Can you prove your existence?

I never thought of it that way.

I guess it's sort of obvious, though. Sure explains why all the thinkers' level of insanity seems to correlate directly to the number of "facts" that are available.

"Can you prove your existence?" Of course not, Mort.

Descartes famously had a go and made a complete dog's breakfast of it.

Many others have pointed out flaws in his rather naive reasoning but my own version is as follows:

"I think, therefore I am" This is a statement of logic n'est pas? Descartes has presumed the existence of language and of logic and the validity of this logic.

So, you see, he has made significant assumptions regarding these entities and also of features of the natural world from which they derive.

Although attempting to start from scratch he has, as do we all, to make prior assumptions.

My book "Unusual Perspectives" (free download in -book formats) includes this and related topics.

Descartes has presumed the existence of language and of logic and the validity of this logic.

So then, you do not "presume the existence of logic?"

So then, you do not "presume the existence of logic?"

Certainly I do, Jacob, but then I am not using that presumption to attempt prove my existence.

...Fair enough, I guess.

I think the appropriate response to this sort of question begging is: Can you prove we don't exist? Humor is appropriate.

Existence, even if it is temporary or limited, is existence. If one is made of matter, or experiences stimuli one must exist, in some fashion.

One defines their own "I" for them self. "Whoooo arrrrre yooooou" said the caterpillar. We change all the time for you, you can decide who I am. For my self I will decide who I am and who you are. If we are having this exchange though we both defiantly exist, in some way.

Strictly speaking, 'proof' is concerned with deductive reasoning, which applies only to arguments contained within mutually acceptable a priori data, which can only be established by inductive reasoning. In other words, it is concerned only with 'clocks', not 'clouds' as Karl Popper would probably put it. What's more interesting about this question is perhaps the implied existence of a personal identity - namely the self. My own feeling (or what I misleadingly call my own) is that there is no autonomous self, only a symbiotic process involving a creature that we call 'the self', which cannot do anything else but interact indeterminately with an environment that is changing indeterminately all the time. Being consciously aware that this is going on does not give Homo sapiens an autonomous identity, it is merely a neurological process that attempts to convert an indeterminate world into a body of ordered neurological knowledge in the mind that presumably helps improve its chances of survival (although long-term, that seems somewhat doubtful too).

There are definitely times when I wish it were MUCH LESS provable!

I find OP's question illogical, why wouldn't something exist, that would imply that people has observed things not to exist which has never been proved, but only been an irrational mass hysterical philosophical fad.

Imo there should be a section for outdated philosphy such as this where people can navel gaze at their outdated stuff.

If I understand what you are saying I agree. Non-existence is meaningless and only reflects a lack of existence which is impossible. But the question of whether 'you' exist is another matter. Is the 'self' a provable state of existence; How do you prove that a separate entity, a self, actually exists? You could say it is obvious as the interaction between self and the environment but does this prove that this self has an independent existence from the environment - or is self, environment and existence relative terms?

-- Updated April 14th, 2012, 3:37 am to add the following --

I find OP's question illogical, why wouldn't something exist, that would imply that people has observed things not to exist which has never been proved, but only been an irrational mass hysterical philosophical fad.

Imo there should be a section for outdated philosphy such as this where people can navel gaze at their outdated stuff.

If I understand what you are saying I agree. Non-existence is meaningless and only reflects a lack of existence which is impossible. But the question of whether 'you' exist is another matter. Is the 'self' a provable state of existence; How do you prove that a separate entity, a self, actually exists? You could say it is obvious as the interaction between self and the environment but does this prove that this self has an independent existence from the environment - or is self, environment and existence relative terms?

To be fair and to make another attempt at answering the original question "Can you prove your existence?" I will now contradict myself. When I said: "I agree. Non-existence is meaningless and only reflects a lack of existence which is impossible" it at the time seemed logical but after reflection it now seems absurd. It suddenly dawned upon my humanoid consciousness that I have no idea how existence could be or could exist without a state of non-existence as an opposition necessary for a complete definition of the state of existence. I can not see how you can have a state of existence without the comparative state of non-existence; Or how could you have life and know what life is without being able to compare it with death and/or non-existence.

Therefor the proof for your existence is simple. The fact that you can do anything or think anything proves you exist and requires no further definition. As to all of known reality there are only two basic states, existence and non-existence; and any level of thought or action automatically defines you as existent. Therefore all posters on this forum can now rest assured that they exist!

Descartes said: "I think therefore I am." I often feel there are many doubts within me when he said that. Can I prove my existence? If the material world does not exist, how are you sure that the human mind exists? If both matter and mind do not exist, then, Descartes might be wrong. But to me, I feel I can never find a clear answer regarding to the question: Do matter and mind exist? Is there a physical world? I do not know. Does the mind exist? I do not know. But I feel Descartes' word might have flaws.

"Your question is meaningless unless you define your usage of existence". I agree completely. I can easily prove that I exist -as long as I also choose MY definition of "existence" After all, what does it matter whether other people have different definitions of "existence"??

"Your question is meaningless unless you define your usage of existence". I agree completely. I can easily prove that I exist -as long as I also choose MY definition of "existence" After all, what does it matter whether other people have different definitions of "existence"??

Yes, True, simple and logical. Existence can be open to many definitions and interpretations. Besides why prove you exist when an absolute definition of reality does not exist. You may exist here, and if someone is reading what you write here, then you probably do. But you may not exist anywhere else or you may exist in many other places; the proof being the frame of reference or reality accepted as existent - but since reality can never be proven why bother? Create your own reality and your own world, and if anyone questions it tell them to take there phony reality and get lost in it.

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

Intellectually, to me, ideas are not so much proved as all the other ideas I've considered have been dis-proved; what remains is what I am left to believe. I am left to believe that humans approach ontological certainty by the above process of exclusion. Of course, we do not necessarily affectively eliminate all of the other possibilities; but when certain, we do effectively eliminate them. We use "short cuts" like patterning to do this. (These "short cuts" are often exploited in marketing.)

I am left to believe that my existence is logically undeniable by me.

I can prove my existence by reference to my birth certificate and other legal documents that show that my existence is entered on to various registers.

I can be biologically differentiated from other persons by my DNA.

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

To me, nothing is really ever proven; it's just that all of the other ideas that I've considered have been dis-proven. What remains is what I am left to believe. My existence is implied in your question, and, as yet, it has not been dis-proven to me.