|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:27 pm
Trieste There's a chance that one has forgotten what one has already thought of in the past. How does that come into play? Same way as a thought you never had. Quote: I've no idea what the blind 'see' in their dreams, but I would say that dreams don't really 'use' any of our other senses, except for our brain. In dreams, we simply know something happens. For example, we know that person we're talking to in a dream is a family member. We know that a certain flower smells a certain way. Dreams feed us the more important information that's central to the 'plot' of the dream, even when it's total nonsense. At least, that's how my dreams seem to me. sweatdrop I walk down the street in this "reality" I "see" people, I either know them or I do not know them. Same as in the dream, when you sense the person in your dream, you either know them or you do not, still, you have to sense that person in your dream somehow, before you come to the realization of whether or not you know them. Even when you are in your dream you have to sense the person; just as in "real life," if you do not sense the person, you can say nothing about them. (Reading about the person without ever "sensing" them, is still a form of "sensing" them.) Quote: And about Descartes' rhetoric: what about victims who have brain damage? Or people who are in a coma? Are they actually still thinking in their prone, seemingly-lifeless bodies, has their souls departed from it, or what? Descartes was a dualist, in other words, he believed that the mind is not connected to the body; that they are two seperate entities. Also, when the body was impacted, it had no effect on the mind. So, those in the coma, or those with brain damage, are still able to use their mental side; keep in mind, the brain uses many physical processes, thus it is not completely mental; it, may therefore, be a link between our physical side, and mental side. SyphaBelnades How do we find truth and what is the truth? I am not really sure how Descartes defined truth; however, I have not yet posted how to find truth. Tigress Dawn What about for people who think in pictures? There are all different type of thoughts. Well, they are thoughts, all thoughts are the same; thoughts are thoughts are thoughts, they can be nothing other than thoughts. Quote: When you look back on an object you thought you saw and then later find out about the object isn't how you remember it, did you really see it any less back then? Your thoughts warped the memory over time, thus making the object seemed warped. But you saw it, did you not? You can't unsee something. You can't really see something that isn't there either. In other words, what about the case of the mentally delusional? Well, first off, from what we know about this reality, is that what is considered "normal" is defined by the majority of the people in a society. If it is abnormal in one's society for someone to be mentally delusional, then, they are considered mentally delusional, and, thus, what they see/sense, does not really exist, because a majority from that society cannot see/sense what they are sensing.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:46 pm
A Murder of Angels Cogito, Eggo sum. I think, therefore I waffle Good one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:24 pm
this sounds like the belief of a person i know, that if you truly believe something doesnt exist, that it doesnt. personally, i dont see how thats gonna save you from a bullet, but hey, his belief.
same with this, eexcept this is more complex. you seem to imply thought cant be wrong. i know im mistaken there, but thats what it sounds like. and if thought cant be wrong, then what about people who thought they could catch bullets, or fly, or anything of that nature. why didnt their thoughts tell them they were wrong, instead of leaving them to die. why not observe the stupidity? trust me, thought ain't gonna get ya too far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:03 pm
Tigress Dawn What about for people who think in pictures? There are all different type of thoughts. Well, they are thoughts, all thoughts are the same; thoughts are thoughts are thoughts, they can be nothing other than thoughts. Quote: When you look back on an object you thought you saw and then later find out about the object isn't how you remember it, did you really see it any less back then? Your thoughts warped the memory over time, thus making the object seemed warped. But you saw it, did you not? You can't unsee something. You can't really see something that isn't there either. In other words, what about the case of the mentally delusional? Well, first off, from what we know about this reality, is that what is considered "normal" is defined by the majority of the people in a society. If it is abnormal in one's society for someone to be mentally delusional, then, they are considered mentally delusional, and, thus, what they see/sense, does not really exist, because a majority from that society cannot see/sense what they are sensing. What of the person who has delusional schitzophrenia and thinks everyone is out to get them or people with OCD who believe there are germs on the door handle. I already know you are going to say that the thought occured and therefor exists.
However, this is not a correct thought. It is a thought yes, but it is considered abnormal because other people do not share the same mind frame as that person.
The person who hallucinates something is in the same boat. They saw the image. The light relflected off something, passed through their retna, and into their brain. Just because someone else didn't see it doesn't mean they didn't really see it. It simply means that OTHERS did not see it.
Same thing with thoughts. Just because someone thinks something and someone else or general consensus doesn't, doesn't make their thought any less a thought. It simply means that person thinks differently from other people, just like the hallucinator sees different from most people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:52 am
It's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you.
I never knew the name for this frame of thought, before. It interests me, and I hope more information is posted on it some time soon, or someone can at least drop some links off in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:18 pm
Zekio Guerllem It's not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you. I never knew the name for this frame of thought, before. It interests me, and I hope more information is posted on it some time soon, or someone can at least drop some links off in this thread. Yeah, I'll post more as soon as I can, I should hopefully have some time to do it later tomorrow; I was really busy these last couple of days, with papers and frat. stuff. Anyway, I'm not sure about anything on the web, but, this place might have some info. search for either Descartes, or Cartesian Skepticism, not sure which would be most fruitful. Also, most of this philosophy came out in the books published by Rene Descartes written in 1600-1700's. I think the best book about this philosophy is Descartes book(s) Method and Meditations. They outline the foundation of Cartesian Skepticism, then try to prove the existence of things (he utterly fails after he makes his foundation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 12:02 am
Hey, when are ya gonna get around to posting more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:07 am
you know reading this only brings to mind this:
What you can't see can still kill you. What you don't belive is real can still be real. Therefore, thoughts can lie just as well as the senses can lie. Therefore, trust nothing.
but you can throw out this agument if you like. Dosen't mean it won't be seen, and therefore, thought about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:56 am
Contingent Hey, when are ya gonna get around to posting more? Well, if I don't get around to it by this week, it will be after finals... I'm a busy college kid, who spends too much time on the internet, instead of doing actual college work, and is now trying to change that. Liberi Glacialis you know reading this only brings to mind this: What you can't see can still kill you. What you don't belive is real can still be real. Therefore, thoughts can lie just as well as the senses can lie. Therefore, trust nothing. but you can throw out this agument if you like. Dosen't mean it won't be seen, and therefore, thought about. You completely missed the point on thought. Thought is different than sight because when you think, that thought exists in as much as it was thought. Meaning thought exists; wether it is a right thought or not, doesn't matter, it's the very fact that you had thought about a certain thought. If I think about a, then a exists in as much as I am thinking that it exists. Sight on the other hand is different, if I see 2 when in reality it is 4, then I am seeing 4 appear as 2. I cannot do that with thought; I cannot have my thoughts decieve me as such, for either I had them, or I did not have them. If I thought I had a thought, then I had that thought, because I thought I had it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 7:29 am
A Murder of Angels Cogito, Eggo sum. I think, therefore I waffle Actually, it would be more like, I think, waffle I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Murder of Angels Captain
|
Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 10:40 am
chaoticpuppet A Murder of Angels Cogito, Eggo sum. I think, therefore I waffle Actually, it would be more like, I think, waffle I am. Yeah, I know... But Cogito, ergo Eggo just isn't as funny. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 6:25 pm
That's really interesting. But is there really anything that we can know for sure? How do we know that our thoughts are really our own?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:59 pm
SyphaBelnades That's really interesting. But is there really anything that we can know for sure? How do we know that our thoughts are really our own? We know that our thoughts are our own for the simple reason that we must think them. If I do not think my thoughts, then I have no thoughts, because I have not thought of anything. So, the simple fact that I am thinking a thought, makes that thought my own thought. The only way that thought cannot be mine is iff I do not think it, and someone/thing else does think of it or no one/thing else thinks that thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 1:17 am
Well, Cartesian skepticism seems very effective at not allowing one to believe something which is false, but it doesn't seem very effective for everyday situations, because one would not believe anything about their surroundings, which wouldn't be beneficial.
A question; Is it that things which can be doubted shouldn't be believed to be true, or that they should be believed to be false?
Or that they are false?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 3:51 pm
Mechanism Well, Cartesian skepticism seems very effective at not allowing one to believe something which is false, but it doesn't seem very effective for everyday situations, because one would not believe anything about their surroundings, which wouldn't be beneficial. Your right, it's not a useful everyday philosophy; however, I find it absolutely great for finding truth. Quote: A question; Is it that things which can be doubted shouldn't be believed to be true, or that they should be believed to be false? Or that they are false? They should be believed to be neither true, nor false. For if you cannot prove something, that does not count as a disproof of that thing. It therefore may exist, yet is, for some reason, unprovable. Therefore, reality itself, should be understood that there is just as much of a chance of it being true, as there is of it not being true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
