umm… 
… 
… ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
How can you know you have met your needs or haven’t? I don’t know, not making sense to me either. Please elaborate Mr. Sangrain.
Mabe if we solve it, we will be in the top 2%. 
By the way, whats the name of that book?
You can be sure that your something simply because your thinking. You can be sure that there is also something because your thinking about it.
Logic puzzles 2, printed by pocket puzzles.
here is an example.
the easiest way to solve this type of puzzle is to use this type of graph. Using this graph allows you to make complex inferences that you would not be able to make easily otherwise.
how can one prove the existence of ones self using ones own reason when ones self and therefore reason is that which is in question?
Thanks Wonderer, will look into that.
If you don’t exist, how can you reason? Or think? Or question? Your doing those things right now, therefor you must exist. Of course I can’t know if your doing those things, but you can.
[/quote]
You can be sure that your something simply because your thinking. You can be sure that there is also something because your thinking about it.
[/quote]
[/quote]
how can one prove the existence of ones self using ones own reason when ones self and therefore reason is that which is in question?
[/quote]
[/quote]
If you don’t exist, how can you reason? Or think? Or question? Your doing those things right now, therefor you must exist. Of course I can’t know if your doing those things, but you can.
[/quote]
not to sound like a dick but I don’t think you read my previous response carefully because you basically said I think therefore I am, I questioned that statement and then you basically said I think therefore I am again.
i question therefore i am.
Your own questioned answered itself. You have to exist because your doing those things, I really don’t think I can put it another way. If you were nonexistent, you wouldn’t be thinking right now. The mere fact that you are thinking proves you exist. There is definately something because your thinking, weither it be an illusion or something entirely different, your still something because your thinking.
change, ask yourself this.
Imagine creating a thinking robot. programming things like curiosity, pleasure logic and choice.
Then watch that robot live out its life…
Though the robot might not have conscious thought like you or me, he still exists doesn’t he?
come to think of it, we are not unlike robots ourselves, do we not exist like a robot?
If you’re looking to answer a question like, do i exist?..
… are you talking about the materials with which you are made? are they an illusion?
Are you talking about your mind? Not unlike programming, your consciousness is compromised of an ID (basic drives) facilitated and employed by an ego, which is directed by a super-ego. (if i remember my psychology right), so what separates the mind of a robot from our own?
Our brains perform logic when certain braincells intake certain Nero chemicals and then spit out certain other ones.
And example to show this is that most drug abuse results in something called “re-uptake”. this is when the braincell goes to spit out some chemicals, but the same chemicals that it just spat out get sucked in again, which is a defect.
This is what can cause a drug addict to exhibit highly illogical behavior and thought.
If you created an artificial intelligence, would you not say that it exists? even if it is created within an illusory world, even if we do not fully understand it, even if we do not fully understand ourselves.
Think to yourself… think… the only thing you really can know exists is yourself; your mind.
I will say that I think therefore I am Is likely the best answer we’re gonna find to my question. However, starting from " I know nothing" and then moving to “I think therefore I am” like descartes did seems wrong. Saying you can know that you are because you think is based on the assumption that your human logic is even valid, something you cannot know for sure. Just like we would say that our logic is superior to the logic of a mouse is it not possible that there is a logic superior to our own? There are conclusions a mouse may make which we would say are wrong. The conclusions would seem perfectly logical to the mouse. Our conclusions, though logical to us, may not be so logical to other “superior beings” not even necessarily a supreme being. So that something like “I think, therefore I am” is nothing more than a product of human reason which in itself is something we cannot be certain of.
Descartes; I do not concur. Lol.
What particular thing do you want to know for sure?
anything. Knowing any one thing for sure would mean that I can in fact “know.”
you know something exists. There’s really much else to be said here. How about we discuss why you can’t know anything else? In my first post here I introduced a potent argument against most claims to knowledge.
Choose a particular thing then…
I believe I have found my answer in this post. Unless anyone disagrees with the logic.
For one, you’re using logic and comparing it to a mouse. We don’t know how much logic the mouse is actually capible of using because we are not the mouse. We can only observe the choices the mouse makes. And forget about the socrates quote, he does know something, that he is something. How do we know we even have the ability to use logic? It’s because we use it. I am something because I can think, even if this is all not real, I’m still something. This is all based on the simple fact that I’m thinking, even if what I’m thinking is all false. I’m still thinking, so I am something.