Is there proof we exist?

[krelnius]

Ok, so here is my next question that requires more knowledge than I have on hand in a small town in Missouri.

Is there proof we exist?

What I mean is, how do I know I'm really typeing this post right now? How do I know that the roof above my head is really there at all? I can feel it? See it? The senses proof close to nothing. I've used every single sense I posess in plain dreams that I can have nearly any night of the week. How do I tell reality from what my brain could be producing?

We have science, true. We know other planets, stars, and complete galaxies exist but where is the proof? Lightwaves and radiation? Even if I were the man to test these all by myself it proves nothing to determine if anything is REAL. As far as I know I could be dreaming right now...everyone else could just be a part of a brain...of some creature completely different from humans...it could be a creature that looks like 3 toes on a pink planet and the creature could breathe acid and fart sulphur for all I know because I have no way to determine whats real.

Take any family member for instance...walk up...touch them on the shoulder...and prove their real. To say that any of the 5 senses can prove their real is to basically say that anything I can touch, taste, smell, see, or hear is real....in which case every nightmare I've ever had would be terrorizing the world and their not...this alone tells me that my brain can distort reality to a degree that I can not differentiate between what is dream and whats not. Surely nobody here can make the claim they have never had a dream that they mistook for real until they woke up....this alone is proof that we can be easily fooled by our minds.

So, my question is, in an existence where basically our mind tells us everything we know...how do we know that our mind is telling the truthe, or that its all a big lie?

Coincidentally, to say that "Well I've got a dad and he isnt fake." doesnt prove anything. Everyone from gradeschoolers to skitzo's have imaginary friends and there is no reason why a human brain couldnt do this on as grand a scale as might be needed since considering the idea means not only that what we know of the brain might be false but everything we know of science alltogether could be false.

Ask yourself for a moment if its possible that youve made up every single thing youve ever experienced...I know it probably sounds ridiculous but if you think about it...well, personally it scares me cause when I think about it I realize there is no proof that anything really exists...everything from my most intimate and meaningful moments to the posts on these forums could be really just figments of my imagination.

Also, I don't see a way to refute this... I mean...how could u tell a dream from reality if you never knew the difference?

 

[strathmeyer]

So, my question is, in an existence where basically our mind tells us everything we know...how do we know that our mind is telling the truthe, or that its all a big lie?

What evidence do you have that it is all a big lie? What evidence do you have that our minds aren't telling us the truth?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Krelnius, your entire lament is caused by neglecting to define the word real. Why don't you try defining it and see if it helps to clear things up?

~~ Paul

 

[emperorchaos]

You're the only one that exists, actually. You solipsist^WP, you. I've wanted to use that new vb code for a few hours now!

It's like this. Existence. Reality. Whatever you want to call it. I'd say that the same fundamentals work as they do in the scientific community. If the general consensus says so, then here we are.

I was never big on these philosophical types of questions. But if you apply Occam's Razor to it. Hmm... I believe we do exist.

 

[TimmyBerry]

... But then, again, that's my opinion of a fair amount of extremists here..

 

[emperorchaos]

... But then, again, that's my opinion of a fair amount of extremists here..

That's what I thought at first, but I can never tell until I've already exchanged dialogue with them to the point of absurdity.

I like iguanas. My girl's name is Glaurung.

 

[TimmyBerry]

As he's yet to reply to this thread, I'd guess for a hit-and-run.

My guy's called Icky (Alternatively, Icky-Baby or Ickus the Terrible). Have you had yours for long?

 

[Soapy Sam]

krelnius- I'll take your question seriously.

The answer is you can't know except through the senses. They are all you have. If all sensory input could somehow be stopped, including awareness of gravity , orientation and temperature, your only awareness would be of internal sensation -such as pain from a rotten tooth or breathing chlorine- and the awareness of your thoughts.
If your nerves could be blocked by anaesthetic, you would be left only with your thoughts.
Now suppose this was done to a newborn baby which has no vocabulary, which never sees, hears or feels anything.

Would it be aware at all? Remember, unlike Helen Keller, it could not be taught by external stimulation- there are no sensory channels available.


Would a person exist , from your point of view?

Now think hard. Would you exist from it's point of view?


I don't know the answer to these questions. You are free to decide. My point is that there is no possible way, other than the sensory, through which the questions are even answerable in principle. You do not exist from a cloud's point of view, because it has none.

Some might say that a disconnected mind might know "through the spirit " that others exist- but that would be just as open to the doubts you express about sensory knowledge. How could anyone ever know for sure?

Dr.Johnson's famous rejection of solipsism was to kick a stone, saying "I refute it, thus!" Now as a Scot, I would like to be able to refute a few of Johnson's jibes by applying my boot to his backside in similar vein, but in this case he's right. We either take the world as our common senses tell us it is , or we do not. But if we do not, we will soon be in a sorry pickle.

The supposition that things are real, coupled with the consistency of the supporting evidence, is all we have. It's either that or nothing.

 

[Timothy]

Is there proof we exist?

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Yes or no, depending on the level of formality proof you require.

Slightly more lengthy answer: Philosophers have spent several thousand years debating and examining the question. Don't expect to have it all presented to you here.

Slightly more topical answer: There's a thread examining most of the salient points of this argument going on right now in the "Skepticism" forum--
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53830


- Timothy

 

[Cabbage]

I've involved myself in many debates over this sort of thing over the years, but I'm still convinced I'm right (though I must admit I'm not 100% sure I ever fully grasped the point others were trying to make to me).

Anyway, yes, there is proof that you exist. (Or, more appropriately, I can prove to myself that I exist. Assuming you're like me, you can prove your existence to yourself).

It's entirely possible that all your sensations are merely hallucinations; however, the fact that you experience these sensations/hallucinations are all that's required to prove your own existence.

I've sometimes thought Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" might be more appropriately phrased as "I perceive, therefore I am".

I don't necessarily argue that my perceptions are in any way based on reality (whatever that means), but that mere fact I have perceptions demonstrates my existence.

In fact, in a sense it's almost a proof of "existence" by definition. "I" can define "me" to be that "thing" which experiences these perceptions of which "I" am aware.

Whether those perceptions are experienced in a "dream" or "reality" or whatever is irrelevant: I perceive, therefore I am.

People have sometimes argued to me that the argument "I perceive, therefore I am" begs the question. I'm assuming my own existence by referring to an "I" (or "me") in the first place.

I've always countered that that is really just an artifact of the language that it's couched in. I can't think of any natural and proper grammatical way to state the same thing without using a word to reference "myself", the reference is there merely for grammatical purposes. However, the true argument is independent of any quirks of the language it's presented in: Maybe it would be better phrased as, "Perceptions are experienced. Define "I" or "me" to be that thing experiencing these perceptions."

 

[emperorchaos]

As he's yet to reply to this thread, I'd guess for a hit-and-run.

My guy's called Icky (Alternatively, Icky-Baby or Ickus the Terrible). Have you had yours for long?

I've had her for four years this September. Her birth date was somewhere around August 1st so I just say the 1st.

-=-=-=-

krelnius's last activity shows at 8:49pm by my clock's reckoning. The same time as his post was made. So maybe he'll come back?

 

[ynot]

If everything is a figment of our imagination, does it mean that our imagination is a figment of itself?

 

[GregC]

Krelnius,

Your three favorite movies don't all have the word Matrix in the title, do they?

 

[TimmyBerry]

I've had her for four years this September. Her birth date was somewhere around August 1st so I just say the 1st.

-=-=-=-

krelnius's last activity shows at 8:49pm by my clock's reckoning. The same time as his post was made. So maybe he'll come back?

..At least you know when she was born. Mine's about 2 years old, and 've had him for a year. Amazing how quickly those guys grow.

----

As I said, hit-and-run. Guess we'll see tomorrow night.

 

[Dogdoctor]

My answer to that question is that it doesn't matter. As far as we can tell we exist so we should act like we exist because to act otherwise is not using the best information we have. Therefore it really doesn't matter is we exist or not since we should act as though we exist.

 

[Cecil]

"Perceptions are experienced. Define "I" or "me" to be that thing experiencing these perceptions."

The only problem I see with this argument is that you're assuming that perceptions are things which must be experienced by some other thing. Why could it not instead be the case that perceptions merely exist, independent of an observer?

I suppose you could still define "I" to be the thing which all perceptions have in common, though that still leaves another problem. How is it in fact known that all perceptions have something in common? Perhaps other perceptions exist of which this "I" is not a property.

And that's really the problem, I think. One can't define "I" to be the thing experiencing these perceptions, since the perceptions "I" experience might only be a small subset of the set of all perceptions, and there's no way to refer that that small subset "I" experience without already having defined "I".

Of course, then we have the problem of what a perception is. I assume that you include the set of things often termed "thoughts" in your category of "perceptions". Then, of course, it must be the case that at least one "perception" exists. Which is really all you can say; everything else is an assumption.

But it's a pretty good assumption on which to base an ontology.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only problem I see with this argument is that you're assuming that perceptions are things which must be experienced by some other thing. Why could it not instead be the case that perceptions merely exist, independent of an observer?

Well, you could, but then you would be redefining perception:

1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation *color perception* b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension

I think it would make more sense to say that objects exist independent of an observer. Not to belabor my point, but I think we have to define what it means for something to be real.

~~ Paul

 

[mgidm86]

I don't necessarily argue that my perceptions are in any way based on reality (whatever that means), but that mere fact I have perceptions demonstrates my existence.

In fact, in a sense it's almost a proof of "existence" by definition. "I" can define "me" to be that "thing" which experiences these perceptions of which "I" am aware.

Cool. Good post.

 

[Angus McPresley]

I think there's a reality outside my mind, because it's the simplest answer that fits the facts.

BTW, the philosophical term for this issue is "epistomology", and it's been debated for centuries, so it shouldn't be hard to find all the lousy theories (in addition to mine) that you want on it.

 

[c4ts]

I think I exist. Close enough for me.