What is it you have trouble understanding about '100% certainty thought exists' saying nothing whatsoever about 'Darat thoughts' or 'hammegk thoughts' existing at 100% certainty? I've agreed time and again the choice to have faith *i* think (and by corollary, *you* think) is not a 100% certainty.
The relationship between science and materialism
- Thread starter UndercoverElephant
- Start date
-
- Tags
- materialism science
I don't have any trouble with understanding what you mean. However what you struggle to understand is that your claim "100% certainty thought exists" is just an assumption or a statement of faith like for example a Muslim's "Allah exists" statement would be.
More obviously, you don't.
We think (so to speak) this conversation is occuring, and wherever or whenever it's occuring Thought as we usually define it is or has occured, which has nothing to do with Allah.
I have no inclination to go into what you don't understand. On this point we can agree to disagree, if that makes you happy.
Last edited:
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
You might as well argue that the Internet exists for 100% certain from the perspective of this discourse.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
From our perspective. But this since this discourse is entirely electronic you might as well say that it's spontaneously occuring on the Internet.
What perspective would that be? I have a perspective (well, I think I do) and you think you have one. See the problem?
Thought as an existent, somewhere, somehow, somewhen, remains inevitable.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
Given what we know of the universe there was nothing inevitable about thought. To presume otherwise is to inject an arrogant cult of egotism into one's philosophy. If one were to propose a basic existent that isn't material then information is clearly far more basic than such an abstract concept such as thought.
We agree it is obvious thought exists. You wish to conclude it's human, here and now. That's a position of faith.
That is not what I state exists -- thought -- at 100% certainty. Should thought not exist, you would not be worrying about something you & I think we perceive that we name 'physical, or matter/energy'.
That is not what I state exists -- thought -- at 100% certainty. Should thought not exist, you would not be worrying about something you & I think we perceive that we name 'physical, or matter/energy'.
Last edited:
I gotta go with "something exists"...but just as you think that "I think" requires a leap of faith, I think that "thought exists" requires the same.
Frankly, I think I am very glad that ontology is largely a pantload.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Nap, interrupted.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 19,141
I could not have said it better myself. Truly.
~~ Paul
~~ Paul
'Thought exists' accepts the possibility that we are BIVs, or in-the-matrix , or in The Mind, or ???. Faith gets one to 'I think'.
Different solutions appeal to different people. Most I suspect never consider the problems of interactive dualism, and the challenges each choice of monism entails.
Final analysis: mind (hammegk), or body (no one cares to admit it).
Oh, I understand...I just made the "thought exists" statement a bit more specifically than you do. Your "thought exists" is broadly defined, as my "something exists" is. Where I quibble is that "thought" is too often defined more narrowly than I know you use it. I am certain you understand.
A third category--"the question is meaningless"--merc.Different solutions appeal to different people. Most I suspect never consider the problems of interactive dualism, and the challenges each choice of monism entails.
Final analysis: mind (hammegk), or body (no one cares to admit it).