Do we really exist?

Prediction and control, not so much, as they're pretty much impossible in metaphysics, but reasoning from axioms, certainly. Essentially the only state of being (if you'll allow me the precarious term) with which we're familiar is our consciousness. We cannot experience anything but through that, and therefore I assert that the only truly defendable stance to take is that our own existence is a fundamental. A "subjective reality" is self contradictory, because anything that doesn't follow the reflexive property is by definition non-existent.

In so far that "existence" could be thought of as an anthropocentric communication device in contexts of sefl-contemplation (as in the early Heidegger) I may agree with you. But beyond that, the claim to its being the fundamental or sole arbiter of "reality" is a restrictive position. BTW, I don't argue for a "subjective reality", but for socially constructed concepts of reality.

So, Fresco, you are arguing for an INTER-subjective reality? The concepts are social conventions upon which we individually attach subjective versions.

Dr Amit Goswami has recently become known to me, and his views are interesting. Here is a few lines out of what he says about social consciousness in a video I found:

"...In the place from which I create you and I become one. So I can look at your interests and you can look at mine without any difficulty whatsoever, because this individual selfishness disappears. It's just an illusion that does not exist at that level..."

Cogito ergo cogito would seem to be safe (given it's tautological). But it --cogitO-- still PRESUMES the first person reflection of (what is really a problematical) subject. This presumption was presumed to have been ratified by Cogito ergo sum. Who still accepts this except in our unreflective metaphysics of everyday life?

I would like to propose a new version of the original question :

- Am I really writing this?

What do you mean?:
Is there a process of WRITING going on?
Is this REAL or dream?
Is there an "I" (SUBJECT OR AGENT) who is supposedly writing this?

you know we are real cause dont you cry feel hurt?

If pains and pangs were connected to being, then some would be more than others.

Is there levels of being, like levels of consciousness?

If so, at what level do you stand?

The question is asked relative to the original question. All your questions 'could' be asked from what I wrote...

We should be humble enough to recognize that we are a part of something much grander, curious enough to ask why, and wise enough to accept the limitations of our perspective. Time passes, energy transforms, mass marks its place, and distances are spanned - nice of us to notice, not that it matters.
Like the map at the mall says, you are here. And as the hydrogen atom remarked when asked if it was sure that it had lost its electron - yes I'm positive.

for that u must value what is grant while if u can value what is superior then u r superior too, the answer is not humility on the contrary

u preconised existence for the fittest well actually u prepared it, only what is superior exist thank u n byebye

have a nice trip back home to mummy we superiors go ahead for more, go back and rest forever

Idea of the Descartes evil demon dilemma, and matters of existence around you, nothing new here, move along.

this is one funny and existentially perplexing, horrifying and funny thought...the origin of solipsism is from the blunt fact that for the most part u are talking to a machine that talks in language statements, ntil as plato would say it r3ecovers its memory..for letters, markings are not a tool of remembering but of forgetfulness. phaedrus

wat do u remember and how that is based on willin to profit from meaning to claim that someone is rememberin

rememberin wat when it is about realizing superiority each second out of it the most free u can to stay existin right parallel to ur existence that mean to cut the parallel abstraction and possess rights to pretend ownin exitence so as a whole since it is a fake and lie will

it is amazin how far u cant feel shame in all what u directly do infront of everything

The difficulty with this idea is in explaining how one is able to experience things like surprise or astonishment when something unexpected happens, or in understanding how, if the external world is only your own construct, one is able to progress in learning or have new experiences. If I construct this world, how is it my mind is able to apprehend the 'newness' of new experiences?

u r showin how the absurdity of not recognizin else existence in such obvious conditions of objective life is due to ur principal will to possess smthg as if u cant but mean being more urself as the translation of ur existence sense being real

that is why u r seekin a more absurd argument to explain the absurdity of never recognizin normally else before u, in all logics self is due to the recognition of else so immediately a self sense get back meanin not being that being

so u gave the reason without knowing the true answer, the majority of people dont want anything in principle of being, but of course if the need of smthg is too big then slavery is on and the person believe anything without meanin to believe just to feel better only

when u dont want anythin as a condition of being, which i repeat is the normal fact of nothing base just reality exist always without particular other reason then reality, then u cant ever doubt else existence when it is the only fact, while soon u become someone from ur own reality constancy but u feel stuck of havin to keep else first that dont recognize urself existence, barely simply reality recognitions that everyone share

so it is the opposite end to what u claim being normal, for u it is normal that u cant recognize but ur existence while to me and others normality is that u can barely recognize ur existence with all else existence that u must recognize when u do not mean particularly anything

i told u intellect is a liar seekin to abuse else existence like gods from knoweldge of true existence being an absolute fact so the ambition to act free possessor of smthg positive out of that knowledge abuse, so the mean to stay within urself only as living ur willin end