Let's just admit that only one thing exists. Call it what you will (God, the universe/multiverse, energy, vibration, quarks, consciousness, love, "stuff", a dream, or green cheese), only one thing provably exists (whatever "exists" means). Why don't we pick a term and call it a day. LMAO

I exist.

That is the only thing I am certain of.
Everything else is an opinion.

Only one thing provably exists...maybe you are all that exists.
I would ask you to consider your statement "I exist."...What is "I" and what does it really mean to "exist"?
By "I" do you mean your ego? Let's not make the same mistake Descartes did...His existence proof was fallacious.

----->By "I" do you mean your ego?<-------



NO.

I mean ----> I AM.

This is all I am certain of.

I am not familiar with Discartes or what you mean by fallacious.

<it's fallacious to say that something must exist because science hasn't proven its nonexistence>

I don't much care what science believes it can prove or not prove. I exist because I experience existence.

I can't prove (my experience) to anyone.

Science can't do it, religion can't do it, New Age can't do it, you can't do it.

It's one of dem vexing whatchemajiggies of the cosmic order.

It's better to accept it as you see it, or else you will go whacko if you try to connect it to the physical world or even to the metaphysical world.

Descartes said...

To think thoughts is impossible without anyone or anything to think those thoughts.

I think thoughts. For sure, and I know it because I am thinking them.

Therefore I am.

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

This is the only empirical truth that is also a priori, yet experiential.

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

Not only scientific facts can't disprove this, but pure logic can`t, either.

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

Therefore each individual knows for sure he or she exists, for sure. But the existence of other things is not proven, can`t be proven, beyond any degree of doubt.

The safest to say is that I exist, and I believe/don`t believe that other things outside of myself exists.

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

Please note that 'I think therefore I am' does not make a statement of the body, or of the thinking person's any attributes. It only makes a statement of the part of the person which does the thinking.

Descartes started with the assumption that something besides him existed (thinking and thoughts). Shouldn't he have first proved that something existed in the first place?



In saying "I think therefore I am" he presupposed his own existence ("I")...he "begged the question." consequently, his "proof" of his own existence was fallacious.



Correct. One's own existence is unprovable. Moreover, the existence of anything outside of the one is unprovable also.



Safest to say "I can't prove I exist to anyone but me (as my unique experience makes my existence axiomatic to me). I therefore believe I exist. The existence of anything else is an open and probably unprovable question.



It does however, presuppose the existence of ego.

Dukky, you would be right, completely, if you consider Descartes' reasoning as one which tries to convince OTHERS of the existnece of Descartes.

The proof proves to Descartes that he exists. It is not fallacious in that sense.

It is not fallacious in the sense that he uses the proof to prove to others that he exists. It is not fallacious, because Descartes does not make the claim that his proof to himself that he exists is a proof to others that he exists at the same time. That claim is not part of his claim.

''Descartes started with the assumption that something besides him existed (thinking and thoughts).''

No. This was not an assumption. Descartes experienced his thinking. His thoughts were not himself. Therefore your claim is wrong, because you need him to have made an assumption, whereas he did not make an assumption.

''In saying "I think therefore I am" he presupposed his own existence ''

I don`t follow this reasoning of yours. He thought; he knew he was thinking; he did not presuppose his own existence; he knew something was thinking those thoughts, which could only be himself.

I just don`t see any reason in this argument of yours.

''It does however, presuppose the existence of ego.'' If you must. But I say it proves that he exists, because it was him who does the thinking.

To use the word ''ego'' is not acceptable to some, because of the many colloquial and other, more specialized specific meanings it can assume. 'Ego' as a word is not of a specific meaning as you use it.

He, Descartes, the thinker of those thoughts, existed, is the right way to put it. If you say it's his ego that existed, you mean by ego:

- the weak, vain, vulnerable and azzolish quality of his mind?

- the strong, self-assured, likable part of his mind?

- the part of the mind that balances the demands of the superego against the demand of the id as per Freud's theory?

To me it was not ego, in any of the above meanings. It was something that is the part or the entirety of Descartes' existence which does thinking. Beyond this, there is nothing else we can claim about the thing that exists when looked at from Descartes' point of view. What exists for sure in Descartes' proof is an experiential truth, only as viewed by the individual Descartes, and it is undisputed because it is true both empirically and in an a priori way, that he exists, and by saying 'he' he and we mean an entity that does the part of thinking.

Bringing anything else into this is not part of the proof of Descartes, and it is not part of the claim he made.

Wallace D. Wattles has a term I rather like. The Universe is "thinking stuff." The individual is a "thinking center."

Hence I am a 'thinking center' and I am part of the over-all stuff of the universe which is "thinking stuff."

I propose that every bit of "thinking stuff" has a degree of consciousness and there Is no stuff in existence that is not conscious to a degree.

I also propose that I (the ego I) have manifested out of this thinking stuff rather than have fallen together randomly or on accident and suddenly at some point in evolution become a conscious glob of living tissue or matter.

So I feel comfortable saying that I exist as a thinking center and a part of the universal mind's thinking stuff.

I believe that the universal mind itself also rises from consciousness and this rising moves in an infinite spiral.

It is consciousness itself that is the biggest MYSTERY because it seems impossible. It cannot exist without the rest but is exists because it must.

It must exist because for nothing to exist is impossible.

Hence the saying "Nothing is impossible."

Wux, I guess what I'm saying is that Poor old René went to a lot of trouble to prove that something existed and still missed the boat. Who, or what was Descartes? Did he even know? I doubt it. As brilliant a philosopher and mathematician as he was, he neglected to prove existence itself, (except in the most abstract of ways) choosing instead to try to prove his own existence.

I've tried to prove my own existence without making the assumptions that he did. (things like thinking, thoughts, perception, ego and identity really need to be properly defined before we can reason about them) His assumption was that he was an ego (the "I"). If he had properly depersonalized it, then his conclusion would have been the the usual proof of all existence: "Something <process>, therefore something exists."

I think he might have saved himself a lot of grief if he'd simply gone with proof by contradiction:

1) Assume nothing exists,
2) Then there are no assumptions. (else at least those would exist)
3) An assumption exists. (1)…contradiction (with (2))
4) Therefore something exists. Q.E.D.

Because he assumed his ego existed at the get-go, he really didn't prove anything, even to himself, because he didn't know what he really was…was he consciousness itself?…was he a collection of quarks? (unheard of at the time as you know)…Was he God?…Was he the entire universe?…How could he possibly know?

His fallacy stemmed from his from his belief that he had proved his existence at all (even to himself), because he didn't truly know who or what he was.

I guess I should clarify the ego thing. Ego is how we separate ourselves from the rest of the universe (we divide it into self and other). If the ego dissolves, there is no such distinction and (in line with Buddhist nirvana and the New Age schtick) we make ourselves "one with everything" (I usually hold the maya, I mean mayo). There was nothing derogatory in my reference to ego, it is only the way we identify ourselves (fallaciously?) as unique beings (unique existences). Descartes could have approached it that way and noted that if nothing else existed, something did and it happened to be him. (Now THAT's ego! LOL)

As it is (or was) , because he didn't know his true nature, he couldn't even prove his own existence to himself. Not gonna fault the guy…it was over 300 years ago and even today, nobody has been able to prove their own existence in the personal sense. (Leastways I can't)

In short nobody can prove their own personal existence because nobody knows what they are (see virtual universe thread).

I don't buy the proposition that Descartes was simply proving he existed to himself, because if that were the case he'd not have written about it at all, knowing it would be unprovable to everyone else. Was he expecting everyone to take his word for it?

I suppose it could be argued that his proof was a positive proof for existence, but there was no need to agonize the way he did over it. You can see by the simple 4 line proof above that the same thing can be accomplished far more easily in a proof by contradiction.

I'm of the opinion that consciousness is all that exists..."consciousness" sounds so much better than "stuff" or "energy", doncha think? I must say though, that I think "Love" is even better...God is Love is all that exists is the universe/multiverse...Yeah...I like that.

I totally agree, but there are a lot of misconstrued interpretations of the word "consciousness" and especially "Love."

Therefore the term "thinking stuff" makes sense to me and there is not much to misunderstand. What is "thinking stuff?" It is stuff that thinks.

What is a "thinking center?" It is an individual particle or quanta of thinking stuff.


But we are in agreement

Would science be a lot happier if they could say there was no such thing as consciousness?

Can you be sure if something is conscious our not?

What is consciousness? How can you measure it?

~~~~~~
An excellent question! This really strikes to the heart of what science is. Science, by its nature, assumes observation is reliable. However, it has long been known that this isn't the case. Hence, science commits the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent. (inductive reasoning) It's a quandry philosophers of science have struggled with forever.

Science, by its nature, does not assume anything, least of all that observation is reliable. Science insists on multiple repetitions of the same observation under the same circumstances, time and time again, before it makes a conclusion. And that conclusion is always subject to further observations that may be contradictory.

A logical fallacy is a term used in rhetoric. Science is not about rhetoric. It's about testing our perceptions of reality in a structured manner.

You don't have to know who you are in order to still know that you exist.

Your argument again is completely off. Is your name Andy from Jarvis Street?

"I don't buy the proposition that Descartes was simply proving he existed to himself, because if that were the case he'd not have written about it at all, knowing it would be unprovable to everyone else. Was he expecting everyone to take his word for it?"

His proof is valid for himself. He does not have to believe or act on a belief that he is the only one in existence. He is the only one proven to be in existence, but others may also exist, albeit only on a scale of probabilities.

You need to refine your conceptualization techniques.

Descartes proof, furthermore, is transferable to each individual for himself.

"Because he assumed his ego existed at the get-go, he really didn't prove anything"

This seems to be a recurrent theme in your criticism of Descartes' proof of his existence as a thinker.

That he started with the assumption that he existed.

Once more: Descartes did not start with that assumption.

He started, instead, with an observation, that he thinks thoughts.

This was the starting point of his proof, not his own existence. Please stop saying that Descartes' proof started with the assumption of his own exitence, if you want to appear as if you understand Descartes' proof.

Science is very much aware of the fact that consciousness is part of reality.

The reason scientists don't go further into the topic is that there is nowhere to go, after science accepts its existence.

Science accepts it, because there are definite and well-observed occurrances of evidence that consciousness in our each individual self exists. Beyond that science can't say anything, because there are no tests we can use to detect its existence elsewhere. We can infer that others have consciousness, because there is evidence that they do, such as their reactions to stimuli are the same as ours, such as they cry in pain, too, when they hit their thumb with a hammer by mistake.

However, despite a large and overwhelming amount of reasonable evidence that others have consciousness, it is impossible to sense that directly, and as consciousness by itself goes, we, as scientists, are reduced to give it a probability value when we talk about it in others.

The vexing part about it is that to us, to us each individually, our own consciousness is not a probability less than 1, but a certainty. And yet the same thing in others it is a probability less than 1.

So this gives rise to skepticism, whether consciousness really exists in others: humans, animals, plants, spirits, objects, concepts.

We as individuals and we as a species can't reliably decide that. Because the ratio of the porbability that our consciousness exist, compared to the probability that others' consciousnesses exist, is undefinable. We have no clue of its value, and never will.

He DID start with with an assumption that he existed. He presupposed the conclusion of his argument at the outset with his first premise, that he was thinking. This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." Obviously, if you start out assuming the truth of your first premise, you can logically conclude that the premise is true. His entire proof became nothing more than a tautology. While his conclusion says "I think therefore I am", it may just as easily have said "I am therefore I am.", or "I think, therefore I think."

If he really wanted to start from "ground zero", he should not have presumed the existence of ANYTHING.

It's my understanding that for some time after his "proof", the philosophers thought they'd worked out the "riddle of steel", but after awhile it dawned on them that he had begged the question and really hadn't proved anything. One could take the stance that many do, and consider the existence of personal perception as a priori proof of personal existence, and I suppose I do that myself, just as you do. We might say "personal perception exists. I'll call it 'me.' "…Please note that in doing so, we really aren't saying anything new; we are merely putting another label on the "something" that provably exists.

I have nothing but the greatest respect for Descartes. His brilliance as a mathematician is without question, and I suppose for the times, he was also a brilliant philosopher, but philosophy has moved on since he lived and it seems many people today still don't see the understandable flaws in his reasoning. His reputation precedes him and the man i the street sees only the conclusion of his personal existence proof and deems it a logically valid proof by a great philosopher.

If we are to be honest and intellectually vigilant, we ought never let our reverence for the giants of the past turn into argument by authority. Frankly, I think if René were alive today, he'd be the first to admit the fallacy of his proof and the first to caution everyone about accepting a proof based on the reputation or authority of its author.

WRT the consciousness thing:



Notwithstanding that it may be possible to directly sense the consciousness of "other", it is certainly possible to observe reactions that could only arise from conscious perception. What is really needed is a simple and universally accepted defnition of consciousness. This the researchers seem reluctant to do, presumably because of a desire to see consciousness in terms of our own, or at least the consciousness of what we call "living organisms." I feel this is a mistake loaded with confirmation bias.

I have a simple definition for consciousness and it is "awareness by information transfer across spacetime." Using this definition, one can see that an electron passing another electron from light years away is aware of (and reacting to) external information, thus demonstrating consciousness. (It is "conscious" of the other electron.)

If we see consciousness by this definition, we can clearly see that EVERYTHING is more or less conscious and the universe begins to resemble a (conscious?) giant brain, processing its own data.

I always begin with the assumption that I exist.

Then the questions remains.... what am I?

I believe that since consciousness is "one" (or at least certainly connected)-- in that it (existence and consciousness) seems to be all about information and energy exchange.

I believe that we are capable of sensing the consciousness of "other."

Mental telepathy, I believe is this connection although we, as humans have turned our attention away from it, I believe it still exists and we are capable of doing it.

In your definition of consciousness I would agree, but I don't think I would use the last three words "across spacetime" as spacetime itself is a projection (illusion) of consciousness.

I agree that everything is conscious.