how do i prove to myself that i exist what am i descartes question
How Does Ane Evidence One Exists?
- Thread starter OneCelled Brain
- Offset engagement
-The I Celled Brain
Answers and Replies
The long respond is that there is stiff evidence for your being that such a conclusion is reasonable given the bachelor information and when it comes to 'Why not Matrix', the burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion (come across Russell's Teapot).
Furthermore, one could debate that the concept of 'I' is so vague and ill-defined that whatsoever clarification at all is impossible given the bachelor information and will only yield tautologies such every bit 'I think, therefore I am'.
So ya....my philosophy teacher assigned me to write an essay proving that I be. Being fairly new to philosophy I've got no idea how to go on about proving that I exist, which sounds pretty weird. I've been around the philosophy section of this site a few time and I gotta say some of you guys take given me more than to think near then any other human being being I've ever known in my life. I think at that place are some groovy minds hither. To go to the indicate, I need help on how to show I exist, I oasis't idea this much nigh my beingness since the final fourth dimension I saw The Matrix while high.:rofl: So tin anyone help me out? Cheers in advance.-The One Celled Brain
Yeah I guess Moridin is right "you cannot" but then again how should we go about proofing this argument!
to set upward a proof, you shall offset need some axioms (ways of doing things or define what is "logical" and what is non....) basically your inability to find a set of universally accepted, and possibly consistent axioms (you lot may enquire why we need axioms, well... practise you think you tin can practice anything at all otherwise?) makes "proofing" something impossible. Or at least I won't call that a "proof" because yous tin't just correct downwards a bunch of stuffs and call that a proof. axioms allow yous to do things in some kind consistent style. But then why must the World exist consistent? So, if it is not consistent in the first identify, then there is no need for a proof.. because inconsistency means that nothing is anticipated, absolutely goose egg (including this statement itself)
ok, back to your initial problem.... your first task is to define what it is meant by existence... not suggesting that you can do information technology to everyone's satisfaction .... only that's what philosophy is all near, getting one to think most this sort of things. 
Rene DesCartes was one of the first to really explore the idea of "what tin can we exist certain of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by experience or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is in that location anything we Tin can'T doubtfulness? His answer was- I cannot dubiety that there is something doing the doubting! "I recall, therefore I am" would possibly exist better, "I dubiousness, therefore I am".
Remember DesCartes' "I remember, therefore I am"?Rene DesCartes was ane of the beginning to really explore the thought of "what can we be certain of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by experience or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is there annihilation we Tin can'T dubiety? His respond was- I cannot incertitude that there is something doing the doubting! "I think, therefore I am" would perhaps exist meliorate, "I doubtfulness, therefore I am".
That seems like a tautology. Surely, to accept 'I uncertainty' i would have to accept the decision before the premise of the argumnet?
That seems like a tautology. Surely, to accept 'I doubtfulness' one would have to accept the conclusion earlier the premise of the argumnet?
Equally I encounter information technology, the part that must exist accepted is that doubting requires existence. If you believe that thinking does not require existence then, sure, the reasoning fails. Just and then you take to wonder what existence means if something can happen fifty-fifty if nothing exists... Then the conclusion is non a tautology but a consequence of the fact that thinking requires existence, and the strength of the proof is that you cannot rationaly call back that you are not thinking.
At present, information technology is much easier to prove to yourself that you exist than to prove it to others. At that place is always this approach:
Q: Bear witness that y'all be.
A: Who are you lot asking?
There are two different types of objective facts: things and events. You lot are a 'thing' and so to prove your existence anybody would have to see that yous are visible to them or photographic testify will exercise.
A -> B
B
---------
Not Necessarily A
You can provide show for your being, but you cannot prove information technology.
A -> B
B
---------
Non Necessarily AYou can provide evidence for your existence, merely you cannot prove information technology.
Surely, I cannot prove information technology. I am bars within myself and cannot go exterior of myself to bear witness that I truly be. But if I'k visible to 6 billion other humans and I have significant photographic show of myself then I could say with good confidence that I do in fact exist.
And, I don't recollect that you tin can "prove" that you lot be.
The thing that I hate about these classes is that even though there are no real answers to these questions, your instructor is expecting you to write something more than substantial than "I tin can't". Even though ,IMO, whatsoever answer is every bit valid.
Steve
Remember DesCartes' "I think, therefore I am"?Rene DesCartes was one of the showtime to actually explore the idea of "what can we exist sure of?" He knew perfectly well that people could be fooled by feel or produce invalid mathematical proofs. Is there anything we CAN'T dubiety? His respond was- I cannot doubtfulness that in that location is something doing the doubting! "I think, therefore I am" would perhaps be better, "I doubtfulness, therefore I am".
Thinking is a self-reflective process, which is unavoidable, if 1 is thinking. So one tin say that 'thinking exists'. If that is the case and then 'something that thinks exists' is a valid statement. Whether you tin excerpt an 'I' from that is another story. However since thinking appears localized, its a proficient inference.
Y
By the manner what are axioms???
In mathematics its an assumption, or starting point, and in philosophy, its something that is 'self-evident', however there is much argument almost what is self-evident among philosophers, not only in terms of existence but as well ethics. Descartes believed that the only self-axiomatic affair was 'thinking', since in order to ask the question; what exists? One must exist as a thing that can ask the question.
In mathematics its an assumption, or starting signal, and in philosophy, its something that is 'self-evident', however there is much argument about what is self-evident amongst philosophers, non only in terms of existence only also ideals. Descartes believed that the only self-evident thing was 'thinking', since in order to enquire the question; what exists? One must exist as a thing that can ask the question.
Ohhh and then you mean to answer the question Exercise I exist? I have to exist.
Also whats a proficient definition for the word beingness, some of the dictionaries if looked upward apply the discussion be in the definition....
I recall if you think hard (also hard) at it, null is going piece of work and you just be at a stand notwithstanding because you just can't practice anything with nothing.... unless there is something (like a god) which supposedly requite you something with naught or nothing with something or anything that is remotely (un)imaginable. it is a hard task, but perhaps your teacher is looking for clear thinking rather than being pedantic??
mmm... finally some ppl take picked my points well-nigh axioms and definitions
I call up if you think hard (too difficult) at information technology, zip is going work and you only be at a stand notwithstanding because yous just can't practise annihilation with nada.... unless there is something (like a god) which supposedly give you lot something with nothing or zero with something or annihilation that is remotely (united nations)imaginable. it is a difficult job, but perhaps your instructor is looking for clear thinking rather than being pedantic??
LOL The funny affair is that I was able to follow all that in i read. And ya I recollect he is looking for something uncomplicated simply the truth is I hate existence simple when I want to exist creative and abstract.
Oh and practice you know of a expert definition of the word existence?
ex·ist·ence
1. the state or fact of existing; being.
2. continuance in existence or life; life: a struggle for existence.
3. style of existing: They were working for a improve existence.
four. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
5. something that exists; entity; being.
It doesnt brand sense for the word or the rootword to be used in the definition, information technology isnt really a definition is it then?
How would you ascertain the word beingness in your own words?
I donno something not like this
ex·ist·ence .....
that'southward the whole indicate, your definition of "existence" is no ameliorate or worse than mine or anyone else actually....but this is certainly the showtime thing to think about in your attempt to "prove" your own beingness...
The question is also pretty vague, testify in what way? To yourself? To him and everyone else? Show that consciousness exists, the brain, the body or the soul?
I agree with arildno here, why are you getting such stupid assignments?The question is also pretty vague, prove in what fashion? To yourself? To him and everyone else? Prove that consciousness exists, the brain, the body or the soul?
I think yous're missing the point of the assignment.
Dealing with the questions you are asking, is exactly what the professor wants you lot to do. In other words, examine all the unlike means something tin exist, and how you would prove them, and if they are provable, and what assumptions one is making when 1 uses those definitions.
Mathematics professors don't but requite you lot the answers and send you home, they make you work through proofs so you empathize how to get to the answers.... and notice new ones.
I judge my point was it's a pretty broad assignment, which leads to very little depth in one area I find, and as you can meet this fellow had very little thought of where to even begin.
Entire books tin can be written on the field of study of existence and proof, leading into all sorts of alleys like infinity, determinism, primordial cause, qualia, the i, the you, and in the end the unabridged universe.
I guess it's a good test to find out which of his students have the inspiration to become a true philosopher :P
Regarding a definition for existence, y'all can figure one out past looking at differences between what exists and what does non exist. Things that exist can accept a colour, a mass, a size, a position, energy, whatever holding at all. Things that don't be are devoid of any of that. It seems to me that being but means having some kind of property and non existence is the absenteeism of any.
yeah, but the diffculty is that how to cull these backdrop? how to choose them in an universal mode? what if sure properties tin can change or depend on perspective?
certainly some other effect to think nearly in this quest to "evidence" existence
JoeDawg, ah yes, I suspected that was the reason but wasn't sure.
I estimate my point was information technology's a pretty broad assignment, which leads to very little depth in 1 area I observe, and as you can run into this fellow had very little thought of where to even brainstorm.Entire books can be written on the subject area of existence and proof, leading into all sorts of alleys similar infinity, determinism, primordial cause, qualia, the i, the you, and in the terminate the unabridged universe.
I guess it's a good examination to find out which of his students take the inspiration to get a truthful philosopher :P
Its also a good introduction to the 'basic arguments' that take been made in the history of philosophy. Philosophy in large part is almost beingness able to analyze the arguments that have been made historically. If yous study Kant, and decide what he believed is balderdash****, knowing why you think he was incorrect might lead you to question some of your own assumptions about things. Human being beings may believe dissimilar things only the reasons why we are often incorrect are universal. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.. and all that.
To become to the point, I need help on how to prove I exist, I oasis't idea this much nigh my existence since the concluding fourth dimension I saw The Matrix while high.:rofl: So can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.
-The One Celled Encephalon
Anytime I need to reasure myself that I be, I try to see how long I tin hold my breath. Changeless, something requires me start animate again. I conclude that there is something more powerful than my 'volition'. I than conclude that being aware of that 'something' ways I exist. Now the difficult role starts: Why, where, and how do I be?
You don't have to "choose" specific properties of what exists, I was only speaking of the principle at play. Either something has one or more backdrop and therefore exists, or information technology has no property at all and therefore does non be. So the play a trick on is not to choose properties merely simply to recognize if there are any or not. Whatever has backdrop exerts some kind of influence on some other things, whereas what is devoid of properties is irrelevant to all other things. This is the essential difference I come across between what is real and what isn't.
when I said "to cull", it means how to choose something that is relevant to what you are trying to "prove" or demonstrate. For case, you are in a room with ii boxes which is placed some distance from you (ie. y'all can't touch information technology or see it because it is completely nighttime), but you are given ii tools (you must choose one only) to help you define which box could be heavier. The ii tools are "a torch" and "a bag of coins". So depending on what you lot recall the two objects are (at this signal yous know nothing almost them, certainly you don't know they are boxes still), you lot will cull a tool over the other. Some may say the "torch" is better because you lot get to run across what they are and from that you can guess which is heavier. Other may say instead the bag of coins are meliorate, for you lot can throw these coins at the objects and hear how the 2 objects response and hence go an indication as to from what material they are fabricated of, whether they are hollow etc.
Not a perfect analogy but this instance highlights several difficulties about making the correct choices:
--they can be perspective dependent (some may think that if they see 1 box has wooden color and the other i has metallic color, the metallic 1 could exist heavier, while some may retrieve otherwise)
--their properties tin can change if you choose a method of testing that inevitably destroy you object (eg. the coins that you throw at the objects actually interruption the two objects, another eg. is the double-slit interference, you try to put a detector near i of the slit to see which slit the photo went through, you volition destroy the intereference pattern altogether)
etc.
So what accept I been saying?
The problem is that we don't even take a good definition for what is existence (btw, yours definition is no better or worse than mine... information technology actually depends a scrap on perspective), how do you know how to choose your backdrop? To prove something, you cannot presume a priori what that thing is (unless you know what it is...merely then at that place is probably nothing to prove). The act of defining what beingness means is the major part of the proof for then you tin can choose your properties... or actually, defining what existence means is effectively the same equally choosing these properties... and you can't cull unless you know what it is...
another example: Say, I believe that ghosts exist because they keep attacking me in my dreams...and I know dreams are real and also equally a consequence I get some mental illness for I don't dare to close my eyes anymore. So in my perspective ghosts have real influence on me and that they exist! Merely you may say that'south bullsh**, how tin can a few bad dreams prove the existence of something that is so debatable?!... that come back to the questions of how to choose the right properties in analysising something.
btw, I am happy to be proven incorrect for I don't similar ghosts
Related Threads on How Does One Prove One Exists?
Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-one-prove-one-exists.185314/
0 Response to "how do i prove to myself that i exist what am i descartes question"
Post a Comment