Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am+
Ok maybe we are talking about a somewhat different circular reasoning here.
There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker, and there is no dependent thing here. Thought and thinker are one and the same, but once we assume two things, we will be lead into circular reasoning that will reinforce the idea that there are two things.

Yes, Atla, there is a circular reasoning here, but it's not "cogito ergo sum", but your obsession with circular reasoning. You insist there is circular reasoning from the outset, and by George you come up with the conclusion that there is circular reasoning in "CES".

Therefore the only circular reasoning here is your obsessing about it. You start with it, and you finish with it. A perfect, clear, shining and elegant example of it.

"There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker." Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong. Don't you think? Aren't you? Just tell me: you deny your own existence? And you deny that you are capable of thought?

OR ELSE perhaps you are trying to say in your own (ineffective) style that you and your thought are inseparable. Then if that were the case, it would be impossible for you to have this thought today, and another, different thought tomorrow. And indeed you don't think of all your thoughts, at any time; you are not your thoughts. Sure thought and self are separable.

But hey, if you see it that way, don't let me stand in your way. You can declare in your own philosophy that self and thought are inseparable. They are one. That is not true, but you can build a philosophy around it nevertheless. Go do it, it will be an interesting project.

Sorry, Atla, I ought not to have written "(ineffective)". I take that back.

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:47 am Yes, Atla, there is a circular reasoning here, but it's not "cogito ergo sum", but your obsession with circular reasoning. You insist there is circular reasoning from the outset, and by George you come up with the conclusion that there is circular reasoning in "CES".

Therefore the only circular reasoning here is your obsessing about it. You start with it, and you finish with it. A perfect, clear, shining and elegant example of it.

"There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker." Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong. Don't you think? Aren't you? Just tell me: you deny your own existence? And you deny that you are capable of thought?

OR ELSE perhaps you are trying to say in your own (ineffective) style that you and your thought are inseparable. Then if that were the case, it would be impossible for you to have this thought today, and another, different thought tomorrow. And indeed you don't think of all your thoughts, at any time; you are not your thoughts. Sure thought and self are separable.

But hey, if you see it that way, don't let me stand in your way. You can declare in your own philosophy that self and thought are inseparable. They are one. That is not true, but you can build a philosophy around it nevertheless. Go do it, it will be an interesting project.

I used no circular reasoning, and again you have proven my point. Unless you have proof that thinker and thought are separate? (Just declaring that they are separate isn't enough.)

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:06 am

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:47 am Yes, Atla, there is a circular reasoning here, but it's not "cogito ergo sum", but your obsession with circular reasoning. You insist there is circular reasoning from the outset, and by George you come up with the conclusion that there is circular reasoning in "CES".

Therefore the only circular reasoning here is your obsessing about it. You start with it, and you finish with it. A perfect, clear, shining and elegant example of it.

"There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker." Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong. Don't you think? Aren't you? Just tell me: you deny your own existence? And you deny that you are capable of thought?

OR ELSE perhaps you are trying to say in your own (ineffective) style that you and your thought are inseparable. Then if that were the case, it would be impossible for you to have this thought today, and another, different thought tomorrow. And indeed you don't think of all your thoughts, at any time; you are not your thoughts. Sure thought and self are separable.

But hey, if you see it that way, don't let me stand in your way. You can declare in your own philosophy that self and thought are inseparable. They are one. That is not true, but you can build a philosophy around it nevertheless. Go do it, it will be an interesting project.

I used no circular reasoning, and again you have proven my point. Unless you have proof that thinker and thought are separate? (Just declaring that they are separate isn't enough.)

Two things that are not separate can still be distinct from each other. For instance, the sensation and thought that I am hungry, and the sensation and thought that my hand is in pain.

Is my thought that I am hungry the same as the thought that my hand is in pain? No, they are not. Yet they are borne by my consiousness. But they are not my consciousness. Not independent of my consciousness, but not equivalent to it.

Let me put it this way: I, my consciousness, is only one manifest. If it has borne thought, the thought is not the same manifest as my consciousness. If it were the same, that is, thought and conscience were equivalent as you claim they are, then as one would change, so would the other. Yet one can change (the thought) without the other changing (the consciousness).

So here is the proof you so fervently prayed for.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:50 pm Two things that are not separate can still be distinct from each other. For instance, the sensation and thought that I am hungry, and the sensation and thought that my hand is in pain.

Is my thought that I am hungry the same as the thought that my hand is in pain? No, they are not. Yet they are borne by my consiousness. But they are not my consciousness. Not independent of my consciousness, but not equivalent to it.

Let me put it this way: I, my consciousness, is only one manifest. If it has borne thought, the thought is not the same manifest as my consciousness. If it were the same, that is, thought and conscience were equivalent as you claim they are, then as one would change, so would the other. Yet one can change (the thought) without the other changing (the consciousness).

So here is the proof you so fervently prayed for.

The one that never changes is not "your" consciousness, "you" are part of that one just as I am and everything else is too. Are you confusing that with your individual self? I meant that the individual self is made of a bunch of thoughts and sensations and usually also self-awareness etc.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:16 pm

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 6:50 pm Two things that are not separate can still be distinct from each other. For instance, the sensation and thought that I am hungry, and the sensation and thought that my hand is in pain.

Is my thought that I am hungry the same as the thought that my hand is in pain? No, they are not. Yet they are borne by my consiousness. But they are not my consciousness. Not independent of my consciousness, but not equivalent to it.

Let me put it this way: I, my consciousness, is only one manifest. If it has borne thought, the thought is not the same manifest as my consciousness. If it were the same, that is, thought and conscience were equivalent as you claim they are, then as one would change, so would the other. Yet one can change (the thought) without the other changing (the consciousness).

So here is the proof you so fervently prayed for.

The one that never changes is not "your" consciousness, "you" are part of that one just as I am and everything else is too. Are you confusing that with your individual self? I meant that the individual self is made of a bunch of thoughts and sensations and usually also self-awareness etc.

You know what? ask somebody else. I have had enough of your questions.

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker...

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:18 am Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong.

Don’t bang your head too hard against the non-dualist’s argument, for he will relinquish no ground.

He will demand “proof” of your claim of duality, as in...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am Unless you have proof that thinker and thought are separate? (Just declaring that they are separate isn't enough.)

...but somehow feels that the burden of proof does not apply to his own claims regarding non-dualism.

Clearly, to Atla, your declaring that thinker and thought are separate, simply isn’t enough, whereas, on the other hand, his own declaration that they are not separate is enough.

The non-dualist’s non-compromising mindset (which is no doubt founded in Hinduism’s Advaita dogma) is comically encapsulated in the following cartoon video on YouTube - https://youtu.be/4KXidr0z1RY

Atla has proclaimed that there is...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am no such thing as a thought and a thinker

...to which I reply back to Atla – prove it!
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker...

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:18 am Well, well. I can't really reply to this, it's so basically wrong.

Don’t bang your head too hard against the non-dualist’s argument, for he will relinquish no ground.

He will demand “proof” of your claim of duality, as in...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am Unless you have proof that thinker and thought are separate? (Just declaring that they are separate isn't enough.)

...but somehow feels that the burden of proof does not apply to his own claims regarding non-dualism.

Clearly, to Atla, your declaring that thinker and thought are separate, simply isn’t enough, whereas, on the other hand, his own declaration that they are not separate is enough.

The non-dualist’s non-compromising mindset (which is no doubt founded in Hinduism’s Advaita dogma) is comically encapsulated in the following cartoon video on YouTube - https://youtu.be/4KXidr0z1RY

Atla has proclaimed that there is...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am no such thing as a thought and a thinker

...to which I reply back to Atla – prove it!
_______

Nice one, what a sad misrepresentation of nondualism. Yes there is this trap that some people fall into and never get out of.

How can I prove that there isn't a separate thinker? How couldn't it? Nothing known to science suggests that there is some kind of thinker or soul or self or ego or I or whatever floating somewhere. And everything known to science shows the opposite: it is merely a part of the head, along with all the other thoughts etc.

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:00 pm Atla has proclaimed that there is...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am no such thing as a thought and a thinker

...to which I reply back to Atla – prove it!

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am How can I prove that there isn't a separate thinker?

You can’t.

And that is precisely my point in directing attention on your absurd demand that -1- needs to provide proof that there is a separate thinker.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am How couldn't it?

How couldn’t what?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am Nothing known to science suggests that there is some kind of thinker or soul or self or ego or I or whatever floating somewhere.

Science (methodological naturalism) does not concern itself with metaphysical/supernatural matters.

Science’s calipers have absolutely no way of accessing the inner-sanctum of a human mind in order to grasp and verify the existence of the thinker, or to measure and describe the intricate details of the thinker’s thoughts and dreams.

As I implied earlier, it would be like trying to access a parallel universe.

It is amazing to me, Atla, that you do not recognize the glaring irony in your own argument, wherein you - a “thinker” of the following “thought”...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker...

...seem to be completely oblivious of the fact that the very antithesis of your assertion is implicit in the assertion itself.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:22 pm

seeds wrote: ↑Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:00 pm Atla has proclaimed that there is...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am no such thing as a thought and a thinker

...to which I reply back to Atla – prove it!

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am How can I prove that there isn't a separate thinker?

You can’t.

And that is precisely my point in directing attention on your absurd demand that -1- needs to provide proof that there is a separate thinker.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am How couldn't it?

How couldn’t what?

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:37 am Nothing known to science suggests that there is some kind of thinker or soul or self or ego or I or whatever floating somewhere.

Science (methodological naturalism) does not concern itself with metaphysical/supernatural matters.

Science’s calipers have absolutely no way of accessing the inner-sanctum of a human mind in order to grasp and verify the existence of the thinker, or to measure and describe the intricate details of the thinker’s thoughts and dreams.

As I implied earlier, it would be like trying to access a parallel universe.

It is amazing to me, Atla, that you do not recognize the glaring irony in your own argument, wherein you - a “thinker” of the following “thought”...

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:46 am There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker...

...seem to be completely oblivious of the fact that the very antithesis of your assertion is implicit in the assertion itself.
_______

I meant to wrote "how couldn't I prove it?", was a typo. I arrived at nondualism by studying neuroscience, psychology and physics and well, the minds of people..

But if you say that the human mind by definition can't be studied scientifically, even though they do that all the time, then well.. okay.