Inb4(you, are the result of a computer signal flaw that culminated into a functional program capable of emulating human bahaviour)

Except your whole argument is brought down if I'm not really observing this. You can't observe something that doesn't really exist. And if you don't really exist, then neither do your messages.

Your argument doesn't hold up. Whether you observe or can be observed is a question of whether or not you exist. But since your responses are being observed, you exist. And that's where it all ties together. My proof only works when both you and I exist. But I have already proven that we both exist. I know you exist because I can apply the same proof that i used above. Since I am certain that I exist, then you must also exist as you are producing words that I'm observing. If either of us did not exist, this conversation would be impossible as responses would not be made. By proving my own existence, I have proved yours as well, affirming my existence once again and so on... But all that aside, if [b]you[/b] don't know whether or not [b]you[/b] exist, then no amount of logic will help you...

But it could just be I that exists. Or the other way around. In which case the other does not "exist". Responses and words are poor examples. They are perhaps the easiest of all things for out brains to produce. So if I talk to myself, does that mean that there is someone really existent answering me? You can I both know the answer. We can flit around the truth all we want, but we know the answer is and always will be no. Why? Because one intelligence can not exist as two separate entities, each with independent thoughts and emotions.

[quote] one intelligence can not exist as two separate entities[/quote] Yes it can. Taking a break from philosophy, lets look at psychology. Ever herd of John Nash? He suffers from extreme schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and paranoia. Throughout college, he had an imaginary friend whom definitely existed within Nash's mind. This imaginary friend had a separate mind, life, and emotions from Nash's and Nash truly believed that that friend was real. Even though his friend was never "real", he still existed even if only within Nash's mind. Another example is in computers. A computer (if advanced enough) can formulate other intelligence within its intelligence. (an AI within a computer creating other AI) Your argument is once again, invalid. These things that I am talking about are well proven, just look them up in a proper source rather if you still do not believe me. In fact, it is impossible for me to now prove to you that I [b]don't[/b] exist, but you wont see logic...

What is real in one man's mind does not mean it's real in all men's minds. Like I said, existence is what we have to form a line between what is actually and objectively real, and what is just perception and subjectivity real.

Not at all. It may not be real, but it definitely exists to the observer. Existence does not depend on "realness" as what is real is not always clear. And back to your original question, you asked me to prove my existence, not whether or not I'm real. Back to your comment, in philosophy, existence only requires recognition by the observer. [quote]“Thus when I think a thing, through whichever and however many predicates I like (even in its thoroughgoing determination), not the least bit gets added to the thing when I posit in addition that this thing is. For otherwise what would exist would not be the same as what I had thought in my concept, but more than that"[/quote] This was taken directly from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As I said, these things I'm talking about are well proven. Your argument rendered invalid once again...

But again, that's all subjective. Subjective is not reality. Objective is.