I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity. — Lionino

You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. Hence your saying your point has much backings, was inferred as the popular media backings.

It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument. — Lionino

You walk therefore you move? "Move" and "Walk" are the same class of the terms, which are both motions. There relation is semantic, rather than logical or epistemic or ontological. "Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here.

I also have no clue what this means. — Lionino

Nothing obscure in there at all. :nerd:

You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. — Corvus

You have to look up what "logical necessity" is.

"Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. — Corvus

Yeah, and one implies the other. As Descartes and the editors have already explained, you can't think without existing, one thing begets the other.

Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here. — Corvus

Just because you arbitrarily put two verbs into two boxes that are just adjectives, it does not mean anything. If it were obvious you would be able to explain yourself very easily, but there is no argument.

Nothing obscure in there at all. :nerd: — Corvus

You would be surprised.

You have to look up what "logical necessity" is. — Lionino

You are talking about totally something else. The point is how your point for getting lot of backings implied, the popular media backings rather than logical backings. Because you had not shown any.

Yeah, and one implies the other. As Descartes and the editors have already explained, you can't think without existing, one thing begets the other. — Lionino

Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse.

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. But it doesn't say anything new or exciting, does it? Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything.

Just because you arbitrarily put two verbs into two boxes that are just adjectives, it does not mean anything. If it were obvious you would be able to explain yourself very easily, but there is no argument. — Lionino

Now I don't understand here. What do you mean?

You would be surprised. — Lionino

At your misunderstandings :)

You are talking about totally something else. — Corvus

I am talking about what I have been always talking about.

"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." — Corvus

If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers.

Now I don't understand here. What do you mean? — Corvus

Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish.

Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." — Corvus

:mask: :mask: :mask:

you can't think without existing — Me

Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around.

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. — Corvus

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought.

He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse. — Corvus

Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything. — Corvus

Ok, time to sleep.

Deepak is not serious either, but as in a serious person. — Lionino

Oh, I see what you mean. Perhaps. I've spoken to him extremely briefly and he came across pretty robust, but wrong.

I also have no clue what this means. — Lionino

I think he's trying to say that perceiving reality pre-supposed reality, so the Cogito is a step ahead of establishing 'existence'.

I think this is a red-herring though.

↪Chet Hawkins Your worldview is esoteric and your evidence is not evidence but faith. — Truth Seeker

Since we cannot KNOW anything, all evidence is only faith.

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence.
— Chet Hawkins

Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD

I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence?

offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.
— Chet Hawkins

Your self image is a rather impressive edifice — AmadeusD

I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model.

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?
— Chet Hawkins

Oh, interesting. :) — AmadeusD

Well, you do not say how or offer any specific. Why bother to respond at all?

Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense.
— Corvus

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino

It does indeed, if one's model of the universe is correct.

That is to say, what is thought?
That is ALSO to say, what is morality?

If we decide there is something called thought, what is it?
It is a pattern contained/experienced in a body. It is additive and complex in nature. That is to say there are thoughts that are many thoughts put together. Is it possible to reduce thought to a single thought?

Again, define thought.

A 'thought' is an excited state that arises from matching a pattern in one's past. This implies the pattern is present to match, in symbolic form, or structure.

Some structure must HOLD the thought. Further the thought itself is a pattern, implying a structure.

The pattern of the structure of thought is possibly not instantiated in the physical world. This would imply a 'thought dimension' or some such and possibly allow for non-existence. But the structures through which thought is enacted are physical in the most colloquial sense and the implication is indeed existence. This is a simple matter to reason through.

I already listed the 9 such statements that are all primordial. Further, that is all of them. That 9 relationships are the only possible equal statements of their kind. These are the primary relationships in the universe.

Cogito ergo sum was BOUND to be the first one. Why?

Thought is an excited state that arises by matching a pattern from one's past. After the base condition of being, having mass, the form of that mass acts physically on the surrounding area. Its form and characteristics, its IDENTITY, its atomic number if you go that small, determine its choices and how it impacts others in its environment. Sound familiar? Every particle in the universe is possessed of choice.

The first fear is what? Easy. The fear of the unknown. Done, pattern matched. Nothing, no match is now a match. And anything not previously matched is also 'unknown'. But well before this esoteric 'unknown' pattern is understood, the nothing is simply ignored. Awareness (thought) is minimal.

As physical and then chemical interactions happen, choices expand. More parts are making choices and they begin to relate them together because thoughts are additive. But each piece has its own identity and limitations on choice. The moral agency of an atom is quite small indeed. But morality is objective and the choices and how they play out are predetermined.

Over time the structures that hold patterns can hold more and more complex patterns. Eventually the nothing pattern and the something not yet known pattern are detailed versions of the fear of the unknown.

Familiar or beneficial patterns generate less excitement. This means the chooser 'likes' that. That which is known is more comfortable at every level of reality. Some chemical are -philic to other types. This is nothing but desire.

The three way nature of reality is played out at every level. There is no exception to this model that you can show me is my challenge.

The entire universe is nothing but interactions between fear, anger, and desire. Choice, free will is the only thing happening.

Cogito ergo sum was bound to be the first one. Why?

Because most scientists are Enneatype 5, observers. They are anger infused fear. Their type represents this motivation most strongly: the need to be aware. All thought is nothing but fear and all fear and thought are representative of the concept of order. They are so because order is the PATTERN part of my former definition.

Fear is therefore only and always an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. This applies to every moral agent in the universe and it follow the physical hierarchy chain naturally as all structure was its awareness from start to finish.

If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers. — Lionino

It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars. It is strange for one to deny any knowledge on what one said, and got replied to.

Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish. — Lionino

It is not a gibberish. It is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. There is no logical transition between the two. It is an irrational leap to say "Think", therefore "Exist".

Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around. — Lionino

That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?

No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino

Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically.

Ok, time to sleep. — Lionino

Perhaps your lack of sleep was making you feel everything hazy. Sleep well and sweet dreams. :nerd:

That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No? — Corvus

No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think.

My worldview is evidence-based. If I become aware of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of souls and gods, I will stop being an agnostic atheist and become religious. I have researched the top twelve religions on Earth and none of them are evidence-based. This is why I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to new evidence e.g. if you show me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of fairies, I will stop being an agnostic afairyist. Do you understand my position better now? What is your worldview? What is the basis for your worldview?

I know trillions of things. So do others. Just because you claim that one cannot know anything it does not make it true.

No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think. — flannel jesus

We are excluding the existing things which don't think in the discussion. We are only talking about the existence which thinks i.e. humans in here.

Before thinking takes place, something must exist. Thinking is not prior to existence. Thinking is a posteriori of existence. Descartes got it wrong, and is in deep confusion in this Cogito ergo sum muddle.

Before thinking takes place, something must exist — Corvus

Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not.

If I'm thinking, I must exist, because something must exist before thinking takes place like you said. I think, therefore I am.

My worldview is evidence-based. If I become aware of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of souls and gods, I will stop being an agnostic atheist and become religious. I have researched the top twelve religions on Earth and none of them are evidence-based. This is why I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to new evidence e.g. if you show me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of fairies, I will stop being an agnostic afairyist. Do you understand my position better now? What is your worldview? What is the basis for your worldview? — Truth Seeker

If you read Kant's CPR, then he says our knowledge has limits. We don't have to know everything with 100% of certainty. Trying it would be futile exercise. Because our reasoning has antinomies. It is limited. And moreover, much of the needed data is not available for us to know things with certainty.
So that is a fact. You must accept that. And move on. If you read Kant, and understood the points, then you would either want to move up to Analytic Philosophy, Phenomenology or Existentialism.
If you mastered all these subjects, then maybe you would look into Religious philosophy.

You know that Religious topics are in different world which cause and effect principles work different way to the ones in the empirical world. You will then use your faith and intuitions rather than reason and logic for your analysis and observations for the subjects you want to enquire.

Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not. — flannel jesus

Who is everyone and where is the assumption? What reversal are you talking about? I was only putting the cart behind the horse, of which Descartes put in front.

Seems like you get perfectly well what reversal I'm talking about.

The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think."

The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think." — flannel jesus

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist."

"I am, therefore I exist." was introduced to notify the reverse is false.

Thank you for your advice. You didn't answer my questions about your worldview. Why is that?

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist." — Corvus

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic.

Thank you for your advice. You didn't answer my questions about your worldview. Why is that? — Truth Seeker

You are very welcome. Sorry for not having answered your question. Well actually I don't have a worldview of my own. That is why I am keep reading philosophy and psychology.

If I had my own world view, then I would go up into a mountain, and start meditating. Not yet. I am not sure if it will ever happen. But who knows. We keep on trying until our last days. Now that is a philosophy. :nerd:

And one more thing - sometimes no answer can be the best answer in Philosophy and the World.

The assumption is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic. — flannel jesus

No it is not. They are reverse in the cause and effect. They are not synonymous.

If something has to exist before it thinks, then if you know it's thinking, you know it must have existed first.

I know I'm thinking.

Therefore, I know I had to exist.

If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing?

If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing? — flannel jesus

There are two types of existence. The known and unknown. Unknown existence can be like non-existence. In that sense, yes unknown existence which is perceived to be non-existence can think.

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer.

And one more thing - I forgot to add, is that we are all existence on the road according to M. Heidegger. Even if, we feel and it looks as if the world and us are stationery, we and the world are on the non-stop journey. A journey to the end of the visit to the earth to the unknown destinations.

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer. — flannel jesus

Well flannel, if you try think clearer, perhaps you could see better. It is not all that easy to understand the deep knowledge and logic, suppose. :chin:

I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now up to the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid.

I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now a turn for the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid. — Corvus

Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender.

We're talking about if you can think without existing, "unknown existence" is just silly nonsense in this conversation. Get serious.

Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender. — flannel jesus

If you think about it, there are many unknown existence in this world. Until you know about them. Why is it so difficult to see?