How do I know I exist?

>>10023232
literature

Wish there was some philosopher who tackled this question. Maybe next lifetime

>>10023232
You don't, but what does it matter?

>>10023232
Check your ID and bank account.

File: 1500674982354.png (57KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 680x680px

>>10023249
>file name

>>10023249
Tautology

>>10023257
you post too much

File: doge_of_venice.jpg (74KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x849px

Who's talking?

File: panicdisorder1214.jpg (70KB, 400x290px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 400x290px

How do I know existance exists?

>>10023277
comfy signature desu

Cogito ergo sum

>>10023249
But what if he's actually not thinking and it is all an elaborate illusion in which it only appears he is thinking?

We dont know if, when and how this message will come through to you, but you are in a coma and have to wake up!

You

think

therefore

you...

is it Gilbert Gottfried?

>>10023232
Are you taxed?

>>10023409
even if there is a genius malignus i cannot doubt that iam the one who thinks, otherwise i couldnt even think of my thinking being an illsuion.

>>10023232

Believing in yourself causes yourself to exist. Disbelieving in yourself... is very uncomfortable.

because shitposters are never good enough at suicide. you're fine

>>10023257
Really makes me think, therefore I am

>>10023232
A (You) is all you need to confirm third-party acknowledgement of your existence.

Be very still, and very silent.

Depends on how the self is defined. At any one moment, what is "you" is just the sum of the trillion perceptions and thoughts that happen to be occupying your sensory and analytical faculties. Since thought literally needs time to function, this sense of "you" only exists as a dynamic flow, not a static "self". Anything external to the current object of the flow that you use to define " you" , ie memories, habits, and so forth, are only part of the set of this flow while they are being recalled and invoked into the stream of thoughts. What is "you" could only exist as a whole if seen from a perspective in which the whole flow of thought has been strung out atemporally, from some super-dimemsional standpoint. If I am deep in thought about an apple, and nothing else, then for the time that I am thinking about it, it is my reality. Other subconscious elements must come into play, but that's beyond the scope of this

Hmm... Just because you think doesn't mean you exist, like, we could be stuck in a simulation, and not be aware of it. The way your brain operates is really complex and we can't really understand it with precision. But once we do, (and we will, on a physical level, not in the generalized psychology or biology way), we will be able to create our own thinkers, virtually, I'm talking about autonomous systems that can interact with its given environment on it's own and do things we didn't program them to. We wold watch them, as they learn to adapt to their reality. Once we finally create this simulation, you will realize that thinking doesn't mean you exists, you do, but in your own reality.

>>10023611

Well how do you define "exist" then? How does the thought being simulated make it exist any less than if it were organic?

It doesn't make it exist less, it just proves that we ourselves don't exist as well, and that everything is in our heads. The fact that we can study our surroundings and describe how things work with basic physics rules, the fact that there are constants in the universe like the speed of light and that string theory has a lot of similarities with computer code, digging deeper tells us that the possibility of us being in a simulation is really high. Everyday you perceive reality through your sense and your brain interprets it, as you know this mechanism is not good enough, our senses don't show us the real thing, like we can't see all the colors in the spectrum, we can't hear all the sounds possible, and also our brain comes with a lot of biases from previous experiences and beliefs. You believe in what you want to believe, you believe in what you are able to belive. You might say "i think therefore I am", but someone outside of the simulation will either say "you don't exist because the real reality is the one I live" or they themselves don't believe in existence because they made a simulation in which people there believe they exist. So yeah, you get into this paradox of infinite simulations, and the only way to brake it is if someone escapes their own simulation into the "real reality". (sounds a lot like matrix)
Basicly... it's all in your head... *music starts playing* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU8HrO7XuiE

File: weil in marseilles.jpg (38KB, 530x474px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 530x474px

You exist if you are obedient to God's will.

>>10024403

Yeah, but what's the point of accepting something humans came up with as the truth?
Stop lying to yourself :'(

>>10024431
your the liar

>>10023232
You will go to sleep and wake up as the same person you were. You will, in essence, turn off and back on again and retain past experience.
This is how you know you exist beyond your imagination.
If you didn't, you could or would fall asleep and wake up to a different life, as a different person, 'every' time.

>>10024403
does she argue against fallor ergo sum? reference pls

File: IMG_2866.jpg (32KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 384x384px

i, exst

>>10024455

I'm pretty sure your brain stores information and that sleep is when your body stops certain processes so you can rest.
You don't cease to exist, you're just sleeping.

>>10024516
If you don't see how those pieces fit together idk what to tell you. No kidding you're just sleeping, which is exactly why it proves you exist. YOU aren't there, YOU aren't experiencing until awakening. If a part of you stays rooted while another flickers in and out, you have more whole parts than moving parts. You exist.

You can't unless you come up with definitions for the words "know", "I", and "exist" first.

>>10023297
i think
therefore i am
therefore there is a thing which is

File: 1502919037987.jpg (77KB, 500x689px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x689px

>>10023232
"I think, therefore I am."

Just kidding, Descartes did not actually exist.

>>10024456
I'm not sure to be honest, havn't read her too deeply. But she considered thought without action to be useless and self-absorbed, so she rejected cogito ergo sum. Her version is "I can, therefore I am," that is, I can perform God's will, therefore I am.

File: 2918323_orig.jpg (56KB, 337x506px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 337x506px

How do I know knowledge exists?

How do I know?

>>10023450
You're a big ego

>>10024854
But I can is just an expression of capability, to not be self absorbed it should be "I do, therefore I am"

>>10025978
I can imagine things doing stuff
That doesn't make these things exist
The thinking is really is the only grounding point

>>10026133
Are you trying to say if you imagine things thinking stuff, those things exist?

>>10026149
No because they are not thinking. I imagine them thinking.
At the moment they would hypothetically be thinking they would be a thinking thing and in the moment of thinking be

>>10026155
How can something hypothetically think yet not hypothetically do?

And if they were a thing that did not think, but did. Imagine they had a mind that was in a constant state of blankness, would they be? Or if they dropped in and out of that blankness, would they drop in and out of being?

>>10026163
>hypothetically think yet not hypothetically do
It can't. I mean if we were to assume I COULD imagine something that is de facto thinking and not just me imagining to think (example works better with computer program) it would exist in the moment of thinking.

>Or if they dropped in and out of that blankness, would they drop in and out of being?
You mess up between exist and knowing to exist. A chair cannot think but it can exist. The only reason I can know I exist is because I think. All else could be deception.

I.e. How do I know I'm not a computer programm or dreaming to be me? I can't never know for sure but since I am thinking I am a thinking thing and thus not nothing. Whatever that thing means. I can't even know I'm physical because that could be a deception. But the act of thinking makes me not nothing but a thinking thing and thus existing.

The debate is about absolute knowledge of what exists not about creating.
Me imagining things to think doesn't mean they exist. They actively thinking means they are a thinking thing even if that thing is not physical because it is something that has the property "thinking"
Sorry if I jump around topics. I'll try to straighten it out

>>10023232
Realize that you have free will

File: 1505228983254.png (8KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 277x271px

>>10026785
>free will

>>10023232
You don't and yet here you are nonetheless. Reason is a spook.

>>10023232
Kill yourself and see if you stop existing.
Or try philosophy.