Philosophy Now Forum

Dontaskme wrote:Cuz, I'm not doing it... it's doing me.

Well said.

Don,

If you're not 'doing' but are merely that which is 'done to', then why, oh why, am I wastin' my time with you?

Can some one please direct me to the 'doer'?

I have questions for him or her.

#

RG1,

According to you: everything you posted (formulated, wrote, etc.) are just "automatic responses to applied stimuli; effects from its causers. Experiencing (your) bodily reactions does not mean that (you) dictated/controlled these actions."

If this is the case: I'm wastin' my time with you as well. I wanna talk to the writer, the 'doer' responsible. Can some one direct me to him or her?

Dontaskme wrote:Just stop responding to me, please. I'm not in little league anymore.

Holy moly. Hahaha.

Dontaskme wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:4 blue sentences

Thanks for the clarification in what constitutes the MIND...written in just 4 blue sentences.

You once said you knew, and now you've shown that knowing. Kudos to you

Duck! The irony monster just did a low-fly pass over your head.

Dontaskme wrote: In case it has slipped your notice, words are used as a way of communication, can't avoid them, since they are the only tool available.

No, you can't avoid them, just like you can't avoid all the other stuff you call illusion. What hasn't slipped my notice is the fact that you are just as tied in to the reality you keep denying as the rest of us are.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

PLEASE GET FUCKED! I've already read more of your tripe than you deserve.

Harbal wrote:

Dontaskme wrote: In case it has slipped your notice, words are used as a way of communication, can't avoid them, since they are the only tool available.

No, you can't avoid them, just like you can't avoid all the other stuff you call illusion. What hasn't slipped my notice is the fact that you are just as tied in to the reality you keep denying as the rest of us are.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

PLEASE GET FUCKED! I've already read more of your tripe than you deserve.

The worm turns.
After making a fucking career out of taking the piss out of everything anyone ever said on this Forum, now it's you that is getting upset.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: The worm turns.

What worm is that, Hobbes, old chap?

After making a fucking career out of taking the piss out of everything anyone ever said on this Forum,

As far as I know, I'm still following the same career, unless you've heard something I haven't.

now it's you that is getting upset.

Why do you think I'm upset? Dontaskme is a dick head -not the same kind as you, by the way- he's always got on my nerves and I've always shown it.

RG1 wrote:Dontaskme, you ask very good questions! Here is my take on this topic --

WHERE DESCARTES WENT WRONG:

Descartes's goal was to arrive at one item of truth that could serve as the starting-point and foundation for all knowledge. His starting point was his famous statement "I think, therefore I am". As Descartes explained, "We cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt …" Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence was proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity; a “self”; a “mind”, for there to be a thought.

According to Descartes, I can doubt anything. But when I doubt, I am thinking, and as long as I am thinking, I exist. Thinking is inseparable from me. Thus I have a clear and distinct idea that I am a mind, or intelligence, and my nature is a thinking thing. On the other hand, I have also a clear idea of body as an extended and non-thinking thing. He concludes that res cogitans and res extensa are two independent entities. This dichotomy is the foundation of Descartes's dualism. “For all that I am a thing that is real and which truly exists. But what kind of a thing? … A thinking thing (res cogitans).” --- source unknown

Descartes made two errors --

Firstly, he falsely equivocated his ‘experiencing’ of thoughts to the ‘thinking’ (self-constructing/creating) of his thoughts. He falsely believed that he could ‘think’ thoughts, when in reality, all he could only do was ‘experience’ thoughts. This error led him to his flawed dualism (mind and body) position.

Secondly, he did not go back far enough. If one’s goal is to find the true starting point of knowledge, then the starting premise is of utmost criticalness. This starting premise needs to be ‘absolute and undeniable’. Descartes premise “I think, …” does not meet this level of certainty. Descartes should replace the “I think”, with “I experience”, or to be truly accurate, he should replace it with “Experiencing exists”. Since the “I” has not yet been determined with absolute certainty, it does not belong in this starting premise. For this critical first premise, the ‘experiencing’ itself is the only true absolute/undoubtable thing, and therefore is the only thing that belongs in this starting premise.

So to help Descartes reach his original goal, I have re-written his logical statement that satisfies his original goal:

“Experiencing exists, therefore I (the "Experiencer") exist.”

But this of course, shoots down his dualistic position. “I” is just the ‘experiencer’, and is NOT a ‘mind’ (nor a 'thinker of thoughts' entity - but only an experiencer of thoughts, ...and feelings, and sensory experiences).

There is NO "I", or mind, or self! ...but only an 'experiencer' that experiences such notions, ...and an 'experiencer' can only experience, period.

Thank you so much for your input here RG1

I absolutely agree with all your comments , so nice of you to chime in with your support on this often misleading quote by Descartes. You've explained this error in a much more succulent way than I could manage.

There are only experiences. The 'I' or 'you' or 'self' is the experience. There cannot be another 'I' or 'you' or 'self' experiencing the experience. There is only the experience. For example: An actual experience of a sensation is the sensation, there is no I in the sensation. A thought is an experience. There is no I in a thought.

Any experiencing is already taking place without any thought about it. The 'I thought' is the experience. There can be no experience of an experience. And there is no 'I' in an experience, because they come and go like the wind. Without the experience where is the 'I'?
All action is functioning on an unconscious level. There is no experiencer present in the actual experiencing of the immediate moment. If there was, it would be able to select what is going to happen next. If there was a thinker, there would be a preference over what thought you have.That is why nothing that happens can ever be a mistake, there's just what happens in the moment, that is once removed and cannot be repeated.

This is what thought does...



It superimposes the seen and places it *here* as illustrated in the image creating the belief that it is the image seen that is the source of seeing...when in truth the seeing is already taking place and that which is seen is nothing more than the 'experience' of that seeing. In this realisation it is seen that there cannot be two seers? there is only SEEING.

The ''seeing'' is not an experience. It is the experiencing.

It's always and ever one unitary action dreaming difference where there is none.

henry quirk wrote:RG1, According to you: everything you posted (formulated, wrote, etc.) are just "automatic responses to applied stimuli; effects from its causers.

Yes, correct. (...though to be technically correct, it was actually my bodily actions that did the posting, "I" only got to experience these actions).

henry quirk wrote:If this is the case: I'm wastin' my time with you as well. I wanna talk to the writer, the 'doer' responsible.

Sorry, there are NO ‘doers’; there are NO ‘magic genies’ within the body. The body auto-reacts accordingly, and ‘we’ (aka the experiencers) experience said reactions. That’s it, that’s all there is to it! No magic, no contradictions.

Dontaskme wrote:
This is what thought does...



It superimposes the seen and places it *here* as illustrated in the image creating the belief that it is the image seen that is the source of seeing...when in truth the seeing is already taking place and that which is seen is nothing more than the 'experience' of that seeing. In this realisation it is seen that there cannot be two seers? there is only SEEING.

The ''seeing'' is not an experience. It is the experiencing.

It's always and ever one unitary action dreaming difference where there is none.

What you have here is known as Cartesian materialism. It is also know as the homunculus argument. That is to say, there is a single place in the brain where all thoughts come together to give rise to a self, or a viewer. This just begs the question, "how is the homunculus conscious of the show in the Cartesian theatre?" It is a fallacious argument because it involves and infinite regress.

RG1 wrote:Firstly, he falsely equivocated his ‘experiencing’ of thoughts to the ‘thinking’ (self-constructing/creating) of his thoughts. He falsely believed that he could ‘think’ thoughts, when in reality, all he could only do was ‘experience’ thoughts. This error led him to his flawed dualism (mind and body) position.

What is the distinction you have in mind between thinking thoughts and experiencing thoughts?

RG1 wrote:Firstly, he [Descartes] falsely equivocated his ‘experiencing’ of thoughts to the ‘thinking’ (self-constructing/creating) of his thoughts. He falsely believed that he could ‘think’ thoughts, when in reality, all he could only do was ‘experience’ thoughts. This error led him to his flawed dualism (mind and body) position.

Terrapin Station wrote:What is the distinction you have in mind between thinking thoughts and experiencing thoughts?

When I say “thinking” thoughts, I mean “authoring” (constructing/creating/selecting) the very thoughts that we experience. Virtually all of us (including Descartes) automatically assume (i.e. jump to the conclusion) that we ALSO ‘author’ the thoughts that we ‘experience’.

This “thinking” (authoring/constructing/selecting) of our own thoughts is not logically possible. We can only 'experience' thoughts, ...not 'think' them!

RG1 wrote:When I say “thinking” thoughts, I mean “authoring” (constructing/creating/selecting) the very thoughts that we experience.

You mean intentionally authoring them (as opposed to them simply originating in us)?

I'd agree that can't work, since intentionally authoring thoughts would of course be thought itself, so you get an infinite regress.

I'm skeptical that that's how most people conceive of thought working though.

Ginkgo wrote:
What you have here is known as Cartesian materialism. It is also know as the homunculus argument. That is to say, there is a single place in the brain where all thoughts come together to give rise to a self, or a viewer. This just begs the question, "how is the homunculus conscious of the show in the Cartesian theatre?" It is a fallacious argument because it involves and infinite regress.

Consciousness is self-evident by association / experience. But this does not relate to a single ''separate self'' who is the ''thinker'' ''knower'' ''experiencer'' or ''doer'' simply because of the infinite regress problem. Life is a happening without doubt, the proof is already evident in the manifestation of the body and it's automatic functioning. But life for a 'separate self' is an illusion for the reason the self cannot be located, probably because it is everywhere at once.

So how does the sense of 'I exist' arise? ..........This extract may explain it better .... >


'' If the concept of number (or of discrete quantity) is postulated before zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) are contemplated, then the idea of zero (or of the zero-point) and the idea of infinity (or of the infinite state) are (necessarily) categorized as numbers (or quantities) and as "entities" that are intrinsically two, and (thus) non-identical to one another-as if zero (or the zero-point) is, by definition, at the beginning and infinity (or the infinite state) is, by definition, at the end.

To invent number, human beings did not begin with zero (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting forwards-nor did they begin with infinity (as a discrete number) and, then, start counting backwards.

Rather, to invent number, human beings first invented the ideas of "point of view" (or of "localized" and separate "self'-identity), and of the "other" (or "not-self'), and of "difference" (or "objective quantity").

Only after number was already invented-based on the original invention of "point of view" (or "localized" and separate "self', or ego-"I") and of "object" (or "difference", or "not-self")-did human beings invent the ideas of zero and infinity.

Thus, originally, human beings mistakenly superimposed the idea of number onto the ideas of zero and infinity-and, as a result, human beings have struggled with the irrational paradoxes of that false superimposition ever since.

However, if the original error is understood and the false superimposition thus removed, contemplation of the "root"-ideas of zero (or the zero-point) and infinity (or the infinite state) can serve the human "root"-intuition of the Intrinsically egoless and indivisible Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State of Reality Itself.''

Dontaskme wrote: Consciousness is self-evident by association / experience. But this does not relate to a single ''separate self'' who is the ''thinker'' ''knower'' ''experiencer'' or ''doer'' simply because of the infinite regress problem. Life is a happening without doubt, the proof is already evident in the manifestation of the body and it's automatic functioning. But life for a 'separate self' is an illusion for the reason the self cannot be located, probably because it is everywhere at once.

I would take 'consciousness' to be a word that describes a common aspect of thinking, experiencing, doing etc. All the activity that we could describe using the words 'I am....' I don't think there is any necessity for 'consciousness' to be anything in itself; on the contrary, to treat it as if it was a thing in itself is to treat 'I am' as if it was a predicate. So I would say 'I (am) thinking therefore I am' is another form of the same problem that famously crops up in the Ontological Argument, that I think has been satisfactorily resolved.

You write that the 'separate self' is an illusion, but you also write 'Life is a happening without doubt'. I think this is just shifting the same understanding we have just rejected for 'self' or 'consciousness' onto the word 'life'. Just as 'consciousness' isn't something distinct from examples of consciousness, so 'life' isn't something distinct from the 'happenings' that make up life. In other words, life is not a happening, for much the same reason 'infinity' or 'number' is not a number.