I know what it is, I would never be critical of something until I understand it. As the saying goes "don't knock it till you try it". My Dad likes this sort of stuff but when you look at reincarnation it has some terribly idiotic concepts. Like for example you can go backwards and be reborn as an animal. And at the end of the day it all comes back to the "I" bit and I don't like emphasis on the "I". That sounds like a Rastafari concept now. Ok off topic now.
Now I'm assured that someone put a brake on people with magical thinking. Our science has not progressed to the point where we can identify the processes which allow us to think about why we contemplate life in the universe and everything, how we can realize we are more intelligent than our chimpanzee cousins, and why we recognize ourselves in a mirror when our dogs or cats cannot. We do not yet know the physical explanation for soul, consciousness or life after death.
gorski, I can see you! This weekend I have some time, next week probably not. I have reread the thread and something is still missing. (Actually the essence). Sid has posted and gorski has said it's the ABC of the topic: Good. I posted as confrontation gorski posted A clear definition of your reply, it is: Prejudice, biased! Not really with intent to sink in the matter. gorski you yourself would have blamed me for that. "The consciousness that says ‘I am’ is not the consciousness that thinks.” Inclusive valid arguments. And finally Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which actually terminated the classic physics, Newton! Basically the strictly separated subject-object dualism. That what Descartes wanted to find: absolute objective certainty! And may I add to Kurt Gödel's two incompleteness theorems: (matter: proof) It embodies a rigorous mathematical demonstration that every encompassing system of logic must have at least one premise that cannot be proven or verified without contradicting itself. Thus , "it is impossible to establish the logical consistency of any complex deductive system except by assuming principles of reasoning whose own internal consistency is as open to question as that of the system itself. Thus logically as well as physically, "objective" verification is not a mark of reality (expect in consensual pretense). If all is to be verified, how do you verify the verifier, since he is surely a part of all? Descartes wanted to have something objective, absolute. In fact he found his ego. I think therefore I am. 'I' is an idea already. 'The other consciousness' is Iamness, existence. 'This other consciousness' EXISTS without thinking. It is your Self, but not your 'I' idea = thoughts. No observing system can observe itself observing. And this gorski didn't get: The seer cannot see itself (seeing). And it is for precisely this reason that at the basis of all such dualistic attempts we find only: Uncertainty, Incompleteness, 'I' idea = individual. In more common words: That what is looking out of your eyes (your Self, the 'other consciousness', the seer) cannot be seen, anything you see is not your Self. 'You' exist, but not (only) as your idea = as an individual. Science and Philosophy are not separated regarding existence. I am sorry my toolbox is science. Evaluating all this, adding my experience which gorski has not accepted (wishy-washy) I come to the conclusion thinking does NOT prove existence, existence IS. As I have said: Descartes was an important person when he lived. Today he's disproved. I think therefore I am an individual he should have correctly said. And by saying that he even had not got what existence means. Existence is not separateness = being an individual, it is far more. To disprove him today does NOT diminish his imposingly Biography! I am a 'night thinker' past 4 AM here and I have to admit my head is nearly exploding.
"Ignorance has no beginning, but has an end. For knowledge there's a beginning, but never an end." Right now I realized it: we are comparing apples with pears here. Me and Yen know what an apple and pear look like, but gorski and si_16 know how a pear looks like, have heard what an apple looks like, but have never seen it - because they are looking to much at the pear.
The post above is not made to convince, to inspire. No acceptance demanded. I wanted this put to an 'essence' since my spare time will become less. I just have allowed myself to doubt....and I like to develop unconventional approaches. If you can stand more 'Yen', lol then I suggest to read this: http://forums.mydigitallife.net/thr...heory-BBT-Probably-another-way-to-think-about Again not to convince, to inspire....ohh as a 'non believer' probably too much.....anyway just an idea. And coming back to nodnar's phrase. During study and work I have noticed that there are not pearls and swines only, there are black and white pearls.....the black ones are quite rare...... Have a nice weekend. To loop is an attribute of the mind putting loose ends together all the time.
A loop is the mind not finding a definitive conclusion, so it ends up stuck on a rhetorical question.
Yen sir wrote; I think you may have come closer to the point of Descarte's Philosophy, and then missed it again. I mean no offense to you or others by this, I just think that the phrase "I think, therefore I am" diverts from the actual philosophy, and confused many of those who responded here. That's why I tried to break it down, in my 2nd post to this thread. You see, Descartes was not saying that the qualifying factor for being alive was thinking, he was saying that he could think about not existing, which proved that he existed.
There are two type of people in this thread. You have one like Yen whose whole basis of the argument of existence is that "I Am"and everything comes after. He will never understand and or acknowledge Decartes because Decartes statement is against his very ideology. Personally I don't have a problem with this outlook on existence, it may also apply to the Universe. If you don't agree with Big Bang an alternative is to say the universe just "is", it can work with the God concept too. Then you have people who need a definitive conclusion so Decartes works. His statement is a logical progression to a definite conclusion. When these two types of people meet they can never agree on the topic in question because they have very polarizing views. So I am off for the weekend again , my concept is whether you exist or not doesn't matter at all. Whatever it is you are doing enjoy it since it won't last forever. So there you have a definitive conclusion.
Do you really understand anything being discussed here in your own thread? Why don't you reread what you're posting with the preview button? So, are you then proclaiming the rational is the paradoxical and vice versa as Parmenides and Hegel did? If a philosophical debate is to prosper, that is if it move beyond what it was into new perspectives of what it can be, it cannot include absolutist formulas that allow no debate, egoistic clinging to personal ideologies that may be meaningful only for the adherent, or theories that are irrelevant to the human condition. The objective of such philosophical debate is to find truth, not victory of a point of view.
You don't have to - but you can join me in the subtext fun section - it's bound to get more attention with those deniers of ego, since it is denying our presence...
If it's the same subject what do you expect? To tell you that the earth is flat, but the science tells me I'm wrong? Or what? Enlighten me, please. P.S. Don't get mad, don't let your ego in control.
Or maybe those who do not have an "ego" might for a moment control their "non-ego" to let views other than their own in... Especially from people better versed in the subject matter than them, btw... Yayks!!!
In what subject are we talking about? I'm not better. I just am. Watch "The Voice - humanity is about to make a quantum leap" by David Sereda.