Prove my existence.

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155912 wrote:
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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:37 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155918 wrote:
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.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:00 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155923 wrote:
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.


I agree it is proof that i exist but he wants it to be proven not probable based on what proof we have. their are many other explanations other than i am an "I". seeing as how what constitutes the "I" has no shape form or location but only can be PROVEN to appear as such. I mean if you know the location of my conscientiousness in my body or otherwise id love to hear it so we can put that age old question to rest. For real. you have apparently answered the unanswerable mind body question so you should please inform the world so the brightest minds of every generation can stop wasting their time trying to figure out what you know already. You unlike me seem to believe that you can know for certain the thing in itself without having any means of perception that can see it. congrats on your epic discovery. Aristotle may finally rest in peace.


To clarify for my next reply to you please give your understanding of the concept of "I"
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:11 am
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155918 wrote:
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?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:44 am
@Diogenes phil,
DIOGEN !

1. I Know = I have information.
2. My Super PC scans databases of all Planet.
3. I will have the information on All People of the Planet.
4. I will have the information on you, Mr. Diogen (One of seven billions).
5. I will know that you exist. Because I have information in my PC.

Your existence is supposed. If necessary, you can be found. It is impossible to find god.
 
Owen phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:05 am
@salima,
salima;156358 wrote:
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.

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.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:51 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;156375 wrote:
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?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156387 wrote:
It is just the inference rule, existential generalization. If, and only if, X has a property, then X exists. What is controversial about that?


santa is ******* fat, so he must exist.Laughing
 
salima
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 07:58 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;156375 wrote:
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.


so how do you prove the shirt exists?

for all practical purposes, 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.

in the case of someone who had delusions of people who did not exist...i think it would be really hard for him to believe they did not exist, but i am told that it does happen and that people can tell the difference...but only under medication, as far as i recall.

one could say that if no one else sees these persons you do that they must be delusions-but why believe that? if they get you into trouble all the time it might be wise to try and not believe in them and see if they go away-but what if they are kindly and helpful? suppose they are a source of comfort to you should you believe they are delusions? or does it even matter?

i suppose i could say all the people in the world that scare me dont really exist...that makes the world a safe place. see how funny the mind works?

so in the case of dreams, why should i not believe that i was a rabbit for awhile...and now i am me again? it was very real, i was jumping over a fence and a fox was chasing me...and maybe i am the rabbit having a dream now. it is just really too silly to think about in a serious manner, isnt it?
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:13 am
@salima,
salima;156391 wrote:
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.


Existence proportional importance.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:20 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156390 wrote:
santa is ******* fat, so he must exist.Laughing


The premise is false. But if it were true, then you would be right. Santa exists would follow from Santa is fat. By existential generalization.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:21 am
@Diogenes phil,
The knowledge is function of culture.

Dispute not correct. All population of the Planet is considered and written down. The Internet and databases. The information from memory of brain or from memory of the computer is - knowledge. The knowledge is the proof.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156404 wrote:
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.
 
Novice phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:56 am
@Diogenes phil,
Pardon my intrusion if my post sways this discussion from its intended course. I find existence to be very ambiguous so maybe this will help the discussion.

How to refute I'm not "brain in a vat"? That I and everything exist as a solid physical entity in time and space and not hallucinated by a hallucination.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:35 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156413 wrote:
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.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156428 wrote:
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".
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:08 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156431 wrote:
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, since "Santa is fat" implies that There is someone who is Santa, and is fat. Of course, when people say that Santa is fat, what they are actually saying is that there are stories etc. about an elf called "Santa", and in those stories, Santa is fat. So what they mean by, "Santa is fat" does not imply that there is someone who is Santa and fat. People do not always mean what they say.

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?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:17 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
When people say that Santa is fat, they are necessarily committing themselves to Santa's existence,



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


Quote:
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?



Because they don` t have to?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:26 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156444 wrote:
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. But if only and all Platonists do, then, the number three is prime implies that the number three exists. Of course, it is not true that people always believe whatever their statements entail. X is a Democrat may entail that X is stupid. But I am sure that a lot of Democrats do not believe that they are stupid. (Or as you would say, morons).
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:27 am
@TuringEquivalent,
Now, i know the tradition that for statement to have truth values is for that something to exist. I don` t think this always applies.

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 11:30 AM ----------

kennethamy;156449 wrote:
It is false that only Platonists believe that the number three exists. All do, but not only Platonists do.


You need to go back to school. (ie: you are wrong)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 09:11:15