The elusive "I"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

STT

Guest
Lets start by the Descartes’s argument: “I think therefore I am”. One can say that “I experience therefore I am”. This seems a better argument since thoughts are part of our experience. This means that “I” has the ability to experience. One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
 
Eventually, even Descartes wasn’t sure whether his thoughts and experience were really his. A demon could have made it all up. There is probably no way around solipsism. But I still reject that, because the chance that all those beautiful books, music, plays etc. are all produced by my brain is very small. I don’t think I’m capable of imagining all that.
 
STT said:
Lets start by the Descartes’s argument: “I think therefore I am”. One can say that “I experience therefore I am”. This seems a better argument since thoughts are part of our experience. This means that “I” has the ability to experience. One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
Click to expand...
Who is it that can doubt?, and who is it that can argue? Is it the “I”? Or the “one”?

Or, do doubt and argument have to happen, just as experience does?

Will these questions that just happened have an answer without an elusive “I”, or would the answer be too artificial, and the “elusive” I will happen to be not elusive at all?
 
Cheiron said:
Eventually, even Descartes wasn’t sure whether his thoughts and experience were really his. A demon could have made it all up. There is probably no way around solipsism. But I still reject that, because the chance that all those beautiful books, music, plays etc. are all produced by my brain is very small. I don’t think I’m capable of imagining all that.
Click to expand...
To me we can never know whether there is a “I” or not. I go with 50% 50 %.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Who is it that can doubt?, and who is it that can argue? Is it the “I”? Or the “one”?
Click to expand...
We will never know whether it is “I” or “one”. We experience doubt so it can just happen as an event. The same applies to our thoughts and arguments.
JuanFlorencio said:
Or, do doubt and argument have to happen, just as experience does?
Click to expand...
Yes, they just can happen as a result of process in the brain.
JuanFlorencio said:
Will these questions that just happened have an answer without an elusive “I”, or would the answer be too artificial, and the “elusive” I will happen to be not elusive at all?
Click to expand...
The answer of course is not elusive because it is directly experienced. We just don’t have direct access to “I”.
 
STT said:
Lets start by the Descartes’s argument: “I think therefore I am”. One can say that “I experience therefore I am”. This seems a better argument since thoughts are part of our experience. This means that “I” has the ability to experience. One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
Click to expand...
I prefer, “I think therefore I drink” :):)🙂
 
STT said:
We will never know whether it is “I” or “one”. We experience doubt so it can just happen as an event. The same applies to our thoughts and arguments.

Yes, they just can happen as a result of process in the brain.

The answer of course is not elusive because it is directly experienced. We just don’t have direct access to “I”.
Click to expand...
The “I” is the thinking body.

No need for chasing a nonexistent tail inside one’s own head!

ICXC NIKA
 
STT said:
You can beat a person and force him/her to believe in solipism too. 😃
Click to expand...
Not if that person retains his sanity. Winston Smith’s last sentence in 1984: “He loved Big Brother” indicates that he is insane.

The point is that no one can doubt that the beating came from the “outside”, so they have to admit the existence of the external reality - which means the denial of solipsism. No sane person can be a true, bona fide solipsist.
 
STT said:
We will never know whether it is “I” or “one”. We experience doubt so it can just happen as an event?. The same applies to our thoughts and arguments.
Click to expand...
We? Our? It might be that for some individuals “I” is elusive. But it will never be for someone like you. Elusive will be your experiences and thoughts, but your I, never.
STT said:
Yes, they just can happen as a result of process in the brain.
Click to expand...
Which brain? Yours?
STT said:
The answer of course is not elusive because it is directly experienced. We just don’t have direct access to “I”.
Click to expand...
If you don’t have direct experience of your “I” (I don’t believe it happens to you in particular), do you have indirect acces to it?
 
Perhaps the Buddha was right, The “I” is elusive because it is a fiction. Even Jesus said we must die to ourselves. We identify ourselves, the “I” with our thoughts, memories, and experiences most of the time. Perhaps are we a consciousness aware of experiences. Are we the experiences or something else? A pure awareness, of experience.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Perhaps the Buddha was right, The “I” is elusive because it is a fiction. Even Jesus said we must die to ourselves. We identify ourselves, the “I” with our thoughts, memories, and experiences most of the time. Perhaps are we a consciousness aware of experiences. Are we the experiences or something else? A pure awareness, of experience.
Click to expand...
Do you think Jesus and Buddha didn’t share with you and me the “fiction” of the I? Perhaps you think that when someone asked “them”: “did you say something, Master?”, there was simply no answer, because there was no I listening to the question? Did they speak sometimes? And if they did, were they addressing someone? And if they did, what were they addressing to? fictions?

And, if the I is a fiction, then it must be being produced by an imagination; but whose imagination is this?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Perhaps the Buddha was right, The “I” is elusive because it is a fiction. Even Jesus said we must die to ourselves. We identify ourselves, the “I” with our thoughts, memories, and experiences most of the time. Perhaps are we a consciousness aware of experiences. Are we the experiences or something else? A pure awareness, of experience.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t even go there. Why flirt with Buddhism if one is already in the boat of Saint Peter?

Experience is fleeting, but until the final breakdown, the bodied mind who records the experiences in his head, is constant.

ICXC NIKA
 
STT said:
One however can doubt this and argue that experience as an event happens so there is need for an experiencer. Is “I” elusive?
Click to expand...
It’s not elusive. It is necessary.

Yes, Descartes admitted that he could be fooled by a demon to believe he is experiencing something when, in fact, he isn’t. But that example was part of his larger argument** for** the existence of the “I.” His point was that, even if he is being tricked into believing he (let’s say) sees an oak tree, he still must exist in order to believe he sees an oak tree!

Saint Augustine said it much earlier, "For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by this same token I am. "

Even Hume, try as he might, could not defeat the cogito. If Hume is right, and our continuity of self is an illusion (if “I” am not the same person “I” was yesterday), then that only proves a nearly infinite multiplicity of selves, a different “I” existing in each moment.

But still, “I” exist.
 
STT said:
You can beat a person and force him/her to believe in solipism too. 😃
Click to expand...
This is not true. You cannot force anyone to believe anything. You can force one to act as if they believe, but not change their belief through force.
 
They say that Descartes was in a bar at closing time.

The barkeep asked if he’d like one for the road.

Descartes answered “I think not”

…and at once went POOF!!!
 
GEddie said:
They say that Descartes was in a bar at closing time.

The barkeep asked if he’d like one for the road.

Descartes answered “I think not”

…and at once went POOF!!!
Click to expand...
There’s an older joke that has a horse going into a barn saying “I think not” and poof, he’s gone. Some say that your joke is an earlier version but that would be putting Decartes before the horse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top