Again, there is doubt. Or there is thinking. There does not have to be any 'one' or 'thing' doing it. Who is the thinker without thoughts? Who is the runner without running? If you take away the dancing, does the dancer remain?
No but there does have to be a one or thing experiencing it, otherwise its not a thought. I experience thought therefore I exist in that experience yea?
The mind separates everything into two. There is experience. "I am experiencing" is an assertion. There is this experience. "I" am "experiencing," as if the thing experiencing and the experience itself are two separate things, is a mental projection.
Ok then, consciousness is the experience. That doesn't change the fact that the consciousness exists. How do you explain what is doing the doubting? There must be for lack of a better word "I" in order for this to happen.
Well, at this point the conversation is circular...lol. "There must be something to experience what happens" "There is only the experience, the experiencer is later asserted" "But there must be someone to have the experience" "You can only say that there is experience, the one having it is a mental projection" lol...It's on repeat...I hope you don't take that in any kind of negative way, I'm just saying there are times when debates come to a point where each person can only repeat their position, at which point further debate becomes pointless. It just comes down to a fundamentally different viewpoint, or preferred way of conceptualization, at this point.
Perhaps you misread i was referring to questioning our own existence, not philosophy as a whole. I spend more time philosophizing, then you could ever philosophize about Philosophy and questioning are two passions of mine, but i see no point or purpose in questioning our own existence. I feel quite real.
Nature of self is a major part of philosophy, no? What 'real' means, as used in your sentence, is another major part of philosophy, correct? Just sayin...
I, for some reason, thought that Descartes came up with that maxim because he got stumped trying to prove god, and that was his 'answer'. I'll have to re-read Discourse; it has definitely been awhile.
just in case no one has mentioned it i am there for i do i do there for become I am the weaver , a seeer and beleiver MJK
I think I get what the O.P is saying. Tell me if I'm wrong but your separating conciousness from thought and saying that we are just awareness who become aware of the brains thoughts. Also dont people exist without thinking all the time such as during meditation etc?
You are probably along the lines of it, I don't completely remember what it was myself weeks ago. Ultimately I think it was being able to think, but not precisely being real or existent. It is odd in its own right, because in our world all we see is existent things, and when ever you think of a non existent thing it becomes existent. Here's something odd, when you write a story and bring a character to life. You think his/her thoughts and when others read the story they do the same. I dunno where to go with the thread besides into an average 'what is real/reality thread' now...
Alright, I'm going to see if I can read discourse today and I'll come back with thoughts/opposing arguments.
Don't you also have to prove the meaning of "exist"? Because I do believe i exist only because "I" experience the universe through my eyes. But it's whether or not believing my eyes and if anyone else is experiencing the same thing as I am. I always thought it was cool to listen to your ipod and close your eyes, try to figure out what is hearing that sound? Where is it going? Kind of related: This kind of logic is primarily based on culture and language. Like defining "our" body or person is written as "I" and culturally, the people surrounding us believe I exist and I believe others exist so i must exist? No?
[quote name='"DyerMaker"'] I, for some reason, thought that Descartes came up with that maxim because he got stumped trying to prove god, and that was his 'answer'. I'll have to re-read Discourse; it has definitely been awhile. [/quote] He did so on Meditations. First he disproves all existence, then he gradually proves existence, then how a god exists. At least that's what I was lectured on.