Religion is in itself a paradox so you will go nuts trying to explain to the millions like Yen out there. @Yen It's inferred since nothing is observable at that level without changing it.
Lol, no. I am not feigning ignorant. There is no intention to be. I had always problems with Descartes...I have not studied Philosophy, but I have heard of different Philosophers and with some I simply cannot agree. It's nothing personal regarding Descartes. His conclusion is not logic. If one wants to deduce a sentence of existence of P(a). a corresponds to the predicate P, so can this existence only be in reference to the predicate P and not be referred to the subject a of the premise. "Descartes is saying that if 'x' is thinking then 'x' exists" This conclusion is not logic. 'I think' does not conclude I am, it concludes that there is something that thinks. "I devote myself to learning, I don't stick to irrationality, which leads to paradox, which is the death of all learning process and progressive knowledge" That is not true. 'Irrationality' is an idea in your mind. 'Irrationality' is discarded as long as it is declared to be that way. As long as there is a mind there will be a 'learning' process. But from the aspect of the absolute nothing can be learned..or in other words you learn always 'it' which ever had been 'there' and related to yourself it becomes your own limited knowledge.... "It does not, however, help you to learn anything, to keep this uncertain attitude"... No, I think the contrary is true. When I teach Chemistry I teach that uncertain aspect. But I strictly teach common theories. I use Bohr when Bohr is sufficient, I choose the orbital model when Bohr is not. Do my students think an atom looks like Bohr's model or like the orbital model? NO! Uncertainty is the nature of every model. So thoughts of reality are. KNOWING that I simply can use common tools of science (always keeping in mind what IMPORTANCE they have).... The major aspect is that most scientists cannot categorize science. They assign more absoluteness to it as it can have. When they teach a model of light, they think they can teach what light really is. Do I think about uncertainty when saying 2+2=4? No! Why should I? It is a relative truth in maths. But to me knowledge and learning means to doubt about those who assign such absoluteness to their ideas. And then I can 'use' uncertain principles like....one never can see its own eye so what's about complete introspection......no observing system can observe itself observing. If all is to be verified, how do you verify the verifier, since he is surely a part of all? These are valid arguments / questions made by a very CLEAR mind. And doubt all who 'absolutize' their work..to be one and only..or 'the' truth..or....
"Therefore you cannot be absolute certain of your idea of I am is absolute existence" Right. Neither 'I' can, nor any other individual can. The question is IS 'I am' true or not. If it's true then it must be absolute, the absolute subject, which is only real. But there can be nobody absolute certain of 'it'. (Objectifying the subject). 'One' can only live that absolute subject = Self. (Goal of all religions). If Descates intention had been to find something what is absolute certain, then it neither can be related to thinking nor to one that thinks. Because then it becomes uncertain. He really 'found' then absolute existence, which is actually absolute certain. But it cannot be concluded by somebody. It IS. I am that I am. There cannot be some-body determining it. My Biography is: First study of science (with honor whatever that means). THEN determining lack of answers. Why do I post the way I post? Not to hurt myself. "Religion is in itself a paradox so you will go nuts trying to explain to the millions". The paradox became existent to you by assigning your idea of paradox to your idea of religions. So the cause of this paradox is actually not the religion(s), it is your idea of religions. Remember : A scientist teaches an idea (model) of light, not what light really is. When one has not your idea (your thoughts of them) then to the one this paradox does not exist. No cause no effect. Religions, but no paradox (in them). Simple. All is relative....but that we can have relativeness there must be something that is absolute and that is the reality. And this reality is absolutely certain. It is existence..and some simply call it god.
Broken record, broken record, broken.... Oychhhh.... Sorry, Yen, no matter how many times you repeat a wrong type of "reasoning" - it will never become truth...
This general statement doesn't help me. "If one wants to deduce a sentence of existence of P(a). a corresponds to the predicate P, so can this existence only be in reference to the predicate P and not be referred to the subject a of the premise. "Descartes is saying that if 'x' is thinking then 'x' exists" This conclusion is not logic. 'I think' does not conclude I am, it concludes that there is something that thinks." Arguments, please.
It doesn't matter: If I am certain that I am not certain, then the result is uncertainty. If I am not certain that I am not certain, then the result is uncertainty also. I have posted this already. If I could have 10 minutes of your precious time 'my science colleague' Wilber is reflecting what I mean about absolute subject, Iamness. Wrong type of reasoning? I don't agree.
It seems that this thread is very interesting to others, 'cause right now there are 28 guests reading this...so "I am" is becoming more interesting than "I think".
You're not equipped, I am sorry to say, for dialectics yet, Yen... And the way you are going, with serious prejudices built-in before you even touch the stuff, be it religious or otherwise, you won't get very far, even if I explain it in non-jargon terms - so it would be time wasted, both yours and mine, I am almost certainly convinced of that... Sorry but... You have not shown one little iota of openness to learning about the subject from others. You are seriously pressing hard on your ears and keep saying "Nah-nah, nah-nah!" while stomping your feet, when somebody is trying to help you to get into it, OUTSIDE of your prejudices... It is not the way to learn anything at all! Imagine me coming to a physics class with some "Indian cosmology" or, say, "creationist" prejudices, for instance - how far would I get? Would I pass?!? Would I learn how to code if I entered with "I hate it, I detest it, I disagree with it, it is useless!!!" attitude?!? But you think that anything goes, no matter how uninformed, if it is in Philosophy. Sorry, that is serious intellectual misconduct!
Oh and let me add something seriously challenging, since you like prejudices, just to show you how easy it is, from "the other side" and see if you like it... Here is an "Oriental" version of Descartes: Cogito, ergo schtum!!! In other words, "suppressing an ego" never gave rise to a Modern Subject! In fact, it never gave rise to an idea of Historicity, either. Hence, you have a closed world there, static, hierarchical, based on unearned feudal "cast" system, nicely defended by its apologists, "leading" you to a place where you do not have to deal with such a world but you attain "zen" or "meditating high ground" of some sort of another... Very neat! But ultimately pre-modern. Hence unexciting! In fact, positively boring... On the other hand, Cogito, ergo sum opens up possibilities... of having a reason of your existence within, not without (as in serving your Lords and Masters, of any sort, from a clan to a tribe, nation, religion of whatever), of changing both yourself and your world into an emancipated dimension, a dimension Humanity still has to reach but it is working on it... In the West! .... Now, I bet you do not like this at all. And you'd be right! When I look at, for instance, various South Korean movements, I can see how this example of thinking I have just given might be wrong! But hey, don't let that stop you in doing the reverse thing to Descartes from an external [rather than an immanent] POV and hence do a complete disservice to "critical thinking", doing it the easy way, i.e. never coming close to understanding it (from within) and then trying an immanent critical appraisal of it...
What is that 'something' that thinks if it is not 'I am'? and how did you conclude it? For the underlined part -Why is grass green? Is there any other color an option?
So by your thinking, thinking is magical and is just an inane occurrence that justifies nothing. So tell me Yen, how can we tell if someone is dead or unconscious? Should we tell them to look at themselves and say "I Am"? And please don't tell me about breathing and heart beat, those all require brain function to work. An article for you. Also Cogito Ergo Sum by MRI - Allan H. Ropper, M.D. [PDF]
You shouldn't be critiquing people in the thread that serves no purpose ! He has one way of thinking and you have another.
I am not. I am critiquing the way Yen has approached the stuff. But Yen did this kind of thing to me. Just read back and you will see... Btw, was it you who told me about his religious leanings that are underlying his thinking? Never mind if you did it or not, but looking back it does make sense... And I have seen it many times before, actually. I used to debate similar issues with students at the Theology dptm of ZG University, too... But a way of thinking does tell a story of the person, too: as I already mentioned, one does not choose a Philosophy like a piece of furniture but according to one's character, talents, leanings, capabilities and so on and so forth... Of course, that depends also on where one has grown up, which civilisational circle one belongs to (it narrows down one's choices, at least at the start), one's education/school of thought one was brought up in, languages one speaks, books one has read, people one knows, tutors/teachers/professors one has had etc. etc.
It seems I am able to 'create' spare time to reply, even though I thought it would be hard.....it seems I like to switch between pure teaching a established complex of theories during my daily job (teaching some people..btw I have chosen Bohr to explain basics of bonding in molecules...)....and the uaah... so unusual esoteric deluded stuff..... It seems it can coexist, I can have fun with my students and can have fun here...... Intellectual misconduct, determined by gorski, whose first idea had been to teach a witness of Jehova as he knocked at his door. "Today I had Jehova's Witnesses at the door, who were about to "enlighten" me... In the end, when we got down to the nitty-gritty, I told them they know very little on the subject, so I had to teach them about agnosticism. Do I have to do it here, too?" Ehm, no thanks. Thanks to Advantage of Modernity, thanks to the Lords and masters of those poor witnesses. When watching Wilber and comparing it to Decartes. Whose approach has a higher grade of freedom, openness and enlightenment? No matter if agreed with or not? And about 'the way to learn'......there are other ways 'to learn'....ways which seem strange. And speaking of Zen. The function of a Koan. When it resolves one has found the truth. "Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?" Only because this is strange 'idiotic' or BS or not accessible, what knowledge justifies that it isn't true? The way the mind works is based on relations. So when referring to absoluteness, it is condemned to fail. It is a valid conclusion that 'unconventional' approaches are optional. What can be modern in the aspect of absolute existence which is the end of evolution and its start? Cogito, ergo sum is just a stopover related to time. And yes it opens up possibilities! That is without doubt. IMO it's the driving force. The 'death of Newton' created a new view. So 'the death of Heisenberg' will.... To one who suffers from dyschromatopsia it isn't. So is it really green? There is no world without a perceiver. The grass is green and the grass is gray are two valid relative truths. "What is that 'something' that thinks if it is not 'I am'?" This is a further conclusion made by you. There is nothing wrong with it. When it's meaningful to you why shouldn't you take benefit of it? Thanks, it's interesting...let me add this again to the matter determination using brainwaves: Absolute existence doesn't know death. Death actually cannot be determined. It's like a driver who has crashed his car. The doctor determines the death of the car but not the death of the driver. No problem, as long as existence is bond to an individual, there are own relative truths. From the aspect of absoluteness without any value, though. I agree with that, anyway the conclusions are made with the tools one has got. So they are always own views. Gorski. When one looks at your signature, what do you think how many percent of its readers can get the importance / meaning that it has to you? And if one should tell you one's own meaning, how 'competent' would it be in your opinion? The most important thing is that each of us (individual) has 'found' something what is of relative value. It's the amount of happiness (originality) that determines the relative value and if one ever remains 'this' happiness it becomes absolute.
Yen, for crying out loud, m8, slow down... You got it all wrong to begin with and from wrong starting point no wonder you're getting a completely wrong set of conclusions.... Absolute existence? I mean...
But give credit where credit is due: you started talking of happiness whereas before you only talked of sorrow and suchlike... Good on you!
Crying out loud? I thought one needs to use capital letters then. lol. Can appear to be wrong. Can be really, can be not. Up to you. It's actually not possible to refer to absoluteness. . The 'impulse to hug', also no real determinable matter. It just feels good. Must come 'from something' that seems to connect. But it seems to come from..somewhere, it's actually 'living originality'. Besides of all discussions. It simply is and it's nice that it shines. No, really ..thanks again @ all contributing. Not ever before it had been possible (to me) that people can be a part of 'existential' matters....from all over the world without traveling....