Do YOU exist?

[Thrashbarg]

Let's say for the sake of discussion, I ascribe to the concept of solipsism (explained here (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm)). My question is this:

Can you convince me that you exist? Don't gimme any 'I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we'll see who exists' kinda stuff. I'm relatively serious, and I think the question deserves at leat a LITTLE consideration.


By the way....yes, I realize that even ASKING this question (by referring to you) seems contradictory to my stance, but I'm at a loss for a better way to open the discussion. For the sake of consistency, all of my further references to you can be taken to mean another aspect/state of my consciousness.

[wevets]

No. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=29781)

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Thrashbarg
Let's say for the sake of discussion, I ascribe to the concept of solipsism (explained here (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm)). My question is this:

Can you convince me that you exist? Don't gimme any 'I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we'll see who exists' kinda stuff. I'm relatively serious, and I think the question deserves at leat a LITTLE consideration.


By the way....yes, I realize that even ASKING this question (by referring to you) seems contradictory to my stance, but I'm at a loss for a better way to open the discussion. For the sake of consistency, all of my further references to you can be taken to mean another aspect/state of my consciousness.


I am simply a figment of my own imagination.

Marc

PS: I know you're expecting some sort of serious answer from us. I don't see what consideration the question really begs. I think therefore I am.

[Snooooopy]

Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this. Even the "I think, therefore I am" argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn't hold water.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Snooooopy
Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this. Even the "I think, therefore I am" argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn't hold water.

Then there's no reason to hold any ideas or have any discussions. Of course I don't really know that.


Marc

[Danielinthewolvesden]

Yes, I do. I have a certificate from the Auditors of the Multiverse saying that I do. No-one else does, however.

[Typo Negative]

[Bill Hicks]
:News Anchor:
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is just a dream, and we are the imaginations of ourselves.
Here's Tom, with the weather........."
[/Bill Hicks]

[glee]

Snooooopy,

you posted 'Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this.'

If nobody can know anything, why should we believe Hume?

Further 'Even the "I think, therefore I am" argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn't hold water.'

If you don't know your Philosophy teacher exists, how can he demonstrate anything?

I'm not here - this is a recording.

[John Finnan]

Who asked that question? :)

I might be able to convince you someone exists, not necessarily me, though. I could be just a grad students Turing project.

So, it's probably not a rigorous answer by any means, but:
Given that your mind began as a child, tabula rasa, how did you learn? How did the concepts you learn in mathematics/physics etc... occur? How are they all consistant?

It's possible that a sufficiently advanced mind could construct a completely coherent and rational world in all of the detail we see around us. Would such an advanced mind know itself?
Of course, it's also possible to ignore inconsistancies in the face of evidence. (see 'Creationism' :( )

Still, when your mind was a child, how could it have created the "universe" or sensory illusion?

(Or maybe I'm misunderstanding 'solipsism'.)

[Phobos]

Yes. With the practicality of an engineer, I'll say the evidence is "close enough".

[Snooooopy]

Originally posted by glee
Snooooopy,

you posted 'Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this.'

If nobody can know anything, why should we believe Hume?

Further 'Even the "I think, therefore I am" argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn't hold water.'

If you don't know your Philosophy teacher exists, how can he demonstrate anything?

I'm not here - this is a recording.



Well, I'm still going to ASSUME that I exist. If what I perceive to be reality turns out to be false, I guess that's just too freaking bad for me. I was just noting that finding absolute proof of reality wasn't going to be a walk in the park.

Do you dislike the quote feature, or did you just not see the button that you can press?

[el_mono]

I was audited by the Internal Revenue Service, therefore I am.

[Enderw24]

In the past month, I have spent probably close to three hours a day roaming these boards and reading various topics, sometimes up to four or five. I have had started probably 15-20 threads which others on this board have responded to. I have also partaken in 128 threads with 165 posts, many of which have been quoted by others as they responded to me.

This proves beyond a resonable doubt that, while I don't have a life, I most certainly exist.

[mrblue92]

Can you convince me that you exist? Don't gimme any 'I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we'll see who exists' kinda stuff.Actually, your death would seem to be a legitimate proof to us that your solipsism is untrue. Not that I'm suggesting we experiment or anything...

If someone wants to make up some half-ass definition of what reality is from their point of view, so be it. But unless you can somehow support your position with observable evidence that reality is not as it appears, there's no reason to expect any rational person would believe you.

Perhaps instead, you'd like to try to convince us that we don't exist.

[CalMeacham]

I think, therefore I think I am.

[barbitu8]

Originally posted by glee
Snooooopy,

you posted 'Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this.'




Yes, but waaaaaaaaay before Hume, Socrates once met a wise man who said that he didn't know anything. Well, Socrates, reasoned, if he didn't know anything, he knew some thing: that he knew nothing, and therefore was more inteligent than the rest of the schmiels.

Actually, in a philosophical position, such as solipsism, you cannot prove anything that violates the foundation of the philosophy, for philosophy is a view point from which a whole body of beliefs follow. Therefore, if it is the basic philosophy that nothing exists outside of my mind, you cannot disprove it. It's like an axiom in math, altho axioms are universally granted to have solid foundation in reality.

[Thrashbarg]

Hmmm...lots to think about. Thanks for the responses.

After a little thought, it seems that my original assertion isn't disprovable. It isn't defendable either, so I guess I'm gonna have to shrug really hard, and offer the following cop-out:

It doesn't MATTER if you guys exist or not, I still have to act as such, for practicality's sake.

By the way..I really don't have a God complex or anything. :) I just wanted to offer an intriguing idea to discuss, but it turns out that it ain't no fun if we can't come to a satisfactory conclusion. While it's fun to argue about things like this with the halfwits I meet on a daily basis, It's a little humbling to debate with people who actually have a little intelligence!

Humbly yours (and afraid to start another new thread for a while),

Thrashy

[Triskadecamus]

It would seem to be consistent with the normal procedural traditions of debate that you, having posed the question are subsuming the existence of both yourself, and at least one hypothetical respondent. The concept of proof itself requires no fewer than two unique individuals, and has a strong need for even a third. Having already done the greater portion of the work on destroying your own position, I feel you need only the remaining demonstrated evidence, that of posing the question, which contains an implicit assumption of more than one other being as well.

We are at three, and rising rapidly.

Proof is not necessary, since argument itself is presumptive of existence of not less than two participants.

Tris

[Thrashbarg]

Thanks, Tris. I felt humble enough already :D

But anyway, the reason I copped out on my original argument was that it's too easy to defend, and not properly debatable. I could always reply to you that, since I'm (before the cop-out), the only one in existence, that's just what I'd EXPECT another facet of my consciousness to say! And I could say that to ANY reply. But that's idiotic (and no fun).

If I'm alone in a room and come up with a neat idea (call it 'X'), I might 'argue' with myself:
ME: Cool!! X!
ME: Nah, that wouldn't work.
ME: Sure it would!
ME: Then again, maybe not...
ME: But it MIGHT work.
ME: No it won't, for obvious reasons
- The self-debate on idea X can be resolved with only 1 participant (unless you count id, ego and superego).

The OP can be argued ad infinitum, with everyone pissed of, and nobody in agreement (and no minds changed). I admit to the cop-out, and apologize for not realizing right away that the argument is futile (either way you look at it) from a practical standpoint.

Aw, lay off the newbie, he feels bad enough already :)

[ignoscop]

It doesn't matter if anything exists if you have to deal with them anyway. It's like free will - even if you believe you have no choice, you still end up choosing something.

[APB9999]

This whole question seems to be based on the notion that there could be some part of the mind outside of conscious control that perfectly simulates the input of the sense organs. To these sensations can be attributed all the information one has percieved about the world, the world labeled "external", and hence nothing really exists "objectively". It really has more to do with the definition of "you" (I mean the questioner) than with whether or not others objectively exist. IF you adopt the solipsistic view, you have to allow yourself the possession of vastly complex components, that are partly random yet work in accord with specific laws, in order to explain the sensory simulations those components have generated over your life. Those sensations have been responsible for the conscious part of you developing from a child and existing in the world as you experience it. That's a pretty large notion of the unconscious! So much so that I would say it could not be contained in the finite matter of a human brain - at least, the human brain as it appears!, and the existence of your physical form would have to be called into question, too. Of course there's no reason to avoid that in solipsism, we can label anything illusion except the direct mental perceptions and processes of the questioner.

Interestingly, this also leads to a kind of determinism: the questioner can presumably recall the experience of growing up, and learning about the world around him. This means that the sensation-producing part of the questioner existed FULLY FORMED from the moment he was born. He learned about gravity from "the world", i.e. the set of sensations outside his conscious mind, so the sensation of gravity did not require his conscious understanding in any way to function properly. In the larger sense, anything he COULD ever discover about the universe has to be consistent with the behavior he observes now. So on some level the questioner's unconscious components already completely knew the behavior of everything he ever WOULD experience at the moment of his birth. So a solipsistic world is a deterministic one, of a sort.

Well... okay, sure, why not. It seems to me like a silly academic speculation that doesn't lead anywhere, though. Except maybe to the conclusion that if I am deluding myself about you all, I must be pretty goddamned brilliant to come up with such an elaborate yet consistent halucination from the moment of my birth. Worship me, figments!

[dixiechiq]

either i exist of i don't. i can't prove to myself that i exist. before i can think about proving to you that i exist, i have to have proof that you exist, and proof that i exist.

[BigFriendlyGiant]

It's not realy weather or not I exist but rather weather or not you want to believe I exist becuse I could always do something to you and you could always do something to me but when you think about it, if you don't meet someone and just pass by them somewhare, you don't know that they exist because you just plane don't know them. Therefore, if you don't meet someone, that they don't exist to you but may exist to someone else. So I ask you, do you believe I exist?

[glee]

Originally posted by Snooooopy
Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this. Even the "I think, therefore I am" argument, as my Philosophy 100 teacher demonstrated, doesn't hold water.

Snooooopy,

I thought this meant you DIDN'T believe in our existence.
I'm glad you exist (and the rest of the SDMB!).

As for the quote thing - I don't think it existed when I started posting. Still, now I know how to use it. ;)

[Kami_Bum]

I'm fairly sure I exist, in one form or another. I also assume that there is some other mind higher than mine that is creating the illusion of the world/universe/whatever.

I doubt all the dopers are figments of my imagination, but that they are of this higher mind.

But given that my current reality ain't half-bad, I 'll stick with it and not try to find this mentally superior being.

[2nd Law]

Originally posted by Thrashbarg

Can you convince me that you exist? Don't gimme any 'I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we'll see who exists' kinda stuff.



I've always figured that "kinda stuff" was the ultimate rebuttal to a solipsist. Take him out in the middle of an open field and throw a brick at his head. If he ducks, he really isn't a solipsist. If he doesn't duck, well, the answer readily presents itself.

[Triskadecamus]

Would someone please drop a tree on all these existentialists? I promise not to listen.

Tris

[JasonFin]

Without a good, agreed-upon definition of existence, how can we get anywhere with this question?

The place to find such a definition is, of course, a dictionary. My dictionary defines existence as "the act of existing." Not very helpful. Exist means "to have reality or actual being." Reality means "the quality or fact of being real." Real means "existing or happening as or in fact; actual; true, objectively so, etc." Actual means "existing in reality or in fact; not merely possible, but real." Clearly this approach to defining existence gets bogged down in a self-referential morass.

It seems that one is merely expected to "know" intuitively what existence is. However, in order to prove existence, more than this is necessary.

Existence in the scientific sense can be established with well-understood procedures. Indeed, it seems to me that no one is even hypothetically disputing the fact that the physical reality of all posters here could be experimentally proven to any desired degree of certainty. What is under question is something more vague—something that seems to involve a lot of hand-waving, and that I don't quite understand.

In the absence of any rational way to define existence in any sense beyond the scientific sense of establishing physical reality, I suggest that that is the only sense in which the concept of existence has any meaning.

If that is accepted (a big "if" on this board!), then perhaps we can agree that all of us exist and get on with our lives. ;)

[APB9999]

I think some of you are missing the point: implicit in solipsism is a postulate of the existence of some part of the SELF that produces sensations but is OUTSIDE CONSCIOUS CONTROL. Experiencing someone punch you in the throat or having a tree dropped on you proves nothing. There is no way, in principle, to disprove solipsism; it has an ad hoc explanation for everything built right into it.

The best arguments against it are that it requires such huge amounts of supposition, and produces no productive conclusions. (Um, I mean productive in the sense of giving your conscious mind control over the sensations it receives.)

[Spoke]

Do YOU exist?

Yes.

Except when I'm in Delaware. Then, I'm not so sure.

Originally posted by Thrashbarg
Can you convince me that you exist? Don't gimme any 'I can punch ya in the throat, THEN we'll see who exists' kinda stuff. I'm relatively serious, and I think the question deserves at leat a LITTLE consideration.


Okay, I've noticed lately when I choose to post in GD, I try and spend a lot of time trying to define key terms. So I'm not going to stop now.

Existence as I see it can very simply be defined as "having perceivable mass or being able to affect perceptions." Some may argue. F-you. ;)
When an individual is perceiving his/herself, then to that individual, they exist.
What is existence anyway? Is it a philosophical ideal?

(My apologies. If I were not in a bar with the damn World Series blaring in my ear, I'd be able to remember a nearly irrefutable argument.)

For now, I'll just stick with cogito, ergo sum.

[mrblue92]

Experiencing someone punch you in the throat or having a tree dropped on you proves nothing. There is no way, in principle, to disprove solipsism; it has an ad hoc explanation for everything built right into it.So are you telling me that if you were to kill Thrash, that wouldn't disprove you were a figment of his imagination? What more proof do you need?

[Crazy Boob]

If something is perpetually "becoming" something else, then it never really "is" anything. This was the question posed by Herakeitos, the second Greek philosopher in recorded history (550's BC, presocratic). A lot of people try to reduce the question of our existence into some stupid crap about everything being a figment of our imagination and that nothing really exists outside of our minds. Things (for lack of a better word) are continually changing, which is why they technically don’t exist.

[Purd Werfect]

Do I exist? Of course. But do I know what "I" am? Or do I truly exist as the individuated entity I see myself as? That I will likely never know. But there is conciousness of some sort occurring.


"I'm pink, therefore I'm spam..."

[iampunha]

Originally posted by Snooooopy
Waaaaaay back when, philosopher David Hume put forth the notion that nobody can really know anything, and I'm not aware of anyone who managed to get around this.

And by saying that he refuted his own statement, IMHO.

The man also said that one cannot use the past to judge the future, but in saying so doesn't he say that he is using the past to judge that we can't judge something? Or am I remembering the reasoning wrong? My philo teacher had a lot of fun explaining that to one of the guys in the class.

[APB9999]

mrblue92:So are you telling me that if you were to kill Thrash, that wouldn't disprove you were a figment of his imagination? What more proof do you need?

That's right. It would not prove to Thrash that I exist, and not merely for the facile reason that he wouldn't be around to be aware of the proof. All it would prove is that the sensations being perceived, including death, are associated with the sensations perceived as "me". Where those sensations come from could, formally, be a part of Thrash's self.

As I said, I think this is dead-end nonsense, but there is no strictly logical disputation that I can think of.

[quasar]

Originally posted by Thrashbarg

Can you convince me that you exist?

The fact that you think that you exist is an axiomatic premise derived from perceptive and intuitively originated assumptions.

The question then is: are your arbitrarily selected perceptions regarding your existence correct?

Descartes said: I think therefore I am. The fact that he thinks implies the existence of an entity capable of involving itself in rational processes.

So yes, the initial assumption that you exist would seem to hold true.

The relevant question would there be: Do you exist as you imagine you do? Are you and your surroundings really like you con conceptualize them to be?

Unfortunately, there is no answer to that inquiry. You constrained by your sensorial, intellectual and psychological limitations. They obstruct your mind from delving into the truth, assuming there is indeed an occulted truth in direct contradiction with your perceptions.. While your brain imagines that your corporeal manifestation is sitting in front of a computer screen, it might be obviating the true reality; a reality hidden by the intricate webbing of the mysterious and incomprehensible.

In other words, I abide by the fundamental postulate offered by The Matrix: We exist, but our perceptions regarding the way we conceptualize our existence could very well be wrong.

[quasar]

Damn it! Should have checked the post before submitting it. :rolleyes:

[mrblue92]

It would not prove to Thrash that I exist, and not merely for the facile reason that he wouldn't be around to be aware of the proof.Well, to Thrash, I guess it depends on what actually happens during death and after. Nobody really knows for certain.

But frankly, disproving it to Thrash is a non-issue to me if I've proved it 6 billion other people. I mean, you can't possibly convince everybody any truth anyway, regardless of how strong your evidence is.