[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 205 KB, 478x700, tumblr_l7fcineYbc1qd0doeo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445427 No.3445427 [Reply] [Original]

How do I prove my existence, /sci/?

>> No.3445437

>>3445427

To yourself or others?

>> No.3445439

think

>> No.3445443

Define "existence", maybe then we can have an intellectual discussion.

>> No.3445444
File: 3 KB, 213x237, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445444

Cogito ergo sum.

>> No.3445453

You can't, that's like cutting Causality with Occam's Razor.
dinosaur magnets god big bang doubles
Christianity - X
Atheism - X-100

>> No.3445456

>>3445427
>how do I prove my existence

>what do I mean by existence?

>what do I mean by myself?

>what do I mean by proof?

Once you answer those questions, the answer will flow implicitly from your derivations. Good luck OP.

Best wishes, anon.

>> No.3445458

>>3445437
This is more interesting than OP realizes.

>> No.3445484

>>3445458

Yourself is reasonably easy, Cogito Ergo Sum.

Others is CLUSTERFUCK PROBLEM OF OTHER MINDS TERRITORY.

>>ukiriin perfull
YES CAPTCHA IT'S FULL OF UKIRIIN

>> No.3445502

First you must prove that logic works.

>> No.3445510

>>3445427
I rage at problems like this because philosophers didn't get over them in three fucking thousand years. "Existence" is a relative predicate. You exist FOR something or someone. And it's obviously quite easy to prove to someone, that you exist FOR him, since the both of you communicating implies that you exist for each other. The same goes for proving to YOU that you exist. That's why "cogito ergo sum" works: If you can communicate with youself, you obviously exist for yourself.
"Absolute existence" is a meaningless idea, like "invisible redness".

>> No.3445516

>>3445502
Nah, you just accept that logic works, then figure out what else works knowing logic works.

>Axioms, how do they exist?

>> No.3445521

>>3445510
WELL SOMEBODY JUST DERPED HARD

>> No.3445529

>>3445521
yeah, prove me wrong, fucktard.

>> No.3445555

>>3445529
How do you know everyone around you isn't some sort of illusion and they are programed to say they exist. You obviously have never taken a single philosophy course if you don't know about the Descartes's "evil mastermind"

>> No.3445562

>>3445529 "Existence" is a relative predicate. You exist FOR something or someone.

Therefore rocks only exist once someone has used them for some purpose like a wall.

>> No.3445569

>>3445555
Have I ever said that I'd know that? Actually, quite the contrary: YOU'd have to prove that you DO know the world isn't some sort of illusion to disprove what I suggested.

>> No.3445570

>>3445562
EXACTLY

>> No.3445575

>>3445510
>>3445529
>prove me wrong

>"Existence" is a relative predicate. You exist FOR something or someone...you exist FOR him...

So you don't exist until you connect with someone.
That person doesn't exist until they connect with you.

And you don't exist until you connect with yourself, which doesn't exist until it relates to something.
well, at least you tried, 2/10, that's the best I can do.

>> No.3445579

>>3445569
Prove to me you aren't mentally retarded and under the age of 18 and we will continue our discussion.

>> No.3445591

Just touch yourself and check if you feel anything. It's that simple to prove the existance of yourself. However, are your senses illusory in nature?

>> No.3445596

>>3445591

but no one knows what they fucken mean by the words "exist" or "self"

lol...

>> No.3445600

>>3445562
Like I said, the question of absolute existence it meaningless (or at leats not covered by my defintion). Then yeah, by my definition rocks only exist for someone once someone has in some way interacted with them . Seeing them would more than suffice, though. Even hearing about them from someone else would make them exist "for you" in some degree. So why do I postulate this? It solves all the provability issues you see ITT.

>> No.3445609

>>3445575
Yeah. As I said, my defintion of existence relies on provability.

>> No.3445617

By clearly defining existence.

/thread

>> No.3445642

>>3445443
What's your definition of existence? Are we all tangential units of mass or do we lack the awareness to discern what is and isn't real? Aren't all our sensories limited? What if all those senses were amplified, would we be able to see through the facade we call "existence"?

>> No.3445734

What are the stimuli to realizing you exist?

>> No.3445754

OP uses the word "I", then implicitly questions the validity of his existence. Welcome, newfag to logic.

/thread.

>> No.3445755

>>3445591
And that's what I'm worried about. Am I wired to fabricate my perception or am I prewired to the environment in which I'm interacting in? Are there really any variables in my life or anyone else's?

>> No.3445771

>>3445754
The "I" is the root and the core, the fundamental and the end-all, without the "I" there can't be a "you". Your gripe is not being able to come up with an objective plane in which we can all calmly tell ourselves that we exist. Dualistically, we exist.

>> No.3445768

Does anyone contemplate questions such as these, and at some moment have this fleeting sense of awe that you really are existing in something - and no one (acknowledging other minds) has any idea what this really is.
Almost an uncanny self awareness that evokes a sense of eternity of this system you are intrinsically tied to.

>> No.3445782

ONLY I EXIST
Brb going to go rape and kill whomever I want.

>> No.3445790

>>3445782

solipsist detected.

>> No.3445799

>>3445768
There is no awe involved, just utter devastation and hopelessness. Stuck in between waking states and hoping for a totem or sign to give me that surge of relief that everything and everyone is indeed interlinked and living.

>> No.3445805

>>3445771
Thanks, finally someone understood my argument. (Yeah, I', that existence-is-relative-guy, and yeah I know you didn't say that because you really read my defintions but just knew it from somewhere else because it's fucking logical.)

>> No.3445809

>>3445790
What is a solipsist?
Don't you know that words have no fixed meanings.
That the original meaning of the word solipsist has been lost to knowledge?

>> No.3445842

>>3445809

I fucking loathe relativist fags like you.

>> No.3445847

There's always a guarantee that if you were to touch anything that you'll be able to feel it, but what if you're only able to feel things because you've adapted to being able to feel it and you've conditioned yourself subconsciously to be able to feel things. How sure are you about your environment and how can you tell whether your perception is playing tricks on you? How sure are you that when you're done typing up your post that you aren't participating in the monologue musings of the ego and that each "contribution" isn't just supplementing your safety treshold? The allegory of the cave.

>> No.3445863 [DELETED] 

>>3445847
>mfw Plato concluded that absolute existence is meaningless.
(Only the "good" exists to full extent.)

>> No.3445889 [DELETED] 

>>3445863
>MFW plato was batshit crazy.
So the forms are what is real, you are less real than the idea of you.