How would you prove to me that you exist, anons?

how would you prove to me that you exist, anons?

can you respond to this post ?

Why would I prove that I exist

doesn't prove you are real desu

f-for fun

It can't be proven with deductive argumentation, but it can be safe to form as a conclusion of inductive reasoning. What could possibly be a more likely explanation?

You talk of me as "you", in your mind there is an idea of a specific other that produced the post you responded to.
I exist in your mind.
Your perception makes me exist
I exist

I don't have to, I know that i exist.
You're the one who exists only in my perception of reality. How can I know that you actually exist?

If my phenomenological appearance isn't enough there is nothing else I can do, mate.

Proof is a meme.

I would punch you in the stomach so hard that you would pass out, in which case it might prove you don't exist.

Impossible.
I can't even prove to someone that I don't exist.

I think therefore I am

fuckin destroyed fegget

>I can think of a dragon with tits therefore it exists

It don't work like that, pal

I can't, because neither of us know the sufficient criteria to "prove" such a thing. How can I meet an unknown criteria that you yourself do not know?

The thought of a dragon with tits created activity in your brain, which has a material reality, not to mention language and representation, which are also real for him who is presented to them.

and yet all of that is still not a dragon with tits, even conceding your unlikely true assumption that any image built through my imagination is codified through one exact electrochemical state in my brain

First you prove why I should reply to some automaton's philosophical question.

Empirically, it is certainly not.

nah I'm just a spook

All real living is meeting.

dude.... woah

I can't. It doesn't matter if we exist or not, though. Would it really change anything if we found out we didn't?

p1: If i do not exist in any form, then i cannot experience any form of existence.
p2: If i do not exist outside a simulated reality, and perceive a simulated subset of existence, (Eg, a computer program), i must then be a product of a reality in which the simulation belongs. Otherwise, i could not experience the illusion of existence.
p3: If i do not exist within the boundary and conditional parameters of actuarial reality, i do not exist.
p4: If i exist, in any form, there must, by extension, be an existence in some form to necessitate my ability to perceive and interpret it.
p5: Actuarial reality exists if i exist.
p6: If i do not exist, i cannot know if actuarial reality exists.
p7: If i cannot know if actuarial reality exists if i do not exist, i must exist as a subset of it, under it's parameters, in order to exist.
p8: I exist, because i am experiencing existence.
Therefore, if i exist, an actuarial reality exists separate from my experiences and interpretations.

What does it matter? All of life is basically just the individualistic perception of light and vibration. I am light and vibration to you, you are light and vibration to me. There's nothing that "proving" my existence beyond your perception of my being light and vibration that will justify it in your own mind beyond which you've already perceived.

well, it kind of would, i mean suppose everyone on here except me is just an a tensorflow script, i would lose interest in the site, we get oxytocin release in our brain when we help people, even if it's just saying "read a book faggot" or "stop being a pussy and leave the basement" etc. so if i was just saying all that to a fucking bot i wouldn't get the dopamine or oxytocin release and the site wouldn't be as addictive

There are literally zero consequences if it turns out that I do not exist. Therefore I am going to assume that I exist because it feels like I exist, anyway.

It's easier to prove that I don't.