Lol, I just imagine my job would be to compare Heisenberg / Einstein with Newton, being a Newton adherent and finding something that underlines German science and say that I had very little time for that and it leaves me dead cold and say that Heisenberg / Einstein (poor sods) distorted Newton’s work. So I cannot compare apple with pumpkins. I am sorry, this is no scientific way to argue. It is one’s claim where a model should be true that determines its relative truth or its invalidity. As a scientist I can use Newton’s model of light to explain refraction, but I cannot use it to explain interference. Also his mechanics are true if my claim stays conform to where they can be true. And the quantum mechanics brought a completely new model of atoms. But when referring to the topic: “What do they actually mean to us?” I have the claim that I can compare each Philosopher, no matter when they lived. I do not refer to the time when Descartes has lived and written his words…. I have the claim to confront Descartes with other Philosophers, yes even with other persons. Who determines apple and pumpkins in Philosophy if it is not one’s prejudice? It is allowed to a scientist to say Heisenberg/ Einstein have actually destroyed the strict subject object separation of Newton and determinism. And no one does compare apple and oranges here. Absolute time and absolute space are actually BS! Anyway when applying simple mechanics I can use time being absolute. (Acceleration of a car)... It’s neural scientific. During history of science the established models became revised, anyway their validity still remains when staying there where the revision is not demanded. Models are approaching the reality without ever reaching it. I can use Bohr and orbitals.... I got the feeling that you have studied your ‘own’ Philosophy by cherry picking. I have studied Chemistry, but not 'my own'. I do not exclude. Is it based on what they did during their life or is it based on the person itself? So what do you say about Descartes proof of god? Historically seen I wonder if all that what had been scientific in Philosophy has moved to the natural sciences....
Oooh right, "you" dream by magic, your brain has nothing to do with it. Also if your brain stopped all function when you sleep you would be dead, no heart beat no breathing, unless you think heart beat and breathing function by magic. Just go through your bodily functions and think about how many are happening right now that your brain controls. As long as there is brain activity there is life but not in all cases cognitive life but Decartes is correct no brain activity then death. You have also not given one scientific debate in any of your posts in this thread just suppositions, propositions, opposition and magical stuff.
@Yen: don't make it easy for the thinkers. @R29k: I'm referring now strictly to Descartes own words now. Don't sell my my magic, 'cause I know it very well. Please explain HIS WORDS. I told you that he was wrong and I gave you an answer, now please do the same. I don't give a rat's ass if he didn't knew anatomy or neurology. He stated something FALSE that now millions are taking is as a truth...
Please quote yourself then...'cause I'm too lazy at this hour... @Yen: thank you. Gorski? Nothin' from your side?
Very funny! Don't you see that the proposition is/was not "thinking is occurring"? The proposition is "I think". If this proposition holds true (as it must, in order for him to even contemplate or think about not existing) then he must exist.
Which you both haven't countered satisfactorily yet. Well, this is something that I and Mr Gorski tried to tell both of you long ago, the subject is about Descartes' philosophy. The subject is not the proof of any other statement, of the form or any other form.
Socrate, let's drop the discussion of scientific proof (I had asked the same to both of you many times in other thread to which you both have deliberately avoided/ignored.. don't make me quote myself ), in this thread, unless you can make all of the arguments directly relevant to Descartes' philosophy. We can discuss those other things in other threads.
He is not interested in a proper discussion he is just interested in pushing his idiotic views on all involved.
Yen, I have religiously answered many of your posts line by line, statement by statement, point by point... You, on the other hand, have deliberately avoided anything that was "inconvenient" in my posts... Besides, as I have already explained, you are - strictly speaking - a right and proper German! And I should know, as I married one and I have German friends all over the world...http://forums.mydigitallife.net/vb4_style/smilies/bye1.gif Ergo, typically uninterested in others, proselytising your POV, ignoring stuff etc. Why? You know best, regardless of how competent in a subject... My father in law is just like that! A German chemist. And he wishes to teach me - not chemistry but... Have you guys no shame, no self-insight?!? Go figure...
@gorski: you're stepping on your own toes: self-insight HAS NOTHING TO DO with thinking. Self-insight is "I AM" and thinking is mind garbage 99% of the time. That's the problem. That's why you and sid_16 and R29k are on the wrong track. I don't pretend to be the TRUTH HOLDER...'cause if I would I've been on another level.
Hipocrates said "There are indeed two things: to know and to think that you know. To know means knowledge. To think that you know is ignorance."[FONT="][/FONT] God bless you all, my friends with wisdom and truth at heart.
No, you're not blessing anybody, you're trying really hard to set yourself apart and above the rest, with your "insights", as if you "have" all that you are advocating as "knowledge"... If only there was any basis for it, apart from "I am in the know!"... Want, want, want but...
@R29K: thank you. You're ego got the best of you on this one. @gorski: I really meant what I said. It's up to you how you see it. You'll have it only in that way.
Self-insight is not equal to a satisfaction of the claim for an agreement of others. And even if I would show you the demanded 'self-insight', you would have nothing but to have strengthened your ego. 'I think you are right' is no self-insight. 'I think you are wrong' isn't either. Both are strengthening an ego, it's an ego-insight. 'ego cogito' is not even a valid premise, it's rather 'There is something that thinks.' Btw: Is there something I have missed while working?...it seems you are familiar with stigmatisation...witness of Jehova you needed to teach at once, Amuuricans, poor sods.........and now German scientists... Look who's talking.
So according to that everyone who even remotely had a theory about anything is deemed ignorant. It would also make you ignorant since you think you know what is true.
Nonsense! It may also mean, at least among non-Germans - "I see the logic of your claim and I haven't thought of that, so I am changing my previous stance", for instance... Now, not changing your stance, regardless of how much you know of something, really is an HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGEEEEEEEEE EGO TIP, Yen... Welcome to the West... Oh, minor stuff, like colonialism, two world wars, economic slavery of the non-West by the West (Japan is only geographically "East" in this sense) and so on and so forth... All done by "us", fuelling the s**tty "ego tripping" of ours, that is but one possibility within Modernity... And then, there are other possibilities, like inter-subjectivity (see Habermas, for instance) and so on and so forth... But your egos, Socrate and Yen, are too big to hear anything from anyone... So, I'll stop here, being but a philosopher - who needs me, when they can do it themselves... at home, for nothing... (a line from "Goodness, gracious me", a comedy done mostly by Asians in the UK...)