Sorry for the late reply.
AlexW wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:12 amI am not sure what you mean with "intuitive truth" and "laws of thought" - can you please elaborate.
The law of the excluded middle, the law of contradiction and the law of identity are what form the basis for all reasoning. They can't however be proven in a traditional sense, because they are essentially the very tools used to prove things themselves. This is what I'm comparing to consciousness, in terms of being at that same level of confidence that they're true.
If nobody would have ever told you that you are a self thats conscious - would you know it?
...I mean, apparently no ones explained to you what the laws of thought are. But you knew the truth of their principle before knowing their concept. Just because you can't deduce something into a quotable term doesn't mean you don't believe in it. Going back, again dogs understand object permanence but clearly can't articulate the concept like I just have.
Well... I challenge you to find the I that is conscious in your own experience. Can you find it (and I am not talking about a self referential thought that states "I am conscious!")?
I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
AlexW wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:12 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 8:52 am
The process of even raising that question validates (to yourself) the idea that you are conscious.
No,
it only validates consciousness, but not a self.
...what do you mean 'no'. Why do you say 'no', then confirm exactly what I just said? It's like if I told my friend that 'I'm going to McDonalds to pick up a big mac', and he replied with, 'no, you're going to pick up a big mac.' Well... yes, that's what I just said.
The concept of 'self' isn't something we were even discussing.