Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I Think Therefore I Am - Thoughts on Thinking

RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:01:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Just some stuff that has been on my mind recently.

When a swimmer stops swimming, he is no longer a swimmer.
When a runner stops running, he is no longer a runner.
When a thinker stops thinking, he is no longer a thinker.

The swimmer, the runner and the thinker don't exist. They are illusions created by the actions they correspond with. The actions undeniably exist, but the doer is false -- a by-product of our brain. We remember things and so we conclude that there is an "I" as there is a consistency to it, but what about when the rememberer stops remembering?

"I think, therefore I am" can be shortened to "Thinking happens". There was never an "I" to prove exists. The very idea that "I think" implies the "I" is separate from the mind. Some sort of "eternal soul" is needed for there to be a truly consistent "I". Otherwise, if "I" = mind, then "I" am dynamic. Constantly dying and being reborn every moment. Everything that can be said to make up "me" is meaningless as these things constantly change.

If "I" am tied to the physical world, then "I" do not exist. If "I" am not tied to the physical world then the only way for there to be an "I" is if there is a soul. I have yet to find such a thing, and I've searched extensively.

Conclusion: I do not exist, but existing is happening and it is aware of itself.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are many ways to defeat cogito ergo sum. That is a good one.

Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

If there is such thing as self-evidency, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate it logically.

And I fundamentally disagree, as you probably do, that it's self-evident that one's "self" exists. Such a perception is the result of linguistic confusion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:17:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:01:35 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

The swimmer, the runner and the thinker don't exist. They are illusions created by the actions they correspond with. The actions undeniably exist, but the doer is false -- a by-product of our brain. We remember things and so we conclude that there is an "I" as there is a consistency to it, but what about when the rememberer stops remembering?

What runs? Legs run, bodies run. What thinks? People think, selves think.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:17:53 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:01:35 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

The swimmer, the runner and the thinker don't exist. They are illusions created by the actions they correspond with. The actions undeniably exist, but the doer is false -- a by-product of our brain. We remember things and so we conclude that there is an "I" as there is a consistency to it, but what about when the rememberer stops remembering?

What runs? Legs run, bodies run. What thinks? People think, selves think.

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:36:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There are many ways to defeat cogito ergo sum. That is a good one.

Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

If there is such thing as self-evidency, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate it logically.

And I fundamentally disagree, as you probably do, that it's self-evident that one's "self" exists. Such a perception is the result of linguistic confusion.

The Fool: No there isn't Want to debate on it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:38:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There are many ways to defeat cogito ergo sum. That is a good one.

Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

If there is such thing as self-evidency, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate it logically.

And I fundamentally disagree, as you probably do, that it's self-evident that one's "self" exists. Such a perception is the result of linguistic confusion.

The Fool: You just refuted yourself!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 2:39:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:36:26 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: No there isn't Want to debate on it.

Sure. Maybe not today or tomorrow but sure.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 5:05:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Yes a circular argument is False.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 5:07:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: you are confusing a Tautology., that could never be false. Red is Red. or 1=1.
But the cogito is not circular. The famous Phrase ¨I think therefore I am I not the actual argument for the Cogito. That is just the after result of the argument.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 5:13:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fix.
The Fool: you are confusing a Tautology., that could never be false. Red is Red. or 1=1. Because it refering to the very same thing its merly a redundency. But also the most power full argument.

But the cogito is not circular. The famous Phrase ¨I think therefore I am¨¸ Is not the actual argument for the Cogito. That is just the after result of the actual argument. For by I THINK HE means direct instant pre linquistical consciousness. By I` he means ``the observer``
In that the cogito is true and necessary to even know language in the first place. So its not a mistake of language.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 5:19:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Absolutly nothing follows by Acceptence of anything. The BIBLE is circular and even immediatly irrational from the beginning. It just kinds been sneaking in the back round. I notice acceptence is spoke about so much. Noting becomes true via acceptence. exept of course the fact that you accepted.
It only makes sense in a contract situation.
You don`t have to accept that a contradiction is false. That is just what it means to be irrational.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:02:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 5:19:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Absolutly nothing follows by Acceptence of anything.

Nonsense, logic and science are axiomatic systems, and axioms are the starting point of reasoning. All reasoning starts with the acceptance of the postulates, therefore in logic, everything follows by acceptance of something.

But hey, you were only off by 100%.

The Fool: Noting becomes true via acceptence. exept of course the fact that you accepted.

Nope, as far as logic is concerned, everything becomes true via acceptance, without acceptance of postulates there is no logic.

You make these bold assertions that "nothing is to be accepted" without providing any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them? That's pretty self refuting and hypocritical isn't it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:07:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:01:35 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Just some stuff that has been on my mind recently.

When a swimmer stops swimming, he is no longer a swimmer.
When a runner stops running, he is no longer a runner.
When a thinker stops thinking, he is no longer a thinker.

The swimmer, the runner and the thinker don't exist. They are illusions created by the actions they correspond with. The actions undeniably exist, but the doer is false -- a by-product of our brain. We remember things and so we conclude that there is an "I" as there is a consistency to it, but what about when the rememberer stops remembering?

"I think, therefore I am" can be shortened to "Thinking happens". There was never an "I" to prove exists. The very idea that "I think" implies the "I" is separate from the mind. Some sort of "eternal soul" is needed for there to be a truly consistent "I". Otherwise, if "I" = mind, then "I" am dynamic. Constantly dying and being reborn every moment. Everything that can be said to make up "me" is meaningless as these things constantly change.

If "I" am tied to the physical world, then "I" do not exist. If "I" am not tied to the physical world then the only way for there to be an "I" is if there is a soul. I have yet to find such a thing, and I've searched extensively.

Conclusion: I do not exist, but existing is happening and it is aware of itself.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Try capacity fot thinking: a thinking thing
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 7:50:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There are many ways to defeat cogito ergo sum. That is a good one.

Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

If there is such thing as self-evidency, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate it logically.

And I fundamentally disagree, as you probably do, that it's self-evident that one's "self" exists. Such a perception is the result of linguistic confusion.

Everybody here is missing the point of Descartes' famous statement, it wasn't just a comment he made while he was at the gas station picking up a pack of cigarettes, it was a rigidly deductive conclusion he arrived at after a long chain of reasoning.

He was addressing the nature of logic and set out to determine if there was any single statement that could not be doubted, and he concluded that "Cogito ergo sum" was that statement. What he demonstrated is that all deductive logic is circular reasoning based on self evident truths to the extent that logic is based on the acceptance of self evident postulates, and is circular to the extent that it draws conclusions that are based on the acceptance of those postulates. He was showing that any postulate could be doubted, with this one exception.

It introduced a problematic duality that philosophy has been struggling with ever since, but that is only because that duality is foundational to all knowledge. Without a distinction between subject and object, between the knower and the thing known, the fact of knowledge would be unaccountable. Knowledge itself presupposes that distinction, it may be an arbitrary distinction, but it is a necessity because there can be no knowledge of arbitrariness without that distinction.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 8:12:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:02:05 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:19:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Absolutly nothing follows by Acceptence of anything.

Nonsense, logic and science are axiomatic systems, and axioms are the starting point of reasoning.

The Fool: If they they are the only known axioms the are necessary axioms. You can;t run in both direction at the same time and go somewhere. Because it a contradiction. You acceptence is completely irrevant. The moon is the moon whether you accept it or not. There is nothing you can do about it. It is just he very difference between being rational or not.

All reasoning starts with the acceptance of the postulates, therefore in logic, everything follows by acceptance of something.

The Fool: Most people are intuitivly rational in most cases but they don't even know such axioms or what logic is to accept in the first place. Godal is wrong. Buddy! Big time. Logic has been around since the presocratics. There is not Choice. LOL.

But hey, you were only off by 100%.

The Fool: Noting becomes true via acceptence. exept of course the fact that you accepted.

Nope, as far as logic is concerned, everything becomes true via acceptance, without acceptance of postulates there is no logic.

You make these bold assertions that "nothing is to be accepted" without providing any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: Please wait for me to talk you are making pretty big jumps there. What could never be false is necessary TRUE. The axiom are true axiom.

any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: You are contradicting yourself? You can't even speak about them without using them. YOu don't have a choice.

That's pretty self refuting and hypocritical isn't it?

The Fool: This is just gross, Ugly on the inside is much worse then on the outside.
Even to ask a question you are forced to ask in these form.
WHat is the sufficeint condition! aka What is the p to the q: ?->Q
What is a necessary condition! aka WHat is the Q to the P: P->?

Where is the choice in that?
Your are insane buddy. It would be useless if you had to accept. Who cares if you accept. 1+1=2 no matter what you accept.

And that Straight from the Hill!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 8:15:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 7:50:09 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
There are many ways to defeat cogito ergo sum. That is a good one.

Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

If there is such thing as self-evidency, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate it logically.

And I fundamentally disagree, as you probably do, that it's self-evident that one's "self" exists. Such a perception is the result of linguistic confusion.

Everybody here is missing the point of Descartes' famous statement, it wasn't just a comment he made while he was at the gas station picking up a pack of cigarettes, it was a rigidly deductive conclusion he arrived at after a long chain of reasoning.

He was addressing the nature of logic and set out to determine if there was any single statement that could not be doubted, and he concluded that "Cogito ergo sum" was that statement. What he demonstrated is that all deductive logic is circular reasoning based on self evident truths to the extent that logic is based on the acceptance of self evident postulates, and is circular to the extent that it draws conclusions that are based on the acceptance of those postulates. He was showing that any postulate could be doubted, with this one exception.

It introduced a problematic duality that philosophy has been struggling with ever since, but that is only because that duality is foundational to all knowledge. Without a distinction between subject and object, between the knower and the thing known, the fact of knowledge would be unaccountable. Knowledge itself presupposes that distinction, it may be an arbitrary distinction, but it is a necessity because there can be no knowledge of arbitrariness without that distinction.

The Fool: You are sick I will make fun of this later when I have time.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:44:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because I find it entertaining when the very people who proclaim themselves to be the more rational and logical, get flustered and become hopelessly irrational and illogical whenever anyone mentions God, Christianity, or the Bible, so just for grins, let me throw this out.

This conceptual line of thinking was not original with Descartes; the concept predates him by over three thousand years because it was the primary point of the Genesis narrative.

Genesis certainly isn't about two individuals named Adam and Eve, it is about mankind, the Hebrew word "Adam" translates to the word "Mankind", and this is explicitly confirmed in the first two verses of Genesis 5. The word "Genesis" means "in the beginning", it relates the true nature of mankind and poignantly addresses the subject of "knowledge" and the Cartesian duality implicit in the fact of knowledge.

The Genesis narrative is fundamentally about the genesis of self reflective consciousness, the birth of something new, it is about a new beginning that represents a new life, with new potential and new opportunities to move beyond all previous limitations and constraints, and along with that new life come the deepest truths of human essence. It is specifically speaking to the development of the "reflective knowledge" that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom, and it talks to the consequences of our having taken that humanizing step. It is a preface to the Bible that introduces the birth of "free will" and sets an explanatory stage for exploring its attendant consequences and associated moral responsibility.

Genesis 1 recapitulates the story of the creation of external reality in only thirty-one sentences and while the Bible is not a science textbook, there is indeed a remarkable correspondence between what science tells us and what Genesis tells us about the creation of physical reality up to the point when mankind emerged. Genesis 1 externally places us in the context of the wholeness of reality, it states that God created the universe and that it is good, it states that when God created Man the universe became "very good", this brief and profound description of external reality provides a context that culminates with the emergence of mankind. In Genesis 2 mankind is primary in a topical discussion of internal reality, the inverted point of view is now an internal subjective point of view, and therefore necessarily begins with mankind as central. The context has been set, and the story is now about our consciousness, about the unique way that human's think, and it is told from an internal point of view in a 3ymbolic language of images.
We all like to say we must "face reality", right? But the fact is, we can't face reality because we are in it; we are an integral part of reality, so why do we say that? It's because of the way we think, Genesis 2, explains that it is in our nature to think that we face reality "as if we were Gods", standing outside of reality, looking at it, and judging it, That is the unique way human's think, we are the symbolic animal, in that self reflective process we attempt to stand outside of reality by representing reality to ourselves symbolically, but this is an arbitrary way of thinking that artificially separates from the reality thought about. Genesis addresses that aspect of the nature of Man and speaks to what we must do to overcome that nature, setting the stage for everything that follows, which is typically what a books preface does.
As stated before, the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable without a distinction between subject and object, knowledge requires a distinction between the knowing subject and the reality known and our access to self-reflective consciousness achieved that, but when we ate from the fruit of that tree, we necessarily separated ourselves from perfection, we were no longer perfectly attuned to, and One with nature, we were "cast out of the garden of perfection", so to speak.

Genesis appropriately talks about Adam and Eve being the first humans, and it is appropriate to consider the first humans to be the first animals to image reality in a detached and symbolic manner, and if we do so, we can see that everything that is distinctively human, language, culture, science, religion, art, philosophy, technology, it all followed from that "break" with the true reality we were once part of. We are separated from reality by this bifurcation of things into "us" and "not us", by this "illusion" that reality is not an unbroken whole, the illusion that the whole is not greater than the parts, and the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of and apart from reality and "face" it. Genesis tells us that we stand apart from it and look upon the universe "as if we were Gods", seeing a "self reflection", an inverted and artificial image of ourselves as beings that are separate from the reality we are part of.

The essential point is that we are in fact distinct in the animal world because of the way we think, we "image reality" in a detached and symbolic manner, and it all followed from that original cognitive "break" with the true reality we were once part of. Man's tendency to step outside of reality and look upon it from a distance, from outside of it, that is the problem of evil and the nature of Man that Genesis speaks to with the "Tree of Knowledge", it says we are "fallen" because the way we think is "as if" we were Gods, believing we can "face reality" and be the "judge" of what is good and evil as though we weren't an integral part of the whole.

For us, and only for us, this is the thing that made us human and gave us "dominion" over the earth, science's crossing of the threshold of reflection and faith's "casting us out of the Garden of perfection". This cognitive break with the whole transformed the world of perfection that we were once perfectly attuned to into a terrifying world of separate things and events. It became a world where we are naked, ashamed, where we must toil to survive, where we must have faith to live, and where we must recognize that we are also spiritual beings that transcend these arbitrary distinctions of our unique way of seeing reality.

The "Tree of Life" then represents the need to transcend that "fallen" state of being brought about by our self reflective knowledge when we ate from the "Tree of Knowledge". Genesis symbolically tells us that we do not "face" reality, that "we" and "it" are one and the same, and to eat from "the fruit of the tree of life" is to overcome that separation, to regain that state of perfection by transcending the illusion brought about by our having partaken of "fruit of the tree of knowledge". To transcend that fallen state of reflective knowledge is to live in the moment, to transcend the artificial categories we have artificially imposed on the unbroken wholeness. It is to overcome that flaming sword of reason which turns us in every direction and to re-enter the Garden of Perfection. To eat from the Tree of Life is to transcend the artificial distinctions we make in our minds and love the ultimate reality that we are part of, and in so doing, love one another as we love ourselves, because there is no real distinction in the true, unbroken reality, they are one and the same.

In the end, I think Genesis is telling us is that unless we accept a deeper understanding of our profound interrelatedness with all of life, until we recognize that a part can never be whole, if we don't consciously "eat from the fruit of the tree of life" so to speak, we will never find inner peace and external harmony, we will continue to lay waste to our mother earth and go on killing ourselves and each other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 8:12:42 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:02:05 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:19:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Absolutly nothing follows by Acceptence of anything.

Nonsense, logic and science are axiomatic systems, and axioms are the starting point of reasoning.

The Fool: If they they are the only known axioms the are necessary axioms. You can;t run in both direction at the same time and go somewhere. Because it a contradiction. You acceptence is completely irrevant. The moon is the moon whether you accept it or not. There is nothing you can do about it. It is just he very difference between being rational or not.

All reasoning starts with the acceptance of the postulates, therefore in logic, everything follows by acceptance of something.

The Fool: Most people are intuitivly rational in most cases but they don't even know such axioms or what logic is to accept in the first place. Godal is wrong. Buddy! Big time. Logic has been around since the presocratics. There is not Choice. LOL.

But hey, you were only off by 100%.

The Fool: Noting becomes true via acceptence. exept of course the fact that you accepted.

Nope, as far as logic is concerned, everything becomes true via acceptance, without acceptance of postulates there is no logic.

You make these bold assertions that "nothing is to be accepted" without providing any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: Please wait for me to talk you are making pretty big jumps there. What could never be false is necessary TRUE. The axiom are true axiom.

any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: You are contradicting yourself? You can't even speak about them without using them. YOu don't have a choice.

That's pretty self refuting and hypocritical isn't it?

The Fool: This is just gross, Ugly on the inside is much worse then on the outside.
Even to ask a question you are forced to ask in these form.
WHat is the sufficeint condition! aka What is the p to the q: ?->Q
What is a necessary condition! aka WHat is the Q to the P: P->?

Where is the choice in that?
Your are insane buddy.

Nope, I'm just informed about the subject matter, and it's good to know something about the subject you are talking about, you should try it some time.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:51:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 8:15:28 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: You are sick I will make fun of this later when I have time.

Oh yeah, I'm sure you will.

An angry teenager acting out, that's not something you see every day....oh wait, yes it is....never mind.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:19:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 9:47:31 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/14/2012 8:12:42 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 7:02:05 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 8/14/2012 5:19:08 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 4:54:57 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:10:40 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Another is that it's circular reasoning. In saying "I think...", they have already assumed their conclusion.

There's nothing invalid about a circular argument. If one accepts the premise 'the bible was written by god' for example, it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'god exists' not to follow. If one accepts the premise 'I think' then it is logically impossible for the conclusion 'I exist' not to follow.

The Fool: Absolutly nothing follows by Acceptence of anything.

Nonsense, logic and science are axiomatic systems, and axioms are the starting point of reasoning.



All(univeral) reasoning starts with the acceptance of the postulates, therefore in logic, everything follows by acceptance of something.


But hey, you were only off by 100%.

The Fool: Noting becomes true via acceptence. exept of course the fact that you accepted.

Nope, as far as logic is concerned, everything becomes true via acceptance, without acceptance of postulates there is no logic.

You make these bold assertions that "nothing is to be accepted" without providing any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: What could never be false is necessary TRUE. The axiom are true axiom.

any support of your contention and expect us to just accept them?

The Fool: You are contradicting yourself? You can't even speak about them without using them. YOu don't have a choice.

That's pretty self refuting and hypocritical isn't it?


Nope, I'm just informed about the subject matter,(Appeal to authority fallacy) and it's good to know something about the subject you are talking about, you should try it some time.

The Fool: Yes you need to know how they axioms are derived for to claim whether or not you need to accept them. Why did you avoid the argument?? REDDING HERRING FALLACY!! You didn;t show

The Fool: Most people are intuitivly rational in most cases but they don't even know such axioms or what logic is to accept in the first place. Godal is wrong. Buddy! Big time. Logic has been around since the presocratics. There is not Choice. LOL.

The Fool: If they are the only known axioms the are the necessary axioms. You can;t run in both direction at the same time and go somewhere. Because it a contradiction. Your acceptence is completely irrevant. The moon is the moon whether you accept it or not. There is nothing you can do about it. It is just he very difference between being rational or not.

The Fool: This is just gross, Ugly on the inside is much worse then on the outside.
Even to ask a question you are forced to ask in these form.
WHat is the sufficeint condition! aka What is the p to the q: ?->Q
What is a necessary condition! aka WHat is the Q to the P: P->?

Where is the choice in that?

The Fool: Logic is based on apriori processing operators of cognition. Godel version was based of the logical POSITIViSM its only under that critieria they needed to be accepted. Youve been Fooled!! <(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:19:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?

I don't see the point, no. Arguing about a self often devolves into semantic caviling. My point was that actions occur because things carry those actions out. If you want to say 'you're brain thinks' then a self is just some brain processes. What is not true is that the "doer is an illusion".
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:33:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 10:19:55 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?

I don't see the point, no. Arguing about a self often devolves into semantic caviling. My point was that actions occur because things carry those actions out. If you want to say 'you're brain thinks' then a self is just some brain processes. What is not true is that the "doer is an illusion".

The Fool: "I think there for I am" is a quote which is taking out of a completly different work. In the actual works he say by Think I mean Consciousness. By I he means The "oberserver" of conciousness. Its mean to be the intuitions them self. you need to know what I means to use it in a sentence coherently, that is we have a sense of the "idea". It like the EYE which only looks out, but its conscious and by intuition..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:35:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 10:33:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 10:19:55 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?

I don't see the point, no. Arguing about a self often devolves into semantic caviling. My point was that actions occur because things carry those actions out. If you want to say 'you're brain thinks' then a self is just some brain processes. What is not true is that the "doer is an illusion".

The Fool: "I think there for I am" is a quote which is taking out of a completly different work. In the actual works he say by Think I mean Consciousness. By I he means The "oberserver" of conciousness. Its mean to be the intuitions them self. you need to know what I means to use it in a sentence coherently, that is we have a sense of the "idea". It like the EYE which only looks out, but its conscious and by intuition..

Its pre -language because you have to be a concsious entity before you could even learn langauge or any sense of semantics in the first place.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 12:25:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 10:19:55 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?

I don't see the point, no. Arguing about a self often devolves into semantic caviling. My point was that actions occur because things carry those actions out. If you want to say 'you're brain thinks' then a self is just some brain processes. What is not true is that the "doer is an illusion".

That assumes the thing precedes the action.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 9:40:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 1:05:55 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 12:25:53 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

That assumes the thing precedes the action.

???

You're assuming that "things do stuff" is self evident. I'm saying there are no "things", just events. Nothing is static, so to say "things do stuff" isn't quite true. Really what's happening is "events cause events".

For example, your body is an event. It's not static. To say "you walk", while semantically convenient, isn't really what's happening because it implies that "you" are a static "thing".

Consider a river. A river is only a river if the water is flowing. If the water isn't moving, it stops being a river. A river is an event, not a 'thing". Even still water has movement. If all the molecules that make up the river's water stopped moving and spinning, would you still have water? No.

'Things' are illusions, only the event is real.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2012 10:10:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You say running exists but not the runner. Then, what is running? Is it existence? Sorry, but last I checked the pronoun (I) is merely a subjective first person pronoun denoting being; and, being is merely something that exists.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 12:43:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 10:10:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
You say running exists but not the runner. Then, what is running? Is it existence? Sorry, but last I checked the pronoun (I) is merely a subjective first person pronoun denoting being; and, being is merely something that exists.

Show me an unchanging being.

If it exists, it is in a state of constant change. It's not a "thing", it's an action. The action of being runs.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2012 2:31:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/14/2012 10:35:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 10:33:51 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/14/2012 10:19:55 AM, tarkovsky wrote:
At 8/14/2012 2:21:29 AM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:

Your analogy is unequal. Legs are to running as brains are to thinking. I could just as easily say "people run, selves run". Do you see?

I don't see the point, no. Arguing about a self often devolves into semantic caviling. My point was that actions occur because things carry those actions out. If you want to say 'you're brain thinks' then a self is just some brain processes. What is not true is that the "doer is an illusion".

The Fool: "I think there for I am" is a quote which is taking out of a completly different work. In the actual works he say by Think I mean Consciousness. By I he means The "oberserver" of conciousness. Its mean to be the intuitions them self. you need to know what I means to use it in a sentence coherently, that is we have a sense of the "idea". It like the EYE which only looks out, but its conscious and by intuition..

Its pre -language because you have to be a concsious entity before you could even learn langauge or any sense of semantics in the first place.

HUZZA! A THOUGHT WORTHY OF BEING THOUGHT!
Tsar of DDO