Is Proving Your Existence Pointless? The Limitations of Memory and Science

[MathematicalPhysicist]

i think to proove you exist you need to proove the universe exist (because then from its exitence you can deduct that you exist )without taking into account your existence but then how could you proove its existence?!

 

[Canute]

How do you propose to prove that the universe exists before you have proved that you exist?

 

[olde drunk]

Gentlemen, gentlemen

why waste energy trying to 'prove you exist'?

i find it so much more practical to accept the FACT that i am here and move on to more important issues.

the best answers are always the easiest: cognito ergo etc, or sumsuch!

lets direct our time and energies for developing ideas for peaceful solutions to the world problems. if we accept that we exist and that we want a peaceful world then we can move onto the solutions. debating these silly issues leads to conflicts, arguments and fuels the probabilty of war.

peace,

 

[Canute]

Your choice. But you may have slightly missed the point of the discussion.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Canute
Your choice. But you may have slightly missed the point of the discussion.

trying to prove we exist is a mental masturbatory excercise!

cut to da chase! i am 100% certain that i exist!

prove me wrong, i dare ya!

peace,

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Originally posted by Canute
How do you propose to prove that the universe exists before you have proved that you exist?

that's my point you can't do it.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by olde drunk
trying to prove we exist is a mental masturbatory excercise!
peace,

Right, we agree then.

 

[scott]

In order to formulate a valid deductive proof of your own existence, you'd have to start with premises which are factual statements about attributes of the states of "existence" and "non-existence" since we can't even seem to agree on what existence and non-existence mean, its not likely we're going to be able to come up with premises established as truth upon which to build a truthful valid proof.


Creating a valid argument to prove existence is easy given premises to start with. Its establishing those initial premises that's the problem.

 

[hypnagogue]

Proving one's existence from the 3rd person view might be difficult. Proving it from the 1st person point of view, however, is trivial. Any conscious experience automatically does the proving for you.

 

[Kakorot]

here's the thing

yes it is possible to "prove" you exist. But as soon as your done proving it, then it becomes a memory. Simply a memory, nothing more. (a memory could be a photograph, audio recording, mind memory, etc..)
It doesn't matter how you prove it, because as soon as you are done, it is a memory. And the universe could have been created the instant you think you were done proving you exist. Therefore there is no permenent evidence of your own existence.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Proving one's existence from the 3rd person view might be difficult. Proving it from the 1st person point of view, however, is trivial. Any conscious experience automatically does the proving for you. [/B]

But surely that is knowing, not proving. In first person terms the existence of a conscious first person must be taken as a given rather then being provable.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Kakorot
yes it is possible to "prove" you exist. But as soon as your done proving it, then it becomes a memory. Simply a memory, nothing more. (a memory could be a photograph, audio recording, mind memory, etc..)
It doesn't matter how you prove it, because as soon as you are done, it is a memory. And the universe could have been created the instant you think you were done proving you exist. Therefore there is no permenent evidence of your own existence.

True enough, but there is still perpetual evidence of your own existence, so long as you are awake. Perpetual might as well be permanent from the 1st person view. Both endure indefinitely, albeit with different time frame references.

 

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Canute
But surely that is knowing, not proving. In first person terms the existence of a conscious first person must be taken as a given rather then being provable.

I suppose it depends on how you define "prove." I take it the first definition from dictionary.com suffices: "To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence." Conscious experience is undeniable 1st person evidence of one's own existence, and so constitutes a 1st person proof. What we cannot do is prove our own existence via argument or evidence using the 2nd or 3rd person perspectives. Although, as chroot has pointed out, any argument an individual wishes to construct automatically involves his or her 1st person conscious experience, and so automatically includes the 1st person evidence.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Although, as chroot has pointed out, any argument an individual wishes to construct automatically involves his or her 1st person conscious experience, and so automatically includes the 1st person evidence. [/B]

True, as long as it all stays 1st person. But this is not a proof, it is just direct knowledge. The existence of consciousness cannot be taken as axiomatic to its own proof, the proof becomes meaningless.

 

[hypnagogue]

If one accepts that evidence alone can constitute a proof, I still don't see anything wrong with saying that one can prove one's own existence to one's self. It can only be a 1st person proof, however, and I suppose this is where you draw your distinction: you say that 1st person proof is not a proof, it is direct knowledge. To me they seem to be the same thing. Again, it just depends on the definitions you use.

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Kakorot
"I exist" is an axiomatic statement. It cannot be argued, because, to argue it, you must first assume it is true. It must be true.

- Warren

But how do I know that we're not in some matrix world or something similar. There is no way to prove anything real. Sorry to burst your bubble. I don't mean to sound arrogant or anything, I'm simply stating this one thing as an "axiom" That nothing can truly be proven... (and I know about the whole implications of it being a paradox, there's no need to talk about it, I already understand it)

I tend not to deny my own existence, but just everybody else's!

I gauge other existence's by my interactions with them? if someone asks me a question, I do not accept this as proof of their existence, but if I ANSWER their question I take this as proof of MY own existence!

I have no memory of a 'Past Death', I therefore take this as another proof of my present existence, this does not deny the fact that any person Dead, may be contemplating a 'Past' memory of their once Life?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
If one accepts that evidence alone can constitute a proof, I still don't see anything wrong with saying that one can prove one's own existence to one's self. It can only be a 1st person proof, however, and I suppose this is where you draw your distinction: you say that 1st person proof is not a proof, it is direct knowledge. To me they seem to be the same thing. Again, it just depends on the definitions you use. [/B]

That's true I suppose, but science doesn't define it that way so I'd rather call 1st person proof 'direct knowledge'.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Kakorot
yes it is possible to "prove" you exist. But as soon as your done proving it, then it becomes a memory. Simply a memory, nothing more. (a memory could be a photograph, audio recording, mind memory, etc..)
It doesn't matter how you prove it, because as soon as you are done, it is a memory. And the universe could have been created the instant you think you were done proving you exist. Therefore there is no permenent evidence of your own existence.

Is not memory also knowledge. Knowledge is knowing and can be recorded in a many facit way. Does not knowledge have a specific position in our space=time matrix. Through hypnosis specific information about the I can be obtained and verified by second parties, which we can then, localize that information in a specific space=time. This is permanent evidence of a existence. It is evidence of the particpant in our matrix but not necessarily evidence of "Reality"