Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

Discuss.

I think, so therefore I am.

No, the "proof" that you exist rests on the assumption that you can think.

Prove to me that you can think.

Prove to me that what you are typing is, indeed, yours, not you being controlled by a higher intelligence that can neither be sensed, nor grasped from your viewpoint.

(edit for the possible word-creation)

[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 11-13-2005).]

Whether my mind is my own doesn't change that I know that I'm here.

How do you know that you are here?

By what i perceive, of course.

Me in another post:

quote:It all comes down to descartes. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is our own existence, so we must choose our beliefs carefully.

We need to lower our standards of belief below absolute proof. How low one is willing to lower his standards is up to him and the way he was raised... Children are much more prone to belive anything an adult tells them, its part of their genetics, hence why religion is most often implanted at a young age.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

Me in another post:

We need to lower our standards of belief below absolute proof. How low one is willing to lower his standards is up to him and the way he was raised... Children are much more prone to belive anything an adult tells them, its part of their genetics, hence why religion is most often implanted at a young age.

Children have the same genetics as adults.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

Discuss.

Faith hasn't doubt.

Mathematical proofs hold, because the objects they concern aren't real; all we're saying is "if this object existed, and if this object existed, then the first object would be related to the second object in this way". We make certain assumptions like "a straight line is the shortest distance between two points" which are so simple and a priori as to seem almost utterly undeniable.

The same could be said about physics: what we're saying is not "there are certainly objects which behave like this", rather, "we percieve objects which behave like this, and from those we can derive these general theories of what is causing them to do so, of what these things we percieve really are and how they interact".

This is far more likely to be the truth than anything not inferred from things we percieve. If we percieve the world to be as it is, what reason have we to say it is any different? And on the off-chance that it were and that our senses were in no way connected to reality (which is actually literally impossible because our senses are a part of reality), what use would we have for a theory of something we can't percieve either directly or indirectly? And how would we test it's validity?

quote:Faith hasn't doubt.

Then a person of faith can not only not claim to be right, he can not claim to be reasonable. To not be reasonable is to not be human.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

To be entirely accurate, you can't prove that either. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and all that.

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

Children have the same genetics as adults.

Indeed you are correct, I'll save the sarcastic remarks for later. One's genetic code does not change over time, but periods of growth and regulation do occur at various stages of life. This is determined by our genes. For instance, take a look at puberty. A child cannot have children because their genes haven't programmed those capabilities yet. In this same way, a child's mind is like a sponge ready to take up the culture in which they live. This is not bull shit information, studies have shown--and I think i's obvious to anyone who pays attention--that children will believe anything you tell them. I take it that's your only objection to my post.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Faith hasn't doubt.

Notice the topic of this thread? "Proof."

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

I think, so therefore I am.

No, the "proof" that you exist rests on the assumption that you can think.

Prove to me that you can think.

Prove to me that what you are typing is, indeed, yours, not you being controlled by a higher intelligence that can neither be sensed, nor conceptable from your viewpoint.

Maybe it should be re-written. Maybe to something like "I perceive, therefore I am", or something.

I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

quote:Originally posted by Canti:

I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

NO

"You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil -- you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."

-- Dan Barker

[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 11-13-2005).]

I can't prove I exist. 'I think, therefore I am' is an outdated concept that hasn't been able to hold up against the deluge of Matrix-style approaches to life. Thinking is not proof that you exist. Thoughts can be nothing but illusions. We don't even know where 'thoughts' and 'ideas' comes from, how can we say they prove we exist as individuals?

quote:Originally posted by sii:

I can't prove I exist. 'I think, therefore I am' is an outdated concept that hasn't been able to hold up against the deluge of Matrix-style approaches to life. Thinking is not proof that you exist. Thoughts can be nothing but illusions. We don't even know where 'thoughts' and 'ideas' comes from, how can we say they prove we exist as individuals?



+1

quote:Originally posted by sii:

I can't prove I exist. 'I think, therefore I am' is an outdated concept that hasn't been able to hold up against the deluge of Matrix-style approaches to life. Thinking is not proof that you exist. Thoughts can be nothing but illusions. We don't even know where 'thoughts' and 'ideas' comes from, how can we say they prove we exist as individuals?

What are you talking about, retard? Descartes invented the matrix.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-13-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

Discuss.

We can't even really prove we exist, beyond mere perceptions that is; maybe we are simply creations of someones overactive mind.

quote:Originally posted by JewDude:

We can't even really prove we exist, beyond mere perceptions that is; maybe we are simply creations of someones overactive mind.



Then we wouldn't be able to think.

EDIT: If you can think then you are obviously some type of thinkning entity, therefore you exist. That doesn't mean you're a human or a 'physical' object but you are a 'something' that exists, hence "you are"

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-13-2005).]

God chose every action and thought I would ever have or make, and now I'm just watching them play out.

I don't actually believe this to be what is really happening, but I believe it is a possibility.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:



Then we wouldn't be able to think.

EDIT: If you can think then you are obviously some type of thinkning entity, therefore you exist. That doesn't mean you're a human or a 'physical' object but you are a 'something' that exists, hence "you are"





Perceiving isn't thinking.

A ball bounces.--not thinking

I see the ball bounce.--perceiving, not thinking

I declare that that is a ball bouncing.--thinking

Similarly(as a first person spectator):

"Me" thinks.--not thinking

I, the spectator, percepts "me" thinking.--perceiving, not thinking

My idea is that we are first person spectators of humans. We can not think, but the humans can. Hence my second example.

As I stated in a previous thread, arguing over Descartes is pointless, because no matter if he was right or wrong, it doesn't change much.

--On the other hand, nothing I do changes much because in just a wee bit longer, the earth will be incinerated by the sun.

EDIT: I think "I perceive, so therefore I am." is a good alternative to "I think, so therefore I am."

[This message has been edited by Inti (edited 11-14-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

Discuss.

No, you can't. You can't prove it to anyone else. You can only "prove" it to yourself, and this means it would be no proof as there is no one else to corroborate it.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

Who needs it?

The only thing you can prove without a doubt is that you alone exist in this moment.

Discuss.

If we don't need proof, why do we have courts, dumb ass dipshitted idiot? Jesus on a 19" pink dildo fucking Christ, you motherfuckers are God damn dumb.

^ He means proof with absolute certainty. Now proof within shadow of a doubt/reasonable doubt.

quote:Originally posted by Canti:

I refuse to prove I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.

haha

quote:I can't prove I exist. 'I think, therefore I am' is an outdated concept that hasn't been able to hold up against the deluge of Matrix-style approaches to life. Thinking is not proof that you exist. Thoughts can be nothing but illusions. We don't even know where 'thoughts' and 'ideas' comes from, how can we say they prove we exist as individuals?

You're an idiot. Sorry, but there's no other way to reply to that really.

quote:I think "I perceive, so therefore I am." is a good alternative to "I think, so therefore I am."

True, but "I think therefore I am" is still valid, and more general, because you could be not percieving anything but still know you exist because you'd be thinking "it's awfully dark in here" or something. In fact, this also proves that ideas exist as well, because you are thinking and the objects of thought are ideas. Whether sense-data are distinct from thoughts is probably debatable (and that's another reason why I think the cogito is better than your version )

quote:If we don't need proof, why do we have courts, dumb ass dipshitted idiot? Jesus on a 19" pink dildo fucking Christ, you motherfuckers are God damn dumb.

You're an idiot too. And it's twice as funny with you because you think so highly of yourself.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 11-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

You're an idiot too. And it's twice as funny with you because you think so highly of yourself.



You do realize you've just admitted to being an idiot, don't you? You dumb fucking moron.

^^^ I love how people realize how little they can actually effect someone over the internet, so they attack someone where ever they can, in this instance with grammer.

So fucking what if he doesn't have the best grammer. You still know what he ment.

Eat shit, Snoopy, but first, get off your high horse.

This seems like a nice philosophical question. I guess by proving that we exist, we need others to confirm our existence.

Verificationism eh?

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

^^^ I love how people realize how little they can actually effect someone over the internet, so they attack someone where ever they can, in this instance with grammer.

So fucking what if he doesn't have the best grammer. You still know what he ment.

Eat shit, Snoopy, but first, get off your high horse.



No, YOU eat shit, you can't spell.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:



No, YOU eat shit, you can't spell.

Wow, he misspelled like two words. Get over it. Excessive spelling errors can detract from what someone is saying, but one or two shouldn't make a difference, it's the content that matters.

quote:Originally posted by Mercury_firefly:

^^^ I love how people realize how little they can actually effect someone over the internet, so they attack someone where ever they can, in this instance with grammer.

So fucking what if he doesn't have the best grammer. You still know what he ment.

Eat shit, Snoopy, but first, get off your high horse.

You misspelled grammar twice, you poor jewish nigger monkey. Way to serve yourself.

Haha, self pwnd.

How come when I point that out, no one gives a shit, but when Snoopy comes in here and points it out, suddenly everyone thinks it's funny?

WTF

You guys just want favors from the mod's.

I made the comment before snoopy did. I really don't care for favors from the mods.

quote:Originally posted by Inti:

How come when I point that out, no one gives a shit, but when Snoopy comes in here and points it out, suddenly everyone thinks it's funny?

WTF

You guys just want favors from the mod's.

I'm funny and you're not, fatty.