If you have no idea whether or not you exist, then I would say you are confused.

But other than that, absent certainty, probability is the obvious next best thing. We use plausible reasoning all the time, in our daily lives, as well as in more exalted pursuits such as science and philosophy.

But how does probability help things? I cannot see beyond me existing and not existing as being equally plausible.

No, probability won't help you. You are confused.

You cannot deny your own existence. You can doubt its nature, or the nature of reality but you cannot doubt your own existence, its Decarte, “I think therefore I am”. You know you exist because you are thinking, aware. You could be in the matrix, or the dream of a god..but you are none the less thinking so you must exist. Your own subjective experience cannot be doubted, the act of doubting itself can only be done if you exist. Its the one thing you can be 100% certain about.
So no, the two are not equally probable.

Zero chill lol

In any case, I think this question is quite a deep one under the guise of an innocent enough assertion. OP, have you considered Descartes exercise to establish the existence of his own mind? Let's make this an exercise, maybe we'll both arrive at interesting ideas.

But Descartes only proved that thoughts exist?
He did not prove that there had to be a thinker?

It is, in my mind (pun intended), preposterous to suggest that probability can used to suggest I'm more likely to exist, if nothing can be proven at all.

I do not understand how probability can be used by others to suggest something is more likely that unlikely. Anyone any ideas?

Hahaha, love the pun

So, I may have to disagree with you here. Descartes goes beyond just that thoughts exist right, he implied that no thought can exist without there being a thinker. I'll also add an excerpt from the meditations where he says this:

"I am therefore a true thing, and one that truly exists; but what kind of thing? I have said it
already: one that thinks."

But even in your case, if he did prove that thoughts exist- it still implies that there is a thing that can perceive or have these thoughts. This at the very least proved to Descartes that he was not fundamentally a physical being, rather he was something that thinks.

Now for the second problem. See, while certitude is a problem that philosophers across the ages have tried to address but have failed. There is no shame in admitting that; as a discursive practice, certainty in philosophy has been long sought out but not achieved. Yes we do take things to be certain, but it's important to come to terms with the fact that we are the ones taking it to be certain.

But before I continue, I was wondering if you agree with I've said so far. I want to stop here because I don't want to go into a long-winded comment. I'd love it if other people would also comment here.

But Descartes presupposed that 'I' exists.

Nietzsche and others have suggested thoughts can exist without a thinker. Perhaps in a way that 'we' cannot understand or fathom. Perhaps in a way in which logic cannot determine. But can we say with certainty that we exist? Not in my eyes.

So Descartes suggesting that 'I think, therefore I am', only proves that he would be thinking IF he existed. But it does not go any further than that.

You're over thinking it :smile:

Breathe in, breathe out, repeat . . . . . . My 2 cents worth.

So it's certain that I exist? And it is certain that my thoughts are happening?
How can anyone be sure of that?

Is that a fact thought? Didn't Nietzsche say that Descartes' skeptical method and the resulting cogito, ergo, sum was not as radical a doubt as is presumed because even Descartes (without realizing it) was presupposing the existence of certain things like thinking, what it means to exist. From what I understand people say that Descartes couldn't overcome his socialization and brought some of it with him when he constructed his argument for the existence of the mind.

I would imagine that it still doesn't change the fundamental outcomes of his thought. That if thoughts exist, then a thinker must exist. Or at least thought as an act, must have at the very least an actor and an object? If you agree, then I think something can be said to certainly exist, no?

Sing a song, dance joyfully, cherish every moment

I'm just confused.
You're saying that I exist for certain? And that the conscious thoughts that I 'appear' to have are happening without a doubt?

I can't comment on you, but I certainly am. That I can be sure of

How do you know? Because you have conscious thoughts?
Couldn't it be that thoughts could possible without a thinker? Why must it be that they require an actor? Just because it's logical, doesn't mean it is certain.

I think the correct term to use here would not be logical, but rather that it is a priori known that I exist. It's a level of certainty that I can't escape because my conscious experience is fundamental to my existence.To me at least.

If these thoughts are occurring, I can identify these thoughts, remember them later, then certainly I am the one who's doing it.

Even if there is some aspect of this process that is beyond my control, my awareness of this process implies the existence of a mind that can be made aware of thoughts or how they are processed. Even a process presumes that there is a certain type of organization of elements that exists to carry out a process. If I am not an actor, then at least I am subjected to these thoughts with acute awareness of them. All of these statements presume the fact that a mind or some awareness is present. If it was not, then I'm don't know how I would even refer to an "I", talk about thoughts that occur in "my" mind.

The subjectivity of my personal/internal experience all of it presumes the existence of an "I" or "my mind" or at the very least "a mind" that is experiencing these things.

If I talk about it in the third person, I can only do so as an observe. So for a statement like thoughts occur without a thinker presumes a certain observation from mind that can make said observation.

Notice in all of these statements, I can't escape existence of some type of being. The nature of such a being is possibly questionable and we might not know that for certain. However, escaping the fact of existence itself is quite difficult I think

This thinking can come about because you are leaning greater weight on the doubt then what you see before you.

Why should you believe the doubt you have? If you do not exist, what is the alternative? You can doubt anything. I can doubt that unicorn's don't exist. It isn't worth anything though without some evidence. You know what existence is. You don't know what non-existence is. Why do you lend credence to doubt what you do know, for something you don't know?

But this 'evidence' that you talk of, if that's not certain in itself and can therefore be doubted, how is anything more likely than unlikely?

Anyone?

I've always been interested in 'certainty' and our existence.

Now, if we can't be certain about anything, even our own existence, then how does probability help support that we exist? — Tom343

It doesn't. To use probability, to evaluate evidence, to make posts, or to think and say anything at all, presupposes an agent that does those things. Since you do those things, you are such an agent and, unless I'm replying to an AI, a human being. We typically say that people, animals and anything else that we encounter, such as trees, rocks, computers, etc., exist. Whereas dinosaurs, square circles, and ghosts, don't.

Assuming you accept that model of the world, and use the term exist conventionally then ...

Surely I am as likely to exist as I am not to exist? — Tom343

... you can't assert something if you don't exist. At least on conventional usage.

If we cannot prove certainty, how does probability come into play? How am I more likely to exist than not? — Tom343

What do you mean by certainty and prove? Do you mean a firm conviction that something is the case? Able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case? Deducible from premises? Infallibility?

I am not a psychologist, but you appear to have symptoms of depersonalization disorder. Philosophy won't help you. See a doctor? I use to worry about such things but not anymore

Logical intuition reveals that it is certain that reality is not divided. Logical intuition also reveals that it is certain that the human mind divides reality into a subjective-objective experience. The practice of philosophy (emphasis on practice) stands on the axis or paradox (experienced as an inner fire) of these two certainties or truths. How this inner fire of what is and isn't ultimately true effects 'you' is your philosophical or spiritual Life (capitalized to differentiate it from the conventional idea of life as relating to biology or physiology). Don't give up on the fire, what is ultimately true (certain) eventually blazes through...

Anyone else got a thought on this?

So another JTB problem. (see also; The Gettier problem)

All justification is open to criticism.  All justifications pursued far enough lies on an unjustified/self-referential statement.  I don't follow the Popperian into a denial of Justification.  (Karl Popper, W.W. Bartley et. al.).  I do deny that justification equals certainty.  Just as Natural Selection doesn't evolve the optimal solution but rather one that is satisficing under current conditions; knowledge claims don't rest on absolute certainty but on a satisficing claim under current conditions.

So how do we know a satisficing claim?  The answer is:
(1) how well it stands under criticism. 
(2) On its utility in problem solving. (Does it work?) 
(3) On its internal coherence.  (Is it self-contradictory?)  
(4) On its external consistency.  (Does it 'fit' in a framework of other claims about the world?) 
(5) On its semenality.  (Does it lead to new/more precise claims?) 

From this we don't create some truth or certainity, but rather a judgment tool. We are no longer looking for some absolute fixed point, some Wittgenstein 'hinge' on which everything turns.  We are minimizing error, not creating certainty.

As for the problem of the probability of your existence, since you and I are compelled to act as if you are an actuality I can give no validity to the idea that you are not an actuality.
Probability of non-existence 0, probability of existence 1.

Surely I am as likely to exist as I am not to exist? — Tom343

Sounds like certainty to me.

So it's certain I exist? So why do people say Descartes was wrong?

So it's certain I exist? So why do people say Descartes was wrong? — Tom343

Because he then went on to "prove" the existence of external reality by claiming he could imagine an infinite and perfect God who Descartes was too finite and imperfect to think up by himself and who was too good to play nasty tricks on crazy Frenchmen.

Maybe God can play tricks on us. ANyway, feeling like one does not exist is usually caused by lack of serotonin. It's the same situation as someone who is both religious and scrupulous. There is no end to doubts they can entertain. These doubts are interesting for the healthy but torment for the bearer

Hi,

I've always been interested in 'certainty' and our existence.

Now, if we can't be certain about anything, even our own existence, then how does probability help support that we exist?

Surely I am as likely to exist as I am not to exist?

If we cannot prove certainty, how does probability come into play? How am I more likely to exist than not? — Tom343

I was tempted to say that deductive logic ensures certainty for it's a truth-preserving system in the sense that if we inject a set of true propositions, the premises, into it, it'll always spit out a proposition that has to be true, the conclusion. However the next thought I had was the Munchhausen Trilemma which basically states that we only have three choices when arguing a position: 1) Infinite regress of arguments each argument aimed at proving a proposition in another argument or 2) Circularity, the premises proving the conclusion and the conclusion proving the premises or 3) Assume a proposition is true without proof. None of the three choices are acceptable if we really want to ensure quality in our arguments and yet we must choose one of them.

You should check out Descartes' cogito ergo sum. It's the only argument I know of that's sound and the Munchhausen Trilemma problem doesn't undermine it because thinking is something that's immediately and directly knowable. The very act of looking for proof that we're thinking is proof that we're thinking.

:up: Welcome to the forum!