I THINK therefore I AM

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 07:51 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71179 wrote:
how do we get two from one? It is the same way line turns into a wave. A wave has polarity. A top and a bottom. The line has to be changed.
One has no polarity. It's a dimensionless point. Two can have polarity, because a line requires two points.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 07:54 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71232 wrote:
Hi,

What Confucius thought doesn't really matter, since he had no armies. I don't even know what he actually said. However, what Confucianism suggests (hierarchy and worship of those higher in the hierarchy) was a largess for the Emperors, bureaucrats, senior citizens, etc - anyone who can benefit from being up high on the hierarchy. Emperors in the centuries following the death of Confucius, adored him Anyone can make a case for being at the top of the hierarchy, and they do in order to reap the rewards. The people at the bottom, however, have to pay for it.

I personally enjoy watching people vie for King of the Hill.


Rich



Except that Bobby Fischer did not have to vie for being king of the hill in chess; nor Albert Einstein for physics; and so on. They were. Even if you ignore it, it is still true. Just as some people are taller than other; and some are fatter than others; so, some people know more than others, can think better and faster than others; and, in general, are better than others. Everyone knows that; only some don't want to admit it.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 07:59 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71232 wrote:
What Confucius thought doesn't really matter, since he had no armies.
Neither did Lao Tzu, whose Dao and whose symbols you occasionally mention -- in fact he probably did not exist.

For that matter, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus all lacked armies too.

Does what they thought matter?

But Nero had an army... Genghis had an army... Tamerlane and Attila and Alaric all had armies...
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:01 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;71251 wrote:
Neither did Lao Tzu, whose Dao and whose symbols you occasionally mention -- in fact he probably did not exist.

For that matter, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus all lacked armies too.

Does what they thought matter?

But Nero had an army... Genghis had an army... Tamerlane and Attila and Alaric all had armies...


Apparently, there are those who think that might makes right.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:15 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
"I think, therefore I am". Now I am practically certain that I exist as more than a mere abstraction of reality. However, I could be illusory, and so I can only be absolutely certain of one synthetic proposition, and that is that something exists.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:18 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71258 wrote:
"I think, therefore I am". Now I am practically certain that I exist as more than a mere abstraction of reality. However, I could be illusory, and so I can only be absolutely certain of one synthetic proposition, and that is that something exists.



I wonder who would be having the illusion that you exist.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:23 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;71259 wrote:
I wonder who would be having the illusion that you exist.


What does that mean? I'm not saying that another being is having the illusion that I exist. I'm saying that I may only exist as an abstraction of an actual reality. I don't believe, in the least bit, that I am an abstraction. I am a strong adherent to the principle of parsimony, but this argument stems from the problem of epistemic skepticism. That is why knowledge is a practical, provisional concept and not an absolute.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:27 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;71251 wrote:
Neither did Lao Tzu, whose Dao and whose symbols you occasionally mention -- in fact he probably did not exist.

For that matter, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Jesus all lacked armies too.

Does what they thought matter?

But Nero had an army... Genghis had an army... Tamerlane and Attila and Alaric all had armies...


I have really no idea what any of them thought. I don't think anyone knows. Not even their friends and wives. We just agree that we think we know, so we can carry on conversation. I am OK with creating consensus and when we can't reach consensus we have debate and change. Goes on all of the time.

We can even debate what Descarte's statement, I think Therefore I am, means. As far as I can tell there are many opinions. But I am sure there are people who feel that they know with certainty what he said and what he meant by it. There always is.

Rich

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

hue-man;71258 wrote:
"I think, therefore I am". Now I am practically certain that I exist as more than a mere abstraction of reality. However, I could be illusory, and so I can only be absolutely certain of one synthetic proposition, and that is that something exists.


Hi,

I am never sure why people reference anything as an illusion. It seems a bit dismissive, as "I don't want to deal with it, it is only an illusion." Now the Real Thing is this. So? This is real, this is not. I don't know the difference. I experience them both.

Well, if it is an illusion that only one person has, then it is difficult to discuss. But it is an illusion that many people have then whatever it is, it can be discussed in the same fashion that anything can be discussed. People can call it anything they want. They can call it it bibbity bobbity boo, if they want.

An experience by any other name is still some experience. Personally, I can't tell real from not real, so I think if it as all the same.

Rich
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 08:44 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71263 wrote:
Hi,

I am never sure why people reference anything as an illusion. It seems a bit dismissive, as "I don't want to deal with it, it is only an illusion." Now the Real Thing is this. So? This is real, this is not. I don't know the difference. I experience them both.

Well, if it is an illusion that only one person has, then it is difficult to discuss. But it is an illusion that many people have then whatever it is, it can be discussed in the same fashion that anything can be discussed. People can call it anything they want. They can call it it bibbity bobbity boo, if they want.

An experience by any other name is still some experience. Personally, I can't tell real from not real, so I think if it as all the same.

Rich


An illusion is a distorted perception of reality. If I take LSD, and I see scooby doo walking down the street, I am experiencing an illusion of reality due to the abnormal changes in my brain chemistry. It is a mind-dependent event, which means that it isn't actually real.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 09:01 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71272 wrote:
An illusion is a distorted perception of reality. If I take LSD, and I see scooby doo walking down the street, I am experiencing an illusion of reality due to the abnormal changes in my brain chemistry. It is a mind-dependent event, which means that it isn't actually real.


Yes, if a single person has an experience that other people do not have, by consensus the others say that he is having an illusion. However, if some people begin to share in the illusion, it is called a religious experience. If even more share the experience, it is called Reality.

However, whatever other people call it, it still is an experience for the person that is having it, and it is as much of an illusion as a dream. Now I don't know how to distinguish a dream from an illusion. I do know that a dream in sleep is different from a feeling of being awake, but when I am asleep it the only thing that is real.

I think to try to distinguish what is illusion based upon one's on subjective view is tricky. One has to begin by suggesting that his/her view is reality and will be the judge of what is an illusion.

Rich
 
Aedes
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 09:05 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71263 wrote:
I have really no idea what any of them thought.
In the cases of Plato and Aristotle we have their actual writings. In the case of Socrates and Jesus, we have a "tradition" of their thoughts canonized, and whether it represents the historical figures or not doesn't really matter because we'll never know and it won't change their influence.

richrf;71263 wrote:
We can even debate what Descarte's statement, I think Therefore I am, means
Descartes didn't make that statement in isolation, though. It's abundantly clear what he meant when you read the remainder of his meditations:

Descartes wrote:
I have convinced myself that there is nothing in the world - no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Doesn't it follow that I don't exist? No, surely I must exist if it's me who is convinced of something. But there is a deceiver, supremely powerful and cunning whose aim is to see that I am always deceived. But surely I exist, if I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, he will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. Thus having fully weighed every consideration, I must finally conclude that the statement "I am, I exist" must be true whenever I state it or mentally consider it.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 09:13 pm
@Aedes,
Aedes;71280 wrote:
In the cases of Plato and Aristotle we have their actual writings. In the case of Socrates and Jesus, we have a "tradition" of their thoughts canonized, and whether it represents the historical figures or not doesn't really matter because we'll never know and it won't change their influence.

Descartes didn't make that statement in isolation, though. It's abundantly clear what he meant when you read the remainder of his meditations:


Abundantly clear? Does this mean your interpretation is the one to go by?

Heck, you have my writings, and you have no idea what I am thinking. My girlfriend barely understands me. People just believe that they know what the other person was saying, even if they only have some writings, some translations, and some interpretations to go by. I remember in English class how we use to debate Shakespeare and what he was saying in his plays. Most people accepted that they were only interpreting - however, I am sure there were some who thought they knew - there always is.

However, I realize that doesn't stop people from knowing that they know what I am thinking, what Plato and Aristotle were thinking, etc. Doesn't matter that they don't even understand what George Bush was thinking. Knowing what someone was thinking 2000 years ago is small potatoes. Let's just call it retroactive mind-reading.

Sometimes, I am truly amazed by the pronouncements that people make. However, it is all part of life.

Rich
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 09:42 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71278 wrote:
Yes, if a single person has an experience that other people do not have, by consensus the others say that he is having an illusion. However, if some people begin to share in the illusion, it is called a religious experience. If even more share the experience, it is called Reality.

However, whatever other people call it, it still is an experience for the person that is having it, and it is as much of an illusion as a dream. Now I don't know how to distinguish a dream from an illusion. I do know that a dream in sleep is different from a feeling of being awake, but when I am asleep it the only thing that is real.

I think to try to distinguish what is illusion based upon one's on subjective view is tricky. One has to begin by suggesting that his/her view is reality and will be the judge of what is an illusion.

Rich


A dream is an illusion of reality. It isn't very hard to distinguish what is real from what is ideal if you give it a try. It's all about distinguishing the internal from the external.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 09:47 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71288 wrote:
A dream is an illusion of reality. It isn't very hard to distinguish what is real from what is ideal if you give it a try. It's all about distinguishing the internal from the external.


When I am dreaming, that is the only thing that is real to me. When I am awake, I do not even know whether the dream happened, was real, or whatever.

Lots of people claim to see things I do not. Artists for example. Mathematicians. Are they illusions because I do not see what they see?

As for External and Internal, can you give me a definition. But beware, unless you can give me one that does not require senses, then everything becomes internal - unless you think you can sense without senses and the mind.

Rich
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 10:01 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71289 wrote:
When I am dreaming, that is the only thing that is real to me. When I am awake, I do not even know whether the dream happened, was real, or whatever.

Lots of people claim to see things I do not. Artists for example. Mathematicians. Are they illusions because I do not see what they see?

As for External and Internal, can you give me a definition. But beware, unless you can give me one that does not require senses, then everything becomes internal - unless you think you can sense without senses and the mind.

Rich


You know that the dream isn't real when you wake up and realize that it was a dream.

What do artists and mathematicians claim to see that you don't? We're not talking about abstract thought.

Your argument sounds like idealism. Idealism is an inadequate explanation for matter and phenomena. Material events occur without regard to what people think about them. Your thoughts alone cannot change or control material reality.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 10:13 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71293 wrote:
You know that the dream isn't real when you wake up and realize that it was a dream.


From my point of view, when I wake up I know something is much different, but I have no idea what happened in that moment that I was asleep. Same mind, different feelings. If you can explain how and what happened, then I am all ears.

Quote:
What do artists and mathematicians claim to see that you don't? We're not talking about abstract thought.


I wouldn't even know where to begin. Most of what mathematicians talk about and exchange between each other is far beyond my comprehension. Artists see colors, shapes, images, that I have no idea of, but they are quite comfortable. Right now, I see shadows. Do you see them? Are they illusions of mine or are they real. How do you know which is which? You see what you see. If I don't see what you see, who is imagining and who is seeing what is "real".

As for labeling philosophies, I am not into that. I have my own way of viewing the world, and so far no one that I have found has the same viewpoint. Maybe because no one else is me.

Rich
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 10:25 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71298 wrote:
From my point of view, when I wake up I know something is much different, but I have no idea what happened in that moment that I was asleep. Same mind, different feelings. If you can explain how and what happened, then I am all ears.



I wouldn't even know where to begin. Most of what mathematicians talk about and exchange between each other is far beyond my comprehension. Artists see colors, shapes, images, that I have no idea of, but they are quite comfortable. Right now, I see shadows. Do you see them? Are they illusions of mine or are they real. How do you know which is which? You see what you see. If I don't see what you see, who is imagining and who is seeing what is "real".

As for labeling philosophies, I am not into that. I have my own way of viewing the world, and so far no one that I have found has the same viewpoint. Maybe because no one else is me.

Rich


Your philosophy can be summed up in the labels of idealism and perspectivism.

Dreamscan be explained very easily. It's not this mystery that you're making it out to be.

I don't see the shadows that you see because I am not in the same location that you are in. A shadow is a very common phenomenon, and it can be explained very easily in physical terms. Sometimes we make a mystery mysterious.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 10:30 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;71300 wrote:
Your philosophy can be summed up in the labels of idealism and perspectivism.

Dreamscan be explained very easily. It's not this mystery that you're making it out to be.

I don't see the shadows that you see because I am not in the same location that you are in. A shadow is a very common phenomenon, and it can be explained very easily in physical terms. Sometimes we make a mystery mysterious.


1) Unfortunately, I am rarely satisfied when someone puts a name to something and then calls it mission accomplished. I realize that I am having an experience that is commonly called a dream. It can be named anything you want. You can call it an illusion if you want. What I would appreciate is if you can explain to me how dreams happen? I am very interested in this subject. How the mind goes from observing four dimensions into a state where there are no dimensions. Same mind, different states. How does this all happen? Which state of mind is real and which is not real? Same mind isn't it? Or is it?

2) Well, I am looking at some shadows right now. What I am wondering is if I see them, and you don't are they illusions or not?

Thanks.

Rich
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 10:39 pm
@richrf,
richrf;71298 wrote:
From my point of view, when I wake up I know something is much different, but I have no idea what happened in that moment that I was asleep. Same mind, different feelings. If you can explain how and what happened, then I am all ears.
(bold and underline mine)

If you are willing to hang out a little, I'll explain what is happening, in the several degrees of assurance. It will take a while, though . . . so, the 'hang out' part. (also, the degree of likelihood that the explanation will be on a different thread is very high, so please cross-reference).

I wonder, really, however, just what you might have had in mind with that part that I have underlined and put in bold, above? If, for example, I have explained something to you which you then, simply will have dusted off as though it were so much child's play, without any effort to support a view (other than simply being your view, period), would that be what you might mean by that? Or, are you conscientiously extending a mind ready to reason, weigh, and think about the practical things of being alive, when you extended that offer? I truly hope you'd be willing to explain carefully, and in detail what you mean by that richrf.
 
richrf
 
Reply Mon 22 Jun, 2009 11:07 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin;71302 wrote:
(bold and underline mine)

If you are willing to hang out a little, I'll explain what is happening, in the several degrees of assurance.


Great! Let's have it.

Rich
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/06/2022 at 07:14:57