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

[Harbal]

Is there a human entity in a shape, a colour, or even in a sound? Is there an entity in an image?

What do you mean by "human entity"?

The eye sees only colours

To me, an eye is an organ that is sensitive to light which it then manipulates and sends to something called a brain, in the form of some kind of impulses. What do you mean when you use the word "eye"?

as if real solid things

You've used the word "real" again, yet you've already admitted you don't know what "real" is. In fact, you keep using words in general despite the fact that you consider them to be no more than squiggles. It seems to me that all the things you deny the existence of somehow become available to you when it becomes convenient.

[Skip]

Now tell me who you think holds a point of view, reference point?

''

In the given example, and for the last time, DESCARTES
Are your hard- of- reading, or what?

[Terrapin Station]

you have never showed friendly to me,

Sure I did, when we first interacted with each other. That was before I had seen any posts where you were doing your regular "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" spiel.

[Hobbes' Choice]

''Who'' is the I who is thinking? ... in or to whom does a thought arise?

''Who'' is the I in I am receiving a thought so I am.?

What / who am I ?

3 Stages of Solipsism.

1) I think therefore I am.
2) I think. I am.
3) I think I am.

Solipsism is a thought, thoughts are not real. To know a thought is illusory knowledge. ''What Is'' is thoughtless despite /regardless of what thoughts says about it.

The idea that; "Solipsism is a thought, thoughts are not real. To know a thought is illusory knowledge. ''What Is'' is thoughtless despite /regardless of what thoughts says about it", is not real. You are not real.
I can ignore you and your thoughts because you are not real.
Please go away!

[Dontaskme]

Now tell me who you think holds a point of view, reference point?

''

In the given example, and for the last time, DESCARTES
Are your hard- of- reading, or what?

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

To pronounce a quote such as ''I think therefore I am'' can be misleading in the context that the ''thought'' can bring about the belief that 'I' am a separate autonomous 'me' that is the doer and author of all the thinking and action and decisions made within the realm of this 'mind/body organism'.

So without the belief in thought, what is there? and what's ACTUALLY there to be believed? ..what the heck is a ''THOUGHT'' .. is it a word, a name, a concept, a symbol ..a bird..a plane? ...aren't these just more thoughts?

Thoughts believed can be anything that belief says they are...

The belief that I am my name is misleading in the context ..Is the word ''water'' the actual water.? ...it's not is it?

Words, concepts point to that which cannot be named ..what the heck is any ''thing'' without a name. The water cannot know it's water because there is nothing actually there in the water to know. Knowing comes from the knowledge and since knowledge is made up of concepts and words and belief in those....all knowledge is illusory story.

So where does story arise, where does the concepts that make up the story arise/come from?...certainly not from this 'mind/body organism', those are just more labels, ideas, and beliefs....you may be able to see in this realisation that all there is available to make-up the world and reality are concepts and thoughts, bubbling forth from absolute nothingness/silence. And Not from a believed separate autonomous 'me'

At the end of the day these are all concepts and thus limited by that. What is worth inquiring into though is that which is prior to thought ie that which is known before thought seems to step in and process and interpret.

What is that 'knowingness' that knows the statement, the words "I think therefore I Am". What is that?... as in the screen that the movie is shown on. Even though the movie is full of drama. All you are even seeing is the screen and the screen is flavoured by the movie but it always remains unchanged and the same. Without the screen.... the light of the projector is invisible and projects out into the vast blackness. The screen is the 'knowingness'..........what ever that is?

[Dontaskme]

Is there a human entity in a shape, a colour, or even in a sound? Is there an entity in an image?

What do you mean by "human entity"?

The eye sees only colours

To me, an eye is an organ that is sensitive to light which it then manipulates and sends to something called a brain, in the form of some kind of impulses. What do you mean when you use the word "eye"?

as if real solid things

You've used the word "real" again, yet you've already admitted you don't know what "real" is. In fact, you keep using words in general despite the fact that you consider them to be no more than squiggles. It seems to me that all the things you deny the existence of somehow become available to you when it becomes convenient.

In case it has slipped your notice, words are used as a way of communication, can't avoid them, since they are the only tool available.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

To pronounce a quote such as ''I think therefore I am'' can be misleading in the context that the ''thought'' can bring about the belief that 'I' am a separate autonomous 'me' that is the doer and author of all the thinking and action and decisions made within the realm of this 'mind/body organism'.

So without the belief in thought, what is there? and what's ACTUALLY there to be believed? ..what the heck is a ''THOUGHT'' .. is it a word, a name, a concept, a symbol ..a bird..a plane? ...aren't these just more thoughts?

Thoughts believed can be anything that belief says they are...

The belief that I am my name is misleading in the context ..Is the word ''water'' the actual water.? ...it's not is it?

Words, concepts point to that which cannot be named ..what the heck is any ''thing'' without a name. The water cannot know it's water because there is nothing actually there in the water to know. Knowing comes from the knowledge and since knowledge is made up of concepts and words and belief in those....all knowledge is illusory story.

So where does story arise, where does the concepts that make up the story arise/come from?...certainly not from this 'mind/body organism', those are just more labels, ideas, and beliefs....you may be able to see in this realisation that all there is available to make-up the world and reality are concepts and thoughts, bubbling forth from absolute nothingness/silence. And Not from a believed separate autonomous 'me'

At the end of the day these are all concepts and thus limited by that. What is worth inquiring into though is that which is prior to thought ie that which is known before thought seems to step in and process and interpret.

What is that 'knowingness' that knows the statement, the words "I think therefore I Am". What is that?... as in the screen that the movie is shown on. Even though the movie is full of drama. All you are even seeing is the screen and the screen is flavoured by the movie but it always remains unchanged and the same. Without the screen.... the light of the projector is invisible and projects out into the vast blackness. The screen is the 'knowingness'..........what ever that is?

[Dontaskme]

you have never showed friendly to me,

Sure I did, when we first interacted with each other. That was before I had seen any posts where you were doing your regular "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" spiel.

You were very flagrant in your attitude toward me...and took it upon yourself to dislike the way I express myself. That's not my problem, it's yours. Get your own house in order before you start pointing the finger at other peoples follies.

Why make fun and call people serial trolls just because their way of expressing their self does not fit in with your personal model of what constitutes proper philosophical conduct I can think for myself thank you very much...albeit imagined I can.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Now tell me who you think holds a point of view, reference point?

''

In the given example, and for the last time, DESCARTES
Are your hard- of- reading, or what?

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

To pronounce a quote such as ''I think therefore I am'' can be misleading in the context that the ''thought'' can bring about the belief that 'I' am a separate autonomous 'me' that is the doer and author of all the thinking and action and decisions made within the realm of this 'mind/body organism'.

So without the belief in thought, what is there? and what's ACTUALLY there to be believed? ..what the heck is a ''THOUGHT'' .. is it a word, a name, a concept, a symbol ..a bird..a plane? ...aren't these just more thoughts?

Thoughts believed can be anything that belief says they are...

The belief that I am my name is misleading in the context ..Is the word ''water'' the actual water.? ...it's not is it?

Words, concepts point to that which cannot be named ..what the heck is any ''thing'' without a name. The water cannot know it's water because there is nothing actually there in the water to know. Knowing comes from the knowledge and since knowledge is made up of concepts and words and belief in those....all knowledge is illusory story.

So where does story arise, where does the concepts that make up the story arise/come from?...certainly not from this 'mind/body organism', those are just more labels, ideas, and beliefs....you may be able to see in this realisation that all there is available to make-up the world and reality are concepts and thoughts, bubbling forth from absolute nothingness/silence. And Not from a believed separate autonomous 'me'

But that is all you can ultimately be. You are noting else.

At the end of the day these are all concepts and thus limited by that. What is worth inquiring into though is that which is prior to thought ie that which is known before thought seems to step in and process and interpret.

You says there is anything prior to thought which may be inquired upon?.

What is that 'knowingness' that knows the statement, the words "I think therefore I Am".

You can't have that thought without a thought, and so round you go in meaningless circles, saying nothing, and meaning nothing..

What is that?... as in the screen that the movie is shown on. Even though the movie is full of drama. All you are even seeing is the screen and the screen is flavoured by the movie but it always remains unchanged and the same. Without the screen.... the light of the projector is invisible and projects out into the vast blackness. The screen is the 'knowingness'..........what ever that is?

That is the sight of you looking up your own anus

[Dontaskme]

4 blue sentences

Thanks for the clarification in what constitutes the MIND...written in just 4 blue sentences.

You once said you knew, and now you've shown that knowing. Kudos to you

[Terrapin Station]

you have never showed friendly to me,

Sure I did, when we first interacted with each other. That was before I had seen any posts where you were doing your regular "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" spiel.

You were very flagrant in your attitude toward me...and took it upon yourself to dislike the way I express myself. That's not my problem, it's yours. Get your own house in order before you start pointing the finger at other peoples follies.

Why make fun and call people serial trolls just because their way of expressing their self does not fit in with your personal model of what constitutes proper philosophical conduct I can think for myself thank you very much...albeit imagined I can.

One thing that's interesting to me is that your comments here aren't at all consistent with what you claim your philosophical views to be.

Re your philosophical views, you don't even think that there's any "I," any real distinction between me and you, etc. Yet your comments above are phrased quite conventionally, as if you do believe there is an "I" and so on.

As a consequence, I can understand you just fine re what I'm quoting from you above, but when you wax philosophical, it seems to quickly go down the rabbit hole of incoherence. Why not try to do philosophy in a more "plain-speaking" manner?

[RG1]

Dontaskme, you ask very good questions! Here is my take on this topic --

WHERE DESCARTES WENT WRONG:

Descartes's goal was to arrive at one item of truth that could serve as the starting-point and foundation for all knowledge. His starting point was his famous statement "I think, therefore I am". As Descartes explained, "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt …" Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence was proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity; a “self”; a “mind”, for there to be a thought.

According to Descartes, I can doubt anything. But when I doubt, I am thinking, and as long as I am thinking, I exist. Thinking is inseparable from me. Thus I have a clear and distinct idea that I am a mind, or intelligence, and my nature is a thinking thing. On the other hand, I have also a clear idea of body as an extended and non-thinking thing. He concludes that res cogitans and res extensa are two independent entities. This dichotomy is the foundation of Descartes's dualism. “For all that I am a thing that is real and which truly exists. But what kind of a thing? … A thinking thing (res cogitans).” --- source unknown

Descartes made two errors --

Firstly, he falsely equivocated his ‘experiencing’ of thoughts to the ‘thinking’ (self-constructing/creating) of his thoughts. He falsely believed that he could ‘think’ thoughts, when in reality, all he could only do was ‘experience’ thoughts. This error led him to his flawed dualism (mind and body) position.

Secondly, he did not go back far enough. If one’s goal is to find the true starting point of knowledge, then the starting premise is of utmost criticalness. This starting premise needs to be ‘absolute and undeniable’. Descartes premise “I think, …” does not meet this level of certainty. Descartes should replace the “I think”, with “I experience”, or to be truly accurate, he should replace it with “Experiencing exists”. Since the “I” has not yet been determined with absolute certainty, it does not belong in this starting premise. For this critical first premise, the ‘experiencing’ itself is the only true absolute/undoubtable thing, and therefore is the only thing that belongs in this starting premise.

So to help Descartes reach his original goal, I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:

“Experiencing exists, therefore I (the "Experiencer") exist.”

But this of course, shoots down his dualistic position. “I” is just the ‘experiencer’, and is NOT a ‘mind’ (nor a 'thinker of thoughts' entity - but only an experiencer of thoughts, ...and feelings, and sensory experiences).

There is NO "I", or mind, or self! ...but only an 'experiencer' that experiences such notions, ...and an 'experiencer' can only experience, period.

[henry quirk]

"I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:"

If you are merely the experiencer, then you did no such thing. As the experiencer, you only experienced, you didn't formulate, didn't write..,you couldn't have.

So: if you didn't, couldn't, then who or what did?

[Dontaskme]

One thing that's interesting to me is that your comments here aren't at all consistent with what you claim your philosophical views to be.

Re your philosophical views, you don't even think that there's any "I," any real distinction between me and you, etc. Yet your comments above are phrased quite conventionally, as if you do believe there is an "I" and so on.

As a consequence, I can understand you just fine re what I'm quoting from you above, but when you wax philosophical, it seems to quickly go down the rabbit hole of incoherence. Why not try to do philosophy in a more "plain-speaking" manner?

TS, you just don't get it do you, I can't be the one you want me to be. One’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions.

And as for inconsistency, well duh, it's all the drama/story of I...without such narrative what am I ?
..we all love a good story.

Just stop responding to me, please. I'm not in little league anymore.

[Dontaskme]

"I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:"

If you are merely the experiencer, then you did no such thing. As the experiencer, you only experienced, you didn't formulate, didn't write..,you couldn't have.

So: if you didn't, couldn't, then who or what did?

What is known is there is some thing happening that is able to unite a sperm with an egg and turn it into a fully grown adult human being. The one doing that is the only doer, and knowing. What that is..I've no idea. Cuz, I'm not doing it... it's doing me.,

[RG1]

"I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:"

If you are merely the experiencer, then you did no such thing.

Technically Correct. But in the above usage of the word, “I” is referring to the physical body (particularly the fingers) of RG1.

As the experiencer, you only experienced, you didn't formulate, didn't write..,you couldn't have.

Correct again. “I” the “experiencer”, can only experience the bodily reactions, …not control them!

So: if you didn't, couldn't, then who or what did?

Body reactions are automatic responses to applied stimuli; effects from its causers. Experiencing our bodily reactions does not mean that WE dictated/controlled these actions.

We only get to experience these bodily reactions, …not control them!