I Exist

[Matt Gregory]

"I exist."

Can anyone here prove or disprove this statement?

[David Quinn]

Define "I" and "exist".

-

[Matt Gregory]

How about:

"I": The body and mind that is typing this message.

"exist": Not nothing.

[David Quinn]

Then clearly, the existence of your message proves your existence.

-

[Matt Gregory]

What about now?

[Unidian]

There is thought, therefore there is existence. This is a better way of interpreting Decartes' classic dictum.

"I" is trickier. It depends on how you define the "self."

[Matt Gregory]

There is thought, therefore there is existence. This is a better way of interpreting Decartes' classic dictum.

Why thought? Why not the senses?

"I" is trickier. It depends on how you define the "self."

How about "this body and mind".

[Unidian]

Why thought? Why not the senses?

Good point. Let's refine.

There is awareness, therefore there is existence.

How about "this body and mind".

How do you distinguish "this body and mind?" Where are you setting the boundaries?

[Matt Gregory]

There is awareness, therefore there is existence.

How do you define existence?

How do you distinguish "this body and mind?" Where are you setting the boundaries?

My body is inside my clothes. My mind is inside my body.

[LooF]

i can't prove or disprove to you that i exist, but you can prove or disprove that you do.

[Matt Gregory]

Just prove or disprove to yourself that you exist and post the proof.

[Dave Toast]

Exist: To appear - to have identity.

I: To concieve of appearance.


I exist.

[Sapius]

Then clearly, the existence of your message proves your existence.

-

....and the above reply proves the existence of, hopefully a person, that identifies itself as David.

So, in my opinion, everything one experiences, including what animals and all things that have some sort of sensory perception, exists. One has to be a total idiot to think otherwise, or simply harbor an arrogant wishful thinking full of himself.

[Unidian]

To exist is to present an appearance. That an appearance is presented is self-evident, given that there is awareness. If an appearance were not presented, there would be nothing to be aware of. Therefore, there is existence.

If I am aware, I exist. The real question is, what am "I?"

[Matt Gregory]

Isn't the "I" the same thing as awareness?

I've been trying to figure out what awareness is.

Is it the process of our perceptions being transferred to our memory?

Or is it the recollection of mental associations when we perceive or think of something? E.g. a certain type of cylindrical shape appears and the word (or the thought) "cup" appears shortly after.

That's all I've been able to come up with so far.

[Matt Gregory]

I think we have to recollect the perception that we are currently experiencing in order to become aware of it.

Think of the "Where's Waldo?" books. We can perceive Waldo because he's in the picture, but we don't become aware of him until we find him and specifically recollect him in our mind.

I don't think awareness can occur until we have a specific recollection of the thing we are experiencing, even though it may seem redundant on the surface.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt wrote:

Is it the process of our perceptions being transferred to our memory?

I don't think so. That is nothing more than an inflow. Where is "our memory"?

Or is it the recollection of mental associations when we perceive or think of something? E.g. a certain type of cylindrical shape appears and the word (or the thought) "cup" appears shortly after.

That is part of the definition of thought, which I would more fully define as: the collection, recollection, association, disassociation (analysis) of mental objects.

Awareness could be defined as consciousness of that process.

It is true, however, that not everyone is aware. Aware of being aware is awareness.

The “I” is a collection of ideas that make the individual -- those concepts that give and shape identity, individuality and, thus, determine activity and non-activity, inflow and outflow.

Since all things, in actuality, arise at the same time -- including the idea of re-collection -- awareness is the enlightened “I“ that perceives its relationship to all things and the relationship of all things to itself.

[MKFaizi]

Of course, you exist. What a silly question.

Does existence exist?

Faizi

[Matt Gregory]

No, what I meant was, can it be proven to oneself that "I exist"?

Or do you take it to be an unquestionable, immediate certainty?

[Matt Gregory]

Leyla,

Matt wrote:

Is it the process of our perceptions being transferred to our memory?

I don't think so. That is nothing more than an inflow. Where is "our memory"?

In our bodies, I guess.

Or is it the recollection of mental associations when we perceive or think of something? E.g. a certain type of cylindrical shape appears and the word (or the thought) "cup" appears shortly after.

That is part of the definition of thought, which I would more fully define as: the collection, recollection, association, disassociation (analysis) of mental objects.

Awareness could be defined as consciousness of that process.

Perhaps, but how do you know those four activities are irreducible? Maybe there is one principle that underpins all of them?

It is true, however, that not everyone is aware. Aware of being aware is awareness.

Then we can never be aware because you would have to be aware of the awareness of being aware, aware of the awareness of the awareness of being aware, etc. It would never end.

The “I” is a collection of ideas that make the individual -- those concepts that give and shape identity, individuality and, thus, determine activity and non-activity, inflow and outflow.

You mean the totality of a person's ideas?

Since all things, in actuality, arise at the same time -- including the idea of re-collection -- awareness is the enlightened “I“ that perceives its relationship to all things and the relationship of all things to itself.

What do you mean by "arise" and how do all things do this at the same time?

[Matt Gregory]

I think a better way to ask this question would be like this:

We have six types of sense objects that appear to the self: sights, sounds, feelings, smells, tastes, and thoughts. The question is: how can a receiver of these appearances be established? If we see a body from the perspective of looking out from it, isn't that just an object of vision and therefore isn't the actual perceiver? If the thought of "I am the receiver of these appearances" appears, does that make it true? Couldn't the "I" just be a linguistic convenience?

[Leyla Shen]

If the thought of "I am the receiver of these appearances" appears, does that make it true?

Isn't that a bit like asking if the thought that A=A appears, does that make it true?

Since you appear to have different thoughts to me, can I not accurately assume that you are experiencing your experiences and not mine?

[Matt Gregory]

Isn't that a bit like asking if the thought that A=A appears, does that make it true?

It's not the same because A=A only refers to the appearance, whereas the "I" has no relation. It just came out of nowhere as far as I can tell.

Since you appear to have different thoughts to me, can I not accurately assume that you are experiencing your experiences and not mine?

How did you come to that conclusion? If a thought appears to you, doesn't that make it your thought? If it didn't appear to you, then how did you become aware of it to say that it's different?

[DHodges]

Couldn't the "I" just be a linguistic convenience?

Yes. The ego is just an object of thought, like any other thought, and has no special status. It does not have inherent existence.

[Leyla Shen]

Matt: Is it [I/awareness] the process of our perceptions being transferred to our memory?

Leyla: I don't think so. That is nothing more than an inflow. Where is "our memory"?

Matt: In our bodies, I guess.

In the form of genes/DNA?

I would think there would be some relationship between memory, DNA and genes. But the memories of a single lifespan?