Can you prove to your self that you exist

If I could prove to myself that I exist I would not have to. You ought to distinguish between: 1. proving that some proposition p is true, on the one hand, and proving to someone that p is true, on the other hand. Those are not the same things. The first means presenting an argument to establish the truth of p. The second means trying to persuade someone that p is true. You may do the first without doing the second, and do the second without doing the first.

I don't understand your objection to the I think argument. Thoughts are fallible in the sense that what we think is true may not be true. But that is irrelevant to whether or not we are thinking. Even false thoughts are thoughts. And what has how thoughts are produced to do with whether they exist? However they are produced, they exist.
And whether or not they are fallible, they exists. Descartes did not argue" I have infallible thoughts, therefore I exist. He argued, I have thought, therefore I exist. In fact, what Descartes meant by "thoughts" was just, "consciousness". (In 17th century France, "pensee'" had a much wider meaning than "thought". It meant "being conscious". So that Descartes was arguing,"I am conscious, therefore I exist", on the very reasonable grounds that one could not be conscious (and, in fact, one could not be anything at all) without existing.

Maybe not. Maybe you're just a disembodied thought, a delusion that thinks it's got a body and a brain.

The idea of "I think therefor I am" speaks to your idea of "self". The "I" part doesn't need to imply the physical.

The most we can say is that there is a perception and a perceiver; thoughts aren't necessary.

On one hand you have to establish the scope of the word "proof", and on the other what you mean with "existing"...

...as for being conscious, one has to regard on the conscious of what, as for knowing with certainty...or does conscious not imply in any sense the very certainty of being aware on X ? X must be an achievable target...either X as the process or phenomena constructed or interpreted for thyself, which supposes that I am, or the world has it is from which I am its manifestation...

But to pose the question whether I exist certainly implies that something must be true ! (otherwise would n´t make much sense)

Either I am "falsifiable" (to an extent) because something else is True that explains me as not being true alone, but derived from Truth, or I am True in the sense that I am a final Truth...

That "something" as TRUTH can generate "second order truths", something which is not self justified but that can be justified by something else, namely what is TRUE !

...so the question answers itself....

But perception was one of the things Descartes meant by, "a thought". Descartes use to word, "thought" to designate any mental state whatever. It was functionally equivalent to "consciousness".

...now the interesting observation would be to realize that the question has by limitation the one who does it !

When the question is if the questioner is True, the contradiction automatically arises...

The limitations of my asking are the limitations of my knowing as the limitation of what I am...

...one could go on and ask further, not for the truthfulness of oneself but for the truthfulness of Truth itself...and this is the point in which one realizes that the properties of BEING are extended to the Whole of its nature, (parts) namely what apparently cannot be justified by itself alone but for that very same Whole...meaning that BEING cannot be reduced.

Therefore if my question is limited for what I am, and what I am is limited by what TRUTH is, the Truth (validity) of my question cannot ask beyond Truth or BEING itself !

Non Being is a shadow, a falsity of Being itself, projected in itself, in which INFINITY arises not in QUALITY as for NATURE but in CIRCULAR QUANTITY as for motion and Time...BEING IS LIMITED !
Cantor would dare something like a limited infinity ! An infinity with size !...

It is an error to assume "existence" can be devoid of "relationship".
The "self" exists by virtue of its relationship with "the not self". They are ontological complements. And since the "selves" on this forum are using a common language whose origins are from "the not self" , and by which the queston is asked, the question is rendered vacuous.

How excatly does this existentialism manifest itself irl, other than just existing in rethorics?

...actually if I have doubt it, I have proven it !

I don't think you can doubt it, therefore you can't prove it.

Sure. But even a failing sense organ would prove that there is something out there failing, and that "I" am its failure. Because the proposition "I am a sense organ's failure" would imply the proposition "I am", Descartes's inference still holds. There's a reason he said "I think, therefore I am", not "I think correct thoughts, therefore I am".

Can you prove to your self that you exist

i guess i could send myself a registered letter and see if anyone, well me, signs for it

I must assume that I exist. If I thought I didn't I'd be diagnosed with Cotard's

To djjd: I misread your signature. At first I read: do you know why you don't have any replicas?

Interesting. I once had a harrowing night and then had to pick up a friend from the airport. I hadn't slept for a long time and started imagining that I was a ghost as I walked throught the terminal. Then this guy looked straight at me. I was a little shocked.

I might have been on the verge of becoming a Cotard.

Great great answer ! Thank you !

I understand Descartes argument, but what his suggesting is the mind i.e thoughts are existing not thy self.

So If I stop producing thoughts or think about anything then I won't exist.. It's like I only exist when I think...

It's doesn't establish the point of proving that you actually exist OBJECTIVELY in the world without the use of any sensory organs.

My main argument was sensory organs are falliable, so things might not appear the way they are.. My thoughts are being produced through an organ which is ultimately unreliable..

The "I think, therefore I am" doesn't do well in establishing you exist objectively.

Also, a note on "I", it doesn't necessary have to be physical or metaphysical.. It just has to be something that will exist regardless of myself, which is me.

Pretend you have no sense organs.. or if you like think of Hume's Bundle Theory!