Existence

Why do people get so mad when i try to argue that there is a possiblity that humans dont exist, they get mad as if they are scared of something.

Because it’s an attack at one of their most basic assumptions.

Well argue away. However being human if I don’t exist I cant argue back now can I?

Actually, it’s part of their argument, as in “I’m mad, therefore I am”.

i see, but like they say that certain thing cant exist for certain reasons, like one person said that numbers dont exist because their only a representation, so i said well the human body is only a represention of ourselves so do we not exist.

Oh sure as if not existing would stop you. I don’t believe that for a moment. You would probably argue when you are passed out, Ok so would I and half the people here. We all probably argue withourselves at least once a day and is that fly still there? Oh and if you don’t exist you don’t have to worry about that tile. Let it set itself. :laughing:

I guess the real question to ask here is that: if the body is only a representation of the human, then it is not the body that is in question of existence, but the human, right? Hence, “I think therefore I am” has been produced as a sort of proof, right?
Thought has been related to light, as a thought process involves photon annihilation. Photons in EMR blink in and out of spacetime and also use photon annihilation. Every photon has a matching pair that separates and travels across the universe away from its original pair mate, yet when one of the photons in a pair is annihilated in each thought process, the other is annihilated simultaneously, regardless of each photon’s location in the universe. The fact that they are connected through their use of Planck’s Constant and their blinking in and out of space time through this constant, suggests the existence of the world of timelessness. Which also means the world of timelessness does exist.
Thought and light using the same causality and ability to influence particles in defiance of spacetime/distance is something to consider in the existence of thought, ie consciousness, as well as the suggestion that the eternal is timelessness.
So if we are pondering our existence, are you talking about the physical macro composite existence of mass, ie, the body, or the existence of energy/light/thought/consciousness/soul and the eternal realm of timelessness in which all our quanta are rejuvenated on a permanent and regular basis? What is the argument behind thought being the proof of existence, and what realm of existence is this idea of “thought” necessary? Is the occurance of “thought” proving existence in the realm of time/mass/space or timelessness? Mass- or non-mass.
Does existence require mass? If so, why? Does existence require permanence? IS timelessness permanent? Can consciousness exist outside of mass/space/time? Who are we when/if we are not just a body of mass? Are we human outside the species of the human body?
I guess these are my questions about our actual existence, and in a nutshell, which level of existence are we asking for proof of here? Our mass or our energy/consciousness?

It angers people because they understand the cogito in some form or another. Even if the conception of I am is wrong the basis that I think is true.

i dont that mass is required for something to exist either, but just because you think doesnt mean you are really thinking, what if your just programed to think, when in reality if someone want they can just delete you and the world would on on unchanged, as if you were never there? But i do beleive humans exist, i just dont like how humans claim things to exist and no exist because they believe they made them up, and then when the same methods that can be used to prove things dont exist are used on humans they mad

Ok, so what are the philosophical requirements for existence so we can apply them to the human body or the human consciousness? Recognition? If recognition is required, recognition by who/what?

I’m just gonna finish the sentence…
existence preceeds essence.

Internally or externally?

both, i believe that as long as you think it, it exist because it exist in your mind, even if it doesnt exist on the physical plane for all to see or view.

Don’t we exist physically rather primitively even though our actions may be conceived insignificant? In my beliefs of physicalism ultimately I think our physical actions exist to some degree even though such actions only have merit by those perpetuating them.

I agree that internally anything we think of is meaningless beyond ourselves as there is nothing seperated from the oberver to appreciate our actions although on the otherhand I do believe people can have appreciation in creating meaning for themselves even if others or anything else doesn’t recognize it.

Hmm, interesting idea in the idea of “insignificant” Does existence also require significance, and if so, what separate existence deems something significant? Kind of like if the tree falls in the forrest, did it make any sound if nobody was there to hear it- Besides, for a thing to be considered significant, there would have to be a basis of existence to compare it to. So does that mean that existence requires more than just one piece of something- there must be a whole realm of existing things-right?
Does anybody have the actual answer for the philosophical baseline the determines existence? I haven’t seen that answer posted yet, so I thought I’d ask once more. Like I said, I’m not currently a student-haven’t been for years- but always pondering and would appreciate somebody’s formal philosophy education to tell me the baseline for existence. -THX.