Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I happen to be a believer in the observer-moment as fundamental, and the only thing one can be sure of from the first person perspective. "I think, therefore I am" is taking it too far in deducing the existence of an observer; "I think, therefore there is a thought" is all that I can be absolutely certain of.

Hi Stathis,

I also believe that the observer moment is fundamental, but I don't think there is anything wrong with "I think therefore I am" as long as this statement is taken as a definition of "being" rather than as an explanation: Look at it as  "I think, this means 'I am.' "

I you accept that the observer-moment is fundamental, and nothing else is, then "being" cannot be defined using any physical substrate since, at this point of the argument, physics has not been defined yet. You are left only with a definition of "being:" To be is to think. To paraphrase Erdos, "To be is to do math." ;-)


Reply via email to