₦airaland Forum

Steep:
you have it backward, "thinking" is an action performed by another, a thinking being is a being that is self aware and capable of self reflection. Just like songs and singing, songs do not exist without a singer.

first of all define thought?

Steep:
How can you have thought without a thinking being? Do you even live in reality? Thought is solely an attribute of a thinking being.

kkins25:
Oh, PoliteActivist, when I saw you decided to play the role of both "for and Against" I knew you'd end up In a wormhole. However, an exciting idea---- not knowing you exist. I just concluded an anime titled "Monster." It's a 100/10 masterpiece, so deep that Dostoevsky would be stunned.

It shares a similar theme; the 74-episode saga is too long to put down here. But it tries to intrigue the viewer's mind by steering the viewer to question their own existence. It does this throughout the entire plot, but even more, it is a psychoanalysis of one's self. Who are you? Are you what you are because you are? Or are you what you are because others say you are? How can you know what and who you are? Even if you say "I am," do others see you as "I am"?

Furthermore, is "I am" all there is to you? Or are you "I am" today and "I am becoming I am" tomorrow? This philosophical dilemma and the struggle for self-identity are narrated in one of the metafiction stories in the Monster series.

[center]
"Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a nameless monster. The monster was dying to have a name. So he decided to set out on a journey to find his name.
But the world was a large place, so the monster split into two on his journey. One monster went to the East. And the other went to the West. The monster who went East came to a village. "Mr. Blacksmith, please give me your name."
"You can't give someone a name."
"If you give me your name, I'll jump into your stomach and make you strong in return."
"Really? You'll make me stronger? Okay, you can have my name."
And the monster went inside the blacksmith's stomach.
The monster became Otto the blacksmith. Otto was the strongest man in town. But one day, "Look at me, look at me. The monster inside me has grown this large."
Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. The hungry monster ate Otto from the inside. He went back to being a monster without a name.
[/center]

[center]
He jumped into the stomach of Hans the shoemaker, but Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. He went back to being a monster without a name.
He jumped into the stomach of Thomas the hunter, but Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp. And once again he was a monster without a name. [/center]

[center] The monster went to a castle to look for a wonderful name.
"If you give me your name, I'll make you strong."
"If you'll heal my sickness, I'll give you my name." The monster jumped into the boy's stomach. The king was delighted.
"The prince is well. The prince is well."
The monster liked the boy's name. He liked living in the castle. So even when he was hungry, he stayed put. Every day he was so hungry, but he stayed put.
But one day he was just too hungry. "Look at me. Look at me. The monster inside me has grown this large," said the boy. The boy ate the king and and all the servants. Munch-munch, chomp-chomp, gobble-gobble, gulp.
[/center]

[center]One day, the boy came upon the monster who had gone west.
"I have a name. It's a wonderful name," said the boy.
The monster who went west replied, "You don't need a name. You can be happy without a name. Because we are nameless monsters."
The boy ate the monster who went west. Even though he had finally found a name, there was no one left to call him by it.

What a wonderful name it was, Johan......
[/center]

You see, Johan is the antagonist of the series. He believed himself to have been experimented on in a research facility by a psychologist and writer, Franz Bonerparta.

Franz wrote the poem quoted above. To others, it's a story, but to Franze, it's a tool that can strip any human of their identity. He tested this out in his experiments, which were somewhat successful because Johan, a subject of the experiment, was without memory and identity. However, Johan was a creation Franz had not anticipated. Instead of a monster, Johan turned out to be a demon- a demon capable of eating monsters.

But Johan, like the monster, faced the same challenge, "am I a monster?" He asks.

Johan believes the experiments carried out on him during his childhood robbed him of his memories and shaped him to become the "Monster" that he is. This experiment smeared Johan's perception of himself as a monster needing an identity. This monster has no name. This monster searches for its name. This monster sees its own reflection as a monster. Thus, the monster journeys to discover its identity and name.
[/b] Thus, the Monster is left without a name or identity. If no one knows its name, how could it be sure it existed?

Now, to go back to your thought experiments, if there is no one to call the "monster" by its name, does the monster exist? Of course, the monster exists. However, what I think would make more sense for your arguments would be if it were not leading towards existence itself, but to a personality profile, so to speak.

budaatum:
Who or what is it that thinks your thought above if you do not exist to think it?

Who or what is it that thinks my thoughts that differ to what you think if I did not exist to think it and write it for you to read and think about?

budaatum:
Please don't let that dishonest Politeactivist pit us against one another. I'm certain your arguement with him is unrelated to the one I have with him, and he's only dragged you here to fuel his nonsense.

Disregarding that the statement is faulty in itself {It should have been: "there is thinking, therefore I am"}
Here's the logical sequence of events:
1) There is thinking (this we are fairly sure about)
2) Therefore there must be a thinker (we have no way of knowing this unless we claim we know the true nature of existence, which we don't! Also, the only describable attribute of the thinker is thinking - thinking is the thinker!)
3) That thinker must be "I" (obviously not true)

There's clearly all sorts of thinking going on in a dream, and while "I" is unconscious or possessed, or even dead (as narrated by people who came back), who is doing the thinking? As with many things about existence, we don't know the true nature of thinking

budaatum:
That "I", is a flaw in Descartes thinking. He does not think therefore he exists, but he first exists as a recognisable "I", and then he, that "I", thinks. The fact that he did not recognise that implies he never doubted his own existence to begin with, and nor did he doubt that he thought.

And the reason it's an important distinction is that it has the potential to mislead the likes of Politeactivist who has been promoting Descartes here as evidence of his own non-existence and the existence of only his thought, as if his thought appears out of thin air.

Please don't let that dishonest Politeactivist pit us against one another. I'm certain your arguement with him is unrelated to the one I have with him, and he's only dragged you here to fuel his nonsense.

DeepSight:
Can't you see that what you pointed out is nothing but a worthless point on the arrangement of words? That's why I said Politeactivist is indulging in pedantic semantics. Wasting time with the fact that the first word in the sentence was "I."

Every serious thinker understands what is being said - to wit - thought requires the existence of a thinking being. The sentence could be re arranged in any number of ways and the fundamental point would remain the same.

budaatum:
But explain to me how and why you keep promoting this Descartes nonsense here if you know it was flawed and had been proven wrong as we've repeatedly argued it was.

I've made it bold so you can't ignore it as you ignore all questions you are asked.

DeepSight:
It's worse than saying we have no way of knowing that speech implies a speaker

PoliteActivist
So why not just say "I speak, therefore I am"?
Or "I poo, therefore I am"

DeepSight:
In all instances you are talking about a person.

DeepSight:
In all instances you are talking about a person. Do chairs and tables get posessed, dream or have thoughts? I dont even wish to address how silly the NDE example is.

This is such stupid nonsense I will say nothing further to it. You suffer severe reasoning limitations. Good night.

DeepSight:
It's worse than saying we have no way of knowing that speech implies a speaker

DeepSight:
I have seldom read more empty dribble than this vacant wash.

I repeat, if you can't show an instance of the occurrence of thought absent a being, go and sit down.

DeepSight:
Just go and fetch me an instance of thought occuring without the existence of a being. If you can't do that, go and sit down.

The rest is pedantic semantics for shallow thinkers.

LordReed:
Tell him you are a clueless phony? I sure will.

Budaatum, PoliteActivist is a clueless phony. Bwahahahahaha!

DeepSight:
Just go and fetch me an instance of thought occuring without the existence of a being. If you can't do that, go and sit down.

The rest is pedantic semantics for shallow thinkers.

LordReed:
LMAO! budaatum knows who the clueless phony is and is certainly not me. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Everyone tell the clueless phony their own post saying Descartes was a solipsist is inescapable.

LordReed:
Tell him you are a clueless phony? I sure will.

Budaatum, PoliteActivist is a clueless phony. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! You clearly wrote Descartes was a solipsist and even doubled down with a post from Quora. Then tripled down trying to prove Quora is better than Reddit. Dumdum you are just a duplitous phony.

budaatum:
This is precisely what we've been trying to inform you, yet you keep yelling Descartes, but go even worse than he does by claiming you are only sure you think. And when we ask you who this particular entity called you that thinks is, you go blind and don't see the question.

Elegantspiker:
Not with that scenario

Elegantspiker:
What are you saying exactly? Because you are trying but haven't said anything.

LordReed:
Bwahahahahahahaha! The liar here is you.

budaatum:
Your argument is that you are not certainly sure that

HellVictorinho6:
budaatum

this thing

again says you ,despite not being sure of you, cant do bla bla bla

the b@stard has 4tified her bank account despite not being sure


she wud say it can happen in a dream



but y cant she send murny 2?


cant she send murny in a dream?


what a crook!

Germi9:
Those guys are enemy of the entire world, dem no get friend

budaatum:
You are way too sold on Descartes, who's doubting was to prove the existence of a God, which it seems he did not bother to doubt too much despite having no evidence for the existence of his god, and which shows you are just beginning the journey of understanding your own existence.

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neuroscientist António Damásio.

I've included a pdf link so you have no excuse not to get a copy and read it.

https://archive.org/details/antonio-damasio-descartes-error

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! Here comes the changing of mouth because you've been schooled.



You claimed he was a solipsist now you want to change to he adopted solipsism. BTW he absolutely didn't adopt it. He came close to it but the fact he acknowledged the existence of others beside himself means he was NOT A SOLIPSIST.

Lemme keep schooling you while you keep dreaming of defeating.me. LMFAO!

budaatum:
You are way too sold on Descartes, who's doubting was to prove the existence of a God, which it seems he did not bother to doubt too much despite having no evidence for the existence of his god, and which shows you are just beginning the journey of understanding your own existence.

Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain is a 1994 book by neuroscientist António Damásio.

I've included a pdf link so you have no excuse not to get a copy and read it.

https://archive.org/details/antonio-damasio-descartes-error

budaatum:
By the way, your entire argument is based on dishonesty, and finger pointing to evade your own actions of repeatedly insulting and avoiding answering questions you know point out the flaws in your position.

budaatum:
Your argument is that you are not certainly sure that you exist. And that despite the fact that you must have woken up somewhere today, and eaten today and have relatives and friends and neighbours who must have communicated with you today, and have people you call mummy and daddy and who call you their child. So, kindly explain the point of further explaining to you that you must exist just to respond to this post.

And would you also claim not to know for sure if the children you go on to have exist or not?