Can Anyone Help Prove My Existence?

[OneCelled Brain]

So ya...my philosophy teacher assigned me to write an essay proving that I exist. Being fairly new to philosophy I've got no idea how to go on about proving that I exist, which sounds pretty weird. I've been around the philosophy section of this site a few time and I got to say some of you guys have given me more to think about then any other human being I've ever known in my life. I think there are some great minds here. To get to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I haven't thought this much about my existence since the last time I saw The Matrix while high. So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

-The One Celled Brain

 

[Moridin]

The short answer is that you can not.

The long answer is that there is strong evidence for your existence that such a conclusion is reasonable given the available information and when it comes to 'Why not Matrix', the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (see Russell's Teapot).

Furthermore, one could argue that the concept of 'I' is so vague and ill-defined that any description at all is impossible given the available information and will only yield tautologies such as 'I think, therefore I am'.

 

[mjsd]

So ya...my philosophy teacher assigned me to write an essay proving that I exist. Being fairly new to philosophy I've got no idea how to go on about proving that I exist, which sounds pretty weird. I've been around the philosophy section of this site a few time and I got to say some of you guys have given me more to think about then any other human being I've ever known in my life. I think there are some great minds here. To get to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I haven't thought this much about my existence since the last time I saw The Matrix while high. So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

-The One Celled Brain

Yeah I guess Moridin is right "you cannot" but then again how should we go about proofing this statement!

to set up a proof, you shall first need some axioms (ways of doing things or define what is "logical" and what is not...) basically your inability to find a set of universally accepted, and perhaps consistent axioms (you may ask why we need axioms, well... do you think you can do anything at all otherwise?) makes "proofing" something impossible. Or at least I won't call that a "proof" because you can't just right down a bunch of stuffs and call that a proof. axioms allow you to do things in some kind consistent manner. But then why must the World be consistent? So, if it is not consistent in the first place, then there is no need for a proof.. because inconsistency means that nothing is predictable, absolutely nothing (including this statement itself)

ok, back to your initial problem... your first task is to define what it is meant by existence... not suggesting that you can do it to everyone's satisfaction ... but that's what philosophy is all about, getting one to think about this sort of things.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Remember DesCartes' "I think, therefore I am"?

Rene DesCartes was one of the first to really explore the idea of "what can we be certain of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by experience or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is there anything we CAN'T doubt? His answer was- I cannot doubt that there is something doing the doubting! "I think, therefore I am" would perhaps be better, "I doubt, therefore I am".

 

[Moridin]

Remember DesCartes' "I think, therefore I am"?

Rene DesCartes was one of the first to really explore the idea of "what can we be certain of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by experience or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is there anything we CAN'T doubt? His answer was- I cannot doubt that there is something doing the doubting! "I think, therefore I am" would perhaps be better, "I doubt, therefore I am".

That seems like a tautology. Surely, to accept 'I doubt' one would have to accept the conclusion before the premise of the argumnet?

 

[out of whack]

That seems like a tautology. Surely, to accept 'I doubt' one would have to accept the conclusion before the premise of the argumnet?

As I see it, the part that must be accepted is that doubting requires existence. If you believe that thinking does not require existence then, sure, the reasoning fails. But then you have to wonder what existence means if something can happen even if nothing exists... So the conclusion is not a tautology but a consequence of the fact that thinking requires existence, and the strength of the proof is that you cannot rationaly think that you are not thinking.

Now, it is much easier to prove to yourself that you exist than to prove it to others. There is always this approach:

Q: Prove that you exist.
A: Who are you asking?

 

[kurushio95]

If it were me, I'd hand him a blank sheet of paper then punch him in the jaw. That could shift the topic from "prove you exist" to "if no one exists, how do non-existent beings (oxymoron) interact with each other? i.e. contact, bleeding, etc..."

 

[LightbulbSun]

There are two different types of objective facts: things and events. You are a 'thing' so to prove your existence everyone would have to see that you are visible to them or photographic evidence will do.

 

[Moridin]

There are two different types of objective facts: things and events. You are a 'thing' so to prove your existence everyone would have to see that you are visible to them or photographic evidence will do.

A -> B
B
---------
Not Necessarily A

You can provide evidence for your existence, but you cannot prove it.

 

[LightbulbSun]

A -> B
B
---------
Not Necessarily A

You can provide evidence for your existence, but you cannot prove it.

Surely, I cannot prove it. I am confined within myself and cannot go outside of myself to show that I truly exist. But if I'm visible to 6 billion other humans and I have significant photographic evidence of myself then I could say with good confidence that I do in fact exist.

 

[nickto21]

I think it would be funny if you wrote your name on a piece of paper, and just handed that in. "I have a name, I exist" type of thing.

And, I don't think that you can "prove" that you exist.

The thing that I hate about these classes is that even though there are no real answers to these questions, your teacher is expecting you to write something more substantial than "I can't". Even though ,IMO, any answer is equally valid.

Steve

 

[JoeDawg]

Remember DesCartes' "I think, therefore I am"?

Rene DesCartes was one of the first to really explore the idea of "what can we be certain of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by experience or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is there anything we CAN'T doubt? His answer was- I cannot doubt that there is something doing the doubting! "I think, therefore I am" would perhaps be better, "I doubt, therefore I am".

Thinking is a self-reflective process, which is unavoidable, if one is thinking. So one can say that 'thinking exists'. If that is the case then 'something that thinks exists' is a valid statement. Whether you can extract an 'I' from that is another story. However since thinking appears localized, its a good inference.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

You guys make some really good points.

I did some digging and i found a REALLY old thread that was discussing the same thing.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=12198

By the way what are axioms?

-The Once Celled Brain

 

[JoeDawg]

Y
By the way what are axioms?

In mathematics its an assumption, or starting point, and in philosophy, its something that is 'self-evident', however there is much argument about what is self-evident amongst philosophers, not only in terms of existence but also ethics. Descartes believed that the only self-evident thing was 'thinking', since in order to ask the question; what exists? One must exist as a thing that can ask the question.

 

[OneCelled Brain]

In mathematics its an assumption, or starting point, and in philosophy, its something that is 'self-evident', however there is much argument about what is self-evident amongst philosophers, not only in terms of existence but also ethics. Descartes believed that the only self-evident thing was 'thinking', since in order to ask the question; what exists? One must exist as a thing that can ask the question.

Ohhh so you mean to answer the question Do I exist? I have to exist.

Also what's a good definition for the word existence, some of the dictionaries if looked up use the word exist in the definition...

 

[mjsd]

mmm... finally some ppl have picked my points about axioms and definitions

I think if you think hard (too hard) at it, nothing is going work and you just be at a stand still because you just can't do anything with nothing... unless there is something (like a god) which supposedly give you something with nothing or nothing with something or anything that is remotely (un)imaginable. it is a difficult task, but perhaps your teacher is looking for clear thinking rather than being pedantic??

 

[OneCelled Brain]

mmm... finally some ppl have picked my points about axioms and definitions

I think if you think hard (too hard) at it, nothing is going work and you just be at a stand still because you just can't do anything with nothing... unless there is something (like a god) which supposedly give you something with nothing or nothing with something or anything that is remotely (un)imaginable. it is a difficult task, but perhaps your teacher is looking for clear thinking rather than being pedantic??

LOL The funny thing is that I was able to follow all that in one read. And you I think he is looking for something simple but the truth is I hate being simple when I want to be creative and abstract.
Oh and do you know of a good definition of the word existence?

 

[mjsd]

what do you mean by "good"?

 

[OneCelled Brain]

I donno something not like this
ex·ist·ence
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
5. something that exists; entity; being.
It doesn't make sense for the word or the rootword to be used in the definition, it isn't really a definition is it then?
How would you define the word existence in your own words?

 

[mjsd]

I donno something not like this
ex·ist·ence ...

that's the whole point, your definition of "existence" is no better or worse than mine or anyone else really...but this is certainly the first thing to think about in your attempt to "prove" your own existence...

 

[OneCelled Brain]

that's the whole point, your definition of "existence" is no better or worse than mine or anyone else really...but this is certainly the first thing to think about in your attempt to "prove" you own existence...

Ohhhh that just turned on the light bulb

 

[octelcogopod]

I agree with arildno here, why are you getting such stupid assignments?

The question is also pretty vague, prove in what way? To yourself? To him and everyone else? Prove that consciousness exists, the brain, the body or the soul?

 

[JoeDawg]

I agree with arildno here, why are you getting such stupid assignments?

The question is also pretty vague, prove in what way? To yourself? To him and everyone else? Prove that consciousness exists, the brain, the body or the soul?

I think you're missing the point of the assignment.

Dealing with the questions you are asking, is exactly what the professor wants you to do. In other words, examine all the different ways something can exist, and how you would prove them, and if they are provable, and what assumptions one is making when one uses those definitions.

Mathematics professors don't just give you the answers and send you home, they make you work through proofs so you understand how to get to the answers... and find new ones.

 

[out of whack]

Regarding a definition for existence, you can figure one out by looking at differences between what exists and what does not exist. Things that exist can have a color, a mass, a size, a position, energy, any property at all. Things that don't exist are devoid of any of that. It seems to me that existence simply means having some kind of property and non existence is the absence of any.

 

[octelcogopod]

JoeDawg, ah yes, I suspected that was the reason but wasn't sure.
I guess my point was it's a pretty broad assignment, which leads to very little depth in one area I find, and as you can see this fellow had very little idea of where to even begin.

Entire books can be written on the subject of existence and proof, leading into all sorts of alleys like infinity, determinism, primordial cause, qualia, the i, the you, and in the end the entire universe.

I guess it's a good test to find out which of his students have the inspiration to become a true philosopher :P

 

[mjsd]

Regarding a definition for existence, you can figure one out by looking at differences between what exists and what does not exist. Things that exist can have a color, a mass, a size, a position, energy, any property at all. Things that don't exist are devoid of any of that. It seems to me that existence simply means having some kind of property and non existence is the absence of any.

yeah, but the diffculty is that how to choose these properties? how to choose them in an universal way? what if certain properties can change or depend on perspective?
certainly another issue to think about in this quest to "prove" existence

 

[out of whack]

You don't have to "choose" specific properties of what exists, I was only speaking of the principle at play. Either something has one or more properties and therefore exists, or it has no property at all and therefore does not exist. So the trick is not to choose properties but merely to recognize if there are any or not. Whatever has properties exerts some kind of influence on some other things, whereas what is devoid of properties is irrelevant to all other things. This is the essential difference I see between what is real and what isn't.

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, ah yes, I suspected that was the reason but wasn't sure.
I guess my point was it's a pretty broad assignment, which leads to very little depth in one area I find, and as you can see this fellow had very little idea of where to even begin.

Entire books can be written on the subject of existence and proof, leading into all sorts of alleys like infinity, determinism, primordial cause, qualia, the i, the you, and in the end the entire universe.

I guess it's a good test to find out which of his students have the inspiration to become a true philosopher :P

Its also a good introduction to the 'basic arguments' that have been made in the history of philosophy. Philosophy in large part is about being able to analyze the arguments that have been made historically. If you study Kant, and decide what he believed is bull****, knowing why you think he was wrong might lead you to question some of your own assumptions about things. Human beings may believe different things but the reasons why we are often wrong are universal. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.. and all that.

 

[sd01g]

To get to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I haven't thought this much about my existence since the last time I saw The Matrix while high. So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.
-The One Celled Brain

Anytime I need to reasure myself that I exist, I try to see how long I can hold my breath. Invariable, something requires me start breathing again. I conclude that there is something more powerful than my 'will'. I than conclude that being aware of that 'something' means I exist. Now the hard part starts: Why, where, and how do I exist?

 

[mjsd]

You don't have to "choose" specific properties of what exists, I was only speaking of the principle at play. Either something has one or more properties and therefore exists, or it has no property at all and therefore does not exist. So the trick is not to choose properties but merely to recognize if there are any or not. Whatever has properties exerts some kind of influence on some other things, whereas what is devoid of properties is irrelevant to all other things. This is the essential difference I see between what is real and what isn't.

when I said "to choose", it means how to choose something that is relevant to what you are trying to "prove" or demonstrate. For example, you are in a room with two boxes which is placed some distance from you (ie. you can't touch it or see it because it is completely dark), but you are given two tools (you must choose one only) to help you ascertain which box could be heavier. The two tools are "a torch" and "a bag of coins". So depending on what you think the two objects are (at this point you know nothing about them, certainly you don't know they are boxes yet), you will choose a tool over the other. Some may say the "torch" is better because you get to see what they are and from that you can estimate which is heavier. Other may say instead the bag of coins are better, for you can throw these coins at the objects and hear how the two objects response and hence get an indication as to from what material they are made of, whether they are hollow etc.

Not a perfect analogy but this example highlights several difficulties about making the right choices:
--they can be perspective dependent (some may think that if they see one box has wooden color and the other one has metallic color, the metallic one could be heavier, while some may think otherwise)
--their properties can change if you choose a method of testing that inevitably destroy you object (eg. the coins that you throw at the objects actually break the two objects, another eg. is the double-slit interference, you try to put a detector near one of the slit to see which slit the photo went through, you will destroy the intereference pattern altogether)
etc.

So what have I been saying?

The problem is that we don't even have a good definition for what is existence (btw, yours definition is no better or worse than mine... it really depends a bit on perspective), how do you know how to choose your properties? To prove something, you cannot assume a priori what that thing is (unless you know what it is...but then there is probably nothing to prove). The act of defining what existence means is the major part of the proof for then you can choose your properties... or actually, defining what existence means is effectively the same as choosing these properties... and you can't choose unless you know what it is...


another example: Say, I believe that ghosts exist because they keep attacking me in my dreams...and I know dreams are real and also as a consequence I get some mental illness for I don't dare to close my eyes anymore. So in my perspective ghosts have real influence on me and that they exist! But you may say that's bullsh**, how can a few bad dreams prove the existence of something that is so debatable?!... that come back to the questions of how to choose the right properties in analysising something.


btw, I am happy to be proven wrong for I don't like ghosts

 

[gatorgirl]

I would call your mother and have her testify that she grew you in her belly for 9 months. Then spent probably 8 hours in labor that she probably felt like she wouldn't come out of alive. After you provide this proof proceed to punch this guy in his face for making you spend a considerable amount of time on nonsense. :)

 

[JoeDawg]

I would call your mother and have her testify that she grew you in her belly for 9 months. Then spent probably 8 hours in labor that she probably felt like she wouldn't come out of alive.

Then have her co-host The View and explain how the Earth is flat.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yawn.

Ask your professor if axioms of any kind are "allowed" in your proof.

I kind of think this is the inklings of what the professor is looking for.

A common question on interview tests for programmers is "How many gas stations are there in City X?"

It's not about the answer, it's about the process.

What questions come to mind? What are your assumptions?



All you people who are poo-pooing this assigment: are you saying that the OP will simply not benefit from thinking through an abstract problem in terms of the process of problem-solving?

 

[Math Is Hard]

OK, I think we have wandered far enough away from the topic now. This is not a debate about the value of philosophy classes. Do that in another thread if you wish, but please be respectful of each other.

<edit: thread has been pruned and reopened.>

 

[vanesch]

To the OP: there's a whole field of philosophy dedicated to that single issue of "existing": it is called ontology. The interesting thing about philosophy is that you are not supposed to take for granted what everybody else is taking as an evident starting point. That has of course the merit of making you think about things which are usually not considered "open to consideration because self-evident", but it has also the problem of not giving you any "basis to begin with". In fact, even mathematics has this problem. You cannot begin mathematics from the beginning. You need some basic intuitive input.
As to the question by the professor: why don't you set out to prove the opposite: try to consider that you don't exist.
Assuming that only you (as a subjective entity), but not the world (nor your body), exists, is a well-known philosophical stance too, called solipsism. It cannot be contradicted, but still assumes that you exist.