Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kez-man)
    I dont know much about the sub-concious mind, If you were aware of the thought (by the other "person" saying it to you, assuming this is a dream constructed by you) surely you would be aware of it, so it wouldnt be in the realms of the sub-concious. I dunno. heh

    For example I had no idea you were going to bring the sub-concious mind into this discussion, so I know you are a seperate intelligence.
    The point is, you don't know someone is saying something to you. You dont' even know that person exists. You don't even know if you've heard a sound. All you know is that you've had a thought.

    How do you know this idea of the subconcious mind didn't arise from yourself? You thought of the internet, you thought of the computer, you thought of words, you thought of that idea. Maybe these words DON'T exist. Maybe you think you are reading but you are not. But can it be that you think you are thinking but you are not? No, for that is a contradiction!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    The point is, you don't know someone is saying something to you. You dont' even know that person exists. You don't even know if you've heard a sound. All you know is that you've had a thought.

    How do you know this idea of the subconcious mind didn't arise from yourself? You thought of the internet, you thought of the computer, you thought of words, you thought of that idea. Maybe these words DON'T exist. Maybe you think you are reading but you are not. But can it be that you think you are thinking but you are not? No, for that is a contradiction!
    I disagree, I'm pretty sure you exist. You've brought along your own perspectives and opinions (a different intelligence) , some of which I know I haven't thought of before. And if my subconcious mind has generated these different perpectives and opinions to keep me occupied while my brain sits in this glass bowl, then I'd class my subconcious mind and concious mind as a different entity or intelligence. lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kez-man)
    I disagree, I'm pretty sure you exist. You've brought along your own perspectives and opinions (a different intelligence) , some of which I know I haven't thought of before. And if my subconcious mind has generated these different perpectives and opinions to keep me occupied while my brain sits in this glass bowl, then I'd class my subconcious mind and concious mind as a different entity or intelligence. lol
    Most things you now think of, you haven't thought of before.

    You say you are pretty sure I exist? What does "pretty" mean. In philosophy, certainly when you are looking for absolute truth, I doubt "pretty" is very convincing at all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Most things you now think of, you haven't thought of before.

    You say you are pretty sure I exist? What does "pretty" mean. In philosophy, certainly when you are looking for absolute truth, I doubt "pretty" is very convincing at all.
    I was just looking for a nice adverb to slip in between "I'm" and "sure", what I really mean't to say was "I am certain that you are a seperate entity".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kez-man)
    I was just looking for a nice adverb to slip in between "I'm" and "sure", what I really mean't to say was "I am certain that you are a seperate entity".
    You should not be certain. If there is even the possibility of doubt, you are not certain. And there is certainly a possibility.

    As Russell said,

    "If you are certain of anything, you are certainly wrong!"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    You should not be certain. If there is even the possibility of doubt, you are not certain. And there is certainly a possibility.

    As Russell said,

    "If you are certain of anything, you are certainly wrong!"
    So if I'm certain my name is Kieran, then I'm certain my name isn't Kieran, which means I must be certain my name is Kieran, which means I'm certain my name Isn't Kieran...bit of an infinite loop really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kez-man)
    So if I'm certain my name is Kieran, then I'm certain my name isn't Kieran, which means I must be certain my name is Kieran, which means I'm certain my name Isn't Kieran...bit of an infinite loop really.
    He didn't mean it like that. The point was to show that it is unwise to be certain of anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    He didn't mean it like that. The point was to show that it is unwise to be certain of anything.
    Maybe he was right, or maybe he was just a figment of mine or your imagination. Anyway, I'm off for a bit of beauty sleep. Nice little discussion
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kez-man)
    Maybe he was right, or maybe he was just a figment of mine or your imagination. Anyway, I'm off for a bit of beauty sleep. Nice little discussion
    Perhaps so!

    Goodnight
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If the statement "I think" is true, then the statement "I exist" must be true as well.

    For me to think, I must exist. The existence of the I is implied by the statement "I think".

    Hence: If I think, I am.

    It is fairly self-evident that I think. Even if I doubt everything, even if I question the existence of everything around and of my own body, the fact remains that I am thinking. In order to doubt, I have to think, and if I start doubting everything, I cannot doubt that I am doubting, ie that I am thinking.

    I think therefore I am.

    Pretty water-tight, isn't it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    If the statement "I think" is true, then the statement "I exist" must be true as well.

    For me to think, I must exist. The existence of the I is implied by the statement "I think".

    Hence: If I think, I am.

    It is fairly self-evident that I think. Even if I doubt everything, even if I question the existence of everything around and of my own body, the fact remains that I am thinking. In order to doubt, I have to think, and if I start doubting everything, I cannot doubt that I am doubting, ie that I am thinking.

    I think therefore I am.

    Pretty water-tight, isn't it?
    Finally someone gets it.

    But there ARE problems, first of all Descartes shouldn't have put "I think" because you don't know if the person doing the thinking is you. Maybe thoughts are just floating around. The correct premise should be "there are thoughts"...that's just one criticism out of the bag...

    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Finally someone gets it.

    But there ARE problems, first of all Descartes shouldn't have put "I think" because you don't know if the person doing the thinking is you. Maybe thoughts are just floating around. The correct premise should be "there are thoughts"...that's just one criticism out of the bag...
    I'm surprised to find someone going to York speaking a little sense.

    Thoughts manifest entirely autonomously - in ignorance we assume "I thought so and so" when, in reality, thoughts author us.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    Do I exist? Am I a figment of you imagination?

    Is there any point to even considering that we don't really exist - if we do, then why worry and, if we don't, then why not just continue deluding ourselves?
    No you don't exist.

    Outside in the world you don't, the personality created on ukl no matter how hard you try will be slightly different from the you in real life, therefore you have no physical form and only exist on the internet and you can be deleted at anytime therefore you don't properly exist.





    I however do
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ubermensch)
    I'm surprised to find someone going to York speaking a little sense.

    Thoughts manifest entirely autonomously - in ignorance we assume "I thought so and so" when, in reality, thoughts author us.
    And what is your point?

    (Original post by Adhsur)
    And what is your point?
    I'm wrong - York Philosophy really is unredeemable.

    I don’t think anyone has questioned this concept of the “ego” - the “I am”. The concept of the “ego” is from pathological aestheticians. It comes down to the affect of syntax on the body. How is the symptom of “ego” elicited? The answer is musical, as ego is a song that perpetuates the designator of sign. His plight is circular but that doesn't put an end to anything, it doesn't suppose a limit other than the total justified freedom of abandonment; or rather every single reduced self-aspect is inculcated in a void prior to having heard the first impression of syntax, upon which life reifies.

    There is no ego. None exists except as the poor position of a structure to anihilate the abscence of direction, which is anihilation. And yet abscence is another semantic circlet. Nothing escapes a neurons pulse, the dynamic ensures truth. To walk and talk is to be the living proof, to anihiliate any pathological formation. There is nothing behind oneself, except what one invested in the effort of a game.

    The conception of an ego is an event like a pebble dropped onto a pond. Life is working its loops and those watching see ripples, but in the next few minutes the wave ceases and people leave out of bordom or are caught by other events, and insofar as it caught your attention was it to be called “ego”: it falls between the infinite gradations of awareness, such that you can not know by knowing what your looking at by the virtue of fascination or contempt. For a select few they will be murdered by the biological extremes of sense illusion. To stage a prop is a nihilistic event, as the undeniable multitudes precipitate the rules.

    To peak a focus at the epicenter of one's soul by dropping a stone for all too see is the anihilation of sense. There is no bottom by the surface of the bottom. Movement alone is expressive of nothing attached to a world of nothing.

    Sign carries all syntax: a multidemensional moving sign becomes truth in reification. The musical theme is first after which follows only mutation by eternal negations. Every thing is cut asunder. Sense is its sense, the acasual proposition of silence.

    A sign in the degree of its subjectivity, the entire project of being, contains itself. It lives in its entirety to see the product of its end. There is consecration, manipulation, distraction.... et cetera.

    When he transforms he will not be what he was and the illusion of the ego will be annihilated.

    How to play a song without an instrument? You make it a riddle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am, therefore I do! - yawn1 2004
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    The point is, you don't know someone is saying something to you. You dont' even know that person exists. You don't even know if you've heard a sound. All you know is that you've had a thought.

    How do you know this idea of the subconcious mind didn't arise from yourself? You thought of the internet, you thought of the computer, you thought of words, you thought of that idea. Maybe these words DON'T exist. Maybe you think you are reading but you are not. But can it be that you think you are thinking but you are not? No, for that is a contradiction!

    Philosophy's a load of crap really - isn't it? :cool:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ubermensch)

    Thoughts manifest entirely autonomously - in ignorance we assume "I thought so and so" when, in reality, thoughts author us.
    Even Davy Hume, though, acknowledged that there was an "I", even if this was only the continuing perception of the flow of sensations.
    Polthegael: I can see that someone who is a citizen of a country he doesn't think exists, who lives in a country he doesn't recognise as it actually is, might have problems with identity (I leave aside whether you are a Turing machine): but there is a difference between the philosophy and the psychology of personality.
    On a psychological level personality is both apparent and surprisingly malleable- you only have to see the effects of illness, drugs or brain damage. Have you read A R Luria's "The man with a shattered world" and "The mind of a mnemonist"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Polthegael: I can see that someone who is a citizen of a country he doesn't think exists, who lives in a country he doesn't recognise as it actually is, might have problems with identity (I leave aside whether you are a Turing machine): but there is a difference between the philosophy and the psychology of personality.
    Is this about me, or meant to be a quote? If it's the latter, where did I say it? If it's the former, I live in England (which, as far I can perceive, is very real)...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.