in your browser.
There is no proof, only evidence.
Return to board index
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).
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."
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.
You are not logged in. Please
to post a reply or
if you don't already have an account.
Connect with Wowhead
Other Fanbyte Sites
Hearthstone Top Decks
Final Fantasy XI
© 2021 Fanbyte