Well they aren't my assumptions. One cannot view the world without filtering it through themselves. Even if an outside world exists, I can only view it through my lenses which changes the perception and therefore object.
I don't know what Descartes goal was but to start with the assumption that he existed was probably foolish.
Thanks tho. My point to the O.P is that cognative dissonance is quite natural and normal.
What makes you think that you can truly isolate "I" and "world"? You say your view of the world is filtered through yourself, were you not molded by the world?
Do you think that everything you believe is something that can be proven?
Descartes argument of existence is not foolish and it is not an assumption, it is a proved fact. You have to read if you insist on judging him, since he is one of the greatest scientists of all time and elaborated a system of thinking which revolutionized the world. I am personally following his exact methodology and philosophy and I replaced religion and any other assumptions given by the society with his rationality. On short, his work made me a Mathematician and gave me a strong vision upon life. So I will defend him at all costs.
That is incorrect. And actually Descartes proved exactly this. Pls stop arguing against things that aren't true. You already attacked an assumption of existence that does not exist. He have a PROOF for existence, the assumption of thinking. Either read it or don't argue against it specifically. I accept other views, but I don't like judging something before knowing bout it.
You may or may not know this but I posited on this site that the singularity was reaches around 2007. From my own coding I can tell you that the first thing A.I will do is doubt. Is your argument that we are A.I??
Doesn't make any sense really. Just because A.I. does something that we do mean we are A.I. In fact, A.I. is created by us, so it's absolutely normal for them to do what we do, and furthermore, we are also a system just as they are so we are another form of intelligence just as A.I. is, and we create A.I. in our image, so I can't understand your analogy with A.I. which is supposed to be like us because that's why we created it in the first place
You don't understand the singularity then. It's the point at which A.I becomes more intelligent than us (oversimplification). I don't see how it nescessarily follow that something more intelligent than us would behave as we do. Please explain why you think it would.
Obviously you didn't believe me when I stated that I am not even sure an outside reality exists. No need to argue things are facts with me because I don't believe in an abject reality. I truelly don't so you would just get frustrated.
I did not give an opinion on that. I don't even want to because I don't have an answer either. I did not argue about that. I just said Descartes' reasoning is not foolish, and that's because he didn't start with that assumption, as you thought. I don't argue with things like this since it doesn't work that way. Nobody wins in arguments of this type over the internet.
I know and I appreaciate it. I enjoy you on this subject actually. As long as you don't put words in my mouth. Cogito ergo sum is the only thing I believe foolish is what I said. I enjoy his deliberations.
You have the right to consider it foolish, but I don't really understand that. He is a great scientist and his work was approved and respected by many scientists, including his difficult argumentations which were validated by Leibnitz. Also, he proved that science can be "translated" in many different systems and he is the father of Analytic Geometry, managing to "translate" geometry into algebra. He stated that every scientifical branch can be translated, so that epistemologically you need a system of axioms and you develop everything based on it and then write it in an infinte number of ways, all leading to the same knowledge. This is the foundation of the argumentation of God itself, which is a system of all perfections and not what people like to believe, but the set of laws of nature, mathematics, physics, etc and perhaps beyond that. To me, he was the greatest of them all. I believe that your skepticism stems from misunderstanding the notions of axioms. We need to take some things for granted in order to start and then we build knowledge on that. The only assumption he had is that he thinks (cogito) which is irrefutable, since the act of creating the argument itself is an act of thinking, so it is safe to assume it. Then you build on that just in the way any science does. And that is brilliant.
IIN to get like a sensation that life isn't real
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well they aren't my assumptions. One cannot view the world without filtering it through themselves. Even if an outside world exists, I can only view it through my lenses which changes the perception and therefore object.
I don't know what Descartes goal was but to start with the assumption that he existed was probably foolish.
Thanks tho. My point to the O.P is that cognative dissonance is quite natural and normal.
--
NormalIsAsNormalDoes
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What makes you think that you can truly isolate "I" and "world"? You say your view of the world is filtered through yourself, were you not molded by the world?
Do you think that everything you believe is something that can be proven?
--
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well for the sake of communication we have to use pronouns right? There is supposedly nothing seperating all that exists.
As far as things being proven, no, I believe all is subjective to an observer and have stated that, which is why I said "facts" don't really exist.
Scary propositions for sure.
Descartes argument of existence is not foolish and it is not an assumption, it is a proved fact. You have to read if you insist on judging him, since he is one of the greatest scientists of all time and elaborated a system of thinking which revolutionized the world. I am personally following his exact methodology and philosophy and I replaced religion and any other assumptions given by the society with his rationality. On short, his work made me a Mathematician and gave me a strong vision upon life. So I will defend him at all costs.
--
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I have read it. You should look into AI theory, because it is widely believe AI's will believe they also exist.
Step out of your notebooks because science always changes. There are no facts.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That is incorrect. And actually Descartes proved exactly this. Pls stop arguing against things that aren't true. You already attacked an assumption of existence that does not exist. He have a PROOF for existence, the assumption of thinking. Either read it or don't argue against it specifically. I accept other views, but I don't like judging something before knowing bout it.
--
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You may or may not know this but I posited on this site that the singularity was reaches around 2007. From my own coding I can tell you that the first thing A.I will do is doubt. Is your argument that we are A.I??
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Doesn't make any sense really. Just because A.I. does something that we do mean we are A.I. In fact, A.I. is created by us, so it's absolutely normal for them to do what we do, and furthermore, we are also a system just as they are so we are another form of intelligence just as A.I. is, and we create A.I. in our image, so I can't understand your analogy with A.I. which is supposed to be like us because that's why we created it in the first place
--
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You don't understand the singularity then. It's the point at which A.I becomes more intelligent than us (oversimplification). I don't see how it nescessarily follow that something more intelligent than us would behave as we do. Please explain why you think it would.
See my other comment. Rudimentary understanding of A.I conclused he was indeed proven wrong in that assumption.
Btw I stated that starting with the assumption he existed was somewhat foolish. Not the excercise itself.
Obviously you didn't believe me when I stated that I am not even sure an outside reality exists. No need to argue things are facts with me because I don't believe in an abject reality. I truelly don't so you would just get frustrated.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I did not give an opinion on that. I don't even want to because I don't have an answer either. I did not argue about that. I just said Descartes' reasoning is not foolish, and that's because he didn't start with that assumption, as you thought. I don't argue with things like this since it doesn't work that way. Nobody wins in arguments of this type over the internet.
--
nikkiclaire
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know and I appreaciate it. I enjoy you on this subject actually. As long as you don't put words in my mouth. Cogito ergo sum is the only thing I believe foolish is what I said. I enjoy his deliberations.
--
[Old Memory]
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You have the right to consider it foolish, but I don't really understand that. He is a great scientist and his work was approved and respected by many scientists, including his difficult argumentations which were validated by Leibnitz. Also, he proved that science can be "translated" in many different systems and he is the father of Analytic Geometry, managing to "translate" geometry into algebra. He stated that every scientifical branch can be translated, so that epistemologically you need a system of axioms and you develop everything based on it and then write it in an infinte number of ways, all leading to the same knowledge. This is the foundation of the argumentation of God itself, which is a system of all perfections and not what people like to believe, but the set of laws of nature, mathematics, physics, etc and perhaps beyond that. To me, he was the greatest of them all. I believe that your skepticism stems from misunderstanding the notions of axioms. We need to take some things for granted in order to start and then we build knowledge on that. The only assumption he had is that he thinks (cogito) which is irrefutable, since the act of creating the argument itself is an act of thinking, so it is safe to assume it. Then you build on that just in the way any science does. And that is brilliant.