Is it possible to prove that you exist?

And thought is me.

>I don't care if God exists, it's childish anyway - it doesn't matter.

Sounds familiar?

Only if you define "me" as "thought that exists in one microinstant" and does not factor in anything else, including identity or anything else traditionally associated with it, at which point you may as well just leave the definition as "thought."

You are certainly welcome to try, just be warned I my try out my less than logical proof of the AR-15

What do you mean it presupposes reason?

This is bullshit. Of course you exist, you wouldn't think about existing if you didn't.

People I have WATCHED people fat people EXPLODE!

youtube.com/watch?v=8bMpFWNVAVc

this is how i know I exitst

i think that that definition of "me" is fine

How can an unreasonable entity exist without existing?

I think we've proven that we exist during the present

The problem is proving that we have previously existed and/or continue to exist after this moment

Like fictional character? You can write all of their thoughts, doesn't mean that they are one who is doing cogito.

Ok, so lets suppose their is a creator of some kind, external to this reality

That creator puts a bunch of variables, constants and algorithms in place to create a reality. He presses play on reality and watches it grow from a "big bang". The first piece of information that is processed through a "mind" is the first "thought". That first thought is the result of a set of predetermined values that were seemingly randomly amalgamated as reality progressed down its timeline. That thought is then not original from the mind of the thinker because the thinker did nothing to create that thought other than exist. He supposedly did not create himself so he cannot claim originality.

With all that in mind, he still exists within his reality.
The fictional character still exists within his story.

I kek therefor I am.

(holy shit, my sides...)

there*

fuck me

Well, some could argue that characters actually exist only in the minds of a audience, not in the story itself. Like there is only pepe in a pictures when someone look at them. Without a viewers imagination there are only blobs of paint. *You* could be the same imaginative entity close to a non-existence by all standards except the most broad ones, like that where everything just exist.

Am I the hero or the villain of this story?

I'm fairly certain we're both NPC's.

...and I don't even have a good item shop.

But I gave out a quest, once.

buena

We don't know.

Are you saying things don't exist when no one perceives them?

>thinking about whether your thoughts exist

And you wonder why people make fun of philosophy students.

Yes we get it. More guns = wez all be safer guies

is it possible to prove proof of existence?

Only to yourself.

What do you mean by "you" and "exist"? What would it take for it to be proven, and to whom?

Scientifically yes, philosophically no.

Who's asking?

you exist within your own imagination and universe and with those who coincide with you

Cogito ergo sum?

Come on that's literally presupposing reason as user said

Lmao this. I'm not going to look down on philosofags like others here do but you guys are so far up in the clouds it's ridiculous.

Define definitions >
Define exist >
Patterns + context
???
"contemplate"
"Ask"
"Questions"
"Do I exist"
"Desired awnser?"
"Premise > existing is good"
"Good"
Context
"Pattern"

Perspective, etc

Do you truly not understand the concept of cogito ergo sum? You know that you are thinking. Whether free will is an illusion, or whether you are just plugged into the matrix and this world isn't real doesn't matter. For you to experience your thoughts there has to exist something that does the experiencing, that something is you.

It's enjoyable up here

sure familiar but it still is not something worth caring about.

Reject the two times two equals four, prove that you are alive

counter point: Is it possible to prove that I don't exist?

"I think therefore I am"

I believe that because we have the ability to think, either by free will or not, then we have to exist. Even if we are in a "Matrix" setting or if we are all a figment of someone else's imagination. We exist in some form, maybe just not in the reality we perceive.

Yes. Touch yourself. Again.

Who are you proving it to?
I find it is impossible to prove anything because the other person is always free to just ignore what you said.

>we are going to assault you because you have undercut our new age philosophies
>we will defame you and make you look like a retard for defending yourself and not letting us attack you
Stay mad, cuck.

>I'm not going to look down on philosofags
But we are going to look down on you...
If you looked down on us, you'd be seeing things, if we looked down on you, we are merely opening our eyes.

Come on up the weather is fine.
>presupposing you can discern a thought or even that you are thinking without presupposing a method of discernment

Your brute forms refutation wont work on me, Johnson!
t. not Hume

Probably not but everything else acts as if I do exist, so in practice it is as if I do exisy

who cares if i dont? im having an alright time regardless

Prove? Yeah, observation.

Yes I exist.

If you're in doubt of this I can kick you in the nuts until you're convinced I'm real.

You don't exist.

Since I am not being kicked in the nuts right now, I've proved you don't exist. :)

I would say that me being able to perceive myself as existing is enough proof. The real question is if anything outside my own self exists.

Actually if I wasn't real I would be able to phase wherever to punch you in the nuts.

My being unable to know where you and your balls are is proof of my independence from your own consciousness.

But your posts could very well be merely auto-generated text by some computer somewhere, for all I know, non-existent person :)

It doesn't actually matter if we exist or not. What matters is that we think we exist, but whether it's actually true or not is irrelevant.

>presupposes reason
So? Every proof needs axioms, and you can't coherently deny reason

What do you mean?