User Tag List

First 78910 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 98

  1. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    The objective cause of thoughts is God.
    It seems this thread has come back to life, so I want to make sure I understood. Is it that you believe that since existence is due to God's thoughts, the fact that we exist means we are God's thoughts, and that is what you meant by "I think" in the statement "I am therefore I think"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Hmm. Not sure that you could ever demonstrate that in any meaningful way.
    Apparently not over the internet at least

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i am therefore i think
    I'm having deja vu.

    Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

    We had one person say that God's thoughts created everything, which lead to this belief. Is this what you believe too?


    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Thinking maybe isn't necessary for awareness (depending on how we define awareness). You can probably catch a ball or something without thinking about it.

    Your body does all kinds of stuff that require awareness yet you don't really think about it, like orienting yourself in space, but there's different kinds of awareness.

    There's awareness that you are aware of, as in looking at something and knowing that you see it.
    There's focus, which is being aware of what you want to be aware of and consciously causing yourself to focus on that thing.
    There's subconscious awareness. You're taking stuff in, and it registers, like walking through a crowd - you know it's a crowd without having to take in all the people individually and discern it. Something might also come out of the background and demand your conscious attention, like noticing a clown among 1,000 people wearing business suits.
    When I made this thread, I used a very matter-of-fact use of the word thinking...that is having thoughts....the ones we consciously notice. But people have been far more creative in their interpretation that I would have anticipated. Note however, that Descartes only need the very rudimentary and surface observation of his own conscious thoughts to be aware of his own existence.

    It is clear (to me, at least), that existence does not require having conscious thoughts.

    If my thoughts are God's and my existence is God's thoughts, well we are using the words very differently from the way people usually talk about thoughts. Perhaps it is true that the common usage of "thinking" illustrates an illusion. But, I believed, my original statement, based on the use of "thinking" in it's common meaning, was fairly self-evident.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  2. #82
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Apparently not over the internet at least
    I admire your stamina.

    Note however, that Descartes only need the very rudimentary and surface observation of his own conscious thoughts to be aware of his own existence.
    Not to be "aware", to be *convinced*. He could doubt everything else apart from his own doubt and what (he thought) that entailed- existence.

    It is clear (to me, at least), that existence does not require having conscious thoughts.
    It doesn't, but awareness does.
    This argument is more semantic than philosophical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    I admire your stamina.
    Thank you

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Not to be "aware", to be *convinced*. He could doubt everything else apart from his own doubt and what (he thought) that entailed- existence.
    True. He was aiming to be convinced of his existence. But all he needed was awareness of his existence for that.

    Unless he was deaf or blind, why doesn't "I see therefore I am" or "I hear therefore I am" work? Was he aiming at making an argument that would work for those who were deaf or blind? Why would he need to do that for himself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    It doesn't, but awareness does.
    Really? You cannot stop the voice and images in your mind and still be aware? Remember I was using a matter-of-fact definition of "think".

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    This argument is more semantic than philosophical.
    Perhaps, but I usually find that mapping the semantics can be a fruitful exercise.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  4. #84
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Sense data can be doubted. He doesnt know if he really sees or really hears. He could be hallucinating, or dreaming. He could be a brain in a vat.

    To be aware there must, of necessity, be something that one is aware of. That isn't necessary to simply exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    Sense data can be doubted. He doesnt know if he really sees or really hears. He could be hallucinating, or dreaming. He could be a brain in a vat.

    To be aware there must, of necessity, be something that one is aware of. That isn't necessary to simply exist.
    The content of the sense data can certainly be doubted, but that he had sense data cannot. Even if he was a brain in a vat. The sense data is one possible thing to be aware of. There is no need for an internally generated voice or image to be aware.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #86
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I'm having deja vu.

    Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

    We had one person say that God's thoughts created everything, which lead to this belief. Is this what you believe too?
    i wouldnt think if i wouldnt exist.

    i think its thought of a person(not god) that creates everything. im of course talking of the subjective point of view. now i think this creation has to be split to few separate things of creation. first there is the creation of our subjective view on things(creating our sense of world, which naturally is not what the world actually is), this is created by our thought(mostly unconscious thought tho). then there is the creation of what we as humans create to the external world(like build a house), there would not be creating this house without us having the thought/idea of the thing first, thus its the thought that created the house, not only because of creating the idea of the house, but also because it requires thought to use the tools and hands physically building the house. then there is this creation what you were talking of, like creating the solar system, earth and the whole universe. personally i think that we can never perceive this because we can never perceive things as they truly are, since it would require understanding things in quantum level, perfectly understanding the interactions between things, seeing the position of every atom, seeing where they came from and where its going etc etc. and because we cant perceive this, and only perceive things in very subjective point of view, its not the world that "god" created which we live in, but its the world that we created that we live in(even tho people often dont understand this and live in illusion that they see the world as it is).

    i think the image of god is really an image of the human wholeness, therefore i could claim that human = god. also i think that its the subjective world that we live in, which was created by the wholeness of self, the idea that some outside force we call god would had created this world is just an illusion, which on the other hand reveals some of the truth, but is more of misconception of the truth. naturally one aspect of what people call god is the platform(and creator of it) that we live in, aka the universe(including us), but i dont think there is anything supernatural with it, its just that things that we dont properly understand are said to be magic or god, because it has helped us in our evolution.

    its that being what i am is what enables me to think. thinking is what comes out of being an structure called human being, not the other way around(which is what the phrase "i think therefore i am" is suggesting)
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  7. #87
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    The content of the sense data can certainly be doubted, but that he had sense data cannot. Even if he was a brain in a vat. The sense data is one possible thing to be aware of. There is no need for an internally generated voice or image to be aware.
    What does that mean: " he had sense data"? If its a hallucination / dream then it is internally generated.
    I don't understand what you're adding to the cogito argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  8. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i wouldnt think if i wouldnt exist.
    Yes. This is the contrapositive of "I exist if I think" or "If I think, I exist" or "I think therefore I am". The contrapositive statement is true when the original statement is.

    Note that "I am therefore I think" would mean "If I exist, then I think" which means "I think if I exist". The contrapositive of this is "I wouldn't exist if I didn't think". Do you still say that "I am therefore I think" is valid?

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    i think its thought of a person(not god) that creates everything. im of course talking of the subjective point of view. now i think this creation has to be split to few separate things of creation. first there is the creation of our subjective view on things(creating our sense of world, which naturally is not what the world actually is), this is created by our thought(mostly unconscious thought tho). then there is the creation of what we as humans create to the external world(like build a house), there would not be creating this house without us having the thought/idea of the thing first, thus its the thought that created the house, not only because of creating the idea of the house, but also because it requires thought to use the tools and hands physically building the house. then there is this creation what you were talking of, like creating the solar system, earth and the whole universe. personally i think that we can never perceive this because we can never perceive things as they truly are, since it would require understanding things in quantum level, perfectly understanding the interactions between things, seeing the position of every atom, seeing where they came from and where its going etc etc. and because we cant perceive this, and only perceive things in very subjective point of view, its not the world that "god" created which we live in, but its the world that we created that we live in(even tho people often dont understand this and live in illusion that they see the world as it is).

    i think the image of god is really an image of the human wholeness, therefore i could claim that human = god. also i think that its the subjective world that we live in, which was created by the wholeness of self, the idea that some outside force we call god would had created this world is just an illusion, which on the other hand reveals some of the truth, but is more of misconception of the truth. naturally one aspect of what people call god is the platform(and creator of it) that we live in, aka the universe(including us), but i dont think there is anything supernatural with it, its just that things that we dont properly understand are said to be magic or god, because it has helped us in our evolution.

    its that being what i am is what enables me to think. thinking is what comes out of being an structure called human being, not the other way around(which is what the phrase "i think therefore i am" is suggesting)
    I agree with the bolded part. But "I am therefore I think" would be saying that existing comes from thinking. Are you sure about that statement too? Are you just making the statement that we would not survive very long if we were not able to think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Salomé View Post
    What does that mean: " he had sense data"? If its a hallucination / dream then it is internally generated.
    I don't understand what you're adding to the cogito argument.
    I suppose that it is a matter of semantics. A hallucination would be internally generated, and a perception of one that is externally generated, but both would be evidence of existence.

    The experience is all that is needed. I'm not adding much, other than saying that the evidence of existence need not have come from thought. It may require thought to recognize it and make a statement. But if I empty my mind of thought, I can still know I exist (and not state it).

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  9. #89
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    derek Jensen, in a book called 'A Language Older Than Words' says something to the effect of, If Descartes had had a lover in his room instead of a wood stove, maybe he would have decided that 'I feel, therefore I exist.' It's a valid conjecture, vis-a-vis this thread.

  10. #90
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    But "I am therefore I think" would be saying that existing comes from thinking.
    my existing comes from me thinking, because if i wouldnt think(at all or as i do), i wouldnt be me. i think you existing as you is also quite dependent of you thinking. also, there wouldnt be sense of I without thinking, so someone who says "I am" has to be someone who thinks
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

Similar Threads

  1. Walking, Breathing, Thinking Contradiction - WTH am I?
    By Penniless Abe in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 03:07 AM
  2. I think therefore I am....
    By ToniTheSlut in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2016, 10:11 PM
  3. What type do you think that I am?
    By AliceKettle in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2014, 08:29 PM
  4. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM
  5. What Type Do You Think I Am?
    By Mondo in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO