How do I know I Exist?

[000Ronald]

You can't argue that a person doesn't exist. A lot of people don't understand the phrase, "I think, therefore I am" It implies that everyone else exists as well, because they think.

No, what you should argue is that what matters is that a person chose to be. A tree doesn't chose to grow, it just does. You have the power of choice, and should apply it.

 

[Feralcentaur]

I'm in grade 9 (young, I know) And yikes, will we really be learning this kind of thing? It seems to me more like an infinite loop of questions that get you nowhere. The more you find out, the more questions you have, thus the more things you need to find out.

In the end, the only thing you learn is that you are even more ignorant then you thought you were.

Well that's the whole POINT of Philosiphy silly, to make you feel bad!/I kid.I kid. The whole point of Philosiphy from my perspective is realising that when you think about things, you're a lot of times not going to know or even be capable of ever comprehending the answer, but you could at least try, y'know, for the heck of it.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

It?s all about the difference between being fairly sure about something and having no reason to suspect otherwise, versus being certain about it. Think about how we generally verify things and think about how that can?t be applied to the experience of being ourselves. Not to mention any verification must be viewed with our own senses which are known to be rather faulty. We can never separate ourselves from ourselves, an outside viewing is impossible.

 

[Floppertje]

You don't know. deal with it.

 

[blankedboy]

Cogito Ergo Sum - I think therefore I am
Dubito Ergo Sum- I doubt therefore I am

-Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method

Constitutio Ergo Sum - I post, therefore I am.

/thread much?

 

[Snowpact]

You think, therefor you are. Most fitting for this: If you didn't exist, how could you pose that question?

I prefer the phrase 'I don't think, therefore I am'. It's a bit more accurate in my opinion

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm sorry, but I already took care of this in another thread, and my answer was basically that Descartes already did the work for me.

 

[Wintermoot]

you could assume yo are a mere clone. Or that you are a homonculus (fake human).
You can also say the entire world is some kind of RPG or dream and you are just a "NPC" (Non-Player Character)

 

[ZephrC]

Pfft. Philosophy is just a bunch of posuers spending way too much time analyzing questions that either have really obvious answers or that have no possibility of producing a definitive answer of any kind. Often both at the same time, actually.

If you want real answers to anything, you're looking for science. It's different in that it pays the fuck attention to the world around it and produces answers from that. Thus the answers it produces actually have a meaning outside of the head of the person that came up with them.

And yeah, I know science came from philosophy. That doesn't actually change anything I said though. Philosophy can be a fun distraction, and can even occasionally stumble onto something useful, but anyone who actually takes it seriously is not nearly as smart as they think they are.

 

[Kevonovitch]

continuity, dialog, cause and effect, ripple effect, and your parent's proly kept a pic of you from conception to this very day so you know you is you and not some random conspiracy theory of children look-alikes and hiveminds

 

[Angry Camel]

If someone says they don't believe they exist, a steel cap to the groin should not produce a reaction.

If this is for a debate, your odds are not good. The only way I could see going around this is commenting on how your actions seem to do nothing or noone notices.

 

[Cyd0n1a]

According to G. I. Gurdjieff, no of us exists objectively. We are confined within our subjective being and cannot (atleast not yet) break through and achieve objective consiciousness.

But then again I'm having a hard time believing unfalsifiable claims like this.

 

[Trilaanus]

Each person is a god, each person, through their perceptions of what is create their own reality, their own world. However, as you are one, there are countless others who create their world and they preceive you differently as well. In other words, since none of them will see you the same way you see yourself, even though you preceive that you exist, the majority of existence says that you do not.

 

[The Rockerfly]

You have 5 senses that make you aware of your surroundings and you have free will therefore you can think yourself. I am well aware that your 5 senses could be boundaries to govern you existence but it makes more sense to believe in them then it does to not believe in them

But let's say you and I are both looking at something. It's an apple. It's red. But what is red? It's just the way your eyes send signals to your brain, right? Is my red the same as yours? The same as a colorblind person? If not, is it really the same apple? because yours is a different color than mine.. well a different red. You get the idea

Also, don't get me and my deterministic mind started on free will

Well you say that but animals who are colourblind can see that a wasps yellow and black colours are aggressive. When handing a blind person a red object you can explain characteristics such as warm. However colour is a perception and we associate colour with a name because it's how we see that reflection of light. Blind people still have their imagination and can still imagine a colour which gives the illusion of a correctly coloured object.

Granted we could all be seeing different colours but for the massive amount of the planet that see the earth in the same colour I can safely assume that it is that shade of the light spectrum. Ah determinism or more commonly known as a sane and logical human being, how many people are intelligent enough though to follow correct cause and effect though? Misinformation, emotions, morality drugs, thrills and the law allow us to break determinism otherwise the world would be a much easier place to comprehend and predictions would be easy.

With animals it is easy, you steal a birds egg and they will chase after you and get it back no problem. Conversely, if you steal a humans child they could either call the police, do nothing, chase after you, kill you or pray someone will bring him back (and many more options). There are a limited number of choices with each of our reactions but determinism really isn't that useful in humans, again going back to free will.

 

[jboking]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!
Wonder if anyone here knows about TOK...

So it's a presentation? Here is an easy way to start: Ask your audience to list some things that they would use to define you(meaning you, the presenter...not themselves). While they list things, write them on a board to get a visual in there(always a bonus in presentations). Agree with their list, if it's accurate, then say there is probably one thing they didn't list among all the traits: You are conscious. Explain that consciousness is just another small trait of who you are. Then move into Descartes. Bring up Descartes phrase, "I think, therefore I am." Show that the only thing it proves is that you are conscious. What it can't prove is that anything material exists, as thought is not a material thing. Move back to the board where they listed off your traits. Start putting lines through each trait that is physical (hint, it will likely be all but Conscious and maybe one or two more - such as kind). Show them that Descartes cannot prove that your concept or even their concept of who you are can be completely proven.

If you want to say, as TOK delves into the senses a bit, that I can prove I exist via the experience of senses, you simply have to bring up cases where the senses can be tricked. There are literally thousands (Drugs, fever hallucinations, schizophrenic, the 'dead hand/finger' trick, etc.).

This shouldn't be too hard, you just have to approach it like a debater. That is, definitionally with plenty of technicalities.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Prove that you don't know that your surroundings exist. Our concepts of them are definitely false. We idealize table as solid, but when we go down to it, there are holes.

If the world we perceive doesn't exist the way we believe it does, then what's to say that we do? We believe we are capable of thought, but what's to say that we are doing so uniquely? How do we not know we are not programmed.

 

[William Ossiss]

Ask yourself this question, and then answer.

I have to deliver a presentation that has me "prove that I DON'T know I exist" and can simply not figure out how to go about doing this. Its pretty damn hard to prove you don't know something like that!

perhaps we are but dreams of some creature (lets use adam and the bible. i know, not everyone believes, but its the easiest way to do this. in the bible, it says that god put adam to sleep. but it never said he woke him up. so maybe we are all but a giant dream.) simply flitting thoughts on the pages of a story book. or perhaps we are characters in a cartoon. or programs for a very large machine... (anyone up for that restaurant at the end of the universe?) perhaps we have no free will and are just pretending to actually be.


i think of this crap on my free time.

 

[Axzarious]

I think, therefore I am. I exist, but I am unsure about you. It's up to everything else to prove its existance to me.

 

[Bender Rodriguez]

Cogito ergo sum by Descartes.

It proves one exists, but not in what form

 

[Torrasque]

Well, there's always the Matrix idea - if all of the senses are merely electrical signals sent to the brain, then they can be faked with the right kind of machinery, and we would have absolutely no way of knowing it. And if someone were to simulate a brain on a computer, and send the according signals to it, theoretically it would feel as though it does exist, although it is no more than code.

You can also say that when people dream, everything seems perfectly natural to them, it is only when they wake up that they realize that a lot of what happened is impossible, so who's to say we aren't part of someone's dream?

Hope this helps

Thats actually called the Allegory of the Cave, which was created by Plato.
Matrix 1 is entirely based on this theory, Ghost in the Shell, and a few other philosophical gems.
lol, the guys who made Matrix pitched their idea by showing a clip from Ghost in the Shell, the first movie.
/respect

Just show the Matrix.

Or Ghost in the Shell.

Go for GitS. It has tits. And brainy bits.

And headshots.

My god, are there headshots...

I fucking love Ghost in the Shell sooooooo much.
Best series was the second, but I want MOAR!

OP: Playing devil's advocate is fun, especially for this topic.
Modern philosophy is still trying to create an air-tight argument in favor that we all exist, so you technically can say "none of you can convince me that I don't exist, so /FACE!"
Except that is just silly.

If you want to argue that you DON'T exist, then your argument is irrelevant, you're wasting time that is not, and arguing a point that never was.
If you want to argue that you DO exist, then argue the inverse of this.
An argument that someone might bring up is "well, you may not exist, but what about us? Do we not exist?"
To this, you say "I am a bundle of experiences and sensations, it is all I am, and all I will ever know. If you say that I do not exist, then my sensations also do not exist, my experiences do not exist. The only way I can experience your existence, is through my experiences and sensations, so therefore, you do not exist either."

Yeah... I've watched alot of Ghost in the Shell, and thought over this subject alot. My 2 years of Philosophy doesn't help either

TL;DR
"I exist": Simply saying that I am, means that I am. My evidence is not air-tight because the greatest minds in history have not gotten to that point yet, but simply experiencing the sensations around me about this proves my existence adequately.
"I don't exist": Then I don't exist, and simply saying so is a waste of time that never was.

Hope that all makes sense...