On 8/18/2010 11:32 AM, gruff 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?
I'll take a crack at it: We are something, sentient and intelligent. We
exist by the same measure, as we perceive it, as the world(s) we inhabit
through our innate senses. The heuristic beauty of our intelligence
endows us with the ability to expose and inspect our world while at the
same time reflecting upon it and ourselves. By any standard, one
certainly exists (or at least I do), and by the force of sheer
statistics it is reasonable to assume everything and everyone does as
well. If there is a greater standard by which we do not exist it is
alien to logic or reason and perhaps irrelevant or as philosophy of
science would say, 'uninteresting'. Or another way, it is as relevant to
us as we are to it, (at least/) as we are here.
We measure this world and bend it to the phenomenon we call our will.
The theist calls the salad 'God', the naturalist calls it the 'Cosmos',
the pantheist might pick either or both. That's not authoritative :).
I think this reevaluation of terms could translate well between a couple
of the different positions presented thus far:
pupose = function : (source: a friend), a systematic-type pragmatism
of temporal matters
intelligence = capacity : radical materialism, all things on varying
spectrum of intelligence
intelligence != consciousness : that is 'does not equal', obviously
considering #2 lest we get into radical intelligence, ergo pantheism.
I prefer panpsychism myself (aka 'radical materislism' on a purely
information plane), but it depends on mood so I might drift between it
and pantheism (experiential plane) or somewhere else outside those
definitions. {chuckles} I've been thinking about hijacking ID and making
a new Super-ID, tagline: 'If you can't tell the difference between the
two domains that makes two of us'. I am happy you stayed this time
Gruff, it is a pleasure.
Best Regards,
Ash
