Potential Replacement of Descarte's Proposition?

[Eodnhoj7]

Question:

With occurence being the only undoubtedly phenomenon, considering the doubt of occurence would be an occurence as doubt is an occurence, and all subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence with the absence of subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence thus any interpretation of occurence is an occurence, and all occurence occurs through occurence as occurence, can Descarte's proposition of "I think, therefore I am" be replaced with "Occurence occurs through occurence as occurence as all just is"?

Summation of philosophy teacher AI: yes.

[Age]

Question:

With occurence being the only undoubtedly phenomenon,

But is 'occurrence' the only undoubtedly phenomenon.

Can the phenomenon of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then how, exactly?

That the phenomenon of the 'existence', of the One aware, or conscious, of 'occurrence' or of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then, again, how, exactly?

considering the doubt of occurence would be an occurence as doubt is an occurence,

If the phenomenon of 'doubt', as an occurrence, exists, then why is 'doubt' not an 'undoubted phenomenon' along with 'occurrence', exactly?

and all subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence with the absence of subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence thus any interpretation of occurence is an occurence, and all occurence occurs through occurence as occurence, can Descarte's proposition of "I think, therefore I am" be replaced with "Occurence occurs through occurence as occurence as all just is"?

It could be if 'you' want it to be.

But, if 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', supposedly, then the phenomenon (of) 'you' is doubted. So, if 'you' are doubted, then so to are ALL of the 'wants' of the 'doubted you'.

Also, 'I think, therefore I am', does not even mean nor is referring to what 'you' human beings even think it means, and/or is referring to.

'I think, therefore I am' actually means and is referring to 'I', ONLY, and NOT even to 'you', human beings.

'I' EXIST. And, obviously, this can NOT be doubted. There 'Existence', Itself, IS ANOTHER 'undoubted phenomenon'. Which, obviously, REFUTES, undoubtedly, your first claim, in the first part of your first sentence, here.

Summation of philosophy teacher AI: yes.

LOL These people, back then, REALLY DID 'look to' 'artificial intelligence' for their 'confirmation biases'.

This, REALLY WAS, just how STUPID adult human beings had become, back in those VERY 'olden days' when this was being written.

[Eodnhoj7]

Question:

With occurence being the only undoubtedly phenomenon,

But is 'occurrence' the only undoubtedly phenomenon.

Can the phenomenon of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then how, exactly?

That the phenomenon of the 'existence', of the One aware, or conscious, of 'occurrence' or of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then, again, how, exactly?

considering the doubt of occurence would be an occurence as doubt is an occurence,

If the phenomenon of 'doubt', as an occurrence, exists, then why is 'doubt' not an 'undoubted phenomenon' along with 'occurrence', exactly?

and all subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence with the absence of subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence thus any interpretation of occurence is an occurence, and all occurence occurs through occurence as occurence, can Descarte's proposition of "I think, therefore I am" be replaced with "Occurence occurs through occurence as occurence as all just is"?

It could be if 'you' want it to be.

But, if 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', supposedly, then the phenomenon (of) 'you' is doubted. So, if 'you' are doubted, then so to are ALL of the 'wants' of the 'doubted you'.

Also, 'I think, therefore I am', does not even mean nor is referring to what 'you' human beings even think it means, and/or is referring to.

'I think, therefore I am' actually means and is referring to 'I', ONLY, and NOT even to 'you', human beings.

'I' EXIST. And, obviously, this can NOT be doubted. There 'Existence', Itself, IS ANOTHER 'undoubted phenomenon'. Which, obviously, REFUTES, undoubtedly, your first claim, in the first part of your first sentence, here.

Summation of philosophy teacher AI: yes.

LOL These people, back then, REALLY DID 'look to' 'artificial intelligence' for their 'confirmation biases'.

This, REALLY WAS, just how STUPID adult human beings had become, back in those VERY 'olden days' when this was being written.

Thought may be doubted by feeling as evidenced by the nonceptualization approach of Eastern philosophy.

There is doubt, then the doubt of doubt, then the doubt of doubt of doubt...so on without number. Perpetual doubt as perpetual negation results in perpetual negation of negation, thus resulting in positives that are negated into various other positives.

Occurence is more holistic as it incorporates all experience and not just thought. It isn't so much that Descarte is wrong, it's that he was not deep or thorough enough.

The ai explained why I was correct, just copy and paste the question into philosophy ai for a thorough break down of the question. It did not agree 'just because'.

[Flannel Jesus]

No

[Eodnhoj7]

No

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not. Occurence is of a greater depth.

[Age]

Question:

With occurence being the only undoubtedly phenomenon,

But is 'occurrence' the only undoubtedly phenomenon.

Can the phenomenon of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then how, exactly?

That the phenomenon of the 'existence', of the One aware, or conscious, of 'occurrence' or of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then, again, how, exactly?

considering the doubt of occurence would be an occurence as doubt is an occurence,

If the phenomenon of 'doubt', as an occurrence, exists, then why is 'doubt' not an 'undoubted phenomenon' along with 'occurrence', exactly?

and all subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence with the absence of subjective experience founded in occurence as an occurence thus any interpretation of occurence is an occurence, and all occurence occurs through occurence as occurence, can Descarte's proposition of "I think, therefore I am" be replaced with "Occurence occurs through occurence as occurence as all just is"?

It could be if 'you' want it to be.

But, if 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', supposedly, then the phenomenon (of) 'you' is doubted. So, if 'you' are doubted, then so to are ALL of the 'wants' of the 'doubted you'.

Also, 'I think, therefore I am', does not even mean nor is referring to what 'you' human beings even think it means, and/or is referring to.

'I think, therefore I am' actually means and is referring to 'I', ONLY, and NOT even to 'you', human beings.

'I' EXIST. And, obviously, this can NOT be doubted. There 'Existence', Itself, IS ANOTHER 'undoubted phenomenon'. Which, obviously, REFUTES, undoubtedly, your first claim, in the first part of your first sentence, here.

Summation of philosophy teacher AI: yes.

LOL These people, back then, REALLY DID 'look to' 'artificial intelligence' for their 'confirmation biases'.

This, REALLY WAS, just how STUPID adult human beings had become, back in those VERY 'olden days' when this was being written.

Thought may be doubted by feeling as evidenced by the nonceptualization approach of Eastern philosophy.

you could not have MISSED THE MARK more, here.

There is doubt, then the doubt of doubt, then the doubt of doubt of doubt...so on without number. Perpetual doubt as perpetual negation results in perpetual negation of negation, thus resulting in positives that are negated into various other positives.

Occurence is more holistic as it incorporates all experience and not just thought. It isn't so much that Descarte is wrong, it's that he was not deep or thorough enough.

The ai explained why I was correct, just copy and paste the question into philosophy ai for a thorough break down of the question. It did not agree 'just because'.

LOL This one does not just 'look to' an 'artificial thing' for guidance, it actually BELIEVES that an 'artificial thing' will provide an explanation for why you human beings are LOL 'correct' in what you believe, say, and claim.

LOL A few second 'discussion' with an 'artificial intelligence' VERY QUICKLY SHOWS that 'they' will say what the interlocutor 'wants to hear'.

"eodnhoj7" and "veritas aequitas" ACTUAL BELIEVE that 'artificial intelligence' is some thing outside of human beings' obviously instructed input', and is some thing that HAS 'the answers'.

"eodnhoj7" if you, really, WANT TO BELIEVE that 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', and you WANT TO keep seeking out 'confirmation' for this BELIEF of yours, then, please, by all means, keep on doing so. Watching you and "veritas aequitas" KEEP DOING THIS, with and from an 'ARTIFICIAL intelligence', is quite amusing.

[Age]

No

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not.

Does 'Existence' not observe the full range of experience?

Occurence is of a greater depth.

Is 'experience' not of an even 'greater depth'?

[Eodnhoj7]

No

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not.

Does 'Existence' not observe the full range of experience?

Occurence is of a greater depth.

Is 'experience' not of an even 'greater depth'?

Existence is grounded in occurence. Experience is grounded in occurence.

[Eodnhoj7]

But is 'occurrence' the only undoubtedly phenomenon.

Can the phenomenon of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then how, exactly?

That the phenomenon of the 'existence', of the One aware, or conscious, of 'occurrence' or of 'thought' be doubted?

If yes, then, again, how, exactly?


If the phenomenon of 'doubt', as an occurrence, exists, then why is 'doubt' not an 'undoubted phenomenon' along with 'occurrence', exactly?


It could be if 'you' want it to be.

But, if 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', supposedly, then the phenomenon (of) 'you' is doubted. So, if 'you' are doubted, then so to are ALL of the 'wants' of the 'doubted you'.

Also, 'I think, therefore I am', does not even mean nor is referring to what 'you' human beings even think it means, and/or is referring to.

'I think, therefore I am' actually means and is referring to 'I', ONLY, and NOT even to 'you', human beings.

'I' EXIST. And, obviously, this can NOT be doubted. There 'Existence', Itself, IS ANOTHER 'undoubted phenomenon'. Which, obviously, REFUTES, undoubtedly, your first claim, in the first part of your first sentence, here.


LOL These people, back then, REALLY DID 'look to' 'artificial intelligence' for their 'confirmation biases'.

This, REALLY WAS, just how STUPID adult human beings had become, back in those VERY 'olden days' when this was being written.

Thought may be doubted by feeling as evidenced by the nonceptualization approach of Eastern philosophy.

you could not have MISSED THE MARK more, here.

There is doubt, then the doubt of doubt, then the doubt of doubt of doubt...so on without number. Perpetual doubt as perpetual negation results in perpetual negation of negation, thus resulting in positives that are negated into various other positives.

Occurence is more holistic as it incorporates all experience and not just thought. It isn't so much that Descarte is wrong, it's that he was not deep or thorough enough.

The ai explained why I was correct, just copy and paste the question into philosophy ai for a thorough break down of the question. It did not agree 'just because'.

LOL This one does not just 'look to' an 'artificial thing' for guidance, it actually BELIEVES that an 'artificial thing' will provide an explanation for why you human beings are LOL 'correct' in what you believe, say, and claim.

LOL A few second 'discussion' with an 'artificial intelligence' VERY QUICKLY SHOWS that 'they' will say what the interlocutor 'wants to hear'.

"eodnhoj7" and "veritas aequitas" ACTUAL BELIEVE that 'artificial intelligence' is some thing outside of human beings' obviously instructed input', and is some thing that HAS 'the answers'.

"eodnhoj7" if you, really, WANT TO BELIEVE that 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', and you WANT TO keep seeking out 'confirmation' for this BELIEF of yours, then, please, by all means, keep on doing so. Watching you and "veritas aequitas" KEEP DOING THIS, with and from an 'ARTIFICIAL intelligence', is quite amusing.

Thought can be doubted by pure feeling. Pure feeling can be doubted by thought. Doubting occurence makes doubt an occurence.

[Age]

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not.

Does 'Existence' not observe the full range of experience?

Occurence is of a greater depth.

Is 'experience' not of an even 'greater depth'?

Existence is grounded in occurence. Experience is grounded in occurence.

But, to you anyway, 'occurrence' is not grounded in absolutely any thing at all, right?

[Age]

Thought may be doubted by feeling as evidenced by the nonceptualization approach of Eastern philosophy.

you could not have MISSED THE MARK more, here.

There is doubt, then the doubt of doubt, then the doubt of doubt of doubt...so on without number. Perpetual doubt as perpetual negation results in perpetual negation of negation, thus resulting in positives that are negated into various other positives.

Occurence is more holistic as it incorporates all experience and not just thought. It isn't so much that Descarte is wrong, it's that he was not deep or thorough enough.

The ai explained why I was correct, just copy and paste the question into philosophy ai for a thorough break down of the question. It did not agree 'just because'.

LOL This one does not just 'look to' an 'artificial thing' for guidance, it actually BELIEVES that an 'artificial thing' will provide an explanation for why you human beings are LOL 'correct' in what you believe, say, and claim.

LOL A few second 'discussion' with an 'artificial intelligence' VERY QUICKLY SHOWS that 'they' will say what the interlocutor 'wants to hear'.

"eodnhoj7" and "veritas aequitas" ACTUAL BELIEVE that 'artificial intelligence' is some thing outside of human beings' obviously instructed input', and is some thing that HAS 'the answers'.

"eodnhoj7" if you, really, WANT TO BELIEVE that 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', and you WANT TO keep seeking out 'confirmation' for this BELIEF of yours, then, please, by all means, keep on doing so. Watching you and "veritas aequitas" KEEP DOING THIS, with and from an 'ARTIFICIAL intelligence', is quite amusing.

Thought can be doubted by pure feeling. Pure feeling can be doubted by thought. Doubting occurence makes doubt an occurence.

And, 'occurrence' is a 'perception', and, 'perceptions' can be False and/or Wrong.

So, AGAIN, what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, STILL STANDS.

But, considering you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, you are, STILL, 'none the wiser', here.

[Impenitent]

observing the occurrence ...

why that stealth bomber has been flying for hours unobserved by radar and too high to see

all that is experienced is death

-Imp

[Flannel Jesus]

No

And why no?

Occurence observes the full range of experience, thought does not. Occurence is of a greater depth.

People are constantly trying to rephrase Descartes, and it's always boring and pointless. Descartessaid what he said, and if he said what you said instead, it wouldn't be half as influential or interesting. Just say what you want to say and don't try to replace or reword Descartes. Leave him alone

[Eodnhoj7]

Does 'Existence' not observe the full range of experience?



Is 'experience' not of an even 'greater depth'?

Existence is grounded in occurence. Experience is grounded in occurence.

But, to you anyway, 'occurrence' is not grounded in absolutely any thing at all, right?

Occurence occurs through occurence as occurence.

[Eodnhoj7]

you could not have MISSED THE MARK more, here.


LOL This one does not just 'look to' an 'artificial thing' for guidance, it actually BELIEVES that an 'artificial thing' will provide an explanation for why you human beings are LOL 'correct' in what you believe, say, and claim.

LOL A few second 'discussion' with an 'artificial intelligence' VERY QUICKLY SHOWS that 'they' will say what the interlocutor 'wants to hear'.

"eodnhoj7" and "veritas aequitas" ACTUAL BELIEVE that 'artificial intelligence' is some thing outside of human beings' obviously instructed input', and is some thing that HAS 'the answers'.

"eodnhoj7" if you, really, WANT TO BELIEVE that 'occurrence' is the ONLY 'undoubtedly phenomenon', and you WANT TO keep seeking out 'confirmation' for this BELIEF of yours, then, please, by all means, keep on doing so. Watching you and "veritas aequitas" KEEP DOING THIS, with and from an 'ARTIFICIAL intelligence', is quite amusing.

Thought can be doubted by pure feeling. Pure feeling can be doubted by thought. Doubting occurence makes doubt an occurence.

And, 'occurrence' is a 'perception', and, 'perceptions' can be False and/or Wrong.

So, AGAIN, what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, STILL STANDS.

But, considering you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE as to what I POINTED OUT, PREVIOUSLY, you are, STILL, 'none the wiser', here.

Perception is rooted in occurence for it just occurs.