"I think, therefore I am" is NOT an absolute certainty, here's why, and here is a statement that

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Let's examine why this statement is NOT an absolute certainty.


"I think, therefore I am"

First, how do we know that it is "I" who thinks? Maybe, thinking does not exist. It could be that thoughts can be some type of signal coming into the brain from another location. Since this is a possibility and we can not prove it either way, it is not an absolute certainty; and even if it could be proven, this statement would still be rendered pointless as the whole purpose was to have a self evident statement of absolute certainty and years of scientific research is NOT self evidence.


What can we 100% know with absolute certainty?

"There is action."

Everything is action. Even to "exist" is an action, because "to exist" is to "happen in reality".

For example: "The flower is, the tree is" - "The flower happens, the tree happens".

To physically "be" is a happening.

Now the spiritual "be" as in the awareness that is just perceiving, even this is an action.

It is an eternal "awareness " (we never die).

To be aware of something is an action in an of itself.


If a bird flying across the sky, that is an action. If a person's awareness perceives of a bird flying across the sky, that is another action.


So, existing physically is an action because it is an "OCCURING in reality" .

Spiritual "to be" as eternal awareness is also action because it 'PERCEIVES'.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





It could be that thoughts can be some type of signal coming into the brain from another location.


That would mean that the brain would still have to process and interpret those "signals" wouldn't it?

And if one has a brain processing signals, they are, or to say they exist.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
Let's examine why this statement is NOT an absolute certainty.


"I think, therefore I am"


Literally it means that "because I can think, I am aware of myself." so your next statement that



First, how do we know that it is "I" who thinks? Maybe, thinking does not exist....


subscribes to a different school of thought. According to the first statement, if you cannot think, then you cannot be aware of yourself.

I couldn't really follow what you meant by action. Action does not need to happen for things to exist because "potential" precedes action (where action is defined as a change in potential for something to occur)
edit on 30-12-2012 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Then your the signal coming into the brain. Sounds like the same concept as a spirit to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
In response to René Descartes, Jean-Paul Sartre said: "The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that thinks.". According to you, what is the most profound statement?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 



Originally posted by Chamberf=6
That would mean that the brain would still have to process and interpret those "signals" wouldn't it?

And if one has a brain processing signals, they are, or to say they exist.


Who is this "one" that HAS a brain/body? The thought identifies as "I" and identified with the brain and body. "This is 'MY'' hand", "This is 'MY' arm" , these are thoughts, and arms are appearing, but where is this "ME"?

Whether or not the brain is "interpreting" the signals, it still does not change the fact that there is an "I" thinking. There is just brain interpreting.


reply to post by LiveEquation
 




Originally posted by LiveEquation
Action does not need to happen for things to exist because "potential" precedes action (where action is defined as a change in potential for something to occur)


Potential is not existence, it is the capability to be ABLE to exist.


reply to post by Infi8nity
 




Originally posted by Infi8nity
Then your the signal coming into the brain. Sounds like the same concept as a spirit to me.



There is a brain and there is a thought that is going to it as a signal. The thought embedded is "I am Mark". This "I" is a word that is occurring in a thought. "Mark" is just a label for the body. Who is this "I"? If "I" is the signal coming into the brain , then that "I" which is a signal being translated by the brain is not the same "I" within the thought itself.


reply to post by D1ss1dent
 


"All is action."



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
So, existing physically is an action because it is an "OCCURING in reality" .

Firstly you would have to define reality.

Maybe a more appropriate phrase would be 'I can think therefore I'm sober within my version of my reality'



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by D1ss1dent
In response to René Descartes, Jean-Paul Sartre said: "The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that thinks.". According to you, what is the most profound statement?


Yes, so the "I am" is a pre-reflective cogito. The "I think" is the cogito reflecting on the pre-reflective cogito, or rather a "transcendental ego". My understanding is that the "I am" is a presuppositionless supposition. A self-evident fact of one's solitary mental life.
edit on 30-12-2012 by trysts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Thoughts arise and I am aware of them.
I am prior to thought. I am there before they appear - i am the screen on which they appear.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by cody599
 


Even that which seems still, its atoms move. Physical things get built up and then break down, existing in physical reality is an "occurrence". I occurred as the form of a baby, I occurred as the form of a child, now I occur as the form of an adult, the matter changes form - it is a string of events. The matter itself is "occurring" - it is made of a bunch of moving atoms.

Even when you are imagining things, the imagines, sounds, etc. are occurring.

Now if you want to discuss what is "reality", "existence" , I would say

Everything is existence and existence has two parts, actual (what can be perceived of in the world) and imaginary (what is perceived/imagined in the mind).

Of course, it's possible that imaginary things may also be actual (such as spirits, god - things that can not be "perceived" from the majority's current perspective).

and of course actual things can also be imaginary...

reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


"All is action"

The awareness does perceiving of the appearance, The appearance appears to change and move.

You are the awareness (the action: to watch) - you are perceiving the arising (the action: to move) of thought.
edit on 30-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


reply to post by trysts
 


I am - may be pre-reflective

I think - may be cognitive-reflective

but

"Occurs" - is existence.


Existence occurs, to be is to occur as a form (this flower is - the existence of this flower occurs).


Consciousness occurs (perceiving) , thoughts occurs (arises), the body occurs (movement), life occurs (movement)...



edit on 30-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme

"All is action"

The awareness does perceiving of the appearance, The appearance appears to change and move.

You are being the awareness (doing the watching) - you are perceiving the coming and going (movement) of thought.
edit on 30-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


Seeing has to be primary and it is just happening.
Without the seeing happening nothing would appear to be happening.
edit on 30-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


That is true. Without the perceiving, the occurrence would not be perceived.

seeing is occurring

movement is occurring

emotion is occurring

thought is occurring



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Then may I suggest 'I am energy, but I know this, I exist because I choose to in this reality, however I am also aware that I exist in many realities' ?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by cody599
 




reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


edit on 30-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


reply to post by trysts
 


I am - may be pre-reflective

I think - may be cognitive-reflective

but

"Occurs" - is existence.


Existence occurs, to be is to occur as a form (this flower is - the existence of this flower occurs).


Consciousness occurs (perceiving) , thoughts occurs (arises), the body occurs (movement), life occurs (movement)...



edit on 30-12-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


I can't say I understand you, arpgme, but that could be because of a limited understanding on my part. When I studied Descartes in university(disclaimer: I don't think university study of philosophy to be the end-all interpretation of philosophers, though my professor is the first one to say this to us), it was understood that Descartes already assumed illusion in the form of a "chimera", during his meditations to get to the first self-evident statement: "Cogito, ergo sum", meaning "I doubt, I am". Descartes says that the one thing he can't doubt is that he's thinking. I agree with him, so you actually lost me in your original post when you said, "Maybe thinking does not exist". I don't understand that, sorry.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





Who is this "one" that HAS a brain/body? The thought identifies as "I" and identified with the brain and body. "This is 'MY'' hand", "This is 'MY' arm" , these are thoughts, and arms are appearing, but where is this "ME"?


The sum of the body parts and the thoughts recognizing/perceiving them, and the flower, building, etc.
edit on 12/30/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by trysts
 


Slightly off topic.
Try reading A daughter of smoke and bones.

You'll love it, chimera, now there's a word I haven't discussed for a long time



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by trysts
 


Slightly off topic.
Try reading A daughter of smoke and bones.

You'll love it, chimera, now there's a word I haven't discussed for a long time


Thank you, cody599! I just read the wiki description of the book/series, and it seems interesting to me.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
'I Am, therefore I think" was always my understanding of actuality however the semantics of both the statements hold true imo.

I think, therefore I Am - meaning the thinking supports the formulation of the words I Am which in turn refers back to the thinking which then becomes the thinker.

I Am, therefore I think - meaning I Am being and out of that being evolves(d) the physical body and brain which is responsible for naming it I Am and thinking about it. Since thinking is self recognising i.e you think about your own thinking it assumes it is first and as such believes the "I think, therefore I Am" statement to be correct.

just thoughts and semantics in the end what is one without the other?



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmD1
'I Am, therefore I think" was always my understanding of actuality however the semantics of both the statements hold true imo.

I think, therefore I Am - meaning the thinking supports the formulation of the words I Am which in turn refers back to the thinking which then becomes the thinker.

I Am, therefore I think - meaning I Am being and out of that being evolves(d) the physical body and brain which is responsible for naming it I Am and thinking about it. Since thinking is self recognising i.e you think about your own thinking it assumes it is first and as such believes the "I think, therefore I Am" statement to be correct.

just thoughts and semantics in the end what is one without the other?


I don't believe one can switch the language around as you do without changing the meaning entirely. "I am, therefore I think" assumes that existence contains thought, which is not so. "I think, therefore I am" assumes that where there is thought, then there is existence. Descartes entire enterprise was to find a first principle from the inside out, therefore being a philosophy from subjectivity. To turn it around as you do, misses the drastic change he made to philosophy. It is as if you're trying to make the sun revolve around the earth again, as it was before Copernicus.
Just my opinion



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by trysts

Originally posted by IAmD1
'I Am, therefore I think" was always my understanding of actuality however the semantics of both the statements hold true imo.

I think, therefore I Am - meaning the thinking supports the formulation of the words I Am which in turn refers back to the thinking which then becomes the thinker.

I Am, therefore I think - meaning I Am being and out of that being evolves(d) the physical body and brain which is responsible for naming it I Am and thinking about it. Since thinking is self recognising i.e you think about your own thinking it assumes it is first and as such believes the "I think, therefore I Am" statement to be correct.

just thoughts and semantics in the end what is one without the other?


I don't believe one can switch the language around as you do without changing the meaning entirely. "I am, therefore I think" assumes that existence contains thought, which is not so. "I think, therefore I am" assumes that where there is thought, then there is existence. Descartes entire enterprise was to find a first principle from the inside out, therefore being a philosophy from subjectivity. To turn it around as you do, misses the drastic change he made to philosophy. It is as if you're trying to make the sun revolve around the earth again, as it was before Copernicus.
Just my opinion





My understanding is that existence gives rise to thought that points the thinker back to existence in the form of the thinking I Am. By saying I think, therefore I Am you are opening up for the interpretation and understanding that there is an order in which thought creates the being. However that never sat well with me. By reversing the order and saying ' I Am, therefore I think' the order of the functions become being creates thinking and in thinking 'I Am' I can recognize me as part of being. When I stop thinking I do not automatically stop being but as soon as I stop being thinking can no longer be sustained.

However I do agree that the fact that I think and can formulate the thought 'I think....' is a good proof that there is something in existence that is thinking this of which I am a apart.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join