Proof

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.