Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RG1
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by RG1 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:09 pm

henry quirk wrote:But me? Just a guy who thinks
1. How do you "think"? Does it take thoughts to think? Or can you think without thoughts?
2. Can you know your thoughts before you think them? If not, then how do you know which thought to think?

Thinking” is not logically possible! -- We can only ‘experience’ thoughts, not ‘think’ (create/construct/select) thoughts.

Ginkgo wrote:If it is a thought then it must have a thinker attached regardless of where you say it comes from.
Careful, this is where Descartes slipped up, and made his first error.

If I experience an itch on my arm, can I honestly claim to be the 'causer' of this itch, …or am I really just the ‘experiencer’ of it?
If I experience a thought in my head, can I honestly claim to be the 'causer' (thinker) of this thought, …or am I really just the ‘experiencer’ of it?

Dontaskme wrote:There is no thinker and thought, they are the same no/thing...
? This statement seems a bit misleading/confusing to me --

A “thinker/thinking” is not logically possible and therefore is no-thing. But since experiencing itself exists, and “thoughts” are experiences, then “thoughts” exist as an experience, and are therefore NOT no-thing. Clear as mud, right? :)

Dontaskme wrote: …if we were the thinker of our own thoughts, we would be able to choose our own thoughts.
Bingo. Correct, -- Thinking (or choosing) our own thoughts is not logically possible!

Ginkgo wrote:We do choose our thoughts. Right now I am choosing to go and have a cup of coffee.
Again, be careful, as you are jumping to a false conclusion. Our natural tendencies (via many years of indoctrination) misleads us into accepting that which is logically impossible (i.e. “choosing”).

Look more closely. Because you ‘experienced’ the thought (and actions) to get up and get coffee does not mean you ‘selected/chose’ that very thought or action. Experiencing a thought/action does NOT mean choosing a thought/action. Experiencing is not the same as choosing.

Experiencing is experiencing. It is passive, one-way, mono-istic; it is an effect; it is the happening UPON or TO us. Remember, we are just experiential beings (aka “experiencers”); that experience moment-by-moment. There is never an opportunity to step outside, or escape, our experiential realm so as to affect our effects.
Last edited by RG1 on Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:43 pm

Where's the evidence I requested?

Not forthcoming (ever) I expect.

*shrug*

#

"Can Henry control his thinking?"

Sure, just like you.

#

"Can Henry choose which thought to have?"

Sure, just like you.

#

"Can he get rid of unpleasant thoughts?"

Sure, just like you.

#

"Does Henry predict what thought he is going to have next?"

Sure, to a degree, just like you.

#

"Can Henry stop having thoughts?"

Not on my own, no. Like you, I think...can't turn off thinking...it's what I (and you) do..gotta knock me out to stop the thinking, and even then sumthin' goes on in my brain (me).

#

"Where are Henry's thoughts when he is in deep dreamless sleep?"

You may wanna research this and rethink the question...the latest studies indicate dreamless sleep may not be so dreamless after all.

#

"In deep dreamless sleep Henry is obviously present, so where are his thoughts."

If dreamless sleep is not so dreamless, your question is rendered null cuz dreaming is thinking.

#

"Why the absence of thought during sleep?"

Dreams are thoughts (dreaming is thinking).

#

"Does Henry have control over the exact time he decides to wake up from deep sleep?"

Yep...it's called an alarm clock.

#

"Does he use his thoughts to wake himself up?"

Yep...'I' set the alarm clock.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

“Thinking” is not logically possible!

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:55 pm

Nope...you're wrong...thinking is what I and you and Don and everyone else does, naturally and normally.

You know this...you just don't wanna admit it cuz you're married to your nihilism (self-loathing is a shitty way to go through life, RG1)...no, you wanna drag everyone down to wallow in your mud.

Me: before I get down on all fours and squeal like a pig, I need evidence that you're on to sumthin'...you ain't offered diddly so far 'cept word games and 'logic' (a wonderful tool, Spock, but not the end-all-be-all you seem to think it is).

So: I think, I self-direct, I am.

RG1
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by RG1 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:29 pm

RG1 wrote:Thinking is not logically possible!
henry quirk wrote:Nope...you're wrong...thinking is what I and you and Don and everyone else does, naturally and normally.
I can agree that we all ‘experience’ thought. …but since it is still not possible to do the impossible, we cannot ‘create’ thought.

henry quirk wrote:You know this...you just don't wanna admit it cuz you're married to your nihilism (self-loathing is a shitty way to go through life, RG1)...no, you wanna drag everyone down to wallow in your mud.
This is a philosophy forum. We are all presumably searching for the ‘real’ truths. Good, bad, or ugly is not relevant here. If you are looking for “truths” that satisfy your emotions, then you should join a religious forum.

henry quirk wrote:before I get down on all fours and squeal like a pig, I need evidence that you're on to sumthin'...you ain't offered diddly so far 'cept word games and 'logic' (a wonderful tool, Spock, but not the end-all-be-all you seem to think it is).
I happen to think (sound) logic IS the "end-all-be-all". It is the best and ONLY tool we have, to ascertain truths (and falses).

henry quirk wrote:So: I think, I self-direct, I am.
This is only a ‘proclamation’ statement. Anyone can proclaim anything. …doesn’t mean it is true.
Last edited by RG1 on Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:41 pm

"This is only a ‘proclamation’ statement. Anyone can proclaim anything. …doesn’t mean it is true."

Yeah, and that pretty much applies to everything you've posted in this forum: proclamations without a jot of evidence to support any of it.

You may remember, you and me had this same conversation some time back. That conversation ended in the same place this one is ending, with neither of us budging, each believing the other wrong and wrong-headed.

It is what it is.

RG1
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by RG1 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:53 pm

henry quirk wrote:You may remember, you and me had this same conversation some time back. That conversation ended in the same place this one is ending, with neither of us budging, each believing the other wrong and wrong-headed. It is what it is.
Yes I agree with you here. No worries. It was good to disagree with you again :). Take care my friend. Life goes on...

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 10:00 pm

"Take care my friend."

You too... :thumbsup:

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re:

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:41 am

henry quirk wrote:Dreams are thoughts (dreaming is thinking).
Then life is a dream - the you that you think you are is a character in the dream. You only exist as a character like in a night time dream, you are an apparition. An illusion.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re:

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:05 am

henry quirk wrote:"This is only a ‘proclamation’ statement. Anyone can proclaim anything. …doesn’t mean it is true."

Yeah, and that pretty much applies to everything you've posted in this forum: proclamations without a jot of evidence to support any of it.
Henry or anyone else for that matter, cannot know truth. ''Truth'' is an imagined/fabricated idea like every other idea assumed to be known....if truth is anything at all it is the ''total silence'' of what is prior to any idea/interpretation about what the ''what is'' is.

As an analogy, the sun cannot know itself, by shining on itself, it can only know itself by projecting itself as a shadow.A shadow is a mirage of the sun. A shadow cannot find the source of itself, simply because it has no separate existence apart from it's source which is unknowable.

It makes me chuckle the way this assumed identity seeks for evidence of that which is always and ever unknowable.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:35 am

Throng wrote:

It's just that you assert 'I' = 'separate me'. 'I' might refer to that which remains constant while experience continues to change. For example, people use 'I' to refer to themselves at age 10, and still use it at age 60, so it follows that 'I' refers to something is continuous as opposed to anything of the senses. The issue with thought is, the thinking of a thought and its appearance in consciousness is simultaneous, so there is no causal principle in the usual chronological sense. In the projection analogy, what people refer to as 'I' is like the movie screen rather than the changing light display upon it, but people can think the kinds of thoughts they want to, have the sort of movie that they want to, and basically, what people notice most in life is precisely what most interests them.
The 'I' is known by no one to be the reference point..pointing to >HERE<... or >THIS<...

All Reference points share same source which is THIS ? HERE... there's nothing outside of ? that holds the answer. For the question is only an appearance of ''THIS ? HERE'' original ''not-knowingNESS''
...THEREFORE, everything 'assumed to be known' is imagined.

Every apparent single reference point of 'I' is doing same everywhere, pointing back to it's original source which is oneness, everything is oneness in which the assumed separate I is an appearance.

ONENESS OR BEINGNESS is the placeless place of here now eternally ...where everything happens infinitely AS the unmoved mover, the unchanging changer, the unseen seer, the silent sounder etc etc etc etc...aka oneness.

As soon as the word 'I am' is uttered - duality / mind is born, a phantom IS BORN.... a thought/idea is born...and yet no thing can be born if everything is already everything now here eternally expressing itself infinitely.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 2864
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:35 pm

"It makes me chuckle the way this assumed identity seeks for evidence of that which is always and ever unknowable."

And it makes s me sad when a person with a fine mind denies hinself, views himself as a shadow, embracing a nihilism that has no foundation.

User avatar
Throng
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 12:05 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Throng » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:35 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Throng wrote:

It's just that you assert 'I' = 'separate me'. 'I' might refer to that which remains constant while experience continues to change. For example, people use 'I' to refer to themselves at age 10, and still use it at age 60, so it follows that 'I' refers to something is continuous as opposed to anything of the senses. The issue with thought is, the thinking of a thought and its appearance in consciousness is simultaneous, so there is no causal principle in the usual chronological sense. In the projection analogy, what people refer to as 'I' is like the movie screen rather than the changing light display upon it, but people can think the kinds of thoughts they want to, have the sort of movie that they want to, and basically, what people notice most in life is precisely what most interests them.
The 'I' is known by no one to be the reference point..pointing to >HERE<... or >THIS<...

All Reference points share same source which is THIS ? HERE... there's nothing outside of ? that holds the answer. For the question is only an appearance of ''THIS ? HERE'' original ''not-knowingNESS''
...THEREFORE, everything 'assumed to be known' is imagined.

Every apparent single reference point of 'I' is doing same everywhere, pointing back to it's original source which is oneness, everything is oneness in which the assumed separate I is an appearance.

ONENESS OR BEINGNESS is the placeless place of here now eternally ...where everything happens infinitely AS the unmoved mover, the unchanging changer, the unseen seer, the silent sounder etc etc etc etc...aka oneness.

As soon as the word 'I am' is uttered - duality / mind is born, a phantom IS BORN.... a thought/idea is born...and yet no thing can be born if everything is already everything now here eternally expressing itself infinitely.
I'm sure you're making up a big story about what 'I' implies. It seems to me to be a good simple way of referring to ourselves. What it refers to exactly is an interesting inquiry, none-the-less.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:54 am

Dontaskme wrote:There is no thinker and thought, they are the same no/thing...
RG1 wrote:? This statement seems a bit misleading/confusing to me --

A “thinker/thinking” is not logically possible and therefore is no-thing. But since experiencing itself exists, and “thoughts” are experiences, then “thoughts” exist as an experience, and are therefore NOT no-thing. Clear as mud, right? :)

What I meant by same no-thing ....is.....The thinking of thoughts appears to have no other purpose than to perpetuate itself. It can be seen that a basic thought function is to create the mind-created-sense-of "me". To creates a sense of 'me' is to create a thing where no such thing exists.
No thing aka ''me'' can have an experience, there is only the experiencing of a 'me' by no one/ thing.

This is no thing/nothing being everything..if there's just EVERYTHING, there's no room for any OTHER thing... it's all the same oneness experiencing it's same one self in many different ways. :D

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:22 am

Throng wrote:
I'm sure you're making up a big story about what 'I' implies. It seems to me to be a good simple way of referring to ourselves. What it refers to exactly is an interesting inquiry, none-the-less.
Every utterance is a made-up story...it' an auditory illusion of sound appearing to nobody from nowhere. There is no story writer or teller. There is only the invisible internal comprehension/ understanding.
The capacity to infer to 'myself' as the understander is a unique human quality formed via the auditory illusion of language. But there is no actual self that language refers to - there is only the illusory appearance of language...with meaning and purpose attached...all illusory.

No one here is speaking or writing or communicating.....this phenomena are the appearances of no thing. This is no thing apparently ''thinging'' No thing is making this happen. And that's what makes it very grand indeed.

When a reference to an ''I'' of ''myself''' is made, it creates a limitation of what is actually boundlessly and infinitely free. That superficially imposed limitation is what's known as the ''misery self''

Dontaskme
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re:

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:17 am

henry quirk wrote:"It makes me chuckle the way this assumed identity seeks for evidence of that which is always and ever unknowable."

And it makes s me sad when a person with a fine mind denies hinself, views himself as a shadow, embracing a nihilism that has no foundation.
The point is...there is no self called ''I'' in a shadow. No more than there is an ''I'' in a tree or a cat.

Existence already IS.. before there is any identification. 'I'-dentification is an artificially superimposed knowing over what is already known one with the knowing.

So who is the ''other one'' that seeks evidence of what IS already the case?

Allegorically speaking...Is not the shadow itself evidence of the sun? can the sun be separate from it's shadow?

No, they are always and ever ONE.

You ARE that ONE..that cannot be known twice.

No thing can touch what you ARE

Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests