All things philosophical!

Arguments, your favourite philosophers, anything!

I'll start:

You don't exsist; prove to me otherwise.

Who says I exist?
I was accused of being a clone earlier, so who knows?
Then again you should trust those who are seeking the truth but doubt those who find it.

I drink therefore, I am.

Psh, philosophy's subjective, people who argue about it get nowhere >_>

Having said that, "You don't exsist" is quite a claim. What's you're definition of existing then? In my opinion, as long as you are "aware" you exist, if only to yourself.

I think therefore I am, that is why I exist. I don't know, philosophy is strenuous on my brain. I'm here but what if my reality is part of someone else's imagination? What if humans exist for no reason? Maybe we exist because we can (my current theory) or maybe we exist to fulfil some niche. Does existence come with responsibility? Oh it goes on & on & on

More to the point, do you exist and if you do, why should I care? What's the point of you existing?

The glass may be half empty or half full, I can't tell because it is in a box along with a cat and a radioactive decay-activated poison which has a 50% chance of activating. As such, the cat has entered a state of both living and dead and the glass is much the same.

I exist because someone up there likes me, that's the only reason I can think of. I don't know why, though, alls I do is play Okami and watch Shaun of the Dead all day...

I exist because someone up there likes me, that's the only reason I can think of. I don't know why, though, alls I do is play Okami and watch Shaun of the Dead all day...

fullmetalangel:
Psh, philosophy's subjective, people who argue about it get nowhere >_>

Having said that, "You don't exsist" is quite a claim. What's you're definition of existing then? In my opinion, as long as you are "aware" you exist, if only to yourself.

But you can't prove to me that YOU'RE aware of yourself. For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

For instance, we now "know" that everything is simply vibrating energy, wave forms, yet we don't see it as such. How "aware" are you, really?

anyone else familiar with Kant's work?

Labyrinth:
The glass may be half empty or half full, I can't tell because it is in a box along with a cat and a radioactive decay-activated poison which has a 50% chance of activating. As such, the cat has entered a state of both living and dead and the glass is much the same.

Schroedinger's cat? While it can be looked at as being both alive and dead, technically it is either or. An interesting thought experiment, but dated. Also, the glass can't die...

Hunde Des Krieg:

Labyrinth:
The glass may be half empty or half full, I can't tell because it is in a box along with a cat and a radioactive decay-activated poison which has a 50% chance of activating. As such, the cat has entered a state of both living and dead and the glass is much the same.

Schroedinger's cat? While it can be looked at as being both alive and dead, technically it is either or. An interesting thought experiment, but dated. Also, the glass can't die...

I think it gives merit to the idea that i am the only real person in the entire Kosmos. Everything remains in superposition untill I think it otherwise

Yes, we do know these things. Look it up.

But i do agree, nondual awareness is what you're talking about there (you doing the doubting)

To not exist, I would have to be omniscient. As all I know and could know would have to be sourced from me. Being omniscient, I would know with certainty the nature of my existence. That I am unsure of the nature of my existence confirms that I exist.

By all means marry. If you get a good wife you will become happy, and if you get a bad one you will become a philosopher. - Socrates

How do we know that we are aware, and not just programed to think that we are aware?

Landslide:
To not exist, I would have to be omniscient. As all I know and could know would have to be sourced from me.

What if your mind only generates ideas as you encounter them?
Further, if the universe is finite, you are not omniscient even if your mind does generate a universe's worth of interactions. You're just very smart.

Landslide:

That I am unsure of the nature of my existence confirms that I exist.

Are you sure about that?

Ragdrazi:

Drift-Bus:
Yes, we do know these things. Look it up.

String theory is unproven. It's actually something of a stretch to even call it a theory.

Not string theory, quantum mechanics. You might not think so, but they are different

EDIT: To clarify, it's the space and energy of atoms I'm referring to when I say "vibrating energy".

Drift-Bus:

fullmetalangel:
Psh, philosophy's subjective, people who argue about it get nowhere >_>

Having said that, "You don't exsist" is quite a claim. What's you're definition of existing then? In my opinion, as long as you are "aware" you exist, if only to yourself.

But you can't prove to me that YOU'RE aware of yourself. For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

For instance, we now "know" that everything is simply vibrating energy, wave forms, yet we don't see it as such. How "aware" are you, really?

anyone else familiar with Kant's work?

Ha, a like minded thinker I see.
I could apply the same argument to you, which is why I added the "if only to yourself."
As interesting as philosophy is to me and as much as I think about it, applying it to real life is what makes sociopaths (or maybe sociopaths are actually Player Characters in a world full of sentient NPCs hence why they couldn't care less what they do to you).

I'd certainly be happy to force feed Ms Dahl the supermodel til she finally got a human figure back, yes.

Oh, sorry, I thought this was the Fill a Sophie thread

/getsmycoat

qbert4ever:
How do we know that we are aware, and not just programed to think that we are aware?

Oh yes, I love this idea and I've thought of it very, very often. In my opinion, the brain is nothing more than a biological computer. No supernatural "soul" or what not.
And, again in my opinion, you probably are programmed, whether it be because of a chain of natural events that led to DNA or because you are actually an AI in a simulated world.

Still, that doesn't change the meaning of existance, it just changes our view of what it consists. Like how water is still water whether you see it as particles of H2O or some sort of elemental essence.

edit: Also, about the universe being infinite or what not, if it really did start with the Big Bang (IF) then it's not technically infinite, it just goes as far as the farthest particles (of light, if that is indeed the fastest particle (if it is a particle) in existence) have travelled from the epicenter of the Big Bang, and since there's nothing to stop their momentum, it would be infinitely expanding.
That would also be assuming that our Big Bang wasn't just like a star collapsing in some massive macroverse and we're just the particulate detritus.

Why are so many people quoting augustine/descartes with the "I think therefore I am" argument. It is full of daring premises, such that it would be, for all practical purposes, impossible to prove these said premises and thus negating the arguments soundness and ultimately its validity.

The main problem with assuming that one thinks is that they assume they are the ones that are actually thinking. It is obvious that something we call thinking is going on, but we cannot say that we are the ones doing it. The "I think" statement implies what Nietzsche called an 'ego', meaning that something is doing the thinking rather than thinking simply happening on its own.

A further problem is we assume what thinking is, how can we discern it from a 'feeling'. To 'know' what things are we must compare prior learning to contemporary events, to know what thinking is one must do such a comparison to assign the current sensation a category. Meaning, that to know what thinking is we have to think about it. Logical fallacy anyone? Specifically a circular argument or begging the question. We can never know what thinking is, becasue we have to thinking about it to begin, which obviously isn't a valid method of deduction.

Finally the statement assumes that thought originates when we choose it. Using "I" in the sentence implies that you are the prerequisite to the action, and you originate it, when it seems just as logical that thought occurs for no reason, specifically not becasue anyone wishes it to be so. "Thinking" appears to force itself upon the "thinker" rather than the opposite.

Being an existentialist I see no need to build truths, furthermore I see all 'truth' as flawed as our senses are imperfect. However it appears to me that a certain 'feeling' or 'sensation' that we call thinking occurs, we cannot understand it or know anything about it other than it happens. A simple and pithily way to tie this rather axiomatic level of deduction up is "The only contingent certainty, is thinking occurs."

BTW The majority of the arguments I've put forward tie in with "Beyond Good and Evil" - Nietzsche. I'm open to a critique of my counter-argument to the descartes school of skepticism, if anyone would like to that is.

I've never really cared for philosophy (though I like the cynics and a lot of post-modern philosophy, mostly because its a mindfuck)

I am more interested in theology and psychology.

Drift-Bus:
For all i know the post of yours was conjured by my repressed thought form wave functions collapsing into matter. The more we learn of quantum mechanics, the more likely these theories are.

No that's just taking the observer principle to apply to you instead of you know other particles. It's not sentient observation that collapses waveforms but any form of interaction. Thus the universe we thinking creatures observe remains the same regardless of the sentient that observes.

Sisyphus0:
The "I think" statement implies what Nietzsche called an 'ego', meaning that something is doing the thinking rather than thinking simply happening on its own.

My brain does the thinking.

A further problem is we assume what thinking is, how can we discern it from a 'feeling'.

Not much, the definition thinking tends to involve more logical deduction while feeling more instinct. But there basically the same thing, we couldn't perform logical deduction if we weren't programmed for it.

We can never know what thinking is, becasue we have to thinking about it to begin, which obviously isn't a valid method of deduction.

Electronic and chemical reactions in the brain.
Possibly molecular or quantum reactions, but most likely just electronics and chemistry.

Let's have fun with logic, shall we?

Starting with some premises:
1.) I think therefore I am - You must be willing to accept your own existence.
2.) Existence is defined by perception and experience - If you perceive or experience something, then it exists, if only to you.
3.) Communicating over the internet is sufficient grounds for experiencing interaction between two entities.
4.) By writing this post, and you reading it, I am communicating my argument to you over the internet.

Therefore: I exist.

Proving self-awareness is irrelevant to existence -- That is the common trap for people asked to prove their own existence. If you were trying to prove your own existence to yourself, then showing you are self-aware is an admissible means of proof. However, to someone else, you need to define how you relate to their own perception of the world. Hence, the basis of the argument.

Drift-Bus:

I'll start:

You don't exist; prove to me otherwise.

Of course I exist! If I didn't exist, then you wouldn't exist...

WhitemageofDOOM:

Electronic and chemical reactions in the brain.
Possibly molecular or quantum reactions, but most likely just electronics and chemistry.

Since when were electronics and chemistry not molecular / quantum reactions?

Existence is subjective. Thus if you believe you exist then you do.

What do we think on morals? Do we think we should strive for the greatest good for the greatest number? Or should we operate on self advancement and self preservation?

TheUnionForever:
I drink therefore, I am.

I heard a similar one;

'Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder'.

EDIT:

jim_doki:

It's always up to me...

Now that's awesome.