What is being argued is that it would be impossible for you to ask for proof that you exist unless you existed in the first place, and therefore, that your asking for proof that you exist is, itself, proof that you exist.

And your reply to that is......?

id say it is an assumption to refer to yourself as "I" in the first place. IF me saying something is proof of anything it is that something believes that something was said. It defiantly is not proof that i am a singular thing separate from all others. at least no all the proof you need to be certain.

on a side note almost every word i type falls under the disclaimer : for lack of a better word.

No, what your saying something, or what your doing anything at all is proof of, is that you exist. Since you could not do anything unless you exist. I don't see what the use of the word "I" has to do with it. An action implies an agent.

id say it is an assumption to refer to yourself as "I" in the first place. IF me saying something is proof of anything it is that something believes that something was said. It defiantly is not proof that i am a singular thing separate from all others. at least no all the proof you need to be certain.

on a side note almost every word i type falls under the disclaimer : for lack of a better word.

i think i understood the question a little differently.

so your idea is that when a person says 'prove that i exist' means the concept of an i that is a separate singular thing or entity. the mental 'i' which would mean the i of the speaker or anyone else for that matter?

even inm the sense that i was considering it, if someone were to say to me 'prove that i exist' i am sure i couldnt even prove it to myself let alone to him. in fact, even if i wanted to believe he and all the other i's were the same entity as well as myself, or part of the whole of all i was able to sense or imagine, i still couldnt prove their existence in any acceptable way.

i dont believe that guy who says i think therefore i am either...in my dreams i can think i am a rabbit but i never am. so why is it any different now that i think i am i?

Hello Salima,

The proof that 'X exists' is granted if at least one property of X can be shown to be the case. F(x) -> Exists(x), for all F. ie. EF(F(x)) -> Exists(x). ~Exists(x) -> ~F(x), for all F.

.

It is just the inference rule, existential generalization. If, and only if, X has a property, then X exists. What is controversial about that?

Hello Salima,

The proof that 'X exists' is granted if at least one property of X can be shown to be the case. F(x) -> Exists(x), for all F. ie. EF(F(x)) -> Exists(x). ~Exists(x) -> ~F(x), for all F.

I am sure I could prove it to myself and to him.
eg. that he is wearing a particular shirt, implies that he exists.

That you have dreamed that you were a rabbit, entails that you exist.

Even the process of doubting one's existence is proof of the doubting person's existence.

i think it really doesnt matter if i exist or not or if you exist or not, because i interact with you and that is about all there is to go on.

santa is ******* fat, so he must exist.

The premise is false.

but the premise is true. What i am saying is not original. People know a lot about the properties of numbers, but their ontology is still open to debate.

What makes you think that the premise is true? How could it be true that Santa is fat unless Santa exists? You don't think that Santa exists, do you? (How old are you?). If numbers don't exist, then numbers have no properties. Since nothing can have properties unless it exists. What would have the properties, in that case. So, the debate about the existence of numbers is about whether anything has the properties numbers are supposed to have.

Normally, people don ` t care if santa exist, or not. They know that santa is fat without committing to it` s existence. The intuition is that "santa is fact" is true, and that ought to be accepted by appeal to normal intuition.

As for numbers..
Your comment is crazy.
normal people would say "3 is prime" is true. This statement right here is making a statement about 3. The matter here is about reference. Does the statement refer to anything at all. Plato say yes, and nominalist say no. The same is true for santa. "santa is fat" has the same logical form as "3 is prime".

When people say that Santa is fat, they are necessarily committing themselves to Santa's existence,

Of course, people would say that the number 3 is prime is true. And when they do that, they are implying that the number 3 exists. As above with Santa. What is crazy about that?

So when people say 3 is prime, then they must be Platonist? Of course not!





Because they don` t have to?

It is false that only Platonists believe that the number three exists. All do, but not only Platonists do.