Page 2 of 2

Re: Existing

PostPosted: January 30th, 2018, 11:47 pm
by Serpent

In fairness....

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

Sure. With a few minor corrections to punctuation, and maybe some judicious editing, you have
Cogito, ergo, sum.

It keeps working century after century - within the teeny-tiny bubble of self-consciousness. Keeps proving nothing about anything to anyone outside the bubble.

And then?

Re: Existing

PostPosted: January 31st, 2018, 10:24 am
by Inrealtime87
Serpent

Ok i'll come up with another one.

Re: Existing

PostPosted: February 3rd, 2018, 6:16 pm
by Inrealtime87
Does it work if I only prove the existence of an object of experience? That is what we are to one another, objects of experience.

If there exists experience, necessarily a subject and an object of experience exist
There exists experience
Therefore a subject and an object exist

Re: Existing

PostPosted: February 4th, 2018, 12:59 am
by Serpent
Inrealtime87 » February 3rd, 2018, 5:16 pm wrote:Does it work if I only prove the existence of an object of experience? That is what we are to one another, objects of experience.

If there exists experience, necessarily a subject and an object of experience exist
There exists experience
Therefore a subject and an object exist

We have to have a definition of experience before we can use the word. That definition would necessarily include a consciousness which does the experiencing and events or processes for that consciousness to be aware of. The experiencer is presupposed in the definition. A second consciousness as object is not presupposed, because it's not necessary to "experience", which could be a war, a sunset, a meal or an itch.

What you've said there is:
If things exist, they exist.
( If they don't, they don't. )
What's been proved?