I THINK therefore I AM

@nameless,

nameless;72317 wrote:

The existence of the meditational (Zen) state refutes the 'cogito' statement completely. Renders it trivial.

I'm not so sure. If the question is "how do we know that we exist" and the answer is "because we can never doubt that we are a thinking being", that reduces the "meditational" or perhaps trance-like states simply to moments in which we do not consciously verify our existence. But that doesn't mean we don't exist at all.

@nameless,

nameless;72317 wrote:

The existence of the meditational (Zen) state refutes the 'cogito' statement completely. Renders it trivial.

On the other hand, if 'thought' is truly 'ego' (as it seems to be) then within the egoic (context) state of thought, exists the egoic 'self' (thought-image).

So his statement is both false, as in a meditative context our 'original face' (Conscious Perspective/Soul) shines forth.
Within an egoic/thought context, our egoically perceived (thought) 'self' exists.

Two very different 'selves' to which his "I" might relate.

"What is thought? We must know what is thought before we can know who we are!!"

In What Is Thought? Eric Baum proposes a computational explanation of thought. Just as Erwin Schrodinger in his classic 1944 work What Is Life? argued ten years before the discovery of DNA that life must be explainable at a fundamental level by physics and chemistry,
Baum contends that the "present-day inability" of computer science to explain thought and meaning is no reason to doubt there can be such an explanation.

Baum argues that the complexity of mind is the outcome of evolution, which has built thought processes that act unlike the standard algorithms of computer science and that to understand the mind we need to understand these thought processes and the evolutionary process that produced them in computational terms.

Baum proposes that underlying mind is a complex but compact program that exploits the underlying structure of the world. He argues further that the mind is essentially programmed by DNA.

We learn more rapidly than computer scientists have "so far been" able to explain because the DNA/god code has programmed the mind (Brain) to deal only with meaningful possibilities. To me the mind equates to the soul not the brain, the mind is conscious, the brain is the processor

Thus the mind understands by exploiting semantics (Words) or meaning, for the purposes of computation; constraints are built in so that although there are myriad possibilities, only a few make sense.

To who is thinking and who we are we must know the mind/soul and well as the physical brain and body. Every cell in our bodies are tiny thinking processors communicating and maintaining an harmonious whole grip on physical life.

We must know the whole being, body, mind and soul to get to a true "I KNOW WHO I AM"

I think in words but also sometimes in pictures and colours

Evolution/god discovered corresponding subroutines or short cuts to speed up its processes and to construct creatures whose survival depends on making the right choice quickly. We observe only what we need to observe to survive, but new avenues beyond our five senses are opening up by the day by this almost exponential advance of information communication and processing

Baum argues that the structure and nature of thought, meaning, sensation, and consciousness therefore arise naturally from the evolution of programs that exploit the compact structure of the world.I think this is a simplification.

When we know who we are we will become gods!! and proudly state I AM WHO I SAY I AM

You guys will not like the god bit in my post, but so be it

@Aedes,

Aedes;72320 wrote:

I'm not so sure. If the question is "how do we know that we exist" and the answer is "because we can never doubt that we are a thinking being", that reduces the "meditational" or perhaps trance-like states simply to moments in which we do not consciously verify our existence. But that doesn't mean we don't exist at all.

Why would anyone think that we are constantly, or even continuously, verifying our existence? In fact, I don't think I have ever verified my existence. Indeed, I would not know how to do such a thing. What am I supposed to do? Pinch myself? Or does that just verify that I am awake?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;72336 wrote:

"What is thought? We must know what is thought before we can know who we are!!"

I would imagine that if one has never experienced a thoughtless state, it might well be very difficult to define it. 'Thought thinking about thought thinking about thought... '

Once meditation, a 'thoughtless' state, has been experienced, knowing what 'thoughts' are is simple as falling down, we know the difference, there is 'context' and hence, definition!

Quote:

that life must be explainable at a fundamental level by physics and chemistry,

Perhaps, now that quantum physics has discovered 'Consciousness'! That is one Perspective.

Quote:

Baum contends that the "present-day inability" of computer science to explain thought and meaning is no reason to doubt there can be such an explanation.

There is plenty reason to doubt, besides, 'reasons' and 'explanations' are specific relics of a linear Perspective. There are other Perspectives just as valid. There are, for those who believe, many 'reasons' and a multitude of 'explanations' as such is in the eyes of the beholders, and as every Perspective is unique, it stands to 'reason' that there would be many.

Quote:

Baum argues that the complexity of mind is the outcome of evolution, which has built thought processes that act unlike the standard algorithms of computer science

First, 'evolution' is just one Perspective. Linear. There are othere equally valid.
Second, man in his thoughtful way, invented and created computer math, not the other way around. So, it is no great surprise that man creates in his own image.

Quote:

and that to understand the mind we need to understand these thought processes and the evolutionary process that produced them in computational terms.

Thought vs mind, whats the difference? There is 'thought/memory' that seems to be used interchangeably with 'mind'.
And to understand 'thought' ('processes' are a linear relic) to any degree, it is necessary to silence them and observe.

Quote:

Baum proposes that underlying mind is a complex but compact program that exploits the underlying structure of the world. He argues further that the mind is essentially programmed by DNA.

I don't klnow who Baum is, but his theories have long been refuted. Materialism is an obsolete and long refuted philosophy, and quoting some ancient guy's thoughts seems ... less than relevent.
And his speculation that 'thoughts/memory' are programed by DNA is no more than that, idle speculation/no evidence. Besides, the whole 'cause and effect' is scientifically obsolete, so, not anyhing programs anything (from a scientific Perspective, that is...)

Quote:

To me the mind equates to the soul not the brain, the mind is conscious, the brain is the processor

I understand what you are saying, and from a linear Perspective, I can almost agree. 'Thoughts' and 'memories' are found in the vicinity of a living brain. Linearly is appears that the brain is 'causing' the thoughts, a 'processor'.
The Soul is Conscious Perspective. There are multiple Perspectives, not multiple 'Consciousness'. Rather like the eyes of a fly. One observer, many Perspectives/facets/angles of vision...

Quote:

Every cell in our bodies are tiny thinking processors communicating and maintaining an harmonious whole grip on physical life.

It is a bit of a stretch, as far as I can see, to attribute 'thought' (other than as a metaphor, or some such) to cells (other then, maybe, brain cells). As I said, there is no evidence of 'thought' occuring anywhere other then in the immediate vicinity of a functioning brain.

Quote:

When we know who we are we will become gods!! and proudly state I AM WHO I SAY I AM

Dramatic and a bit presumptuous, but, hey, perhaps..
It is already a truth/reality that you are as you perceive yourself, and so much more that you cannot perceive!
You are also who I say you are!
Actually, we are the sum-total of every Conscious Perspective that has ever perceived us, from mom and dad and 'me' to the goldfish and the virus on our eyelash.

Go ahead an 'learn thyself', do the experiment, and see if your prediction is valid! Thats is what scientists do.

Quote:

You guys will not like the god bit in my post, but so be it

Aw, Jesus on a skewer, I thought that you were talking to me!
I don't mind your 'god' reference, it was rather unoffensive.
Peace

@nameless,

What you are saying makes no sense. If you can do anything, then you exist. Any thing you do confirms you exist, in fact simple perception confirms you exist. You have to exist to have any state of being or sensation or to commit any act whatsoever, so to speak about the possibility of you not existing evokes an embedded contradiction. The simple fact that you commit some act or have some state attributed to you(even if you attribute it) means that you exist. To speak in the positive about your own existence it tautological, to speak in the negative is contradictory. its pretty simple.

This simple idea is in fact the crux of the argument against the soundness of Descartes position, 'I think, therefore I am', for it is certainly true that 'I am' necessarily precedes ' I can think', and thus it precedes 'I think', a fortiori. His statement 'I think' presumes his conclusion. The fact of the matter is, that it seems to be his point that it precedes his conclusion. He cannot doubt that he exists, because there would necessarily be no agent for doubting, thus there would be no action of doubting, so he would not have doubted.

His point seems to boil down to the idea that tautology supercedes all, even the supernatural. Then he covered up his tracks with a god proof, as the trickster could in fact be God, a being that could not be questioned in his day, even innocently. He had to make sure his work would never be considered heresy.

I would necessarily be wrong if I said 'I do not exist'. It is an absolute logical necessity that I exist in order for it even to be possible for me to convey an idea.

By claiming that there is (or could be) some innate difference between dream experience and waking experience you logically necessitate(or allow for) a form of mind body duality in the most extreme sense: Two sort of experience that do not interact with each other, but only with your mind, with the dream-state as its medium, or at least you suggest the possibility. The questions to be asked here are 1) Is it actually a logically coherent position to take that such a duality exists? 2) How on Earth could such an absurd notion pass through an application of the principal of parsimony?

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;72395 wrote:

What you are saying makes no sense. If you can do anything, then you exist. Any thing you do confirms you exist, in fact simple perception confirms you exist. You have to exist to have any state of being or sensation or to commit any act whatsoever, so to speak about the possibility of you not existing evokes an embedded contradiction. The simple fact that you commit some act or have some state attributed to you(even if you attribute it) means that you exist. To speak in the positive about your own existence it tautological, to speak in the negative is contradictory. its pretty simple.

This simple idea is in fact the crux of the argument against the soundness of Descartes position, 'I think, therefore I am', for it is certainly true that 'I am' necessarily precedes ' I can think', and thus it precedes 'I think', a fortiori. His statement 'I think' presumes his conclusion. The fact of the matter is, that it seems to be his point that it precedes his conclusion. He cannot doubt that he exists, because there would necessarily be no agent for doubting, thus there would be no action of doubting, so he would not have doubted.

His point seems to boil down to the idea that tautology supercedes all, even the supernatural. Then he covered up his tracks with a god proof, as the trickster could in fact be God, a being that could not be questioned in his day, even innocently. He had to make sure his work would never be considered heresy.

I would necessarily be wrong if I said 'I do not exist'. It is an absolute logical necessity that I exist in order for it even to be possible for me to convey an idea.

By claiming that there is (or could be) some innate difference between dream experience and waking experience you logically necessitate(or allow for) a form of mind body duality in the most extreme sense: Two sort of experience that do not interact with each other, but only with your mind, with the dream-state as its medium, or at least you suggest the possibility. The questions to be asked here are 1) Is it actually a logically coherent position to take that such a duality exists? 2) How on Earth could such an absurd notion pass through an application of the principal of parsimony?

I hope you don't think I don't know I exist, or that anything I said suggested such a thing. I would have to be something close to loony to say such a thing and mean it. What I said is that I don't verify I exist constantly; nor do I know what it would be to verify that I exist. I know I exist, don't fret.

I don't know what you mean by, "innate difference", but there certainly are differences between dreaming and waking experiences. For instance, there is, generally, no weather in dreams. And, of course, it need hardly be said that the experience in dreams is "dreamlike". That is why we have the term. Again, "duality" is your term, not mine. What I said was that since we are unconscious when we dream, I don't see how we can then remember anything. It is hard to understand talk about dreams. Dreaming life is not just another kind of life (like living in Europe, after you have lived in America). Ordinary notions have a hard time being transferred from life to dreams. We don't X things in dreams, we dream that we X things. That makes a difference. We can't, for example, verify that we exist when we dream, if ever we could, when we are awake, since verification certainly takes consciousness and intentionality, and none of that is present in dreams.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;72336 wrote:

Just as Erwin Schrodinger in his classic 1944 work What Is Life? argued ten years before the discovery of DNA that life must be explainable at a fundamental level by physics and chemistry,
Baum contends that the "present-day inability" of computer science to explain thought and meaning is no reason to doubt there can be such an explanation.

I don't recocognise Schroedingers' view from this description. For forty years he argued that the Upanishads contained the truth, which puts him bang in line with Nameless on the question of consciousness. He calls the state on which the contents of consciousness depend 'the canvas on which they are painted.'

@Aedes,

Aedes;72307 wrote:

. How does metaphysical speculation tell you about your neighbor's internal conflicts?

In ways that you could never imagine. :-) Don't sell metaphysical speculation short when it comes to understanding life!

[CENTER]Nature loves to hide. [Heraclitus]

All things come into being by conflict of opposites. [Heraclitus]
[/CENTER]

There may be a deeper story than you might think. Just like the meaning of a good play has to be peeled away layer, by layer like an onion.

I remember being part of a book club. Some just saw the surface story. "It is a story about the death of a salesman". Some saw much more. It all depends upon what you observe and what you are looking for. As we can tell by this thread, everyone sees something different.

Rich

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------

nameless;72317 wrote:

On the other hand, if 'thought' is truly 'ego' (as it seems to be) then within the egoic (context) state of thought, exists the egoic 'self' (thought-image).
[

Hi,

Chinese metaphysics has a more refined view of the nature of the human Individual Consciousness. It is composed as such:

1) Shen: Spirit, the spark of life that comes from the initial Source.

2) Hun: Soul, the transcendental being that is learning, exploring, and gaining skills over multiple lives.

3) Yi: The creative mind that also brings Awareness

4) Zhi: The Willfulness

5) Po: The part of the being that is here for a single lifetime and manifests in the physical body. It uses the Zhi to survive.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72431 wrote:

In ways that you could never imagine. :-) Don't sell metaphysical speculation short when it comes to understanding life!

[CENTER]Nature loves to hide. [Heraclitus]

All things come into being by conflict of opposites. [Heraclitus]
[/CENTER]

There may be a deeper story than you might think. Just like the meaning of a good play has to be peeled away layer, by layer like an onion.

Rich

Well

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------

Rich

Well, sure, nature loves to hide. And that is why we have science, to discover what is only appearance, and what is reality. It appears that the Earth is in the center of the Solar System, but that is only appearance. The Sun is in the center. And, Earth looks flat, but it isn't. It is curved. And it may look sunny, without a cloud in the sky, but weather forecasters tell you it is going to rain despite appearances. And, so on.

Heraclitus knew what he was talking about when he said that nature loves to hide. Of course, he didn't know about science. But we do. Don't we?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72434 wrote:

Well, sure, nature loves to hide. And that is why we have science, to discover what is only appearance, and what is reality. It appears that the Earth is in the center of the Solar System, but that is only appearance. The Sun is in the center. And, Earth looks flat, but it isn't. It is curved. And it may look sunny, without a cloud in the sky, but weather forecasters tell you it is going to rain despite appearances. And, so on.

Heraclitus knew what he was talking about when he said that nature loves to hide. Of course, he didn't know about science. But we do. Don't we?

Some may enjoy using their senses. Some may enjoy using their creative minds. It was Einstein's thought experiments that brought to him the concepts of Special and General Relativity. It was thought experiments that first gave us the Uncertainty Principle. And Wheeler's Gedanken that first suggested that Photon's might know that they are being watched. Smile

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer - physicsworld.com

One can make a very good case that all of the great discoveries started with the creative mind. However, it could be that all it is remembering. Creativity means looking at something from a completely new perspective - such as the Cubists did with art. In fact, they look at things from multiple perspectives at the same time! Good for them.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72439 wrote:

Some may enjoy using their senses. Some may enjoy using their creative minds. It was Einstein's thought experiments that brought to him the concepts of Special and General Relativity. It was thought experiments that first gave us the Uncertainty Principle. And Wheeler's Gedanken that first suggested that Photon's might know that they are being watched.

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer - physicsworld.com

One can make a very good case that all of the great discoveries started with the creative mind. However, it could be that all it is remembering. Creativity means looking at something from a completely new perspective - such as the Cubists did with art. In fact, they look at things from multiple perspectives at the same time! Good for them.

Rich

Yes, that was the Cubist perspective, wasn't it? We require both creativity and observation (as if observation did not also involve creativity! As Kant pointed out, observation also involves creativity).

It might also be that photons not merely know they are being watched, they might actually enjoy being watched. Kinky little things! The exibitionists of the micro-world!

@richrf,

kennethamy;72338 wrote:

Why would anyone think that we are constantly, or even continuously, verifying our existence?

You've missed the point. The point is that Descartes posited how we do know that we exist, and I've added that the fact that we're not always undertaking Descartes' thought experiment (i.e. when we're zoning out) doesn't negate anything he said.

richrf;72431 wrote:

In ways that you could never imagine. :-)

Name one :-)

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72434 wrote:

Well, sure, nature loves to hide. And that is why we have science, to discover what is only appearance, and what is reality.

My view would be that this is exactly what science does not do, and I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree.

Quote:

It appears that the Earth is in the center of the Solar System, but that is only appearance.

It appears that the Earth exists and this may be only appearance.

Quote:

Heraclitus knew what he was talking about when he said that nature loves to hide. Of course, he didn't know about science. But we do. Don't we?

I think he knew also. But science would have nothing to do with it. Nature is hidden from the science you refer to. That was his point.

@Whoever,

Whoever;72452 wrote:

My view would be that this is exactly what science does not do, and I'm pretty sure most scientists would agree.

It appears that the Earth exists and this may be only appearance.

I think he knew also. But science would have nothing to do with it. Nature is hidden from the science you refer to. That was his point.

I cannot imagine what reasons you have to say any of those things.

@richrf,

Distinctions between "appearance" and "reality" are the domain of the creative, abstract human mind -- not inherent properties of said reality. Metaphysics, as opposed to science, is a garnish, an accoutrement, a human tattoo that we use to brand the things we observe. But since metaphysics is the domain of human thought and not measurement, we have no way of measuring such workings of our mind against reality. Metaphysics tells us a lot about ourselves -- but nothing about nature itself.

@kennethamy,

It can demonstrated that metaphysics can prove a great deal about nature itself, quite easily, but I must get on with disagreeing with someone else.

kennethamy;72465 wrote:

I cannot imagine what reasons you have to say any of those things.

Sorry. I was trying to be brief and may have overdone it. Let's look at the three replies.

1. "My view would be that this is exactly what science does not do, and I'm pretty sure that most scientists would agree."

That is to say, physicists normally take the view that physics does not study Reality, and I agree with them.

2. "It appears that the Earth exists and this may be only appearance."

As a consequence, it is not possible to argue that the 'reality' of the orbit of the earth around the sun is a scientific advance on the 'appearance' that it is the other way around, as if science were revealing Reality, or anything like that, because this is a misuse of the words. Physics does not reveal what is real. This is result of logic, not an opinion, a rare philosophical proposition on which just about everyone agrees. Physics reveals that it cannot study Reality. It studies the appearance of things.

"I think he (Heraclitus) knew also. But science would have nothing to do with it. Nature is hidden from the science you refer to. That was his point."

I was agreeing with you that Heraclitus was right. Then I took issue with your suggestion that the poor old chap was handicapped by living before science was invented. Science has nothing to do with his remark, for precisely the reasons already given. Nature is hidden from what we call the natural sciences. Everybody knows this. 'The way we have to describe Nature,' remarked Feynman in a public lecture in the 1950's, 'is incomprehensible to us.' Nothing has changed in the meantime.

That's about the best I can do for clarity.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;72399 wrote:

I hope you don't think I don't know I exist, or that anything I said suggested such a thing. I would have to be something close to loony to say such a thing and mean it. What I said is that I don't verify I exist constantly; nor do I know what it would be to verify that I exist. I know I exist, don't fret.

Of course I don't think that. Did you even read my post? The point is, if you interact with anything or if anything interacts with you, that is verification of your existence. So you are continually verifying your existence by continually interacting with something, period.

Thus, your action of typing the words 'I have never verified my existence' is contradictory. That you type necessitates that you exist. Get it? If you didn't exist, you couldn't be typing. This in no way implies that I think that you think that you don't exist, only that you are committing a very plain fallacy.

kennethamy;72399 wrote:

I don't know what you mean by, "innate difference", but there certainly are differences between dreaming and waking experiences. For instance, there is, generally, no weather in dreams. And, of course, it need hardly be said that the experience in dreams is "dreamlike". That is why we have the term. Again, "duality" is your term, not mine. What I said was that since we are unconscious when we dream, I don't see how we can then remember anything. It is hard to understand talk about dreams. Dreaming life is not just another kind of life (like living in Europe, after you have lived in America). Ordinary notions have a hard time being transferred from life to dreams. We don't X things in dreams, we dream that we X things. That makes a difference. We can't, for example, verify that we exist when we dream, if ever we could, when we are awake, since verification certainly takes consciousness and intentionality, and none of that is present in dreams.

I'm not really sure how you experience dreams. I usually experience things that could certainly happen outside of my dreams, or at least that I could conceive of happening outside of my dreams. I could almost compare it to a video game. There is often a sense of detachment, but many very real sensations as well. I most certainly have experienced intentionality in my dreams, what I dream may not be of the same nature as what I see when I am awake, but my reaction to it in my dream is very much the same. I react to danger with fear and the desire to escape it(ever heard of a nightmare?). I have even realized that I was dreaming in a dream before. If you have not experienced any of this, then I can see why this might be difficult for you.

When I daydream, I remember it, that state of consciousness is not that far removed from sleep. When I imagine something, I remember imagining it. The process of imagination was an event just like any other that I might remember.

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235;72395 wrote:

This simple idea is in fact the crux of the argument against the soundness of Descartes position, 'I think, therefore I am', for it is certainly true that 'I am' necessarily precedes ' I can think', and thus it precedes 'I think', a fortiori.

The opposite is what I am proposing in this thread.

I THINK therefore I AM.

In other words, the material is a manifestation of consciousness, where consciousness is the most ethereal form and material dense. Sort of like ice from steam. This idea has been around for many centuries, so I do not want to suggest that it is new.

Rich

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

kennethamy;72447 wrote:

Yes, that was the Cubist perspective, wasn't it? We require both creativity and observation (as if observation did not also involve creativity! As Kant pointed out, observation also involves creativity).
!

Yes, the sensory perception acts as a vehicle for receiving and transmitting information between consciousness and ... let's call it everything else out there. And with this, it creates. Sort of like a child playing with play dough.

I tend to me much more open to extraordinary ideas. I am sure that there are people who are aware of things in life that I do not yet see, and I love to receive this. Others, I guess like to shut the door.

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival ...

Be grateful for whoever comes,
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

Rumi

Someone who is considered "crazy" might simply be someone who is far more evolved and sees much, much more than the average human. You may be right smack in the middle of the "average awareness". I like to listen to those who are more than two standard deviations out. Smile

http://www.comfsm.fm/%7Edleeling/statistics/normal_curve.gif

Rich

@Aedes,

Aedes;72449 wrote:

Name one :-)

I love Itzhak Bentov's, A Brief Tour of Higher Consciousness: A Cosmic Book on the Mechanics of Creation for starters.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;72485 wrote:

The opposite is what I am proposing in this thread.

I THINK therefore I AM.

In other words, the material is a manifestation of consciousness, where consciousness is the most ethereal form and material dense. Sort of like ice from steam. This idea has been around for many centuries, so I do not want to suggest that it is new.

Rich

I understand, but I think that this is a misinterpretation, considering that the whole point of the deceiver thought experiment was to assert that tautology was undeniable, so of that we could be certain, and from this certainty we could move on to discover what else we might consider to be certain.

Why would you not simply quote a more solid source for the idea you really want to explore rather than try to make words from elsewhere fit your ideas in a way that they are not generally accepted to?

Philosophy Forum

I THINK therefore I AM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know