I exist therefore I am, explained

Search Tags:

Categories:

I exist therefore I am, explained

Uploaded by: pyrrho314
Video Description:
an explanation of my youtube profile slogan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Tags for this video: atheism exist existence objectivity philosophy relativism relativistic skepticism subjectivity

Find more videos in the "Animals" category
See more videos uploaded by pyrrho314

Related Videos

Language is not description	Re: I dream. I am Buddha dreaming it has a self.	Emotions are more rational than rationality

colin rudd - relatively absolute	Adomination™ :my Artwork ( Part one )	Objective vs. Subjective & Why subjective morals don't exist

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

shanella: it was a ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

shanella: it was a nice try but Descartes for the fail... Nietzsches's decomposition of the cogito is final... Descartes said too much and was wrong as well to assert "I think"... what if we are the product of thinking, i.e. the brain thinks... we are the result. "I exist" is enough and really, "I" implies existence as well.

I have a video "I ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

I have a video "I dream therefore I am"... that's the most clear because I "I exist therefore I am" is a bit of a joke, harder to understand, seems circular, because you don't see how my definition of existence works... it's the same meaning as "I dream therefore I am".

vegrin: we say ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

vegrin: we say that's not thought, but that's a pretty rough approximation, if all thought stopped, you would not be up on your board... I LOVE the thoughts I have during such experiences.
Medication calms the thoughts, but they still occur, and thoughts "of nothing" too are thoughts, like a black segment of a TV program is still emitting light.

shanella: I suppose ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

shanella: I suppose I agree about not being separate from our thoughts, but not quite in the sense you mention above wrt Descartes, I just say "our perceptions are primary" everything else deduced from them is secondary, even our knowledge of our own body.

my philosophy is ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

my philosophy is very eastern and more than one buddhist has declared I'm either a buddhist or an honorary one... but here is one place we diverge... this idea of emptying your thoughts, I'm all for it... but not for the implication you can actually be rid of them, as you said, you can't do that though you can calm the mind so that compared to normal it seems "empty". Really, then, it's brimming with potential.

What I am thinking ... ( 8 months ago by vegrin)

What I am thinking about are experiences that you do not consciously think about until after youve had them. When someone suprises you by throwing you a ball you can catch it on instinct. It is only after that you've had the experience of catching it that your thoughts react to you catching the ball.

Now if you define ... ( 8 months ago by vegrin)

Now if you define every action of the brain as thinking, then of course you cannot experience anything without them. I guess it comes down to the use of the word think. I use the word think to mean "reflect upon", and it can be discussed whether this is the definiton that Decartes would have used.

I think you can ... ( 8 months ago by vegrin)

I think you can look at the world as something infused with "am"ness... And the "I am" only become realized in an object, pattern etc. complicated enough to reflect a feeling of existence upon itself. A ordering system if you will that organizes experiences into a pattern.

the brain is not ... ( 8 months ago by Shanella28)

the brain is not our thought. There is a difference. It's like comparing brain and mind.. they are not the same. Yes I admit part of the brain is responsible for cognition, language.. etc.. but that's not the mind. And then there are common frames that we share relativistically.

Nietzsches's ... ( 8 months ago by Shanella28)

Nietzsches's decomposition of the cogito is final... there are no absolutes.

vegrin: ah, the ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

vegrin: ah, the unconscious... to me that's all ME and part of the mind, I count those thoughts as thoughts... the ego is like a body in the mind, we get perceptions of those though it's subtle, but we obviously do get some perceptions of them because here we are discussing those perceptions of the unconscious. Indeed, we get a lot of perceptions from the unconscious and presume more are stored there (and ready to be discovered imo).

fundamental to my ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

fundamental to my philosophy, and to modern philosophy of cognition as well, denies mind/body dualism. The mind is a body, it's a brain, the two terms discuss different aspects and perspectives on the same thing.
if you mean "conscious thought"... yes, that is a subset of all thought. It's not a very absolute distinction as I can bring most unconscious things into or out of consciousness.

there do not have ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

there do not have to be, he showed Descartes formulation flawed in its own terms of logic, language, and the purity of the doubt Descartes claimed.

Within the system ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

Within the system Descartes claimed to apply, he made an error. Within the system it seems and acts absolute... it's not universally absolute only because the frame of logic and doubt that Descartes applies is itself limited and not aboslute. similarly: 2=2 is 100% true within mathematics, but it is not an absolute truth because the definitions of "=" and "2" are not absolutes.

Nietzsches and ... ( 8 months ago by Shanella28)

Nietzsches and Descartes are like two opposite side of a pole. The qualities of their argument is only good as the foundations they are based upon.

Descartes' claim ... ( 8 months ago by Shanella28)

Descartes' claim that we are essentially thinking substance he saw imperfections, ideas and thought which will lack clarity. Nietzsches claims that such flaws or misperformances define what we are.

in general, fine, ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

in general, fine, but on the issue of "I think therefore I am" the arguments can be compared and Descartes is inferior, less insightful. granted, just my opinion.

interesting vlog... ... ( 8 months ago by battim)

interesting vlog...i guess what i question is can you separate "you" from everything or anything else? and if you can't (entropy precludes that) than it leaves it fuzzy. are a complex set of nerve synapses firing systemically separate from the world around it? hmmmm...my brain hurts.

Now dont get me ... ( 8 months ago by vegrin)

Now dont get me wrong... I am no dualist like Decartes. In theory since "you" are the sum total of your brain and your body, "you" are also your environment and everything influencing you to be who you are. There are no clear defined borders between you and the world around you. I kinda think of our conscious thoughts as small lights on the top of tall mountains.

I agree to disagree ... ( 8 months ago by Shanella28)

I agree to disagree with you, respectfully.

I think it works ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

I think it works like this battim, all we do is sort perceptions... say the perceptions were pebbles from a riverbank, we could sort those things into distinct groups, black stones, red stones, shiny stones, clear stones, and so on, and these will be distinct groups but we will have some stones that don't have a clear group to go in becuase they are half red, half black for example...

if you correct that ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

if you correct that with a group for "half black half red" some other pebble will fall through the cracks unless you break the categories down such that there is one pebble per category.
To address this we either shove pebbles into categories they don't belong, have a special "enigma" category, or ignore them.
...

Our perceptions of ... ( 8 months ago by pyrrho314)

Our perceptions of our OWN BODY, i.e. those neurons, we will find some that are distinct from their surrounding, and some that we are not sure about... is it us, or the neuron. E.g. the color... is that us, or the thing itself? If its both how can we separate them? All these questions are well sorted I think, in principle, but not practice.
I mean, we know our mood is part of how things seem, but we still can't get out of it and see things "moodlessly".

chemicals make sure ... ( 8 months ago by battim)

chemicals make sure of that we can't see the "moodlessly"...i'm still not sure the simply because we have evolved to "perceive" that makes it "real" or separate. if nothing the else the input into our nervous system is intrinsically part of the process. our ability to compartmentalize is compartmentalized in it and of itself, like most matter. you make me thinks. thanks.

Tell a friend:

WebcamSearch Videos

Video Sharing Community

I exist therefore I am, explained

URL
Embed Code