Define "being"

@catfood phil,

catfood wrote:

For the individual being is awareness of any sort, for the inanimate being is any sort of awareness of it.
Dues a rock have being before or after an individual has awareness of it?

I always let rocks talk for themselves...

@saiboimushi,

Hello everybody,

Define "being"

I apologise for not having read all 241 entries before this comment, but the subject matter -I like most- prompted me to comment:

It is true to say "I think therefore I exist" which does not specify what am I.

Having discovered myself as a being [whichever form I may be doesn't matter for the time being] I than discover the existence of others [at least one being who might be deceiving me].

If I am not being deceived, -that would be better-, I discover that, there are material beings ["in truth there are but atoms and the void"] and notional beings [of which the source and location are in my mind].

I am not aware of any other being.

PS I did not put the names of quoted predicates since they are not essential for this argument.

@democritus,

Quote:

It is true to say "I think therefore I exist" which does not specify what am I.

I disagree. Descartes' argument "I think, therefore I am" is not challenged by many, but I think I agree with Nietzsche when he points out that it assumes that it is "I" that thinks. I would definitely say "I am" because in my view "I" exist by definition. My awareness exists, and that's what I am. I don't know that my thoughts are mine, though. It is possible that all my thoughts just invent themselves and I am simply aware of them, with no control over them.

@catfood phil,

We live in a mind and motion universe, mind centers motion by voiding the cycles and creates balance, motion ceases, and a state of being exists. Being is a state of rest

@Welshie,

Welshie wrote:

I disagree. Descartes' argument "I think, therefore I am". My awareness exists, and that's what I am. It is possible that all my thoughts just invent themselves and I am simply aware of them, with no control over them.

Welshie, thank you for challenging the statement "I think, therefore I am". But you should be able to put it in logical form and see [and show us] that yours is a sound argument.

Here is my interpretation of "I think, therefore I exist":

p1 if thought=exists [thought exists - true premise]

p2 if I=think . [I think - true premise]

p3 therefore I=exist [therefore I [have to] exist [so that thoughts can be produced or inplanted]- sound argument]

However, a close inspection of your quotation above shows that, you have already accepted this argument, here is the proof:

You presumably accepting that, thought exist if there is awareness:

Welshie wrote:

...awareness ...

Therefore you can not deny the first premise "p1". if thought=exists [thought exists - true premise]

You presumably accepting that, "My" implies "I":

Welshie wrote:

My awareness exists.

Therefore you can not deny the second premise "p2". if I=think . [I think - true premise]

You have already accepting the existence of youirself:

Welshie wrote:

that's what I am.

Therefore you can not deny the third premise and the conclusion "p3". therefore I=exist [therefore I [have to] exist [so that thoughts can be produced or inplanted]- sound argument]

Thanks
democritus

@saiboimushi,

Being is meaning... To think we must know meaning, and without the meaning we could not even say, or know, what we were thinking, but nothing means to the dead, not I, nor you, nor in between; but to the living the less it is the less it means, and the less it means the less it is...But we mean everything, and our own lives so paltry in the eyes of others, are exhalted beyond all measure to us...

@democritus,

democritus wrote:

Welshie, thank you for challenging the statement "I think, therefore I am". But you should be able to put it in logical form and see [and show us] that yours is a sound argument.

Here is my interpretation of "I think, therefore I exist":

p1 if thought=exists [thought exists - true premise]

p2 if I=think . [I think - true premise]

p3 therefore I=exist [therefore I [have to] exist [so that thoughts can be produced or inplanted]- sound argument]

Thanks
democritus

Your argument for 'I think therefore I am' is sound in the fact that if there is thought there is existence. But it is limited as it does not relate to existence without thought. Where as, I am aware therefore I exist offers a more encompassing statement.
You can be aware without thinking, but you can not think without awareness

@Fido,

Being: I Am aren't you?

=
MJA

@catfood phil,

catfood wrote:

Your argument for 'I think therefore I am' is sound in the fact that if there is thought there is existence. But it is limited as it does not relate to existence without thought. Where as, I am aware therefore I exist offers a more encompassing statement.
You can be aware without thinking, but you can not think without awareness

You can be aware without thinking? How so? I can't picture a time I've been consciously aware and not thought, at all. To be aware, to have knowledge of my surroundings, I would have to think.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

You can be aware without thinking? How so? I can't picture a time I've been consciously aware and not thought, at all. To be aware, to have knowledge of my surroundings, I would have to think.

Naked awareness although not the usual state of being is possible. Look at stroke victims who's blood clot has been located in the left hemisphere. Also Zen Buddhists cultivate such a state.

@catfood phil,

catfood wrote:

Naked awareness although not the usual state of being is possible. Look at stroke victims who's blood clot has been located in the left hemisphere. Also Zen Buddhists cultivate such a state.

Having a blood clot in the left hemisphere means the individual is not thinking on any fundamental level, the person is just "aware" with no cognitive process? Can you show me some sources that propagate this claim?

As for the Zen Buddhists, I don't think all cognitive processes are shut down when in a meditated state. Perhaps with intense meditation one may be able to 'transcend', to an extent, the reality as they perceive, but I don't think this means every thought process shuts down. They are aware of their being because they are thinking. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to recollect their Zen experiences.

To not think but be aware, one would have to overcome time - one couldn't perceive the world through sequential events culminating towards a personal reality - like the usually state of being is. There would be no logical progression such as this, as there would be no cognitive process to piece together the experience. To be aware without thinking would mean the person has transcended the consciousness.

@Zetherin,

If awareness is the product of thought how can we be aware of thought. Thought is something that accurse to our awareness just as the pane of a pinprick accurse to our awareness, before the thought of what is happing.
I maintain that the two are separate and that the first can exist without the second.

@catfood phil,

catfood wrote:

If awareness is the product of thought how can we be aware of thought. Thought is something that accurse to our awareness just as the pane of a pinprick accurse to our awareness, before the thought of what is happing.
I maintain that the two are separate and that the first can exist without the second.

I don't think that's the absence of any cognitive ability, it's just the absence of conscious thought, reasoning. If awareness is not the product of thought, how can we be aware of thought? I guess rocks, from this perspective, could be aware; they aren't thinking, but they may be aware on some level that transcends time and matter? This seems to be bordering the notion of "spirit" or "life-force".

Perhaps there's someone else out there that can bring some clarity to this? It's very possible I'm just not able to grasp the subject matter.

@catfood phil,

Quote:
Originally Posted by democritus

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

Welshie, thank you for challenging the statement "I think, therefore I am". But you should be able to put it in logical form and see [and show us] that yours is a sound argument.

Here is my interpretation of "I think, therefore I exist":

p1 if thought=exists [thought exists - true premise]

p2 if I=think . [I think - true premise]

p3 therefore I=exist [therefore I [have to] exist [so that thoughts can be produced or inplanted]- sound argument]

Thanks
democritus

catfood wrote:

Your argument for 'I think therefore I am' is sound in the fact that if there is thought there is existence. But it is limited as it does not relate to existence without thought. Where as, I am aware therefore I exist offers a more encompassing statement.
You can be aware without thinking, but you can not think without awareness

The argument above looks suspiciously semantic to me:

Catfood seems to be suggesting that, instead of saying "I think therefore ...."we should be saying "I am aware therefore ...."for the reason that: "I think therefore ...." does not relate to existence without thought.

I am not quite sure if there is awareness without thinking.

Thinking among other things also encompasses awareness.

Thinking is a word attributed to all kinds of the mind process: sensing, recognising, remembering, making connections, synthesising, planning, implementing, creative speculations etc..

Awareness is an ingredient to the make up thought.

Awareness is a limited process of thinking: [the process of knowledge and understanding of the existence of something] which do not involve the process of mind like will, speculation, artistic creation etc..

When we come to "existence without thought" we recognise that, some material beings are recognised to have thoughts but others may not be able to do so - we do not know. [I am not aware of inanimate objects capable of producing thoughts].

So, existance without thought is perfectly possible in the material universe.

Thanks,
democritus

@democritus,

A be poem by a being that is simply defined as me:

[CENTER][CENTER]B?[/CENTER]
[CENTER] [/CENTER]
[CENTER]And if A = B, and B = C, then A = C [/CENTER]
[CENTER]But what about B?
They all look different to me, so what is truth,[/CENTER]
[CENTER]What can it B?
Different or equal?[/CENTER]
[CENTER]What should it B?
To B or not to B?
That is the question.
The Nature of B,[/CENTER]
[CENTER] Aristotle, Shakespeare and Me.

=
MJA[/CENTER][/CENTER]

"Let it Be let it Be, let it Be Oh let it Be;
Speaking words of wisdom, let it Be." Mr. Lennon

To be is to be equal is to be free!

=
MJA

@democritus,

democritus wrote:

So, existance without thought is perfectly possible in the material universe.

Yes, such as a tree. It exists, even biologically, but it probably doesn't think.

But, is a tree aware? Can we say the tree is aware if it positions itself towards sunlight, climbs up a wall (vine), or lays it's roots in the most opportunistic way to receive nutrients? If we can prove the tree is aware of it's surroundings, on some level, and then prove that it doesn't think, I think we'd have a good example.

@saiboimushi,

Any living organisms are undoubtedly a being,extant or unprecedented,perspicacious or asinine,suppositions or whitewashes,and so on coalesce into your being.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Yes, such as a tree. It exists, even biologically, but it probably doesn't think.

But, is a tree aware? Can we say the tree is aware if it positions itself towards sunlight, climbs up a wall (vine), or lays it's roots in the most opportunistic way to receive nutrients? If we can prove the tree is aware of it's surroundings, on some level, and then prove that it doesn't think, I think we'd have a good example.

I wrote this poem Onetime ago shortly after an experience I had.
See if you see it too.

Meditation

Walk into a forest
Let your mind become a tree
When you are One
Meditation is achieved.
Oneness is Nature's
Single wisdom or truth.

=
MJA

@Ennui phil,

Ennui wrote:

Any living organisms are undoubtedly a being,extant or unprecedented,perspicacious or asinine,suppositions or whitewashes,and so on coalesce into your being.

What defines living? We don't even have a universal definition. So if all living things are a being, what exactly is a being? If it's something that can be, a rock fits.

It's tough to say where the cut off point is for consciousness, especially considering we can't *prove* anything else has a consciousness. And, even if we defined where the cut off point is for that, we've already established things can be alive without being conscious or aware. Amoebas (single cell organism) are considered alive but are not considered conscious or aware - they are, from most I've spoken to, considered a system, just like a computer program; Each unit is assigned to a specific task, and then completes it. But isn't that what our body does, just a million times over?

If we conclude an amoeba isn't aware, then essentially none of our bodies are aware, right? Somewhere between an amoeba and a human there is a difference, a formation of consciousness, but where does it begin? And no, it's not just a brain as developed as ours, because we consider insects to be conscious and aware, just like many other creatures.

@MJA,

MJA,

I have an idea, but it still doesn't speak to me yet. I think I will have to experience this one for myself.

Thanks for sharing,

Z

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know