of a person is enough to say that that person exists in every relevant way. Even if it is a hallucination, that person exists in a way no less relevant to the subject than any "real" person.

Thus, the question itself seems irrelevant to me as it asserts there is some usefulness to existence being defined as an object independent from the subject. Since we interact with the world only through our mind, I don't see any usefulness in defining existence as separate from perception.

Anyway, I'm not interested in philosophy overly much, so this is probably all drivel. Still, it's the way I see it.

EDIT::
What Holk said

It is a waste of time for us to contemplate the unknowable.

philosophy really has no tangible purpose, does it?

Zylos has the right answer if you're a cartesian. The problem is in the question, in that it asserts that something can exist only if it is independent and objective. Ultimately, it is an empirical question upon which there is no basis for empiricism. It is a very simple fact that all perception is mediated by a mental faculty that can completely reproduce that perception without a corresponding object. This, ultimately, includes the self.

"I think, therefore I am" is not an observation, it is a definition. Further it is a definition produced by thought, which implies two things: (a) that thought precedes existence and (b) that thought produces existence. This constitutes what is essentially self-production - we assert that we exist because of our own thoughts that thinking is sufficient to prove existence. Under this model, a thought is enough to grant something existence, and by that same token why can we not say that our conception of any other person is enough to consider that existence. If I conceive of something, it exists if only as an idea. Similarly, any idea of a person is enough to say that that person exists in every relevant way. Even if it is a hallucination, that person exists in a way no less relevant to the subject than any "real" person.

the problem with that, is there is no way to show me that the person behind the post is actually thinking.  illusions do not think, they simply do as they were programmed to by the illusionist, and therefore, by that model, do not exist.

Thus, the question itself seems irrelevant to me as it asserts there is some usefulness to existence being defined as an object independent from the subject. Since we interact with the world only through our mind, I don't see any usefulness in defining existence as separate from perception.

why does it have to have a use?

Alright, here is my undereducated, slightly muddled by need of sleep definition of existence: Because there is no way to know that we actually exist, existence to use would be defined as what we actually know to have a presence in our lives. just because something is an illusion, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It isn't alive or even genuine, but it manages to affect us, therefore it does to us, exist. By accepting it's presence in the world, we sort of give it an existence.

You may say, but kitkatkan, if you ignore something, does it exist? That depends on what context of ignore you are talking about. If you know something exists, actually seen it, but you deny it's presence, then you're just being a dick. If you are ignorant of something, then it doesn't exist to you- not yet. Existence
to the universe in general is a different thing, but as far as we can see, only what we know exists. As for the world in general existing, maybe we won't exist to whatever "Existent" world there is. but at least to ourselves, we exist.

actually i think that's just a muddled up version of what holk said, but i'd like to think that that was my own muddled two cents.

Alright, here is my undereducated, slightly muddled by need of sleep definition of existence: Because there is no way to know that we actually exist, existence to use would be defined as what we actually know to have a presence in our lives. just because something is an illusion, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It isn't alive or even genuine, but it manages to affect us, therefore it does to us, exist. By accepting it's presence in the world, we sort of give it an existence.

that would hold true, until it was discovered that the world you accept is an illusion, then it ceases to "exist" by your standard, as, being an illusion, it never "existed" by the standard of it being a real presence.

You may say, but kitkatkan, if you ignore something, does it exist? That depends on what context of ignore you are talking about. If you know something exists, actually seen it, but you deny it's presence, then you're just being a dick. If you are ignorant of something, then it doesn't exist to you- not yet. Existence
to the universe in general is a different thing, but as far as we can see, only what we know exists. As for the world in general existing, maybe we won't exist to whatever "Existent" world there is. but at least to ourselves, we exist.

we, being the self, is the only thing you can prove exists, and only then to yourself.  that is true.  whether 'we' exist in reality or a virtual/illusionary world is yet to be seen.

Sword summed it up quite well with the picture he posted. 
I refer anyone interested in the concept of my query to watch Fight Club.

NOTE: I don't actually think everything is an illusion, I just was pondering the subject for the simple reason that it was there to be pondered.

Fight Club doesn't really have a lot to do with the existence argument. Only one small part of it does, and it can be summed up in the quote, "Is Tyler my bad dream? Am I Tyler's?" It sounds like NAM is under the impression that in order for something to exist there must be proof. Truthfully, there are things that have existed and do exist that we know nothing about, as well as there will be a day when no proof remains that we were ever here. Like I said earlier, there is no way for us to ever truly tell what is the ultimate reality, and there never will be. We just aren't capable of knowing.

Fight Club doesn't really have a lot to do with the existence argument. Only one small part of it does, and it can be summed up in the quote, "Is Tyler my bad dream? Am I Tyler's?"

and that's the part that I'm referencing.

It sounds like NAM is under the impression that in order for something to exist there must be proof.

not true.

Truthfully, there are things that have existed and do exist that we know nothing about, as well as there will be a day when no proof remains that we were ever here. Like I said earlier, there is no way for us to ever truly tell what is the ultimate reality, and there never will be. We just aren't capable of knowing.

exactly, we don't know, and there is no proof.  that's the point.

the problem with that, is there is no way to show me that the person behind the post is actually thinking.  illusions do not think, they simply do as they were programmed to by the illusionist, and therefore, by that model, do not exist.

I mentioned a hallucination, which certainly does not think ~ it exists to the subject and that is enough under my model.

The problem with "I think, therefore I am" is that it embodies a condition ~ namely, that a thinking subject must exist ~ this is not self-evident. This proof of the self as existing is constructed circularly. The "proof" itself is a thought construction, and it says the ability to think guarantees existence. If we treat existence as being objective, independent from perception, then the self cannot be proven either, since thought is generated by perception. Our own conception of self is ultimately the same as our conception of other. They are defined against each other. To say that thinking guarantees existence makes no real sense to me ~ why should it?

why does it have to have a use?

Of course utility is important ~ philosophy should always be relevant, not purposeless.

the problem with that, is there is no way to show me that the person behind the post is actually thinking.  illusions do not think, they simply do as they were programmed to by the illusionist, and therefore, by that model, do not exist.

I mentioned a hallucination, which certainly does not think ~ it exists to the subject and that is enough under my model.

The problem with "I think, therefore I am" is that it embodies a condition ~ namely, that a thinking subject must exist ~ this is not self-evident. This proof of the self as existing is constructed circularly. The "proof" itself is a thought construction, and it says the ability to think guarantees existence. If we treat existence as being objective, independent from perception, then the self cannot be proven either, since thought is generated by perception. Our own conception of self is ultimately the same as our conception of other. They are defined against each other. To say that thinking guarantees existence makes no real sense to me ~ why should it?

Nobody wins, nothing exists.
Happy now?

ALRIGHT THEN 

NOTE: I don't actually think everything is an illusion, I just was pondering the subject for the simple reason that it was there to be pondered.

I know, i was just referencing that just to cover all of the bases =O

i'm surprised i managed to make sense. I always seem to be more philosophical when i'm tired.

Nobody wins, nothing exists.
Happy now?

it was never about winning or losing, or about whether we existed or not.
I hardly think that this is all an illusion.  I just wanted to see what people could provide as possible proof.

the problem with that, is there is no way to show me that the person behind the post is actually thinking.  illusions do not think, they simply do as they were programmed to by the illusionist, and therefore, by that model, do not exist.

I mentioned a hallucination, which certainly does not think ~ it exists to the subject and that is enough under my model.

take existence to be 'truth', as in something that truly is there in whatever true existence exists
hallucination is a form of illusion, which, by its nature is a lie, or a falsity.
since false is opposite of truth, then illusion must be opposite of existence, assuming that a true existence well, exists.

the other difference is that an illusion must be perceived to exist, but truth does not.  truth can exist outside perception, such as if someone's perception is clouded by an illusion, or they simply are not able to percieve the truth for whatever reason.

why does it have to have a use?

Of course utility is important ~ philosophy should always be relevant, not purposeless.

I don't see the necessity for usefulness.

I can not say I exist or don't exist for all we know we are a dream created by God...
I mean I control my thoughts and decided on my actions...maybe that means I exist or maybe it just means that I have Free Will...

prove to me I don't.

Fallacia ad Vericuntis! 

Anyways, if I did not exist? Would I be writing this?

Okay. Stop everything for just a second. Forget everything you believe in and everything that you know.

Currently you are looking at your computer screen. Your fingers touched your computer mouse in order to view this thread. You possibly can hear the sound of your computer humming softly as you read this, vaguely taste the remnants of your last meal in your mouth, smell the very air around you. These are your senses, what you use to percieve the world around you. But, all your senses really are is signals interpretted by your brain. It's possible that they could be misinterpretted, or even be completely wrong.

If you've ever seen the movie "The Matrix", then you see the perfect example of it right there. I'm not saying that we're trapped in a digital world inside a computer, but I'm saying we cannot prove that the world around us is real at all. Not the computer in front of you, the floor beneath you, not even the people you know. It could all be some sort of grand illusion. Honestly, I really don't believe that it is, but the fact remains that it could be.

The only thing you can prove is that you exist in some way, for reasons already explained. But just because you post pictures or type things, it doesn't prove to me that you exist.

That's basically what Immanuel Kant says in his Critique of Pure Reason, verbatim.

And it's exactly what the Wachowski brother's ripped off to make the Matrix, of course adding the whole "the one" thing to make it interesting.


The things that we experience ourselves, through our own senses, are called 'noumenal.' We know these things to be true, because we ourselves experience them. But who can vouch for what you see, or whether or not you actually exist in the same way I do? Everything else like this is called "phenomenal," which is obviously where it's current connotation came from, phenomenal being described as what we cannot perceive ourselves (like ghosts, or what have you).
We just learned about all that stuff in our music history class, because the principles of the Enlightenment actually had a very profound impact on the arts, Kant's theories of noumenal and phenomenal especially.

So, in a nutshell, I can prove to myself that I exist, because I know personally that I do exist, my senses tell me so. I feel pain, I think (as in, I have thoughts, and an internal monologue), and all that internal stuff that I know to be true. But I cannot prove that you exist in the same way that I exist. You may not be there at all, you may not be a human like me, because I cannot prove that, for example, you feel pain, because I cannot feel your pain. And similarly, I cannot prove to YOU that I exist, but you can prove to yourself that YOU exist.

lol

Tangent.

that's not a tangent Arlen, that's exactly the point.
I'm glad you adn Zylos were here to explain for me

Oh good. This again.

In all technicality, Descartes did extend his proof beyond I think, therefore I am. He started by assuming nothing, and that was merely the first step. In fact, "I think therefore I am" was stated by a lot of people long before Descartes, including Plato, or maybe it was Aristotle I forget. Augustine by any means. Anyway, if you accept Descartes' logic, then he did eventually come to the conclusion that everything exists.

Again, I don't see any particular usefulness to this definition of existence, but I certainly don't see how or why under that definition, thinking is sufficient to guarantee "existence". If we are asserting that it is possible for the world not to exist, why is it somehow possible that thinking must mean we exist. Thinking doesn't even guarantee free will. Why thinking? Why not Blufferbidging? I blufferbidge, therefore I am. If you do not blufferbidge, very likely you are not. Further, how can anything "exist" in a world that does not exist. If we accept this "I think, therefore I am" model (why should we?) then our next logical assertion should be that for us to exist, the world also needs to exist. For us to exist, we must be biological organisms, and if we are biological organisms then it follows that there must be other biological organisms like us. If we are the only thing that exists, then it follows to reason that the world must exist, or we are God. If we assert that the world must exist, then the objects we perceive within that world should be assumed to also exist - it makes absolutely no sense to put the onus on proving that we exist - the onus is on someone to prove we don't. It's like in a trial. Most people are not murderers. The accused should not have to prove that he is not a murderer, the accuser should have to prove he is.

And I don't think The Matrix is a very good example, because (A) it's not very believable and (B) the people living in The Matrix are living real lives ~ they're not fake lives - they are not fake people, and the matrix is not fake - the matrix is real, even if it is constructed, and the "real world" of the matrix is no more or less real than the matrix itself. The underlying assumption implied in saying the matrix is not real is that unless something is biological and locatable within space-time, it is not real. But I see no reason why this should be the case. If you really wanted to make the argument, you could say that the entire universe is itself a program created by God. But this definition of existence to which we are trying to measure ourselves is useless because it can never be satisfied. Nothing, ever, can possibly be said to exist under this definition, not self or world because you can always draw it back another layer.

Anyway, if you accept Descartes' logic, then he did eventually come to the conclusion that everything exists.

show me.

[stuff about biological organisms blah blah blah]

I don't see your point in all of that, it's still entirely possible that the world itself that you see is an illusion and the only 'real' being in it is you.  So all your assertions could easily be wrong.

[stuff about the matrix and more biological stuff]

first, why must anything be believable for it to be possible?
second, it can never be satisfied, that is the whole point

I don't feel like discussing this further, the answer has been stated several times.

there is NO WAY to prove to anybody other than YOURSELF that you exist.

I don't want to show you, go read him 

"I think, therefore I am" is not a proof, it's a prescription. To think, one must exist. Therefore I exist. That is not a logical necessity. Why should that be existence? Why is thinking sufficient? It is equally valid to say "I am, therefore I am." To be, one must exist. Therefore I exist.

The entire question is silly, because you are using a concept of existence that is unsatisfiable, and then arbitrarily saying "I exist", and then equally arbitrarily saying that no other person can define existence in any way other than what you have decided. Under your conception of existence, the only way to prove your existence is to define the self into existence. And if you can alter the definition of existence to prove you exist to yourself, why is it off limits for me to alter the definition of existence to prove to you that I exist?

Because he is the OP

I don't want to show you, go read him 

"I think, therefore I am" is not a proof, it's a prescription. To think, one must exist. Therefore I exist. That is not a logical necessity. Why should that be existence? Why is thinking sufficient? It is equally valid to say "I am, therefore I am." To be, one must exist. Therefore I exist.

The entire question is silly, because you are using a concept of existence that is unsatisfiable, and then arbitrarily saying "I exist", and then equally arbitrarily saying that no other person can define existence in any way other than what you have decided. Under your conception of existence, the only way to prove your existence is to define the self into existence. And if you can alter the definition of existence to prove you exist to yourself, why is it off limits for me to alter the definition of existence to prove to you that I exist?

because no matter how you alter the definition, whatever 'proof' you find can still be a complete and total lie.

all you've done is try to nitpick at the question itself, without providing anything that could be considered concrete proof of anything.

How about I go over there and punch you in the face, is that enough proof for you?

It's not nitpicking, it's the question itself. If I say, "Does God love you?" then it is not nitpicking to ask in response, "Does God exist?". Your question hinges on an assumption that I do not accept nor think relevant.

If you think my ideas are wrong, then you must accept that I have ideas. If I have ideas, then I think. By your logic, if something thinks, it is.

Therefore, you must admit either that I exist, or that my ideas are not wrong.

Of course, I already know exactly what you're going to say in response to that, and I'm done anyway.

It's not nitpicking, it's the question itself. If I say, "Does God love you?" then it is not nitpicking to ask in response, "Does God exist?". Your question hinges on an assumption that I do not accept nor think relevant.

If you think my ideas are wrong, then you must accept that I have ideas. If I have ideas, then I think. By your logic, if something thinks, it is.

prove to me that you think.

The philosophical wankery in this thread is painful, but I guess that's the point.

We exist.

It's not nitpicking, it's the question itself. If I say, "Does God love you?" then it is not nitpicking to ask in response, "Does God exist?". Your question hinges on an assumption that I do not accept nor think relevant.

If you think my ideas are wrong, then you must accept that I have ideas. If I have ideas, then I think. By your logic, if something thinks, it is.

prove to me that you think.

Dude, if I say something now you'll want me to prove it and prove the next thing and prove everything.

We must accept somethings without proof. It's called trusting someone or having faith on someone. If you demand for proof of everything, basically, you don't trust anything.

And ofcourse we think, without thinking we will not be able to process information and form a reply.
Proof that we formed replies: This thread.
Proof this thread exists: You are reading it
Proof that you exist: Your problem.



but thats just my opinion ;-;

Dude, if I say something now you'll want me to prove it and prove the next thing and prove everything.

We must accept somethings without proof. It's called trusting someone or having faith on someone. If you demand for proof of everything, basically, you don't trust anything.

And ofcourse we think, without thinking we will not be able to process information and form a reply.
Proof that we formed replies: This thread.
Proof this thread exists: You are reading it
Proof that you exist: Your problem.

This thread is about proof, therefore to answer the original question/demand, there must be proof.  "Prove to me you exist" asks for concrete evidence, and in order to satisfy it, evidence must be presented.

that being said, the fact that this thread exists isn't proof of anything, nor does me reading it or you replying to it.  Again, it could all be a very complex and clever illusion, or you could all be intelligent bots.  And the question wasn't proof of my existence, but proof of yours.

note: I do -not- believe that all of this is an illusion and I believe that you are, in fact, quite real.

I can prove it to you in many ways.
Like, youw ant a birth certificate or a photo..


and the fact that I'm posting here is pretty good evidence that I

you know


exist.


;-;

I can prove it to you in many ways.
Like, youw ant a birth certificate or a photo..


and the fact that I'm posting here is pretty good evidence that I

you know


exist.


;-;

like with everything else, those could all be easily fabricated.  In fact, birth certificates and photos are often manipulated or fabricated for the purpose of making people disappear or disguising as people who don't truly exist.

I think with this topic you have to think outside the box...

For instance you exist in the fact that we have our senses and we can make decisions on our own free will...
However you may not exist in the fact that we can only use at the most about 7% of our brain...There are so many things we can't comprehend and/or don't know...

We could be a thought, a dream, or even a re-enactment of a parallel universe for all I know...

Yes you have a birth certificate, but that does not mean we exist.

I can prove it to you in many ways.
Like, youw ant a birth certificate or a photo..


and the fact that I'm posting here is pretty good evidence that I

you know


exist.


;-;

like with everything else, those could all be easily fabricated.  In fact, birth certificates and photos are often manipulated or fabricated for the purpose of making people disappear or disguising as people who don't truly exist.

then tell me what you consider as proof. I'll use it to explain my existance.

heh
that was fun lol

I think with this topic you have to think outside the box...

For instance you exist in the fact that we have our senses and we can make decisions on our own free will...
However you may not exist in the fact that we can only use at the most about 7% of our brain...There are so many things we can't comprehend and/or don't know...

We could be a thought, a dream, or even a re-enactment of a parallel universe for all I know...

Yes you have a birth certificate, but that does not mean we exist.

but I don't know that you actually sense, or think, or make decisions, because I can't see inside your head.  for all I know you could be part of a grand illusion, that's the whole point of this.

then tell me what you consider as proof. I'll use it to explain my existance.

heh
that was fun lol

I don't know.
I haven't found a way to prove my existence to anyone but myself, but when I do, I'll let you know.

but I don't know that you actually sense, or think, or make decisions, because I can't see inside your head.  for all I know you could be part of a grand illusion, that's the whole point of this.

That is true, I could just be an illusion to you telling you what you already know in your sub-conscious...for all I know we could be deeply connected to everyone and everything having a similar connected deep sub-consciousness that will forever be un-obtainable...

However I do believe in Free Will, so maybe the two ideas are combined somehow...

I am not saying that we exist or don't I am saying that it makes more sense that the idea of us exists...IMO we are not capable of comprehending if we exist or don't exist, but if the idea of us exists then some form of existence must exist, making us at least exist on some unknown level.

I EXIST even if I don't understand how!
The new question is do you Exist?
If you truly are an illusion then I am ultimately debating this with someone that does not exist but then everyone is responding to my message meaning that either my sub-conscious is debating against itself or is responding to something that does exist...

I know I said I was done, but I'm really bad at letting things go.

Again, it could all be a very complex and clever illusion, or you could all be intelligent bots.

 By this statement, are you then asserting that bots do not exist, or that when people say they have hallucinations they are lying, because hallucinations do not exist? Or perhaps they're not lying, but are rather hallucinations themselves, but then super paradox because hallucinations do not exist

 If I were a not-so-intelligent bot, how does that mean I don't exist? If I were a hallucination, how do I not exist as hallucination?  Because that's what this is implying... and I don't understand why bots and hallucinations don't exist.

If this is an illusion and it does not exist, how can you experience it? If something does not exist, how can it be anything other than nothing? If nothing can exist that is false, what is the imagination?

a hallucination is in a sense a lie.
which can easily be perceived and experienced, regardless of the fact that they are untrue.

so they're not lying about having a hallucination, but if they said "dude look at that ice cream, it's talking to me", and they were hallucinating, then the statement is not true.

the idea of existing is something that is real, and true, as opposed to something that is a lie and unreal, such as an illusion or a hallucination.

if you need me to be super specific as to what I'm talking about, to leave no possible loopholes, then I will be.

Take existing to mean something true, and real.
In reference to a person, existing means that they are in fact a living, breathing, thinking, judging, etc... person.

so, 'prove to me that you exist' asks for proof that the person in question is indeed a living, breathing, thinking, judging, etc... person, and not in some way a fake person or part of an illusion or hallucination.

stop trying to redefine the question as I intended it, or your answers will not fit the question I posed.

And yeah, I'm bad at letting things go too.

I think that everyone exists. >_> Okay, what if we're a bot or someone with fabricated identities? We might not be the person you think we are, but we will still be in existence. If you acknowledge ANY sort of action/senses that a person, place, or thing does/stimulates, then the said person/place/thing exists. We don't have to be who you think we are. >_>

Doesn't existing just meaning that you are? If you wanna go about being truthful, why not just ask "Prove to me you've never lied in your life?"

I guess what it comes down to is faith that we do exist so we all don't go crazy...yeah that sounds good to me

I think that everyone exists. >_> Okay, what if we're a bot or someone with fabricated identities? We might not be the person you think we are, but we will still be in existence. If you acknowledge ANY sort of action/senses that a person, place, or thing does/stimulates, then the said person/place/thing exists. We don't have to be who you think we are. >_>

yes, but from where I'm sitting all of your actions, senses, things that you do, say, etc... could all very well be a hallucination or an illusion.  That's the point.

yes, but from where I'm sitting all of your actions, senses, things that you do, say, etc... could all very well be a hallucination or an illusion.  That's the point.

Then in that case lay off the LSD...
(I'm sorry in advance if my comments are becoming ruder as the day goes on...I have to deal with cx's calling because they dropped their $600 iPhone and want us to replace it for them at no cost and 10 Trillion other issues...so yeah...)

So in theory you would be an illusion to me, I know I exist...the thing is I don't use LSD so you aren't an illusion...
(ok I'll stop)

Even if I was an illusion its still an illusion that exists in your mind...right so I think there for I am...or if I was an illusion you think there for you are...either way one of us exists...

Then in that case lay off the LSD...
(I'm sorry in advance if my comments are becoming ruder as the day goes on...I have to deal with cx's calling because they dropped their $600 iPhone and want us to replace it for them at no cost and 10 Trillion other issues...so yeah...)

So in theory you would be an illusion to me, I know I exist...the thing is I don't use LSD so you aren't an illusion...
(ok I'll stop)

Even if I was an illusion its still an illusion that exists in your mind...right so I think there for I am...or if I was an illusion you think there for you are...either way one of us exists...

you're missing the point.

ITT: Namkcor tells you you're wrong.

I think that everyone exists. >_> Okay, what if we're a bot or someone with fabricated identities? We might not be the person you think we are, but we will still be in existence. If you acknowledge ANY sort of action/senses that a person, place, or thing does/stimulates, then the said person/place/thing exists. We don't have to be who you think we are. >_>

yes, but from where I'm sitting all of your actions, senses, things that you do, say, etc... could all very well be a hallucination or an illusion.  That's the point.

Isn't a hallucination existing? It's probably some kinda brain impulses thing that screw up your vision. So would not that brain impulse exist?

Isn't a hallucination existing? It's probably some kinda brain impulses thing that screw up your vision. So would not that brain impulse exist?

it only exists until you find that it is false, and it is dispelled.
meaning that it never -truly- existed in the first place.

read:

a hallucination is in a sense a lie.
which can easily be perceived and experienced, regardless of the fact that they are untrue.

so they're not lying about having a hallucination, but if they said "dude look at that ice cream, it's talking to me", and they were hallucinating, then the statement is not true.

the idea of existing is something that is real, and true, as opposed to something that is a lie and unreal, such as an illusion or a hallucination.

if you need me to be super specific as to what I'm talking about, to leave no possible loopholes, then I will be.

Take existing to mean something true, and real.
In reference to a person, existing means that they are in fact a living, breathing, thinking, judging, etc... person.

so, 'prove to me that you exist' asks for proof that the person in question is indeed a living, breathing, thinking, judging, etc... person, and not in some way a fake person or part of an illusion or hallucination.

stop trying to redefine the question as I intended it, or your answers will not fit the question I posed.

And yeah, I'm bad at letting things go too.

Well, you're the one defining what "existence" means. >_> I say existence means "it just is and as long as it can be imagined, thought, seen, tastes, heard, etc. then it exists." In that case:

And if you can alter the definition of existence to prove you exist to yourself, why is it off limits for me to alter the definition of existence to prove to you that I exist?

This is probably the thing that will make this whole topic into:

ITT: Namkcor tells you you're wrong.

Well, you're the one defining what "existence" means. >_> I say existence means "it just is and as long as it can be imagined, thought, seen, tastes, heard, etc. then it exists." In that case:

but what happens when it ceases to be seen, tasted, heard, etc...
did it ever 'truly' exist in that case?


alright, you know what, I'll post what I really should have in the first place.
"prove that you are a sentient being, and are not part of some grand illusion or hallucination"

Thats not for us to prove, Nam.
 If we are a part of a hallucination and you see is, then it's your hallucination.


So you have to prove to yourself if you are hallucinating or not.






I wish malson was here.

you're missing the point.

Maybe a little, I see what you saying...I think I just like debating a little too much at times...

Advocates of animal rights argue that all animals are sentient in that they can feel pleasure and pain, which entails the presumption of certain moral rights and ought to entail some legal rights. In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires our respect and care. In science fiction, sentience is "personhood": the essential quality that separates humankind from machines or lower animals. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences, known to some philosophers as "qualia".(~Wikipedia~)

I think it all depends on the state your mind is in, if you believe it then to you it it true even if it isn't.  Which in that case the illusion would not exist it would as a thought but not as an actual sentient being...They can appear to have sensations or experience but we have no way of knowing if they really are or if it is truly an illusion...at this point I am going to step out of this debate because to be honest its going slightly over my head...maybe because its about 6:30 in the morning here in Minnesota...or the fact that I haven't done that much research on Sentient Beings...I respectfully withdraw from this debate...

Thats not for us to prove, Nam.
 If we are a part of a hallucination and you see is, then it's your hallucination.

So you have to prove to yourself if you are hallucinating or not.

in all reality, yes, this is true.
However, that's not the focus of this thread.
The illusion/hallucination is just a possible explanation I used to counter certain arguments.

The main focus of this thread assumes that you are in fact real, and asks for you to find a way to prove you are.

Obviously you are of the opinion that there is no way to prove this.

Truth is, you want us to be real. You want to argue with us over this topic. So in your mind, we are real enough. Unless you're going to admit you're crazy and arguing with youself...

Weirdo.

Truth is, you want us to be real. You want to argue with us over this topic. So in your mind, we are real enough. Unless you're going to admit you're crazy and arguing with youself...

Weirdo.

it has nothing to do with what I believe or not
truly, I believe you all are real.

Then there's no need for proof.

Truth is, you want us to be real. You want to argue with us over this topic. So in your mind, we are real enough. Unless you're going to admit you're crazy and arguing with youself...

Weirdo.

it has nothing to do with what I believe or not
truly, I believe you all are real.

But what if the Arlen you know is a farce, and the true Arlen is nothing like he pretend to be on the internet. In that sense, the Arlen you know does NOT exist, and it NOT real.

Truth is, you want us to be real. You want to argue with us over this topic. So in your mind, we are real enough. Unless you're going to admit you're crazy and arguing with youself...

Weirdo.

it has nothing to do with what I believe or not
truly, I believe you all are real.

But what if the Arlen you know is a farce, and the true Arlen is nothing like he pretend to be on the internet. In that sense, the Arlen you know does NOT exist, and it NOT real.

exactly

But Ryan does exist. Just the way you knew him changed. If I told my friends "Hey guys, I'm gay" (I'm not, btw ) but I was actually gay, my friends wouldn't say "Omg wow, you don't exist."

No, I actually don't exist at all. I'm just a figment of your imagination.

Just like this apple I'm holding, here.

Me neither. I didn't take the apple and say "Yum, that was a damn good apple arlen, thank you". Because i can't.

But what if the Arlen you know is a farce, and the true Arlen is nothing like he pretend to be on the internet. In that sense, the Arlen you know does NOT exist, and it NOT real.

No, what he's trying to say is, there is a real arlen, somewhere in america, living his life.

And the arlen he sees on the internet may be that arlen with a completely different personality, therefore he's just another part of the real arlen and doesn't exist.


or something

How did this topic ever make it past page 1?

Namkcor posted it. That's why 

No, what he's trying to say is, there is a real arlen, somewhere in america, living his life.

And the arlen he sees on the internet may be that arlen with a completely different personality, therefore he's just another part of the real arlen and doesn't exist.


or something

Actually, I've been bullshitting since the back end of page 3.

Arlen exists?

Maybe.

LIES!

How did this topic ever make it past page 1?

I have no idea