I understand what you're saying. Fair point indeed.

Allow me to clarify. We cannot conceive "accurately" of a "state of inconceivabilty." We can conceive of it for sure. But that isn't to say the conception reflects the true state (ie accuracy). The conception is instead very much shy of the actual state.

In the same way we cannot experience the state of "non-experience" or lack-thereof. We can estimate it from the bias of consciousness. But consciousness (the conceiver) cannot experience the unconscious (inconceived) directly. It can merely imagine the idea of it.

A conscious being is both a "conceiver" and an "experiencer". The difference is that a conception is fictional or constructed/imaginary/not actual whilst an experience is something "actual" or "real".

At least by what I understand.

Can one "experience conception". Yes. They can experience imagination. That isn't to say the experienced (imagination) is the same/as concrete as the experience (something grounded/realised by the self).

In essence, is someone who rapes a virtual character knowing there's no consequences, as moral as one that doesn't rape a virtual character knowing there are no consequences. I would say no. As why, do they wish to express rape in any virtual/simulated form in the first place when others cringe at/detest or avoid the idea?

my opinion is that an act can be expressed or suppressed/buried.

Expressing it towards a fake or simulated being/simulation is worse than never needing to/never conceiving of it/expressing it in any way in the first place, but is better than doing it to a real life victim.

So murdering, raping, or being pedophilic towards a virtual character reflects our "virtual or imagined" desires, and is explored without repercussions in the virtual/gaming world where we have no consequences. That doesn't mean the desire to do such is not there (which is an inherent potential to do harm). It just means that inherent potential to harm is expressed through an unharmful conduit.

The question is does the conduit satisfy curiosity and abate the need to do it in real life, or does it further promote/encourage harm to be committed IRL. I think that depends on each individual and their ability to set boundaries.

so long as time passes, there is knowledge of it to be had: ever moment, ever temporal event has new knowledge as it evolves from whence it came - the past.

And I think many would agree that rocks and other inanimate objects are also in a "state with no consciousness — Luke

This is human consciousness dependent. As in determining the consciousness of something based on the state of human consciousness. Hypothetically, if a rock had a very basic consciousness, it would likely be unprovable by human standards/degree of qualification of what consciousness constitutes.

We believe consciousness of primates and dogs for example to be more than that of plants and fungi, and that to be more than that of bacteria, and that of bacteria to be more than that of inorganics or rocks for example. We measure consciousness in its similarity to us (Human-centric consciousness criterion).

But there is no clear cutoff between something that is living and something that is unliving. That boundary is grey as viruses demonstrate. Neither officially living, nor officially dead.

For me consciousness is a steady and gradual emergence in parallel to complexity and degree of control of the agent (beholder of consciousness).

Surely you can imagine a state with no consciousness, at least in other people and objects, and perhaps even a state of the universe at a particular time. — Luke

I can imagine it yes (construct a basic simulation or imagine it, make an analogy), I cannot however experience it. Conscious beings cannot "experience unconsciousness" as it is the lack of experience.

I reflect on actions I take sometimes to see if they are consistent with my beliefs and practices, but I don't get too preoccupied by this. I am a pragmatist (in the non-philosophical sense). — Tom Storm

Would you say then that you're more of a realist? Pragmatism and realism being highly inter-related. Idealism and imagination on the other hand being a whole scope of interest where pragmatics take a secondary role.

I agree. Love is like some psychological gravity. The gravity between minds. Am attraction between beings which is objectively irrational, but intimately/subjectively rational: between the two involved with one another, the two that found innate chemistry and attraction between them.

bravo 180 Proof. I thoroughly enjoyed your contributions here. Very apt indeed!

Love it seems is all that is left when all rational arguments not to are acknowledged/considered, and subsequently ignored regardless. Haha!

In other words… to forbid the confusing madness of love is to open the gates to literal and explosive insanity. — 0 thru 9

I agree. Which is why I believe love is such a large topic of expression in art, literature, media and music. They are outlets for the frustrations, laments and irreconcilablilities (irrationality) of love.

The objects of love are flawed. As flaw is an inherent feature of human condition. Loving an imperfect thing, despite their repeated failings, as well as accepting love (despite your own repeated failings) appears irrational, but feels for lack of better words "so right".

More simply, I can conceive of a point in time before there was any life or conscious beings in the universe. — Luke

How can one that conceives, truly conceive of a state of non-conceivability (ie. a state with no consciousness).

That's like "something" trying to conceive of true absolute "nothingness." It's impossible. As the process of conceiving as well as the conception itself are both "something."

You may be able to conceive of a time before conceptions (consciousness and it's thoughts/concepts) but it would be a very inaccurate and biased one.

Biased toward something trying conceptualise a state it can never be by virtue of the fact it can conceive in the first place.

Consciousness cannot know the lack of it. Again, as "knowing" is a process of the conscious.

Most probably because such questions were not raised at that time. See, there was no Internet and philosophical forums at that time, were people could doubt and ask questions about such pholosophical statements! — Alkis Piskas

True. It would have been a time where Descartes mindframe was less common. Not as much of the population was privy to such contemplations, nor at the level of communication of ideas, and ability to argue rationally from education. Many would have been preoccupied with baser needs for survival than philosophising.

Let's not forget "absence seizures" which are pathologies where one becomes unaware of anything external (ie with lost time/no recollection) in that moment. They aren't even aware of any blip or absence in the continuity of their experience.

So between those seizures, comas, hypothermia, deep intoxication, dreamless sleep, extreme distraction or catatonia and blackouts or maybe dementia, it certainly seems to suggest that being continues whether one is aware at all times or not.

So being conscious is at most neccesary for one to affirm they exist. But being unconscious, whilst not enough for one to affirm they are aware, is enough for everyone esle to affrim that they are alive and exist. And if they wake up, is ksot time for them but not lost being - as others can account.

Consider what it would mean to say that there is no experiential dimension. Unless that possibility is conceivable, then the hard problem isn't conceivable — sime

Can you really conceive an absence of experience? — sime

Dreamless sleep. A time in ones being, where there was no awareness of such. But one wakes up, and continues to experience, despite the lost time.

Perhaps the same in a coma. I'm less sure of that as I have had Dreamless sleep but never been in a coma.

Experts in meditation claim total absence of thought during trance. Again I cannot verify. But it seems possible to continue exist without directly experiencing that existence in a given moment of time. Ie to have "blackouts" or lost time. The failure or purposeful pause of memory.

For me jokes/ humour relies on purposeful misinterpretation/taking things out of common sense context:

Usually by taking the figurative/ common sense and making it highly literal and rational (often at the expense of obvious moral/ethical consideration) which leads to "Dark/twisted humour" as in the sense of the the following example 1:

Example 1 - "Light a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night, light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

It's correct rationally, but horrific ethically, and that discrepancy leads to the shock factor and humour.

Example 2 - My doctor told me to "cut my alcohol intake", snips scissors through flow of wine before drinking. I don't know how it'll help but Doc said to "cut it" so.

Idiocy or stupidity of interpretation, daftness, is amusing for those that acknowledge how it should obviously be interpreted.

Missing the point, or pointing out other logical aspects of a statement that aren't inherently thr purpose of the statement is also funny:

Maths problems: if jenny has 64 chocolates and eats 42 of then what does she have now?
Ans: diabetes. Jenny has diabetes.

Or "if John has 6 apples in one hand and 9 apples in the other, what does John have?
Ans: freakishly huge hands.

It's sensible but misses the point/context.

I think all humour depends on this misinterpretation. Which is "dry wit" - cutting down to the simple/logical (sharp/witty) but dry (without common sense). It is blunt, ironic, emotionless, apparently unintentional and slapstick.

Of course it is intentional as if it wasn't intentional it would be psychopathic. And not so funny then.

true. I agree we should never replace "reals" with "ideals" as ideals are restrictive and inflexible. Perfectionism in an imperfect world. That can certainly do more harm than good if it creates self-righteous arrogance and intolerance.

However I also think "reals"or realism ought to never lose sight of what is ideal or at least" something better" to strive for. Because if we stop striving, we simply reduce ourselves to the least ideal reality possible - barbarianism.

I think cannabis like all drugs should be legal, in the sense that the usage/consumption of all addictive substances is inevitable regardless of law and should not be considered a crime, but rather something that is highly regulated, anti-campaigned, taxed, and "if abused" to a point of impairing life functionality/ health, requires rehab, psychological support and re-education, for which the tax revenue can be invested.

Imprisoning users does nothing to help their dependence. That's basic empathy.

Is it [ethics] pseudoscience? I
No. It's philosophy — 180 Proof

Agreed. However how then is there an "opposite to science".

The opposite" of science is pseudoscience. As Banno more bluntly alludes to ... — 180 Proof

For me its not "science or..." but rather "science and..." which goes to make the myriad healthy selection (multiple and equal) tools we have to understand nature and ourselves.

For me the term "pseudoscience" is a fancy way of disregarding/dismissing or making inferior or supposedly obsolete all other pursuits outside the realm of science, philosophy ofc being one of them.

Science has such a high regard for itself at this point that I wonder if its not already stepping beyond it's bounds/purview, ie being used as a devisive tool to manipulate, intimidate or impose on equally noble and important pursuits, reflected by the use of the term "scientists say" to establish "gospel-level authority" on any subject.

I find that profoundly ironic.

The full circle doth really come about.

I have no objections to scientific endeavour. It is wonderful, within reason. And has garnered society with all sorts of insights, tech, innovations, inventions and luxuries. But I do believe it fuels itself off its own previous merit, and is beginning to see no bounds in its scope, when really it is not all knowing, but rather "objectively knowing", subjective intuitions, emotions, feelings as well as ethical consideration, freedom of belief and freedom of speech and personal insights/wisdoms removed.

Spirituality as a conception from innate observation (individual observations, intuitions and understandings) has always had a place in human history. I fear the day it does not.

Balance = everything. (Objective and subjective inclusive.)

Karma is a judger of good versus bad behavior or thought? Is karma a sentient being that decides what our conduct was and what is prescribed? Or is karma not conscious? — TiredThinker

Karma is a process that corrects imbalances. Karmic injustice being the imbalance of "natural justice" (justice according to mother nature, or "equilibrium").

Not "human injustice" - which may or may not reflect natural injustice to any nth degree, depending on the individual asked.

Thus karma, works in favour of those who already pursue, follow, are guided by, or are already contentedly abiding by nature's design/rule/laws.

Karma does not work in favour of those that ignore, resent it, try to overpower the natural laws of nature in favour of self.

Karma operates on ecosystems, checks and balances. Watch any David Attenborough or national geographic documentary and you will see Karma's set up in action.

Artificial constructs, as it stands, are in part natural and already abiding by natural law, and are in part, selectively deaf, cherry picking and falsely constructed against what nature outlines.

Case in point: when we favour human values like luxury, possession, unchecked consumption and dominance in favour of what nature demonstrates - balance, ecosystem, give and take, subservience to the greater good (that which also benefits other living things), then we are in collective karmic imbalance.

Climate change, is such retribution for that ignorance.
And the irony is we can self correct in plenty/due time and all will be fine, or we can opt to continue to ignore mother nature until her scorn (corrective karma) reaches such fever pitch (heat) as to actively prevent us from ignoring her further, to a point of life or death. This is logical no?

Karma is newton's third law: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Ie everything enjoys stability at equilibrium. When forced out of equilibrium, all we can expect is instability and chaos as the system naturally tries to re-correct, and more importantly, certainly will, as the system is much larger and more powerful than us.

The opposite" of science is pseudoscience. As Banno more bluntly alludes to ... — 180 Proof

Where does ethics fall into this? Is it pseudoscience? I certainly can't conceive of how science proves an objective ethics, or much ethics at all for that matter. Other than the knowledge one can use ethically... Or not (cough* nuclear bomb* cough).

And yet somehow, ethics dictates (thankfully so) what science experiments are permissable and what ones are outright savage.

I would not go as far as to frame "all else" in reference to science as "pseudoscience". Be careful here, science is a tool, not the be-all-and-end-all of the human condition and experience.

Spirituality, moral compass, conscience and/or innate intuition serves (if not dogmatic religion, agreed) as a neccesary and important interlocutor to "total free and un-moderated scientific pursuit - the likes of testing on others without their consent for example.

Religious thinking is always hierarchical thinking.
— Janus — Wayfarer

Education is also hierarchal thinking. Democracy is also hierarchal thinking, communism too, and the great pyramids in their embodied structure/architecture. And the act of prioritisation, value and importance: fundamentals vs. trivialities.

Hierarchy is in this sense framing or associating things and their relationships in a logical/rational way - structured in sets and subsets. Like taxonomy.
Ie "knowing" of how reality is from the perception of one's internal/mental paradigm.

It seems all awareness of anything external or conceptual: be it religion, science or otherwise, relies on a hierarchical framework with "I am" as a singular, base element.

Every question posited about reality: the "who, what, where, when, why, how" is both relative to the self and established as a hierarchy of value, importance etc to self. The asker/ questioner - The floor of the hierarchy of information and knowledge.

Something fundamental and undoubtable - a rock from which to speculate on the correct or appropriate arrangement of all other things and ideas, is the self. Being.

Do you believe that Descartes wouldn't have thought of the possible circularity of this statement, e.g. "I am, therefore I think"? Even a child can think of that. — Alkis Piskas

Of course I can conceive that he considered this. The only thing I don't understand is why, having considered that, and it's circularity, it did not lead him to a further reduction based on skepticism to the simpler statement "I am".

He could have doubted that "thinking" exists, no? Why stop at 2 things or phenomena to contend with: "thinking" and "being". When for me at least, it seems logical that "being" suffices as a standalone that cannot be doubted (an act of thinking, ironically, and rather humorously). If doubting (thinking skeptically) about ones being really did exist, ie if thinking truly exists as a distinct separate to simple "being", then doubting one exists would naturally lead to one not existing. Unless that is, "being" is more fundamental (less doubtful) than the ability to think.

Can one exist without thinking? I would imagine so, or else dreamless sleep would be ultimate death. As might deep and silent meditation.

like my dog being unable to understand even the elementary aspects of calculus? — jgill

Is calculus not something that in simple terms, deals with "change"? Or the summation of minute differences/variances.

I think that is likely one of many innate function of a brain no? In constructing a sense of variance or change in its perceived environment. Internal inbuilt calculus. I don't see why a dog cannot perceive small differences in what it observes from moment to moment or between two bowls of a different volume of food for example.

I for one certainly don't underestimate the intelligence of man's best friend.

It’s a low-effort OP, a casual undeveloped thought that popped into your head. You’ve been told about this before. — Jamal

That's a shame. I quite enjoyed it/ thought it was well thought out and interesting.

I'm not one for maths but that appears to already be a majority vote (2 against 1 - at least).

What harm is there in allowing threads to be determined underdeveloped or otherwise by the general forum instead of making that determination as a singular person - all bias, subjectivity and personal perceptions considered?

Are we not all here to listen, discuss and learn from one another?

If there were an all-knowing and all-powerful god would there be any real difference between if they started the universe with initial conditions and did nothing afterwards versus micromanaging in real time? — TiredThinker

In order to be all knowing, one has to be everywhere, ones presence has to directly encounter/ keep tabs on all data/information/interaction as they happen.
In order to be all powerful, ones potency must stretch to all places and things "doing work" (potency). Energy cannot be separated from itself/in isolated pockets (absolute zero/absence of energy cannot be reached in any location). Nor can information as all existants are inextricably linked by information - regarding distance, composition, rate of change with respect to one another etc.

So an all knowing all powerful (and all present god), would parallel essentially with our definition of the uni-verse as it is (the set of all energy "potence" , all knowledge/ omniscience or "all information" , and all space or "presence").

In conclusion, such a God wouldn't be separable from creation/the created. It would be a part of it, no, all of it.

I can't conceive how a God could be "outside" everything, or existing beyond the universe (everything). Because if it did, then the universe would not contain everything, and thus not be the "universe" or "one-ness". God would be subtracted for some reason. For me it makes sense that they are one and the same.

This is the issue with personifying, anthropomorphising or in simple terms "objectifying" something that is all objects and the space between them.

So it wouldn't make sense to refer to initial conditions and in time micromanagement as being isolated phenomenon without overlap.

It micro manages at the micro scale, and is initial, fundamental or a basic set of general principles, conditions, laws, rules or constants at the macroscopic scale. Trickling down, or up, however you perceive it.

Which makes sense due to the peculiar random and uncertain behaviour of the quantum verses the relatively consistent and general behaviour of the newtonian and Einsteinian at larger scales of scope/broadness of magnitude.

As for the man who's kid died in a sexual reassignment surgery.

Perhaps one ought to ask him alternative prompts for consideration such as, do all surgeries not pose some degree of risk to ones health and life? Is transgenderism the same as homosexuality? (ie are homosexuals directly accountable for transgender issues - not being trans themselves). Were any of these gay patrons at the bar directly aware of the existence of his son, had any of them directly influenced the child's decision? And finally, is it possible that had the surgery gone successfully, the child would have been truly happy or felt who they truly were meant to be?

Of course asking such questions when one is in an intense state of anger and grief, fuelled on an emotional level, might not be likely to be absorbed or considered in that moment.

So it is indeed a delicate situation.
(not to mention the fact that children usually require permission by both psychologists, psychiatrists, surgeons and parents alike to make such a decision to sexually reassign.

So in any case it is likely the direct responsibility of any one group or individual? Or instead the collective of many.

It is terribly upsetting indeed, but applying blame to some specific target person or group (a scapegoat) not to mention threatening violence, is hardly going to be the rational nor ethical approach. And only escalates to further spreading the devastation, anger and possibly hatred to more families and innocent parties.

The man I would say needs intense level of support - therapy, grief councelling, thorough re-education of the situation to steer him away from doing something he may regret based on personal bias/perceptions or prejudice.

I believe what you are describing is something known as "cognitive bias".

Satistically, there are lifestyles, sets of conditions or a particular sequence of events that occur in which a person can determine "personal truths" based on "personal experience" and the experience of their immediate associates (which also experience the same or similar life circumstances that lead to similar or the same natural conclusions).

This bias is innate to subjectivity.

A young, white, western (typically capitalist and democratic) male with say christian societal background is cognitively biased in a very different way to an elderly African woman, with Islamic faith, and a strong communal driven ubringing.

Both of them have individual and unique understandings of reality. Often at times in contradiction to one another's values perhaps. And at others, in alignment.

So what "truth" is universal and objective in a world full of subjects (biased towards unique individual perceptions of the world)?

The ideal objective truth seeker, is someone who can experience all experiences, from the point of view of all "experiencers" and establish truth based on non-contradiction between such views.
Of course that is not humanly possible.

So the best tools we have to find fundamental facts and truths that apply to all people, everywhere, regardless of their subjective bias, is through rigorous well balanced logic and reasoning (science), as well as introspection, empathy and intuition (ethics, philosophy etc). We cannot walk in one another's shoes, thus empathy allos us to at least psychological imagine what it is like to walk in them.

If someone reads about "physics made me do it" and then goes on to behave in all sorts of desperately selfish or immoral ways after reading such, shrugging and citing that it's not their fault, it's physics.

What then is to be said about the time line of their life where before reading about the idea they were more cooperative and good natured citizens and afterward, were reckless and selfish? What changed?

It's not like the entire physics of their bodies and minds have suddenly changed at that point of reading about an idea.

Thus, it stands more to reason that they made a conscious choice to believe it. And remove themselves from culpability by putting it on the rest of the world/realities set up.

If physics was deterministic, why would any given individual sway from varying degrees of socially acceptable/moral behaviour to socially unacceptable/immoral and vice versa. One would imagine that such a mechanistic and determined existence would be polar and dichotomous from the get go without any freedom to traverse from one side to the other.

Choice (freewill) and social conformity, morality, ethics or simply behaviour Intended to help others verses help oneself to their detriment, are inextricably linked.

If the system was deterministic, it devolves into a chaos of extreme egos, arrogance, intolerance, paranoia and inability to forgive or forget, a total lack of empathy (because choice is not a possible option. You're either good or bad. And that's that. No choice, no option to change behaviour).

I'm inclined then to believe the system involves free will. Or is at most semi-deterministic, with consciousness being the emergent ability to have free choice, because awareness is agency, control over ones own behaviour, Choice.

I think this is a good quote but certainly not a perfect one. Yes it is applicable even today. There are thoughts available to a person that should they be proclaimed, put one in direct existential danger.

There is freedom of thought within the privacy of mind. But freedom of speech is much reduced. As it leads to reactive interpretation by others and thus action, which may be against you.

To say what one truly thinks could result in them being persecuted, based on the degree of morality or quality of what they think, as the deceitful/ dishonest cannot stand/abide any fundamental expression of truth and will thus attack it to preserve their own ideas and beliefs.

So long as there is a psychopath in power, lacking empathy, totally selfish and desiring domineering control of the narrative, anything that sways the general moral directive in a positive sense (privelaging equality, responsability and empathy) is a direct threat to their selfish ways and must be destroyed.

In that sense I'm inclined to say "who lived semi-well" hid himself well. He who lived well, did not hide himself, and put a target on his back/sacrificed his safety purely for the benefit/teaching/education of others. As martyrs did.

Perhaps you might get more mileage out of this thought experiment if you argue that I am this, where "this" denotes the existential intuition that you are something that is part, but also apart of the world. — Manuel

Perhaps. I see what you're saying. And agree with your qualification of "this" as something that denotes a "sense" of unity and separateness alike. Being both a part of/and a part distinct from.

For me this is "ego" - or the sense of a finite and limited collection of matter and energy to distinguish itself (the sense/intuition) from the remainder of matter and energy (the external world).

doubt therefore I exist. I can be deceived therefore I exist. If I did not exist I could not doubt. If I did not exist I could not be deceived. — Fooloso4

I like this very much. Bravo for bringing this to attention. I have a vague memory of having read such before but it did not arise for me when composing my thoughts on this thread.

Now we may not agree with Descartes claim of a thinking substance, but if so, we should disagree with what he says not with a misrepresentation of what he says. — Fooloso4

If we are to take Descartes thinking = being sentiment, then we must assume the universe "thinks". Which makes sense regarding his "proof" of God.

But for me "thinking" requires at its basis more than one "being" such that thought "leads" or "traverses" between once concept (one state of being) and another.

Not to mention thought requires memory otherwise it is a constant state of "what was I thinking about?" or "forgetfulness".

Thus reference point as opposed to new thought (comparison) requires at the minimum 2 things (2 states of being) - that which is in memory, and that is new /different to memory.

Therefore for me thinking cannot = being. It can only equal 2 beings: 1). memory/past and 2). a new state (present) that is not identical to past/memory. For which thought can extrapolate/perceive change, and thus perceive of/anticipate future (further change from memory).

When he says "the foundation" it appears he's talking about something anyone could discover, not just clergymen. Do you agree with that? — frank

Yes indeed. I certainly agree. This was his attempt at opening the book on pure reason and logic, all assumption set aside. This is remarkable for the time he lived in.

However, I cannot help feeling he had a certain enduring angst about the church and it's power. And might have cautiously framed his views in a fashion pertinent to church agreeability, at compromise with absolute unadulterated free thought.

We can acknowledge the church was certainly a domineering authority at the time. And to go against such an authority was dangerous indeed. So I wonder, if he has been influenced by such acknowledgements in his endeavors.

its interesting to note his willingness to venture into unknown territory yet at the same time abide by church law.

It seems then Descartes was appeasing both the church and his freedom to think.

The irony then being that the churches views are set, and anything that is set does not pertain to freedom (the unset).

. I am here quite alone, and at last I will devote myself, sincerely and without holding back, to demolishing my opinions." — frank

I quite like the statement also. It's quite something to declare that one is going to abolish all that they know and start from scratch.

There is irony here however, in that his demolishing of personal opinion leads to development of a communicable statement (personal opinion) to replace it.

Anything one expresses is a voice of opinion pertaining to value - something worth expressing to others.

So in even the act of writing his thoughts, Descartes was asserting the usefulness of his insights to others. And thus assuming such. A lack of doubt. As doubt prevents one from communicating if they have intense doubt as to what they are imparting, as likely doubt would lead instead to further personal isolated consideration/contemplation rather than determination - voicing ones ideas as determined and ready to be shared (opinion)

Unfortunately, some on this forum, do take metaphysical Metaphors literally, as-if they are presented as scientific Facts. Hence, they don't argue the logic, but ridicule the image. — Gnomon

Absolutely. Bravo. I agree 100%.

Although, not really real, their metaphors do express their beliefs & feelings as accurately as possible for non-physical non-things. So, it's the implicit underlying Belief that is attacked, not the reasoning behind it. Thus, high-minded Philosophy is reduced to down & dirty Politics & Religion — Gnomon

Again. I agree. Gnomon I feel you and I are kindred spirits in that we share these very particular relationship and ideas towards the general status quo.

Metaphor for me is taking a principle (concept) and re-framing it in the context of actually tangible things (material interactions) . To take literally the things used in a metaphor will naturally lose the sentiment behind it.

The principle is imbedded not in the choice of application (some other reference material) but in the demonstration (the relationship highlighted).

Too many people think literally rather than conceptually. And that leads to myriad misinterpretation.

But education is built fundamentally on metaphor or analogy. Using what one knows (a priori knowledge) to apply to new concepts. You cannot teach with information one does not already understand. You can only go from known to unknown. Not from unknown to unknown (as this is inaccesible).

Well, I would imagine ultimate doubt (lack of trust) in all things would lead to a pure stasis of inaction. Or even more extreme pure nihilism and death.

Of course this is impossible as one cannot doubt their heartbeat, their breathing or the heat their body gives off with metabolism. These things occur whether we doubt them or not. And more importantly we cannot cessate them due to doubt lest we commit suicide - which could be conceived as the ultimate degree of doubt - extreme scepticism and unwillingness to obey any unspeculated, unaccepted action without our mental determination and thus action towards it.

So Descartes doubted everything except that which was necessary for him to function - paper, chairs, food (as you pointed out).

thank you for your clarification, I agree with it. No qualms here. It seems we are indeed speaking of the same things.

But if it is an intelligent being, "I am that I am" might be descriptive. Personally, I try to avoid personalizing the creative Potential — Gnomon

Ah! See for me, personalising "I am that I am" still assumes too much. It assumes personhood. In that it personalises/personifies it.

That is the "who" and/or "what" nature of "I am that I am." what the "I am" is, is many/innumerable things (including forms of matter) : "who" of the "i am" pertains to "who's" or beings or let's say for simplicity "people" - merely one set of the category. These categories emerging by natural selection as you pointed out. I think natural selection is the "intelligence" or following of basic logic that you speak of. "intelligence" and how it manifests "consciousness/sentience" not being the same thing. But having overlap.

For me the "I am that I am" can be qualified by all: whos, what's, where's, when's, how's, and whys of existence and thus encapsulates or captures all distinctions or sets within it's universal Venn Diagram, of course all set having overlap between them: "I am a human", "I am an animal", "I am a living thing" "I am a part of /made of/living on earth (an earth entity/earthling)", "I am energy and matter" "I am potential" - with a non capital P, or I am "part of/derived from Potential" with a capital P.

These are all truth statements, but distinct ones, and they are sets that overlap with other things on varying ranges of specificity/definition.

The universal = "I am". Or I exist. No question of whether any given existant is a person, or has a mind, or is aware. The "I" in this case is not necessarily pertaining to a sentient self or being, but an existant or universal "self" - the term used loosely ofc.

The fundamental existant Potential contains all "I" s - sentient beings and inanimate objects alike, linked by being all made of energy - a very large set indeed on the Venn diagram.

The sentience of that state of energy is another matter.

"The only truth that there is, is that there is no truth" - anonymous — dclements

A paradox. For this to be true, there is no truth. For it to be false, there is a truth. In either case truth is necessary and involved in the statement. It's like the liar paradox.

And it follows the same idea that "the only constant is change" or "the only thing that doesn't change is change itself". Again change is implicated in the requirement to negate itself.

Just as "change" can change everything except itself, or energy being able to all work except the work of destroying or creating itself, truth can be true only to itself, whilst being false or only partially true to all other existants.

or example if someone "exists" merely as a computer simulation instead of an actual physical person... ..... could you say such a person actually exists if it takes several centuries to process the thought "I think therefore I am" where as a regular human being processes such a thought in a couple seconds. — dclements

Yes. Simulations still require existing, regardless of being a simulation. Firstly a simulation of "what" exactly? It still requires to "simulate" (replicate, emulate, mimick) something to any degree of precision or accuracy verses the thing it is simulating. In other words simulations still have to exist in a universe/ reality where they can take place, hold or have present their operating systems.

The statement "I am that I am". Is true. It does not pertain to any quality by which one "is" - be it a simulation, a person, a donkey, a dream, an AI algorithm, some Gods creative imagination or otherwise. They still exist (are).

Anyone that seriously studies philosophy should be cautious of any so called "truths", "objective morality", or claims by those that know the will of all-knowing, all-powerful good "God — dclements

I didn't pertain to such. I merely spoke about the existence of a singular truth, something that underlies all of reality, and the fact that for falsehood or untruths to exist, then logically truth must also exist.

Whether one can call this " God" and whether such a "God" is benevolent or "all Good" as you say, is an entirely different topic to the one regarding a fundamental truth.

In other words ... Deus, sive natura — 180 Proof

Yes. Energy is both the creator (potential) and the created (matter). Thus nature is innately that which creates the nature of itself.

Consciousness or awareness is a product of the dynamic of energy and matter (also energy, e=mc2) organised in a sophisticated or complex relationship/interaction with itself (negentropy/order) - the direct and necessary/obligate opposite to entropy (disorder) because "every action has an equal and opposite reaction (newton's third law).

The universe simultaneously becomes more disordered at large, and more ordered at the miniscule scale. It condenses information (life) and de-condenses/expands information (the chaos of the cosmos).

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here — frank

I don't see how I have tbh. Can you elaborate on exactly what I have mischaracterised.
I simply said a statement involving a dynamic between thinking and being is more presumptuous than an argument based on being alone.

Meditations are one of the most important philosophical works ever written. Sooo much is built off of his thinking, not just philosophically, but in Western culture in general. It's pretty easy to read because Descartes wasn't trying to dazzle with bullshit. He was passionate about what he was saying, and about the revolution in thought that it could represent. He was essentially wresting the foundations of thought away from the Church and placing them squarely in the hands of the common man. — frank

He indeed revealed something significant in philosophy. He is highly meritable for his endeavours. A fantastic mind through and through.

He was passionate I agree. No doubt there (ha!).

And again, I agree, he challenged the blind subservience to the church. Amen to that. Lol.
He demonstrated skepticism to the extreme and thus placed the psychological foothold for science in place, so that the common man had a guide to challenge former ideas.

But ultimately, what of it in the context of this thread? I still don't see how any of this implicates me as mischaracterising him.

What he did was nothing short of exceptional. But people have argued his ideas away based on the irrationality of circular argument.

What I am offering is an argument or statement (ancient as it is) that is not circular in the way Descartes statement "I think therefore I am. Then, as follows, I am therefore I think. Then, as follows, I think therefore I am" which indeed is circular.

"I am that I am" or simply "I am" assumes nothing, and is immediately, at any moment, verifiable by the statement maker. It is singular and thus not subject to circularity.

This predates Descartes. Exodus 3:14 — Hanover

Yes it does indeed. And... What of it?

. "I am what I am" he proclaimed, dispensing with "that" as a mere redundancy — Ciceronianus

For me "what" and "that" are synonymous. In my case the choice between the two is redundant in and of itself.

"That" which causes bananas to be yellow = "what" causes bananas to be yellow.

faux doubt of the kind Descartes indulged in. — Ciceronianus

What is faux about the doubt which he expressed? He doubted everything else (the entire external environment) and was left with himself, which he could not doubt, as "doubting" comes from something that doubts (self). No self = no doubt to be had.

He is Popeye, singular and manifest! — Ciceronianus

I do enjoy the humour/satire in your answer. I'm a fan of popeye.

However for me singular and manifest are somewhat contradictions. How does a singular entity "manifest" in any other way than being singular. For me "manifestation" requires a relationship between "the manifested" and the backdrop of "the unmanifested". Ie "is" on the backdrop of "that which isn't".