On the question of why 'I' am right and 'you' are wrong.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Well Moonie, we have to assume that at the very minimum, we exist. Otherwise, everything else is moot.

But, back on topic -- while I feel that mistaking opinion for knowledge is a serious problem indeed, I feel what's even worse is refusing to budge from a formed opinion. I wish people were more willing to adapt their thought processes and really consider all angles to a given subject rather than clinging to their opinions no matter what.

A well-formed opinion is one that ebbs and flows and changes over time as you study it and absorb the ideas and opinions of those around you.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well Moonie, we have to assume that at the very minimum, we exist. Otherwise, everything else is moot.

But, back on topic -- while I feel that mistaking opinion for knowledge is a serious problem indeed, I feel what's even worse is refusing to budge from a formed opinion. I wish people were more willing to adapt their thought processes and really consider all angles to a given subject rather than clinging to their opinions no matter what.

A well-formed opinion is one that ebbs and flows and changes over time as you study it and absorb the ideas and opinions of those around you.

Well what do you mean by assume? Suppose you assume you don't exist. What does that change? Are you suggestion that we have to self-talk ourselves into existence. Why assume anything? What would be the need? Why can't whether or not we exist just be another thing we don't know? Reality or illusion, aren't we stuck with it either way?

My point was not that one opinion is preferable to another, but that everything is opinion and we actually know nothing at all. You are in the camp that is saying you don't accept that you know nothing at all. Isn't all mischief started by people who know? Why was Socrates the wisest man?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Nah, we don't exist. We are a movie in God's Hollywood back lot.

And, how would you prove you exist? In other words, don't put Descartes before the horse. :)

-Robert
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well what do you mean by assume? Suppose you assume you don't exist. What does that change? Are you suggestion that we have to self-talk ourselves into existence. Why assume anything? What would be the need? Why can't whether or not we exist just be another thing we don't know? Reality or illusion, aren't we stuck with it either way?
My point is: If we assume that we don't exist, why bother talking about anything further beyond that point? I mean, if we don't exist, who cares about anything else?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well what do you mean by assume? Suppose you assume you don't exist. What does that change? Are you suggestion that we have to self-talk ourselves into existence. Why assume anything? What would be the need? Why can't whether or not we exist just be another thing we don't know? Reality or illusion, aren't we stuck with it either way?
My point is: If we assume that we don't exist, why bother talking about anything further beyond that point? I mean, if we don't exist, who cares about anything else?
But why does whether you exist or not affect whether or not you care? Point one. Point two and more importantly, why do we need to care? Isn't it our good intentions that destroy the world. The man who doesn't care belongs to no party at all. He joins no group and fights no war. He is unattached to anything. All the mischief in the world is caused by people who care. Everybody who cares cares about what is right and how things should be. They aren't among those who know they know nothing at all, are they?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: chess9
Nah, we don't exist. We are a movie in God's Hollywood back lot.

And, how would you prove you exist? In other words, don't put Descartes before the horse. :)

-Robert

Hehe, good one.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My point was not that one opinion is preferable to another, but that everything is opinion and we actually know nothing at all. You are in the camp that is saying you don't accept that you know nothing at all. Isn't all mischief started by people who know? Why was Socrates the wisest man?
No, I understand your point and I tend to agree that we really don't know anything at all. I tend to put a bit of a spin on the theory in that I believe we can transitionally know things that we can apply and thereby make things work. This knowledge, however, is never really fixed as it can be modified or outright disproven in favor of some other, more improved method. I think you must be prepared at any given time to throw out what you think you know in favor of something else.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well what do you mean by assume? Suppose you assume you don't exist. What does that change? Are you suggestion that we have to self-talk ourselves into existence. Why assume anything? What would be the need? Why can't whether or not we exist just be another thing we don't know? Reality or illusion, aren't we stuck with it either way?
My point is: If we assume that we don't exist, why bother talking about anything further beyond that point? I mean, if we don't exist, who cares about anything else?
But why does whether you exist or not affect whether or not you care? Point one. Point two and more importantly, why do we need to care? Isn't it our good intentions that destroy the world. The man who doesn't care belongs to no party at all. He joins no group and fights no war. He is unattached to anything. All the mischief in the world is caused by people who care. Everybody who cares cares about what is right and how things should be. They aren't among those who know they know nothing at all, are they?
Well, let me put it this way, if I don't exist, I would have a difficult (if not impossible) time motivating myself to care about anything else. While debating whether we do or don't exist is an amusing exercise in existential philosophy, ultimately we have to assume that we exist. Otherwise, why not simply lapse into a catatonic state? Why not kill everyone around you? What relevance would anything have?
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonster,
If I know I know nothing then I don't know that either. To know anything is to know something, it seems to me.
But, you have chosen my favorite thinker in quoting Socrates. Plato and I would listen to him or at least read what he had to say and conclude that we knew nothing as a result. That Socrates knew nothing and that all we do is observe in some manner or another.

I take issue with one notion and that is that I don't know that I exist. It is not an opinion since to have an opinion I must exist. I know this because I know I know nothing else. I can't prove I exist to anyone else but, I can to myself. Everyone else may be a figment of my imagination but I have that imagination because I exist.

Must I rely on another to confirm my existence? Is self existence axiomatic? Do I know this to not only be true but know it is the only sure and real thing I know... including my presence somewhere... the first of the great unknowns.


"I think therefore I am" - Rene Descartes. A very powerful, logically sound argument.

I think that the idea that you know nothing is wrong also. Everybody knows his or her own existence, since he or she thinks.

Moonbeam, I would highly suggest reading some Descartes. Starting from this one statement "I think therefore I am," Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God, and the existence of knowledge.



SYNOPSIS OF THE SIX FOLLOWING MEDITATIONS.

1. IN THE First Meditation I expound the grounds on which we may doubt in general of all things, and especially of material objects, so long at least, as we have no other foundations for the sciences than those we have hitherto possessed. Now, although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the senses; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth.[L][F]

2. In the Second, the mind which, in the exercise of the freedom peculiar to itself, supposes that no object is, of the existence of which it has even the slightest doubt, finds that, meanwhile, it must itself exist. And this point is likewise of the highest moment, for the mind is thus enabled easily to distinguish what pertains to itself, that is, to the intellectual nature, from what is to be referred to the body. But since some, perhaps, will expect, at this stage of our progress, a statement of the reasons which establish the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, I think it proper here to make such aware, that it was my aim to write nothing of which I could not give exact demonstration, and that I therefore felt myself obliged to adopt an order similar to that in use among the geometers, viz., to premise all upon which the proposition in question depends, before coming to any conclusion respecting it. Now, the first and chief prerequisite for the knowledge of the immortality of the soul is our being able to form the clearest possible conception (conceptus--concept) of the soul itself, and such as shall be absolutely distinct from all our notions of body; and how this is to be accomplished is there shown. There is required, besides this, the assurance that all objects which we clearly and distinctly think are true (really exist) in that very mode in which we think them; and this could not be established previously to the Fourth Meditation. Farther, it is necessary, for the same purpose, that we possess a distinct conception of corporeal nature, which is given partly in the Second and partly in the Fifth and Sixth Meditations. And, finally, on these grounds, we are necessitated to conclude, that all those objects which are clearly and distinctly conceived to be diverse substances, as mind and body, are substances really reciprocally distinct; and this inference is made in the Sixth Meditation. The absolute distinction of mind and body is, besides, confirmed in this Second Meditation, by showing that we cannot conceive body unless as divisible; while, on the other hand, mind cannot be conceived unless as indivisible. For we are not able to conceive the half of a mind, as we can of any body, however small, so that the natures of these two substances are to be held, not only as diverse, but even in some measure as contraries. I have not, however, pursued this discussion further in the present treatise, as well for the reason that these considerations are sufficient to show that the destruction of the mind does not follow from the corruption of the body, and thus to afford to men the hope of a future life, as also because the premises from which it is competent for us to infer the immortality of the soul, involve an explication of the whole principles of Physics: in order to establish, in the first place, that generally all substances, that is, all things which can exist only in consequence of having been created by God, are in their own nature incorruptible, and can never cease to be, unless God himself, by refusing his concurrence to them, reduce them to nothing; and, in the second place, that body, taken generally, is a substance, and therefore can never perish, but that the human body, in as far as it differs from other bodies, is constituted only by a certain configuration of members, and by other accidents of this sort, while the human mind is not made up of accidents, but is a pure substance. For although all the accidents of the mind be changed-- although, for example, it think certain things, will others, and perceive others, the mind itself does not vary with these changes; while, on the contrary, the human body is no longer the same if a change take place in the form of any of its parts: from which it follows that the body may, indeed, without difficulty perish, but that the mind is in its own nature immortal.[L][F]

3. In the Third Meditation, I have unfolded at sufficient length, as appears to me, my chief argument for the existence of God. But yet, since I was there desirous to avoid the use of comparisons taken from material objects, that I might withdraw, as far as possible, the minds of my readers from the senses, numerous obscurities perhaps remain, which, however, will, I trust, be afterward entirely removed in the Replies to the Objections: thus among other things, it may be difficult to understand how the idea of a being absolutely perfect, which is found in our minds, possesses so much objective reality [i. e., participates by representation in so many degrees of being and perfection] that it must be held to arise from a cause absolutely perfect. This is illustrated in the Replies by the comparison of a highly perfect machine, the idea of which exists in the mind of some workman; for as the objective (i.e.., representative) perfection of this idea must have some cause, viz., either the science of the workman, or of some other person from whom he has received the idea, in the same way the idea of God, which is found in us, demands God himself for its cause.[L][F]

4. In the Fourth, it is shown that all which we clearly and distinctly perceive (apprehend) is true; and, at the same time, is explained wherein consists the nature of error, points that require to be known as well for confirming the preceding truths, as for the better understanding of those that are to follow. But, meanwhile, it must be observed, that I do not at all there treat of Sin, that is, of error committed in the pursuit of good and evil, but of that sort alone which arises in the determination of the true and the false. Nor do I refer to matters of faith, or to the conduct of life, but only to what regards speculative truths, and such as are known by means of the natural light alone.[L][F]

5. In the Fifth, besides the illustration of corporeal nature, taken generically, a new demonstration is given of the existence of God, not free, perhaps, any more than the former, from certain difficulties, but of these the solution will be found in the Replies to the Objections. I further show, in what sense it is true that the certitude of geometrical demonstrations themselves is dependent on the knowledge of God.[L][F]

6. Finally, in the Sixth, the act of the understanding (intellectio) is distinguished from that of the imagination (imaginatio); the marks of this distinction are described; the human mind is shown to be really distinct from the body, and, nevertheless, to be so closely conjoined therewith, as together to form, as it were, a unity. The whole of the errors which arise from the senses are brought under review, while the means of avoiding them are pointed out; and, finally, all the grounds are adduced from which the existence of material objects may be inferred; not, however, because I deemed them of great utility in establishing what they prove, viz., that there is in reality a world, that men are possessed of bodies, and the like, the truth of which no one of sound mind ever seriously doubted; but because, from a close consideration of them, it is perceived that they are neither so strong nor clear as the reasonings which conduct us to the knowledge of our mind and of God; so that the latter are, of all which come under human knowledge, the most certain and manifest-- a conclusion which it was my single aim in these Meditations to establish; on which account I here omit mention of the various other questions which, in the course of the discussion, I had occasion likewise to consider.[L][F]
[LoD] [P] [M I] [M 2] [M 3] [M 4] [M 5] [M 6]
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
My point was not that one opinion is preferable to another, but that everything is opinion and we actually know nothing at all. You are in the camp that is saying you don't accept that you know nothing at all. Isn't all mischief started by people who know? Why was Socrates the wisest man?
No, I understand your point and I tend to agree that we really don't know anything at all. I tend to put a bit of a spin on the theory in that I believe we can transitionally know things that we can apply and thereby make things work. This knowledge, however, is never really fixed as it can be modified or outright disproven in favor of some other, more improved method. I think you must be prepared at any given time to throw out what you think you know in favor of something else.

I'm all for the scientific method. But even in science people become attached to theories and there are huge controversies. If everything is so tentative and modifiable what is that about. :D
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well what do you mean by assume? Suppose you assume you don't exist. What does that change? Are you suggestion that we have to self-talk ourselves into existence. Why assume anything? What would be the need? Why can't whether or not we exist just be another thing we don't know? Reality or illusion, aren't we stuck with it either way?
My point is: If we assume that we don't exist, why bother talking about anything further beyond that point? I mean, if we don't exist, who cares about anything else?
But why does whether you exist or not affect whether or not you care? Point one. Point two and more importantly, why do we need to care? Isn't it our good intentions that destroy the world. The man who doesn't care belongs to no party at all. He joins no group and fights no war. He is unattached to anything. All the mischief in the world is caused by people who care. Everybody who cares cares about what is right and how things should be. They aren't among those who know they know nothing at all, are they?
Well, let me put it this way, if I don't exist, I would have a difficult (if not impossible) time motivating myself to care about anything else. While debating whether we do or don't exist is an amusing exercise in existential philosophy, ultimately we have to assume that we exist. Otherwise, why not simply lapse into a catatonic state? Why not kill everyone around you? What relevance would anything have?[/q

Point: Since you do feel you exist why do you believe apathy or murder would be the result of not believing you do. This is a case of having an opinion that may change with new experience as you implied you recommend, no?. I'm not buying your assumption because it sounds to me like your suggesting you know something purely theoretical which you haven't experienced, or so it seems to me. Perhaps people who know they don't know have a different experience. Perhaps if Socrates didn't know anything and knew that he didn't know and said too that the unexamined life was not worth living and presumably too that he discovered that he didn't know through self examination then that might just imply that what Socrates was wasn't apathetic or murderous but something that makes the 'knower's' life pale by comparison. I hope that makes sense because I find it a bit awkward to explain. Of course I don't know if Socrates believed that he existed or not. I just assume from his not knowing anything that he didn't know.

Does the puppy dog know that he exists. Is he apathetic or murderous. It seems to me that if you are stuck with not knowing anything than you would naturally be stuck with what you really are. You would have no opinion to tell you to be some other way, no? So real or illusion you would be what you really are. Maybe that's what's really cool and makes the unexamined life a bummer by comparison.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think I assume that.. not at all. It is a question... not an assertion.
I exist. I know this. 'Where' is irrelevant to knowing that.[/q

I think we need to agree on what it might mean to know. I know my shirt is white but is that knowledge or knowing. Similarly I know I had toast for breakfast, but in knowing that or reflecting on that past event am I then in a state of being. There seems to be a problem with thinking. Thinking is always about the past, what is dead and gone and that isn't being. To think I am is not to be it seems to me because all it is is remembering I just was, or thought I was. Perhaps that is why the mystic says I am I am I am and why he is called a mystic and not a person of common sense, but a walrus or perhaps an egg man, no?

I don't KNOW anything about my shirt other than what I preceive it to be (Lurnt stuff based on sensory input). If I listen to your voice and it confims this and I assume you exist for that purpose I might conclude I learned or gained the knowledge that the shirt had a particular color....
I only know I exist. I know it to be true. All else is based on my knowledge gained thus far..

Who is this I that knows that it exists? Is a thought real? Is the knowledge you speak of that you exist a thought? Are we aware of something or is there something because we are aware? Can awareness be the object of itself?

I'm gonna go out on what may be a limb here and assume that there are others who exist and that one of those is you and further assuming that I am reading what I assume to be your written utterances in which you've asked the quoted passage most immediate above, I will respond.
hehehehe
You may very well question who is this 'I'. Because to you I may not exist. As I indicated, I cannot prove to what may be you that I exist to the same extent you cannot know anything beyond that you know you exist.
What I tried to do is show that Know and Knowledge are often used improperly by giving you the opportunity to jump all over my statement... for using that word... We assume to gain 'knowledge' when all we do is observe what we may be observing. Nothing may exist but Me... and all else is my creative mind at work.. My lonesomeness has created a forum and even populated with folks who act in the manner I unknowingly... hehehhee.. define. To you I may be a creation along with all the rest of us that you may have created to fill your void.
MY thoughts eminate from me and I am. I know I am because even if just created out of a figment of Your immagination I must possess this attribute of knowing in order to accomplish your objective. I may not exist at all but for the moment I know I do.. This truth can and will cease to exist if it is not true but, not until that occurs. Until then I know I exist.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Point: Since you do feel you exist why do you believe apathy or murder would be the result of not believing you do. This is a case of having an opinion that may change with new experience as you implied you recommend, no?. I'm not buying your assumption because it sounds to me like your suggesting you know something purely theoretical which you haven't experienced, or so it seems to me. Perhaps people who know they don't know have a different experience. Perhaps if Socrates didn't know anything and knew that he didn't know and said too that the unexamined life was not worth living and presumably too that he discovered that he didn't know through self examination then that might just imply that what Socrates was wasn't apathetic or murderous but something that makes the 'knower's' life pale by comparison. I hope that makes sense because I find it a bit awkward to explain. Of course I don't know if Socrates believed that he existed or not. I just assume from his not knowing anything that he didn't know.

Does the puppy dog know that he exists. Is he apathetic or murderous. It seems to me that if you are stuck with not knowing anything than you would naturally be stuck with what you really are. You would have no opinion to tell you to be some other way, no? So real or illusion you would be what you really are. Maybe that's what's really cool and makes the unexamined life a bummer by comparison.

Well, the bottom line is our lives only have the meaning we choose to give it. I don't believe that an assumption that we don't exist would necessarily result in any particular behavior, I'm just throwing out some extreme examples. We may not know whether we exist or not, all I'm saying is that we have to assume we do because everything else is predicated on it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Two Zen monks were walking along discussing the meaning of existence. The first monk said to the second that everything is an illusion. The second pondered this as they walked along in silence for a time. A water Buffalo charged them and the first monk quickly ran up a tree. The second, deep in thought about the illusory world got run down. Battered and broken, laying on the ground he called to the monk in the tree. "I thought you said everything is an illusion. Why did you run up the tree?" My running up the tree was an illusion too", said the first monk.

In order for an I to know that it exists wouldn't you have to be able to observe itself to confirm that fact. If so then how can an I confirm my own existence since my eye can't see itself? Doesn't some fragment of the I pretend to be the whole and stand outside itself pretending to look in? But who is observing that observer? Doesn't the I only exist, if it does, because the self is already divided? Don't we have multiple selves?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Point: Since you do feel you exist why do you believe apathy or murder would be the result of not believing you do. This is a case of having an opinion that may change with new experience as you implied you recommend, no?. I'm not buying your assumption because it sounds to me like your suggesting you know something purely theoretical which you haven't experienced, or so it seems to me. Perhaps people who know they don't know have a different experience. Perhaps if Socrates didn't know anything and knew that he didn't know and said too that the unexamined life was not worth living and presumably too that he discovered that he didn't know through self examination then that might just imply that what Socrates was wasn't apathetic or murderous but something that makes the 'knower's' life pale by comparison. I hope that makes sense because I find it a bit awkward to explain. Of course I don't know if Socrates believed that he existed or not. I just assume from his not knowing anything that he didn't know.

Does the puppy dog know that he exists. Is he apathetic or murderous. It seems to me that if you are stuck with not knowing anything than you would naturally be stuck with what you really are. You would have no opinion to tell you to be some other way, no? So real or illusion you would be what you really are. Maybe that's what's really cool and makes the unexamined life a bummer by comparison.

Well, the bottom line is our lives only have the meaning we choose to give it. I don't believe that an assumption that we don't exist would necessarily result in any particular behavior, I'm just throwing out some extreme examples. We may not know whether we exist or not, all I'm saying is that we have to assume we do because everything else is predicated on it.

Hehehehehehe,
Dealer,
Are You in a quandary over whether You are a temporary existing You or the original, real and sole You. You are seeking confirmation that You are not the creation of another's imagination that will go poof when the need for your existence wanes. Only You can answer this. I can suggest that You may be a created You to serve the needs of the creator who from my point of view would be me. I needed additional persona about to satisfy my needs to have interaction. Or, I may be such an entity. I may possess only temporary existence to serve your needs and in particular to quench any doubts about your existence. Have I served your needs and am I to vanish? :)
I don't really know if where I am or all else about is real. It seems real because I exist as a mind. An intangible entity populating a form which seems to rely on all that is about to exist. The real me is my mind and not my body. They are separate and apart. Maybe as Descartes may say, the Soul. But, this mind or soul exists. I may have created an entire Universe to satisfy my needs... or You may have... or Moonbeam... I may be the only real thing that does exist. The greatest theory of the universe that seeks to unify the small physics with the large may be only satisfied by my redoing my entire creation... hehehehe
Or.... Or.. maybe God is the only existing thing... and we were created out of his mind to satisfy his needs and maybe our continued existence... that of our mind or soul depends on the compliance with God's demands given he may have provided his creations with some sort of 'latitude' in behavior and thought... I wonder... :)
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Two Zen monks were walking along discussing the meaning of existence. The first monk said to the second that everything is an illusion. The second pondered this as they walked along in silence for a time. A water Buffalo charged them and the first monk quickly ran up a tree. The second, deep in thought about the illusory world got run down. Battered and broken, laying on the ground he called to the monk in the tree. "I thought you said everything is an illusion. Why did you run up the tree?" My running up the tree was an illusion too", said the first monk.

In order for an I to know that it exists wouldn't you have to be able to observe itself to confirm that fact. If so then how can an I confirm my own existence since my eye can't see itself? Doesn't some fragment of the I pretend to be the whole and stand outside itself pretending to look in? But who is observing that observer? Doesn't the I only exist, if it does, because the self is already divided? Don't we have multiple selves?

Neither really existed... I wanted to see if given a choice which would do what in a given circumstance.. I rewarded the believer.. and had the climber fall and break an arm.. hehehehehe the Water Buffalo was also an illusion which to the believer seemed real enough... so real that he manifested the appropriate injury... but, he believed... and was rewarded.. He now accepts that nothing but him exists or that nothing but his existence is real and I gave him an apple... which he ate.. but, did he?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Two Zen monks were walking along discussing the meaning of existence. The first monk said to the second that everything is an illusion. The second pondered this as they walked along in silence for a time. A water Buffalo charged them and the first monk quickly ran up a tree. The second, deep in thought about the illusory world got run down. Battered and broken, laying on the ground he called to the monk in the tree. "I thought you said everything is an illusion. Why did you run up the tree?" My running up the tree was an illusion too", said the first monk.

In order for an I to know that it exists wouldn't you have to be able to observe itself to confirm that fact. If so then how can an I confirm my own existence since my eye can't see itself? Doesn't some fragment of the I pretend to be the whole and stand outside itself pretending to look in? But who is observing that observer? Doesn't the I only exist, if it does, because the self is already divided? Don't we have multiple selves?

Neither really existed... I wanted to see if given a choice which would do what in a given circumstance.. I rewarded the believer.. and had the climber fall and break an arm.. hehehehehe the Water Buffalo was also an illusion which to the believer seemed real enough... so real that he manifested the appropriate injury... but, he believed... and was rewarded.. He now accepts that nothing but him exists or that nothing but his existence is real and I gave him an apple... which he ate.. but, did he?
I don't know.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Moonbeam,
I don't know

And that is the issue!

You can't possibly know if you didn't witness it. Even if you think you witnessed it from your perch above you may have only thought you witnessed it. But, in that thought your existence is proven. Not to me but to you. Maybe. Hehehehehe!
We are each surrounded by our own unique universe. We are positioned in the direct center of that uniqueness. The absence from that universe of but a flea changes it for you and me and each other thing that may be in that universe. But, the real question is the notion that we are part of our own universe or are we just an observer of it from the outside. How can we know? At the moment... we think and in that process we are assured of our own existence but how do we know we think? I submit we know we think by virtue of process. We can test our think without defeat. I am therefore I think. :D
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,
I don't know

And that is the issue!

You can't possibly know if you didn't witness it. Even if you think you witnessed it from your perch above you may have only thought you witnessed it. But, in that thought your existence is proven. Not to me but to you. Maybe. Hehehehehe!
We are each surrounded by our own unique universe. We are positioned in the direct center of that uniqueness. The absence from that universe of but a flea changes it for you and me and each other thing that may be in that universe. But, the real question is the notion that we are part of our own universe or are we just an observer of it from the outside. How can we know? At the moment... we think and in that process we are assured of our own existence but how do we know we think? I submit we know we think by virtue of process. We can test our think without defeat. I am therefore I think. :D


I am therefore I think is a logically incorrect argument. Something/someone in existence doesn't necessarily have to think. I think therefore I am - How do we know we think? By the simple act of thinking; by definition we think. the hard part of the statement is not the "think", it's the "I am" part. The ability to think must imply that we exist; and, logically speaking, this statement is 100% correct. Why? because the thought that the thinking made is in existence. And, something that exists cannot come from something that is nonexistent; the thought itself cannot come from some nonexistent thing - it must come from something that exists. And that something is yourself, by the definition of thinking. The only problem is, how do we know that logic itself is always correct (the actual method of logic is always correct)? This I think is the only [possible] flaw in the argument.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Two Zen monks were walking along discussing the meaning of existence. The first monk said to the second that everything is an illusion. The second pondered this as they walked along in silence for a time. A water Buffalo charged them and the first monk quickly ran up a tree. The second, deep in thought about the illusory world got run down. Battered and broken, laying on the ground he called to the monk in the tree. "I thought you said everything is an illusion. Why did you run up the tree?" My running up the tree was an illusion too", said the first monk.

In order for an I to know that it exists wouldn't you have to be able to observe itself to confirm that fact. If so then how can an I confirm my own existence since my eye can't see itself? Doesn't some fragment of the I pretend to be the whole and stand outside itself pretending to look in? But who is observing that observer? Doesn't the I only exist, if it does, because the self is already divided? Don't we have multiple selves?

The first monk obviously believes as I do: That one must assume that we exist, otherwise the consequences may be dire. Debating the topic is pure folly as we will never know one way or another. To assume one does exist is the logical and rational choice.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,737
6,760
126
The centapede was happy quite

until the toad in fun

said, 'Pray which leg goes after which?"

This worked his mind to such a pitch

he lay distracted in a ditch

considering how to run.

--------------

I guess Socrates was wrong or lied to us when he said that he knew one thing and that was that he knew nothing at all. Apparently he concealed the fact that he knew he also existed.

Now that we have that out of the way I suppose we can get back to examining why we have political opinions since we actually know, well, almost nothing at all
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
totalcommand,
I am therefore I think is a logically incorrect argument. Something/someone in existence doesn't necessarily have to think. I think therefore I am - How do we know we think? By the simple act of thinking; by definition we think. the hard part of the statement is not the "think", it's the "I am" part. The ability to think must imply that we exist; and, logically speaking, this statement is 100% correct. Why? because the thought that the thinking made is in existence. And, something that exists cannot come from something that is nonexistent; the thought itself cannot come from some nonexistent thing - it must come from something that exists. And that something is yourself, by the definition of thinking. The only problem is, how do we know that logic itself is always correct (the actual method of logic is always correct)? This I think is the only [possible] flaw in the argument.

So am I not permitted to create my universe in my own way.. In yours you must infer from some other source. In mine I need not do that... I am... is the predicate upon which all else follows.. and the think is simply the process that I use to sate the needs I have. :)

Having this in mind we can easily see that Political opinion flows from WHO I AM! I've been trying, Moonster, to get on track... hehehehe but sometimes one must bus to the train.. :)

When I see what is about and say that is wrong or that is absurd it is based on WHO I AM.. I AM and I think so it naturally follows that I must be right having thought it... right for me and if it is in conflict with you then what you say is wrong for me.
It is the old AntiMoonbeamism of something being right and wrong at the same time. And, whose the utimate authority on which is right... I AM!