Can you prove I exist?

[crummyrummy]

I could be a bot.

[TheHammerSpeaks]

Actually, the debate surrounding the traditional, Cartesian self is a very rich and interesting topic. Hume wrote that there is no way to empirically verify the existence of the self, and Nietzsche wrote "I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." Now, yes, Nietzsche was specifically talking about God, but when his point is drawn out to its inevitable conclusion, it seems that we should also rid ourselves of our belief in the unified self, and Nietzsche did, in fact, write (in his typically vague style) on this subject. There is no concrete, essential "I" as the structure of language would have us believe. But the idea of the fragmented self was not adequately developed until Derrida. It really leaves the postmodern man with a sort of identity crisis.

[Bhaskar]

Vedanta says you, in the sense of you and I, dont exist. The Atman alone is.

[Lil' Blue]

We could cut you open and find out.

[Varuna]

I believe that you exist.

I choose to accept the belief that you exist.

I can't prove anything. You are pre-disposed to believe or disbelieve. I can't change that, you can't change that, you may have no choice in the matter. You may become aware of your predisposition and act as though you had a choice, but even then, upon what are you basing your "choice"?

I can't prove anything. But I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider your existence.

Even if you don't exist, my belief in you does. It affects my thoughts, actions, and all of the conditions of MY existence. So your influence exists, regardless whether or not you exist.

But, of course, you are (or are not) independent of my belief.

How is this for a mind trip?

[geckopelli]

Because you ask the question, your existence stands proven.

[loverofthewoods]

Because you ask the question, your existence stands proven.
unless the question is part of the illution...our reality is nothing more than frequency...frequency that forms holographic matter for our minds to find comfort in.

[loverofthewoods]

do you exist? do i exist? does the sky exist? yadda yadda yadda...is this real? what is real? what is the nature of realtiy?....perception is reality, therefore in this world of infinate...infinate variables...infinate equations...anything and everything exists, it all depends on who or what you ask...so i guess this existance exists as far as our perception is concerned...but whats behind that...beyond our perception?

[geckopelli]

unless the question is part of the illution...our reality is nothing more than frequency...frequency that forms holographic matter for our minds to find comfort in.
your reasoning is faulty. if you precieve the "illusion", then the source of that preception (you) exist.

No perception- no illusion to ask silly question about.

[POPthree13]

I guess in an abstract sense I exist. But then again what is I? The person who exists a second from now is different than the one who existed a second ago. I have exchanged gases, dropped some skin cells, killed soem brain cells sweated out some waste. The abstract value of 'I' is an ever changing target. So something exists, but norrowing that down to a concrete thing is difficult. I, as an anomoly of processes which distrupt matter and energy in my relative space exists... I think. ;)

[geckopelli]

You are a 4 demensional creature, an among spatial "directions", you also extend from the moment of conception to the moment of death. The NOW is merely a cross section of of YOU in the continum of your existence- a cross section so small that it only theoretically occurs.
After all, the future is upon us faster than the speed of our senses.
And at any given cross section are YOU not a continuation that lives in a perpetual past, an instant behind what's coming?

[POPthree13]

Sure, but to draw a line through time is to admit that I am a 'thing' and not a collection of ever changing things... which i refuse to do. :) I am as 'real' as a particular swirl of gasses which will eventually swirl into non existence. Was it ever really a 'thing'. A thing to me is solid, but is anything really solid?

[geckopelli]

I have to stick with the best definition of REAL avialble to me:

componets of reality influence one another in an observable manner

If you weren't real, than I couldn't be considering the content of your post.

And if were both not real, than nothing is real, and unicorns may fly the sky!

[Skelter]

je pense, donc je suis
cogito ergo sum
end of discussion.

[Meagain]

What do you mean by the word "I"?

[Woog]

Exsisting is all personal perspective. If you persieve you exsist,
you do. I can only observe what appears to be you exsisting.
The only actual exsistance I can verify though is my own.
I think and so I am.

I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.

[SageDreamer]

The question might be: Do bots exist? Somebody or something posted the question, and therefore you exist. If you need to post to prove your existence, it sounds like you're having a tougher day than most of us.

[geckopelli]

Solipism- I think therefore I am and that's all I know

a logical fallacy. Easily disproven.

You know there are other things, or you'd have nothing to think about- THAT's logic.

[velvet]

I think there are two different questions here:

1) Do I exist?

2) Is 'I' a bot or a human?

I being the person/bot who wrote the first post in this thread

1) yes, because you are able to influence things, you act, what makes us react

2) that's very difficult to prove, 'cause you could as well be a very smart written program, especially designed to work with philosophical input and ask existential questions.. so.. there's no easy answer to that for me.

[geckopelli]

Yet a program written by a man.

Your words, too, are translated to this medium by machines- but you can hop a plane and shake my hand if you want!

My machines are as real as yours!

[strawpuppy]

ahaaa good news...crummyrummy you are.....

[underground04]

you think therefore you are. to post this thread you would have to have gained somekind of conciusness(sp) and self awareness to post it. human or not, you still exist. even if you are part of some kind of computer system you still posted the topic and you thought about it. and since you made this question you arent being programmed so you exist. in short im trying to say that if you are aware then you exist in some way

[Psilodelix]

I could be a bot.
Who the hell cares. You could also NOT be a bot.

[Maes]

To take the matter one step farther,Fichte argues that "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I exist) is okay, but the ethic of existing as humans (with this "sacred" gift) "requires" that we shall enhance our existing by acting. Fichte, talks more of the moral aspects of existence. But in archaeology we take the case as Culture.

"What is culture ?" is the reverted form of the question "what has existed?"

Culture is whatever man produces. Even the feces gives clues about his living if the german proverb is correct: Der Mann ist was er ißt. (The man is what he eats) not to mention our tool making capacity.

As for Derrida: I agree with post-modern man's problems with the past and the readings he has done so far. But I dont think Derrida's "de-construction" is a path. Because otherwise we would end up claiming the end of the sciences, giving the idealistic school an undeserved victory (although I dont take this struggle as the prime drive for our inquiries). I agree with Feyerabend's objection to science as science's positivism itself is becoming a dogma like the religions. But still I "believe" in the ultimate quest, not in the tools we conduct it:

I think Derrida's deconstruction is not smthng to deconstruct the heaps of knowledge we have gathered (or constructed into a building called the "sciences" so far). But it is a very handy tool in our ever increasing curiosity against all that is unknown to us. The most spectacular part of Derrida’s ideas is firstly his reminding us the ever changing state of change and that we should keep up with it. And secondly but most importantly (i think) he has shown us that phenomena don’t have 2 states as unknown and to-be-known

But they also have an interstate where they keep their validity till new knowledge comes.

In this process, we use the gathered and suspiciously accepted piece of knowledge to relate things and get to other dimentions. I reject the uselessness of “false” knowledge for it is the “fact” that we place opposite to “truth”. Therefore I conclude; no truth can be freed from false.