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

A little René Descartes in the morning with my coffee. His thesis of: "I think, therefore I am" in my humble opionion holds muster per se, as the scope of this arguement is a individual has to accept his/her presence in this reality before any other object. Thus, once I think "I am" the next step puts all other objects and entities into fruition.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I had to. If i don't, who will? I can't just let a troll run around and troll.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I had to. If i don't, who will? I can't just let a troll run around and troll.

But if no one feeds the trolls, they die.
They feed on attention. They add nothing. They are just hungry for any attention they can get.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


I wasn't trying to feed it. I was trying to kill it.

reply to post by Rapha


The Chinese did not say that the white and black circle have anything to do with good or evil. In fact, the very name of the symbol is "yin-yang" which the words for the name itself were symbols for where the light shines and the shade. And "yin" (darkness) was not perceived of as evil. So I doubt it means a staged "fight".

You may have an argument with the serpent angels and The Chinese worshipping "The Red Dragon" though, but if that is the case, why did they know The Red Dragon and not YHWH , Jesus, Lucifer, or Samyaza?

The Red Dragon is also talked about in the bible. The one who wants to overthrow the tyranny of YHWH who sits on a thrown with red eyes, a sword for a mouth and have four BEAST worshiping him for all eternity without rest saying "holy holy lord god almighty".

Some people say they say YHWH and he was a fallen angel and not the true god, and some even say that the so-called fight of good and evil of "God" (so-called) and "Satan" is staged...

There is also word from some who have experience Archangel Michael and Gabriel that they are reptilian...

reply to post by smithjustinb


Trolls are just the same as thoughts. They want your attention, they tempt you with their noise and then you have to live with noise.
If you stop feeding thoughts, they too will die of hunger and then you will get some peace.

But peace is not wanted by many.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I wasn't trying to feed it. I was trying to kill it.

You didn't realize that giving them attention is feeding them? It is what keeps them alive.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I wasn't trying to feed it. I was trying to kill it.

No
You didn't realize that giving them attention is feeding them? It is what keeps them alive.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I don't know. Knowledge is power. Maybe now that he knows he's a troll he might change his trolling ways. A troll can be a troll and not know it, I think. Sometimes you just gotta let people know the cold hard truth. The truth helps no matter if you like what you hear or not.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by trysts "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.

I never knew this. I never knew it in this context. I always thought that he just assumed that thinking was a direct indicator of his existence.

But now you tell me, cogito ergo sum actually means I doubt that I am. I like that. That goes along with my line of thinking. I don't believe there is an experiencer, but there is only an experience. The experience happens to be awareness, which in a way is the experiencer. But more so the experience. Awareness is the experience that can be experienced is what I'm trying to say. But there's not really anyone outside of the experience who is experiencing it.

I think there is a slight misunderstanding of what I tried to convey. The phrase should be: "I doubt, I am", in other words, "I doubt, therefore I am", not "I doubt that I am". Since doubt is a form of thought it's usually rendered, "I think, therefore I am".
There must have been a point where Descartes doubted his own existence during his meditations, since he doubts his way out of the external world entirely in order to find out that the one thing he can't doubt is that he is doubting(thinking).

I don't know if this changes anything for you, but I hope I've been clearer than before

reply to post by arpgme

 

You may have an argument with the serpent angels and The Chinese worshipping "The Red Dragon" though, but if that is the case, why did they know The Red Dragon and not YHWH , Jesus, Lucifer, or Samyaza?

The way i see it was initially there was Adam and Eve. They both knew nothing. Then Lucifer arrived in his serpent form.

Some people say they say YHWH and he was a fallen angel and not the true god, and some even say that the so-called fight of good and evil of "God" (so-called) and "Satan" is staged...

Yes, its simply a battle for the souls of mortals. Maybe a seraph's power is proportional to the amount of worship that it gets.
If YHWH was also a fallen angel, then i somehow doubt that he would still be in power today.

There is also word from some who have experience Archangel Michael and Gabriel that they are reptilian...

Archangel Michael and Gabriel are seraphs.
Seraph == serpent == snake == reptile == dragon. They are all the same.

reply to post by Rapha


That's interesting about Michael and Gabriel.

As for "If YHWH was a fallen angel he wouldn't be in charge"... well, that's the way things appear to be unfortunately. It is hard to find good-hearted beings because they are HUMBLE and do not care to be worshiped, so the more aggressive evil beings come forth with their power claiming to be god.

I choose FREEDOM (and LOVE) over AGRESSIVE (controlling beings claiming to be "gods") but if you want to submit to such beings you are free to do so.

Just look at how humans run the earth, they don't care if animals die or not because they are more aggressive and powerful so they can do what they want and let animals go extinct...

If anyone sees a post that is in violation of the T&C's then please alert it.

Now that little reminder has been offered let's allow this thread to continue on the topic of

"I think, therefore I am" is NOT an absolute certainty . . .





Originally posted by arpgme
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'.

So yes, to summarize the original post:


I replaced the phrase

"I think therefore I am"


with

"There is Action".

Action as in occurrence.

Awareness is PERCEIVING (an action).

Existence is OCCURRING (an action).

The body is MOVING (an action).


I did not identity a "self" because when there are only occurrences, what occurrence would one be identified with?

Is the "I" the occurrence of thought, emotion?

Is the "I" the moving of the body?

Whether you say "I am this" or "I am that" it is just a THOUGHT Identifying with an Occurrence.



This post is just for people that didn't understand my point in the original post.

reply to post by arpgme

The question is whether something exists at all.

Is anything real?

Is my hand real? Is the world around me real? Are my thoughts real? Is this a dream?

What's the most real thing?

Thought precedes action. Is this a clue? Action then can be said to be thought.

What you argue seems similar to asserting that the present is separate from the past. That the past isn't real, but the present is. But we all know that the present moment is not isolated from the past, no matter how good the argument is. We know that the past leads to the present. So can we then safely say that the past -IS- the present, in the same way that since thoughts precede action then action is thought? We probably can't since the past does not perfectly lead to the present due to quantum fluctuations and, similarly, thought cannot ever perfectly lead to action for the same reason. What this suggests is that the only thing protecting us from superdeterminism is a random injection of information into the universe via the random quantum turbulence. Another element in this is the speed of light limit on everything; and various other physical restraints. We can never know what's going on on the other side of the universe because we cannot be there instantly to record it. This prevents us from ever having perfect thoughts or performing perfect actions even if we could.

If we have no true consciousness and are instead automatons that follow the instructions in our chemistry and in our world, is it even important if -any If ththing- is real? A person is so complex on so many levels that it would be easy to misidentify consciousness. There's no rule that requires free will; there're just theories to explain what we think we currently know. There's lots of anthropocentrism too. If there's no free will, I don't think it matters whether anything is real or not, since it's just a program that's unwinding like clockwork and we're passengers on for the ride.

The idea that -I- am not real precludes everything else in my opinion. If -I- am not real then I don't care whether the world I am in is real or whether the actions in it are real.

I think whatever reality is is a combination of our mind and physical things (constructed of atoms). Keep in mind that most of physical matter is empty space; a quantum cloud of probability. Physical things are just a playground to entertain our minds. We're after all minds, not just bodies.

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by smithjustinb
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I wasn't trying to feed it. I was trying to kill it.

No
You didn't realize that giving them attention is feeding them? It is what keeps them alive.

edit on 31-12-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

I don't know. Knowledge is power. Maybe now that he knows he's a troll he might change his trolling ways. A troll can be a troll and not know it, I think. Sometimes you just gotta let people know the cold hard truth. The truth helps no matter if you like what you hear or not.

I am before thought - thought appears to me.

Thoughts appear and tempt you, they want to play. It is fun for a while playing with the thoughts (and trolls are like thoughts) but you must realize they are not worth disturbing your peace for. If you watch them and watch your reaction to them notice emotion is rising, if you do it can be fun just experiencing the colour of you changing, the feeling, the sensation. But what can happen is the emotion takes over and then you are not clear headed. You can feel all hot and know it and enjoy it but still play. But it is a dangerous game if you don't know what is happening.

Have you seen the film 'A Beautiful Mind'?
A man discovers that his life long friends ( 2 people) are not real and that he is a scizopheniac. To keep himself from falling off the rails after 'recovery' his friends still want to talk to him, but he has to ignore them for his own sanity. It's quite sad.


I am before thought - thought appears to me. I am the silence, the emptiness prior to any thought or moving energy (emotion) or sensation.
Before anything I am.

This is a rewrite (watered down version) of the post that was banned.

reply to post by jonnywhite

Originally posted by jonnywhite
The question is whether something exists at all.

Is anything real?

Why is this a question? Even if it isn't "real" it still being perceived by awareness and that alone makes it real. If you touch the hot stove it burns, whether or not the stove is an "illusion" or not does not matter the perceiving...

Originally posted by jonnywhite
What's the most real thing?

Thought precedes action. Is this a clue? Action then can be said to be thought.

What about that which precedes thoughts? What is that "place" where thoughts arises.

So, thought and action can be said to be that "empty" place where thoughts arises.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
What you argue seems similar to asserting that the present is separate from the past. That the past isn't real, but the present is. But we all know that the present moment is not isolated from the past, no matter how good the argument is. We know that the past leads to the present. So can we safely say that the past -IS- the present, in the same way that since thoughts precede action then action is thought?

Nope. Time doesn't exist. Things are just moving in space, it is us who gives it a label called "time" by measuring it's movement/speed/distance.

Therefore, since the position of all this HERE "NOW" , is different from the position of that THERE (past/future). They are completely different things.

The Present Moment is "HERE", The Past/Future moments are "THERE" - and even more importantly, we are always "HERE" no matter will we go it will be called "HERE" and never there.

Just like time, we are always existing "NOW" we will never be at "WAS" or "WILL BE" , and if we are - at that moment it will still be "NOW".

Originally posted by jonnywhite
If we have no true consciousness and are instead automatons that follow the instructions in our chemistry and in our world, is it even important if -anything- is real?

Nope, and even if there is free-will it still doesn't matter if things are "real". We are apparently in this body and sensations are felt.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
The idea that -I- am not real precludes everything else in my opinion. If -I- am not real then I don't care whether the world I am in is real or whether the actions in it are real.

But if there is no such thing as "I/SELF" and there are indeed people who do CARE, then you are wrong.

reply to post by arpgme

More than once in your post you state that feelings and pains and awareness are somehow signs that reality is real. It's like if someone walks up to you and says "I am not real." and you say "Then pinch yourself and feel the pain." Thing is, no amount of pain or feeling or thought can prove I am real. I may just as well be an automaton or a predetermined sequence of events. You know that pain is just a method for our body to prevent further damage? Without pain, we'd hurt ourselves without knowing it. This could just as easily be a consequence of evolution as a consequence of reality being real.

We're at a stage, OP, where people start to go on different paths. It's the same thing with consideration to the after-life. We just don't know if there's an after-life. However, it's beneficial to believe there's one because, lets face it, wouldn't you rather die and have 72 virgins on the other side all waiting happily for you in a garden of eden where your every demand is met, as opposed to being buried 6 feet under and being worm food? But some people still choose not to believe.

Another words, i can say that nothing is real. I can just as well say that everything is real. In fact, I can say whatever I want because nobody really knows. It's all a stage, somewhat. People say whatever floats their boat. There're more explanations for all this than I can count.

I have my opinions and you have yours.

My opinion is that if we use this reality as a justification to believe whatever it's we believe then it's already error-prone since nothing can prove that reality is real. Reality may just as well be a signal coming into our brain from the godmind or it may be a dream or it might just be a very bad night for a very drunk divine being who'll wake up "tomorrow" with a hangover. And if -I- cannot prove my own existence, then it's a question without an answer. Just believe what makes you happy. Because an unhappy life is no fun. Neither is believing we'll all only ever be worm food when we die. But if someone wants to believe something that makes em unhappy - like if they believe that this reality is a living hell - then so be it. If they start to hurt others, kill em or throw em in prison.

I don't have any strong opposition to people who believe unhappy things. I only have strong opposition to people who want to hurt others or who indirectly hurt gross numbers of others. Ignorance is not a great excuse, but there'll always be some ignorance in everybody. We can't prevent indirect harm, it happens. But when it's excessive, it becomes justification to end it. It's the difference between an adult smoking a cigarette around kids and everybody can see the smoke and everybody knows what that means for the health of the kids and a new technology that comes out and answers the energy problem but yet, unknown to most, introduces a dna-damaging compound into the environment that's not well known until 50 years after. It's all about context.

reply to post by jonnywhite


It's a dream.
There is this dream where the light of day is, always presently, here and now. And in this dream individuals dream their own dream in time, a dream of separation (in the darkness of their mind, thinking in time - which is the stage for your own dream).

A dream within a dream is what an individual is.

The present dream is full of light. The past and future dreams are not. Whispers in the ear about better times tempt one into the shadows. Whispers in the ear that tell you of worse times that can drag you down into the depths of despair. Ideas about how awful it is.

Here I am present and aware of the thoughts that appear to me and tempt me away from the kingdom which is always present where I am.

reply to post by jonnywhite

Originally posted by jonnywhite
lets face it, wouldn't you rather die and have 72 virgins on the other side all waiting happily for you in a garden of eden where your every demand is met, as opposed to being buried 6 feet under and being worm food? But some people still choose not to believe.

You say "happy eden" or "6 feet under" as if it were a choice. You do not get to choose, reality does. Your belief means nothing to reality. Even if you believe in "happy eden" if that is not reality - that is not where you will be. Now imagine if I could prove "happy eden" as an impossibility, would you feel disappointed? You shouldn't because that would mean that it was never a possibility in the first place and therefore nothing (the after life) was ever taken from you anyway (so you didn't really "lose" out since it was never real).

I'm not saying that there is no "after-life", I'm just saying that arguing like this is a bad way to argue.

You make it seem like you get to choose reality even though it is a HOPE that reality is real, and if it isn't no amount of hoping will change that. If it is - great , but your belief doesn't change that so it doesn't matter if you "still choose" to or not to believe.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
Another words, i can say that nothing is real. I can just as well say that everything is real.

There is a difference between saying "nothing is real" and "everything is real"

It is similar to saying

Non-existence is existent (nothing is real)
and

existence is existent (everything is real).


The first would be incorrect by logic alone (nonexistence is existent - nothing is real)
the second would be logical (existence is existent - everything is real).

Originally posted by jonnywhite
if -I- cannot prove my own existence, then it's a question without an answer. Just believe what makes you happy. Because an unhappy life is no fun.

But if nothing matters, why should our happiness? I don't get it.


By the way , the point I was trying to make was not that "nothing matters" - just that everything is just existing and this is regardless of whether or not there is a purpose, let me explain:


For example:

Water exist.

People can say "The purpose of water is to keep us alive" - but that would just be a BELIEF.

Since water is USED by people to keep them alive, that doesn't mean it's its PURPOSE. It just exist and people are using it to their advantage. So in people eyes that is it's purpose but it doesn't mean it was given any purpose by the universe/nature. "Purpose" is a made up thing, how people choose to use things to their advantage.