Jump to content
Science Forums

I think, therefore, I am


Recommended Posts

I'm aware of the linguistic differences!


Indeed, that would be apparent to anyone who has read your posts in this thread. I accidentally implied otherwise which is absurd!


But in English "I shave myself" and "I introspect myself" are syntactically alright even though you would more likely say "my beard" or head, legs, whatever, perhaps someone could do an all-inclusive job, and of course the myself is somewhat implicit in the semantics of introspect but it can still be underlined by adding the pronoun.


You've sold me—no point in not emphasizing it. I would wonder, since introspect comes entirely from Latin where "intra" is the Latin prefix for "within" and "specio" means "to look", would the latin "me intraspecto ergo sum" (or something similar, I'm not good with Latin) have the same kind of meaning. ;)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
The tao that can be followed is not the true tao :ohdear:



"Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1


The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name;

this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.


(translation by Gia-fu Feng and Jane English)"


The most common translation of Tao word is "The Way"


How I understand Tao: Nature´s Way

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Now ego can't say much about your personal experience which you claim but it doesn't mean your ego, or conciousness, is unable to experience things, including thinking, so ego draw no conclusion from the separation. If you're able to deliberately experience nothing for an hour, not even thinking, feeling or what, the fact that you (your ego) remain(s) somehow self-aware doesn't refute Descartes' argument.:ohdear:


I tend to disagree, Ego could be described as the owner and the creator of the self image "I". It is also present when there is focused attention to something. if you are able to be still, "not actively thinking" and just be aware, even be aware of the feelings and thoughts which might appear, but awareness do not react/respond to the toughts or emotions, it is just aware them rising and disappearing. Awareness do not focus attention to these events..visually speaking full vision reception without focusing or reacting anything specific in the field of vision.

So from my perspective awareness without focus attention to anything specific is the "exist" in purest form..


" A bit Vague Analogue".. Ego/ "I" being adolescent and awareness being the adult, being aware in the backround without reacting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...So from my perspective awareness without focus attention to anything specific is the "exist" in purest form..
Here I would agree. One can argue that philosophy itself begins with a simple axoim, existence exists (or, what is, is, what is). All other thinking is like waves moving away from this single tautology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here I would agree. One can argue that philosophy itself begins with a simple axoim, existence exists (or, what is, is, what is). All other thinking is like waves moving away from this single tautology.


Yes, when we "argue" about something we need to use logic as structure and language like prose.. but when " discuss/ponder/imagine" it could include language like poetic where, feelings/emotions are also accepted as part of how topics are are discussed/viewed/imagined.. in this kind of discussion it is not necessarily the end point where all need to arrive and fully agree.. it is more about understanding with feelings and emotions without being able to translate it 100% accurately to logic argument..I see this as one pitfalls in pure logical argumentation, it uses only one kind of language.. and from my opinion; therefore is not able to convey all the aspects of "life" itself. To put it bluntly science need opposite language and that opposite language needs science, these needs to be bridged before we could imagine to understand "everything" what is.


I think why Einstein was so successfull was due to his skills to imagine new events and things and use imagination as one tool, then he translated these ideas achieved by imagination to mathematics and logic argument..So from my perspective 2 language types was used, not fully but in this specific relativity theory case very succesfully

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Then you were totally misconstruing the logic. It is about what the mind can conclude with certainty about existence.


What I mean is that 'I think, therefore I am' could be rendered moot if we only 'think' because someone else is thinking/dreaming about a world (this one), causing us to 'exist' only because they are thinking about this place.
No, this scenario doesn't render the cogito moot. If the mind is aware of itself, despite being only imagined by someone else's mind, it can conclude with certainty that it exists. If the mind that someone is imagining is not self aware, then it has no whatsoever bearing as an example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you mean self-awareness indicates existance, even if you do not exist in any physical sense?
Can your mind be 100% sure that you exist in any physical sense? It can conclude it exists, regardless of how.


Suppose you have an imaginary friend. Could s/he have a mind that's aware of itself? If so, it could rightly conclude it exists. You might say that only your mind is aware of what you imagine, even if you define the imaginary friend's mind as a part of your own. OTOH, by the time the scenario becomes one of split personality, you could say that it is a mind that is itself aware of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

I think, therefore I am, should as you say be changed to I think, therefore I am aware of my existence: It is a statement of self-consciousness, not existence. If you don't think about microbes they still exist but not in your mind i.e.you are not aware of them, not that they don't exist but that they exist outside the scope of your awareness and interest. Whether they have conscious awareness can be known by them but only inferred by us (They move, so they are alive as 'we' define life but thinking is internal and only communicated to others through language - so do microbes communicate, should be the next statement? I other words they might have inner dialogue but do they externalize this at all and if so how? What senses do they use? Is it sound, like us? Unlikely because of the medium they move through. Is it sight? Again that may be difficult for them. Do they use chemical messages to communicate? More likely. To be conscious it to react, to be unconscious/ dead, is failure to react in response to stimuli - perhaps it is the definition that needs changing, of what consciousness is. Why this statement is so famous but wrong, is that it simplified the problem and made people look at it again with new eyes and all it needed was a codicil as above, to make it work (be even clearer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...