ilikeitlikethat
You're unbelievable ...
- Joined
- May 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,158
- MBTI Type
- xNTP
- Enneagram
- 7w8
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
That deaf dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball.
I don't feel, yet I am.
-Anonymous INTP
I don't think, yet I am.
-Anonymous ESFP
Yeah. Otherwise, I wouldn't be me.
"I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.
personally, I think more "I believe therefore I am", but you being a Ti user and this being an Fi as hell thing to say, this probably makes absolutely no sense to you
It is not quite. A->B does not equate with B->A. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if there a genuine disagreement here about converse error.
http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm
This works too. Having a belief is an experience, and that experience validates to the experiencer that (s)he exists.
I'm not trolling you. "I think" posits that "I" exist in the first place. Fireshield's statement is valid, it just doesn't arrive at the same conclusion.
Just because one posits something, doesn't imply its true or exists. In fact, proof by contradiction works specifically by positing something that we end up proving to be false. We can do proof non-existence of things by contradiction too. Those sorts of proofs start off with "Suppose A exists."...and ends with "Therefore, A cannot exist."
It seems we have two disagreements.
One is methodological...that is in what we consider "valid", and what the process of "deduction" is. This is what I find more troubling than the actual content of the original disagreement. A single statement by itself may be true or false. But I find "valid" to be a strange characterization. Also, the statement that "I am, therefore I think" either follows from or leads to "I think therefore I am", is a basic error in deductive reasoning.
The second is a simple matter of whether or not it is possible (for me, you, etc.) to exist without thinking. I believe it is possible. I tell you that I have had knowledge of my existence in the absence of thought. You can believe me or not. This is a more instinctual way of existing, and possible to achieve.
The use of language, may require thinking, but defining "I" as a thinking entity is different from defining "I" as that entity that thinks. Awareness does not require thinking. No words or images are needed in order to be aware.I should have clarified. "I", in this case, is defined as a thinking entity. Knowledge of your existence in the absence of thought? How could you have knowledge of anything without a limited awareness?
This sounded a lot like you were saying one is deduced from the other:No, neither line of reasoning follows from the other. When did I say that? They're just different analysis of the same knowledge.
"I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.
Diggy diggy hole!!I dug, dug, and dug.
Not insightful, but quite deep.
EDIT: Maybe I should be more explicit, because I thought people took certain things for granted.
Do you exist when you are asleep and not dreaming? Do you think in this state?
An interesting question. Existential implications. It's irrelevant, though. Even if I did, there's no guarantee I would remember. And, even if I remembered, that was then and this is now. It's relevant that I think about the past, though.
I don't think cogito ergo sum refers to the sort of thinking I think you are describing. I think it refers to awareness and consciousness in general.
Even still. Existence without awareness and consciousness is also possible. What about those who have died, and then are resuscitated?
In a Venn Diagram , existence would be a bigger set that encompasses awareness/consciousness, and thinking would be a smaller set, completely contained within.
Even still. Existence without awareness and consciousness is also possible. What about those who have died, and then are resuscitated?
In a Venn Diagram , existence would be a bigger set that encompasses awareness/consciousness, and thinking would be a smaller set, completely contained within.
Yes, but 'I think, therefore I am' is in the context of proof for one's own existence.
This is expressed in a lot of different ways such as 'there must be one who is thinking'.
By even saying 'I' it already denotes a conscious entity, because the entity has already named itself. This facet is apparently inseparable, since there's an 'I' on both sides of the equation. 'I am' is an entity naming itself just as well as 'I think' is an entity naming itself, so it really does imply consciousness backwards and forwards.
This isn't to say that something must be conscious to exist. It just says that being conscious is a proof of existence.
I am, therefore I think.
Indeed, for this much, I think we all have agreement.Yes, but 'I think, therefore I am' is in the context of proof for one's own existence.
This is expressed in a lot of different ways such as 'there must be one who is thinking'.
This is a limitation of language itself, and our basic point of contention. "I" in many ways is an illusion. Have you ever intentionally blanked out your thinking? Descartes may have himself made this error. But it is still an error. The "I" who thinks is more than the thinker...more than the "I" even.By even saying 'I' it already denotes a conscious entity, because the entity has already named itself. This facet is apparently inseparable, since there's an 'I' on both sides of the equation. 'I am' is an entity naming itself just as well as 'I think' is an entity naming itself, so it really does imply consciousness backwards and forwards.
This isn't to say that something must be conscious to exist. It just says that being conscious is a proof of existence.
Through the resuscitation process, they exist. But do they think? Are they aware of themselves in anyway? Are they aware at all?I believe those who have died and are resuscitated exist through the process.
Thanks for reiterating what I've been trying to say in a different (and perhaps more palatable) way.
Yes. The existence of others is a difficult thing to "prove". But I hope you are convinced I exist.At op:
You think therefore you are?
I think not, therefore you aren't.
But, if you must prove your existence to me, must you control what I think, and change it to what you think?
And if you control what I think, then am I not, but only you are?
lol. OK. This is perhaps a more accurate statement of the moment of thought.I think, therefore, I think I am.
Yes but when I do that I'm not going to be forming logical arguments.This is a limitation of language itself, and our basic point of contention. "I" in many ways is an illusion. Have you ever intentionally blanked out your thinking? Descartes may have himself made this error. But it is still an error. The "I" who thinks is more than the thinker...more than the "I" even.
Not aware enough to say "I think, therefore I am". I exist the same 'amount' as always but I stop considering it, which is the key to what I'm saying.Have you ever achieved a state of flow doing sports? How aware of the "I" were you? How much did you exist during that time?
Have you meditated on nothing for long periods of time? How aware of "I" were you? How much did you exist at that time?
No, but we already covered that something can exist without consciousness. Something that isn't conscious or thinking doesn't seek proof that itself exists.Do you believe you stop existing every time you stop being aware of yourself? Do you pop back and forth into existence every time you loose and gain consciousness?
The focus of our perceptions creates reality. Indeed, the power of focus may be the greatest gift of mental power we possess, it allowing us to impose our willpower upon creation!
Yes but when I do that I'm not going to be forming logical arguments.
Not aware enough to say "I think, therefore I am". I exist the same 'amount' as always but I stop considering it, which is the key to what I'm saying.
No, but we already covered that something can exist without consciousness. Something that isn't conscious or thinking doesn't seek proof that itself exists.