Prove that I exist

[♥vampy©valentine♥]

that doesn't prove anything. if you cross your first two fingers and then feel your nose( if done right you will feel two noses ) if we apply your theory to it then it must mean you do have two noses.

and its not reality its what we percive as reality.

 

[sims796]

that doesn't prove anything. if you cross your first two fingers and then feel your nose( if done right you will feel two noses ) if we apply your theory to it then it must mean you do have two noses.

and its not reality its what we percive as reality.

Then it's reality enough. For some, such as me, reality is something that can be proven, being made of mass. Pain is one way to prove of that reality. This seems to all be relative.

That example you gave is only half true. What you are feeling is a finger. That's taking what she said out of context somewhat.

 

[♥vampy©valentine♥]

Then it's reality enough. For some, such as me, reality is something that can be proven, being made of mass. Pain is one way to prove of that reality. This seems to all be relative.

That example you gave is only half true. What you are feeling is a finger. That's taking what she said out of context somewhat.

actually its not feeling your finger what happens when you cross your fingers is that you trick your brain. you see your brain is use to feeling stuff with your fingers in a certain order crossing your fingers changes the order and yeah
you might not see a connection but i do (but isee connections in a lot of stuff) she was talking about using your sences to prove you exist (you did too) and i said that becuase it shows how easy it is to trick our sences, and if your able to trick your sences that easily then why cant someone/thing trick us into to thinking we exist in this world.

 

[sims796]

actually its not feeling your finger what happens when you cross your fingers is that you trick your brain. you see your brain is use to feeling stuff with your fingers in a certain order crossing your fingers changes the order and yeah
you might not see a connection but i do (but i see connections in a lot of stuff) she was talking about using your senses to prove you exist (you did too) and i said that becuase it shows how easy it is to trick our senses, and if your able to trick your sences that easily then why cant someone/thing trick us into to thinking we exist in this world.

Not entirely. My point was we are all made up of things that can be proven. Within different sensations. If you don't exist, you shouldn't feel anything to begin with. In fact, fade away. What exist and what doesn't can be proven with fact. We don't simply "not exist" due to some perceptions of "what if". "What if" there are other realities, and "what if" we are in a dream. For God's sake, "what if" that person imagined our entire memories!

 

[♥vampy©valentine♥]

but if we didn't say what ifs we wouldn't know many things we do. and i never said we dont exist i said you cannot prove it because there many definitions of many things. ok take this example. what if ( yeah i know i used it xD) that we are dead. and we are "replaying" our lives(i actually know of a true story of a man that got into a car crash and instead of his life flashing before his life it fully replayed his childhood he then woke up. he was out cold for at most 15 mins but he had felt like he had gone 15 years) do you define reliveing your life as existing? i wouldn't really, yes we exist but not how we think we do

 

[sims796]

But we exist. I agree with Smarties whole heartedly. We cannot prove these notions and proposals. What if there is a giant jelly bean in the sky that crapped us all out of it's sweet posterior. Can we possibly porve that? Now, I'm religious, but it is pointless trying to prove such a thing happend, since we don't even have a way to prove it. This is more of a "head in the clouds" kind of thing.

 

[Chikara]

that doesn't prove anything. if you cross your first two fingers and then feel your nose( if done right you will feel two noses ) if we apply your theory to it then it must mean you do have two noses.

and its not reality its what we percive as reality.

But is there two noses actually there?

If you wanna think that what you believe is there(crossing your fingers and making believe), have fun. That's horribly immature. Reminds me of a Disney movie or something. You pretty much helped to prove my case on that one >>

Yeah, but it's OUR reality. What exactly IS it that we perceive is it's not reality OR US. What may be reality for others might not be for us.

 

[LethalTexture]

If we think of this in the context of what Chibi was talking about on the previous page, which ties in with the Matrix, then to borrow a quiote from the film:

"What is real? How would you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply, electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

Simply put, just because you can touch, smell, taste and see something, doesn't mean that it necessarily exists. But your brain is interpreting these signals which means that your brain must exist. And another theory touched on by the film, is that your mind (in this case, brain) cannot survive without the body, and vise versa. Therefore, your body is a carrier for your brain that helps it survive. You could even go to the extent that your brain is a carrier for your mind, (in that the mind cannot survive without the brain, and vise versa) which interprets the signals. Thus, what defines your existence is the ability for your mind to interpret the signals that the things which exist in the world we live in give off, not your physical organic entity.

Thus, there is a chain. The mind depends on the brain, and the brain depends on the body. This also works in reverse. So, when you die (which I would define as when your body can no longer function to a sufficient level) your brain stops working, your mind ceases to feel. And when you can no longer feel, you cannot exist.

In conclusion, everything else in the world may not exist, but your mind definitely does for it to be able to interpret the signals. Your mind is a part of who you are, therefore you exist.

 

[JX Valentine]

THE AVERAGE DEBATE THREAD ON PC:

- Someone poses a question that could probably be debated at length (and probably has been several times in the past)
- Random people add in random bits of 'two cents'
- A handful of smart people (including but not limited to: Jaimes, sims796, Heatran, and probably some other people too) come on with posts that could and should basically end the thread but don't for some reason
- It becomes more and more glaringly obvious that OP has no clue what the hell he's talking about
- Debate starts to go in circles between the people who do know what they're talking about and the people who don't realize that by trying to prove their point they're just making themselves look more stupid
- Eventually everyone just gets tired of it and the thread gets locked.

- And occasionally, Jax comes in to offer a semi-relevant reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide.

For example:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

What I mean to say is that the more you try to prove that you don't exist, the more you prove that you do. Basically, the logic behind this is that in order to prove that you don't exist, you need to first define the term "reality" and attempt to apply it to yourself. While there may be a possibility that a figment of one's own imagination is capable of doing this (see Stranger Than Fiction), a figment most likely would most likely say "yes" on an egocentric level to all of the questions one poses to define whether or not the term "reality" applies to himself. That is, for example, if you perceive, then you lie on a plane of existence where it is possible to detect the world around you with all five senses. If you did not lie on such a plane of existence, then you would not be able to perceive with all five senses, as the plane would logically be a plane of nonexistence, where it should not be possible to exist in the first place.

So, on an egocentric view, you exist because you asked this question. You were able to vocalize it and perceive the letters and words that create it. It's not a Descartian philosophy so much as the logical result of existing. On my egocentric view, it's completely possible that I could be hallucinating this entire thread, but on the other hand, I would then have to ask myself why I just spent a half an hour perceiving that I wasted my time posting on a nonexistent thread. Logically, if you didn't exist, then there would be no thread, so if I hit the submit button, then I should arrive at an error message because I attempted to type a reply to something that doesn't exist, ignoring the fact that I should not be perceiving this text box in the first place.

Hopefully, that would make enough sense, although I could just be BSing this entire thing.

 

[TekoMuto]

as far as i know, only this thread is the proof that you exist. i know nothing about you nor even who you are. I know only that this thread exists becuase of you and not what is in it (cuase i didn't feel like reading all of it.) you exist yes, atleast to me, as the creator as this thread and thats it. good day

 

[txteclipse]

You have to ask yourself: do rocks exist? If all humans and animals and plants suddenly disappeared, would the rocks still exist? There would be no one to think about them, but would they still be real? I say yes. Even more so, I know that you exist. I'm actually here, and can think, and I have determined that you exist. Even if I didn't exist, you would continue to exist.

Therefore, you are not a figment of my imagination, nor am I a figment of yours, as the above reasoning applies in the reverse direction.

Anyways, there's a movie you need to see...it's called "Flatland". It's kind of like the story you mentioned in your first post. It's a tad juvenile, but it gets you thinking.

 

[XxZer0xX]

Reality's what you make of it. If you don't think you exist then don't. It doesn't mean you don't other than to yourself.

 

[Zanacross]

When you prove I exist is when I can prove you exist

 

[score_under]

Existence is what you define it as.
[far-fetched-example]
You could say things like mutated glowing alien frogs "exist" in your dreams.
Or, you could say they don't exist.
[/far-fetched-example]
*Darn, they really need to add code for that tag!*
Anyway, since you can sense and are aware of it, you must, by common definition, exist (at least in this world. And the term "exist" does not apply to that, because it is what defines existence).

I hope I didn't lose you there.

 

[Spinor]

No you're not telling the truth, everyone is lying, we are all just a figment of someones imagination and programmed to keep you alive and conscious till death. zabapodot!

Jk. Virtually, this thread has already been proved. You don't exist to those who haven't seen you, but you exist. You exist to those that know you. and have seen you, but later forget your existence unless their memory is one of the most worthwhile. As long as you exist to yourself YOU EXIST. If you say you don't exist. You don't exist. Everyone is themself's king. Their word about themself is law. You don't know if you exist? then you are in the dawn of not existing. thus putting all science and religion's perception of truth and riched for a better life in the brisk of disappearing. We are all your knights, trying to pursuade you into reality of your kingdom. As at the same time, you are all my knights and we are all Michael Jackson's knights! Even Hitler's once. But they we're worthless kings by horrible fame, fall, and not yet but, declaring non-existance. That's what makes a worthless king. Not to be mentioned by others. Once you say you're sure you exist, you exist, your word is law. But it's your choice, you ARE the king.

But is there two noses actually there?

If you wanna think that what you believe is there(crossing your fingers and making believe), have fun. That's horribly immature. Reminds me of a Disney movie or something. You pretty much helped to prove my case on that one >>

You've said a mouthful. Completely immature like a Disney movie. I wish Walt Disney's existance wasn't worth the knight's attention so those immature things. I mean, They made talking rats, I predicted now they would do talking scrap and they did! My word is law and for existance, those movies shouldn't be worth recognizing.

 

[st.jimmy]

if you dont exist than you were naver born........im guessing you were born.

 

[Razer Rage]

I think, therefore I am. This is no simple term. It proves that you exist. If you can form an intelligent thought, then that thought exists. If that thought exists, then so does it's maker. If you have a right to think, then you have a right to live, a right to exist.

I have never seen you, nor have I heard you speak. But that doesn't mean you do not exist, just because I don't know you are there.

It's really simple. If you can think, then you exist. If you can't think, then you're brain dead.

I could go on and on, but I'm not going to. I'm not in the mood right now to make an extremely long post. But please, reply. I will not end my argument here, even if I am ending my post now.

 

[sims796]

I think, therefore I am. This is no simple term. It proves that you exist. If you can form an intelligent thought, then that thought exists. If that thought exists, then so does it's maker. If you have a right to think, then you have a right to live, a right to exist.

I have never seen you, nor have I heard you speak. But that doesn't mean you do not exist, just because I don't know you are there.

It's really simple. If you can think, then you exist. If you can't think, then you're brain dead.

I could go on and on, but I'm not going to. I'm not in the mood right now to make an extremely long post. But please, reply. I will not end my argument here, even if I am ending my post now.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't really agree wholeheartedly with the term. That last sentence is what got to me. Unless I missed what you said, and I most likely did, thinking alone isn't what makes a person exist. What if the person is brain dead? He no longer exist? Or, how bout inanimate objects? They no longer exist, because they are incapable of thinking?

Unless I'm just misinterpreting what you are saying.

 

[Jaimes]

Why is this thread still going on..? It's rather apparent that the OP is too lazy (or embarrassed) to respond to a countless number of reasonable points and plain common sense. ¬_¬

 

[Razer Rage]

@Jaimes: There's no need for that.

@sims796: In a way, yes. They do not exist in the sense that they have a state of self-conscious being. But they are still there, even if they don't know it. So no, just because they can't think, it doesn't mean they can not exist.