Prove to me your existence

can you possibly prove to me that you exist? I

can you possibly prove to me that you exist? I exist but my rationality might not be seen as existing to some individuals as theirs does not seem to mine. Therefore, i find it impossible to prove existence of any being independent of my existence. Can you find a way to prove to me that you eixist knowing that, to me, existence is the ability to rationalize, through rationality, formulate a mentality, through your mentality, formulate a reality and therefore, establishign existence? However, your rationality cannot be compromised and relinquished because then, everything, including your existence, is forfeited and not existing for me. It's an equation i have given you that has a simple solution. Syllogistically, if i can be provided with these examples then i would agree with you that you exist.

can you possibly prove to me that you exist?

can you possibly prove to me that you exist?

Why would I have to do so, since by your addressing me by asking me that question, you must already be persuaded that I exist? So why should I bother? Of course, if your question were, can I prove I exist, that would be a different matter. But whether I can persuade you that I exist seems to me to depend a good deal on you and on your psychology. But, as I pointed out, the question is moot since you must already be persuaded that I exist.

I might try, except I'm pretty sure you're a figment of my imagination.

your , my or anybody elses existence doesn't formulate your , my or anybody elses existence

never did

Other people can only exist subjectively and therefore one's logic itself cannot prove anothers' existence.

i understand this statement. But no, i'm not convinced that you exist. My responding to you doesn't mean i think you exist. In fact, i don't think you exist.

Yes, I suppose you believe that you are not persuaded I exist. But you are clearly wrong, since you would not have replied to me, nor would we be having this colloquy, unless you did not believe I exist.

By the way, it is important to note that our conversation is now about whether I have persuaded you that I exist. It is not about whether I can prove that I exist, since those two questions, have persuaded you that I exist, and have I proved I exist, are independent of each other. I don't have to persuade you I exist to prove I exist, after all. Your not being persuaded that I exist (were that true) would have other causes than my ability to prove I exist. It might be possible to prove many things, but the proofs might not persuade you if, for instance, you did not understand the proofs.

This being the Internet, any of us, including me, might well not exist - at least in the sense of possibly being a false identity adopted by someone who does exist - even if it is unlikely that any of us is actually an algorithm passing the Turing test. (In some cases, mind you, I don't know ...)

However, you know that some people, other than yourself, exist.

Also, I know that you know that some people other than yourself exist.

(Assuming that you exist! - And if you don't exist, none of what I say matters, so I might as well go on saying whatever I want, regardless.)

Also, you know that I know - or, even if I do not exist, you know that any really existing person reading this thread knows - that you know that some people other than yourself exist.

So you can't bluff me (or anyone else who does exist, even if I do not exist).

So I don't have to prove to you that some people other than yourself exist. It's an axiom, which you already accept.

If you address yourself to any of those people whom you already know to exist, then no proof of their existence is needed.

On the other hand, if you don't so address yourself, then there is nothing meaningful to be proved.

However, it is possible that anyone, even all the people whom you know to exist, including yourself, might not be whom they appear to be, nor might they be whom they take themselves to be.

I don't know that anyone else exists. That is my point in asking someone to prove it. Atleast you get some of what i think though. Thank you for your insight but it's not proving your existence as i asked. By the way, i exist. Right now, you might not. interactions with other people does not mean i accept them as existing. Besides, half the time, i ignore these oppertunities to interact, simply because their existences are very doubtful.

I hadn't realised that your question was such a serious one. I apologise for the partial levity of my first reply; I imagined that you were only asking a theoretical question about solipsism, which I can never take very seriously.

It would seem that what you actually want is for people (some people) to demonstrate their rationality to you, which would reasssure you, somewhat, of their genuine conscious existence - as opposed to their merely existing as semiconscious zombies, as hypnotic subjects acting unknowingly under the influence of suggestion, or as sleepwalkers, or something of that nature - because (rightly, I think) you connect rationality with consciousness, in some way, and (again rightly, I think) you also notice that people tend on the whole not to be very rational, which leads you to suspect that they might not actually be conscious, or at least, that they are not conscious in the way that they imagine themselves to be, and in which you (again, I suspect, rightly) believe that you really are.

Is that something along the right lines? (I apologise if I haven't put it very clearly; this time, at least, I am trying to be clear, but I'm not sure how to go about it.)

You don't have to apologize for the first response. I was actually laughing when i read it.

I asked you to prove to 'me' you exist. To prove to 'me' that you exist, you would have to persuade 'me' of your existence. Again, you fail to do this. The fact that i speak to you does not make you any more existing than the person i speak to in my dream. If you believe what you are saying is true, your idea of existence would include characters in your dreams. If proofs is what you're using then all you need is one counter example to discontinue your proof. You can't keep agreeing it is true if there is even one fallacy to it. Do i exist to you simply because this discourse exists? How can I prove your existence if i can't even perceive you. All i perceive is text on a monitor. Again, i might simply be having this colloquy with a simple idea. The idea exists, it is clearly in front of me. Is there really someone else sending this thought or is it jsut sense-data? As if right now, this is simple perceptions, therefore, sense-data and sense-data is not enough to prove existence.

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 11:50 PM ----------

Yes, and I was pointing out that whether or not I could prove to you (or persuade you) that I exist has nothing much to do with the more important question of whether I can prove that I exist. The first is really a psychological matter, the latter is really a logical matter. And, I was also pointing out that the fact that you are talking to me, and conversing with me is excellent evidence that you are persuaded that I exist, and not that I have proved that I exist. You need to distinguish between my persuading you that I exist, and my proving that I exist, since they are not the same things at al.

I think you've just passed the test! :smartass:

You lost me. What test is this?

The fact that you laughed at my post helps to prove your rationality to me, that's all. Of course it doesn't help with proving my existence to you.

Where is the rationality in laughing? I'm curious about that.

You were able to discern that I wasn't being entirely serious, even though I tried not to be too obvious about that. That seems to show a finely tuned sense of reality, on your part, when it comes to questions of the reality or unreality (or humour, which is perhaps halfway between reality and unreality) of other people. Whether it is appropriate to describe such a sense of personal reality or unreality as "rationality" is arguable; but then, I'm still trying to form a clear sense of what you mean by "rationality", in the present context, so perhaps I may be permitted a certain looseness, even when I am being serious.

P.S. Unless it was just the avatar of Stimpy that gave me away. :-)

Can you find a way to prove to me that you eixist knowing that, to me, existence is the ability to rationalize, through rationality, formulate a mentality, through your mentality, formulate a reality and therefore, establishign existence? However, your rationality cannot be compromised and relinquished because then, everything, including your existence, is forfeited and not existing for me. It's an equation i have given you that has a simple solution. Syllogistically, if i can be provided with these examples then i would agree with you that you exist.

I can't say you exist though because, as has been established, this is simply a repetition of my rationality, meaning that not much rationality needed to be utilizd in order to formulate the response.

Re-reading this, it seems apparent now that your question has the form of a riddle, in that, rather than it being an open-ended enquiry (as I had been supposing), you actually have a particular possible response in mind, and a proof of existence would take the form, to your mind, of the production of the correct "solution" to your Sphinx-like "equation". Is that correct?

Too easy, huh? This is some tough riddle!