Your definition of existence

Basically, what would you define as existing? How do you know when something exists and when it doesn't? How do you prove that YOU exist?

Existence can only happen relative to something else. When something exists something happens, when something does not exist then nothing happens. I prove that I exist because "I" happened to you.

So you mean it's a matter of cause and effect? You can't have the effect without the cause, basically?

All you have said here was really true, I agree with you. Thanks for this.

But then again this can all be the product of the mind.

But then we must also ask how the mind works, because the gaps between synapses in the brain is to big for electrons to cross. so the function of the mind is impossible, but some think it can be explained by quantum tunneling.

before I begin to give my answer, it says "ex·ist·ence/igˈzistəns/
Noun:
The fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Continued survival." To me by registering to become a member makes me exist in this database as a member or else I could not be able to leave an answer. If I did not exist then how could I live day by day without being noticed at work, school, family and friends. I did not make my presence known do I still exist? To me the world is the way it is because of different reasons but most of all because of how we define things. if a person uses a word and two people defined it differently. Then this would be a game of semantics. The way we define things plays an important role on how we live, respond, react towards a question that is either given to us or whether we create a question for ourselves. Obviously if you did not exist then I would not know how to respond to your question.

Existence is an activity to exist is to participate in life activity, if you are not participating you case to exist. You exist only through your action. action define our being. inaction is a sign of nonexistence.

Degree of Reality

We use an example with five senses (or whether we have more than five senses), and because of these we can perceive things.

We don't know the farthest boundary of something, we just know something because we perceive it as far as ourselves.

If there is "existence", then this "existence" is as far as "existence" limits our perceptions. Or 'existence" is as far as we can perceive a part of "existence" itself.

If we saw "a stone" then we perceive "a stone" through our seeing. This was one of the way we could perceive "a stone". But for someone else which could perceive even wider, by seeing and touching "a stone", then "a stone" will become more realistic than for someone that could only perceive "a stone" through seeing.

This is what i call "degree of an existence" for ourselves. "A stone" is and "existence", but it has different degree of acceptance to our perception which may differ to others. And different degree of perceiving something has relation with different consequences.

For someone that has no ability to perceive "a stone" for the rest of their life but only by seeing " a stone", then someone can only perceive "a stone" AS REAL AS FAR AS the level of seeing with the consequences that relevant to "seeing".

It asserts that if we perceive something within dream realm through touching and even more, then we are already being limited by this thing, then this thing must be considered as reality, in the sense that, part of ourselves can be limited by the consequences of it, relevantly.

Somehow, if we are limited by a thing AT LEAST with the same consequences (whether through reality or illusion), then actually there is no different in between reality and illusion, including dream realm (in the sense that illusion is another reality).

So, which one is more real? "Existence" within dream realm or "existence" on our waking life? Actually it depends on how far for the "existence" in between both realm can limit our perception.

If "existence" in between both realms can limit our perception (whether we can see it or we can touch it or even more) then the "existence" is as real as it "existence".

What makes us degrading dream realm, it's because our life is mostly within our waking life rather than on dream realm.

If somehow we are living within dream realm even longer, then eventually we will anticipate the consequences within dream realm by making adjustment on our interaction on dream realm. At this stage, we may consider that "existence" in this dream realm is real in the sense that our actions can be limited by it's consequences within dream realm. And we will take the consequences within dream realm seriously. Existence is real as far as how far we can perceive it.

So, rather than admitting "existence" as real as measured by empirical experience on our waking life, better we admit "existence" as far as the "existence" can limit us in any possible means to our perception.

This acceptance will put us on condition where we can consider any possible things, relevantly and we can (adjust by) take(ing) appropriate responses.

Rather than considering there is illusion, we better assert that (it's another reality and) there is only reality as far as we can perceive it. It's degree of reality.

Sure, we can use the term "illusion", but at least we know the truth (proper) understanding behind it, to make us to be able to anticipate different realm.

What about knowledge. Is knowledge real? How do we deal with this understanding? Knowledge is real as far as we can perceive it, in the sense that, just by knowing it, it would be less real, than perceiving it even wider than just knowing it. Further through experience we can justify for how real a knowledge can be considered, more real than previous.

What is "existence"?

- Existence is, "what limits us"

Think you've hit a bit of a paradox there buddy.

To question your own existence yet your able to question, isn't this proof enough..

If you perceive something and its real to you. Then it exist.

I think that I exist because I was able to post this response to your question.

go to wikipedia and look up Rene Descartes.

It seems then, from all that has been said here, that existence requires an observation, thus an observer.
There is an age old question, often asked to children -- "if a tree falls in the woods with nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound ?" Well, no it does not. Further, if there is no entity in the woods capable of making an observation, not only did the falling tree not make a noise, it does not exist. Generally stated, if there is no observer in the Universe, the Universe does not exist.

Existence does not require an observer. However the lack of any observer (mind) renders it meaningless.

Regardless of an observer, the tree does move air when it falls. However, sound only occurs when that air vibrates an ear drum. That is, sound requires both the moving air and the observer's ear. Otherwise it is just moving air.

Does a dead dog exist? I can see the body, but he won't come when I call.

Interesting. I will need to think about that for a while. At first glance, my thought is that "existence" is included in set of all things which have "meaning" so what does meaningless mean when applied to existence. As a side note; i am also an artist, so closer to home, I find "meaningless without an observer" to be a very rich remark independent of our attempt to advance the ergo sum

Not trying to sound depressing but I do not think we could exist if we could not suffer. Existence is merely what one little bit of eternity is focusing on at any particular moment in time. As little bits of eternity the only thing that identifies us from the rest of the infinity surrounding and inside of us is the suffering and the release from suffering that we experience in the course of our lives demarcated namely by our bodies. We believe our bodies exist because we can feel them and the degree to which one experiences the intensity of the suffering and release from suffering associated with having a body is the degree to which one believes in the reality of existence.