He does not doubt that he exists. From the second meditation: — Fooloso4

He briefly doubts his own existence, but then soon he realises that he thinks. He convinces himself that the fact that he thinks proves he exists. The truth is that he doubted his own existence in the beginning briefly.

you show that you do not understand him. He does not doubt his existence. That is the one thing he cannot doubt. That is his starting point. — Fooloso4

He doubted everything even his own existence. But he thought that cogito is the only thing that he cannot doubt. From Cogito, he induced his own existence. That is not quite logical.
He should have induced Cogito from the perception of his own living body.

What is the point? — Fooloso4

Doubting one's own existence is a self contradiction. One cannot doubt without the preexisting living bodily existence. Doubting one's own existence negates one's own sanity.

Nothing further to add at this point. — Wayfarer

It is unfortunate that the title of the OP "The Mind-Created World" gives impression, that you are not perceiving the world as is, but you are perceiving the world with your own added imagination and emotions which could distort the accuracy of your perception.

The world is not mind-created, but it is given as is to the mind. Mind must see the world as is without adding anything to it. Heidegger says, the world presents itself to us. We have no option but be presented with the world, and you must face the world without any added prejudice.

Ah yes, the fallacy of the familiar. Predictable. — LuckyR

What do you mean by this? It doesn't sound intelligible, relevant or meaningful for supporting your points. Could you further elaborate with some more detail?

You are mixing tenses. — Fooloso4

You are not understanding the past continuous tense was used specifically to indicate, the existence precedes doubting.

but this is not a good reason to misunderstand or misrepresent him, especially in cases where you are in agreement with him regarding the confirmation of your existence. — Fooloso4

You seem to be misunderstanding him blindly taking his side even the ambiguity of the claim is evident.
My point was existence precedes doubting and thinking, which is also supported by the phenomenologists and existentialists.

That is how some have interpreted the 'nesting' quality of Aristotle's description of 'places within places.' That interpretation, however, runs afoul of Aristotle saying 'place' is not a material or formal limit: — Paine

Aristotle's Topos has anything to do with Chora? What are the differences between Chora and Topos? Or are they related to each other?

That one is thinking and what is thought are not the same. He must exist in order to think. — Fooloso4

Is it not the case, that he must have existed in order to think? Existence is a precondition for thinking.
Thoughts without content are meaningless. All thoughts must have its contents or objects. When you say, a thinking being, it doesn't mean much without the knowledge of what the thinking is about. Without the content or object of the thought, Cogito is not saying much more than I dance, or I sing.

?
Isn't it a meaningless utterance? — Corvus
No. — Fooloso4

A person called "whoever" sounds still ambiguous.  Whoever doesn't seem to denote anyone.  It is not, I, you, he, she or they.  It is not everyone either.  Could it be no one?  Who is whoever?
"Whoever thinks, must exist."?    How do we know unknown beings be thinking? or existing?

In the second meditation Descartes says:
Well, then, what am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wants, refuses, and also imagines and senses. — Fooloso4

These are the operations of mind which are only possible under the precondition of the living bodily existence.

Several things:

First the overwhelming majority of theists dont "decide to take up a religion" in particular. Rather they are indoctrinated into the religion of their family from early childhood, no requirement to "read up" and study anything. What you're describing are what adult converts tend to do, but they make up a tiny fraction of the religious.

Second, even a simpleton knows that if you ask 10 members of a religion the details of their personal belief system, there will NOT be a universal concensus on codes of conduct, priciples and definitions of the qualities of their god. The beliefs of American Catholics on divorce and birth control are only the most obvious example of this reality. — LuckyR

My point was, for anyone to be able to engage in a logical proof of God, he / she must start with some sort of definition of God. I was expecting you to come up with your own definition of God, and premises for your own arguments for the proof of God.

Okay. Now, "what god"? All gods (that is all 10,000 of them). Are you limiting your discussion/understanding to a single god? How quaint. — LuckyR

If you insist going back to the times when there is no written records on the theistic studies, then it is not philosophical topic we would be discussing. It would be then shamanism, totems and superstitions you would be talking about. They are subjects for parapsychology, occultism, esotericism, anthropology or historical discussions at best.

There would be nothing for you to find there apart from the superstitious customs, and shamanic beliefs on the prehistorical hypotheses bereft of any meat for philosophical or logical discussions.

But the content of his thought is not relevant to his not being deceived about his existence. — Fooloso4

If the content of thought is empty or unknown, what meaning or relevance does the thought have with one's own existence on claiming cogito?

I meant to say whoever thinks. You asked:

Who is "whoever"? — Corvus — Fooloso4

Whoever is a name for nonexistence and unknown, hence meaningless.

in response to my saying:

whoever thinks, must exist, — Fooloso4 — Fooloso4

Isn't it a meaningless utterance?

Do you exist? Could you be mistaken or deceived about this? — Fooloso4

I do exist. But my existence is confirmed by my own sense perception of the world, the sensory perception of my own body and the actions I take according to my will. Not by cogito.

I am not advocating any of these beliefs. My point is simply that we cannot appeal to "science" as if the matter is settled or conclude that Descartes was ignorant of science because he argues that he is essentially a thinking thing. — Fooloso4

My point is simple. Cogito is logically not sound.

I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context. — Fooloso4

C J Jung says, sometimes we need to adopt the principle of enantiodromia on interpreting his writings.
In that case, war should be translated to peace, overman to underman or underdog etc. Will to power is very likely had been modified from original Will to Life by either Niezsche's sister (by request from the authority for her financial gains) or some other authority to justify the political situation later in the country after his death.

I ignore all these negative, controversial and blurry parts of his writings, and only focus on the positive, energetic, existential and metaphorical parts which reads refreshingly genius and powerful.

Okay, but I don't see the point. — Fooloso4

The point is even if you said, I think therefore I exist, it doesn't say anything about the content of your thought. It is just a linguistic expression. I wouldn't know what your true thoughts would be like.

Can you explain how someone can think but not exist? — Fooloso4

It is not about "can think but not exist", but it is about "must exist first before can think."

Anyone and everyone who exists. — Fooloso4

Whoever exists, exists is a tautology, therefore meaningless.

I don't see the connection with existence. — Fooloso4

If all thoughts are strictly private to the thinkers, then your cogito is just a solipsistic utterance to me. It doesn't give any meaningful knowledge to anyone else.

To the contrary, he was on the forefront of science. — Fooloso4

If that is the case, then he would have known the fact that he must have existed before thinking.

Descartes uses the terms soul and mind interchangeably. There are plenty of people who do not lack commonsense who believe in the soul exists apart from the body. — Fooloso4

He still must exist before thinking. The body must exist first before the mind can start operating.

I have ordered a copy of the Sallis book, Chorology. Will try have a read on the book, and do some studies on the concept. It seems a bit convoluted concept for sure.

A place is made of space with boundary around it, hence it sounds place is always artificial entity. Space is a natural and transcendent entity which covers the whole universe. Is space a matter? or is it non-matter? It looks space is not mental for sure, but is not matter either.

Matter has mass, but space doesn't have mass. So how had space been created, and started to exist in the universe?

Not f he reveals them of makes them public. — Fooloso4

How does one reveal one's own contents of thoughts, and make them public?
Linguistic expressions are not thoughts themselves.

Therefore your claim that whoever thinks, must exist, is false? — Corvus
I don't see how this follows. — Fooloso4

"Whoever thinks must exist" is a guess at best. It is not a logical statement. Who is "whoever"? All thoughts are private to the individual who thinks. One can only be conscious of one's own thinking. All others' thoughts could be communicated to the others via language. But language itself is not thoughts.

You asked about the scientific point of view, which is not the same as common sense knowledge. — Fooloso4

You sounded as if Descartes had no contemporary scientific knowledge at his life time, hence he could be excused making a nonsense claim. And my point to that was, that one's bodily existence is precondition to mental operations is not a contemporary science, but a very basic biological fact which could be even classed as a commonsense knowledge.

As to whether he first exists and only subsequently thinks, he rejects this. He exists as a thinking thing. As such, it makes no sense to separate his existing and this thinking. — Fooloso4

It would be absurd reject one's own bodily existence prior to thinking that one exists. Therefore cogito is not a sound statement. "I exist, therefore I think." is a valid and sound statement.

It does not entail that God thinks, but if God does think then God exists. — Fooloso4

But all thoughts are private to the thinker. I am only conscious of my thought, and you would be, I reckon, too. If God thinks, is the same category of inference to If you think, If she think, or if they think, then they must exist. What makes "If you think, then you exist" more probable than "if God thinks, God exists"?

No doubt that if Descartes has the benefit of contemporary science some of his views would change. — Fooloso4

Would you not agree it is a commonsense knowledge rather than a contemporary Science? Even ancient Greeks would have known about it.

Whoever thinks, whoever doubts, whoever is subject to deception much exist.

Does it entail then,
God thinks (doubts), therefore God exists?

No.I must exist in order to have sensory perception. He does not doubt that he senses. What he doubts is the judgment that what he senses corresponds to anything outside his mind. — Fooloso4

But that is not the case from the scientific point of view. I must exist first before I am able to think, or sense the world.  These are the biological facts. Remember when you were born?  You didn't know anything, and you didn't think anything. You didn't know any language, so didn't speak anything intelligible.  Your mind was a blank sheet of paper (by metaphor). Then you grew up picking up the ability to speak, see, think .... etc etc?

You have existed without having to think that you think.

One must exist in order to think the negation of existence. — Fooloso4

But the simple logical reflection seems to suggest otherwise.

If I think, then I exist.
I think
Therefore I exist. (Valid and ambiguous)

Cogito must have been induced from the MP above which looks valid. But when you try negating the premise,

If I don't think, then I don't exist.
I don't think
Therefore I don't exist. (Valid but definitely unsound)

I don't exist is untrue (not from cogito, but from my sensory perception), therefore it implies cogito is untrue as well. Agree?

His prose is Lutherian. Maybe it was a dig at Luther, but maybe he thought such prose was a way to appeal to the masses.

I like what he says about the State in this one. — NOS4A2

Me too. Just found an old HB copy of TSZ, and read some pages which were very interesting.

what is the unwarranted conclusion? — Fooloso4

Is "I" extendable to other subjects such as he, she, you, it or they? Or is cogito strictly to "I" only? If it does, then could you say, "He thinks therefore he exists", or "It thinks, therefore it exists."?

If it is only for "I", then wouldn't it be just a solipsistic utterance? — Corvus

Just realised that you have not answered to this question. What's your thought on this point?

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin: — night912

It made my proof more probable, so it is very relevant. Remember no proof is 100% true especially when it is about the existence of God. If the proof collects more evidence from the popular main religious holy scriptures supporting its conclusion, then it is relevant.

You should make statements on these points with solid logical or evidential arguments. You cannot say the proof or points in the proof or other people's arguments are wrong, irrelevant or red herring, when you don't have any reason or ground in saying so. It will look as if you are blurting out your emotional state rather than making philosophical statements.

I have been making this same point to @Amad in the other thread, when he kept coming back and saying my point is just wrong and not supported without giving out his reasons, grounds or arguments why it is wrong and not supported.

:up: Good answers. Thank you.

Whoever thinks, whoever doubts, whoever is subject to deception much exist. — Fooloso4

I doubt that I exist, therefore I exist.
Doubting can also deny own existence, and when it does, it falls into a contradiction. And there is no rule, doubts cannot doubt its own existence or the acting of doubting.

As I understand it, doubting entails existence. Existing is a necessary condition for doubting. — Fooloso4

Thought and doubt have their objects or contents in their operation. The content or object could be anything. What if, the content of the thought was the negation of existence?

I think I don't exist, therefore I exist.
Wouldn't it be a contradiction in that case?

what is the unwarranted conclusion? — Fooloso4

I recall debating on cogito some while ago. My point was cogito has some ambiguous parts. For example, when you say, I think therefore I am. Does it mean if you think, then does it automatically warrant existence? Where does that transition (from think to existence) come from?

Is "I" extendable to other subjects such as he, she, you, it or they? Or is cogito strictly to "I" only? If it does, then could you say, "He thinks therefore he exists", or "It thinks, therefore it exists."?

If it is only for "I", then wouldn't it be just a solipsistic utterance?

I am not going to engage further, because the underlined is utterly ridiculous. — AmadeusD

It was just a metaphor or a literary expression. I hope you didn't misunderstand the expression was a statement against you.

Well, I was just suggesting you to bring more philosophical arguments rather than sounding like a court injunction with ad hominem. But obviously you seem to have taken the suggestion too personally. Not a problem. All the best.

Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. — night912

Why is it irrelevant?

What makes the passage from Physics even more convoluted is that Aristotle is not actually agreeing with the view he ascribes to Plato regarding whether 'place' belongs to a being as its form and matter do: — Paine

:up: I find this an interesting topic. Chora is a new concept to me. It sounds abstract and daunting to understand the concept due to all the background situation with Timaeus. However, it certainly is one of the interesting topic in the ancient Greek philosophy.

This is why Plato, in the Timaeus, identifies, a ‘matter’ and ‘room,’ because ‘room’ and ‘the receptive-of-determination’ are one and the same thing. His account of the ‘receptive’ differs in the Timaeus and in what are known as his Unwritten Teachings, but he is consistent in asserting the identity of ‘place’ (τόπον) and ‘room.’(χώραν) Thus, whereas everyone asserts the reality of ‘place,’ only Plato has so much as attempted to tell us what it is. — Aristotle, Physics, 209a, translated by Wicksteed and Cornford

I was doing a quick reasoning on space, and noticed that space contains matter, but matter also contains space.

Notice most of the spaces perceptible are actually contained in the matter? e.g. the space in the boxes, rooms, houses, airplanes, cars, ships, pubs, in the lunch boxes, bags ..... etc. Therefore could it be the case the open space into the sky and to the whole universe could be contained in some gigantic matter? Could the matter which contains the whole universe be then, the Chora?

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d". — night912

So what is the part of the proof you didn't understand? Please explain your points on which point of the proof was not making sense to you providing some details and examples related to the points, and I will try to explain with more depth.

Not quite. What you described is not the nature of a law but, rather, how we pragmatically determine what we think is a law. — Bob Ross

I disagree with all of your points, but I am not going to try to change your views. It would be futile and fruitless endeavor trying to do so, because you don't sound like you would change your views no matter what the objective truths are on these points. So we agree to disagree on the points, and carry on with the journey of life on this earth. Life is too short for everyone on the earth no matter wherever they are, and whoever they are, and there are a lot to catch up in the readings and reasoning exercises ahead. Thank you for your interaction with the points. :)

E.g., one cannot decide to do something through reason without deploying principles reason (no matter how poorly deployed it may be). — Bob Ross

This sounds circular. You are deciding something through reason but you also deploy principle reason? It sounds ambiguous and tautology.

Many believe that human reasoning is just a nature for its survival. Deployment of principles reason? Is it not natural capacity which evolved for thousands of years via the history of human survival, civilization and evolution?

The brain, however, is constrained by natural laws. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate more on the detail and ground for the statement? Does everyone's brain then all works exactly the same way to each other when confronted an event?

Sure. We have evidence to support that there is randomness in reality—how does that negate the OP? — Bob Ross

Law means it works 100% as laid out without fail. If there was 1 fail out of billions of events, then it is not a law. It then is a rule.

Is any law transcendent? In what sense? All laws are the product of human reasoning. Reality don't care about laws, or even be aware of laws. They just operate as they have done for millions of years. There is no guarantee that reality might operate totally different tomorrow from your expectation.

Change is not per se an example of randomness: the weather changing changes according to natural laws. — Bob Ross

They say that the weather changes has been much more unpredictable recent times, so it is harder to predict the weather effects. And there are the other natural phenomenon such as volcano eruptions, hurricanes and earth quakes etc. You cannot predict the date, time and location of these phenomenon, and how they would unfold themselves on the earth by some law.

However, that doesn't mean that one is obligated to do so. Please input into this conversation with your own takes. — Hyper

Good brings happiness. Bad and evil brings unhappiness. Doing good feels good and makes one happy. If happiness is the purpose of life, doing good makes sense. Because doing good brings happiness.

Doing good out of obligation can be good, but it doesn't always bring happiness. Doing good because it is good thing to do brings happiness.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

In the Christian bible, God is also depicted as "Almighty" in various parts. It proves the concept of God has been linked with the property of omnipotence from the ancient times. Not relatively recently.

The OP is about a law which pertains to reality as it were in-itself—i.e., a transcendent law. — Bob Ross

I am not sure if reality works from a law. There are certainly observable and provable regularities in reality. However, there are also huge part of its operation which are random and chaos e.g. the weather changes, some part of human behavior and psychology and some of the principles in QM etc.

You've responded in bad faith. That's to an extremely unfair version of what I've done/said. I pointed out to you that I see a need to communicate in a certain way because you are not understanding certain things (by your own admission), and that I don't actually think this reflects on you, and apologised ahead of time for how that may come across. I reject entirely your statement there and it seems to me that perhaps you are playing the man. Onward.. — AmadeusD

It sounds like a court or legal document rather than philosophical argument. I am not sure why anyone needs to read ad hominem filled with the groundless accusatory blames.

You should probably read an entire post before responding. This looks, sorry to say, utterly preposterous now, given the below failures. — AmadeusD

If you just write on the topic in the discussions faithfully based on reasoning, then you would have more chance of understanding the points.

This is an assertion to the contrary of your supporting point. That is an argument in response to a bare assertion that was obviously wrong. — AmadeusD

From the Phenomenological point, your whole body is the sensory organ. Even the Psychologist William James supports the point, but especially Samuel Todes and Hubert L. Dreyfus suggest the point as well in the book "Body and World".

Obviously you seem have read none of phenomenology, and just have the narrow view on perception believing that perception only works via seeing something.

I have given out a simple example with folks being able to tell rough time via feeling hunger pain when it is lunch time to suggest that your whole body is the sensory organ for your perception, and perception works with the whole of your body e.g. the skin feels hot and cold of the external temperature, as well as pains, itches.

Your stomach sends the neurological signal to your brain for its emptiness when it is time for the next meal, and brain can tell it is lunch or dinner time.

It is not just time which can be perceived via the bodily organs, but also space as well. If you put your hand into a hole, you can feel, and perceive the space in the hole. You don't need to see the emptiness of the space to feel, notice or perceive its existence. These were just simple examples of bodily perception which takes place via the bodily parts rather than just eyes and ears, which you seem to restrict yourself in understanding the way perception works.

It is, and your assertion otherwise is not credible. YOU need to do the work to give it credibility. That isn't my job in responding to you. — AmadeusD

It was such simple and clear examples with no much depth on its claim, hence if you extended your imagination and reasoning a little more, I would have thought you would understand and resonate what it meant.

It seems you're just ignoring most of what's being said. I am sorry if I have been genuinely unclear, but having used my own words without any addition to clarify in the above passages, I am extremely reticent to think that is the case. — AmadeusD

If you could be conscious of your writing style avoiding to sound like court or legal document, or a frustrated grumpy old folk telling off someone insisting the points are wrong or not supported without providing any reasons or ground, but just concentrate on giving out the philosophical arguments which clarify your points and grounds for your claims, then it would help coming to the conclusions and mutual agreements on the points.

I said this, particular argument, does not support your point. You claimed somehow the onus was on me to show that. It isn't. But neverhteless..

You then extended the charge to your entire post (which is silly, because I responded to other parts of it discreetly). I pointed out that I don't have to explain myself in pointing out your passage does not support your point. I see you to be now probably understand this could be the case, and want to know what you've missed. That's fair. But the onus isn't on me. I hope the below helps.. — AmadeusD

Here again, you fail to explain why the examples don't support my point, but just keep repeating yourself that it doesn't support, and the onus isn't on you. I only asked to explain, because you claimed that those examples don't support my point. I wouldn't have asked you to explain, if you hadn't made the claim. It was just the way of the interaction. I was not demanding impossible tasks from you.

You do not 'perceive time' by being hungry. You then claimed you could go on to a plethora of examples (if they're similar, please don't). But then did not give any at all... So, patently nothing here supports your contention that there are 'different types' of perception, or that 'time' is perceived by the stomach. It isn't. At all. In any way. Even on your point (which I said, I got) this makes no sense whatsoever. You need to perceive sensory data from your stomach. You perceive hunger pangs. You infer it must be lunch time (based on several other, very important, connected perceptions). That is not a perception, or a form of perception. You are leapfrogging and pretending the gap isn't there, best I can tell. — AmadeusD

Here, your arguments are just repeated negations instead of arguing why the examples don't support my point. I am still not seeing your argument, why those examples are not the type of perception.

Further in support of why the above (your passage) might make sense, you're maintaining that because we have 'different types' of perception, that some are direct and some indirect. Unfortunately, this is really hard to respond to because it is, on it's face, ridiculous, and on inspection risible. Given that hte only example you have provided is obviously wrong, I don't think there's any space to push this back on me. There is a huge amount of work to be done, and I'm not seeing any of it. The distinction, theoretically, between IRists and DRists is clear, and not something that can be read-across by just assigning labels to things that don't come under those descriptions. — AmadeusD

I was not pushing the points to you, but just telling you my opinion on the IR DRists arguments, because from my point of view, there are different type of perceptual situations, objects, modes and the way perception works for us. It is pointless to stipulate that perception works only for one way i.e. either IR or DR, because it is not the case when one reflects on the workings and the various different types of objects in the world we perceive.

So, no you are still not even one step closer to offering me a worthwhile counter argument against my point. As before you just repeated the groundless negations on my point with the ad hominem. I thought there might be some interesting counter arguments from your end this time, but it didn't take me even a minute to find out it is not the case.

I am sorry if this comes off rude, but It feels like I have to explain this like you're a child (i really do not feel that you are, I just can't figure out what's being missed). — AmadeusD

Well, you are forgiven for going into Ad Hominem before even beginning your counter argument. I don't feel it is necessary in any decent philosophical discussions. Discussions can be undertaken without throwing yourself into the muddy dirt of getting into Ad Hominem, but some folks just can't help doing it as some sort of naughty juvenile habit.

I will go over your points, and will get back to them when I have some free time.

I really don't, though. You have an argument which, on my view, does not support your point. You're asking me to 'prove a negative' as it were. That wont be doable, even if you want it to be. — AmadeusD

What are they? Exactly where do you mean? The OP and many of my posts are exploratory on the topic i.e. trying to learn about the topic and concepts, not really claiming one particular point. But now you say my arguments don't support my point. What was my point, and which of my argument did not support the point? and Why?

The evidence of this is by your demonstration, differentiating between "God" and "the word God." So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring. — night912

There are many passages in the Bible suggesting the God is the word, which seem to be paralleling and echoing to my proof.

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

Revelation 19:16: The Word is named "King of kings and Lord of lords"

Psalm 19:14 NASB
Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my rock and my Redeemer.

Hebrews 11:3
"God spoke the world into being by the power of His words"