Your arrival here should call into question much of your existence. For example when are you? Perhaps you should only talk about yourself in the past tense. i existed.
Unfortunately it does but you don't want to know what. Jeezuz this threads an old one. Guess i should of checked the expiry date.
The only part of Tom's theory I like is where Tom would have to imagine God. Then he would have to imagine his imaginary friends imagining God. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
kind of ironic to ask whether we exist or not and then ask questions about whether we do ? I mean can the opposite of existence > non-existence ask A question Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Apropos our other discussion: if you are correct that you have done this, will you be able to provide evidence? But you were probably just being 'funny'.
In this particular case it would be necessary to establish the belief in question first. Since that wasn't done that particular change is lost to history. But people change their beliefs all the time for all kind sof reasons. One which could be proved with some effort would be to go to my family and establish that as a kid I hated onions. Then track down my ex who asked me to reconsider that and verify that I did and subsequently decided that I like onions. Beliefs are just mental constructs. Then can be effected by will.
Well, if everything else than me exists only in my imagination then; 1) I have good imagination. 2) My imagination exists. 3) As I don't consciously create the world around me, then by all means I conclude that it exists in and of itself. Also it has the same right to exist as I have. Everything is in existence after all, even my imagination. So, yes, we exist. If we exist only subjectively in my imagination or if you exist objectively (as I believe you do) is harder to prove though. The REALLY spooky weird thing is this: When we dream there are other people around too and it does seem like they exist too in their own rights, even when they speak they seem to do this without any effort from me. One time I had a dream where I talked to my father, and I asked him; "Is this a dream?", and he answered; "yes it is."
I can assure all of you that I do indeed exist independently of the subjective experience of reading this post and I'll be very offended if any of you try to suggest otherwise. Such audacity!
I think therefore I am This argument is no good. You cannot use the I to prove anything. It is using an assumption to come to a conclusionPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The only thing he could not doubt was thought itself - for even doubt of thought was thought. However, this hinges upon the existence of doubt! Since doubt is a type of thought, his argument is circular, and therefore flawed.Descartes was wrong and so are you if you use this argumentPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You've misunderstood the meaning. He wasn't using "the I" to prove anything. Exactly his point. No it doesn't. Um, no and no. Guess who's really wrong.
After reading the OP (and none of the rest of the thread; sorry, I'm tired and a douche), I'll respond with: I can't prove to myself that I exist. I can believe it, and use rationalism and let innate, natural desire be sufficient enough to not debate it anymore. I can't use evidence of my existence to prove that I exist, because all this evidence is found within the system, the assumption that I exist. If I don't, then this evidence is completely null and void. I can experience the sensation of consciousness, which is subjectively viewing a viewing subjectivity, but what if I'm actually living in a realm of illogicality, where indeed 1's equaling 2's and square circles run about is Objective Truth. In other words, any possible argument for the consciousness of one's self (or any attack on any "objective reality") is weighed by the listener using rationalism or logic, tools that are innate in, or learned by, our consciousness. If there is no consciousness, then whatever viewpoints a perceived consciousness has are invalid: "I think, therefore I exist." You're assuming that there is an "I" to be experiencing it. "But there is one, here I am, thinking." ...unless you aren't experiencing it. "But, subjectively, from my point of view, I can feel it myself experiencing it.". Can you see how it's still an assumption, and not really an argument? Now, to your theory: I can imagine pink dolphins, and I can image a totality of nature that encompasses no pink dolphins. Your theory breaks the second law of logic, so...
