I Don't Exist

=== Responses === //When Pro made these claims, they were referring to themselves as the "I"// False. It's the other way around. When "I" made this debate they were referring to themselves as Pro. But since it has not been established whether the person debating now is the same person that started the debate, it can no longer be establish that "I" is Pro. Since is can not be established that "I" is Pro, it can not be established that "I" exists based on Con's arguments. //1) Only something that exists can make a claim about existence.// True. //2) The entity known as "I" is making a claim about existence.// False. By saying "making" you are already assuming that "I" exists. Circular reasoning. The correct word may very well be "made" and not "making". In which case.... //3) Therefore "I" exists.// ...does not follow. //Do I ? The claims made by Pro as the "I" were made in a temporal context.// You've done the same thing. In that very statement you assume that Pro is "I". Circular reasoning. //1) In the past Pro has claimed they do not exist 2) Only something that had existed can makes claims of existence 3) Therefore Pro has existed// This is true if we are speaking of Pro as "I", which "I" was but has not been established if they currently are. You know that "I" was Pro but you don't know whether that Pro as "I" is Pro as me. //1) Pro claims they do not exist// False. //2) Only something that exists can make claims of existence// True. //3) Therefore Pro exists// 1 false, therefore, does not follow. //1) Pro as the entity know as "I" makes a claim about existence (whether in the past or present)// It has not been established that Pro is the entity known as "I". //2) Only something that exists can make claims about existence (whether in the past or present)// True. //3) Therefore Pro as the I exists (whether in the past or present)// 1 false, therefore, does not follow. ===Arguments: Reasons Pro may not be I=== 1. The simple answer: This account may be passed off to different people to use it. It is fully possible for each round to be written by a different person. 2. The philosophical answer: What is a person anyway? What is an individual? What does it mean to be alive? There are many answers to this but there is one which, surely possible, would destroy any of Con's assertions that Pro is the same person throughout the whole debate. As I theorized in my youth and, as I later found, famous philosopher David Hume aptly points out in "A Treatise of Human Nature": "1. There are some philosophers, who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our SELF; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a farther proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be deriv'd from any fact, of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing, of which we can be certain, if we doubt of this. 2. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience, which is pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explain'd. For from what impression cou'd this idea be deriv'd? This question 'tis impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet 'tis a question, which must necessarily be answer'd, if we wou'd have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are suppos'd to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, thro' the whole course of our lives; since self is suppos'd to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is deriv'd; and consequently there is no such idea." Source: http://tinyurl.com... What does this mean? It means "the self" is an illusion because it is not truly constant. Every new state of consciousness is like a new being. You are your mind and when your mind changes your self changes. Imagine if a being was created that had all your memories and had your "personality" yet is separate from what is called "you". Would you call it yourself also? There is truly no difference between it and yourself at a different time.