Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can you prove your existence?

Stumby
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:14:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

the problem with this question is you haven't defined the interpretation of existence. is it the question of awareness thru cognition? is it the physical manifestation? in order to ask this question. you must first define the means of existence... the empirical evidence you ask for is pre-defined by our senses which is only .0001% of the whole and if you already doubt your existence then the alternative methods for the evidence are within the dream of your realities perspective and therefore we must reject the empirical evidence. the fact is the self-awareness of self is the only truthful proof we have... and that in which you are self-aware is the awareness of the universe within yourself and the is no real way to use "empirical" evidence of self... so I am saying this question is bunk.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol
Stumby
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 3:28:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

again though he seems to be asking in "Allegory of the cave" terms. therefore like the matrix he's referring to the Vat concept provided by, oh wtf was that Philosophers name.
there for he seems to seek the awareness of self. so therefor the proof of others he can see as a dream state. well thats the way it seems he's aiming at. but he hasn't defined his definition of existence..
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 5:09:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

I'm just a fig newton of your imagination. Everything your perceive is nothing but your minds existence.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 5:56:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

Good answer, and too simple....
Now , examine this example, based on your answer:
Person 1: "Prove your existense."
Person 2: "You observe me, therefore I exist."
Person 1: "You observe that I observe you, so you assuming that you exist, therefore observing me as observer of you, cannot be regarded as prove for your existence."
This is red.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 6:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 3:14:16 PM, Stumby wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

the problem with this question is you haven't defined the interpretation of existence. is it the question of awareness thru cognition? is it the physical manifestation? in order to ask this question. you must first define the means of existence... the empirical evidence you ask for is pre-defined by our senses which is only .0001% of the whole and if you already doubt your existence then the alternative methods for the evidence are within the dream of your realities perspective and therefore we must reject the empirical evidence. the fact is the self-awareness of self is the only truthful proof we have... and that in which you are self-aware is the awareness of the universe within yourself and the is no real way to use "empirical" evidence of self... so I am saying this question is bunk.

Well, self-awareness cannot be used as a basis for self-existence.
You are aware that you exist.
You are aware that you are aware that you exist.
You are aware you are aware that you are aware that you exist.
Ad Infinitum.
This is red.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 6:04:25 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I think therefore I am.

I was going to post this, too, Installgentoo.

I think therefore I am is a great way of verifying one's existence.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 6:21:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 5:56:20 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

Good answer, and too simple....
Now , examine this example, based on your answer:
Person 1: "Prove your existense."
Person 2: "You observe me, therefore I exist."
Person 1: "You observe that I observe you, so you assuming that you exist, therefore observing me as observer of you, cannot be regarded as prove for your existence."

Why should anybody believe Person 1's last statement?
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:49:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 6:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 5:56:20 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

Good answer, and too simple....
Now , examine this example, based on your answer:
Person 1: "Prove your existense."
Person 2: "You observe me, therefore I exist."
Person 1: "You observe that I observe you, so you assuming that you exist, therefore observing me as observer of you, cannot be regarded as prove for your existence."

Why should anybody believe Person 1's last statement?

Why should I believe your statement?
You are combination of atoms, which at least one of them, sometime in the past, was in the Ceaser's p##.
Or may be you are just a program in Grand Network of Brains (less likely).
I think you need to be more existential.
This is red.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:51:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 7:49:07 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 6:21:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 5:56:20 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

Good answer, and too simple....
Now , examine this example, based on your answer:
Person 1: "Prove your existense."
Person 2: "You observe me, therefore I exist."
Person 1: "You observe that I observe you, so you assuming that you exist, therefore observing me as observer of you, cannot be regarded as prove for your existence."

Why should anybody believe Person 1's last statement?

Why should I believe your statement?
You are combination of atoms, which at least one of them, sometime in the past, was in the Ceaser's p##.
Or may be you are just a program in Grand Network of Brains (less likely).
I think you need to be more existential.

If you think I need to be more existential, then you must be a radical epistemological skeptic. However, if you are, then you have just adhered to a way of thinking that virtually all philosophers reject.
Stumby
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 6:24:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am but a vibration of slower moving energy we call matter... and much like the sound wave a flutter in sound eventually dissipates into nothing but nothing is is indescribable by the concept of the mind. these particle structures of energy compiled by sound called particles will one day spread like sound waves till they become dissipating dust but our energy will take to life in the ground .... THE Circle of life!!! Clocks are the illusion.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 3:29:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Rational_Thinker & @Stumby

When you say:
I am vibration of slow moving energy.
The whole statement is based on Testimony. What you know about vibration, movement (scientific prespective) and energy comes from Testimony.
99.9% of our knowledge is based on what others say, you cannot even prove Earth goes around Sun, you just believe it to be TRUE, which is called leap of faith.

Stumby, prove to me, empirically, Earth is round.

PS. I am not that skeptic, I think you should distinguish skepticism from questioning knowledge or source of knowledge.
This is red.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 11:49:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Yes, by think, thought is the only form of existence we can send. Being able to think is a prove that we (or at least myself) are existed, at least in the form of thought.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:03:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

I read your post and responded, therefore I exist.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 12:33:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 3:29:31 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
@Rational_Thinker & @Stumby

When you say:
I am vibration of slow moving energy.
The whole statement is based on Testimony. What you know about vibration, movement (scientific prespective) and energy comes from Testimony.
99.9% of our knowledge is based on what others say

That's dumb. I know the sky exists, and I know I exists, my house, my cell phone all from empirical evidence; not from word of mouth. Most knowledge in fact, probably isn't based on what others say.

, you cannot even prove Earth goes around Sun, you just believe it to be TRUE, which is called leap of faith.

It's not faith, it is based on evidence. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, then the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year. They do. Thus, we know the Earth goes around the sun just based off simple telescope observation.


Stumby, prove to me, empirically, Earth is round.

Take a flight at high altitudes, you can see the curvature of the Earth.


PS. I am not that skeptic, I think you should distinguish skepticism from questioning knowledge or source of knowledge.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 3:25:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 5:56:20 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:17:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

Everybody who has ever stood in front of you proved they existed using empirical evidence lol

Good answer, and too simple....
Now , examine this example, based on your answer:
Person 1: "Prove your existense."
Person 2: "You observe me, therefore I exist."
Person 1: "You observe that I observe you, so you assuming that you exist, therefore observing me as observer of you, cannot be regarded as prove for your existence."

Person one misses the point. For you to observe my existence, I must exist (or rather it is extremely strong evidence of). The assumption is not blind but a logical induction.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/25/2013 10:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 6:20:17 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 12/23/2013 6:04:25 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
I think therefore I am.

I was going to post this, too, Installgentoo.

I think therefore I am is a great way of verifying one's existence.

Though not with certainty, as was originally intended.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not faith, it is based on evidence. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, then the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year. They do. Thus, we know the Earth goes around the sun just based off simple telescope observation.

Not all people have necessary knowledge of Algebra and Geometry to do calculations, but they still believe Earth goes around the Sun not vice versa (may be except FoxNews minded people). And I am not interested in existence of your mobile phone.

Do you believe virtual particles exist? You would probably answer, YES.
Have you observed them, or done necessary equations, to believe their existence. Answer is NO.
Therefore you rely on Testimony.
Do you believe in Evolution?
If, answer is YES, have you done necessary fossil examination, DNA tests and etc.? If no, then you rely on Testimony.
Can you prove O has 8 protons?

I can go forever with questions like above, and most of your answers would rely on what others said, or may be you have super brain (less likely) and you can prove them by yourself.

it is easy to make point using examples as house or phone, but examples are not proof(s).
This is red.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:22:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 2:05:05 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
It's not faith, it is based on evidence. If Earth changes its position relative to the stars, then the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year. They do. Thus, we know the Earth goes around the sun just based off simple telescope observation.

Not all people have necessary knowledge of Algebra and Geometry to do calculations, but they still believe Earth goes around the Sun not vice versa (may be except FoxNews minded people). And I am not interested in existence of your mobile phone.

It is reasonable to believe this testimony though. If it was false, other astronomers would be coming out and saying something different. The fact that all testimony is the same, suggests that the testimony is true. If the Earth didn't go around the Sun, there would be evidence for it (the opposite of what I said in my last post would be true), and a huge debate in the scientific community would erupt. Since no astronomer is coming out against this, this means the Earth revolves around the Sun. If it didn't, we would be hearing more about it.

The fact is, I can learn the math, buy a telescope and confirm for myself. However, I don't need to. If it was false, then somebody else besides me would have came out already.


Do you believe virtual particles exist? You would probably answer, YES.

Yes, because of the Casimir effect.

Have you observed them, or done necessary equations, to believe their existence. Answer is NO.

No, but I don't need to. There are videos online where you can see Casimir experiments, and the evidence of the energy fluctuations.

Therefore you rely on Testimony.

That's a non-sequitur.

Do you believe in Evolution?
If, answer is YES, have you done necessary fossil examination, DNA tests and etc.? If no, then you rely on Testimony.

Well, when I went to Florida one time and saw transitional fossils myself at the museum.

Can you prove O has 8 protons?

I can go forever with questions like above, and most of your answers would rely on what others said, or may be you have super brain (less likely) and you can prove them by yourself.

it is easy to make point using examples as house or phone, but examples are not proof(s).

Even if this is true, it is a trivial point. The fact that everyone agrees suggests it is true, because these things are so easy to check out. Someone can do a Casimir test right now and prove vacuum fluctuations in front of me. I don't need to see it though, because if it didn't work; I would have known through contradictory testimony.

I don't know a single physicist who doubts the existence of virtual particles. The fact that everyone agrees means it is true, because all these things are easy to test.
tahir.imanov
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:57:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is reasonable to believe this testimony though. If it was false, other astronomers would be coming out and saying something different. The fact that all testimony is the same, suggests that the testimony is true. If the Earth didn't go around the Sun, there would be evidence for it (the opposite of what I said in my last post would be true), and a huge debate in the scientific community would erupt. Since no astronomer is coming out against this, this means the Earth revolves around the Sun. If it didn't, we would be hearing more about it.
I can agree with this.

Have you observed them, or done necessary equations, to believe their existence. Answer is NO.

No, but I don't need to. There are videos online where you can see Casimir experiments, and the evidence of the energy fluctuations.

It is Testimony.

Well, when I went to Florida one time and saw transitional fossils myself at the museum.
It is Testimony.

I don't know a single physicist who doubts the existence of virtual particles. The fact that everyone agrees means it is true, because all these things are easy to test.

It is Testimony again and My point is not to doubt existence of v.particles. I do not question the existence of particles, but the the way we get knowledge.
And not all things easy to test. You can not measure morality in test tubes.
This is red.
Stumby
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 3:49:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 6:01:11 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
At 12/23/2013 3:14:16 PM, Stumby wrote:
At 12/23/2013 2:40:41 PM, tahir.imanov wrote:
Use empirical method.

the problem with this question is you haven't defined the interpretation of existence. is it the question of awareness thru cognition? is it the physical manifestation? in order to ask this question. you must first define the means of existence... the empirical evidence you ask for is pre-defined by our senses which is only .0001% of the whole and if you already doubt your existence then the alternative methods for the evidence are within the dream of your realities perspective and therefore we must reject the empirical evidence. the fact is the self-awareness of self is the only truthful proof we have... and that in which you are self-aware is the awareness of the universe within yourself and the is no real way to use "empirical" evidence of self... so I am saying this question is bunk.

Well, self-awareness cannot be used as a basis for self-existence.
You are aware that you exist.
You are aware that you are aware that you exist.
You are aware you are aware that you are aware that you exist.
Ad Infinitum.

I am aware of awareness of being aware within my awareness
Subutai
Posts: 3,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 10:07:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It figures that cogito ergo sum would be used in this thread. There are a number of objections to the phrase "I think, therefore I am", but the two most important are as follows: One, it dismisses the idea that illusions have thoughts, as there is no reason why we can't be illusion in "real" life, and two, this statement does not address the idea that thoughts maybe illusions, for if thoughts are illusions, than we are illusions ourselves.

Overall, the Buddhists make a good point in arguing against duality - in other words, you and the Earth being two separate things, noting the illusion of the self. Further it argues that conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them. It is when you try to prove "your" existence that desire, and ergo suffering arises. "Your" existence is illusory.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 9:50:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Kicking you in the balls might prove the existence of something. But my existence would depend on your acknowledgement of me doing it to you and not a flying spaghetti monster. So no I can't prove I exist, you have to acknowledge it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Stumby
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:38:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/25/2013 3:29:31 AM, tahir.imanov wrote:
@Rational_Thinker & @Stumby

When you say:
I am vibration of slow moving energy.
The whole statement is based on Testimony. What you know about vibration, movement (scientific prespective) and energy comes from Testimony.
99.9% of our knowledge is based on what others say, you cannot even prove Earth goes around Sun, you just believe it to be TRUE, which is called leap of faith.

Stumby, prove to me, empirically, Earth is round.

PS. I am not that skeptic, I think you should distinguish skepticism from questioning knowledge or source of knowledge.

So much for poeticism... the only certainty you have is you... you're IT
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2013 1:37:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 10:07:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
It figures that cogito ergo sum would be used in this thread. There are a number of objections to the phrase "I think, therefore I am", but the two most important are as follows: One, it dismisses the idea that illusions have thoughts, as there is no reason why we can't be illusion in "real" life, and two, this statement does not address the idea that thoughts maybe illusions, for if thoughts are illusions, than we are illusions ourselves.

The first one is a strange objection. It would just lead a solipsist down the realist argument of "You can call the self Real, you can call me an illusion. Hell, you can call me your grandmother. But your grandmother is the only thing that exists, and everything else is an illusion." In other words, you're just changing words around. I've never seen any adequate response to this. The second objection follows the same problem. It just substitutes illusion in. Now, if you can differentiate between the illusion and the real in this world, then it holds water. But illusions implies things being real. If there is instead of the real and illusory dichotomy, there is now an illusory and inexistent dichotomy, it just seems to change words.

A more fun objection to cogito ergo sum is that it assumes the laws of logic. If we don't assume the law of inference stands, then the argument fails. It is unfortunately an argument, though Descartes does not seem to want to portray it as such (or at least it uses logical operators and is expressed in terms of propositional logic in modern times). It is unfortunately an argument that relies on the dismissal of reason to succeed, which seems rather impractical.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...