Yesterday night i spent a period of time totaling roughly 8 hours in an attempt to proof my existence. Initially that was not the intention. My actual intent was to determine the reason as to why in thought it is impossible to prevent the use of a subjective noun. An individual will at one point or another refer to themselves as "I", "me", "myself". The case is the same with referring to another or even when not intentionally directing a thought elsewhere, but rather making a mental statement one will use the terms "you", "we", "people" etc. I asked my girlfriend to write a paragraph about anything she wanted, but to write out every single word she thought in the process. I immediately noticed that she also used words like we, I, us, and people. My intent was to determine as to why I intuitively referred to myself in thought when in practice this is an unnecessary action. If i wanted to think of something i could simply think "Need to eat.", in place of "I need to eat.". I began to ponder the reason for this and in doing so proceeded to break down my mental process. The first query was as to who i refer to when saying "you" without intending to refer to another person. For example in the thought "You're not supposed to do things like that.", it's just as effective to state "Not supposed to do things like that." The English language forces the use of a subject when forming a sentence, but in a mental thought it is unnecessary for that action. The next point in my thought process began as an attempt to determine the nature of thought. It is obvious thinking is a function of human beings. Is it a necessary function? To deal with others yes. To deal with the environment yes. To survive yes. But in an isolated situation where you are the only "existence", will you form a thought? Let's return to the thought "I need food." You cannot form this thought as there is no such thing as food. Another thought: "I'm going to go *blank*." There is nowhere to go. Another thought: "I like *blank*. There is nothing to like. Attempt this yourself and see how many thoughts are practical when nothing exists beside you. I found none, or at least could think of none. This determines that in order to compose a thought you must have another element/thing to relate to in thought (If i am incorrect please correct me and stop reading, if not continue on). If thought requires an element to relate to then does this void the famous statement "I think therefore i am." or "I am thinking therefore i exist."? In this situation you cannot compose a thought without another element. So having a thought does not prove existence. A thought can only be formed if there are (2) elements in play. I found this interesting in itself because physics claims that every force has an equal and opposite force. Irrelevant however because mathematics and in relation physics is based on laws which are based on theory and non provable. This is because a theory is a thought and a law is a theory that has been tested to a near constant. This can change as soon as another theory disproves the law or replaces it entirely, therefore physics is an uncertainty (i will bring this up later in my thoughts). The point of this paragraph was to outline that cognito ergo sum is void as proof of existence. I think therefore i am? I think not. I am relative therefore i am perhaps. I next considered the concept of self vs element. Without the element there is apparently no self awareness or thought. To reiterate, you do not need to think if you are the only existence. For you are all and all is you. There is nothing to consider. No thought to form. No need for thought. Any thought is illogical and what is logic but a fallacy no? Oh YES, I went there. All arguments you make are invalid. Any argument is invalid. Everything is invalid. I attempt to explain why further below. I digress. To be self aware is to relate the "self" to "element". At least i believe so. Now i ask you to prove your existence. Can you? Most likely not. As me to prove my existence and i cannot. If you attempt to any argument you make is invalid as it would have a factual basis. Fact itself is irrelevant as nothing is a fact. "Fact" is based on laws. Which is essentially based upon thought. "I" cannot exist, think, be self aware, without "you" and vice-versa. If I cannot exist without you, and you cannot exist without me, are we truly separated? If existence is a duality then in reality both elements are a singular entity. Wait! HOLD ON. STOP. You cannot have a singular entity. I just deciphered that. Existence is co-dependent. Is that why thought is subjective? Perhaps. You tell me what you think on the matter. This truly boggled my mind and lead me to thinking of other topics into the morning such as a universal consciousness and attempting thought speak(speaking without the use of a subject) and the true nature of existence. My final hypothesis was quite a bleak proposition. If all existence is thought, and thought is co-dependent, but co-dependence is a singularity... does this mean there is no existence? All we have is an infinite loop of yes, no, possibly. You cannot prove you exist. It is impossible to prove. Yet, i am here am i not? I am real am i not? If it is possible to prove existence, I have not been shown proof. The logic theory of thought being existence is a fallacy. I think therefore i am? No. Incorrect. Wait. Can you prove the reverse? Can you prove nonexistence? With a resounding yes. With a near certainty. Is there a way to make nonexistence a law? Theoretically yes. Isn't theory all there is to go on? Let's go on to make nonexistence a law shall we. How do you go about doing this? How does one prove they don't exist? To do this you must ask: What is existence? It's astounding how quickly you can dissect the human language. Breaking it down piece by piece. Defining each word singularly. Finding the origin of each word. What you'll find however, is not surprising. Subconsciously everyone is aware of an ignored fact. Yes i said fact. The only "fact". Language is meaningless. Every word is undefined. Every language has no true definition for its words. It is an endless piggy back between words. I must have someone disprove this to disprove my theory. If you cannot disprove that every word has no true definition you do not exist. I do not exist. Prove my nonexistence is not a fact. Notice i didn't say prove i exist. I said prove it's not a fact i do not exist. Enough babbling. Let's prove i don't exist. Let's prove you are actually hallucinating and nothing is real. Let's PROVE, that you are insane. Words have no inherent meaning. In other words, every word means nothing. Every argument is invalid as nothing said has meaning. Everything i have said means nothing. Nothing. You think nothing. You are inherently nothing. You do not "exist". Existence is nothing. You do exist. But existing is nothing. Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. Cognito ergo sum. I think therefore i am. Nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Void.
I stopped reading after you said you didn't have to if you disagree, though I don't. So...I'm with ya, and this is why I feel it is of utmost importance to not think. Ceasing to think...i tell people this and then explain because this is when you start to truly feel. On top of ceasing to think, when it becomes necessary that you do need to speak, thoughts of mindless jargon do not infiltrate your head. Hate to be the first dude to respond and not have some totally philosophical ridden response hah.
I like your signature. I truly truly do. Thank you for commenting. In essence empty the monkey mind and achieve zen. The void.
God damn. How high were you bruh? Just playing, but holy shit. You made me rethink my whole existence. Why worry, when the worry doesn't exist? Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Nice provocative breakdown . Unfortunately i am limited to my phone so responding in any detail would take me half a day. I will comment on the existence part though. I would prefer you defined existence, but I will assume we have a similar concept in mind. First of all, to whom are you asking these questions and to whom shall I be answering? If neither you nor I exist, what is being communicated? In communication, there must be a time delay otherwise there is no distinction between the transmitter and receiver. In some manner, time must exist, otherwise the communication would be instantaneous and there would be no differentiation between 'you' and 'i'. From my assessment, all things that exist must first have the potential to exist and the potential to not exist. The law of non-contradiction essentially states that two mutually exclusive absolutes cannot both be true. If we existed and didnt exist in the same manner, there would be no differentiation between the two, there would be nothing. Since i appear to exist, this means i am not nonexisting in the same manner that I exist. I believe in an infinite potential, absolutely true infinity. All things thay exist, because they are seperated from nonexistence. A seperation of opposites in the infinite potential. If your existence and nonexistence are joined, you are no more...potential is.
You can can contemplate existing yes. Can you prove it? Cognito ergo sum is baseless. If you must contemplate to your existence, you are uncertain of it. You need to think about it. You do not know. Logically you do not exist. Illogically you do. It is an uncertainty. You cannot use the word certain in discerning your reality. You must have proof that those people who die were there at all. You have none except in memory and memory is thought. Sure you can confirm with other people who say the deceased existed. Ask someone who did not know them and they cannot confirm. Proof of fact is currently based on a consensus. Can you reach a 100% yes? The questions are directed at self at the moment of conception. They are all part of my thought process. Nothing is communicated. I placed text onto the internet. I direct the questions directly at no one. There needs to be no time delay. Time is a concept of relativity. A relates to B at a point in space. The distance between these two points is considered "time". In practice my post and yours are continuous. Can you differentiate between you and I? I state you haven't said anything and your thought is mine. Can you contradiction that statement. The potential to not exist is equal to the potential to exist. However I can logically prove I do not exist. Logically you can not prove the reverse. You sleep. You dream. Physically you are unconscious. Yet you are dreaming. The two are simultaneously occurring. Exist. Not exist. Possibly exist. The last is the only true option. Nothing is finite. So in a way you are correct.
i'm totally with you on this. i've been telling people that they don't exist and that i don't exist but everyone just looks at me like i'm crazy. as far as i'm concerned its impossible to prove that i do actually exist and its impossible for anyone else to prove to me that they exist. for all i know i could be hallucinating everything thats ever happened in my life. i could be an experiment for a higher being of sorts. i could be a brain hooked up to some crazy shit. i'll never really know. and that helps not give a fuck about a lot of things. because for all i know this life doesn't even exist and it never has. and when i die the experiment will be over. thats that. once i die everything and everyone that i've ever known will simply cease to exist. at least thats what i'm going with. for all i know grasscity is just some sweet forum that i thought up that now exists in this nonexistent life
Whether you exist in an external reality or in your mind, whatever makes you you exists at least in the finitude of reality. In potential, you both exist and dont exist, in reality you exist as a seperation from the opposing potential to not exist. After work ill put my argument in a proper format using deductive reasoning and we can go from there?
P1. For something to exist it must be differentiated from nothing P2. One can differentiate oneself from nothing Therefore one exists
Btw i too have thought about how we think is similar to how we talk. Ive wondered what it would be like to think without knowing any language. What if we had no input by any of our senses? I can imagine if i didnt have a language i would think using shapes and forms. If i was blind, would i even know of shapes and forms? Would i then think with sounds?
Actually its funny you bring that up. Its been stated blind people dream in sounds. And people who have lost their eyesight eventually stop having visual dreams and only have auditory ones. I have always told people that thoughts exist as images first words second. I have to ask however how does one differ from nothing when one is all and all is nothing.
In this instance you need to be able to relate to yourself initially before being able to differentiate. In which case why do you need to differentiate at all?
Thats interesting about those who are blind. My point is that in nothingness, there is no differentiation. All = potential = nothing. For there to be something in any sense, it cannot also be nothing. Everything that is, comes from this potential, but in the potential things both are and are not at the same time, so there is no way to differentiate between the two. You exist because you can differentiate. Everything 'you' experience is differentiated from nothing. What i am typing to you now was first nothing but potential, now that i am typing this to you, i have differentiated it from nothing, it now exists. I feel like i am being redundant as if we are talking past each other. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you are really getting at? Are you saying since all comes from nothing, what we call reality ultimately doesnt exist? Even if reality is finite, it does not mean it doesnt exist, just that first came from an infinitely present potential. When in the timeless potential did we begin to exist? We can only speak in relation to other things that exist, for in relation to potential, time is an illusion, as is existence. Perhaps if you consider the 'potential' to be all that is, then anything 'actual' is then ficticious in a sense. I am defining 'existence' as differentiated potential. I am defining 'nothing' as undifferentiated potential.
I'd first like to say, the use of personal pronouns like I and you is simply your brains way of organizing. You do not say "need to eat" because its an incomplete thought. It has nothing to do with English. It answers the question of "who" needs to eat. Fact is one person can be hungry while one is not. The second part is based on a false premise. You are looking for "proof" of "existing", however you forget the basic fact that the ability to ask if ones exists itself proves existence. -yuri
Lets put this another way. The fact that you can say "I" proves that you exist. Unless you want to change the definition if exist. But the fact is that you are an "entity" trying to "prove" that you "exist" thefore you must exist -yuri
I'm not trying to prove my existence. I was actually attempting to prove the opposite. In saying "I need to eat" why do you need to designate who is eating when it is a thought and the thought is directed at no one. I was asking how that is practical in a train of thought and if it was even necessary. In trying to determine why thoughts are composed that way I went about considering language structure in relation to thought. I just rethought the term nothing. To call something nothing is in a sense stating nothing is a thing to be designated as such. It makes me reconsider my original premise of even calling a thought nothing. Because to be nothing it must be something. So you can't truly have nothing... I guess its impossible to comprehend the state of nothing as there is always something. My mind is hurting from trying to process this and reorganize thoughts.
That still doesn't answer what defines a word. When our words themselves have no true definition just accepted relative concepts.