Define what you mean by existence. ex·is·tence (click to hear the word) (g-zstns) n. The fact or state of existing; being. be·ing (click to hear the word) (bng) n. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence. Notice that being refers to existence, and existence refers to being....I guess you have to be there to know what existence really means.
Optional......I see you can read. I am glad to see the brain was not optional too You are one funny dude..... But where is your proof you exist? Mere quoting of a dictionary does not do this subject justice. That does not explain your thoughts at all. Unless you are actually Miriam Webster?
What is the definition of proof? proof (click to hear the word) (prf) n. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Since all proofs are understood in the mind, all proofs are DEPENDENT upon the mind. When the mind is not there, there can be no process of proof. The argument then becomes circular, as you need proof that the mind actually exists, and then you get back to the definition of existence. The way the game is played, is you first assume one thing without proof, because it is self-evident (or because everyone playing the game agrees with the first assumption). Then you build from there. All of these games are played with the rules of logic, on the field on the human mind. However, logic has no external proof of its accuracy nor a proof that it reflects that which considered real, from an epistemological perspective. A man can never know that he is not in a state of delusion versus reality, as all his efforts to confirm reality could be a delusion. Compeletly circular. So we develop epistemology: e·pis·te·mol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pst-ml-j) n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. However, epistemology was created out of a concept (mind) and constructed according to certain rules (logic) so again it all become circular at some point. I remember discussing this when I was a teenager with my aunt. She was a very practical woman. She just looked at me and said: "Boy, you aren't right in the head." It is the nature of the intellectual mind to doubt, it is the nature of the heart to believe.
When I was a teenager and taking Existentialism 101, I came up with a weird theory. There was actually no way that I could prove that anything really existed beyond me. That everything else did not exist except for me perceiving it. Because everything could be my imagination at work. As an older person, I find it kind of quaint and self centered a theory. Children have such big egos. All I know for sure is one day I and everyone around me will die. And maybe then I will find out the answer to life.
As long as it's math... it's fine... But... That's just what people have accustomed to as a common vehicle for proof... So... Can the mind be quantified? Can God be quantified? Can Existance be quantified? Ummm... There can only be a rational reasoning based on math which is more symbolic than quantative... So... There can be no proof in these matters... Like what I say above is no proof but just my rational reason which doesn't make sense to others....
Opt777, Have we ever disagreed? I can't remember an instance. In any case, I agree with you now. I am glad to see an intellectual trader here at Elite because there have been times when I have doubted their existence. -rlb