Well, what would? — Wayfarer
A context without any content and vice versa is a demonstrable contradiction, while any context and content will demonstrably transform into one another. I think therefore I am because sometimes I'm unconscious! — wuliheron
Awareness and knowledge are indivisible complimentary-opposites and you can't have either one without faith in the other. — wuliheron
Here is one hand,
And here is another.
There are at least two external objects in the world.
Therefore, an external world exists.
This commonsensical approach negates the need for exact definitions that constitute the entirety of facts that would be required to fulfill epistemological criteria required by skeptics to warrant the truth of a proposition that supposes the existence of consciousness or a conscious entity — Question
I know that I think because I have no grounds to doubt.
Therefore, I think.
I think asserts that I exist.
I think, therefore I am.
If one doesn't buy into P3, then if one really feels like it, they can assert solipsism; but, that still doesn't negate the fact that to think and existing are not mutually independent. Or rather, there are no grounds to assert otherwise unless you believe in p-zombies. — Question
to think and existing are not mutually independent. — Question
Descartes proves self existence from extreme skepticism.
He assumes that all he knows is subject to doubt including his own existence.
In order to even doubt that you exist requires that you do in fact exist.
That is to say that if you do not exist then your doubts would also be non-existent.
Therefore if you doubt your existence, you must exist.
This argument got watered downed into "cogito ergo sum."
The hard problem does not say that we can doubt without any existence so the hard problem does not challenge the Descartes method.
You see Descartes argues that the absence of existence would be the absence of doubt as well so that where there is doubt there must also be existence.
So we can be sure we do in fact exist, that is unless you want to argue that non-existent things can have doubt. — m-theory
Only if you'd be a solipsist, but a solipsist does not publish. — jkop
We do not need to know the fundamental source or nature of a phenomenon before we can conclude that it "exists" — VagabondSpectre
"Cogito ergo sum" does not give us any useful information about the nature of existence, all it does is confirm that something is there, for certain (purportedly), to begin with. — VagabondSpectre
Maybe we're just images flowing from a projector, if so, the images still exist... Cogito ergo sum does not help in solving the hard mind body problem, nor does the hard body-mind problem invalidate "cogito ergo sum". If it did, then the argument would look like "We do not understand how this thinking experience thing works or is created, therefore we/it might not exist at all", which seems to contradict itself. — VagabondSpectre
I am trying to say that you can't prove that you aware by the fact that you feel you are. — intrapersona
A solipsist doesn't publish, but you do. Therefore, you're not a solipsist. The existence of a speaker is not questioned by his/her speech but silence.Is that clever? . . . — intrapersona
You can not think about anything at all and still exist, so it is more apt to say 'I am aware, therefor I am' but how can you say you exist because you are aware if at the same time you can't understand how that awareness emerges from consciousness. Unless you know the validity of what self-awareness or consciousness is, you can't use it to infer you exist no matter how apt it feels. It is akin to the blind men and the elephant
In short, you may not exist at all. — intrapersona
This doesn't make any sense. First you say you don't doubt that you have awareness but then say that you can't prove that your awareness exists. How do you go about proving anything? What is proof or evidence? Isn't awareness/consciousness a necessary component of proof or evidence? Isn't being aware or conscious how you go about establishing proofs and evidence?I already stated that I don't doubt that I have awareness of my experience. Did you miss that?
I am saying that I can't prove that my awareness exists just because it exists. That is circular reasoning. — intrapersona
Wait, why would the focus be on proofs, first off?Sorry, why must it exist? And where is your proof that phenomenal thought occurs? Is the proof in the awareness of the thoughts? Because that is what I am disputing. — intrapersona
Empirical claims are not provable. That's Science Methodology/Philosophy of Science 101.The focus is always on proofs — intrapersona
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.