Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:08 am
i am because i think (i am) ?
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
The 'me' is only ever awareness aware of the experience. An experience is known only by the awareness in which the experience is arising.Londoner wrote: One of my experiences is a sense of continuity. There is 'me and experience', in that I do not identify myself with any particular experience.
Please note that...Londoner wrote:
As in earlier posts, I do not think it makes sense to talk of existing, your 'IS', as if it was a thing in itself. I agree that 'experience' is nothing in the sense that all words that refer to a category are not (usually) themselves members of that category; thus 'experience' is not the name of an experience. But it is no better to do the same thing with 'is'.
I think I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if you are going to have a problem putting it across with words.
Doesn't it depend on what is referred to as 'I'?Dontaskme wrote:The 'me' is only ever awareness aware of the experience. An experience is known only by the awareness in which the experience is arising.Londoner wrote: One of my experiences is a sense of continuity. There is 'me and experience', in that I do not identify myself with any particular experience.
The 'me' is the experience. There cannot be a 'me' having an 'experience' in the exact same moment. The 'me' is the 'experience' in the exact same moment.
To claim I do not identify myself with any particular experience...is still identification with the experience of non identifying. It is seen here that there simply is no 'I' here having an experience - awareness of experience has no I-dentity... the 'I' arises in awareness much like a dream arise at night.. appearances of I come and go in that which does not...there is nothing solid here that can be identified as a single I...except the word which is just an idea...arising in no thing...awareness.
Am I thinking thought, or is thought thinking me/ 'I'? ...what exactly is this I? can the 'I' in which a thought arises be known by the thought in which it arises? ...no it can't, because thoughts can't know or do anything, they have no independent existence apart from that in which they arise.waechter418 wrote:i am because i think (i am) ?
Please try to kind to yourself. The world is your mirror.Harbal wrote: PLEASE GET FUCKED! I've already read more of your tripe than you deserve.
I is a thought...it's a thing. That in which things arise is not a thing. Therefore the thing is not really a thing, it's just thinking it is. No thing is doing this.Throng wrote:What do you refer to as 'I'?
Dontaskme wrote:Consciousness is self-evident by association / experience. But this does not relate to a single ''separate self'' who is the ''thinker'' ''knower'' ''experiencer'' or ''doer'' simply because of the infinite regress problem. Life is a happening without doubt, the proof is already evident in the manifestation of the body and it's automatic functioning. But life for a 'separate self' is an illusion for the reason the self cannot be located, probably because it is everywhere at once.Ginkgo wrote:
What you have here is known as Cartesian materialism. It is also know as the homunculus argument. That is to say, there is a single place in the brain where all thoughts come together to give rise to a self, or a viewer. This just begs the question, "how is the homunculus conscious of the show in the Cartesian theatre?" It is a fallacious argument because it involves and infinite regress.
So how does the sense of 'I exist' arise? ..........This extract may explain it better .... >
'' If the concept of number (or of discrete quantity) is postulated before zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) are contemplated, then the idea of zero (or of the zero-point) and the idea of infinity (or of the infinite state) are (necessarily) categorized as numbers (or quantities) and as "entities" that are intrinsically two, and (thus) non-identical to one another-as if zero (or the zero-point) is, by definition, at the beginning and infinity (or the infinite state) is, by definition, at the end.
To invent number, human beings did not begin with zero (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting forwards-nor did they begin with infinity (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting backwards.
Rather, to invent number, human beings first invented the ideas of "point of view" (or of "localized" and separate "self'-identity), and of the "other" (or "not-self'), and of "difference" (or "objective quantity").
Only after number was already invented-based on the original invention of "point of view" (or "localized" and separate "self', or ego-"I") and of "object" (or "difference", or "not-self")-did human beings invent the ideas of zero and infinity.
Thus, originally, human beings mistakenly superimposed the idea of number onto the ideas of zero and infinity-and, as a result, human beings have struggled with the irrational paradoxes of that false superimposition ever since.
However, if the original error is understood and the false superimposition thus removed, contemplation of the "root"-ideas of zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) can serve the human "root"-intuition of the Intrinsically egoless and indivisible Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State of Reality Itself.''
Life just IS, is doesn't have to make sense. Who would it have to make sense for...who is the other life?Ginkgo wrote:
As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with the cogito, In fact it makes absolutely no sense at all. Where did you get this extract?
By things you mean "thoughts" here, I suppose.Dontaskme wrote: That in which things arise is not a thing.
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.Dontaskme wrote:Life just IS, is doesn't have to make sense. Who would it have to make sense for...who is the other life?Ginkgo wrote:
As far as I can see this has absolutely nothing to do with the cogito, In fact it makes absolutely no sense at all. Where did you get this extract?
One life is living all lives, there is no 'we'Ginkgo wrote:
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.
No problem. If you are talking about plural "lives" then "we" as a possessive pronoun would be appropriate.Dontaskme wrote:One life is living all lives, there is no 'we'Ginkgo wrote:
We all have only one life. I was just wondering where you got the extract.
The extract is from the book ''The Aletheon'' by Adi Da Samraj
PS..thanks for reading the extract.
But didn't you say:Dontaskme wrote: when you smile the whole mirror smiles with you..
Maybe if you weren't constantly contradicting yourself you would have more credibility.The mirror doesn't change, only your expression can change.
And its price reflects its value.This advice was free.
Well the brain is known to be that which processes each thought, just as a computer is the processor of information imputed into it, but the actual ''what ever'' thought/information IS... imputing itself into a brain and then outpouring as knowledge known is unknowable...because all knowledge is illusory ...only known as it appears to be from it's invisible source.duszek wrote:By things you mean "thoughts" here, I suppose.Dontaskme wrote: That in which things arise is not a thing.
A materialist would say that the thing in which thoughts arise is a living brain.
Some thoughts can arise in AI too, I was told.