I don't exist

I did not find any proof in this forum that consciousness is caused by the brain.

And Enmos, yourself, you don't have any.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You stick to your belief then, I don't have the urge to teach you at the moment

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe later.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not yet any proof of your belief?

please,

Teach me if you can ;-)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ROnan:

What would constitute proof to you?

 

something more than:

A proof is an argument nobody can reject
A proof given to a statement should make the statement self evident
Having a proof of something would resists any other arguments


A formal proof is based on logical rules and/or axioms
In this case the proof is a sequence of sentence made from axiom and logical rules. It is thus self evident inside the formal system (logical rules+axioms)


but a "real" proof will include a justification of the axiom themselves as well as the logical rules based on external criteria.

In this case certain logical rules are self evident such as no (P and no P)
and we can assume that they are true (justification by inconceivability of the contrary)

To resume:

justified axiom + justified logical rules => proof

 

Yes, you are a product of my wild imagination.

I don't exist either. That's why I can hold this knife now and stab myself with no dire consequences.

 

Can't we just accept that we don't know the answer?

 

Ronan, I have enough experience with types like you to know that discussion or providing proof is of no use.
You can celebrate your victory now..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You should provide a proof before making this kind of statement

But you seem to not be capable of providing it.

There is no victory to celebrate when there is no enemy worth to fight

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Arguing over a pressuposition that should be freely given I think is intellectual folly. Granted we might be wrong in our suppositions, but they are none the less common.
I say that to say this: The problem is not proving to someone that they exist, they should redily affirm to that as a basis for further logical argument. The problem would be proving to you that I exist, or proving to myself that you exist, although I might give you that for free as a courtesy.

After all, we can only work with the premises provided, so don't hide yours ;p.

 

Tell that to a solipsist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

On the contrary my friend, on the contrary. From the moment you made this post, you have invalidated your assertion. When you posited any notions to alert us of your presence, you have existed, even for that one slight moment. Check and mate my friend.

And besides, how can this post have gotten on here had there not been a program or a person, or even an animal to press the keys, to activate the programing code, etc? It might not be a person who exists, but something certainly did.

 

That is definately not conclusive evidence vortex, Im sorry. What many of you are attempting to do is show evidence that would prove his existance to YOU, and this is impossible. Everything you ever experience could be an invention of your own imagination. I would say this especially applies if you have never seen someone in person.

However I am interested if anyone wants to argue my point. You could say that foreign ideas or suffering is evidence of a consciousness outside of our own, but I'm not sure how this would be logically proven.

 

Yes, it is quite possible that my experiences can be an imagination, but it has existed in my mind and therefore existed anyways. Only we are aware of existence through our own consciousness, but if we go, existence is still going to exist even when we are no longer conscious of it. If someone I know were to die, he is no longer conscious of this existence, but I am. It is collectively verifiable because the other people who have not lost their perception of existence, continues to perceive existence. So even if this message is an illusion, it has existed in my perception of its existence and that is more than enough to prove its existence to me. Definitive proof is subjective because there is always going to be variations in what is accepted as fact. If I say that the sun is yellow, the guy next to me might say its red. But I can say conclusively that even if he saw something different, there is something that exists for the both of us to experience it, whether an illusion or not. And who said that the poster has to be a person, it could be a program, and if that is true, there is no way any of us can meet it in person.

But alas, even I realize that the burden of the proof is upon the one making the positive assertion which makes the task all the more difficult. I have to concede on the fact that there is no definite proof that the poster exists, but for me, if the message exists, a poster has to exist as long as it's within the confines of existence (the universe) and that's adequate enough for me.

 

Logically, existence cannot be proven. It must be assumed.

 

Existence cannot be proven? Can you substantiate that assertion please, what is your definition of existence? Are you saying is that the existence as we know it is "faith" based, a rather unreliable way of "knowing"? We are faced with things that we, as you put it, "assume" to exist. How can we all collectively "assume" for it to exist, but cannot "prove" that it exists? What is your criteria for proof that existence cannot be proven? Yes, I am making a positive assertion here that existence exists and I say that there is much more evidence to prove it than a theistic notion that there is a god. For their position, it is much harder to come up with substantial evidence to prove their case without turning to the subjective. As human beings, we can be objective about things. If you are to assert that we cannot be objective, I urge you to analyze your comment again. Is you assertion objective? Well, if you say that "no one, no human beings, not person, can be objective", then you are making an objective statement since that is an absolute. Therefore your statement contradicts itself and anything of a contradicting nature violates the law of identity and therefore cannot truly exist.

Again, as I have mentioned before, I cannot tell if the person who wrote the message is a person, program, or does not exist at all. However, I have experienced existence enough to know that in order for a message to get on the board, something had to exist, it does not have to be a person, it could be a program. Either way, something existed. So you can say I am assuming, but that means I am not sure about the conclusion at all. Well, that may be true, but my reasons for this "assumptions" is based on consistent evidence of existence itself. Therefore there is no need to "assume" when you "know". Well, how do I know? Well we can experience this "existence" through our consciousness, then how can anything not exist? Our consciousness requires a brain, and therefore matter that make up the brain. Those matter has to exist before our consciousness. As a result, existence has to be constant even when consciousness is not. Its the most fundamental axiom, because how can you percieve what is not there? There is a contradiction to say that consciousness exists, but nothing exists at the same time.

 

What is proof? (this is a rhetorical question that substantiates the assertion).

I suppose though, I'm actually wrong. It can be proven depending on your criteria for proof. However, someone making the claim "i don't exist" (which as noted, to many would indicated clear proof to the opposite) will simply ensure their criteria for proof can't really be satisfied.

I should add though, that it seems all criteria for proof is already dependent upon assumptions that at some level cannot be proven (especially if the assumption is simply a definition).

(oh and it would seem I forgot to attack the notion of proof itself, which I'll avoid for now)

To exist is to "be part of reality", where "reality" is "the tao".

I personally do not believe it can be 'proven' beyond skepticism, but can be proven 'beyond reasonable (utilitarian) doubt'. It seems to me the questions asked to reject simple proof are quite often of little to no utility except in making a point.

To 'know' however IMO, is all based in faith, yes. Specfically at minimum, faith in the reliability of sensory connectedness with something external to self. At maximum, gods and stuff.

If I read that correctly, I think what you think I'm saying seems correct.

So... you're assuming I'm more than a figment of your imagination or part of a simulation? Why?

Existence exists, I'll grant you that one based on the definition.. but then again you had to have accepted the validity of the definition and its utility in reflecting something other than a facet of you to make such an assertion no? Assuming the term existence is valid, I'd agree existence exists... but I'm pretty easy and don't mind assuming a lot of things that I'd think someone truly concerned with 'proof' should be wary of assuming.

Ah, I see. Well have you tried discussing the substantiality of 'the evidence' with a theist? It's a lost cause. "the evidence is everything that is" or whatever. It doesn't really matter what reasoning is offered, it's what is believed and as such - substanative enough to offer at least a form of 'proof' to the believer. I think it's pretty egotistical to wholly deny their right to define what is substanative to them, when in fact the one challenging the claim is doing the same thing in a different way.

I do assert that we cannot be objective and in asserting as such, of course it's not objective. It's my opinion.

That's just silly. I can make a statement about what I think is objective and realize the frailty of the attempt while doing so. I believe your application of the law of identity is flawed because you assume an objective framework in which you can apply it. I am not your objective framework. I'm a subjective creature established by its perspective, which is all I can attest to, though often I am tempted - like you - to apply it further. Of course often there is good reason to do so and the results are of high utility, so the temptation seems rather natural.

It could be the hand of god! You think you know stuff, and that's nice and stuff and probably very useful to you - but you are just doing cost-benefit stuff and really don't have a means to validate yourself, because you are you and can't be not you to do so.

That's utility, and proves nothing to anyone unless it does. Proof is a choice and can be honest, dishonest, blah blah.

Of course, for "to know" you 'already assumed', so that parts been done already. With no assumptions, there is nothing to perform logic or reason operations upon. There is no logic. There is nothing.

what's another word for axiom, or a suitable substitute for it. hmm. definition, assumption, article of faith? Surely not that.

You may argue with the subtle differences in the terms but all serve the same function: Something to be believed with no proof.

 

This song is gay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DncGOPzkAns

I don't write my shit. Therefore I don't exist.

 

ack.