Prove your existence.

AnotherAvatar

New member
Sep 18, 2011
491
0
0
McNoobin said:
AnotherAvatar said:
we've all experienced moments where we were focusing heavily on something and then it happened
What do you mean by that?

OT: I believe that we are all one giant simulation and the super natural are just glitches in the system. Also when I read that, the idea of Solipsism was the first thing to come to mind.
To clarify: We've all (and I only say this because every person I've bought it up to has agreed, so perhaps this doesn't universally apply) had moments where we were concentrating extremely hard on an event out of our control (usually freaking out from most of the stories I've heard, but I've had a few moments of calm, clarity filled focus that have worked as well) and the event, regardless of how improbable, turned out exactly as we pictured it (or at least close enough to get the eerie effect).
 

Tommeh Brownleh

New member
May 26, 2011
278
0
0
I, in all honesty, cannot prove that. We do not know whether we are all the figment of somebody's imagination, the creation of some divine being, an accident, or some combination of those. I personally believe we are an accidental creation of some divine being. But for all we know, you could be correct. I certainly hope so. It means the world isn't REALLY as shit as it is in this existence.
 

theheroofaction

New member
Jan 20, 2011
928
0
0
The universe itself is infinite, For it to be a figment of a mind it would have to be in an infinitely large computational system with an infinite amount of energy.
 

Chefodeath

New member
Dec 31, 2009
759
0
0
Remember everyone, he is demanding we prove our existence to him. The old cogito doesn't work.

Instead I will argue that I am far too awesome, intelligent, and enigmatic a person to come out of OP's feeble imagination.
 

Cubilone

New member
Jan 14, 2009
121
0
0
For all you people just mindlessly typing "Cogito ergo sum" away, your behaviour could easily be emulated by bots. You as well as I, but at least I'm trying to be creative.

EDIT: And for all you fans of Mr. Descartes, I assume you think that if your brain is extracted from your body and inserted into a robot, you're still going to be the same persons? Is your body just a puppet of your brain?
 

kiwi_poo

New member
Apr 15, 2009
826
0
0
there is no way

anything we do is a figment of your imagination along with us

the only way you could prove it is by realising that the amout of replies to this thread is already greater than your subconcious can create (personality, life story etc.)

edit: oh yeah, check to see if the top is still spinning
 

Leemaster777

New member
Feb 25, 2010
3,311
0
0
I have the best answer for this thread.

How do I prove to you, TC, that I and everyone else here exist, and that we aren't just a figment of your imagination? Simple:

Do you HONESTLY believe that you are creative enough to have thought all of us up? All of our ideas, our differences, our personalities, etc?

If you cannot believe me, believe your own limitations.
 

Indeterminacy

New member
Feb 13, 2011
194
0
0
krazykidd said:
I have decided you are all fragments of my imagination. Prove to me that you aren't. Prove to me you exist.
These are two different questions.

I clearly exist. If you understand "I" in this context as being the indexical device that points to the origin of this particular statement, then in order for the statement to be meaningful, "I" must refer. You perfectly well understand the statement, because even if "I" is just the same as "you" in this post, it still has a direct referent. So "I" successfully refers, and hence "there exists x such that 'I' in the context of a post made under the user title "Indeterminacy" refers to x" is made true.

What your first question is asking, however, is about the identity conditions for being "me". And in fact, it is perfectly legitimate to think that the identity conditions for being "me" are identical to those of being anyone else, or could be identical with some fictional entity you've created to make sense of the data you encounter.

However, here is an argument to suggest that if this is what you think, you're necessarily equivocating:

Let us suppose that you are just a brain in a vat. You are fed sensory stimuli directly by an electrical connection to a computer simulation. Now, suppose this brain in a vat responds to an item of sensory stimulus by thinking the phrase "That is a tree".

Does "The Tree" really exist? Is "The Tree" merely the construct of a computer program? Well, let's ask something. What do you refer to when you say "that is a tree"? You clearly don't refer to actual trees, since you've never seen an actual tree. You also don't consciously refer to "a particular series of computer generated images fed directly into my brain", because actually, the computer doesn't feed to you the fact that you are just a brain in a vat.

"Tree", on the thoughts of the brain in a vat, actually refers to something going on in the simulation. In fact, so does every thought the brain might have: Including the thought "everything I see is just a computer simulation". Being a computer simulation, to the Brain in a vat, just means being a computer simulation within the simulation, and does not extend to the kind of simulation that actually composes everything the brain experiences.

Now, to generalise. You've proposed that we're all a figment of imagination. But Whose Imagination Are We A Figment Of? Yours? Well, you are a feature of the sensory world you experience too; or rather, your having experiences is something that constitutes the things that you're proposing to be imaginary.

It would be either an equivocation or false to say that we are all only in your imagination, because you're already presupposing that there is a dividing line between "you" and "us", and between "imaginary" and "real"; a division that's only in the imagination you're supposing we all exist in. In the imagination, we clearly are different from you. Outside it, you have no means to refer to yourself independently of referring to us.

Therefore, not only do we exist, but given the mode of our existence, we're not imaginary either.

QED, biatch.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
ravensheart18 said:
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.