GENIUS FORUMS

Prove it.

Who?

I

On the contrary, you exist, because who else posted this thread.

Skeptics tend to say that you can't prove the negative you can only prove the positive. That's what they tend to say when someone says to them something like: 'Prove that God doesn't exist'

FoolsJourney wrote:Prove it.

To what end?

Well all we had to do to prove it, was to ignore this thread...

Dan wrote:

To what end?

Perhaps he sincerely wants help to bring his fool's journey to an end?

if were going to loop the loop how bout this?

What does it mean to exist? When we talk about a person existing, we are referring to that person being a material object in the universe.

Concepts are also said to exist. For example, patriotism exists, but you can’t hold it in your hand. For this discussion let’s agree that we are only talking about existence in the material sense.

To be material, that generally means an object has mass. But what is mass? According to Einstein, mass has an equivalence with energy. If we understand energy, we might better understand what mass is. But what is energy?

Energy is defined as a “property of objects.” In other words, it is a concept, such as patriotism, velocity, or honesty. You can’t grab a handful of a concept and put it in your pocket.

So there you have it: To exist, you must have mass. Mass is equivalent to energy. Energy is nothing but a concept. Therefore, you are nothing but a concept, probably in a computer program designed by GOD."

or we can just stick with Cogito, ergo sum

but in your case it would more likely be Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

Well all we had to do to prove it, was to ignore this thread...

Plato's beard is scraggly.

FoolsJourney wrote:Prove it.

Since you are the one asking the question, why don't you prove that you do.

All consciousness exists in the sense that all thought has some real form that is related to the human subjective experience. However, there are qualities of consciousness that are determined by the qualities of thoughts. For instance: A child molester constantly fantasizes about groping the bottoms of small boys, and that is what he is, a man is his thoughts in the sense that a man is defined by the quality of his thoughts, and how the quality of his thoughts effect the quality of his actions. On the contrary, a philosopher’s thoughts are much more moral and lofty, he asks questions such as - What does a rational life entail? What behavior causes suffering to myself and others? what is the ego consist of? is there a deeper way of perceiving reality besides through the filter of the ego? What can I know as certain with all my being? What is the mind of god?

A rational philosopher has the religious impulse taken to the extreme.
An unconscious soul is content with the emotional reward of animalistic thought patterns, and desires nothing more than continue on that path of ego gratification.

However, both exist as they can both be observed within reality and confirmed by repeated empirical validation.

Remo:

So there you have it: To exist, you must have mass. Mass is equivalent to energy. Energy is nothing but a concept. Therefore, you are nothing but a concept, probably in a computer program designed by GOD."

I'll just cut to the chase here on your supposed supremacy of human subjectivity over objective reality. Cosmos and specifically Earth has existed long before and independently of human beings (and all their "concepts" about what is and is not "real"... a common theme, btw in several recent threads in which I have been contributing.

Mass is a 'crystallized' *form* of energy. They are distinguished in science because of the difference in their properties, as for instance in "E=MC squared describing precisely the relationship of energy to mass as a function of the square of the speed of light.

So, for openers your "Mass is equivalent to energy" is blatantly nonsense, tho mass is energy *manifest* into specific form, as described by science... you know... that mysterious realm which came up with the atomic chart of elements, the chemistry/physics of compounds, astronomy, astrophysics... etc.

Then you compound absurdities with the assertion that " Energy is nothing but a concept." So the whole cosmos and all of its elements/parts are nothing but concepts in the human mind.
And this is supposed to validate subjectivity over objective reality, of which all of human civilization and all its "concepts" are mere minutia in umiversal scope.

You conclude:
"Therefore, you are nothing but a concept, probably in a computer program designed by GOD."
Maybe you are trying too hard to gain the approval of the founders of the forum who so approve of "reason and logic" as the Way to enlightenment. (False.) They make laughing stock of true enlightenment (... the result they believe, of thinking your way into It.)
But you make a laughing stock of logic/reason itself.

Get a grip.
The cosmos in all its expressions... energy, matter, plasma... in the manifest dimensions... and Consciousness Itself as it transcends all manifestation will all be here and very real long after humanity *and all its concepts* have disappeared into the oblivion of the temporal realm of eternal cosmic history. (It was never created, nor will it ever be destroyed.)

mikiel,

Its just a nonsense circular argument I used to prove a point(pretty obvious one at that, especially with the punch line about GOD lol), which is any definition beyond,Cogito, ergo sum (i think therefore i am), goes nowhere when discussing self existence.
Occam's razor - sweet and simple

this is the only important part of my post

or we can just stick with Cogito, ergo sum

but in your case it would more likely be Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

i believe nothing exhists the world we see is only a reflection of what our mind is programed to view as existance please excuse my spelling errors i tend to not waste time on what everyone describes as proper grammar/ right or wrong if you think about it no one is really ever right anyways but this is only my opinion.

my theory is that it isnt that we dont exhist it is larger than that, i question the very exhistance of this earth, every tree, every person, and the sun we "see" everyday, when i see something it is only what my mind is telling me to see just because you see something doesnt mean it is real our eyes only reflect what is in front of us in our view they cannot think or tell us how to understand its meaning if the object has any meaning at all.

Opinion and thought is the only thing that is real for example we see a dog and our eyes tell us it is a dog, unless you question its exhistance and realise that the dog is really just an idea in our head that our eyes are influencing us to have what if it werent a dog but only our imagination or the way our brain is programmed to view the dog in our view. humanity's intelligence only goes so far and is not superior.

i think this earth is a shell just as our bodies and were being stored here for whatever purpose it may be programmed and confused straying from the real meaning of exhistance or truth, if you think about it there really is no truth at all because everyone is going to have theyre own opinions and beleive what they think is right. if there is any form of exhistance at all it would only be our mind; which tells us to believe in something or think it is actually there it is all in our head, we really dont need bodies if we didnt have them we would still have the power to produce ideas and convince ourselves that we are still in exhistance our minds are really the only things that keep us from not exhisting at all we are only a thought inside of our own head.

If we are created by a higher power why would they give us the intelligence to figure it out and realize that there is so much more to life than this planet or our surrondings in question and all of it is only an illusion in our heads it would only drive us insane anways ;D sorry for not getting into more detail im tired and i have class this is only my opinion and has not been proven, nor will it ever be proven so physically no i do not believe we exhist although yes i do beleive in thought and the power we posses to create those thoughts. i guess it depends on your defonition of what is real physically. If your asking if something is real just because we can see it with our eyes than no i do not believe that will make anything in my mind real or proven to be real.


hope that helps, Trevor Salyzyn :D

You're a dick.

remo,

any definition beyond,Cogito, ergo sum (i think therefore i am), goes nowhere when discussing self existence

Descartes train of thought disallows cogito ergo sum. As soon as he casts doubt on fundamental principles of logic (First Meditation), he is no longer able to use "ergo". Cartesian doubt, interpreted with full severity, is a dead-end, and is a trap most try to avoid.

A close reading of the text reveals that even Descartes was unwilling to take radical skepticism seriously.

Occam's razor - sweet and simple

Careful with Occam's razor. The simplest is not always the most accurate. For instance, the simplest possible universe is one in which nothing exists, but this scenario is clearly false.

Otherwise, the problem presented in this thread, of proving non-existence without simultaneously assuming existence, is one of the oldest problems in philosophy. Earlier, I mentioned something called "Plato's beard", which is so named because, in the words of Quine, it "dulls the edge of Occam's razor".


morningstar,

words words words

I don't care about spelling or grammar, but could you please separate each idea into a different paragraph? I can't focus on that wall of text.

im sorry you cant focus it shouldnt be that hard for you to grasp, it is not complicated i hope you have a great day thank you for pointing out my flaws ill take a note of it. like i said it was late and i had class in the morning hopefully it wasnt to confusing for you i used to think i was crazy before i found this forum its nice to know i am not the only one who thinks about these things i was begining to become worried for my own well being whatever that might be..

morningstar, the formatting is much appreciated.

If you're worried that you're going insane, or that nobody holds these opinions, I'd recommend George Berkeley. He's the classic idealist; and, for a philosopher, he's pretty easy to read.

IEOP wrote:[Berkeley] is best known for his motto, esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived. He was an idealist: everything that exists is either a mind or depends for its existence upon a mind. He was an immaterialist: matter does not exist. He accepted the seemingly outrageous position that ordinary physical objects are composed solely of ideas, which are inherently mental.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: Descartes train of thought disallows cogito ergo sum. As soon as he casts doubt on fundamental principles of logic (First Meditation), he is no longer able to use "ergo". Cartesian doubt, interpreted with full severity, is a dead-end, and is a trap most try to avoid.

It's a good point.But does he actually do that specifically in Meditation 1? If you could point me to a specific seciion I'd appreciate it.

Ataraxia,
Yuppers. Meditation 1. I just wrote a midterm on this.

Half-way through page 20 of the AT, Descartes begins a paragraph,

"So a reasonable conclusion from this might be that physics, astronomy, medicine, and all other disciplines which depend on the study are composite things, are doubtful; while arithmetic, geometry, and other subjects of this kind, which deal only with the simplest and most general things, regardless of whether they really exist in nature or not, contain something certain and indubitable."

So far so good, except in the next paragraph he begins to doubt the simple sciences (based on the premiss that there is no benevolent God to assure us of the basic principles of Reason):

"...since I sometimes consider that others go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge, may I not similarly go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable?"

When I re-read it for this class, I immediately wondered if self-identity was included. Kind of a gut instinct thing. If it were true, it would mean Descartes had backed himself into a corner with his "therefore".

That, I thought, was a much bigger problem than leaving cogito and sum virtually undefined. I asked the professor during office hours, and she said I was bang-on... then referred me to Wittgenstein's argument for private language. (To my embarassment, I also did a quick Google search, and found that Ayn Rand had also made this argument.) So it's a relatively common reading.

Cool, thanks.I'm just about write an essay on him too and my tutor did his post graduate work specifically on Descartes so I have to be careful.

It's a great lead, most helpful :)

Trevor Salyzyn
thank you for the aritcle i will read everything i can find on the reasearch about this man berkeley im assuming he is an author of several books i appreciate your concern

Trevor Salyzyn wrote: That, I thought, was a much bigger problem than leaving cogito and sum virtually undefined. .

Nietzsche has a go at this in Beyond G&E.Quite interesting,he seems to me to be pointing to the non-inherent existence of the self.As is often the case it's somewhat ambiguous(to me at least).

Interested in what you think about this:

17. With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds--namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." ONE thinks; but that this "one" is precisely the famous old "ego," is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "one thinks"--even the "one" contains an INTERPRETATION of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the usual grammatical formula--"To think is an activity; every activity requires an agency that is active; consequently" . . . It was pretty much on the same lines that the older atomism sought, besides the operating "power," the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates--the atom. More rigorous minds, however, learnt at last to get along without this "earth-residuum," and perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, even from the logician's point of view, to get along without the little "one" (to which the worthy old "ego" has refined itself).

18. It is certainly not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable; it is precisely thereby that it attracts the more subtle minds. It seems that the hundred-times-refuted theory of the "free will" owes its persistence to this charm alone; some one is always appearing who feels himself strong enough to refute it.

As I read it, 17 focuses on the relationships among language, logic (necessity in particular), and reality. This all ties back to the focus of his enterprise: to create a philological view of ethics. A linguistic accident, here agency, is assumed by logicians (like Descartes) to also point to a necessary truth about reality. Agency was at the heart of most theories of responsibility: if we live in a deterministic world, and did not have free will, many thought that there would be no grounds for ethics (responsibility and punishment). By suggesting that free will is created by an accident of grammar, Nietzsche is not only being the devilish linguist, but he is creating a serious challenge for those who tie ethics to metaphysics.

And, since it challenges what can be known with certainty, it's also a challenge to epistemology. There's quite a bit of scope to that passage.

18 sounds like Nietzshe is making a philosophy joke. After the previous passage, it's easy to see why he might want to liven up the air.