Well, that's your personal opinion but it doesn't exactly address Descartes's argument. He did not specify exactly what "I" is, just that "I" does indeed exist. It might not just be the brain making the thought "I exist" come into reality but there is something doing it. On a side note, Descartes is considered by many the founder of dualism and probably would have agreed with you that the brain is not the "I". I strongly disagree, I think that there are people with good morals who don't follow a dualistic way of thinking. I personally am a materialist but I really haven't done anything that could be considered absolutely immoral. You are assuming a lot and talk as if you have everything all figured out. Many people have not done anything "evil" in their lives, have healthy relationships and live happily without ever becoming interested in spirituality or philosophy. I would say 9/10 for my family but whos to say what makes a good relationship. There is no objective answer. Pantheist with some Buddhist philosophies. Yes.
Saying that we are essentially our brains, and that you can understand human functioning through neural activity, does not have the connotations people think it has...both science-types and spiritual-types take it to be in someway mechanical, or un-inspiring. That is not necessarily the case. Understanding the human through his brain is incredibly powerful and informative. The brain is far more than we think...it is powerful beyond belief...a galaxy of information...you just have to get your head out of the old paradigm, upheld by both the science-minded and spirituality-minded.
[quote name='"phyer"'] Well, that's your personal opinion but it doesn't exactly address Descartes's argument. He did not specify exactly what "I" is, just that "I" does indeed exist. It might not just be the brain making the thought "I exist" come into reality but there is something doing it. On a side note, Descartes is considered by many the founder of dualism and probably would have agreed with you that the brain is not the "I". I strongly disagree, I think that there are people with good morals who don't follow a dualistic way of thinking. I personally am a materialist but I really haven't done anything that could be considered absolutely immoral. You are assuming a lot and talk as if you have everything all figured out. Many people have not done anything "evil" in their lives, have healthy relationships and live happily without ever becoming interested in spirituality or philosophy. I would say 9/10 for my family but whos to say what makes a good relationship. There is no objective answer. Pantheist with some Buddhist philosophies. Yes.[/quote] I have met and know many people who have good morals(openly) but are absolutely horrid in character. One does not necessarily mean the other. I don't believe the brain is the sole 'i'. 'i' can't be spatially located to the body, in my opinion. The brain is just a known locale for thoughts. The being is completely separate from the brain, but the fact that I am aware, to me, means I am. The brain has a correlating chemical function with everything produced from the spirit, hence the 'firings' in the brain, visible on the mri, when we think. Every time I re read your post I want to respond to more.. "Many people have not done anything "evil" in their lives, have healthy relationships and live happily without ever becoming interested in spirituality or philosophy." I disagree how can one live a fulfilled(fully filled, in other words) life by never being willing to consider what is out there. Ignorant I think is a better word than happy for these people, ignorance is bliss. Seeing multiple possibilities and choosing one and being content regardless, that is happiness. But never considering philosophy or the spiritual world, in my opinion, is an impossibility. You must choose your ignorance over the pursuit of knowledge and the pursuit of a true happiness. As an aside I'm not saying those who believe contrary to dualism are evil people, I'm saying they are guilty in the hearts and head, and to a true thinker that is more condemnation than a jury could ever provide. So don't misunderstand. [quote name='"TheJourney"']Saying that we are essentially our brains, and that you can understand human functioning through neural activity, does not have the connotations people think it has...both science-types and spiritual-types take it to be in someway mechanical, or un-inspiring. That is not necessarily the case. Understanding the human through his brain is incredibly powerful and informative. The brain is far more than we think...it is powerful beyond belief...a galaxy of information...you just have to get your head out of the old paradigm, upheld by both the science-minded and spirituality-minded.[/quote] How can a spiritually minded person, thinking of the ethereal and transcendent, be exclusively neuron firings? This radically contradicts the belief that they, the individual matters. If we are merely chemical processes then we have no individuality and no spiritual connection, we simply have a little bit too much or a too little of a specific chemical in our brains. I conform to the belief that I generated my thoughts, not chemicals, and I don't think they can coincide. But I'm certainly willing to listen, to mull your point of view, and to analyze how you think the spiritual worlds and chemical catalyst exist together. [quote name='"Ryan1411"'] Show that a spirit/soul even exists in the first place.[/quote] I can equally play the unresponsive, immature debater, 'show that a spirit/soul Doesn't exist in the first place'. You have to realize that position gets you nowhere. I would however like to know of your relations with your family, your spiritual beliefs, and of your capability of looking someone you truly cared about in the eye and tell them you are content and happy. I made a bold claim and I'm willing to defend it, but you must be pliable, you must be Willing to accept my point of view. The first step is to play my little game and answer my 3 questions.
The entire idea of "I think therefore I am" summed up is basically: the fact that my thoughts exist prove that I exist. I could not have thoughts if I don't exist. This is wrong for two main reasons. 1.) Why can't an illusion have thoughts? Descartes doesn't actually prove the existence of any being. You could still be an illusion, even if you are perceiving thoughts. For example: "I" might "be" someone else when I am dreaming, and "I" might have thoughts in this dream. However, this does not mean that this "being" that I "am" in the dream is real. It is still an illusion. There is no reason why we can't be illusions in "real" life, and still have thoughts. There's your first fundamental flaw. 2.) This does not prove that the thoughts are not an illusion. In order for Descartes' arguments to hold any weight, he must be able to prove that the thoughts that one perceives are not illusory. If the thoughts of a "being" are illusory, then it follows that the "being" itself is illusory. Since "I think therefore I am" is an absolute statement, yet these two reasons keep it from being absolutely true, the statement is fundamentally flawed.
I don't understand what your point is. An illusion does not disprove existence in reality. It just means it doesn't exist as the perceiver thinks it does... An illusion is still something and if it is something it is part of reality.
Descartes tries to prove his own existence because he wouldn't be able to have thoughts if he wasn't real. This is all that "I think therefore I am" implies. I'm not trying to disprove existence, in fact, there obviously is existence, even if everything is an illusion, because the illusion still exists. But everything that the illusion represented doesn't. painting example: the paint exists, but not what the paint represents. So, I can still be an illusion, even with thoughts. All "I think therefore I am" proves is that there are thoughts. I can still completely be an illusion. Furthermore, since the thoughts can still be an illusion, Descartes is wrong on two levels. Descartes didn't say, "I think that I think therefore I am".
So you agree that the thought "I exist" does exist. That thought must have come into fruition somehow no? Whether from the brain or, if you prefer dualism, from awareness/spirit. Also, something that a lot of you seem to be missing is the fact that he is not claiming his existence is necessary. He is saying if he thinks then necessarily he exists. "He" can be the brain or awareness whatever you want, Descartes was not trying to prove what "I" is. He is simply postulating that if one thinks they must exist because because that thought certainly exists. Feel me?
^Totally gets what I have tried to convey earlier. Do video game characters exist? Do mythical creatures of thought exist? Does the future or the past exist? It's all definition, just. like. god. baby
[quote name='"Island Sweet"'] Descartes tries to prove his own existence because he wouldn't be able to have thoughts if he wasn't real. This is all that "I think therefore I am" implies. I'm not trying to disprove existence, in fact, there obviously is existence, even if everything is an illusion, because the illusion still exists. But everything that the illusion represented doesn't. painting example: the paint exists, but not what the paint represents. So, I can still be an illusion, even with thoughts. All "I think therefore I am" proves is that there are thoughts. I can still completely be an illusion. Furthermore, since the thoughts can still be an illusion, Descartes is wrong on two levels. Descartes didn't say, "I think that I think therefore I am".[/quote] [quote name='"Ninja20p"'] ^Totally gets what I have tried to convey earlier. Do video game characters exist? Do mythical creatures of thought exist? Does the future or the past exist? It's all definition, just. like. god. baby [/quote] Y'all are criticizing the structures of American English and less that of descartes point. Almost every sentence in the English language contains some form of be(be, being, been, am, is, are, was, were etc). So to even question ones existence in the first place is wrong. A true skeptics view would say there is little we can be certain of, and I'm not certain of that. I don't know if anything exists, everything I perceive could be a lie my brain is telling my senses. The only thing I can analyze is my thoughts because those aren't outside my body, my thoughts aren't a perception, they are awareness of my faulty perception, that is existence. I'm not certain of my existence I am convinced of it. Does this mean I should stop talking in order to have fully logically founded statements? That's absurd. Should we revert back to caveman grunts so what we say will have coherence and be assuming nothing? What do y'all suggest as an appropriate method of analyzing existence without running into the inherent errors within the English language? Even better prove you don't or do exist without using a form of be. You can't, we always act from the assumption of existence. Because the arguments y'all are making I find to be completely irrelevant to Descartes argument. awareness proves existence, that's all that was being said
There is no way to know if this is the real existence, what we should define as existence. All the patterns of the world come together when creating life and then consciousness, it's a vivid hologram. I had a revelation last night that consciousness is flawed. The last part may have been unneeded but it was cool yesterday. I just happen to think Descartes argument is terrible, it proves thoughts 'exist' but nothing else. Not too hard to understand, it has jack shit to do with the English language. He was just not a very good philosopher.
Yes, video game creatures exist . Mythical creatures of thought exist as well as they become fruition inside that thought. Mythical creatures themselves may not exist but mythical creatures of thought certainly do. The future and the past is a mental construct so no, they do not exist. There is only the present.
[quote name='"Ninja20p"']. I just happen to think Descartes argument is terrible, it proves thoughts 'exist' but nothing else.[/quote] So who/what generates these thoughts? There must be a first cause, unless the thoughts generated the thoughts....
[quote name='"phyer"'] Exactly. There must be something to give birth to the thoughts and that something is the "I".[/quote] What is i?
It depends on who you ask. I personally believe that it is the brain and nothing but. I would say that the brain is an incredibly deep, complex and powerful thing that all together gives birth to thought and awareness of those thoughts. A person who follows dualism though would say that its something outside the physical brain.