Vero, that's not quite true. While if he is a mental creation of mine or yours, say, he would "exist," he would not exist as a thinking individual, and I think that's what he means. If you didn't read the other stuff, then do.

You're right you don't exist. All you are to me is a bunch of text on a webpage that is displayed on my computer screen a series of 1's and 0's.

But, that's I all that I am to the rest of you....

Now whats really interesting is that all of you are correct. all of what each of you has made perfect sense to me. now what the real question is, is which one of you is right and which is wrong, and which is only half right...etc.

~*~Dust~*~

I did. He said "Disprove this statement." I did. Human psychological impulses also prove that you exist in the fact that a chemical reaction has to take place in a set environment for you to create a false entity. The false entity therefore he doesn't truly exist, therefore proving that he does exist. If I had created him in my own mind due to some psychologicaly failed impulse, then he is in fact part of my own conscious being and therefore "exists" in my existence. Now..since that wasn't the original question, the disproof for his existence lies in the fact that the environment recognizes that he exists. Others would recognize my psychological failings (hopefully) and then I would be analyzed and others would recognize the "existence" of him inside of me, therefore making a larger environment recognize him as an institution and co-exister with me.

so than by typing a conscience question with thought, he's showing he does exist...and not a figment of imagination...which could not type unless someone was typing as the figment, but even if he was a figment of someone else's mind, because that person believes he exists he would?

Your ability don't state the above makes it false.

If your quoting descartes. It should be I think, I am. because Because if it was a deductiv argument because the i could argue that "i love beer therefore, i am"

Yes, true, but he is saying "I think, therefore I am." Its the same as saying, because I think I am, I am. So you could say, "I love beer therefore I am." Though, that would imply that because you love you beer, you exist, or that you still are alive. That is why, "I think therefore I am" is correct.
And another view, "I think, I am" does not give you a subject so to speak. You think, you are what..you think what...what? But since you added therefore it is a complete sentenance, and is comprehendable.

hmm?

See, the problem lies in this... what if I didn't type it... what if the words on your screen are merely pictures inputted into your brain... think the Matrix .

The only certainty you have is that YOU exist.

I do not exist.

I get a headache bout this shit. I think about it everyday. What if the matrix is someone who realized about existence, and non-existence. The movie was made from their minds to let us know that something is "wrong", or something is false.

I have a wild imagination, forget it.

True. SirVLCIV may exist as a thought impulse, but still not as another intelligent entity. Unless there was a subdivided portion of the brain for the various people that you think you interact with. Then, they would be very real, and all would be projections of the self. But that might be a stretch....but a very interesting one.

Do you mean "Your ability TO state the above makes it false?" If so, that's wrong anyway.

I could say, "Well, I never could come up with those things, so since I never thought of it, you can't be creations of mine."

But that doesn't necessarily do anything for you, because you don't know that I'm a creation of yours, and you may have thought the same thing. Like I said before, its a paradox of sorts.

I brought this up in my science class today. I like my science class this year so much, theres cool people in it, which of most are my friends. So there wasn't any judgement, or at least very little. Anyway, once we got started on this topic it lasted almost the whole period. I basically stated everything that I could remember that was on this thread. We ended up getting into 'The Matrix', video-games, and then cartoons. It raised a few good questions that I will post later.
I also have no idea why I just posted a journal entry on this thread but, I figured it had to do with this subject so why not.

I also wanted to state that I don't like sckeewl, but that science is one of my two favorite subjects; my second favorite subject being lunch.

What descartes says is that i think i am and you can't put a therefore in between because when he proves i think i am he hasn't proved that we can trust logic.
What descartes is say is that we can define humans as things that think.

For your skeptical argument i don't see the point because even if no one else besides me exist. We still move around in this world as if there existed other people that is why it's not such a interesting question on its own. Because if you believed in it i don't see the reason for posting anything here, because you would know that you would only be talking to yourself.
And if you say i could be dreaming... well everybody have tried to wake up from a dream to and know that it was only a dream.

And you can't even state that you don't exist because when you state that you use your memory, but your memory could be false so you don't have any basis for stating what you state.

But, you don't know I have a memory. You have no knowledge whatsoever that I exist.

I do not exist.

And, Descartes said "Cogito ergo sum," which translates into "I think, therefore I am," "I am thinking, therefore I exist," etc.

Establishing logic as a basis of an argument is unnecessary when making a logical statement, as I don't believe it is possible to establish logic.

You can not PROVE the law of non-contradiction.

Ahh, but it is an interesting question on its own.
And if we did believe it, which we can, it is our opinion, there would still be a reason for posting things here. The reason, in my opinion, would be that believing is not the same as knowing . You could believe that once you got to the top of a cliff (that particular cliff being 3,000ft high) that you could breath perfectly fine (just like ur breathing now), when in "reality" with the "fact", or should I say theory, of the higher you get the less air pressure is acting upon you. Not forgetting that there is pressure (I guess air pressure) that is inside you, escapes through your ears (thats why your ears pop when you incline or descend a mountain, steep hill, cliff, etc.) to equalize the pressure that is pushing on both sides of you. That would make it harder for you to breath. Also, there would be, or might be, more pressuring ushing from the inside of you got that you actually expand..thats why once you reach a certain level under the sea you could spin your once perfectly fitting watch around your wrist.

And for the theory of this all being a dream..I'm not talking about the dreams you have ever night. I am saying, what if this is one continuing dream. Hasn't everybody at least once had a dream where you woke up from your dream and thought you were awake only to realize that you were still sleeping and then when you woke up the second time you were back in this "reality"?
So what if, our whole live..waking up living the day, falling alseep and dreaming, waking up and repeating the cycle; what if when we die we wake up fully and live our lives.
I have a ton of theorys that relate to this but for now thats all I'm saying.

I understand your general statement but could you please use more detail so I can respond. Thanks.

Your right you can't prove the law of non-contradiction, but every try to disprove it would need it to disprove it.
But you can't use the law of non-contradiction to prove that you that "i think therefore i am". The "i ithink therefore i am" if first voiced by descartes in one of the last meditations and i think it is doubtfull how good his argumentation is.

Ok here goes:
Well you state that we should not believe in reality because it could all be a dream. When you state something for example "It is all a dream" then what you do is you use your memory to remeber what a dream is. But your memory is not flawless, so how can you be sure you remeber what a dream is.

You can't prove that you doesn't exist you can only prove that we can't be sure if you exist.