do you 'think' u chose to be born

[wavelength]

Sure, we could say the same for form.  It doesn't physically exist but it's a conceptual construct. 

Say for the sake of argument we wanted to take a skeptic's POV like DF, that nothing is knowable with any certainty since the senses can't be trusted.  In doing so we're rejecting objective reality, so the objective world is no more real than concepts, and is probably less so since we have immediate knowledge of our own cognition.  Such knowledge doesn't stop at 'cogito ergo sum' as DF claims but allows for further introspection, such as the fact that the realization of the reality of cognition presupposes the faculty of reason and logic in order to be able to conclude that the thought is necessarily real by virtue of its being thought.

Am I flailing?  I'm flailing, aren't I? 

Forgive me Wave, I didn't say that very well.  What I'm driving at is:

-Recognition of a tautology like cogito ergo sum requires conceptualization and reason.
-Therefore concepts and reason exist.
-So we have a much broader intellectual reality than just immediate knowledge of being.

This is by way of answering Debussey's assertion that "the only thing you can truly "know" is that you are aware at this moment in time."

Well IMO the problem is that your argument starts with "since the senses can't be trusted". That's a world view which already implies an objective reality which our senses translate into our own reality. This is called "Abbildungstheorie" (transformation theory). Whether one thinks this translation is accurate or not, one does not dismiss the concept of objective reality this way.

"Cogito ergo sum" is different from "I know that I'm aware". The theory of proving one's existence by means of the process of thinking has actually been philosophically disproven (or at least challenged) by Kant.

In any case, I agree that there are absolute truths other than "I know that I am aware". The philosophic proof for that is however much simpler than your attempt IMO.

[Deicide]

Well IMO the problem is that your argument starts with "since the senses can't be trusted". That's a world view which already implies an objective reality which our senses translate into our own reality. This is called "Abbildungstheorie" (transformation theory). Whether one thinks this translation is accurate or not, one does not dismiss the concept of objective reality this way.

"Cogito ergo sum" is different from "I know that I'm aware". The theory of proving one's existence by means of the process of thinking has actually been philosophically disproven (or at least challenged) by Kant.

In any case, I agree that there are absolute truths other than "I know that I am aware". The philosophic proof for that is however much simpler than your attempt IMO.

[Tapeworm]

I wanted to use DF's extreme scepticism as a starting point, but I didn't define his position very well with casting doubt on the senses.  I should have just said, "Lets discount the observable as unproven for now, accept the sceptic's position that it may or may not exist, then go from there and see what we can prove we know."


My grounding is pretty weak (just getting back to it), but Descarte's self evident truth seems like the ultimate proof of existence and an ideal and necessary starting point for inquiry.  What about it stuck in Kant's craw?

[Tapeworm]

"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to high school."
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to hiiiigh schooooooool."


We have unresolved issues. 

[Fatpanda]

this is a good topic and one i would like to think about before giving my views.

[Fatpanda]

why can we not remember the time before birth ? or after?

[Deicide]

"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to high school."
"Metaphysics 101 dropout... go back to hiiiigh schooooooool."


We have unresolved issues. 

No, that's not it. Wavelength and I have debated shit like this too often in the past but it just becomes repetitive after a while.

[wavelength]

No, that's not it. Wavelength and I have debated shit like this too often in the past but it just becomes repetitive after a while.

Actually I don't think we have. Most of our discussion revolved around the limits of natural science as far as I can remember.

[kawaks]

in some hypothetical other reality u made this decision...if so what do you have to or need to learn or accomplish in this life

Well excuse me! I woz a survived abortion, a teen distortion, a rebel from the waste down.

[Deicide]

Actually I don't think we have. Most of our discussion revolved around the limits of natural science as far as I can remember.

Ja, da aber dein allgemeiner Standpunkt bezueglich derartiger Sachen hoechstwahrscheinlich derselbe ist, wie eben der bezueglich der Beschraenkungen der Naturwissenschaft, ist leicht anzunehmen, dass es hierbei auf dasselbe hinauslaeuft, wie immer, nicht wahr, 'Bruder'?

[wavelength]

Ja, da aber dein allgemeiner Standpunkt bezueglich derartiger Sachen hoechstwahrscheinlich derselbe ist, wie eben der bezueglich der Beschraenkungen der Naturwissenschaft, ist leicht anzunehmen, dass es hierbei auf dasselbe hinauslaeuft, wie immer, nicht wahr, 'Bruder'?

Naja "derartige Sachen" ist ein bisschen gar weitläufig.

[wavelength]

I wanted to use DF's extreme scepticism as a starting point, but I didn't define his position very well with casting doubt on the senses.  I should have just said, "Lets discount the observable as unproven for now, accept the sceptic's position that it may or may not exist, then go from there and see what we can prove we know."

My grounding is pretty weak (just getting back to it), but Descarte's self evident truth seems like the ultimate proof of existence and an ideal and necessary starting point for inquiry.  What about it stuck in Kant's craw?

What is usually meant when discussing "Cogito ergo sum" (regardless of what Descartes actually meant by it) is that the actual process of "thinking" would be a prove of existence. This theory was not only challenged by Kant but is in fact pretty much an obsolete concept in philosophy today. Kant criticised that existence can principally not be applied to a subject alone "I am". You must always say "I am this or that" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft). Others critizise that you can't derive "I" from "I think", only "something is thinking".

[Tapeworm]

What is usually meant when discussing "Cogito ergo sum" (regardless of what Descartes actually meant by it) is that the actual process of "thinking" would be a prove of existence. This theory was not only challenged by Kant but is in fact pretty much an obsolete concept in philosophy today. Kant criticised that existence can principally not be applied to a subject alone "I am". You must always say "I am this or that" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft). Others critizise that you can't derive "I" from "I think", only "something is thinking".

Interesting.  My gut says that unless you're prepared to deny the nature of consciousness as self observing, that the "I" in "I am" is both subject and object.  Same objection to the second criticism, since a consciousness is aware of itself as the thinking being. 

Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho...  I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company.    God bless torrents.

[wavelength]

Interesting.  My gut says that unless you're prepared to deny the nature of consciousness as self observing, that the "I" in "I am" is both subject and object.  Same objection to the second criticism, since a consciousness is aware of itself as the thinking being. 

Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho...  I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company.    God bless torrents.

What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").

Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.

[Deicide]

What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").

Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.

The fact that we are governed by uncontrollable instincts which override other mechanisms, i.e. thought, appears to me to be far better proof for some sort of existence than thought.

As for me, my motto has always been: dubito, ergo sum.

[wavelength]

Admittedly, I have a lot of learning left to do yet tho...  I'm only halfway through "Great Ideas in Philosophy" audio book from The Teaching Company.    God bless torrents.

I think I also have that one. My experience with TTC is that the quality of lectures varies a lot.

[wavelength]

The fact that we are governed by uncontrollable instincts which override other mechanisms, i.e. thought, appears to me to be far better proof for some sort of existence than thought.

As for me, my motto has always been: dubito, ergo sum.

I'm not so sure I would call it "instinct" but generally I agree that it is not thought.
A Buddhist would say: "I don't think, therefore I am".

[big L dawg]

[Tapeworm]

What you argue here is awareness vs. self-awareness. Kant's critizism however was that the statement "I am" is inherently incomplete (without predicate) and therefore meaningless. His argument was not subject vs. object but applying existence to a subject without a complete predicate ("being is obviously no complete predicate").

Regarding the second critizism, your argument seems to be that thinking always implies awareness and awareness always implies self-awareness. That is however basically what is attempted to be proven in the first place and therefore only a repetition of the thesis and not an argument for it.

I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing."  It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist). 

If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive.  Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence?  That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.


You are clearly better informed than I am Wave.  I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book.  Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. 

I think I also have that one. My experience with TTC is that the quality of lectures varies a lot.

Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack.  World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome.  Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining.  I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. 

[wavelength]

I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing."  It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist). 

If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive.  Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence?  That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.

You are clearly better informed than I am Wave.  I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book.  Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. 

Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack.  World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome.  Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining.  I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. 

I'm only talking out of my ass myself, it's been a long time since I read "Kritik der reinen Vernunft".
IMO consciousness is not reflexive by definition, rather it is a necessary precondition to self-awareness. All questions of definition of these terms of course. In any case, I can recommend reading the original from Kant, it's quite an interesting work.

[Deicide]

I confess that I don't see the problem in saying, "I am thinking, therefore I am existing."  It's the kind of statement that won't make you very popular at parties, but I don't see the need for further qualification of the subject (if my aim is simply to prove that I exist). 

If the aim were to prove the self aware nature of consciousness then obviously saying "because it is so" is no proof at all, but if the aim is to prove existence then Descartes cogito would seem to continue to apply unless we are prepared to throw out the definition of consciousness as reflexive.  Or do you mean that it's a circular argument insofar as it is impossible to conceive of a thinking consciousness which does not exist, so by assuming consciousness I am assuming existence?  That doesn't seem like an assumption of conclusion to me, but more like a statement that action, in this case thought, implies existence.


You are clearly better informed than I am Wave.  I've got to hit the sack but I'll get back to the philosophy after my James Burke history audio book.  Hopefully I'll be better informed on the history of thought next time and you won't have to keep bringing me up to speed. 



Ya, I tried a History of the English Language but it seemed to assume a basic knowledge of linguistics, which I lack.  World Literature was excellent, as was Decline and Fall of Rome.  Burke is good value for history, and A Short History of Everything by Bill Bryson was entertaining.  I listen to them at work tho, so when I combine distractedness with inherent feeblemindedness, I'm happy if even 5% sticks. 

I only you knew...

[Tapeworm]

I only you knew...

Actually, it wasn't overly technical.  I just didn't find the lecturer very engaging.  He spent way too much time talking about indo-euro roots, the philology of some Sanskrit word, etc.  He only tied things in with modern English usage occasionally, which made things kind of dry.  It seemed like a discussion Shakespear was never going to eventuate so I packed it in.  If I acquire a greater interest in general linguistics in my travels I might get back to it and find it more interesting.

What started you down your path, Dei?