Descartes fallacy: "I think then I am"

[tee_eff_em]

Then what do you mean with “I”?

You said it first:

I

am consciousness. Right.

I

think then

I

am. Wrong.

I

think then

I

exist. Right.

What do you mean with “I”?

For that matter:
What do you mean with “Then”?
What do you mean with “what”?
What do you mean with “do”?
What do you mean with “you”?
What do you mean with “mean”?
What do you mean with “with”?

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

You said it first:
What do you mean with “I”?

So you agree with me?

 

[tee_eff_em]

So you agree with me?

How?

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

How?

“Bah”,
tee

The answer to that question is yes or no!

 

[tee_eff_em]

The answer to that question is yes or no!

My question was how could I agree with you?

Good heavens – You cannot even precisely define the meanings of English words! It is no wonder you conclude Descartes is fallacious!

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

My question was how could I agree with you?

Good heavens – You cannot even precisely define the meanings of English words! It is no wonder you conclude Descartes is fallacious!

“Bah”,
tee

Huh?

 

[tee_eff_em]

Huh?

Apparently,
[SIGN1]I win.[/SIGN1]

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

Apparently,
[SIGN1]I win.[/SIGN1]

“Bah”,
tee

No you lose. You don’t even know the purpose of a dialog. It is not about winning or loosing but it is about knowing what is right and wrong. That is why you even refuse to define “I”. I have all my pieces on the board and you claim that you win without showing why I am wrong or giving a simple definition of “I”.

 

[tee_eff_em]

No you lose. You don’t even know the purpose of a dialog. It is not about winning or loosing but it is about knowing what is right and wrong. That is why you even refuse to define “I”. I have all my pieces on the board and you claim that you win without showing why I am wrong or giving a simple definition of “I”.

All your pieces are not on the board. Neither have you defined “I”, you only propose that I agree with you because I asked you to do so.

How can I know if I agree with you if you will not answer my question?

I still win. You are a sore loser.

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

All your pieces are not on the board. Neither have you defined “I”, you only propose that I agree with you because I asked you to do so.

How can I know if I agree with you if you will not answer my question?

I still win. You are a sore loser.

“Bah”,
tee

“I” is consciousness. I already define consciousness. What is your definition of I.

 

[inocente]

But your thoughts are external to you.

I’m reliably informed that can happen when smoking a substance known as whacky tobaccy.

Hence they are part of your brain activity which is not you.

Who says? Sounds like you subscribe to substance dualism, the greatest fan of which was, perhaps ironically for you, Descartes.

Because I know that I am free to act and judge, because I experience and affect.

Circular. Describe an experiment which would demonstrate objectively that your consciousness isn’t just a narrative formed from processes in your unconscious mind.

 

[Bahman]

I’m reliably informed that can happen when smoking a substance known as whacky tobaccy.

No, it happens all the time. Do you experience your thought?

Who says? Sounds like you subscribe to substance dualism, the greatest fan of which was, perhaps ironically for you, Descartes.

I don’t believe in substance dualism unless matter/body is defined as mental state.

Circular. Describe an experiment which would demonstrate objectively that your consciousness isn’t just a narrative formed from processes in your unconscious mind.

I don’t see the world as one part completely black and the other part completely white. I am however sure that consciousness is not simply the result of process in your unconscious mind because it has very unique ability, experience.

 

[tee_eff_em]

“I” is consciousness. I already define consciousness. What is your definition of I.

Fine. I’d said:

Because I have a brain – D’uh!

If you get to assert it, so do I.

“Bah”,
tee

Then you said:

Then what do you mean with “I”?

Now I will admit that I meant the same thing you’d meant when you’d said:

[SIGN1]I am consciousness and I am capable of thought because

I

have a brain.[/SIGN1]

I agree precisely with the highlighted word.

Can the brain that your consciousness has have a single thought?

You are still a sore loser

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

Fine. I’d said:

Then you said:

Now I will admit that I meant the same thing you’d meant when you’d said:

I agree precisely with the highlighted word.

Can the brain that your consciousness has have a single thought?

You are still a sore loser

“Bah”,
tee

Thought is ball going back and forth between I and brain.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Thought is ball going back and forth between I and brain.

No matter how evil and powerful you may be, even if your sole occupation is to put wrong -]thoughts in me/-]

balls going back and forth between I and brain :)

, you cannot make me falsely -]think/-]

have a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

that I am -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

. If I -]think/-]

have a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

I’m -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

, then I’m -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

.

““Bah””,
tee

 

[Bahman]

No matter how evil and powerful you may be, even if your sole occupation is to put wrong -]thoughts in me/-]

balls going back and forth between I and brain :)

, you cannot make me falsely -]think/-]

have a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

that I am -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

. If I -]think/-]

have a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

I’m -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

, then I’m -]thinking/-]

having a ball going back and forth between I and brain :)

.

““Bah””,
tee

What is thought by the way? I know it. :bounce:

 

[GEddie]

Bahman, your signposted statement is contradictory:

Consciousness does not have a brain; the human body has a brain.

So if capability of thought is the result of having a brain, then the “I” that is so capable is your body, not your “consciousness” (which is generated by the brain in the head of your body).

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, your signposted statement is contradictory:

Consciousness does not have a brain; the human body has a brain.

So if capability of thought is the result of having a brain, then the “I” that is so capable is your body, not your “consciousness” (which is generated by the brain in the head of your body).

ICXC NIKA

Brain always sits between consciousness and body/unconsciousness. Brain is the master of body and consciousness is the master of brain/subconsciousness.

 

[tee_eff_em]

What is thought by the way? I know it. :bounce:

Yes, you told me.

Thought is ball going back and forth between I and brain.

“Bah”,
tee

 

[a_priori]

Descartes was addressing the Skeptics who insisted that nothing was ultimately knowable. The proposition was “Is man a thinking thing”, a res cogitans. This is a proposition that, in the process of considering, affirms itself. Man must therefore indeed be a res cogitans. If this is knowable then it is possible to know things. He wasn’t working out his own ontology.