I think therefore I am?

[ygolo]

That's not what I believe, though.

So you believe that rocks exist, and don't think, but that being implies thinking? Can you elaborate?

It still is false but I'm not looking at the statement being false. We already covered this and I'm beginning to repeat myself... :hi:

Repetition is the mother of learning. Sometimes two things that seem the same at a superficial level, are not the same in actuality.

That they are being made? It seems? That they are a predicate, and a predicate modifies a subject - not the subject contained in the statement but in this case it's the subject making the statement.


No, but I can conclude that they are making statements, which is a predication.


Yes it's possible and I haven't tried to say otherwise.


Things still predicate even virtually.

Well, this notion of predication is strange to me.

A thought was made. Therefore there was thinking. Whether the thought was "I think therefore I am" or the thought was "I am therefore I think" there was a thought and therefore a thinker. Is that what you are getting at?

The logic is still "I think therefore I am." However, even thinking that "I am therefore I think", as erroneous as that may be, is evidence of existence.

Am I getting any closer?

 

[sprinkles]

Repetition is the mother of learning. Sometimes two things that seem the same at a superficial level, are not the same in actuality.

Well, this notion of predication is strange to me.

A thought was made. Therefore there was thinking. Whether the thought was "I think therefore I am" or the thought was "I am therefore I think" there was a thought and therefore a thinker. Is that what you are getting at?

The logic is still "I think therefore I am." However, even thinking that "I am therefore I think", as erroneous as that may be, is evidence of existence.

Am I getting any closer?

Yes that's getting very close to what I'm talking about.

 

[ygolo]

Yes that's getting very close to what I'm talking about.

What is missing?

 

[sprinkles]

What is missing?

Declaring 'I am' in this sense is in the context of metacognitive thinking. The author has thought about it and concludes that they 'are'.

This doesn't necessarily happen when a machine prints it out, since this is a momentary metacognitive statement in the face of doubting pretty much all things. In a sense it is concluding "I am and I think, therefore I am and I think" in response to "What do I actually know about anything at all?"

 

[ygolo]

Declaring 'I am' in this sense is in the context of metacognitive thinking. The author has thought about it and concludes that they 'are'.

This doesn't necessarily happen when a machine prints it out, since this is a momentary metacognitive statement in the face of doubting pretty much all things. In a sense it is concluding "I am and I think, therefore I am and I think" in response to "What do I actually know about anything at all?"

Ah. OK.

To that I would add, "I see. I hear. I feel. I believe...." Whatever faculties I have that I directly experience.

Now, if only I could figure out what [MENTION=8031]Ginko[/MENTION] meant.

 

[sprinkles]

Ah. OK.

To that I would add, "I see. I hear. I feel. I believe...." Whatever faculties I have that I directly experience.

Now, if only I could figure out what @<a href="http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/member.php?u=8031" target="_blank">Ginko</a> meant.

Yay! *throws a party*

As for what Ginkgo meant, well, knowing that you don't know and that you want to figure it out and devising a plan to do so is metacognition. How do we go about solving this?

 

[Ginkgo]

Being implies thinking. Meaning, something is thinking about the being (a being such as a rock)- not necessarily that the being thinks. God, and/or another conscious being thinks about it.

 

[ygolo]

Being implies thinking. Meaning, something is thinking about the being (a being such as a rock)- not necessarily that the being thinks. God, and/or another conscious being thinks about it.

So everything that exists, exists because something thought about it?

Is the Atman thing I mentioned earlier similar to your ontology?

 

[sprinkles]

Being implies thinking. Meaning, something is thinking about the being (a being such as a rock)- not necessarily that the being thinks. God, and/or another conscious being thinks about it.

Unexpected development!

inb4 detractors:
Descartes actually touched on this, in the sense that he was not sure that 'he' 'existed' in the sense of Descartes having a physical body. He also wasn't sure that anything or anyone else (in the sense of humanoid physical beings) existed when he said this. He concluded that, even if there is some mysterious god or something which is lying to him and putting things into his mind, he still exists. Not in the sense of a guy that exists sitting in a chair that exists, just in the sense of a mind existing - at least for that particular moment.

 

[Ginkgo]

So everything that exists, exists because something thought about it?

Is the Atman thing I mentioned earlier similar to your ontology?

I don't know. Can't I just tell the police I'm Atman?

 

[ygolo]

I don't know. Can't I just tell the police I'm Atman?

You can. I wouldn't advise it though. lol.

I'm still not sure what you meant.

 

[Ginkgo]

You can. I wouldn't advise it though. lol.

I'm still not sure what you meant.

The objective cause of thoughts is God.

 

[sprinkles]

The objective cause of thoughts is God.

I think, therefore you are?

 

[You]

projection alert!

 

[Ginkgo]

I think, therefore you are?

Not me. At this point it comes down to what one believes is the source of thought, but it's just as much of an assumption to think the source of thought is your person as to think it is God, or to think one is an extension of the other by rules of cause and effect. Maybe the issue is only about a platform of thought that holds no other qualities relative to one's ego. And, if so, I think that should be clarified.

 

[Salomé]

I'm still not sure what you meant.

Debating logic with NFs is an exercise in futility.

What was the original point of this thread?

 

[ygolo]

What was the original point of this thread?

Believe it or not, it was to show explicitly that thinking is not necessary for awareness. (or so I thought)

 

[Salomé]

Hmm. Not sure that you could ever demonstrate that in any meaningful way.

 

[INTP]

i am therefore i think

 

[sprinkles]

Believe it or not, it was to show explicitly that thinking is not necessary for awareness. (or so I thought)

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.