Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote: But he did assume he received a thought by saying ''I think therefore I am''

You know nothing about his assumptions.

interpreted as I must exist to have a thought,

This does not contain any meaning or of "receive" or possess. he didn't say "have a thought" He said: I think" : form, make, create, formulate, generate, originate, produce a thought: it's going from the I outward, not coming in toward the Me.

so again

Repeating something silly doesn't make it less silly. If you don't believe me, try saying "The white cow jumped over the silver moon." 280 times.

who is the I existing that must be in order to receive the thought?

Descartes.
I told you this already.

Did he forget to explain that part of the statement... this ridiculous statement is the sickness of the human mind that thinks it is capable of thinking it is the one thinking.

No, this is nothing to do with Descartes, whom you don't understand and probably haven't read, except this one sentence wholly out of context, yet presume to take to task, as if puny little Dontaskme had the intellectual wherewithal to judge so much as the stitching on the hem of Renee's cloak.

Terrapin Station wrote: I actually do not care for arguing/debating. I prefer friendly, casual, mutually respectful interaction.

Have you ever tried being friendly to get friendly back, you have never showed friendly to me, you have accused me of being a troll, when all I'm trying to do is help people think a different way to help them relax into living easy, so take your own advice why don't you.

Skip wrote:This does not contain any meaning or of "receive" or possess. he didn't say "have a thought" He said: I think" : form, make, create, formulate, generate, originate, produce a thought: it's going from the I outward, not coming in toward the Me.

If the thought is created from the I outward...what is it coming out of?

Skip wrote:Descartes.
I told you this already.

Descartes is a thought, Is there an I in thought?

Dontaskme wrote: The truth will set you free but first it will piss you off.

It won't piss me off as much as you do.

Noax wrote: We're all quite used to seeing somebody standing on a soap box preaching the truth to all who would listen. We'd probably listen more if the truth preached didn't conflict with the truth preached by the next guy.

I'm not interested in truth told by the next guy or any guy. I'm interested in the real silent truth written and told by no one. There is plenty of pseudo preachers in your schools, colleges and universities.

Noax wrote:
If I may ask one more question, why the goal to reduce suffering? Killing everybody is the best way to do that. If that's not the ultimate morality, then perhaps a review of your goals is in order.

To know you exist is to suffer. Existence on the other hand does not suffer. Who do you think you are going to kill if you kill someone?

Noax wrote:Not claiming any informed knowledge, but I don't think Descartes assumed an "I" in his statement. Taken more from the original text, he simply said there is doubt. Thinking, therefore existence, but not necessarily an "I" doing it. That conclusion comes later.

There had to be an assumption I existed before the doubt I do comes in. So he did assume.

Dontaskme wrote:''Who'' is the I who is thinking? ... in or to whom does a thought arise?

''Who'' is the I in I am receiving a thought so I am.?

What / who am I ?

3 Stages of Solipsism.

1) I think therefore I am.
2) I think. I am.
3) I think I am.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:''Who'' is the I who is thinking? ... in or to whom does a thought arise?

''Who'' is the I in I am receiving a thought so I am.?

What / who am I ?

3 Stages of Solipsism.

1) I think therefore I am.
2) I think. I am.
3) I think I am.

Solipsism is a thought, thoughts are not real. To know a thought is illusory knowledge. ''What Is'' is thoughtless despite /regardless of what thoughts says about it.

Dontaskme wrote:thoughts are not real.

So what is real? What does "real" mean? What is your definition of real?

Harbal wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:thoughts are not real.

So what is real? What does "real" mean? What is your definition of real?

I don't know what is real because real is a word.

A word is a sound. I don't know what sound is since sound appears to appear from silence and disappears back into silence, a sound cannot experience silence.

Or, a word is a squiggly symbol displayed on a computer screen or on a piece of paper or in a book. A word cannot experience itself as a living entity, otherwise it would leap off the screen or out of the book and take a walk in the park.

Dontaskme wrote:
I don't know what is real because real is a word.

A word is a sound. I don't know what sound is

You don't seem to know much of anything.

Or, a word is a squiggly symbol displayed on a computer screen or on a piece of paper or in a book. A word cannot experience itself as a living entity, otherwise it would leap off the screen or out of the book and take a walk in the park.

Ok, then tell me what "a walk" is or a "park".

Harbal wrote:

Dontaskme wrote:
I don't know what is real because real is a word.

A word is a sound. I don't know what sound is

You don't seem to know much of anything.

Or, a word is a squiggly symbol displayed on a computer screen or on a piece of paper or in a book. A word cannot experience itself as a living entity, otherwise it would leap off the screen or out of the book and take a walk in the park.

Ok, then tell me what "a walk" is or a "park".

There is no one to know anything, everything is assumed.

It SEEMS that words (thought) have meaning and significance. Thoughts/words/labels are actual experience, but thoughts are no more significant than sound, smell, taste, colour/image or sensation. They are all appearing phenomena. Words are just pointing, but words are never what they are saying. If so, the word "breathing" would be moving right now.

Thoughts cannot analyse thoughts, however, there are thoughts that appear about other thoughts.

Notice what is actually present in this image. Thought says it's a cartoon character called Bart Simpson, but all that's *actually* there is yellow, red, blue, white, black. There is no Bart present in the image at all.

Can you see that Bart is 100% just a story? The body is a story in the same way.
Also notice that the thing which thought claims is your body doesn't even have a head. Can you find a head?
Can you actually see 'your' head? If you close the eyes and drop ALL thoughts and images about a head….what is actually there?

Thought labels,colours, sensations (cold/hot/pressure etc) etc as a body - but no actual body is present. Thought does this with everything that seems to exist and to create the 'person in the world' all illusion. Just images of the imageless.

Dontaskme wrote:

Notice what is actually present in this image. Thought says it's a cartoon character called Bart Simpson, but all that's *actually* there is yellow, red, blue, white, black. There is no Bart present in the image at all.

When yellow, red, blue, white and black are configured in a particular way, they constitute the cartoon character Bart Simpson. That's what a cartoon character is, a two dimensional arrangement of coloured shapes.

Skip wrote: This does not contain any meaning or of "receive" or possess. he didn't say "have a thought" He said: I think" : form, make, create, formulate, generate, originate, produce a thought: it's going from the I outward, not coming in toward the Me.

The face value of thought is actual experience but what the thought is ABOUT (the meaning of the thought) is story/fiction.

The I appears to be referring to a ''reference point'' (POV)

Now tell me who you think holds a point of view, reference point?

Remember, it cannot be the I...that is already the ''reference point''

Harbal wrote: When yellow, red, blue, white and black are configured in a particular way, they constitute the cartoon character Bart Simpson. That's what a cartoon character is, a two dimensional arrangement of coloured shapes.

Is there a human entity in a shape, a colour, or even in a sound? Is there an entity in an image?

The eye sees only colours, shapes, images. All empty of a human entity.

Seeing is 2 Dimensional ..no 3D object has ever been seen, it is only known, via illusory knowledge.

External Stimuli triggers thought..thought labels the emptiness of all things seen, as if real solid things.