Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Descartes clearly got it wrong so why is he so celebrated in philosophy I wonder? he couldn’t have got it more wrong.

There are shortcomings with Descartes' cogito, but it still fulfils the purpose that Descartes intended. Although it is not clear who/what the "I" refers to, there are thoughts, there is awareness of those thoughts, and so on. If we follow all the routes through that maze, we still conclude that something exists, which is what Descartes intended, I think.

It is easy to crow about how Descartes 'got it wrong', but his 'cogito' broke new ground in serious thought, and its shortcomings don't detract from that. Like many others, I don't subscribe to Cartesian dualism, but we should not forget the incredible insights that Descartes put into words for the first time; valuable insights, despite their problems.

[Sy Borg]

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think.

Descartes opined that 'the fact that I think demonstrates and confirms my existence'. You offer the converse, that thinking is a direct consequence of (human) existence. Two sides of the same coin, I think. 🤔

Perhaps "I am, therefore I have the potential to think" would be better, but it's not catchy :)

[Joshua10]

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think.

Descartes opined that 'the fact that I think demonstrates and confirms my existence'. You offer the converse, that thinking is a direct consequence of (human) existence. Two sides of the same coin, I think.

I commenting that the “I am” has awareness or doesn’t have awareness.Awareness/Unawareness is separate from consciousness and thoughts.

[Joshua10]

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think.

Descartes opined that 'the fact that I think demonstrates and confirms my existence'. You offer the converse, that thinking is a direct consequence of (human) existence. Two sides of the same coin, I think.

I commenting that the “I am” has awareness or doesn’t have awareness.Awareness/Unawareness are separate from the 2 consciousness and 2 thought types.

[Joshua10]

I adopt “I am, therefore I think” philosophy

Joshua, I agree. I am, therefore I think.

Descartes opined that 'the fact that I think demonstrates and confirms my existence'. You offer the converse, that thinking is a direct consequence of (human) existence. Two sides of the same coin, I think.

I commenting that the “I am” has awareness or doesn’t have awareness.Awareness/Unawareness are separate from the 2 consciousness types and 2 thought types.

[Joshua10]

If the “I am” doesn’t have awareness then the “I am” is trapped a “prisoner of consciousness” i.e. toggling, in unawareness between the 2 consciousness states that it believes that it is.The “I am” therefore, has no CONTROL whatsoever over the consciousness states but rather is controlled by them and to a certain extent the thoughts that reside within them.

Descartes was completely wrong with his statement therefore.He had no understanding whatsoever of the”I am” ; thought types or consciousness types or awareness/unawareness and how they relate to the “l am”.

The “I am” can take control of the consciousness states and the 2 thought types which reside within the 2 consciousness states if it has sufficient awareness and understanding of how they are all interconnected.

[Joshua10]

The “I am” needs to see itself as separate from awareness/consciousness/thoughts/emotions.

[Sy Borg]

The “I am” needs to see itself as separate from awareness/consciousness/thoughts/emotions.

That is the "I am" of a microbe, plant or other non-brained organisms. Their existence, as with all life, is inherently a separation from everything else. An organism's very being defies the environment that would otherwise claim it, and without any the mental functions listed.

I am = I am here now, whether I realise it or not :)

[Joshua10]

The “I am” needs to see itself as separate from awareness/consciousness/thoughts/emotions.

That is the "I am" of a microbe, plant or other non-brained organisms. Their existence, as with all life, is inherently a separation from everything else. An organism's very being defies the environment that would otherwise claim it, and without any the mental functions listed.

I am = I am here now, whether I realise it or not

Umm an interesting point of view Sy Borg,I would suggest that the “I am” has far more complexities to it than just a mere microbe.

[Pattern-chaser]

Awareness/Unawareness is separate from consciousness and thoughts.

I imagine that this will simply end up as a discussion of what "aware" means, but I'm interested anyway. So, what is the difference between consciousness and awareness? These two words are often used as synonyms, in some discussions.

[Pattern-chaser]

...toggling ... between the 2 consciousness states..

What are these two consciousness states, please?

[Pattern-chaser]

Umm an interesting point of view Sy Borg, I would suggest that the “I am” has far more complexities to it than just a mere microbe.

Being cautious, I would like to ask if "I am" is used here to refer to "the Self"? It looks like it is, but it is easy to misunderstand...

[Joshua10]

Awareness/Unawareness is separate from consciousness and thoughts.

I imagine that this will simply end up as a discussion of what "aware" means, but I'm interested anyway. So, what is the difference between consciousness and awareness? These two words are often used as synonyms, in some discussions.

Yes It is also my understanding that present thinking is that awareness and consciousness are the same thing.

Trying to define them is like trying to define the difference between the colour red in relation to the colour green.Just because you cannot define red or green doesn’t mean that the conclusion has to be that there is no difference. Experience suggests that there is a difference.

I suggest therefore that the “I am” is either aware or unaware of consciousness.So how can the “I am” be aware or unaware of consciousness?

My view is that there are 2 distinct types of consciousness that the “I am” experiences whilst in the “Awake” state.As I have said previously, these are, the “in the moment” and “out of the moment” consciousness states.

It is my view that whether we like it or no or agree with it or not we “toggle between these 2 consciousness states all the time whilst in the “Awake” state.It is also my view that we are either aware or unaware of this.

If the “I am” is aware of this “toggling” effect of consciousness then it can introduce control over it.If the “I am” is not aware of this “toggling” effect of consciousness then it cannot introduce control over it.

The “I am” can introduce control over the consciousness states INDEPENDENTLY of thoughts whether this be inward or outward type thoughts.

As also mentioned previously the “I am” can also become aware having previously been unaware that it ENGAGES with incoming autopilot thoughts whereas it does not ENGAGE with outward manual thoughts.

If the “I am” ENGAGES with incoming autopilot thoughts then the “I am” experiences the “out of the moment” consciousness state.

[Pattern-chaser]

You keep making statements that are necessarily true, and meaningless as a result. For example:

the “I am” is either aware or unaware of consciousness

Assuming that "aware" and "unaware" are binary opposites (?), your statement cannot help but be true. Is that what you intended?

[Joshua10]

Can I suggest that if the “I am” is not SELF, then what is it?

It is either the “in the moment” or the “out of the moment” consciousness state or NEITHER.

I would suggest neither,The “I am” experiences both.