Can you prove your existence?

I see what you are saying and often think the same way; Could non-existence even be considered without existence? But you see that is the whole point of Taoism; Yin/Yang, a male/female view of the universe, a universe based on a perpetual state of dualism. From that perspective existence then becomes dependent on non-existence, you could not have one without the other.

And when you say: "It is our attempt to imagine the opposite of existence, but we can't seem to comprehend
existence to begin with so imagining its opposite is not available until we can." You see that is part of the beauty
of their thinking; You try to achieve an understanding of your primary question {what is existence} by considering its opposite as part of the understanding {what is non-existence}. Another words you can not understand one without
the other; Existence and non-existence are therefore in some ways reliant on each other as is Yin/Yang or
male/female.

Yes, I agree but probably not in the way you're saying it. You said something extremely important which is that you cannot understand one without the other. This I agree with. The human mind is a unity of opposites. The universe, as far as I'm concerned, is not. We can't understand existence to begin with so we can't pretend to play this game of existence is the result of its opposite which is non-existence. In our limited view we can only get any idea of what existence might be by imagining an opposite for it which would be non-existence. I don't think it has anything at all to do with the actual state of external reality.

Thomas Nagel advocates the ability to keep both the objective and subjective in your mind at once even if they conflict with each other. I believe there was a writer who also said intelligence is the ability hold two conflicting ideas in one's mind at once. This idea of opposites pervades the human mind. Something tastes good and doesn't taste bad. This has no bearing on external reality, only internal. This relationship is good for me. It certainly has external results, but they can only be construed as good or bad from the subjective perspective. We have the opposite of death vs life which has little bearing on the external reality. We only understand certain biological circumstances of the external, but what we are really worried about in that opposite is what happens to the internal/subjective reality. In all death myths, nobody cares about what happens to the body (external) so long as it is considered adequate for what needs to happen to the soul (internal).

So I agree that this unity of opposites is crucial to understanding the human mind as it seems to be a large part of how we function on an internal level. I also agree that Eastern philosophy seems to have probed this quite deeply. However it would be a mistake to assume that because a unity of opposites is fundamental to our mind that it has anything to do with the objective external reality. As I noted in the prior examples, our opposites have nothing to do with the external reality beyond the external reality influencing our internal one. When we endeavor to understand the external reality we must abandon that which may be crucial to our internal reality. This is exemplified in the frequent statement, "Quantum physics goes against common sense."

We have seen our internal reality disproven many times in the external one. That doesn't make it invalid as a subjective understanding, and the partial irreconcilability of the two is why Nagel advocates keeping both in the mind at once. We must understand both the internal and the external as well as keeping in mind that the internal is part of the external. This does not mean that the interior view of the internal in any way resembles the external.

So I don't think we have any concept of existence that relates to the external reality. The idea that we need to imagine its opposite in order to understand it I agree with, but only in the sense that we need to imagine the opposite in order to attempt to understand our own concept of it not the external reality of it.

Also here's an idea. If everything (universe/multiverse/whatever) was infinite (never-ending), there would be no non-existence. Infinity is infinite existence. Non-existence within the scope of infinity would arguably be impossible. However, again, this is simply a very limited human understanding. I still don't think it necessarily relates to the reality.

As far as you saying: "I think the ideas of enlightenment and non-existence are persistent delusions equivalent to those of the vague and undefinable "consciousness." They are all concepts which attempt to go beyond ourselves in some way but ultimately fail to." Remember in Zen the ego and the self is what is considered delusional - the so-called soul complex. And also from a Zen viewpoint the entire world can be considered delusional
- we exist inside of a dream.

How does naming more terms that are hokey and undefinable make the previous terms more definite? This is what I don't like about a lot of Eastern philosophy and varying forms of spirituality. There's a tendency to take hokey undefined terms that people relate to and make "profound" statements out of them so that people will draw personal meaning from them. Of course it's entirely necessary that people draw the personal meaning from them because they mean absolutely nothing on their own.

Apparently you are saying there is a provable external reality. I disagree. I do not believe there is a provable
external reality. No matter how you try to define reality; no matter how you perceive it and/or interact with
it, you can not completely separate it from the mind so conceiving, so defining, and/or so interacting with
that so-called reality. I know what science says reality is today which is not the same as it was before
Einstein and which has changed somewhat since Quantum Mechanics and for all I know will then again be
completely changed when those mythical aliens land and tell us how dumb we have been to perceive this
universe with such primitive theories and science.

See here again the Taoist logic has relevance. Since {at least from my point of view} there is no provable
external reality, the yin/yang of the world could be seen in an internal/external view of what is perceived.
I believe that even though this might not prove anything it would still give a more realistic view of what
we are actually dealing with.

And finally where as I would agree that science must deal with a world which it has to assume is for real
with an exacting definable and understandable existence, I would not be so naive so as to believe that
what is discovered here and now is by necessity true in an eternal sense, for as reality is so discovered
it is also changing and therefore an absolute and provable reality may never be shown. We are the product
of and the end result of many forces known and unknown, and by the same token our perception of these
forces, events, etc. will never be completely definable.

Can you prove your existence? When this question was first put to me I was momentarily disarmed. That is, my first reply was sure, There are the immediately apparent. Such as, I'm aware that I'm breathing. I can observe the world around me. I can feel. etc... but that doesn't Prove that I exist. I thought this might be a good question for my first post, and a way I may introduce myself.

Mort

1) I think therefore I am {exist}
2) I doubt therefore I think
3) I doubt therefore I exist!

Apparently you are saying there is a provable external reality.

No, that is not even remotely what I'm saying. I am saying there IS an external reality, not a provable one. What you are asking for is reconciliation of the subjective with the objective. You want the external reality, for which we make an ever-evolving series of observations leading to theories, to be reconciled with our subjective perspective on it. I do not believe this is possible, at least not now. If there is a kind of knowledge that will allow us to do that, I think we are very far from attaining it. So I am not saying anything about a provable external reality. I am simply saying there is one, and it is separate from our subjectivity even if our best objective perceptions of it are not. If you do not believe me then you are a solipsist, and you will have to prove your own position before you can address mine. The entirety of observation supports my viewpoint. The only thing supporting the solipsist is a belief in absolute truth and a pervading confusion concerning why external reality isn't one.

I disagree. I do not believe there is a provable external reality. No matter how you try to define reality; no matter how you perceive it and/or interact with it, you can not completely separate it from the mind so conceiving, so defining, and/or so interacting with that so-called reality. I know what science says reality is today which is not the same as it was before Einstein and which has changed somewhat since Quantum Mechanics and for all I know will then again be completely changed when those mythical aliens land and tell us how dumb we have been to perceive this universe with such primitive theories and science.

Yes, I agree with all of this. None of it supports your point. You are taking provable external reality to be synonymous with external reality, and it is not.

See here again the Taoist logic has relevance. Since {at least from my point of view} there is no provable external reality, the yin/yang of the world could be seen in an internal/external view of what is perceived.
I believe that even though this might not prove anything it would still give a more realistic view of what
we are actually dealing with.

There is no yin/yang of the world. This is not demonstrated anywhere in our observations of external reality without bringing personal viewpoints into them. There does, however, seem to be some sort of yin/yang of the mind. Taking that to be an accurate contribution to our understanding of external reality rather than our understanding of our own minds is a fallacy.

And finally where as I would agree that science must deal with a world which it has to assume is for real with an exacting definable and understandable existence,

Science does not believe this. The idea of reality having an exacting definable and understandable existence was inherent to the ancient greeks not to modern science. Modern science uses an inductive process based heavily on empirical observation to draw conclusions about external reality that are acknowledged to be incomplete and inaccurate. Much of science believes that no matter how far those conclusions evolve, they will always be incomplete and inaccurate. The only thing taken for granted is that there is an external reality. There are certainly those within science who believe they or others will find an absolute truth, but this is not the scientific viewpoint nor is it representative of the scientific method.

I would not be so naive so as to believe that what is discovered here and now is by necessity true in an eternal sense, for as reality is so discovered it is also changing and therefore an absolute and provable reality may never be shown.

Nor would the scientists. These conclusions were adopted by science roughly four centuries ago. Have you actually read any science? Your statements here sound like the average paranoia adopted by much of the general public towards scientists and scientific conclusions. It represents a complete lack of understanding of what science is, the methods it uses, what conclusions it has drawn as a result, and what the nature of those conclusions are.

We are the product of and the end result of many forces known and unknown, and by the same token our perception of these forces, events, etc. will never be completely definable.

This is just a nonsense statement. There is nothing of any intrinsic meaning here.

Apparently you are saying there is a provable external reality.

No, that is not even remotely what I'm saying. I am saying there IS an external reality, not a provable one......"

How can you say: "there IS an external reality, not a provable one"? Well if it is not provable why should
anyone believe it exists? To believe anything exists which can not be proven to exist is a matter of self
perception and proves nothing.

We are the product of and the end result of many forces known and unknown, and by the same token our perception of these forces, events, etc. will never be completely definable.

This is just a nonsense statement. There is nothing of any intrinsic meaning here.

This is correct: "There is nothing of any intrinsic meaning here." You argue for the sake of argument not for
the sake of meaning.

How can you say: "there IS an external reality, not a provable one"? Well if it is not provable why should anyone believe it exists? To believe anything exists which can not be proven to exist is a matter of self
perception and proves nothing.

This is correct: "There is nothing of any intrinsic meaning here." You argue for the sake of argument not for
the sake of meaning.

There's not really anything in this post I can respond to. You're overusing terms in ways that obviously change the definition each time you use them. I could answer your initial question, but I think I already covered it very well in the post that you quoted. You have not made a new statement or inquired into a specific point so I would just be rehashing what I already said. Your last statement, much like the last statement of your previous post, does not make sense.

Can you prove your existence? When this question was first put to me I was momentarily disarmed. That is, my first reply was sure, There are the immediately apparent. Such as, I'm aware that I'm breathing. I can observe the world around me. I can feel. etc... but that doesn't Prove that I exist. I thought this might be a good question for my first post, and a way I may introduce myself.

Mort

Can I prove my existence? Yes, but only to myself. No one else can think my thoughts. I can try to convince others of my existence, but there is no way to let them experience my consciousness. Words or actions are not enough.

Can you prove your existence? When this question was first put to me I was momentarily disarmed. That is, my first reply was sure, There are the immediately apparent. Such as, I'm aware that I'm breathing. I can observe the world around me. I can feel. etc... but that doesn't Prove that I exist. I thought this might be a good question for my first post, and a way I may introduce myself.

Mort

Can I prove my existence? Yes, but only to myself. No one else can think my thoughts. I can try to convince others of my existence, but there is no way to let them experience my consciousness. Words or actions are not enough.

I accept what you are saying and have no reason to question it. It is a logical self-proof of self-existence.

So the next question would be how can you prove your existence to someone or something else?

Finally one might ask as it is related:

Is there a universal proof of existence? And finally is there a universal proof of self existence?

By universal I mean to say the proof will stand up to logical analysis under all circumstances.

Personally I think the answer to the original question and my questions is no - but I would still be interested if someone had an answer.

So the next question would be how can you prove your existence to someone or something else?

Can't be done.

Can you prove your existence? When this question was first put to me I was momentarily disarmed. That is, my first reply was sure, There are the immediately apparent. Such as, I'm aware that I'm breathing. I can observe the world around me. I can feel. etc... but that doesn't Prove that I exist. I thought this might be a good question for my first post, and a way I may introduce myself.

Mort

While many relevant questions have already come up, I would suggest that everyone writes a numbered list of logic that represents their reasoning that either supports or refutes the original question. That way it is easier to examine the truth in each of them.

Here's my logic of thought. Definitions:

What is existence? It is the continuous process that began in the Big Bang in which matter becomes more complex over time and at the same time becomes more conscious. (See Law of Complexity/Consciousness)

What is I? The "I" is a construction of the consciousness that combines the emergent thoughts and experiences into one somewhat coherent whole. This process takes place so that it is easier for the consciousness to act in the existence - since there is this body consciousness controls and there are actions that spring from it.

Reasoning:

0) Why do I need to prove my existence? Anything can be proved, it's just the presuppositions and logic that varies between the discourses (each have their distinct logic, like economic logic, Marxist logic, existential logic etc). I would say I need to prove my existence in order to get you to respect me as another human being who may have different thought processes than you but which are equally valid than yours (see Martin Buber). So I'm referring to a type of existential logic here.

1) What does "I exist" mean? Using the definitions as the basis, it means that there is an emergent structure of consciousness produced by the process of increasing complexity.

2) How can I prove that I exist? In other words, this question asks: How can it be proved that matter gets more complex and more conscious?

3) I am writing this and you are reading this. Therefore, there exists the process of consciousness that produces this text, as well as the process of consciousness that reads it and constantly creates the "I" that either understands it or not. Also, this text didn't exist ten minutes ago, so there must be a process from which it emerged, making the reality a bit more complex and conscious.

4) Therefore, the process of matter getting more complex and more conscious exists. That is to say, I exist. Q.E.D.

That depends on your Metaphysical model. In order to prove your existence, you have to accept the following premises as axioms:

1. Existence exists (there exists something objective, which is tangible). 2. All sensory perception refers to actual existence.

If you accept these two premises, then proving your existence is simple: you perceive yourself.

P1: I perceive "myself." P2: All perception refers to "existence." C1: "Myself" is within "existence." P3 (C1): "Myself is within "existence." P4: "Existence" exists. C2: "Myself" exists.

If you do not accept those axioms, then I don't think that you can prove your own existence (Descart notwithstanding). BUT you CAN prove that the statement "I do not exist" is an intellectual dead-end. Perception is the only thing we have going for us in terms of determining what is and isn't real. If we cannot lean on our own perceptions, then we have literally nothing to go on. If you don't exist, then your perceptions don't refer to anything; in which case you cannot posit anything at all.

You cannot disprove "I do not exist," but you can prove that it is a vacuous statement.

When the Eleatic Philosophers were discussing the concept that motion does not exist, Diogenes the Cynic got up and walked away. Hit your thump with a hammer, you'll see whether or not you exist.

That presupposes that your pain exists.

Not that it matters. If you don't exist, then all discussion reduces to chasing your own tail.

I am willing to accept the axiom that my perceptions correspond to something in reality.

What seems to follow from that is that I exist.

At least we can agree on this: our senses will allow us to know at the moment. But as it was said, we can only step into the same river once, and actually not even that, as by the time that our heel enters the water, it is not the same river as the water has passed already. How can we know that we don not know anything?

Even God develops.

But at the end of the day, saying "Newton's Laws are not absolute!" doesn't them any less relevant, if you know what I mean.

So true, and yet when we think, we evolve, thus our globe has become a cesspool in one place, a paradise in another. I think left to ourselves, we know we "are", but when we observe the universe in all its spectacular vastness, we begin to doubt our own existance.