I think, therefore I am

There is realisation, the rest is yet to be known... in other words?

The only thing one cannot question is whether his mind exists, for in order to question whether his mind exists, he must first have a mind to question with.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing one cannot question is whether his mind exists, for in order to question whether his mind exists, he must first have a mind to question with.

Mindblogging, isn't it?

But if you're questioning your mind exists, then you must have mind to question it? So it's an oxymoron.

AM I HAVING A DEJA VU OR DID THIS REALLY HAPPENED BEFORE?

How can we prove it exists???

Originally posted by debbiejo
How can we prove it exists???

I think it's more than thinking..People in comas aren't thinking like we are, and unborn babies aren't thinking in the beginning, but they still ARE.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I think it's more than thinking..People in comas aren't thinking like we are, and unborn babies aren't thinking in the beginning, but they still ARE.

When in a comatose state, there is no brain activity. Someone in a coma does not think or even dream.

But they can still say, they exist, and who knows what the inner mind or spirit is experiencing.

I agree. If you know that you think, then you are self-aware. And "you" is a personal reference, as opposed to something that you would normally say to, for example, a toaster (unless you're personifying the toaster) so yeah. I think, therefore I am.

You don'T get it....the "I think therefore I am" means that you can be sure that you exist cause you think this doesn't mean that things that don't think don'T exist but that we can't be sure it does.

I think what it really means is "I think therefore you, me, and others are"... Things can only exist in individuals mind... in spite of hallucinations, or imaginations... all exist if one's brain is to function that way...

No it doesn'T peter 🙄
What you say is a philosophy like Berkeley did. Descartes on the other hand is different.

who is Berkeley?

Berkley was an Idealist, Irish philosopher.

Yes and he belived that "to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi)"

Originally posted by LordFear
I have never really thought about it but now that I am, I disagree with that statement. Is it safe to assume that because you are thinking therefore you exist and those that don't think therefore are nonexistent?.Biology has thought us that a living organism that breathes, eat, uses energy for it's metabolism and reproduces is alive. Therefore plants, bacteria, viruses they all are alive, and clearly exist, but do they think as us human do????Therefore that statement is flawed.

Well yes, but the statement tries to prove that whatever has a conscience can live as an individual, creating its own "world" and questioning about life itself; a plant, for example, is only an inferior form of life, which cannot do that. I think the statement doesn't only reffer to the physical existance of things.
That's somewhat confusing, though, because the mind is also a physical part of the body, and emotions, thoughts, etc. are impulses.
These things make me wonder if what i see is real 😕

We can't comprehend what it is "to be" because we are limited to what we see and experience, but it is important to comprehend what we don't see that is also just as real. Consciousness, thought, and energy impulses that surround every living thing.

The coma victim is a classic case upon which this ideology or statement can be argued that it's flawed. DesCarte certainly didn't account for someone in a coma. Is that person nonexistent because his consciousness is suspended? All of that person's biological criteria to be alive are still there. He lives, uses energy for his metabolism, eats although not self induced, and does have the necessary elements to potentially repoduce, therefore that statement doesn't follow this scenario

Goddammit don't you understand "I think therefore I am" doesn'T equal "I don't think therefore I am not", that are two totally different things....you first have to proof that you exist than you can go aboot to prove that other things exist.