Is Thinking Essential for Existence?

[Enos]

I think therefore i was. That is the only certainty you can have because thinking takes time, and you can never be certian that you exist unless you think faster than light.

 

[eNathan]

I personally believe that we exist, but as far as proof...YES, I think I have some. We cannt prove that other's around us exist (Meaning that if you are reading this, maybe I don't exist to you, I am just a figure of your imagination, like in a dream), but you can prove that YOU, as a BEING, do exist, because if you did not exist...Nothing would exist from your point of view. Think if it this way, while you are in a dream, you are convinced that everything around you is real, you treat the situation as real life, but the beings around you do not exist, but you do, because if you didnt exist, you could not be observing anything.

Perhaps I did not explaine what I mean clear enough, but I think what I said is valid.

$/frac Sub Main(Void); { If(PF)==1 { PF.Start; Else PF.Kill; } }$

 

[cen2y]

I personally believe that we exist, but as far as proof...YES, I think I have some. We cannt prove that other's around us exist (Meaning that if you are reading this, maybe I don't exist to you, I am just a figure of your imagination, like in a dream), but you can prove that YOU, as a BEING, do exist, because if you did not exist...Nothing would exist from your point of view. Think if it this way, while you are in a dream, you are convinced that everything around you is real, you treat the situation as real life, but the beings around you do not exist, but you do, because if you didnt exist, you could not be observing anything.

Perhaps I did not explaine what I mean clear enough, but I think what I said is valid.

Note though that it takes time, not only to experience but even to understand what it means to be existing. Furthermore, how can we know that our logical system is correct, what basis for knowledge does this deduction give us?
I believe we are not to base these things on strict implication but rather on probability. I can surely agree that I believe myself to hold a high probability of existence as I am writting this, though, pre-metalogicly, if this sentance would be correct, I'd exist.
Given this, one may very well go on to try and figure out whether other beings exists or not. Do you percept things? You can hold quite a high probabiliity for this as well. Then, wherein lies the difference between things which you percept who are others and things you percept who aren't others?

 

[metrictensor]

Furthermore, how can we know that our logical system is correct, what basis for knowledge does this deduction give us?

I don't know how to address this comment unless you define "logical system".

I am not sure who is reading my posts but no one has given a definition of an existent. Until we define our terminology we can't have an intelligent discussion. By presenting a definition the problem is resolved. The problem is not whether something exists or not but determining what is meant by existence.

Philosophy is very simple it is our thinking that is complicated. A quote by Wittgenstein capture this sentiment perfectly.

Why is philosophy so complicated? It ought to be entirely simple. Philosophy unties the knots in our thinking that we have, in a senseless way, put there. To do this it must make movements that are just as complicated as these knots. Although the result of philosophy is simple, its method cannot be if it is to succeed. The complexity of philosophy is not a complexity of its subject matter, but of our knotted understanding.

 

[penguinraider]

do I exist? I'm here aren't I?

 

[penguinraider]

heres a problem. Can you prove we're not a figment of some-one elses imagination, who is then a figment of some-one elses imagination, et infinatum?

 

[metrictensor]

heres a problem. Can you prove we're not a figment of some-one elses imagination, who is then a figment of some-one elses imagination, et infinatum?

If you think you are the figment of another's imagination try running into a closed door.

 

[arildno]

And what if the really existing person decides that the particular figment in his mind (deluding itself of having separate existence) should experience the sensation of pain the real person would experience when running into a closed door?..

 

[metrictensor]

And what if the really existing person decides that the particular figment in his mind (deluding itself of having separate existence) should experience the sensation of pain the real person would experience when running into a closed door?..

This is all a bunch of speculative bull ****. I am asking you sitting there typing on the comptuer to run into a door. You can speculate all you want if you are a figment of someones imagination or not but you know that it hurts when you run into a door.

 

[arildno]

It seems you didn't notice the ,

 

[RoboSapien]

I don't have to prove I exist and hence I have proved that I do.

 

[metrictensor]

It seems you didn't notice the ,

I understand words and ideas not stupid faces.

 

[arildno]

Do you identify with the main characters in "Grumpy old men"?

 

[metrictensor]

Your particpation in the world (i.e. interacting with people, posting on the internet) is evidence that you exist. We are certain that this is going on. Any discussion of a God or some level of reality behind the scenes is pure speculation. The question of existence only arises when we consider humans to be independently existing objects that encounter other independently existing object. This is mistaken. We are not isolated thinking individuals in the sense that we exist independently of our environment and the beings who inhabit it. In other words, there is no person without a world to interact in. The whole premise of this question hinges on the incorrect assumption that there is an isolated individual who encounters things, not an individual who exists in relation to its interactions with others and its environment. Basically, your analysis has become too scientific in the sense that you have attempted to isolate the object of investigation by assuming it can be isolated.

 

[metrictensor]

Do you identify with the main characters in "Grumpy old men"?

I identify with serious thinkers.

 

[Picklehead]

Not to you. My own existence is self-evident . . . to me. I may be a dream character in someone elses head, but I have enough autonomy to be 'tricked' into thinking I exist, so therefore, in that sense, I exist. You can't trick nothing, can you?

 

[metrictensor]

Not to you. My own existence is self-evident . . . to me. I may be a dream character in someone elses head, but I have enough autonomy to be 'tricked' into thinking I exist, so therefore, in that sense, I exist. You can't trick nothing, can you?

You people with your dream-reality are going way too far. There is no "proof" necessary to establish existence. This would only be the case if there were an independent self that was thrown into the world and encountered other objects that exist equally independently of anything else.

 

[penguinraider]

Ok then, prove we're not a figment of our own imagination...

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

If anyone wants to prove that he/she/it exist, she/he/it must...

First prove that we can prove

second prove that we can exist

third prove that he personally exists

 

[Smurf]

To prove anything, must one not exist beforehand?

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

To prove anything, must one not exist beforehand?

it depends in your definition of exist and of prove.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I exist, the rest of you are just computer simulations created for my amusement.

Prove me wrong.

If i am 'computer simulations', then you must know what i do. For anysituation, you know my reaction. So give a situation and tell me my reaction. and also, can you prove you are not a creation of your creation ?

 

[lawtonfogle]

If anyone wants to prove that he/she/it exist, she/he/it must...

First prove that we can prove

second prove that we can exist

third prove that he personally exists

Can you prove without proving. you must use something else to make it known one can prove.

 

[lawtonfogle]

i exist in a way i can type post you can read, in anyother way, you must see me to prove i exist.

 

[shoopa]

to exist is to love, and bite fingers off.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

i exist in a way i can type post you can read, in anyother way, you must see me to prove i exist.

Ok, but you are doing the same error as everybody, and it is, that you are using something to prove your existence, which leads to an infinite discussion.....

you see, now you have to prove that this forum exists, and if you use the fact of internet, then prove that exists, then if you use the fact of computers, then prove that they exists...etzzzzzzzz

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

If i am 'computer simulations', then you must know what i do. For anysituation, you know my reaction. So give a situation and tell me my reaction. and also, can you prove you are not a creation of your creation ?

If that is true, it would bem an infinite paradox, because then you wouldn't know what came first, the creation, or it's creation, to say, the egg or the chicken.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

to exist is to love, and bite fingers off.

OK, now prove to love.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Can you prove without proving. you must use something else to make it known one can prove.

That's true. because it would be like using a word to describe or define that word.

 

[infidel]

You can see this post, right? Therefore I exist. QED.

 

[lawtonfogle]

here is the question, can you prove to me that i exist in such a way that i cannot prove to you that you do not exist, disproving your proof that i exist, making my proof that you do not exist not count, which would start the whole thing over.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Ok, but you are doing the same error as everybody, and it is, that you are using something to prove your existence, which leads to an infinite discussion.....

you see, now you have to prove that this forum exists, and if you use the fact of internet, then prove that exists, then if you use the fact of computers, then prove that they exists...etzzzzzzzz

Maybe we should not prove there existence compared to everything

I know that the forums exist in such a way i can post on them, that the internet exist in such a way i can use it, i exist in such a way i can post and answer your questions, and that you exist in such a way you can debate me.

This does prove if you are man, machine, or a really smart monkey in some secret city

 

[lawtonfogle]

You can see this post, right? Therefore I exist. QED.

so, do you exist in a way i can see you are here you, you could be a computer program that exist only digitally

 

[lawtonfogle]

If that is true, it would bem an infinite paradox, because then you wouldn't know what came first, the creation, or it's creation, to say, the egg or the chicken.

now, (this is getting a little pointless, but we might hit something useful) prove to me that life is not a infinite paradox.

Maybe life is a paradox of are free will taking away or free will, of us using our free will to find out we do not have free will

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Maybe we should not prove there existence compared to everything

I know that the forums exist in such a way i can post on them, that the internet exist in such a way i can use it, i exist in such a way i can post and answer your questions, and that you exist in such a way you can debate me.

This does prove if you are man, machine, or a really smart monkey in some secret city

I think ou are not quite getting my point.

If the forums exists in such a way you can post, prove to post. If internte exists in such a way you can use it, prove to use, if you exist in suvch a way yo can post and answer me, prove to answer and again prove to post. But remember two things, my two only general points I'm trying to lead you:

1) Before you prove, you have to prove that you can prove, but then prove that you can prove that you can prove, etz....until you can demostrate without proving that you can prove...

2) to prove something or someone exists, you have to porve everything else without having end, and yes, life is an infinite paradox, because everyhing actually is, and you can't prove that you or something exists because you are IN that existence.