"Isn't proof of existence outside the confines of ones own consciousness of more value?" Sometimes I wonder! I think this seemingly simple question could have an entire thread of it's own. Is not consciousness alone all the proof one needs?
On Aug 18, 11:32 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Aug 18, 5:40 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > wrote: ..." > > > I think the quote you may be reffering to was that made by Descartes > > which was"Je pense donce je suis" or "cogito ergo sum" in english "I > > think, therefore I am" > > Which is a valid statement and along the same philosophical lines. > > Is it really a valid statement? I know philosophically it is a time- > honored phrase going all the way back to the Greek "knowledge is > knowledge" by Plato and further expanded by Aristotle. But it reeks > of a circular argument to me. I think therefore I am. I am therefore > I think. It really seems to go nowhere. There must be better proofs > that one exists than I am. If it works at all, it only works within > the confines of one's own consciousness -- which may be all one needs > for proving one's own existence to oneself. However, that is also a > circular exercise that can only lead one back to oneself. > > Isn't proof of existence outside the confines of ones own > consciousness of more value? > > > Thought is a powerful tool and when coupled with belief it > > is a creative force. > > You'll get no argument from me on that statement. However, for that > creative force to be useful and relevant, it seems that it must > include others as well. Of what good is thought and creativity if it > is not shared with others? If a person is monastic in the extreme -- > a hermit with no contact whatsoever with anyone else -- of what good, > what use, what value, is that person's thoughts and creativity? > > > I see the reasoning behind the assertion of the > > intelligent design of the universe when looking at things through these > > glasses however rose colored they may be. > > Exactly. There is no evidence of intelligent design in the universe. > As far as science has been able to discern the universe is pure > evolution from the most primitive form of life to the most complex. > There is ample physical reason throughout evolution to conclude that > it did not need intelligence to begin nor to continue. There is no > more intelligent design to life than there is to gravity (the obvious > pun notwithstanding.)
