Existing

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 28th, 2018, 9:26 pm 

Is this a good logical proof of existence?

What exists is characterized by events
What is called the self is characterized by events
Therefore the self exists

or

Nothing is the absence of existence
For existence to be absent is for absence to exist
Absence exists therefore something exists

I've written these elsewhere, but problems have not yet been pointed out, although I have posted them in the past 24 hours. Can you find any problems?
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 28th, 2018, 11:46 pm 

Inrealtime87 » January 28th, 2018, 8:26 pm wrote:What exists is characterized by events

Sez who? Even if accepted as true, in order to qualify as a premise, it would have to read "All that exists".
What is called the self is characterized by events

What is called the self? By whom, and on what basis is this something called "the self"?
Again, how do we know that this something is, indeed, characterized by events?
Therefore the self exists

There is no demonstrated causitive relationship. Just two unsupported statements, followed by a third.

You might as well say:

Plums are characterized by their green colour.
Souls are characterized by their green colour.
Therefore, souls are plums.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
RJG liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 12:21 am 

Why would it read all that exists instead? If it read all that exists, i'm already assuming what i'm trying to prove, by saying all. That would assume there is something in existence.

Also, it doesn't matter what is called the self, if it is characterized by events it exists, since what exists is characterized by events.

Also, what about the second proof?
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 12:29 am 

There definitely is a causitive relationship, both are characterized by events, so both exists. And have you honestly never heard of any conception of the self as a series of events? What makes up your experience? You see, hear, taste,smell and touch, experience is an event, or a series of events.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 12:37 am 

Also, your example is not at all analogous to mine, because I am not saying the self is existence, I am saying the self exists. The difference is obvious, as I am not saying the self is all that exists.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 29th, 2018, 10:34 am 

Fine.
I have some doubt as to whether you are saying anything at all.
But, if it satisfies your requirements, it is sufficient onto itself.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 10:48 am 

That's it? Don't you have trouble with my response?
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 29th, 2018, 11:15 am 

Inrealtime87 » January 29th, 2018, 9:48 am wrote:That's it? Don't you have trouble with my response?

I find my brow peculiarly unfurrowed and my contentious nature peculiarly unmoved to reaction.
It's not at all unusual to encounter people who cannot or will not construct a coherent sentence and many more have nothing better to do than gnaw at self-imposed conundra that self-evidently have no satisfactory solution. Who, I ask myself, am I to oppose their entirely harmless pastime? Whereto I further find myself singularly unmotivated to respond.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 11:44 am 

Why peculiarly? Did you mean particularly? But what about the second one, you did not comnent on it.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 11:46 am 

*comment
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Asparagus on January 29th, 2018, 12:28 pm 

Inrealtime87 » January 28th, 2018, 9:26 pm wrote:Is this a good logical proof of existence?

What exists is characterized by events
What is called the self is characterized by events
Therefore the self exists


What exists is characterized by events
What is called a unicorn is characterized by events
Therefore a unicorn exists.

Mmmm.. I don't think so. Remember: an ontological proof can never be entirely apriori (Hume).


realtime wrote:Nothing is the absence of existence
For existence to be absent is for absence to exist
Absence exists therefore something exists


'Everything disappeared and there was nothing left but a few juicy abstractions.' :)
Asparagus
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Blog: View Blog (2)
RJG liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 29th, 2018, 12:38 pm 

I guess i'll have to come up with another one. Thanks for Hume's point.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Asparagus liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby Braininvat on January 29th, 2018, 1:48 pm 

Sigh, Another cognito ergo slump.

We need a cogito ergo sump pump, maybe.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6566
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Inrealtime87 liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby Positor on January 29th, 2018, 8:35 pm 

Inrealtime87 » January 29th, 2018, 1:26 am wrote:What exists is characterized by events
What is called the self is characterized by events
Therefore the self exists

This seems to commit the fallacy of 'affirming the consequent'. I think it should read:

What is characterized by events exists
What is called the self is characterized by events
Therefore what is called the self exists

or

If X is characterized by events, X exists
The self is characterized by events
Therefore the self exists

Also, whether "the self is characterized by events" is arguable. We have certain knowledge only of the present moment's existence; it is logically possible that our memory is illusory and that the self is really not characterized by events.

Nothing is the absence of existence
For existence to be absent is for absence to exist
Absence exists therefore something exists

The first premise here seems misleading, as it could be interpreted as meaning that absence is a thing. The premise would then be self-contradictory, equivalent to "Nothing(ness) is absence", which (if absence is a thing) implies "Nothing is something".

The second premise also looks self-contradictory, implying "If existence is absent, absence exists", hence "If existence is absent, something exists", hence "If existence is absent, existence is present".

In the third line, "absence exists" is false if you mean complete absence of existence.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: 05 Feb 2010
Inrealtime87RJG liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby mitchellmckain on January 30th, 2018, 1:46 am 

In think an argument for existence in general is inherently circular because we pretty much have to assume existence in general to even imagine that any kind of proof of existence is possible. Either we attach significance, reality, and existence to the things of our experience or not. If we can employ skepticism to doubt the existential nature of our experiences then I don't see how we can dredge up anything which will countermand this doubt, for everything existential ultimately derives from our experiences.

Now I put the word "existential" in italics because there is, I think, a difficulty which needs to be addressed. Is what we mean when we say the solution to a math problem exists the same thing as when we say a particular type of animal exists. I think it depends on precisely how we define existence. Here is a definition which would make them the same.

When we specify that an object exists, then we are saying there is a set of specifications of the object and it is quite possible for us to encounter an object which meets those specifications. In the statement of specifications we must distinguish between the context of various representational media such as a story or film and that of the bodily, non-media, or "real life." Thus we would say, for example, that as far as we know and is likely, klingons only exist in stories and film, and any encountered in "real life" are something else such as a human wearing a costume.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Inrealtime87 liked this post


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 1:46 am 

How about this one?

If there is an I that can perceive an existence I exist

If there is an I that can falsely perceive an existence I still perceive

I perceive therefore I exist
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby RJG on January 30th, 2018, 9:42 am 

Hi Inrealtime87, if you are looking to logically prove "I exist", then try this:

1. Experiencing exists --- absolute, undeniable, undoubtable
2. Experiencer exists --- logically derived, ...for without an experiencer, experiencing could not happen/exist.
3. If experiencer is (named) "I", then "I" exist.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 30th, 2018, 11:41 am 

No, you don't.
Or maybe you do, but it's not proven.
I am not experiencing you directly, therefore you do not necessarily exist.
I am experiencing your existence indirectly, therefore you possibly exist.
It's essential to be accurate about these things.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Existing

Postby RJG on January 30th, 2018, 12:26 pm 

RJG wrote:1. Experiencing exists --- absolute, undeniable, undoubtable
2. Experiencer exists --- logically derived, ...for without an experiencer, experiencing could not happen/exist.
3. If experiencer is (called) "I", then "I" exists.

Serpent wrote:No, you don't.
Or maybe you do, but it's not proven.
I am not experiencing you directly, therefore you do not necessarily exist.
I am experiencing your existence indirectly, therefore you possibly exist.
It's essential to be accurate about these things.

Serp, I think you misread what I wrote. Let me try to reword my words:

1. Although the 'content' of experiencing is NEVER certain, the 'experiencing' itself is absolutely certain. Therefore experiencing exists.

2. And if 'experiencing exists' is certain, then so is the (logical) certainty of an 'experiencer', as experiencing is not possible without the pre-existence of an experiencer. Therefore experiencer exists

3. And finally if we wish to call this experiencer, "I", then we can certainly claim "I" exist!
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Existing

Postby Braininvat on January 30th, 2018, 1:25 pm 

It's a restatement of Descartes. And Positor's post reminded of Descartes' Demon, and in what ways we may be deceived as to the content of our perceptions. Perception implies a percipient.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6566
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 1:40 pm 

Braininvat

Could you be clearer as to what the problem with my post is, as i've written in it a part for someone who would say the content of perception is false, so I do not yet spot a problem.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 2:37 pm 

RJG

I feel like you would have to preface experiencing exists every time like you did in the second post because people would always question the content or whether we experience, besides that it looks food.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby RJG on January 30th, 2018, 3:14 pm 

Inrealtime87 wrote:I feel like you would have to preface experiencing exists every time like you did in the second post because people would always question the content or whether we experience...

Not so. The very act of "questioning" (denying, doubting) only 'affirms' its existence.

In other words, it is IMPOSSIBLE to deny "experiencing exists", because any attempt to do so would then require denying the experiencing of denying.

There is no escaping the absolute (undeniable/undoubtable) truth of "Experiencing exists".
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 30th, 2018, 3:28 pm 

RJG » January 30th, 2018, 11:26 am wrote:Serp, I think you misread what I wrote.

No; I was just taking it less than seriously.

3. And finally if we wish to call this experiencer, "I", then we can certainly claim "I" exist!

You can claim it, but you can't prove it.
Since I do not experience your experiencing directly: I only experience you as a communication experienced by me. Thus, I have only your word that you are an authentic experiencer. You may, in fact, be a figment, with only a secondary or ancillary I-ness and no real self, while I am the only real experiencer. In that case, which in the circumstances is untestable, what you claim as your experience is merely part of my experience, and you do not exist.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 5:11 pm 

RJG

Sounds good then.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 5:17 pm 

Serpent

Once you concede that experiencing exists, you concede an experiencer, making valid not only your experience but the experience of the self or "I", therefore any "I" exists.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby RJG on January 30th, 2018, 5:33 pm 

Inrealtime87 wrote:Serpent, Once you concede that experiencing exists, you concede an experiencer...

This part is true.

Inrealtime87 wrote:...making valid not only your experience but the experience of the self or "I", therefore any "I" exists.

This part is NOT (quite) true.

Firstly, the 'content' of one's experience is NEVER certain.

Secondly, the reason we know (with certainty!) that an "experiencer exists" is because of 'logic' (via logically derived), NOT because the "self" can be experienced (...which it can't!).

In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Experiencer to ever experience "him-self". The Experiencer cannot be in two places at one time; he cannot be both the 'subject' and the 'object' simultaneously. (...also, Experiencer's can only experience 'experiences', not 'things' or 'selfs' themselves!).
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 7:23 pm 

Then I think my proof is better.
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Existing

Postby Serpent on January 30th, 2018, 8:39 pm 

Inrealtime87 » January 30th, 2018, 4:17 pm wrote:Serpent

Once you concede that experiencing exists, you concede an experiencer, making valid not only your experience but the experience of the self or "I", therefore any "I" exists.

How so? All I can be sure of is what Descartes knew:
If there is a thought, there must be a thinker;
if I am thinking that thought, I must be the thinker
If my thought exists, I exist.

There is not only no proof, but there is not even an inference, of any other thinkers, or thoughts, or experiences or experiencers, outside of myself.
You may be sure of your own existence, but you can't be sure of mine.
And it doesn't matter what I concede, or what you think I may have conceded; no matter how many times around the mulberry bush you chase your tail - you can't prove either one.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3015
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Existing

Postby Inrealtime87 on January 30th, 2018, 8:48 pm 

Serpent

You have yet to criticize the newest one I have posted. Perhaps it is because you can find no fault with it. It is the post that begins with "How about this one?"
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests