This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
There is no proof, only evidence.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
I get what hyper is saying... recognition of thought itself assumes that there is something recognizing it.
Not really sure how to respond to that honestly. Though I guess I haven't been spending much time considering a response - been watching Ghost in the Shell (which is pretty good, a bit Blade Runner-esqe).
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, I understand now as well. But I don't see that there's much difference between the predication and thinking. The predication requires that there is a thinker. The thought requires that there is a thinker. The concept of "I" cannot be processed without thought. I personally see it as one and the same, I'm probably not thinking about it the same way that you are, but to me, it's just semantics, your end result is the same.
Either way, it's not evidence, it's a theoretical logical proof. Unless you want to question whether a thought or predication can exist without a thinker.
Edit: Perhaps a better phrase would be "There is thought, therefore there is a thinker... I think, therefore I am."
Post by
Orranis
Agreed. There is no real way of proving something, simply because it is impossible to isolate only one variable. "Fire dies with a lack of oxygen." While this is "Scientific Fact", that simply implies that no one has been able to disprove it thus far. While nothing will ever be proven, one must still look at the most likely probability and assume that's what/has happen/ed.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.