Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

door · 05-28-2004, 06:23 AM

No no, its a good question and it does need clarification-

essentially, it is altogether possible that you don't exist still, but In a more complex way (even with I think t herefore I am).

SOMETHING still exists. But most people, when asked who they are, would say they are not their body alone, and nor their mind. Many would say they are their desires. I believe we are our choices. Thats who we are- what we choose to make of ourselves.

So the identity YOU or I only exists based on something uniquly chosen.

If you said, "I am X" and X is a makeup of 50 things, like a body Y, and a brain Z and genetics W etc. then that would be "YOU".

Here is where I think therefore I am gets caught up (two places). First, (other than the fact that it isn't a logical syllogism, but is still treated as such) How do you know "I think"? The best you could say is I percieve thought. But what if that "I" was only perception? What if you had no body. What if, in fact, you had no mind or desires or soul or anything unique, and everyone in the universe shared all the same perceptions as you. You have no control over them, even though you might THINK you do. And all things, then, in the univers, are one. What "I" is, then, isn't the same as what "I" is in your perception. So "I" don't think.
- I may have left this somewhat muddled so let me know

The second problem is that "I" THINK. Maybe I don't think, but only percieve. The same groundwork for the first problem applies here.

The conclusions can be used to formulate an even more improboble reality- I don't think, perhaps I don't exist- but this is a MISTAKE! All that my argument can give us is Perhaps I don't think- yet I still would be. or at least SOMETHING would be, and that something is at least in part, what I am.

So, basically, I think isn't actually known. I am still is. So the "I think" part of I think therefore I am is unnecissary. Its clear that something else alltogether tells you "I am".

My belief here is that Descartes was a genuis who didn't benefit from 18th century post Hegalianism (obviously) and so he didn't think about perceptions as seperate from thought (he did actually, but not in completeness). Because of this, he should have gone "I percieve, therefore I am" even if "I" isn't what I think "I" actually is.

So- "Think" MIGHT not get us anywhere at all since it might not be happening; "I" percieve might still be lacking cause I am assuming an "I" even still. But I can say, I percieve- something exists which must percieve something else. I am aware of that perception. So I must exist to percieve the perception.

Blargh this is difficult for me t o explain- if you want, you can do a Descartes websearch for "I think therefore I am problems" etc.

05-28-2004, 06:23 AM	#20 (permalink)
door Upright	No no, its a good question and it does need clarification- essentially, it is altogether possible that you don't exist still, but In a more complex way (even with I think t herefore I am). SOMETHING still exists. But most people, when asked who they are, would say they are not their body alone, and nor their mind. Many would say they are their desires. I believe we are our choices. Thats who we are- what we choose to make of ourselves. So the identity YOU or I only exists based on something uniquly chosen. If you said, "I am X" and X is a makeup of 50 things, like a body Y, and a brain Z and genetics W etc. then that would be "YOU". Here is where I think therefore I am gets caught up (two places). First, (other than the fact that it isn't a logical syllogism, but is still treated as such) How do you know "I think"? The best you could say is I percieve thought. But what if that "I" was only perception? What if you had no body. What if, in fact, you had no mind or desires or soul or anything unique, and everyone in the universe shared all the same perceptions as you. You have no control over them, even though you might THINK you do. And all things, then, in the univers, are one. What "I" is, then, isn't the same as what "I" is in your perception. So "I" don't think. - I may have left this somewhat muddled so let me know The second problem is that "I" THINK. Maybe I don't think, but only percieve. The same groundwork for the first problem applies here. The conclusions can be used to formulate an even more improboble reality- I don't think, perhaps I don't exist- but this is a MISTAKE! All that my argument can give us is Perhaps I don't think- yet I still would be. or at least SOMETHING would be, and that something is at least in part, what I am. So, basically, I think isn't actually known. I am still is. So the "I think" part of I think therefore I am is unnecissary. Its clear that something else alltogether tells you "I am". My belief here is that Descartes was a genuis who didn't benefit from 18th century post Hegalianism (obviously) and so he didn't think about perceptions as seperate from thought (he did actually, but not in completeness). Because of this, he should have gone "I percieve, therefore I am" even if "I" isn't what I think "I" actually is. So- "Think" MIGHT not get us anywhere at all since it might not be happening; "I" percieve might still be lacking cause I am assuming an "I" even still. But I can say, I percieve- something exists which must percieve something else. I am aware of that perception. So I must exist to percieve the perception. Blargh this is difficult for me t o explain- if you want, you can do a Descartes websearch for "I think therefore I am problems" etc.