[maadio]

"You don't exist, I don't exist, none of us exists.... And you have no reason to believe that any of us... including you... does."

Prove me wrong. Yes, i am just playing a game, but still... Prove me wrong.

-Andy (maybe)

[Chrysostom]

You must exist to argue that you don't exist. Therefore, it's a self-defeating argument

[JerryLove]

But how do you know he argued? Perhaps he didn't (as he doesn't exist).

As has been discussed on (many) other threads; without first having some presuppositions (and the wroldview they create) one cannot prove anything.

Even allowing for logic as the only absolute (so we can at least frame the question), you are still only capable of proving your own existance.. and only to yourself (as John said, you must exist to wonder if you exist).

[Chrysostom]

[JerryLove] But how do you know he argued? Perhaps he didn't (as he doesn't exist).

[Me] I don't need to. I said that's it's a self-defeating argument.



[JerryLove] Even allowing for logic as the only absolute (so we can at least frame the question), you are still only capable of proving your own existance.. and only to yourself (as John said, you must exist to wonder if you exist).

[Me] Logic is unnecessary; it's purely definitional.

It's also important to note that, in Decartes' cogito passage, he only said that each time he thinks, he proves he exists. He didn't claim absolute proof, rather that IF he thought THEN he existed. He goes on to question whether or not he thought at all in the Third Meditation.

[Mike Graham]

[JerryLove] But how do you know he argued? Perhaps he didn't (as he doesn't exist).


[me]John doesn't have to know that plaid exsists, so your argument is not valid. We are proving it to Plaid,

[maadio]

The question I was going for is not "How do you know I exist?" but rather "How do you know you exist?"

Discuss...

Oh and by the way, you don't know that unreal objects/people cannot think.

[Chrysostom]

If x thinks, x exists. Attributing such language to the word "I" necessitates the real instantiation of "I". Using a referent in said manner semantically assures existence.

Asking the question answers the question.

[JerryLove]

I don't need to. I said that's it's a self-defeating argument.

Conceded (touche').

Logic is unnecessary; it's purely definitional.

Care to expand on that? Definitions are useless without logic. For example. I define myself as "jerry". Without basic reflexive logic being true (A=A) then I might not be "Jerry" even though I have made it definitoinal.

If x thinks, x exists.

IF logic is true.

[Chrysostom]

(JerryLove) IF logic is true.

(Me) As I've said before, logic is unnecessary. It's a stipulative truth. The only reasoning used here is linguistic.


*edit*
Ah, I'm sorry... I missed your question regarding this above due to a quote button mix-up.

(JerryLove) Care to expand on that? Definitions are useless without logic. For example. I define myself as "jerry". Without basic reflexive logic being true (A=A) then I might not be "Jerry" even though I hve made it definitoinal.

(Me) Your problem here involves one particular case versus a universal case, especially because of an inability to solve the old riddle of induction. I CAN say "A, therefore A," one time. However, I cannot create a RULE (the reflexive property) without some way of moving from existential to universal quantification (i.e. induction). We must be able to know that the form A->A will work always and everywhere, which can be established only by induction.

Thus, emphasizing the particulars in this case, I can prove through purely verbal means that if I think, I exist. Using a referent in a manner such as "I ___" necessarily means that "I" exist, according to the STIPULATIVE laws of language alone.

[JerryLove]

Your problem here involves one particular case versus a universal case, especially because of an inability to solve the old riddle of induction.

Huh? I don't see how you are connecting those dots. My problem is that A=A is logical, without logic A!=A could be true.

I CAN say "A, therefore A," one time.

And it is ephemreal, disappearing as soon as you have said it. Just cause A=A doesn't mean A=A.

However, I cannot create a RULE (the reflexive property) without some way of moving from existential to universal quantification (i.e. induction).

No, A=A isn't even true now unless you want to presuppose it. That's reflexive logic you are presupposing.

Thus, emphasizing the particulars in this case, I can prove through purely verbal means that if I think, I exist.

I don't see how you can speel out the classic IF...THEN logic branch and claim to do so without logic.

Using a referent in a manner such as "I ___" necessarily means that "I" exist, according to the STIPULATIVE laws of language alone.

Under that use of linguistic proof, you must know that the prerequsite statement is "true" (another logical word). It is logic that establishes that I must think, or I could not think I did.

[MonkeeSage]

As I understand it, the problem with Des Cartes cogito is this:

1. cogito,
2. ergo sum.

1. I think,
2. therefore I am.

That he is not warrented in using personal identity at 1':

He cannot say "I," he can only speak in the abstract, using infinitives, e.g.,

1. Thinking,
2. therefore being.


He also has the problem of induction to account for, considering that the idea that being is a precondition to thinking is an inductive inference drawn from his experience that all thinking necessitates antecedent being, which in turn supposes that he is truely being and therefore truely thinking, to start with.


I would personally answer the question of proving my ontological existance by an appeal to my ultimate presupposition, viz., God--who states that:

1. The existance of me is possible (i.e., that there is a category of beings who are, all in all, as I perceive myself to be), and,

2. that sense experience and logic can provide a valid method of knowing;

I then may deduce from my sense experience (and the testimony of others) that I am actually a particular instantiation in that category of beings.

Anyways, something to think on...


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

[Adam]

Good point. Your argument is essentially the same as that of Bertrand Russel's; "Descartes has no right to the 'I' in 'I think therefore I am.' "

[Chrysostom]

As I said before,
"It's also important to note that, in Decartes' cogito passage, he only said that each time he thinks, he proves he exists. He didn't claim absolute proof, rather that IF he thought THEN he existed. He goes on to question whether or not he thought at all in the Third Meditation."

[Chrysostom]

(Previous) Your problem here involves one particular case versus a universal case, especially because of an inability to solve the old riddle of induction.

(JerryLove) Huh? I don't see how you are connecting those dots. My problem is that A=A is logical, without logic A!=A could be true.

(Me) You are, again, assuming I've attempted to use a rule (which I have not). I've used only stipulation.




(Previous) I CAN say "A, therefore A," one time.

(JerryLove) And it is ephemreal, disappearing as soon as you have said it. Just cause A=A doesn't mean A=A.

(Me) Again, I've made no argument for establishing a rule.




(Previous) However, I cannot create a RULE (the reflexive property) without some way of moving from existential to universal quantification (i.e. induction).

(JerryLove) No, A=A isn't even true now unless you want to presuppose it. That's reflexive logic you are presupposing.

(Me) Nope. You've ignored my stipulation again (plus, I never had to use reiteration).



(Previous) Thus, emphasizing the particulars in this case, I can prove through purely verbal means that if I think, I exist.

(JerryLove) I don't see how you can speel out the classic IF...THEN logic branch and claim to do so without logic.

(Me) Stipulation.




(Previous) Using a referent in a manner such as "I ___" necessarily means that "I" exist, according to the STIPULATIVE laws of language alone.

(JerryLove) Under that use of linguistic proof, you must know that the prerequsite statement is "true" (another logical word).

(Me) No, I don't have to know that it's "true". It's all stipulation.



(JerryLove) It is logic that establishes that I must think, or I could not think I did.

(Me) This is an irrelevant argument. There may be valid laws of logic, even if I don't personally know about them.

[Becky]

:kshock:

I should have stayed awak longer in logic class

So, let me get this strait... MY thinking can prove to ME that I exist. And there is no way of proving anything else.....?

Must. if we can't use logic, then we have NOTHING to stand on. Which means ALL discusions are pointless... hehe, of cource, I probably am just misunderstanding you...