Failure of "I".

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Exan
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Exan »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm "I exist" is an objective statement that exists seperate from the subjective experience of "I".

Discuss.
Do you mean Descartes's Cogito?
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:27 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:53 pm

That which "exists outside of us" observes an inherent connect boundary between dual relativistic positions of inside and outside.
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?

You tell me the answer to that question...
I can't know what you're actually trying to do, I can only say what it seems to me, that you're trying to do.


When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think, instead it made me laugh, and it dropped philosophy down a notch, as to me believing that it had the final say on what is and is not knowledge. It was a first year students class, so I guess they expected 18 & 19 year olds fresh out of high school that they could impress with bull shit. But I was 36 and recently honorably discharged from the USN after working in, on and around multi-million dollar aircraft. In them, flying missions; on them, as preventative maintenance; and around them, maintaining their support equipment. I had left with 13 credit hours short of a technical degree, just an associates. Anyway, when they posed the "tree falling in the forest" 'thought experiment,' asking if it made any sound if no one was there to hear it, I just had to laugh. Because my job while flying sorties was all about sound and electromagnetic energy, as picked up by our various sensors, so I immediately saw the "thought experiment" as absurd. As everyone with the training I'd had knows, it certainly makes a sound, at least on this planet, with this atmosphere. ;-)

The question is an extension of the question of "Perception?"...how does perception relate to the existence of a phenomena. In these respects we go back to questions inherent within the base of quantum physics...something "physics" has not trumped yet without going to a form of metaphysics.
I have a problem with the current state of quantum physics, not that I don't believe there are sub atomic particles, rather I believe our understanding of how it all works is still in it's infancy.


In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...

I suspect that's what you're trying to do with your sentence above, I mean, I know what each word means, but together they just don't seem to jibe.

And working on an aircraft carrier
Not a carrier, I was on a patrol aircraft, far to large for a carrier. I did ASW work, that's: ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE. Selflessly Protecting you and all that you love from the "Soviet Nuclear Threat" during the "Cold War." Unless of course you're in the USSR.

can be percieved as not jibing with the question presented...at least not with the argument presented. The impression appears that your argument is: "I experienced forced and violence
Nope it means "Stop speaking in riddles, speak simply so as to be understood by everyone. I hate conceded people. It means that I talked with people at the NASA AIMES RESEARCH CENTER in MTN. VIEW CALFORNIA and I understood every word they said and didn't get lost because they were trying to stroke their ego by attempting to talk over anyone's head. Sorry you were confused, see how I was considerate and explained to you those things you misunderstood due to my jargon or your ignorance/assumption. I expect the same from you. If you can't say it in layman's terms it means you don't understand it yourself, and you're just copying it out of some book.

Am I pissing you off? Well I'm not trying to. I just can't tell if you're trying to baffle me with BS or not, and it's frustrating. ;-) I can see now that you're capable of speaking like a normal human being, so I expect you to continue along those lines. I mean to say that I want to hear your well thought out argument, whether you're just parroting a book or not. I just want to come to grips with it so I can formulate my rebuttal. Or is that it? You just want the last "encrypted" word??? ;-)


...the question is irrelevant"...when the question itself acted as the force which gave structure to the nature of your experience through a sense of self-reflection.
So I guess you see your mind as a vacuous vortex of simply being the absolute truth of the universe. Everyone questions. And to constantly question oneself is the only way to find and correct our failures and increase our triumphs. If not, then we don't grow. My point actually was that I have a reasonably high IQ. That in particular I can ferret out how things fit together. That while short sentences of larger words decreases ones time spent asserting propositions, it can be confusing to some. And that many that do so, are usually more concerned with themselves and their projected stature than they are actually getting a message across. Just my 60 years of observation.


And what may be the problem, is that I haven't memorized the entire dictionary so as to know every single definition for every single word, it's just too much work. Usually the original meaning of a word is the one I'm familiar with. Which is why I didn't go too much further in college, I was beginning to see how people get lost in words not really knowing what the hell they were saying, or so it surely seemed. I was never really interested in majoring or minoring in English. After all, I didn't have any problems understanding or speaking to people involved in aerospace. They begged me to stay, when I told them I was leaving. My 16 years of service had proven I was someone that could get the job done with a very high attention to detail, or so they said in my final evals.

So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
Touche', yet you're the one that first grabbed your foil. I'm simply defending.

My point is that what we considering as two relative parts (an internal actual existence or external actual existence) are mediated through "I" as a part which is both composed of and composed both and in these respects the "I" exists as a continual median of change.

"What we considering," really? How about, "What we are considering." But as to your point, I only see one actual existence, and that the fact that it's multidimensional is of no real consequence. Often in philosophy I see hairs being created so as to try and split them, and I consider the act a fantasy. All of the I's may change, but then change is a constant of the universe, so called, time. Still the I is also a constant, as this particular I vessel, like all the others, has a distinct beginning and end. I was born, and no one else. I am me, and no one else, as I shall experience/understand things of an exclusive particular set, sequence, and intensity, and no one else. Then I shall die, and no one else. All the other I's shall come to be, their same unique particulars sets, sequences, and intensities of experience/understanding. Which are the differences between us. There is only ever the actual internal I.
This round, the SOB in red.

P.S. Sorry if I've insulted your writing abilities, and English is your second language, as in such a case, you're doing much better than "I."
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:56 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:13 pm
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:11 pmNo one is challenging the idea that a tree falling creates sound waves, the question is whether mechanical waves are the same as the experience of sound. It's an introduction to the mind/body problem.
Sorry uwot, but as stated, and considering the 2nd definition of sound, it's not...
There is absolutely no sense that it's about any mind body problem.
You don't say what the 1st definition of sound was, but I suspect it was in that context that it was about the mind/body problem.
sound1 [sound]
noun

1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

uwot, sound was there first, it predated any animal life on this planet. The animal adapted sensors in answer to that which was already present. So as to be better capable of survival. There is no mind/body problem for those that understand the earths timeline. Humans are in fact children of the universe, made of the same star dust that is this planet. The body is the mind and the mind is the body, there is no separation between the two. Q: Tell me, what is the difference between a microphone and a speaker? A: Nothing, they can both be used as either.
Friction creates sound and in the ear friction translates the sound. To say that there is a mind/body problem, would mean that I can't sing: doh, ray, me, fa, so, la, tee, doh, and that you couldn't hear it so as to reproduce it perfectly. Pray tell, where would music be with a mind/body problem.

I know that many religious people are caught up with the "ghost in the machine" garbage. But surely atheists shouldn't get caught up in it. It's a red herring, uwot. Humans are all chemistry, we are a conglomerate of various elements, nothing more, nothing less. A soul is the same ghost in the machine BS.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Exan wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm "I exist" is an objective statement that exists seperate from the subjective experience of "I".

Discuss.
Do you mean Descartes's Cogito?
No, but Descarte can be applied.


"I think therefore I am"

Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existance of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".

In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:40 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:27 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Fri Aug 17, 2018 7:53 pm
So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?

You tell me the answer to that question...
I can't know what you're actually trying to do, I can only say what it seems to me, that you're trying to do.
Oh looks like we have a rainbow going...what I am trying to do? Destroy logic and use the ashes to build something new. One only has to look at the foundations of thoughts, we have used over the years, to look at the world which resulted from it.



When I took philosophy we came to a so called thought experiment that they believed would make one think, instead it made me laugh, and it dropped philosophy down a notch, as to me believing that it had the final say on what is and is not knowledge. It was a first year students class, so I guess they expected 18 & 19 year olds fresh out of high school that they could impress with bull shit. But I was 36 and recently honorably discharged from the USN after working in, on and around multi-million dollar aircraft. In them, flying missions; on them, as preventative maintenance; and around them, maintaining their support equipment. I had left with 13 credit hours short of a technical degree, just an associates. Anyway, when they posed the "tree falling in the forest" 'thought experiment,' asking if it made any sound if no one was there to hear it, I just had to laugh. Because my job while flying sorties was all about sound and electromagnetic energy, as picked up by our various sensors, so I immediately saw the "thought experiment" as absurd. As everyone with the training I'd had knows, it certainly makes a sound, at least on this planet, with this atmosphere. ;-)

The question is an extension of the question of "Perception?"...how does perception relate to the existence of a phenomena. In these respects we go back to questions inherent within the base of quantum physics...something "physics" has not trumped yet without going to a form of metaphysics.
I have a problem with the current state of quantum physics, not that I don't believe there are sub atomic particles, rather I believe our understanding of how it all works is still in it's infancy.
The same applies for metaphysics and logic.


In the above instance, science (physics) trumped philosophy, unless they were just joking...

I suspect that's what you're trying to do with your sentence above, I mean, I know what each word means, but together they just don't seem to jibe.

And working on an aircraft carrier
Not a carrier, I was on a patrol aircraft, far to large for a carrier. I did ASW work, that's: ANTI SUBMARINE WARFARE. Selflessly Protecting you and all that you love from the "Soviet Nuclear Threat" during the "Cold War." Unless of course you're in the USSR.
If it was so self-less than why rub it everyone's face. The USSR says the same thing "selflessly protecting you from the U.S. Capitalist pigs".

can be percieved as not jibing with the question presented...at least not with the argument presented. The impression appears that your argument is: "I experienced forced and violence
Nope it means "Stop speaking in riddles, speak simply so as to be understood by everyone. I hate conceded people. It means that I talked with people at the NASA AIMES RESEARCH CENTER in MTN. VIEW CALFORNIA and I understood every word they said and didn't get lost because they were trying to stroke their ego by attempting to talk over anyone's head. Sorry you were confused, see how I was considerate and explained to you those things you misunderstood due to my jargon or your ignorance/assumption. I expect the same from you. If you can't say it in layman's terms it means you don't understand it yourself, and you're just copying it out of some book.

Actually there is no riddle. The "I" has both subjective and objective elements which determine it, and the "I" as the relation of these subjective and objective elements observes that what we consider of the "I" is not merely limited to the individual but exists through groups of people (multiple "I"'s.)

The "I" is defined both through the self and the group and in these respects the "I" shares a nature of being unified in itself and existing through multiple extensions.

What we understand of the subjective self (the individual "I") is form from it's relations to other "I"'s and in these respects maintains a degree of objectivity in the respect these other's "I"'s as both seperate and disinterested form certain boundaries of the subjective experience itself and in effect objectify it.

So for example the subjective experience of "I" in me going to get something to eat, is determined by the nature of other "I"'s providing food service (cooking the food, cashier, etc.) which in itself is objective in the respect, that whether or not "I" experience them directly these "emotionally detached" existing actions effectively form my own experience. The objective act of the food being cooked, or the money being processed all form the subjective experience of the "I". Even the formation of objective truths, by observing boundaries of existence through "law's" or "theories", effect me subjectively (such as the objective argument of evolution forming and negating certain personal beliefs) effectively give structure to the subjective "I" and in fact objectify it.

We are not talking about "NASA" or "the military", quoting your past experience does not work as the base levels of these institutions are founded in highschool students where "



Am I pissing you off? Well I'm not trying to. I just can't tell if you're trying to baffle me with BS or not, and it's frustrating. ;-) I can see now that you're capable of speaking like a normal human being, so I expect you to continue along those lines. I mean to say that I want to hear your well thought out argument, whether you're just parroting a book or not. I just want to come to grips with it so I can formulate my rebuttal. Or is that it? You just want the last "encrypted" word??? ;-)


Rebuttal against what? So whatever presented is automatically wrong?



...the question is irrelevant"...when the question itself acted as the force which gave structure to the nature of your experience through a sense of self-reflection.
So I guess you see your mind as a vacuous vortex of simply being the absolute truth of the universe. Everyone questions. And to constantly question oneself is the only way to find and correct our failures and increase our triumphs. If not, then we don't grow. My point actually was that I have a reasonably high IQ. That in particular I can ferret out how things fit together. That while short sentences of larger words decreases ones time spent asserting propositions, it can be confusing to some. And that many that do so, are usually more concerned with themselves and their projected stature than they are actually getting a message across. Just my 60 years of observation.

There is truth in everything.




And what may be the problem, is that I haven't memorized the entire dictionary so as to know every single definition for every single word, it's just too much work. Usually the original meaning of a word is the one I'm familiar with. Which is why I didn't go too much further in college, I was beginning to see how people get lost in words not really knowing what the hell they were saying, or so it surely seemed. I was never really interested in majoring or minoring in English. After all, I didn't have any problems understanding or speaking to people involved in aerospace. They begged me to stay, when I told them I was leaving. My 16 years of service had proven I was someone that could get the job done with a very high attention to detail, or so they said in my final evals.

So are you attempting to converse with me or simply stroke your ego?
Touche', yet you're the one that first grabbed your foil. I'm simply defending.
What foil?

My point is that what we considering as two relative parts (an internal actual existence or external actual existence) are mediated through "I" as a part which is both composed of and composed both and in these respects the "I" exists as a continual median of change.

"What we considering," really? How about, "What we are considering." But as to your point, I only see one actual existence, and that the fact that it's multidimensional is of no real consequence. Often in philosophy I see hairs being created so as to try and split them, and I consider the act a fantasy. All of the I's may change, but then change is a constant of the universe, so called, time. Still the I is also a constant, as this particular I vessel, like all the others, has a distinct beginning and end. I was born, and no one else. I am me, and no one else, as I shall experience/understand things of an exclusive particular set, sequence, and intensity, and no one else. Then I shall die, and no one else. All the other I's shall come to be, their same unique particulars sets, sequences, and intensities of experience/understanding. Which are the differences between us. There is only ever the actual internal I.
This round, the SOB in red.

P.S. Sorry if I've insulted your writing abilities, and English is your second language, as in such a case, you're doing much better than "I."
uwot
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:13 pm1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

uwot, sound was there first, it predated any animal life on this planet.
Well yeah, but the key word is sensation. It is how the mechanical waves produce this sensation that we really don't know how to answer and is the crux of the mind/body problem.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5530
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

uwot wrote: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:09 pm
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:13 pm1. the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium.

uwot, sound was there first, it predated any animal life on this planet.
Well yeah, but the key word is sensation. It is how the mechanical waves produce this sensation that we really don't know how to answer and is the crux of the mind/body problem.
I disagree, don't you understand a tape recording machine. The human brain, the same thing. The ears, the microphone; the nerves, the wires that carry the analog/digital signal; the brain, the tape. That we haven't found a way to cut a live human open while maintaining their life just long enough to know exactly how it works, is of no consequence. But surely we've done similar horrible things like that in the past, in the name of scientific research. I shudder to think.

In fact: If no one's in the forest to hear the sound a tree makes as it falls, it still makes a sound. An observer doesn't have to be present, for anything that predates/is outside humans, to in fact be the case.

There is no body/mind problem. They are one in the same thing. The physics of the body, specifically the brain is why there is a so called mind. It's a result of the physical/chemical particulars. You know, biochemistry!

No I can't prove it is, and you can't prove it's not. I just believe in Occam's razor. Why an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?

There is no such thing as consciousness that should be viewed as a ghost in a machine. The reason it's still a so called mystery (problem) is because we've conceptualized something that's not real, and tried to place it in the mix. No wonder we're so confused. The abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception. All the sensors are controlled by and their inputs come together in the brain, viola something humans call a consciousness. I believe the human need to 'sleep' to replenish the brain and body is why they've created an intangible thing that doesn't really exist.
uwot
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by uwot »

SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:14 pm...don't you understand a tape recording machine.
In principle, but I've never sat down, had a pint and a chat with one.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:14 pmWhy an atheist lends credibility to a ghost in the machine theory, is beyond me. Well? Why?
Well, just as I'm the sort of atheist that doesn't believe that god exists, rather than one who believes that god doesn't exist; I don't believe that mind is supernatural, rather than believe that mind isn't supernatural.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:14 pmThe abilities we have are due to the biochemistry of the body, the brain being no exception.
Maybe so, but that still leaves the question of how the brain generates consciousness.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Greta »

What abut the "I" of a person raised by wolves rather than humans?

A huge portion of what we consider to be "I" is our culture. Any similarities in tendencies between the wofl-raised child or if raised by people would be trivial - aggression and cooperativeness, dominance and submission, etc.

The real fireworks - the aspects of consciousness and identity that we value - start when the maturing human mind is immersed in human culture. We have an identity within a community, judged via comparison with others in the community. That judgement is not an objective measure based on all of known reality.

So, no, we aren't really what we think we are. What we actually are ...
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Greta wrote: Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:09 am What abut the "I" of a person raised by wolves rather than humans?

A huge portion of what we consider to be "I" is our culture. Any similarities in tendencies between the wofl-raised child or if raised by people would be trivial - aggression and cooperativeness, dominance and submission, etc.

The real fireworks - the aspects of consciousness and identity that we value - start when the maturing human mind is immersed in human culture. We have an identity within a community, judged via comparison with others in the community. That judgement is not an objective measure based on all of known reality.

So, no, we aren't really what we think we are. What we actually are ...
The nature of "I" as qualitatively dependent upon the culture which we both form and forms us takes on a dual quantitative nature in the respect the "I" as both groups and composing groups exists as temporal.

"I" is quantitative in the respect it is directed through time as time, with all number's as being founded through empirical "counting" observing fundmanetally a movement in time. If I observe "1" orange, I am observing "1" as fundamentally being a direction in time considering the "orange as 1" is an observation of the orange as a localization of change (considering the orange exists as change through growth and entropy) through the change of time.

Hence the act of quantification as observing limits through time exists as a folding process where time itself as 1 directional change is composed of further changes as multiple directions (considering the change of the orange as growth and entropy is composed of the relation of cells whose change exists because of the direction these cells are moving...movement exists through direction with direction as the means of change. Movement is active and direction is passive in these regards...however this point may have to be elaborated on further).

The "I" as quantitative in the respect it is temporal exist as 1 means of change where these different aspects of "I" as mind, body or spirit (emotion) observes that mind, body, spirit as 3 medians of change as one "I" and one "I" as 3 medians of change.

And that "actuality" exists through the means of thinking as thinking is an act...so is both "feeling" and "physical action" furthermore.

The "I" is merely an observation of singularization where what we percieve as the "I" is fundamentally 1 means of being which is composed of and composed further singularities of existence. In these respects the "I" is not just a qualitative understanding of reality but has inherent quantitative aspects.

What seperates the qualitative and quantitative nature of the "I" from the Human being or let's say the wolf, is it's mediation. Where the "I" of a man may both be composed of further "I"'s and composing further "I"'s the wolf main not contain or compose as many "I"'s.

This point may have to further elaborated upon...but I will address that point later if necessary as we are still left with the problem of consciousness as one of "degree" where the greater or lesser number of "I"'s determines the level of consciousness...in these respects the nature of consciousness as degree is still a facet of consciousness as the "degree" is merely a means of relation.

One could argue that a higher consciousness observes the degree, however a lower form still exists through these very same degrees...in these respects the consciousness as existing through degree is merely a degree in itself and the nature of consciousness as existing through degrees observes the consciousness as a mediator...the level of consciousness in these respects is less one of higher or lower but rather one of mediation as a point of origin. In these respects the "I" as consciousness exists as a means of change as continual relation with this continual relation as continual change observing the "I" as a median of change in itself...hence a constant.

This continual relative nature of the "I" observes it as a means of change...nothingness or point zero so to speak where this inversion nature of the "I" as a means of change is really one of change through inversion. The "I"'s nature of change as continually multiplying or dividing parts of itself and the environment around it (I may have to elaborate upon this point further) observes it as absent of any form as this change through inversion is really nothingness as the "I" being the inversion of unity into multiplicities as units which in themselves are unity and further unities into multiplicities as unit(y)(ies). This continually inversion, as continuous change, observes the 1 as continual change through inversion and hence 1 in itself...in these respects the "I" is everything through unity and nothing as continual change.


This nature of the "I" as both nothing and everything through change observes that nature of consciousness as one of mediation that varies according to the localized phenomena we observe.

Looking at the nature of consciousness, regardless of whether it is animal or human, a whole list of observations and potential questions arise.

The brain of the man and the brain of the wolf are seperate in the respect the brain of man has a larger variation of elements and mediates further perceptual realities than that of the man. The human brain may exist through the brain of the wolf and the wolf may exist through the human brain, but the human brain mediates further aspects of thought than the brain of the wolf...in these respects the human brain is greater because of its universality with this universality acting as a form of mediation in embracing all extremes while the brain of the wolf is limited.

So while the brain of the wolf may have certain predatory aspects that make it "percievably" better than the human's relative predatory aspects, the human brain has other facet's which override these predatory aspects if the predatory aspects of the human brain as not focused upon (through environment and action) as the wolf's.

This aspect of the "I" as means of change, or the degree in itself, necessitates the temporal or finite nature of the "I" as one that it is inherently quantitative in the respect its means of change through continual multiplication and division of realities effectively exists through the actualization of phenomena by localizing them into singularities, whether it be through more abstract in the respect the "I" multiplies or divides thought or rather physical in the respect it empircally multiplies or divides realities through the acts of eating or reproduction.
Exan
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Exan »

"The nature of "I" as qualitatively dependent upon the culture which we both form and forms us takes on a dual quantitative nature in the respect the "I" as both groups and composing groups exists as temporal."

Could you specify related to our Culture?
Exan
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Exan »

"This aspect of the "I" as means of change, or the degree in itself, necessitates the temporal or finite nature of the "I" as one that it is inherently quantitative in the respect its means of change through continual multiplication and division of realities effectively exists through the actualization of phenomena by localizing them into singularities, whether it be through more abstract in the respect the "I" multiplies or divides thought or rather physical in the respect it empircally multiplies or divides realities through the acts of eating or reproduction."
Do you actually mean that singularities generating "I" are about "acts of eating or reproduction"?
Aren't they different socio-cultural assemblages?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Dontaskme »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:38 pm
Exan wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:43 pm "I exist" is an objective statement that exists seperate from the subjective experience of "I".

Discuss.
Do you mean Descartes's Cogito?
No, but Descarte can be applied.


"I think therefore I am"

Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existance of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".

In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.
Very well said.

.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by surreptitious57 »

I think that abbreviating it to I am is better since makes it easier to understand
It may contain more complexity but essentially it is a confirmation of existence
Exan
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:21 am

Re: Failure of "I".

Post by Exan »

"I think therefore I am"

Observes the act of thinking as an action that determines the "I", but it is the "action" that determines the existence of the "I". This action does not have to be limited to "thinking", it can be any action as a form of "movement".

In these respects "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with just "I am" in the respect "am" universalizes all possible actions as "being" itself.
[/quote]
" I think therefore I am " assumes a fundamental split into the existing "I" and the thinking "I". So, replacing Descartes Cogito by just "I am" would eliminate the whole nature of Descartes's project.
Post Reply