why are you analysing the translation? the guy didnt think in english... besides that, the order of words in a sentence doesnt need to chronologically represent the thought process. you got your perception of language messed up
to think, therefore to be(exist) i think, therefore i am it's simply a thought to the self. what is real? what exists? how do i prove anything exists? does seeing it make it real? no, i can't be certain, i have seen mirages and hallucinations before does touching it make it real? no, i can't be certain this could be a delusion of my mind and a perceived sense. and so on down the line and any logical thinker would come to, am i real? how do i prove i am real? i know the perception of sensation doesn't prove existence, do i exist? am i real........well i think. i have thought, i can generate endless thoughts, that isn't perceived. in order to even have that awareness,sense of self and thoughts and perception one must exist on some level, in some way, shape, or form. (even if you wanted to argue some other being is generating the thoughts, i still on some level must exist in order to be the recipient body of said thoughts). i think, therefore i am. that proves i'm real. i can't prove anything outside of that but i think that proves i am and nothing more. it was a thought transfigured onto a piece of paper. anything can be taken out of context and be called non sensical this cum ergo arse that.
But the I generating those thoughts, isn't real. There are many neurons, senses, ect -communicating throughout your body creating networks. This network becomes self aware, but it isn't an I, it is a we an us. You may think, but you arn't real, you think you are real. If that is good enough for some, jolly. But it isn't very substantial to me. There is no way to prove anything is real if you can't prove yourself to even be.
'I' Or what you consider 'You' isn't a real single entity as you believe it to be. You as you believe yourself to be is a very elaborate illusion. Do meditate on that.
you for some reason seem to jump to the conclusion that you do not exist, much like rené descartes jumped to the conclusion that he did exist. while one may not be able to prove his existence, he defenitly can not be able to disprove it, I think thats pretty much what the guy was basing his claim on. what I was trying to say earlier is that your thought process, that led you to the deduction that this quote is flawed, was actually far more flawed itself and therefor your deduction is invalid.
[quote name='"Ninja20p"']'I' Or what you consider 'You' isn't a real single entity as you believe it to be. You as you believe yourself to be is a very elaborate illusion. Do meditate on that.[/quote] You are being incredibly vague and proved nothing. Who's illusion is this? Why am I participating in this illusion? What are these thoughts? To even experience this 'illusion' one must have some form of being. Again I beg of you to prove how you can think and experience separate from a being?
It is simple guys really just take a step back and keep thinking about it. What is it that you believe you are? A single being, with values morals dreams? Science shows that you are merely a collection of all your neurons firing, networks of senses and nerves collecting information and displaying it inside your mind for you to navigate. There is no 'I' that is real. It is a projection of billions of neurons and gathered information for what life is and how you care to experience it. Life is just a comfortable dream for you. And there is no way to prove you exist, and my definition of exist doesn't include comfortable illusions so I disproved myself existing. Now If I don't exist why should you? chronicchthonic do you understand what I am saying yet? baumeister the problem you have is your definition of exist is different from mine. I have proved for myself that I as a single entity am not real.
[quote name='"Ninja20p"'] It is simple guys really just take a step back and keep thinking about it. What is it that you believe you are? A single being, with values morals dreams? Science shows that you are merely a collection of all your neurons firing, networks of senses and nerves collecting information and displaying it inside your mind for you to navigate. There is no 'I' that is real. It is a projection of billions of neurons and gathered information for what life is and how you care to experience it. Life is just a comfortable dream for you. And there is no way to prove you exist, and my definition of exist doesn't include comfortable illusions so I disproved myself existing. Now If I don't exist why should you? chronicchthonic do you understand what I am saying yet? baumeister the problem you have is your definition of exist is different from mine. I have proved for myself that I as a single entity am not real.[/quote] What you are saying makes no sense. Even if this is all a dream or illusion or firings or whatever, who or what is the vessel for this experience. Something can't come from nothing. My life may be random firings and causality but I still mull everything in between these actions and reactions. Even if I'm a helpless bystander to causality I'm still have awareness of all of this, that awareness is existence in and of itself.
Within this universe...is this body...within this body is this brain...within this brain is the entirety of the universe that i consider to exist...within the universe i consider to exist is the body that i consider to exist...within which is the brain that I consider to exist...to infinity... What you consider to be the entire universe is just a part of your brain
[quote name='"TheJourney"'] Within this universe...is this body...within this body is this brain...within this brain is the entirety of the universe that i consider to exist...within the universe i consider to exist is the body that i consider to exist...within which is the brain that I consider to exist...to infinity... What you consider to be the entire universe is just a part of your brain [/quote] You must have some form of entity in order to have a brain, whether your body is physical or not. Something can't come from nothing. You can't create a universe inside a brain that's inside a body that doesn't exist in the first place. if I'm creating some universe, I in some form, not necessarily physical, exist.
Doesnt that just mean that it takes a certain level of intelligence to be self aware?cuz if youre an animal you dont think you just go on instinct and live.it takes self awareness to know you are
This brain, this body, this neural network; this organism operating, experiencing the manifestation of consciousness and illusion of identity. That is what this organism calls "me," or "I." It's just easier to say. It exists.
You are in a sense making a good point, but in another sense missing something. Each brain has many different autonomously functioning neural networks. These are all completely different 'personalities.' There is no single 'I,' but rather a great multitude of separate identities, functioning as autonomous neural networks within the brain...the conscious mind just likes to falsely attach to one 'I' that I 'really' am, and project the rest outwards onto other people.
Just pure laziness......... It should be: I think I think, therefore I think I am.Ya think? MindSlinger