The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am." — Truth Seeker

I would not classify "P because of P" as a correct statement.

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3 — Chet Hawkins

Huh?

I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8

The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3
— Chet Hawkins

Huh? — Lionino

Ha ha! That is indeed the generally present response to some of my most revealing posts. But, what is being addressed here merits the merit of that set of assertions.

Do you know the Enneagram? It is one of many maps of human personality. Ennea - nine Gram - Measure. The 9 measures of human motivation.

Type 5 is the quintessential scientist type. They tend towards Nihilism immorally. They are observers. Good science is good observation (Avatar). One of the telltale identifying characteristics of a type 5 is the distinct impression that their body is merely a vehicle for who they really are, which they perceive to be their mind only.

This OF COURSE gives rise to intellectual or mental hubris, yielding in such people, 'Cogito ergo sum!' . The quote is entirely predictable if one knows the Enneagram and ... has thus some insight into typology and behavior. I do.

But the wise observer completes the scope and variety of the aims. The nine statements are the total set. And each statement stands to reason in its own unique way.

My own extension of the Enneagram asserts that Type 5 is anger infused fear. But anger infusion creates the situation/state know by the Hornevian triad of withdrawal. That means the 5 is a withdrawn or low presence type, at least via the contribution of the 5ishness of their personality. This is easily confirmed in actual 5 as typed in reality.

The unified matrix of all these disparate systems lends credibility to all assertions made because of successful cross pollination. Of course pure logic might assert that is bogus as a non-conclusion, but what we often deem as 'pure' logic is anything but, and in any case, logic is only fear. It's ironically humorous that proponents of logic in the social media and movie or literature canon often state that logic stands opposed to emotion. This is a dangerous lie as there is nothing but emotion in existence. Logic and thought is all only fear.

But each level of reality folds the 3 emotions back onto themselves again and again yielding greater detail but only the same final scope (of meaning). Thus fear permutates into anger, fear, and desire infused fear. The type 5 is anger infused fear.

Happy happy! Joy joy!

That is cool fiction.

Real is whatever exists. For example, my sentience is real because it exists.

My confidence about my sentience is 100% certainty. I don't know whether God exists or not.

As for as I know, the universe I appear to exist in, began with a tiny silent beginning. This tiny silent beginning is known popularly as the Big Bang but that name is a misnomer given the fact that the beginning was neither big, nor noisy. It's possible that by body, the universe, etc. are not real. It's possible these things are part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. I don't know for sure and can't know for sure.

What are you certain of?

I agree. :grin:

I still have no way of knowing whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul.

Thank you for explaining. What is the basis for your beliefs?

I experience the experience of what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is an incontrovertible knowledge for me.

I am not convinced these Enneagram types are anything more than unprovable ideas.

By "I am" I mean that my experience of being a sentient being is real for me. It is because of this experience that I am convinced that I exist. I don't know whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. I don't know if the universe I appear to exist in is real or simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. What are you certain of?

Real is whatever exists. For example, my sentience is real because it exists. — Truth Seeker

What do you mean by whatever exists? How do you know your sentience exists?

What are you certain of? — Truth Seeker

I am certain of the fact that I typed this sentence.

I still have no way of knowing whether I am a solipsistic soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul. — Truth Seeker

What has happened to your confidence of 100% certainty of your sentience?

That has not changed. What is 100% certainly real to me is the experience of me being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me.

Whatever exists is whatever is not imaginary. I experience my sentience. This is how I know it exists.

Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? — Truth Seeker

In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". :smile:

Bayesian probability :
Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of Bayesian probability. For objectivists, who interpret probability as an extension of logic, probability quantifies the reasonable expectation that everyone (even a "robot") who shares the same knowledge should share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which can be justified by Cox's theorem.[3][10] For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

Can you show me the calculation, please?

That has not changed. What is 100% certainly real to me is the experience of me being conscious. I could be a solipsistic soul without a body. I could be a soul in a body. I could be a body without a soul. In all three possibilities, I am real. By "I", I mean my sentience - the actual experience of what it is like to be me - nanosecond by nanosecond. Not all truths can be proven but that does not make them any less true. For example, I can’t prove to you that I am conscious but that does not mean that I am not conscious. You may think that I am a philosophical zombie but I assure you that I am conscious even though I can't prove it to you. Just as you are conscious even though you can't prove it to me. — Truth Seeker

Your post seem to be filled with contradictions. You state that your certainty is 100% due to your experience of you being conscious. But then you say that you could a solipsistic soul without a body, or you could be a body without a soul. You don't even know what you are, but how could you claim that you are 100% certain of your consciousness? If one is true then the other is false. Which one is truth for you? They cannot be both truth.

Everyone knows that you cannot prove the content of your consciousness directly to other minds. But we can all infer the other mind and the contents of the other minds' consciousness by the linguistic and behavioural expressions and actions they take.

Whatever exists is whatever is not imaginary. I experience my sentience. This is how I know it exists. — Truth Seeker

Again this is a solipsistic statement, which is not saying much meaningful. Does it mean that if you imagined something, then it cannot exist? If you stopped imagine something, it must exist? Things exist regardless of your imagination.

By "I am" I mean that my experience of being a sentient being is real for me. It is because of this experience that I am convinced that I exist. — Truth Seeker

Nobody experiences existence directly, you experience yourself when you think, feel, remember etc. That is Descartes' point. He knows he is because he thought.

What are you certain of? — Truth Seeker

That I know nothing.

It does not mean that at all. I can imagine an alien in my room but it is not real. The computer I am typing this message on is real.

As I said, in all three possibilities, I am real. My sentience is known to me. My sentience is real to me. My sentience is not in question.

I don't know and can't know which of the three possibilities is true: 1. I am a soul without a body. 2. I am a soul in a body. 3. I am a body without a soul.

Just as I don't know and can't know which of the five possibilities about the universe is true: 1. The universe is real. 2. The universe is a simulation. 3. The universe is a hallucination I am having. 4. The universe is a dream I am having. 5. The universe is an illusion.

I don't think that all of the possibilities are equally likely. I can't work out how probable each of them actually are. Statistics can't be applied in these cases because we can't test the possibilities.

As I said, in all three possibilities, I am real. My sentience is known to me. My sentience is real to me. My sentience is not in question. — Truth Seeker

OK.  It is good that you accept that at least your sentience is real.  But looking at your 3 possibilities on the existence of yourself.  

1.  If you are a soul without a body, then how did you even type the above posts?  I am pretty certain (I could be wrong, because anything is possible in this world) that you must have a body with 2 hands and 2 feet, and 1 head with 2 eyes and all the rest of it.  For you to have typed up the posts and sent them out to the forum, you must have a body for you to sit down on your chair, or stand with your 2 feet with either a phone, pad or computer to read and type the message.  I cannot imagine anyone can carry out even the simplest task with a soul alone without a body.   Therefore it proves you have a body.

2. You are a soul in a body?  This is possible, if and only if you believed you have a soul residing in your body.  Some people don't believe souls exist, and some do.  You can ask yourself, if you believe in the existence of the soul.  Only you can answer that question for yourself.  If you do, then yes your soul might be living in your body.  If you don't believe it, then it doesn't exist. Soul is a matter of your belief and faith.

3. You are a body without a soul?  This is also a possibility.  A living body doesn't have to have a soul in it, if souls never exist in the first place.  It would be wrong to believe that you are a body with a soul in it. You are likely just to have consciousness and mind, but not soul.

The existence of the soul is not a problem of epistemology or philosophy of mind.  It is rather a topic in philosophy of religion.   There is no way anyone can prove the existence of the soul in scientific, physical, biological or material ways.  It is a matter of faith and belief.  Therefore it depends on your belief on its existence or nonexistence.

For the problem of the universe, you listed 5 possibilities. But I think it can be reduced to 2 possibilities.

1. The universe is real.
2. The universe is not real. (It is simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion.)

From my reasoning, the universe is real from all the evidences based on the coherence of its operations rooted in the cause and effect principles.    The sun is rising every morning without fail, and nights come after days, spring comes after winters, I hear the news of people getting born and people dying every day, I can see that everyone on the earth is getting older everyday, and heading for their own deaths one day. 

 But there are also mysteries and unknowable antinomies in the universe viz. How did the universe start? Does God exist?  Who was the first person on the earth?  Is there life on another planet or star?  Is there after life? What is the next lottery jackpot number?

The fact that there are some mysteries and unknowable things in the universe doesn't mean that the universe is not real. It just means that we don't have enough information or evidence for our questions due to the limitation of our reasonings or lack of data.

It does not mean that at all. I can imagine an alien in my room but it is not real. The computer I am typing this message on is real. — Truth Seeker

How do you prove an alien in your room in your imagination is not real? How do you prove the message you have been typing was not a part of your life dream? Is life real? Could it be a long dream in a dream in another dream ...?

That is Descartes' point. He knows he is because he thought. — Lionino

How did he know he thinks?

What are you certain of?
— Truth Seeker

That I know nothing. — Lionino

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something.

How did he know he thinks? — Corvus

https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Descartes-1637%20Discourse%20on%20Method.pdf page 28

You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something. — Corvus

Therefore "I know that I know nothing" is incorrect, therefore I know nothing.

↪Chet Hawkins Thank you for explaining. What is the basis for your beliefs? — Truth Seeker

There is no basis for anything other than beliefs.

My beliefs are chosen based on observation, model completeness, model scope, model cross verification as in via some studies and trends in understanding.

To me facts are only a subset of beliefs. There is no actual proof to 100% on any issue. So facts are different than beliefs only in that for a person that believes them they are considered as sufficiently validated that the person would SAY they are 'proven', even though they cannot be actually proven. So it's almost like proclaiming a fact is a mistake in reasoning, if you follow. It means you no longer profess any doubt about the matter, effectively, which as Voltaire reminded us, is absurd.

I experience the experience of what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is an incontrovertible knowledge for me. — Truth Seeker

I suggest that this attitude is merely wrong (again). Your impressions of what happened are delusional. We as humans simply do not have the sensory apparatus to understand properly ... in any way. The position of doubt remains the most sensible, the most wise.

And yes, these experiences are only beliefs. Ask any dozen people what happened at the same event where they were all sober and present and you will have that many different ... BELIEFS about what happened. And zero of those will be precise enough to be objectively what happened.

We cannot know about anything for sure. Definitely not 100%. Only thing we can be sure of is the subjective experience we have. We are experiencing it no matter what be it in reality or dream, physical or real and illusion or real.

Only thing we can be sure of is the subjective experience we have. We are experiencing it no matter what be it in reality or dream, physical or real and illusion or real. — Abhiram

That's how I interpret "I think therefore I am"

We cannot know about anything for sure. Definitely not 100%. Only thing we can be sure of is the subjective experience we have. — Abhiram

...so we know our subjective experiences for sure, and hence there is something that we know for sure, and so it is not true that we cannot know about anything for sure.

This is a paradox!

It's possible that I am a soul and my body is either a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. According to Hinduism we are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusion called the Maya.

I don't know whether souls exist or not. I am an agnostic atheist.