Prove your existence.

[chowderface]

I took a pretty healthy shit the other day.

Dump like that you know damn sure if you exist or not.

 

[Indeterminacy]

Funny, Immanuel Kant would disagree with out...

Yeah, but in a very guarded and perhaps awkward way, in that Kant thinks that the ideal "reality" is transcendental and inaccessible to human cognition. Which makes the idea that "Really", as a word, concept or other sort of construct, latches on to it equally impossible.

I'm not actually disagreeing with metaphysics as a field of study. In fact, much needs to be said about the importance of properties of good metaphysical models we build to account for our world. But I do disagree with the supposition that there is any possibility whatsoever that you can talk about Kant's transcendental ideal, in such a way that whatever it is you study when you do metaphysics, "Reality" isn't it.

Still, it's beside the point, for the OP asked the question "prove that you are really there".

The OP didn't state that exact instruction. It's precisely my point that one can address the OP's concerns without appeal to "reality".

 

[Laser Priest]

I am a figment of your imagination. Everyone's imagination, in fact.

All of you nutcases have created me.

 

[RatRace123]

You imagined me, you willingly accept me as a construct of your own mind. So, I exist, at least in that capacity.

Or alternately, I'm Batman. And Batman always doesn't not exist.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Things affect me, therefor they exist, both material and idealistic subjects. I affect things and therefor I must exist also. I wrote an essay about this in my philosophy graduation exam and got 5/6 points... I lost 1 point because of grammatic errors

 

[Navvan]

     
"I dreamed I was a butterfly, flitting around in the sky; then I awoke. Now I wonder: Am I a man who dreamt of being a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming that I am a man?" -Chuang tzu-

I have decided you are all fragments of my imagination. Prove to me that you aren't. Prove to me you exist. I am easily persuaded .

(i am not looking for pictures ,names , numbers or anything of the like. How does one prove their existance or the existance of others?)

Long story short it is impossible to prove the existence of anything external from yourself in an objective manner. We can however prove the existence in a subjective manner in two ways, either whatever you see is reality regardless of whether it is in your head or a anything you experience that can interact with everything else you experience is real. We can also argue the bases of skepticism and what levels are optimal for reaching conclusions that are most likely true. (Hint Occums Razor; Parsimony).

So while I can't prove my existence I can prove why you should believe that I exist. It simply makes fewer assumptions than my non-existence, although that becomes more iffy since we have no physical contact. However the moment someone else you do have physical contact with reads this then it becomes better established. Of course you can ascertain the nature of my existence without physical contact.

 

[Danzavare]

Normally this is the part of the conversation where I'd start slapping you and say "Don't mind me, I'm just a figment of your imagination."

 

[sergnb]

I could have not replied to this thread if I wanted to.

 

[Danzavare]

Fine, fine, I'll give you a real response. I have pages of notes on this question but I'll be brief. I can prove my existence:

"I think therefore I am."

Even if I doubted my existence, my doubt requires thought, so to doubt requires to exist.

For further questions and answers (Mainly the former) I refer you to Eternal Sonata. It's better than its cover implies.

 

[Yopaz]

You don't exist, if I am trying to convince you that I exist I am validating the fact that you exist while you're really a figment of my imagination and I am not crazy enough to accept that what's in my head really exist outside. If I try to convince you that I exist I will be accepting the belief that you are real and thus I will have crossed the line over into the realm of insanity.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

It truly is a fascinating thought. If one were to create a computer program that could think as far as it could tell its world is only the size of its hard drive. It would have no comprehension of this whole great universe beyond its chassis.

In response to your question. The truth is we truly do not know, our understanding of how reality works is based on our own perception of the universe around us. We can only know what we see and what we see could be very very minuscule indeed.

 

[viking97]

I think and therefore I am.

You on the other hand are a bot.

Cogito ergo Sum doesn't necessarily prove that YOU exist, just that SOMEONE (something?) exists.
Nothing says that those thoughts in your head that you seem to controll doesn't belong to someone else, and you are just a part of this somoene/something.

for the purposes of cogito ergo sum, the person doing the thinking shall be referred to as I

That person might as well be the emperor of Japan, Cthuhlu, or the solipcist that started this thread. Nothing says that it must be Ravensheart18.

In this we are in agreement, although we might differ on the significance of that fact.

I'm not even totally convinced that Cogito Ergo Sum proves that something at all exists. I'v never been very impressed by that argument. Still, it's the best we have. Descartes still didn't prove that the supposed demon tricking him wasn't all that existed.

you know before i stumbled on this thread i thought cogito ergo sum was an infallible argument, but i've since had a lot to think about.

All Cogito Ergo Sum says is that something exists, and something is interpretating this somehow, maybe not even on a conciouse level. It certainly isn't a proof against a solipcist that says "I am the only thing that exists, you are all just a figment of my imagination".

well that i already knew

 

[catalyst8]

Descaaaaaartes....GOOOOOOO!!!

I think, therefore I am.

I cannot prove it to you, but I can prove it to myself. You cannot prove to me that you exist, but you can prove it to yourself.

This is for everyone claiming 'I think, therefore I am' (a mistranslation in a common English & French context, but that's inconsequential semantics) is a valid philosophical argument, I just chose Hawgh's post at random:

As any first year philosophy student can tell you, Descartes' 'Cogito' as detailed in A Discourse on Method (Meditations & Principles) is flawed; The Cogito doesn't succeed as a logically valid demonstration of an individual's existence.

By making a priori assumptions about the existence of the Abrahamic god & an objective identity of Good & Evil, Descartes invalidates his argument e.g. in the closing chapter of the first book Meditations on the First Philosophy he wrote "[...] since God is no deceiver, it necessarily follows that I am not herein deceived [regarding conclusions of existence]."

An appeal to superstition is extremely poor practice in any logical framework. In this case it's simply a matter of the physical & mental abuse incorporated into the brainwashing process of religious indoctrination manifesting itself as assumed truth. In the 17th century people could really get into trouble for even expressing doubt as to the existence of the Bronze Age Arabian god, so poor Rene didn't really stand a chance.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Cogito ergo sum.

 

[mrmooninnod]

I think, i feel, i make mistakes, therefore i exist in the world

 

[Jandau]

Impossible. One person can not, beyond any doubt, prove to another that he exists.

We can prove to ourselves that we exist (cogito, ergo sum; one of the smarter sentences uttered by a philosopher), but we can't prove it to others, just as they can't prove to us that they exist. We can only be certain of our own existance, and only at the present moment (future and past are just as likely to be illusions). That is all. Anyone who tells you otherwise is bullshitting you.

However, if we were to deal only with things we could be certain about, then we'd have very little to work with. So we operate with what seems most likely. But that's a different can of worms.

 

[Del-Toro]

I don't have to prove my existance to a figment of my imagination. Where the hell do you get off telling your creator prove a damn thing to you?

 

[Realitycrash]

Funny, Immanuel Kant would disagree with out...

Yeah, but in a very guarded and perhaps awkward way, in that Kant thinks that the ideal "reality" is transcendental and inaccessible to human cognition. Which makes the idea that "Really", as a word, concept or other sort of construct, latches on to it equally impossible.

I'm not actually disagreeing with metaphysics as a field of study. In fact, much needs to be said about the importance of properties of good metaphysical models we build to account for our world. But I do disagree with the supposition that there is any possibility whatsoever that you can talk about Kant's transcendental ideal, in such a way that whatever it is you study when you do metaphysics, "Reality" isn't it.

Still, it's beside the point, for the OP asked the question "prove that you are really there".

The OP didn't state that exact instruction. It's precisely my point that one can address the OP's concerns without appeal to "reality".

Kant's point, as far as I understand it, is that reality is something we can't speak of, because as soon as he interpret something, it no longer becomes the "genuine" reality, which was my point as well. And this, I hold to be true. Though how different the "genunie" reality is from my perception of it, I do not know. Probably not to any noticable degree at all.
So when we talk about "reality", what we really do is talk about the world, after out senses have interpretated it, and after we have mutually agreed on a set of axioms.