I posted this in response to a guy on another forum in regards to a thread discussing the existence of proof. It's in regards to an essay he wrote about the idea of proof. I liked it. I'd post a link, but I don't think Dave allows links to certain forums. Here is the test:

if this is broken, it's not my fault (http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=4459)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BMW-Guy
Comments, suggestions, (and slams, too ) are welcome.

Quote: (from his essay)
Most things do exist.

You could probably qualify "things" as "physical objects" rather than the potential anything interpretation.

Quote: (from his essay)
But their existence is not contingent on whether or not it (it's existence) is provable.

Combining (paraphrasing):

"The existence of "things that exist" is not contigent upon whether or not their existence can be proven."

Therefore the "proof" of the existence of the physical object is utterly disconnected from its potential impact on your perception or ability to perceive - leaving you with only your perception (and no proof) as a gauge of 'isness'. Our perception tells us "these things exist", but how do we know it's correct? As you've noted, we cannot. So we have that proof is a fantasy and "tentative knowledge" is close to the "isness" as our minds can get. I think this is a fundamentally requisite acknowledgement given the nature of the relationship of a POV to its environment. Perhaps it is the very establishement of a POV (and thus its defnition) that is the essense of this limitation on knowledge as when one defines a point, we define that a circle could encompass that point and from the perspective of that point (you can't disprove that the incoming information about your environment has not been manipulated) In our case, we are the point and did not choose to establish it. It was established for us (birth).

Perception is the boundary of self and knowledge. You are a tautology established by nature - a perpetual/instantaneous redefinition.of yourself, made up by youself.

"I think therefore I am" is a statement of faith. It says "I believe it is reasonable to assume I exist." It is necessarily valid, or "reason" has no foundation.

"I have faith in reason" should be the fountainhead of both reason and spirituality. It is a path to unity that minimizes divergence to perception, rather than potentially unreasonable conclusions drawn from those perceptions.

No one has responded and I'm curious as to if people agree with what I've said, or if I'm insane, or what. Which is it?

I've read this several times, and as you know I am a novice "philosopher". I think this has helped considerably. Just in case you were wondering -- people ARE listening. Keep up the good work!
P.S I'm watching you!! (in other words, I respect our outlook!) :D

"can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind? The carefully thought-out answer to my "

It is interesting that just because of the possibility of a hallucination that this woudl discredit any ideas of proof.

If the hallucination existed and was shared by more than one person then this is proof of a hallucination to more than oine person. If it is not shared by more than one then it is proof of the tenuaous nature of our perceptions. proof it is.

Does seeing what others see amount to proof that what others see exists. It certainly does, maybe not exactly the same and I think this is a given, but proof all the same of something shared.

The need for proof has to be defined as to what proof is needed.

Certainly it is impossible to prove existence except that it or we exist. May be we don;t exist in the way we would like , may be we are just a very complicated mass halucination sustained in "God's" imagination, still it is proof even if a fraud.

It is of course impossible to prove that you don't exist no matter what context you use. The mere fact that context is applied suggests existence. It is only what existence is that is subject to debate not existence it self.

SO reality is some sort of dreamscape that is all over the place but dream scape it is and certainly in some quarters self evident proof as such.

So the question is not what we can prove but what we can disprove me 'tinks

Quantum Quack - can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind?

Exactly why movies like A Beautiful Mind sell so well

Maybe if you asked them how to do something that you didnt know how to do. And they told you, then later you checked it with someone else. But that needs the 2nd person to be real to prove the first person real

You cant prove anything!
therefore u cant disprove anything
therefore anything has a certain chance of being true, not 0%, and not 100%
therefore anything is possible
therefore its possible that you can prove something
therefore its possible that you can disprove something
therefore things can be impossible

and thats where my argument gets confusing, if anyone can add later steps, plz do

All you're doing is setting up a paradox alain not a valid disagreement.

Quantum Quack - can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind?

I understand your contention, and I agree from that perspective however from my perspective which is that everything is in some way a halucination means that everything is provable as such. The only criteria being whether it is a shared halucination or not.

"All you're doing is setting up a paradox alain not a valid disagreement."
i fail to see what is so invalid about paradoxes,

Quantum Quack said
"can you prove that the last person you saw was really a true, living/breathing/rational human-being, and not a hallucination of your own mind? The carefully thought-out answer to my "
It is interesting that just because of the possibility of a hallucination that this woudl discredit any ideas of proof."

therefore, no normal proof can even be considered, as they can always bring up the point "we cant be sure of anything, it could be an illlusion", ive tried to take that into account

There's nothing wrong with normal proofs or contexts either. Just that we are always getting into semantic arguements doesn't invalidate normal proofs or abnormal proofs.

My position is a response to such semantics in that if one considers it all to be a halucination then it is all provable. I don't argue the quality of proof only that proof exists.

In Alains context he or she is quite correct but so to am I. Just different contexts that is all.

Som ewoudl argue that reality is all an imagination any way, and halucination in it's normal context is just that imagination so I ask what needs to be proved.....that imagination exists or that it is all an imagination?

Paradoxes achieve nothing since all paradoxes do are contradict themselves.