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.