[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 151 KB, 817x1000, Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15184696 No.15184696 [Reply] [Original]

>I think therefore I am

You literally can't refute this.

>> No.15184709
File: 103 KB, 326x314, 1486765442271.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15184709

>>15184696

>punches you in the face over and over again until you get brain damage and turn into a vegetable

Looks like you're not thinking so much anymore.

>> No.15184711

But christcucks don't think.

>> No.15184718

>>15184696
So when you're sleeping you don't exist?

>> No.15184728

>>15184696
Man philosophy is so stupid.

>> No.15184729

>>15184696
The existence of thoughts does not prove the existence of a Self. The most we can prove with the cogito is 'there are thoughts' but we can never say 'I' exist.

>> No.15184731

>>15184728
Based

>> No.15184750

>>15184696
Joke’s on you idiot, I don’t think

>> No.15185121

>>15184696
Evola did.

>> No.15185135
File: 34 KB, 500x553, FB_IMG_1580597001451.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185135

>>15184696

>> No.15185158

Define I, what is an I? What is a being?

Define existing, how can something exist?

>> No.15185177

>>15184696
Can't refute something that's not even wrong

>> No.15185243
File: 198 KB, 1252x1252, 8-qPRtXB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185243

>>15185158
The I is the thinking thing. A being is defined by it's quality of extension or thought. Existence and being for Descartes are pretty much identical. Existence is proved first by means of a radical doubt to reach the cogito, second by faith in God to reach the external world.

>> No.15185259
File: 68 KB, 474x370, 14789287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185259

>Why, yes, I synthesized geometry and algebra to create the Cartesian coordinate system. How did you know?

>> No.15185381

>>15185259
why would he call his own system "Cartesian" retard

>> No.15185491

>>15184696
>I
you can't say this until you've deduced the transcendental unity of apperception

>think
you can't say this until you've deduced the pure concepts of the understanding

>therefore
can't say this until you've demonstrated the validity of synthetic a priori judgements

>I
see point 1

>am
You need to show your working for all the aforementioned steps before you can make this claim. Until you do, it is entirely unsubstantiated.

>> No.15185496

>>15184696
I do not think therefore I do not am.

>> No.15185498

>>15185496
poor grammar. It should be
>I do not think, therefore I am not.

>> No.15185499

>>15185491
Kant loved Descartes don't be a retard

>> No.15185506

>>15184696
>I think you're gay, therefore you're a faggot

You literally can't refute this

>> No.15185514
File: 2.77 MB, 1995x2048, gettyimages-1150993712-2048x2048.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185514

>>15184696
Excuse me sir by what right do you claim to know yourself to exist? Only God can know the nature of His Creation. Also, you refer to yourself twice in this statement, this suggests to me you are a very self absorbed and prideful individual, and pride is the essence of all sin.

>> No.15185517

>>15185506
>If you think about gays, you are gay

You literally can't refute this.

>> No.15185518

>>15185499
Evidently he thought Descartes wasn't good enough if he had to write massive texts about metaphysics to compensate for his inadequacy.

>> No.15185525

>>15185518
You could say the same thing about Hume and Kant sucked him off to no end

>> No.15185535

>>15185381
>Decartes

>> No.15185536

>>15185525
>You could say the same thing about Hume
I do say so, I actually wrote an essay about Kant's response to hume at uni. Kant is an autist who nitpicks even the philosophers that he likes. Most of the section on transcendental logic in COPR is just mogging hume off.

>> No.15185565

>>15185536
Okay, so then he can still love Descartes, what is your point?

>> No.15185603

>>15185565
I'm autistic like Kant and need to nitpick where it isn't warranted

>> No.15185621

>>15185603
based

>> No.15185647

I think therefore you are

>> No.15185655

>>15184696
isn't that the point of incorrigibility?

>> No.15185787

>>15185536
>Kant is an autist who nitpicks even the philosophers that he likes

Well of course he does, faggot. That's the point of philosophy.

>> No.15185837

>>15184718
read the Meditations, Descartes addresses this right away

>> No.15185844
File: 192 KB, 960x956, 1583807857971.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185844

>>15184728
>Man philosophy is so stupid.
Bugmen deserve torture.

>> No.15185850

>>15184696
I poop therefore I shit. refute that

>> No.15185851

>>15184718
you experience the dream therefore exist

>> No.15185852

>>15184696
Just because there are thoughts it doesn't presuppose a self or entity. He got BTFO by Indians

>> No.15185861

>>15184729
>The existence of thoughts does not prove the existence of a Self. The most we can prove with the cogito is 'there are thoughts' but we can never say 'I' exist.
/thread

>> No.15185870
File: 95 KB, 680x550, 1584656719136.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185870

ITT: buttmad NPCs with no inner voice

>> No.15185875

>>15184718
>he sleeps
might as well be a vegetable lmao

>> No.15185878

>>15185787
No, the point of philosophy is for anglos to fuck around in a classroom with sterile meaningless abstractions that are of no benefit to anyone

>> No.15185886

>>15184709
The position holds while one is thinking, he thinks therefore he exists.
>>15184711
Descartes wrote the Meditations as a mediation between Christians and rationalists, so he addresses this is his letter to the Sorbonne.
>>15184718
This is addressed in the First meditation.. read it.>>15184728
This is an incredible achievement in an age of unprecedented scientific advance.. objective reality with a materialist focus left behind..
>>15184729
..the subject or self. There are thoughts.. this is what he says. Hence his dualism.. there is 'extension' like bodily things that Descartes and most all accepted at the time.. it would be lunacy to say there is no such thing as a body. What Descartes does is realign the project for basing knowledge simply on bodies, extension, aka the material world. To think, in other words, is to exist.. not simply bodily, but mentally.

>> No.15185887

>>15184718
not how implications works.

>> No.15185890

>>15185870
ITT:NPCS who assert the existence of a self

>> No.15185982

>>15184696

It presupposes that "I" already exists thereby making it pointless to provide an argument for the existence of "I"
It's essentially just saying "I exists therefore I exists... I also does other thing."

>> No.15185989

>>15185861
>>15184729
the self is nothing but a thinking substance, if there are thoughts then there is an "I" needed as the substrate for those thoughts

>> No.15185993
File: 259 KB, 835x764, jaron lanier zombies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15185993

>>15184696
http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

>> No.15186002

>>15185982
>It presupposes that "I" already exists
no it doesn't, the whole thing is a demonstration of why the I must exist. it is literally his proof for a subject. what is presupposed is that there are thoughts

>> No.15186016

>>15184696
What if I don't think? Does that mean I'm not?

>> No.15186017

>>15186002
The subject is unreal the world is illusion. Level up incel

>> No.15186018

>>15185989
You can't prove that within the realm of methodological doubt. This could be, like everything else, an idea implanted in you by the demon to get you to believe in a self. All you can say is 'thoughts exist'; you can't infer that you exist from that.

>> No.15186023

>>15185989
And the "I" also internally refers to the body. All experience is illusion

>> No.15186034

>>15186018
>This could be
first three words are predicted on a conscious existence
>an idea
a thing
>implanted in you
"you" implies a self to be implanted in
hence:
>demon to get you to believe in a self
a self must exist in order for thoughts be implanted into it

>> No.15186054

>>15186034
The self is just memory, it's just data, that doesn't presuppose an existence of a new entity and certainly why you call "you" YOU had nothing to do with. What you are is what you are doing right now, you are akin to a very complex human machine. There philosophy is over, finished.

>> No.15186055

>>15185993
also evolution couldn't produce self awareness or the notion of truth since it is detrimental and useless for the propagation of the species

>> No.15186085

>>15186054
Now try and figure out how, if there is no self and all is constantly changing, sentences are consciously formulated. For individual parts of a sentence make no sense without context, yet context is necessary for a sentence to be formulated to begin with. Hence a self needs to exist in order to formulate the sentence from beginning to end

>> No.15186089

>>15186054
>What you are is what you are doing right now
Isn't that an old existentialist idea?

>> No.15186107

>>15186054
>that doesn't presuppose an existence of a new entity
Didn't mean to put new there. Phone faggotry
>and certainly why you call "you" YOU
and certainly what we establish as "you", YOU had nothing to do with

>> No.15186109

>>15186002

Wrong
Just examine only the simple 2 word phrase "I think"
Ask yourself can "I" think in any circumstance where "I" does not exist?
Surely not therefore you've presupposed that an "I" exists in order to be the subject of thinking

>> No.15186115

>>15186018
>This could be, like everything else, an idea implanted in you by the demon to get you to believe in a self. All you can say is 'thoughts exist'; you can't infer that you exist from that
anon this is his example he gives in the very first section of the Meditations. the solution is that no matter what those thoughts are, and regardless of whether or not they are true, /something/ is having them. if you are being tricked by a demon, /something/ is being tricked. this something is what Descartes calls the I
>>15186023
no, the body and the mind (the I) are not reducible to one another. this is one of reasons Descartes defends the existence of the soul

>> No.15186123

>>15186085
The sentences are formulated naturally based on the senses, they are not self generated

>> No.15186131

>>15186109
>Ask yourself can "I" think in any circumstance where "I" does not exist?
no. now ask yourself, are there thoughts? yes. QED the self exists. come on anon, you need to at least present objections Descartes didn't already answer 500 years ago

>> No.15186134

>>15186115
When you get hit hard internally "I" am in pain or whatever. The "I" is unreal just based on that alone, that means all thought is centered around a Phantom limb

>> No.15186136

>>15186123
Then a particular sense must be constant in order to string together a sentence. Since the sense is constant, there is no reason not to call it a definite thing, or a self.

>> No.15186139

>>15186034
You're being pedantic. Anyone with two brain cells would understand what I meant. Language is so fundamentally oriented around an existence of a Self that it's hard to express things without invoking that concept. Obviously if I was writing a philosophical essay I would be more rigorous about it. Let me appease you though:

Thoughts exist. There could be thoughts existing with a Self in mind, but that does not prove that the Self which those thoughts conceive of is real, just like the fact that there are thoughts about bodies does not prove bodies exist. If we're operating under methodological doubt, we can say thoughts exist but we cannot say 'I' exist.

>> No.15186156

>>15186134
>When you get hit hard internally "I" am in pain or whatever. The "I" is unreal just based on that alone, that means all thought is centered around a Phantom limb
what do you mean? regardless of whether you actually hurt your leg, or if you are feeling pain from a phantom leg, or you are just dreaming you hurt your leg, in all cases the existence of a thought (in this case the experience of pain) insists that there was /something/ thinking and experiencing the pain. you are bringing in your preconceived notion of a posteriori conceptions of the self, Descartes subject is a priori (he is a rationalist)

>> No.15186169

>>15186131

this is just circular reasoning
thoughts exist therefore I exist
I exist therefore thoughts exist

logically translated all Descartes is saying is "I exist and I think therefore I exist" which is functionally not a very useful statement to make

>> No.15186175

>>15186136
Again who formulates it? Can you show me? The process goes at a lightening speed

>> No.15186184

>>15186139
>There could be thoughts existing with a Self in mind, but that does not prove that the Self which those thoughts conceive of is real
for Descartes, this is the reality of the self (i.e. the fact that there are thoughts). you can't separate Descartes' subject from the thinking substance that it is, if there are thoughts they by necessity take place by means of self. it's like saying, water might condense and fall from the sky but that doesn't mean rain is real

>> No.15186189

>>15186169
>I exist therefore thoughts exist
Descartes never makes this argument though? He doesn't think it works both ways. God is needed in his system for a reason

>> No.15186221

>>15186169
>logically translated
but it's not a logical statement. it does not even require logic.

>> No.15186341

>>15186023
Illusion presupposes an experiencer of that illusion.

>>15186139
And what is aware of the thoughts? What is experiencing them?

>> No.15186357

>>15186054
So the self exists & it's a complex machine? Ok cool. So what's a machine, and why would a set of physical processes structured as a machine of this kind give rise to a self?

>> No.15186380

>>15186357
>So what's a machine, and why would a set of physical processes structured as a machine of this kind give rise to a self?
welcome to philosophy of mind post-Descartes, pull up a chair cause we will be here a while

>> No.15186460

>>15186341
The seer and the seen are one in the same contrary to popular belief. "You" are creating the film and there is no picture there
>>15186341
And the experiencer is also false. Everything is happening in one unit

>> No.15186577

>>15186460
>Everything is happening in one unit
which Descartes called the I or the subject or the thinking thing

>> No.15186641

So is the pornhub guy a solipsist or not?

>> No.15186677

>>15184696
How do I prove my thoughts come from me

>> No.15186699

>>15186184
>thinking substance
Thoughts don't imply a thinker; you're begging the question.

>> No.15186737
File: 223 KB, 1254x756, consciousness_causes_collapse_proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15186737

Of course it's irrefutable, it's true. Not only that, the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation is correct, consciousness is fundamental to existence and consciousness causes collapse.

>> No.15186769

>>15185886
>>15184696
the "i think" in that statement is an axiom and it implies that "you are" but an axiom is just an axiom and we still dont know if that is real. saying "i go to the store, therefore i am" is the same thing and it doesn't really prove anything untill you know "i go to the store" is real. i think therefore i am might be true on its own in a vacuum but its meaningless when applied to reality.

logic itself (or its relationship with reality) might also be an illusion so there still is place for doubt there. there will always be place for doubt when talking about real real real reality.

honestly trying to base your reality off of language (a tool thats supposed to be for functional general human use only) is a mistake all these outdated thinkers make

>> No.15186796

>>15186341
>Who is aware of the thoughts?
Again, refer to this: >>15186699
Thoughts do not imply a thinker. They don't need to be 'experienced' by anything. They just are.

>> No.15186801

>>15186796
>Thoughts do not imply a thinker. They don't need to be 'experienced' by anything. They just are.
? this is not true, it doesn't even make sense

>> No.15186813

>>15186699
>>15186796
you haven't demonstrated this though, you have just asserted it. Hume at least went through the motions to try and prove this fact, but even he concluded it was a meaningless abstraction and that there is no purpose in everyday to the speculation of a lack of identity

>> No.15186837

People seriously trying to refute Descartes? HAHAHAHA

>> No.15186856

>>15186837
this board is full of brainlets and this thread is damning evidence of that fact

>> No.15186859

Thread theme:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-U0SUCe1QU&ab_channel=mulucpax

>> No.15186919

>>15184696
To think yourself as "I" first you have to learn it, and to learn that you need to interact with the world to know that it is "not I". Therefore "I think because things other than me exist and therefore I am" would be a better statement imo. And also, something to exist has to be caused by something, so proving your existence acknowledges that something previous to you also exist, and something previous to that and so on.

>> No.15186952

>>15186919
Virtually every person who tried to criticize Descartes thought the same thing. He lacks the major premise (I think because things other than me exist and therefore I am) of his syllogism and slips into solipsism. It's almost as if he didn't even bother tackling the issue.

>> No.15187025

>>15186813
>>15186813
>there is no purpose in everyday to the speculation of a lack of identity
Obviously, but with Descartes and the Cogito we are not operating under everyday circumstances. We're operating in the realm of methodological doubt, where we talk about things which can only be known for certain.
>you haven't demonstrated this though, you have just asserted it.
Not really sure how to put it into language. It seems self-evident to me but I'd have to think about it more so I could explain. Where did Hume tackle this issue btw? I'd like to read.

>> No.15187045

>>15185850
No

I wipe, therefore I shit

>> No.15187164

>>15186055
Why would it be useless or detrimental to the propagation of the species?

>> No.15187210

>>15185837
So why don't you if you've read it then?

>> No.15187280

>>15187025
I guess my point is, Descartes conclusions make sense and his model has at the very least helped us operate for hundreds of years, whereas even Hume himself concludes the Humean project of methodological doubt holds no actual value outside of philosophical abstraction. If you don't want to read his Treatise on Human Nature, just google bundle theory

>> No.15187297

>>15184696
Knowledge of yourself existing requires knowledge that you think, and you don't know that.
How do you know that you are actually thinking and not just constantly fed thoughts that you don't contribute to at all by some other being and so you're really just some dead weight attached to a computer who has the illusion of reality but has no brain and is incapable of thought.

>uhhh well i have a brain checkmate atheist
How do you know that? Because its true in the simulation?

>> No.15187328
File: 20 KB, 217x320, ug055.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15187328

We are always talking about thought and thinking. What is thought? Have you ever looked at thought, let along controlling thought; let alone manipulating thought; let alone using that thought for achieving something material or otherwise? You cannot look at your thought, because you cannot separate yourself from thought and look at it. There is no thought apart from the knowledge you have about those thoughts -- the definitions you have. So if somebody asks you the question, "what is thought?" any answer you have is the answer that is put in there -- the answers that others have already given.

You have, through combinations and permutations of ideation and mentation about thoughts, created your own thoughts which you call your own. Just as when you mix different colors, you can create thousands of pastel colors, but basically all of them can be reduced to only seven colors that you find in nature. What you think is yours is the combination and permutation of all those thoughts, just the way you have created hundreds and hundreds of pastel colors. You have created your own ideas. That is what you call thinking. When you want to look at thought, what there is is only whatever you know about thought. Otherwise you can't look at thought. There is no thought other than what there is in what you know about thought. That's all that I am saying. So when that is understood the meaninglessness of the whole business of wanting to look at thought comes to an end. What there is is only what you know, the definitions given by others. And out of those definitions, if you are very intelligent and clever enough, you create your own definitions. That's all.

When you look at an object the knowledge you have about that object comes into your head. There is an illusion that thought is something different from objects, but it is you who creates the object. The object may be there, but the knowledge you have about that object is all that you know. Apart from that knowledge and independent of that knowledge, free from that knowledge, you have no way of knowing anything about it. You have no way of directly experiencing anything. The word "directly" does not mean that there is any other way of experiencing things other than the way you are experiencing things now. The knowledge you have about it is all that is there and that is what you are experiencing. Really, you do not know what it is.

>> No.15187329

>>15184718
STOP READING HEGEL TAKE A FUCKING SYMBOLIC LOGIC COURSE FFS

GERMANS ARE MAKING YOU LITERALLY RETARDED

>> No.15187337
File: 82 KB, 466x612, ug-Les-w.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15187337

>>15187328
In exactly the same way, when you want to know something about thought, or experience thought, it is the same process that is in operation there. There is no inside or outside. What there is is only the operation, the flow of the knowledge. So you cannot actually separate yourself from thought and look at it.

So when such a question is thrown at you, what should happen is [the realization] that none of the answers have any meaning, because all that is acquired and taught. So that movement stops. There is no need for you to answer the question. There is no need for you to know anything about it. All that you know comes to a halt. It has no momentum any more. It slows down, and then it dawns upon you that it is meaninglessness to try to answer that question, because it has no answer at all. The answers that others have given are there. So you have nothing to say on that thing called thought, because all you can say is what you have gathered from other sources. You have no answer of your own.

>> No.15187342

More like I think: "therefore"; I am

>> No.15187391

>>15184696
The physical body is a means to an end

>> No.15187393

>>15187210
You shouldn't be in this thread if you haven't read the meditations yourself lmao. Not the guy you're replying to BTW

>> No.15187814

I think, in a language, which requires public rules and enforcement around it's use, which requires a shared, publicly accessibly world.

the limit of doubt is the community of language users

>> No.15187821

>>15184729
>>15185861
t. retards

>> No.15187948

>>15187164
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY

>> No.15187955

>>15184696
Obviously. It's literally tautology

>> No.15187965

>>15184729
The thoughts are the self

>> No.15187967

>>15187821
Rational man oh how retarded you are rational man! Where is the "I"?

>> No.15187974

>>15187965
The thing is retard you are not the "I" the "I" is interdependent of a doer. THE "I" IS AN ILLUSION L

>> No.15187992

>>15187821
p1 - this is a thought
p2 - only a thinking substance can produce thoughts
p3 - the thought in p1 is only local to my thinking substance
p4 - my thinking substance is intrinsic only to my body

he's missing quite a few premises to justify he exists imo

>> No.15188003

>>15187967
Somebody is doing the "thinking", shitlord, if you try to refute that, you end up proving it

>> No.15188006
File: 294 KB, 647x672, 1537277272926.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15188006

>>15184696
>Americans exist
He just got refuted

>> No.15188010

>>15188006
Is this the most rent-free post in the history or 4chin?

>> No.15188014

>>15188003
What is? The thinker is another thought that you mistakenly have taken as real. Once this falls the whole subject ---object experience structure falls apart

>> No.15188158

>>15184696
am i banned

>> No.15189076

>I think
You do? I can hardly verify that.

But for myself, yes I think therefore I am.

>> No.15189111

>>15187329
hegel is better

>> No.15189231

>>15184696
Being > thinking

When a rock falls, is it a rock-doer performing the action of falling, or are the rock, gravity, and ‘falling’ one seamless unity? When a thinker thinks, is it a separate thinker-self performing an action called ‘thinking,’ or are the thinker and the thoughts actually one unitary process? When you walk, are you moving your legs deliberately as a separate walker-self performing the action of ‘walking,’ or is there simply one unitary process of walking not localized to a ‘walker-self’?

>> No.15189607

>>15189231
>When a thinker thinks, is it a separate thinker-self performing an action called ‘thinking,’ or are the thinker and the thoughts actually one unitary process?
one unitary process that Descartes called the Cogito

>> No.15189608

>>15186769
"I think" is self-evident

Also kys analytic

>> No.15189627

>>15185536
wow you wrote an essay

>> No.15189762

>>15184696
Correct.

Now if only Descartes hadn't jumped from this to "therefore god" in just two steps.

>> No.15190770

>>15189608
there exists a possibility that
>"I think" is self-evident
is an illusion

>> No.15190945

>>15186796
But they do though. My own awareness of my own thoughts demonstrates that. A thinker is simply that which has thoughts - thus your assertion is nonsensical. Are you not aware of you thoughts?

>>15190770
No, there isn't. An illusion presupposes an awareness of the illusion, an experiencer to be deluded, in thinking about the illusion. Your statement refutes itself. What is experiencing the illusion, in your opinion?

>> No.15190999

This thread:
>Decartes: I exist.
>NO!!! It's an illusion! Reality is an illusion and I'm an illusion and nothing exists.
Hey, guys, why don't you try defining what a "self" is, anyways? Right now, you are all just absentmindedly copying what you favourite philosopher said on the subject, and so all just assume your ideas of what a "self" is are the same.

>> No.15191348

I am, therefore I think

>> No.15191407
File: 14 KB, 276x329, hi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15191407

>>15191348
Hi, Ayn.

>>15190999
>Hey, guys, why don't you try defining what a "self" is, anyways?
That's where it all went wrong the last time.

>> No.15191416

>>15184696
Can you imagine how many people on Earth don't think?
Also animals don't think, but they still are.

>> No.15191465

>>15191416
If you want to discuss a book you should maybe read it as a start.

>> No.15191538

>>15191416
Animals think

>> No.15191626

>>15184696
if that's the case, would then A.I exist as a purely ideal substance with no physical qualities? sorry if I use terms wrong, I don't know much about this

>> No.15191648

>>15191416
You don't seem to think much either yet here you are.....

>> No.15191672

>>15191416
but animals don't have souls according to Descartes

>> No.15191709

>stop mental rumination for a couple of seconds
>don't pop out of existence
Decuck BTFO

>> No.15191725

>>15185243
is that Norman Reedus?

>> No.15191735

>not heading straight to the passions of the soul
Never gonna be generous

>> No.15191769

>>15191416
Animals are automatons and they don't exist on the same level as the Cogito as they are res extensa

>> No.15191776

>>15191626
A.I. doesn't think. It is a misuse of language to say it does.

>> No.15191788

>>15191776
it's ridiculous for you to say anything about something that doesn't even exist yet

>> No.15192003
File: 722 KB, 3110x2595, 1370023242866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15192003

>not "I'm conscious therefore I am"
thinking is just one of the things you do and it's hardly even voluntary, might as well say "I fart therefore I am"
get fucked D you basic cunt

>> No.15192057

>>15191788
Oh sorry. You must have forgotten about the literal thousands of techies who have been touting "AI" in various iterations for, like, 40 or more years. Just because what you have in mind is just displaced human thought doesn't mean it is ridiculous for me to criticize the actual extant forms of the thing.

>> No.15192163

>>15186460
>The seer and the seen are one in the same contrary to popular belief.
That violates basic logic, the observer as the witness who apprehends something which is different from that obsever is by nature a different thing from that observation by the fact of it being the observer. If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to provide reasons why this no longer holds true, as of right now you have offered no reason.
>>15186699
No they dont imply a thinker but they do imply a witnessing awareness (which itself merely observes without thinking) who observes those thoughts as thoughts are about specific objects, dreams, possibilites, our thoughts don't witness one another as separate consciousnesses, but rather they appear and disappear as part of one stream that is continuously presented to the witnessing awareness, which is the self. If you are one of those people who are sneakily trying to use Buddhist arguments for there being no self in a western philosophical context, you should be aware that Hindu philosophers like Shankara already completely destroyed that Buddhist position and pointed out its numerous contradictions and shortfalls. You should honestly just stop posting about it and go read or something instead.

>> No.15192238

>>15184696
Presupposes thought requires a thinker. You're actually a really complex algorithm that processes inputs and gives outputs, but there is no thinker. Just thoughts.

>> No.15192922

>>15184709
>needing more than a single strike

>> No.15192964

>>15191788
>AI doesn't exist
do you not believe in aeroplanes either? what about cell phones? do they exist yet?

>> No.15192970

>>15192163
>a witnessing awareness (which itself merely observes without thinking)
that's the question isn't it. Is the awareness separate or is the thing thinking

>> No.15193076

>>15189607
Being > thinking

“I am, therefore I (think/feel/perceive/move/etc.)”. Or you could just shorten it to “I am.” Then you have a possible starting point for actually investigating the nature of self and reality instead of just playing with words and concepts in your head.

>> No.15193176

>>15192163
>That violates basic logic, the observer as the witness who apprehends something which is different from that obsever is by nature a different thing from that observation by the fact of it being the observer. If you want to be taken seriously you'll have to provide reasons why this no longer holds true, as of right now you have offered no reason.
You’re confusing the norms of language for the nature of reality. Imagine something seen without a seer seeing it. Conversely, imagine a blind seer, a seer seeing nothing.

Seer = seen. Thinker = thoughts. Everything you experience IS yourself.

>> No.15193195

Do people seriously not understand that what Descartes is doing here is showing that at the very least, Solipsism must be correct?

>> No.15193242

>>15192238
Falsified here >>15186737

>> No.15193273

>>15185852
But a mind is characterized by having thought right?

>> No.15193440

>>15193273
True, but the mind produces thoughts regardless of whether you try to influence it or not. It's a bottomless well largely outside of your control.

>> No.15193599

>>15193440
>True, but the mind produces thoughts regardless of whether you try to influence it or not. It's a bottomless well largely outside of your control.
this isn't an argument against Descartes. I feel like not enough people itt have actually read the relevant material

>> No.15193617
File: 291 KB, 547x800, only_jewish_genius.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15193617

>>15184696
>nothing is constant
>our understanding is based on conjectures
you literally can't refute this

>> No.15193943

>>15184696
How does he know that he isn't just observing the thoughts though? There is no reason to believe that perception of the inner world would be more trustworthy than of the outer world.

>> No.15194065

>>15193943
He isn’t refuting the outer world, he’s talking about being.

>> No.15194214

>>15193943
>There is no reason to believe that perception of the inner world would be more trustworthy than of the outer world
yes there is a reason. we can doubt away everything about the outer world (e.g. we are a brain in a vat, or dreaming, or being fooled by an evil demon), but there is something inherent to the inner world that you cannot doubt away (taht regardless if it's a brain, or a dreamer, or a fool, there is always something, a subject, which is doing that doubting)

>> No.15194683

>>15193943
That's why it's better to just pretend he said 'sentio ergo sum' instead.

>> No.15194697

>>15192964
When you go on aeroplane they just play a movie in what you think is a window. The world is actually really small and youre just driving there

>> No.15194708

If it was proven that an AI could have thoughts and imagine things, would that prove it "is"? I don't really think so

>> No.15195780

>>15184711
Tell that to Euler and his ilk.

>> No.15195787

>>15184728
Calculator detected.

>> No.15196240

>>15190945
there exists a possibility that
>An illusion presupposes an awareness of the illusion
is an illusion, and that illusions don't require awerenesses and our whole concept of illusions and existance is wrong. the point here is that there will always be place for doubt.

>> No.15196757

>>15196240
There exists no room for doubt, its tautological in fact. Illusions by definition require an observer or some form if awareness (of whatever nature). Now, you can play syntax games all you like & claim you're referring to some illusion that requires no observer, but what you're claiming is semantically meaningless. Can you explain what experiences illusions that isn't also aware?

>> No.15196931

this anon >>15185989 is right.
t. did my homework

>> No.15196941

>>15186115
this is in the 2nd meditation though.
>>15186018
this sentence is retarded. 'this could be an idea implanted in YOU', well in this YOU ARE, no?

>> No.15196950

>>15184729
It was refuted in this thread

>> No.15196984

>>15184696
this is my philosophy, to sleep perchance to SEEM
for as it seems, it seems that so it is

>> No.15196997

>>15196757
>semantically meaningless (or we cant imagine one) means there cant be one
reality doesnt have to be describable by logic or language.
>its tautological in fact
exactly, you reach that conclusion by using logic but again, reality doesnt have to be describable by logic or language. it might make sense on its own as a logic statement but saying it is applicable to reality and that it creates an undoubtable foundtion of truth is wrong because it is built upon many assumptions. assumptions like, reality goes by logic and can be described by language.

>> No.15197059

>>15184709
>>15184718
does not say that because he doesn't think that he doesn't exist. Learn to read carefully

>> No.15197105

>>15185870
I would have an inner voice but it literally becomes an outside voice because autism

>> No.15197645

>>15196941
he raises the problem at the end of the first meditation and presents the solution in the second

>> No.15198591

>>15185158
The secret name of God