Can you know you exist without first thinking about your existence/experience? Understand this, and imo, u will discover the immortal realm of the spirit/ soul/ mind... .
I honestly believe why soo many people brush off Descartes is because of his famous saying, as if it's just some fortune cooking type saying or phrase; as I did when I first started my journey on this long philosophical path and maze, but, I've come to the realization, only recently, that this was only a part of the process lol. The depth of Descartes' thought is far deeper than most are even ready to begin to endeavor to understand, really. Descartes is rightfully called "the father of modern philosophy" -- yet, sadly enough, most don't realize how seminal one's philsophy has to be to dubbed with such a heavy title. I just realized what this great man really did in his Meditations, after virtually going through most of Western philosophical thought (before and after Descartes). It's a mind blower... .
You're right. very few truly ponder the significance of that statement and its true implication. It basically alludes to the idea of the One Self. The Self that we all share for the self is one thing, that is only considered separate and plural because we cannot be aware of the thoughts and ideas of another, but that is not what The Self is. The Self is more simple a concept than anything, and when someone realizes how simple and all encompassing it really is, that's when one may begin to ponder the true complexity of the idea. The Self is the cause of all, it is the transmitter and the receiver. The Self is both manifest and unmanifest. It exists in all forms and none.
The "I" who everyone refers to, or, "the observer", is not something which can be described or expressed in physical terms; although, many do make the argument, fallaciously, that the mind is physical. The "observer" that's observing all our experiences dwells in a dimension where energy is not restricted to this mundane structure of 3-d time space, i.e., not physical -- the incumbent reflector, i.e., the mind or observer, cannot be loacted by modern science. The mind, or soul, can exist without the body it occupies right now -- If a thing can be described without the refrence to another thing does that make the two things different, not disparate, but different...?
Descartes gave this world an axiom which is so indisputable, and genius, that his teachings can greatly help facilitate the attainment of salvation for those who are lost, and entrenched, in this world of consfusion, doubt, and hollow illusions... a true "knowledge of self" is oh so important, now-a-days, brethrens...
So it existing in a physical realm is fallacious........ but you don't tell us why....... but your assumptions which can't be proven either, are somehow correct(at least that's what's implied). Lol.
Ever heard of the induction fallacy and quantum indetermincay....? U just don't see how backward ur conception of reality is, that is, backwards in the sense that ur knowledge of reality is purely something which deals with memory, i.e., past experiences; and from these memorizations of past experiences u assert into the future what has happend in the past, and thus, u create ur dogmatic, fallacious, and still (as if reality doesn't change, i.e., u cant escape the induction fallacy) vision of reality. Lol.
Mind showing me how that proves that the observer doesn't exist in the physical realm? Or how any of it proves your point that the observer exists outside the physical realm? As far as I can tell the only fallacy is here where you reframe the argument. Also mind explaining to met how quantum indeterminacy relates? Seems to me your using it to make your own induction fallacies.....
1.) Have u ever experienced this "observer" by way of ur five senses, i.e., empirically? Exactly my point... 2.) If reality is not determined on a quantum level, and uncertain, how do you know for sure that water will extinguish fire the next time u pour water on fire? How do u assert that water will extinguish fire tommorow? Inductively...? If inductively, then ur assetion is inherently fallacious... i.e., knowledge of the physical realm is relative and, ultimately, fallacious. But, the "observer", i.e., the mental thinking thing, which is thinking about whether or not the physical realm is fallacious cannot be uncertain of itself... for it's not asserting its reality tomorrow, but, rather, it's asserting its existence and reality in the moment.
1) So what of things outside the realm of the five senses? How about radiation, which can't be sensed without external aids? If the observer is physical, that means it's electrical impulses from my brain reacting to stimuli, so at what point would I be able to sense that? 2) The idea that something which holds true on one level(e.g. the quantum one) means it holds true on all levels is an extrapolation fallacy. Also as far as I understand it quantum indeterminacy would never produce anything close to your example.......
1.) Radiation isn't experienced by the body, really? Radiation is empiricaly valiadated; ask those who experience mutations and maladies from the empirical exposure to it... Just cause u can't see radiation that doesn't mean it's not empirically experienced lol. Radiation is empirically experienced by way of the sense of touch; physically extended bodies touch and feel radiation in the same way our bodies empirically touch and feel the heat or the cold. 2.) What is causing the electical and chemical processes which occur when one is dreaming?? Surely it is not EXTERNAL stimuli... What is experiencing the electical and chemical processes which occur when one is dreaming?? Surely it is not something EXTERNAL to my <span>physical body...</span>
1) Strawman. I never said that, you did. I simply asked you a question relating to the fact that you want the observer to be validated by the five senses. What about the second part that you completely ignored? 2) Well the electrical and chemical processes are produced by the body........ if you mean the images in the dreams they tend to be based off of extrenal stimuli.
What's the point, brethren? Ur gonna believe what u wanna believe... I gave u a few pieces to the puzzle, do what u will with them. P.S. U can't even define what physical is, or even give an all-encompassing characteristic of physicality, yet u continue debate whether of not something is physical lol...
Now u got it right... thinking presupposes one who thinks or experiences thought -- hence, the mental and subjective "I".