Can you prove your existence?

hah! if I didn't exist, then so many people wouldn't keep WISHING I didn't exist

[DragonMage]

WOW! This has been quite fascinating to catch up on! Awesome topic!

Now, my first response is: I *KNOW* I'm a figment of my imagination. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

My serious response is that there are many valid points made here. Kind of the 'tree falling in the woods' type of discussion. Because we have capacity for rational thought, we are arrogant enough to believe we MUST be more than we are. I have had a recurring dream for YEARS! Ever since I was very young, that I am a peasant girl sleeping on a pallet in a big, stone house. I'm cold and dressed in rags. I open my eyes to see a huge wooden door, a darkened fireplace and morning light sifting in through the window high on the wall. I hear footsteps coming down the hallway and I'm terrified. I know something bad is coming for me. So - is THAT the illusion? Or am *I*, the one typing here, the illusion to escape a harsh reality? Or do either of these people exist? Or do they all exist, but in different dimensions or planes of existence?

*OUCH* My brain! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[theifprowess]

i like the one post against me saying that for every sense you had a different item to explain. not 1 item but 5 different items.to distingush wether or not ONE THING exists it must be proven with 3of your 5 senses.
a rose petal you can feel it smell it and see it there for it is real.

[caleb]

I disagree with that 3 out of 5 theory. I can see, hear, and apparently one of the rare people that feel pleasure and pain in a dream.

[Yorick]

Great topic Wolfgir

Neb, I think you're on the money.

Barry you're out of your tree [img]smile.gif[/img]

You're attacking Descartes wording, not the concepts meaning.

It could be said thus:

AWARENESS PROVES EXISTENCE.

Whether it is a identifyable individual self or not is irrelevent. Something is aware and experiencing this thought. Whatever that something is, I am at least part of it, or am it in totality. That is the proof.

[ 06-21-2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moni: can you touch god? In the softness of every rose petal can you hear god? In the song of every bird can you taste god? In the sweetness of every drop of honey can you see god? Through eyes enlightened can you smell god? In the scent of the morning dew does god exist? That is for you to discover. [img]smile.gif[/img] Can I prove my own existence? Not to you but that does not matter...God knows who I am [img]graemlins/ladyhearts.gif[/img]

Awesome. Thanks Moni. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Besides, "I think therefore I am" is a response to "Prove you exist".

The question has already implied an individual self, so Descartes age old response is fitting within preset parameters.

[img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img] [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Yorick: Great topic Wolfgir Neb, I think you're on the money. Barry you're out of your tree [img]smile.gif[/img] You're attacking Descartes wording, not the concepts meaning. It could be said thus: AWARENESS PROVES EXISTENCE. Whether it is a identifyable individual self or not is irrelevent. Something is aware and experiencing this thought. Whatever that something is, I am at least part of it, or am it in totality. That is the proof.

I never had a tree to begin with, you can't prove nuffin. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm not attacking the wording, I did try and explain myself a little bit more fully but originally I used his wording only to more easily explain where it falls apart. Descartes says that we are aware therfore we exist. But how does he prove that we are aware in the first place? He doesn't... thats my problem with him. What he is effectively saying is that we are aware because we exist, yet we can prove we exist because we are aware. Fine, I have no problem assuming that if we are aware we must exist, but I have a problem just assuming that I am aware. It seems that Descartes entire proof rests on its very flaw - that the concepts of existance and sentience are inseperable (as far as proof of existance goes). But in making them inseperable he finds no clear way to prove the existance of one or the other without first pre-supposing the existance of its counterpart. The idea of the Demon creates more problems than it solves I think.

[Cloudbringer]

Hmm... I guess I'll just content myself with the thought that if I have to worry if I exist or not, I've got waaaaaaaaaay too much time and MUCH bigger problems than I'd like to have! [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] That and I'm sure I exist, I just ordered NWN and have to put a new pc together to even run it... no HALLUCINATION of mine would spend that kind of money! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 06-21-2002, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Great topic Wolfgir Neb, I think you're on the money. Barry you're out of your tree [img]smile.gif[/img] You're attacking Descartes wording, not the concepts meaning. It could be said thus: AWARENESS PROVES EXISTENCE. Whether it is a identifyable individual self or not is irrelevent. Something is aware and experiencing this thought. Whatever that something is, I am at least part of it, or am it in totality. That is the proof.

I never had a tree to begin with, you can't prove nuffin. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I'm not attacking the wording, I did try and explain myself a little bit more fully but originally I used his wording only to more easily explain where it falls apart. Descartes says that we are aware therfore we exist. But how does he prove that we are aware in the first place? He doesn't... thats my problem with him. What he is effectively saying is that we are aware because we exist, yet we can prove we exist because we are aware. Fine, I have no problem assuming that if we are aware we must exist, but I have a problem just assuming that I am aware. It seems that Descartes entire proof rests on its very flaw - that the concepts of existance and sentience are inseperable (as far as proof of existance goes). But in making them inseperable he finds no clear way to prove the existance of one or the other without first pre-supposing the existance of its counterpart. The idea of the Demon creates more problems than it solves I think.[/QUOTE]LOL! Simply being aware or having a thought proves itself. If one is thinking, that proves one is thinking. If one is aware that proves one is aware. It's an inescapable reality. One cannot contemplate for even a microsecond without provig they are contemplating by the very act.

Thus by initiating a thought process - any at all - one proves one exists.

The counter - thinking that one doesn't exist and is not thinking - is an impossibility and a contradiction.

Nothing - no thing - is destroyed by a single thought, just as the smallest beam of light destroys absence of light.

Barry, if we continue this discussion any further we are in danger of being so far up our a***s that we'll come back out our mouths inside out.

[ 06-21-2002, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]