NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, I have a philosophical challenge for you all.

Prove my own existence to me without begging the question.

OK, go.

If you weren't here you couldn't have posted that. Plus you're like a river and swimming accross it will get you wet.

Well, if you didn't exist that would mean you are in my imagination. So shouldn't you be trying to prove to me that you exist?

You don't exist.

I'd need to know what "you" were, first. You might be a 'Bot for all I know.

I can't. However, I can interact with you as if you do actually exist, which means that you might not exist, but for all intents and purposes the effects of that illusion are identical to existence and so the difference is meaningless.

OK, go.

*goes*

*closes door on way out*

If you did not exist, you could not question your existence.

Yes,

What's the question:

1. Are we to prove to you that you exist - in which case, you think therefore you are

2. Are we to prove to you that you exist to us - solipsism makes it impossible to prove but, acting as if you don't won't get this discussion very far, so whether you do or not, we may as well act as if you do

OK, I have a philosophical challenge for you all.

Prove my own existence to me without begging the question.

OK, go.

You couldn't prove your own existence, and how then can we be expected to answer such a vague question? Prove to me there's a correct answer, or I'll assume you invented this question just to eat up time.

I'm sticking with what I said before.

What I fail to see is why so many people are infatuated with the question of existence.


Hypothetically speaking, what if we proved that we didn't exist? Then what? Hmm? Frankly, if the papers had a headline that read "Universe proved to not exist" I would probably shrug and continue eating my non-existant falafel.

You exist because you do. It's stupid to think that reality is relative.

Well, if yu have the capacity to ask a question then are "exist" but the real question is where do you exist. You could be a persona my twisted mind created to amuse myself and therefore not exist to others. This is cancelled by the fact that others replied to this also. So unless they are all persona of my mind then you in turn must exist.

If you did not exist, you could not question your existence.
I am not asking whether or not I exist, I am asking you to prove that I exist.

I am not asking whether or not I exist, I am asking you to prove that I exist.

The only problem is that it is cognitively meaningless. It doesn't actually matter whether you exist since the consequences of interacting with you appear to be the same either way.

I mean, it's equally plausible I may not be human but rather a superhuman intelligence existing in the massively powerful computers that gave birth to this simulated universe, interacting with my creations for purposes known only to me but you'll never know for sure.

though i don't have an opinion, Wittgenstein - in his late phase, at least - would say that you have (and does anybody object to my use of "you" here?) - like many a philosopher - created an artificial problem...

Your quote is my proof, if you did not exist it would not be there.

Even if you exist only in my imagination, then you still exist to me.

What quote? I don't see any quote.

Prove to me there is a quote.

The only problem is that it is cognitively meaningless. It doesn't actually matter whether you exist since the consequences of interacting with you appear to be the same either way.

QFT. Indeed, it does not matter.

Still, for fun, prove me my own existence.

Edit: Timewarp, wee!

I am not asking whether or not I exist, I am asking you to prove that I exist.

Your quote is my proof, if you did not exist it would not be there.

Even if you exist only in my imagination, then you still exist to me.

OK, I have a philosophical challenge for you all.

Prove my own existence to me without begging the question.

OK, go.

You don't exist actually and this is all a figment of your and my imagination.

QFT. Indeed, it does not matter.

Still, for fun, prove me my own existence.

I can't, actually. It's impossible for me to do so, so I have to assume that you exist for purposes of convenience and because it is the simplest explanation that fits the evidence.

Prove my own existence to me without begging the question.


well, I don't know much about logical debate so I had to 'kipedia "begging the question" which told me the following:...

An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.

So... as far as I can tell it is impossible. Because the premise is that you exist in some form otherwise you wouldn't have posted this; therefore the conclusion that you exist is already presupposed.

[QUOTE=Agerias;12422201]What quote? I don't see any quote.

Prove to me there is a quote.QUOTE]

Yes, in the land of make-believe answers, there's no proof

It's sort of hard using internet communications, but I can prove the existence of people close enough to meet by kicking them and yelling 'I prove you thus!'

Thankyou, Doctor Johnson.

Although there is no doubt I will be punched/arrested/both.

but for all intents and purposes the effects of that illusion are identical to existence and so the difference is meaningless.

You would really interact with an illusion the same way you would interact with an actual person?

You would really interact with an illusion the same way you would interact with an actual person?

My opinion: illusions are actual things, occuring in the brain. People are actual things, occuring outside the brain. You usually treat the two in different ways. However both are equally real.

However both are equally real.

Yeah, so?

If the illusion is real, the person is not - and we usually care about the person, not the illusion.

You would really interact with an illusion the same way you would interact with an actual person?

If the illusion was indistinguishable from the real person, how could I know the difference? For all intents and purposes, if there is no difference in the way they respond to my interaction with them, there's no difference between their state of existence.

To paraphrase the great Desperate Measures, this was one of my favourite first issues. :)

N'joy folks.

Yeah, so?

If the illusion is real, the person is not - and we usually care about the person, not the illusion.

the op's question was not "am I a real proper person of the sort that we usually care about?". And I would take issue with the idea that the illusion being real necessarily means that the person is not: oftentimes I have had "illusionary" ideas of a person, only to have them later contradicted by observations. Until those contradictions the two of them, my illusion of what I thought the person was and who they actually were (as presented to me), were identical.

If the illusion was indistinguishable from the real person, how could I know the difference?

That's an entirely different question.

For all intents and purposes, if there is no difference in the way they respond to my interaction with them, there's no difference between their state of existence.

There's a clear difference.

In one case, there's a person, with an actual conscious mind - someone who's actually thinking and feeling, and with whom you can interact as with a person who's thinking and feeling.

In the other case, it's just an illusion - there's nothing actually there. There's no consciousness.

This is a difference we all recognize. Morality, love, empathy, compassion, friendship, arguments, and so on would all be pointless if we thought we were dealing with illusions. Clearly, we don't - and that means that the difference between a person actually existing and a mere illusion is actually significant and meaningful to us, and cannot simply be brushed away.

So I was right to begin with: there's no answer only speculation.

I believe you exist because I think you are the same as me. It's impossible to go any further as what exists is opinion because you can't define definition.

the op's question was not "am I a real proper person of the sort that we usually care about?".

No, but I assume that rolled up in the OP's conception of "I" is a notion of a conscious mind, among other things.

Morality, love, empathy, compassion, friendship, arguments, and so on would all be pointless if we thought we were dealing with illusions.

depends how imaginative you are ;)

So I was right to begin with: there's no answer only speculation.

I believe you exist because I think you are the same as me. It's impossible to go any further as what exists is opinion because you can't define definition.

No, I act as if you exist because, if I don't, it's detrimental to me

No, but I assume that rolled up in the OP's conception of "I" is a notion of a conscious mind, among other things.

but the OP would never get their answer in the form "I exist". They would only get "you exist". And a "you" can be a conscious mind, an hallucination, an animal, or sometimes an inanimate object.

depends how imaginative you are ;)

"Imaginative", yes.

Because it requires imagination to see persons in illusions; illusions in and of themselves aren't sufficient. This merely folds into my point.

And a "you" can be a conscious mind, an hallucination, an animal, or sometimes an inanimate object.

No, if what other people regard as Soheran is really just a rock, everything I appear to be a trick of the light, and every sound I make just the echoes of the wind, the entity I call "myself" does not exist.

No, if what other people regard as Soheran is really just a rock, everything I appear to be a trick of the light, and every sound I make just the echoes of the wind, the entity I call "myself" does not exist.

but if that illusion is sufficiently realistic in the minds of at least one person as to appear to be what they have been trained by evolution to recognize as a fellow sapient being, then it would still be reffered to as "you". Myself does not exist, but yourself does.

It's impossible to go any further as what exists is opinion because you can't define definition.
Well, that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
:D

OK, I have a philosophical challenge for you all.

Prove my own existence to me without begging the question.

OK, go.

I'll answer yours if you answer mine:

If you clone yourself, and have sex with it, is it sex, incest, or masturbation?

And go.

If you clone yourself, and have sex with it, is it sex, incest, or masturbation?

Incest. Same as having sex with an identical twin.

Incest. Same as having sex with an identical twin.

And if said clone had all the same memories and thought processes as you? I prefer:

Incexturbation for it, really.

And if said clone had all the same memories and thought processes as you?

Why would that make a difference?

The only significance I can see is that you'd know what he or she liked.

Why would that make a difference?

The only significance I can see is that you'd know what he or she liked.

*Grumbles*

You are totally ruining my philosophy.

You are totally ruining my philosophy.

Don't worry - I ruin my own philosophies, too.

The only problem is that it is cognitively meaningless. It doesn't actually matter whether you exist since the consequences of interacting with you appear to be the same either way.

I mean, it's equally plausible I may not be human but rather a superhuman intelligence existing in the massively powerful computers that gave birth to this simulated universe, interacting with my creations for purposes known only to me but you'll never know for sure.

Dude, I was joking when I posted that.

Existence is moot

You couldn't prove your own existence, and how then can we be expected to answer such a vague question? Prove to me there's a correct answer, or I'll assume you invented this question just to eat up time.

You can prove your own existence quite easily. I'd recommend reading Descartes. It's where all of that "I think therefore I am" stuff comes from.