Prove your existence.

[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.

 

[GotMalkAvian]

Well, you seem to believe that I exist, even as a figment of your imagination. Prove to me that all of reality isn't just what you perceive.

 

[Realitycrash]

You might just be a different part of him, not a separate presence. No matter what question you ask or what truth you claim there is, he can just keep believing that this truth is something he already know (for you is he), or that it is something he is just making up right now.
You can suggest all you want, it isn't going to prove anything to him.

If he won't submit to logic, then proof is irrelevant. But proving my existence was what was asked for, so it isn't irrelevant.

Take my counting coins example from above. It is possible to have a dream where those exact events occur in the dream while one is asleep. So, that might not totally prove my existence, but it does prove a knowledge outside of his self--in the case of the dream it is subconscious reasoning, so the solipsist is force to admit that what he knows as his self is not alone--that there is at least one other thinking presence, which if I identify as "me", and give him my name, I cannot see why he ought not to accept it.

Any knowledge outside the self demonstrates a thinking presence outside the self.

I can experience hallucinations that seem to think and act differently from me, and have knowledge which I dont have in my mentally sane state (becuase I'v forgotten I'v had it) yet these are (as far as I can tell) hallucinations, on the basis that noone else interact, experience or sense them, etc. This doesn't make them seperate, thinking entities. Just parts of myself. By the same logic, I can argue that everything around me is this.
If you watch House M.D, there's a brilliant example of this made in the end of Season 5.

 

[Racistman3d]

I cannot prove my existence to you in the same way that I cannot conclusively be proved myself that you exist, I can only look at the facts given to me by my senses (sight only in this case) that indicate that you exist, and I have enough belief in myself that I am not dreaming or my mind hasn't conjured this up to assert that you are in fact a reality and do exist. You would need to go through the exact same pathway to do the same of my existence.

 

[catalyst8]

Cogito ergo sum.

Nope &

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; [...]

No. As I explained three posts previous to yours Jandau, & one previous to Geekosaurus': The Cartesian 'Cogito' is a beautiful exploration of logic, but it's fatally flawed by various illogical assumptions.

As someone familiar with the work it's infuriating to see people dumbly mouthing empty platitudes with no comprehension of what they entail.

 

[Agow95]

I think therefore I am.
On a serious note, I can say the same to you, I could just decide that you don't exist the same way you can do it to me.

 

[Jandau]

Cogito ergo sum.

Nope &

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; [...]

No. As I explained three posts previous to yours Jandau, & one previous to Geekosaurus': The Cartesian 'Cogito' is a beautiful exploration of logic, but it's fatally flawed by various illogical assumptions.

As someone familiar with the work it's infuriating to see people dumbly mouthing empty platitudes with no comprehension of what they entail.

Of course, you are smart and we are all stupid...

I used the phrase independantly of its original context to illustrate a point. I'm glad you got hung up on technicalities like that, because I now know you have nothing to refute my actual point, which was clearly stated in the bold text. So, good for you, you read Descartes. I'm still right.

 

[Skratt]

The inability to prove something does not automatically disprove it. Reality exists independently of one's own mind. Truth is a constant and it is only our perception that changes.

Prove to you that I exist? Prove to me that I don't.

 

[rayen020]

so once i got in my car and just drove. nowhere in particular, no destination no time limit only the vibration of the engine the soft music coming from my radio and the road. as i pulled onto the highway i was surrounded by others. Other cars, other people. where were they going? did they have a destination in mind? perhaps the store or a mall, a restaurant or a doctors appointment. or were they like me, just driving lost in their own reality and wondering; are these cars and people here because they exist or they just here to keep up the pretenses that this is a world filled with others?

Am i alone?

Does this thread exist?

I wonder where people go when i can no longer see them...

 

[catalyst8]

Of course, you are smart and we are all stupid...

I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were repeating something you didn't understand.

I used the phrase independantly of its original context to illustrate a point. I'm glad you got hung up on technicalities like that, because I now know you have nothing to refute my actual point, which was clearly stated in the bold text. So, good for you, you read Descartes. I'm still right.

Independently of its original context? Well in that case mentioning it at all is meaningless, since it's entirely specific to the context laid out in A Discourse on Method. You made more than just the one point & as I stated previously, citing Descartes' 'Cogito' in order to support the argument for individual existence is seriously flawed. I cited a few of the flaws:

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]."

Which exactly refute your point. Still, if you want to pretend that you didn't claim "We can prove to ourselves that we exist (cogito, ergo sum" because it wasn't in bold type then this is from the same post:

We can only be certain of our own existance, and only at the present moment

 

[Thespian]

I know that I'm thinking. It is equally likely, however, that you are either a figment of my imagination acting how I think you should act, or that you are another like me.

Also, you could be a robot.

 

[Jandau]

*snip*

What the hell does your quote about Abrahamic god have to do with me proving my existance or not? I'm glad you can throw quotes around, but picking a random piece of text, tossing it as a quote and calling my whole point refuted is kinda silly...

Ok, let's try this:

1. Ignore the Descartes quote I used.
2. Read my original post.
3. Refute it or agree with it, using your own words.

 

[Hawgh]

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.

-SNIP-

It's admittedly been a long time since I scanned through the meditations in a translated and, I'm pretty sure, abbreviated form.

But is it not exactly the fact that Descartes reaches the absolute certainty that he does in fact exist because he thinks, at least as long as he thinks,
as thought or in some form that he cannot be sure of?
Then he messes up on proving that anything else does by basing his following reasoning on the existence that the idea he has of a perfect being only possibly being possible if the idea had been planted there by said being.

I should think that the proof is valid until the part in the middle of the second meditation or some such where he tries to go beyond the "Thinking = Being" statement.

I think it's Hume (or is it Kant? I don't even know anymore) that supplies the "ideas can be aggregates of other ideas and/or themselves", which invalidates the "The idea of God requires God" statement.

 

[catalyst8]

What the hell does your quote about Abrahamic god have to do with me proving my existance or not? I'm glad you can throw quotes around, but picking a random piece of text, tossing it as a quote and calling my whole point refuted is kinda silly...

[...]is it not exactly the fact that Descartes reaches the absolute certainty that he does in fact exist because he thinks, at least as long as he thinks, as thought or in some form that he cannot be sure of?

Jandau, the reason I quoted Descartes, & specifically that quote, was because I was supporting my point with evidence. You may not like that, & from the tone of your post it seems that you find the whole idea unpleasant, but that's just how it works - make a claim, support it. Just because you don't like something or know about it doesn't invalidate it. In this instance my assertion that Descartes' argument is invalid is supported because of the following paragraph:

Hawgh, initially Descartes discards & then assumes the existence of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic god (name changed to avoid upsetting Jandau with 'Abrahamic god') to validate the existence of the proposed thinker. It's from there that he extrapolates thought necessitating mind, the 'evil deceiver', etc. Ultimately all he succeeds in demonstrating is that thought exists. I don't think that's too at odds with what Kant, Hobbes, Locke & probably Rousseau would argue.
I certainly wouldn't want them to get a contract out on me... A Social Contract! Ah ha ha! Ah ha! Ha ha! Ahem! Thorry, ethics joke, but at leatht itth not a joke about ethics girlth. Ah ha ha oh-hoo hoo ha-ha-ha!

Ok, let's try this:

1. Ignore the Descartes quote I used.
2. Read my original post.
3. Refute it or agree with it, using your own words.

The main reason I addressed your post was, as I explained, because you attempted to make a point by citing an argument (or throwing a quote around, as you put it) which you obviously don't understand. Even if you'd understood it it still wouldn't have supported your argument. You've repeatedly changed what you claim you meant. I did read & address your original post, you then revised it by demanding that only text in bold was pertinent. I addressed your new, revised claim, you did exactly the same again. Please don't try editing it retrospectively any more, you either meant what you said or you didn't, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Indeterminacy]

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.

Okay, so the important point here is that interpretation makes the difference between existing in a purely phenomenal sense from the noumenal sense.

Which brings me back to my original point - brains in vats don't refer to stuff outside of the world they experience, and their ability to interpret is constrained by the data they've been presented. "Reality" gets wheeled in here to be that in virtue of which one "really does" interpret stuff outside of experience, but the only sound understanding of stuff outside of experience is logical/mathematical.

It's generally the orthodoxy that logical and mathematical content is purely structural rather than metaphysically substantial - "logical facts" are just descriptive compositions of non-logical facts. Even the world, considered in maximum generality as the sum totality of facts (a la Wittgenstein) just boils down to a generation of a logical whole from the parts constructed from phenomenal basic data. This is more or less what Tarski showed with his conservative definition of Truth and the model-theoretic notion of Logical Consequence.

The only really controversial point that remains to be made is to ask whether we can do without Sets or Properties as abstract objects in our understanding of the world we live in, since these are things we don't have direct perceptual data about yet seem to afford some interpretive power. I think such talk ultimately just boils down to logical possibility and primitive notions of Information and Pattern - a notion that's made more clear by cognitive and mathematical sciences.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Cogito ergo sum.

Nope &

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; [...]

No. As I explained three posts previous to yours Jandau, & one previous to Geekosaurus': The Cartesian 'Cogito' is a beautiful exploration of logic, but it's fatally flawed by various illogical assumptions.

As someone familiar with the work it's infuriating to see people dumbly mouthing empty platitudes with no comprehension of what they entail.

Seeing as there is]/i] no real answer, empty platitudes are all we have to attempt to explain the mysteries of the universe.