Many would have been preoccupied with baser needs for survival than philosophising. — Benj96

Yes, I believe so.

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. — Benj96

Right. Life continues, in the universe. But not for the person during the time s/he is not aware.

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. — Benj96

Exactly!

Thinking, is not a proof for someone that s/he is aware of being alive, i.e. that s/he exists. In fact, the contrary may be true: when my mind is absorbed by thinking, I kind of stop being alive. — Alkis Piskas

After Descartes concludes that he is not being deceived by the creator of his experience, he can learn from nature. He says that thinking is not confined to abstract pondering:

Nature also teaches me by these feelings of pain, hunger, thirst, and so on that I am not only residing in my body, as a pilot in his ship, but furthermore, that I am intimately connected with it, and that the mixture is so blended, as it were, that something like a single whole is produced. For if that were not the case, when my body is wounded I would not therefore feel pain, I, who am only a thinking being; but I would perceive that wound by the understanding alone, as a pilot perceives by sight if something in his vessel is broken. And when my body needs food or drink, I would simply know the fact itself, instead of receiving notice of it by having confused feelings of hunger and thirst. For actually all these feelings of hunger, thirst, pain, and so on are nothing else but certain confused modes of thinking, which have their origin in and depend upon the union and apparent fusion of the mind with the body. — Descartes, Meditation 6, pg 81, translated by L.J Lefleur

Interesting!
"a single whole is produced", "fusion of the mind with the body", ...
It sounds like Descartes is actually a non-dualist! :grin:
Well, of course, it's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

The fusion certainly did not come up in the Third Meditation when Descartes was saying his parents did not cause his 'thinking substance':

Finally, concerning my parents, from whom it seems that I derive my birth, even if all that I could ever have believed of them should be true, that would not imply that it is they who conserve me, nor even that they made and produced me in so far as I am a thinking being, there is no relation between the bodily activity by which I have been accustomed to believe I was engendered and the production of a thinking substance. The most that they can have contributed to my birth is that they have produced certain arrangements in the matter within which I have so far believed that the real I, that is my mind, is enclosed. Thus the existence of my parents is no objection to the argument, and we must necessarily conclude from the mere fact that I exist and that I have an idea of a supremely perfect God is very clearly demonstrated. — ibid. page 40

The 'ghost in the machine' register comes up when discussing a perfect God. It is not used when discussing the world he can explore. He has used the crisis of his doubt to separate a particular cosmic order from God as a matter of belief. Disagreeing with Aristotle's astronomy should not be treated as heresy.

"my parents, from whom it seems that I derive my birth" — Paine

It looks like he was not sure if he was just a body (flesh and bones) created by his parents or something different, more than that and/or independent of his body. But this would require a totally different kind of philosophical thinking and beliefs.
Another interpretation would be that simply he was not sure if these were his real or adoptive parents! :grin:

"so far as I am a thinking being" — Paine

Here it is. A thinking being, having a body but independent of his body.

there is no relation between the bodily activity by which I have been accustomed to believe I was engendered and the production of a thinking substance. — Paine

OK, this is on the same line of thinking ("thinking" here being used in another sense).

"The most that they can have contributed to my birth is that they have produced certain arrangements in the matter within which I have so far believed that the real" — Paine

OK, this too.

"I, that is my mind, is enclosed." — Paine

I = my mind. That is quite "advanced". Yet, saying that, D falls in the same trap with everyone who says "I am my [ body, brain, soul, ...]" Because you cannot be what you have, i.e. you cannot have something and at the same time be that something. Which shows that the person who says that does not really believe he is that something. In this case, "mind". So, if D really believed that, he would have said "I, who is a mind", i.e., I = mind, I am a mind. Isn't that right?
(Pity, the thing was going quite well until now! :grin:)

we must necessarily conclude from the mere fact that I exist and that I have an idea of a supremely perfect God is very clearly demonstrated. — Paine

Well, the thing turns to a different direction and "terrain".

The 'ghost in the machine' register comes up when discussing a perfect God. He has used the crisis of his doubt to separate a particular cosmic order from God as a matter of belief. — Paine

I see. Interesting interpetation.

The whole passage from D's Meditation is interesting. :up: