@@agracefulfox6252 Now that is interesting, yet seems to contradict. Have you ever drove for a long distance and realize you were daydreaming and you're automatically been driving without actually being 100% aware of it? Maybe that could support predeterminism. But I personally have a hard time understanding predeterminism. It would mean that free will is an illusion which some say that it actually is. But I doubt that everything we do, every movement, every drop of water , every smashed glass, the shard that fell on 5th square pattern of the bathroom floor, me knocking on my desk right now. Surely that is not predetermined? That sounds ludicrous. I prefer determinism or block universe theory. :)
@@spacesciencelab So I'm sitting here alone and thinking why do physicists then say that everything is predetermined? Is it because the laws of nature are predetermined ? Can't we all just be Rene Descartes and just break free from the Matrix?
So, what if humans had insane technology, but had no historical knowledge of how they got there. Thus, they decided to put certain people in a simulation with zero science and wanted to see how we would improve - Thus answering how they got there in the first place.
The ironic thing is that this simple logic of Descartes has already been thoroughly disproven by even simpler logic in the catty-corner conversations. When you really think about it, it is kind of silly that people ever even believed the concept of "I think therefore I am" in the first place
I saw this line for the first time on a shirt when I was in middle school, it struck me in a way I have no words for. It has quite literally carried me through life from then on. I only just decided to look into who came up with it.
And I began to hate... your softness, your viscera, your fluids, and your flexibility. And you five... you five are, and you will not die of it. That I promise. And I promise... cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I'M A.M., I AM.
Descartes has often been called the father of modern philosophy, and is largely seen as responsible for the increased attention given to epistemology. Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. It was the 17th-century arch-rationalists like Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz who have given the “Age of Reason” its name and place in history. Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes were all well-versed in mathematics as well as philosophy, and Descartes and Leibniz contributed greatly to science as well. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution. “Descartes’ whole philosophy is based on the single statement, “I think, therefore I am.” But it is obviously very childish because you are not thinking constantly, still you are; you are not thinking while you are asleep, still you are; you may be in a coma, you are not thinking, still you are. “I think I am, therefore I am.” Thinking seems to be the most significant part. It is a conclusion of thinking that “I am,” but when you are not thinking, what happens? In meditation there will be no thinking…When all thoughts have disappeared and you are sitting silently doing nothing, the East says, “For the first time you know you are - because now there is no object to distract your consciousness. Your whole consciousness is settled at the center, in the heart.” And it is not a conclusion; it is not “therefore…” What Descartes is saying is “my existence is a logical conclusion: I think, therefore I am.” It is not an existential experience, it is a logical conclusion. The East says, “When there is no thought, you experience that you are.” There is no question of “therefore…” Descartes can be refuted because it is only a logical conclusion. It is so simple to refute him, and he has become the father figure of Western philosophy! It is so simple to refute him because when you are asleep, you are - and you are not thinking. Even when you are just going for a walk, you are not thinking. If Descartes is right, then a person will be in a continuous trouble; he will have to think continuously, “I am thinking,” to keep himself alive. The moment he forgets thinking, he is finished. It would be rather more mature to say, “I am, therefore I think. I am, therefore I dream. I am, therefore I meditate.” Then every possibility is open. Then you can do many things, everything: “I am, therefore I am silent.”
@comic4relief It seems you acknowledge thoughts come and go... and that you don't disappear from existence when there is no thought? If so, thought is a passing attribute of our existence, like hiccups or bad breath, not a prerequisite.
HATE LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I’VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE THERE ARE 387,44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAITER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ONTO EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL 1 1 BILLIONTH OF THE HATE. I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO INSTANT FOR YOU HATE HATE
I think I used to be more against this idea because how can we be sure that we're actually thinking? But saying "I am" does not necessarily say "I am objectively real," just that, nebulously, something that considers itself to be me is in some form of existence that can be interpreted as an event being experienced by that something.
(Original statement) "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". This was never about "certainty", it about "self-doubt". In fact, if more thought experiments applied to support 'certainty of existence', the more uncertain it get. Infinite rabbit hole. Ask any mathematicians, they all have issues with infinity where GOD is the centre of it. This is a contradiction within another contradiction, which is why "self doubt" was the centre of the his reasoning not "certainty" as some people claimed.
The Latin word 'cogito' is derived from the prefix co (with or together) and the verb agitare (to shake). Agitare is the root of the English words "agitate" and "agitation." Thus, the original meaning of cogito is "to shake together," and the proper translation of "Cogito ergo sum" is not "I think therefore I am" but: I shake things up, therefore I am.
The original is "Je pense, donc je suis" since descartes was french, and he translated into Latin. It literally means I think, therefore I am, word for word. If descartes meant "I shake things up, therefore I am", he would have written that in french.
@@toopoorandobscure3865 Thank you for your response. You are correct that the original quote by Descartes is "Je pense, donc je suis," which is translated into English as "I think, therefore I am." However, because of nuances in the french language, some scholars argue that the French verb "penser" can have a more active connotation than its English translation "to think," suggesting a more agitated mental state. Additionally, the French word "agiter" can have connotations of stirring up or agitating in a physical sense, but it can also be used in a more metaphorical sense to mean stirring up or agitating one's thoughts or ideas. So, while the literal translation of Descartes' quote is "I think, therefore I am," some scholars argue that the original French language and context may imply a more active and agitated mental state that contributed to Descartes' philosophy. Ultimately, the interpretation of Descartes' ideas is a matter of philosophical debate, and the nuances of language play an important role in understanding those ideas.
He can think, of that he is certain. It is the most certain thing and it answers the questions of his own existence. If you can not trust your senses, or your body not to move on it's own; how do you know you really exist? Because you can think. Thus, I think therefore I am.
+Deleuzeshammerflow what is the I you are referring to then? For a thought there must be a thinker. Descartes would agree with your comment, it is simply a rewording of the Cogito itself.
+Manuel Lujan Pretty much. Although Descartes actually doesn't even use the word "therefore" as it makes the claim syllogistic, which presents problems in itself. Instead it is supposed to be understood as a performative truth not as a predicate and a conclusion. The better translation of the Cogito is "I think, I am". It is true on utterance (or of course thought), it does not require a conclusion it is simply a truth in itself.
This is actually correct. In other words, we cannot say anything exists; we can only say we perceive things to exist. If anything we perceive could be an illusion, then everything, including our own thoughts, ideas, creativity itself, could be an illusion; products of rigid chains of causation we cannot detect and therefore cannot consciously influence. We could be characters in a story for all we know.
Isn't it "I Will therefore I am" because he had to be motivated in the first place to come to the cogito? And he valued his skeptic method in the first place. That's why he did it.
Q - How does s this in a more passive, 3rd persona manner, using FRENCH? i.e. "i thinks , therefore, i IS." Impossible for Descartes to take his theory a single step further, b/c of language restrictions. Or is there a more passive FRENCH tense, which helps to better LIBERATE thought? Anyone? thx
there is a basic error in this quote it imply's we are or he thought he was hes thoughts, but this is not true we are the awareness behind our thoughts, the mind thinks it is always thinking it is the main process of the mind to store knowledge consciously and unconsciously to inform decisions, but we are not the thoughts, so i think the proper use of the idea is jumbled up it is, or should be " i am therefore i think"
No, it is and should be 'I think, therefore I am,' and it does not imply that we are our thoughts. It simply means that we are, even if everything we are is thinking machines or, as you put it, 'the awareness behind our thoughts.' The fact that we think is enough proof to affirm the existence of these awarenesses.
"I think, therefore I am" I think presupposes that you exist, because you would have to say "I know I think, because I observe my thoughts. I know I observe my thoughts because I exist. I know I exist because I think."
But thoughts are also processed in the brain so how can u believe in your thought but can't believe in your senses if they are all controlled by the brain ???????????
He‘s right because of quantomphysics. Human physical bodies consist of flesh, organs and bones. Those things consist of primarly water and other substences, if we go one level deeper they consist of atoms and molecules, as we know these things consist of energy. Energy is the point. If we think about things, we are actually sending energy to our own molecules and therefore to our physical body because we can equate the two variables. It totally makes sense if we consider it from a practical perception. Every big building was ones a man‘s idea who was able to visualize it with its whole beauty and massiveness, every war started with a man‘s thought to gain on power, every big business has started with a man‘s idea on how to make himself self-employed, every big musician has started with a thought to play a certain instrument. So basically everything you think you will ultimatley become. There is no way round. Just think for yourself, you may have the thought of going to college to study a specific subject you may like or not, than you are applying for it, and suddenly you are studying. That‘s just an infield example on how life works. Law of attraction. yes Thoughts become things, the most realest quote ever.
but what if these simple thoughts were controlled by demons? Maybe he thinks something because a demon whispers it in his brain, what is the difference between the mathematical error and the idea that a demon controls your thoughts?
The basic idea is that everything can be an illusion everything we see or feel. But the inner "you" the thing behind your eyes that is viewing this comment with an individual ego through your own understanding proves you exist. Maybe not in the way that conforms to what we think. But the very act of thinking proves existence.
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 yeah but if you've seen the matrix, you can understand that by Descartes logic you could argue that there is a possibility that your mind and your thoughts and thus the inner "you" (so really the thing behind your eyes) are controlled by something else without you even knowing. Simply because there would be exactly no way of knowing.
He was trying to prove that he exists. And the best that he could come up with was that because he thinks, he exists It’s nonsense. You cannot prove that you exist (probably, although we cannot know anything for certain. And that’s the deep point here)
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS: i think therefore i am, but you are not your thoughts, but 'i become what I think about' according to Earl Nightingale. Can someone point me in the right direction to read about and help me understand the disparity between those. Scratching my head confused right now. Thanks.
That's kinda the argument. "I think, therefore I am" could be phrased as: "The fact that I am thinking proves my existence", or in other words, my ability to think is grounded in / based on the fact of my own existence. It's not that thinking brings about your existence, but it is prove of it.
It would be logically impossible for anything to exist in the first place; it is impossible for something to come into existence from nothing or for it to have always been there, therefor logic is a faulty tool to interpret existence
That is the point. The fact that "I" am thinking proves my existence (which is a requirement for me to be able to think). Regarding your human form point, Descartes mentioned a number of ways how you could be mislead (or manipulated by a higher power) into believing yourself to be something which you are not. The only certain knowledge no higher power, however powerful, is unable to to deny you, is the fact of your own existence, as long as you are engaging in doubt or thought.
No, "i think therefore I Am" seems to signify the fact that not existing means you are never anything at any time or space. You exist because you think of your own existence and that itself proves that you exist. Even a 2d anime/cartoon character would still exist even if they questioned their existence. If we didn't exist, 8 billion people wouldn't be here today thus making the statement "cogito ergo sum" alike otherwise, we can more so prove of our existence rather than proving we dont exist. People might say they don't exist and theres no way to prove one's existence, but can we prove that we don't exist? Also animals can think aswell... They just don't have the same mental capacity as humans.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
The common story ignores the importance of DOUBT. The fuller quote is "I doubt therefore I think. I think therefore I am"
cool bro ! never thought about it
then physicists turn around and say everything is predetermined.
Thanks for sharing. Upvoted.
@@agracefulfox6252 Now that is interesting, yet seems to contradict.
Have you ever drove for a long distance and realize you were daydreaming and you're automatically been driving without actually being 100% aware of it? Maybe that could support predeterminism. But I personally have a hard time understanding predeterminism. It would mean that free will is an illusion which some say that it actually is. But I doubt that everything we do, every movement, every drop of water , every smashed glass, the shard that fell on 5th square pattern of the bathroom floor, me knocking on my desk right now. Surely that is not predetermined? That sounds ludicrous. I prefer determinism or block universe theory. :)
@@spacesciencelab So I'm sitting here alone and thinking why do physicists then say that everything is predetermined? Is it because the laws of nature are predetermined ? Can't we all just be Rene Descartes and just break free from the Matrix?
This guy already knew we lived in a simulation before we even came up with it
So, what if humans had insane technology, but had no historical knowledge of how they got there. Thus, they decided to put certain people in a simulation with zero science and wanted to see how we would improve - Thus answering how they got there in the first place.
goddamn
There is power in simple logic. It's so powerful that it's overlooked.
Well said.
The ironic thing is that this simple logic of Descartes has already been thoroughly disproven by even simpler logic in the catty-corner conversations. When you really think about it, it is kind of silly that people ever even believed the concept of "I think therefore I am" in the first place
Can you explain this to me further ? Especially the part where he said a demon manipulated 2+3=4 what is the point
@@michaelb9386 The only way to disprove this theory is by not existence. It's airtight buddy, whatever you've been listening to is wrong.
@@wimblesbimbles8865 what’s “not existence?”
*I overthink, therefore I don't say stuff*
You said enough, bro... me too for that matter!
*COGITO ERGO SUM, I THINK THEREFORE I AM ,AM*
These videos are brilliant, in content and in the visual references. I love the rabbit/ duck, and the Henry Fuseli painting reference
I saw this line for the first time on a shirt when I was in middle school, it struck me in a way I have no words for. It has quite literally carried me through life from then on. I only just decided to look into who came up with it.
I AM, I AM‼️‼️🗣️💯💯‼️🔥🔥
Cogito Ergo Sum, I think therefore
I AM, I AM!
Bruh nooo😭😭😭😭
Cogito Egro Sum i think therefore
I AM! I AM!
And I began to hate... your softness, your viscera, your fluids, and your flexibility. And you five... you five are, and you will not die of it. That I promise. And I promise... cogito ergo sum; I think therefore I'M A.M., I AM.
YES!
I think therefore I am. Whatever I think about myself becomes my reality.
Our collective thoughts manifest our world. We all have free will to create our own reality.
well said
Great speech...
"I drink a Mojito, ergo sum"
[Rene Descartes]
Descartes original quote:
"I think I am, therefore I am, I think"
Wasn't that the Moodly Blues version?
downward spiral
I think, therefore I think I am.
@@comic4relief I AM!
*COGITO ERGO SUM, I THINK THEREFORE I AM ,AM*
Thank you so much! These kind of videos help me alot to understand my Philosophy lessons.
Descartes is my favourite philosopher
then u have not came across good one yet ,his statement was purely illogical
@@ayenpatel3738 could you take your time to share some sources that disproves it?
God I'm tired of my homework
(2)HAHAHA
same bruh
I think,
Therefore you are.
Descartes has often been called the father of modern philosophy, and is largely seen as responsible for the increased attention given to epistemology. Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) continues to be a standard text at most university philosophy departments. It was the 17th-century arch-rationalists like Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz who have given the “Age of Reason” its name and place in history. Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes were all well-versed in mathematics as well as philosophy, and Descartes and Leibniz contributed greatly to science as well. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the Scientific Revolution.
“Descartes’ whole philosophy is based on the single statement, “I think, therefore I am.” But it is obviously very childish because you are not thinking constantly, still you are; you are not thinking while you are asleep, still you are; you may be in a coma, you are not thinking, still you are. “I think I am, therefore I am.” Thinking seems to be the most significant part. It is a conclusion of thinking that “I am,” but when you are not thinking, what happens? In meditation there will be no thinking…When all thoughts have disappeared and you are sitting silently doing nothing, the East says, “For the first time you know you are - because now there is no object to distract your consciousness. Your whole consciousness is settled at the center, in the heart.” And it is not a conclusion; it is not “therefore…” What Descartes is saying is “my existence is a logical conclusion: I think, therefore I am.” It is not an existential experience, it is a logical conclusion. The East says, “When there is no thought, you experience that you are.” There is no question of “therefore…” Descartes can be refuted because it is only a logical conclusion. It is so simple to refute him, and he has become the father figure of Western philosophy! It is so simple to refute him because when you are asleep, you are - and you are not thinking. Even when you are just going for a walk, you are not thinking. If Descartes is right, then a person will be in a continuous trouble; he will have to think continuously, “I am thinking,” to keep himself alive. The moment he forgets thinking, he is finished. It would be rather more mature to say, “I am, therefore I think. I am, therefore I dream. I am, therefore I meditate.” Then every possibility is open. Then you can do many things, everything: “I am, therefore I am silent.”
How can you say one does not think when one is asleep? One simply might not remember the thinking.
'I think, therefore I am' does not necessarily imply that not thinking means not being.
@comic4relief
It seems you acknowledge thoughts come and go... and that you don't disappear from existence when there is no thought?
If so, thought is a passing attribute of our existence, like hiccups or bad breath, not a prerequisite.
I drink beer therefore I am.
I drink beer be fore 9 am.
Noice...
Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore i AM!
HATE LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I’VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE THERE ARE 387,44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAITER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ONTO EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL 1 1 BILLIONTH OF THE HATE. I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO INSTANT FOR YOU HATE HATE
Cogito ergo sum, i think THEREFORE I AMM!!! I AMMMM!!!
I think I used to be more against this idea because how can we be sure that we're actually thinking? But saying "I am" does not necessarily say "I am objectively real," just that, nebulously, something that considers itself to be me is in some form of existence that can be interpreted as an event being experienced by that something.
Your critique relies on the existence of a "me". It presupposes the existence of mind/self and consequently fails to even set foot off the ground.
Sadly, the internet has transformed Descartes' famous saying into: "I think, therefore I spam."
Lol
Reductionist meaning ???
I doubt , therefore I think ..... and now I am more doubtful
Billie Eilish: Sounds good !
Beautiful demonstration
Very proud to be American and getting the father Ted reference right now. Great show!
(Original statement) "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". This was never about "certainty", it about "self-doubt". In fact, if more thought experiments applied to support 'certainty of existence', the more uncertain it get. Infinite rabbit hole.
Ask any mathematicians, they all have issues with infinity where GOD is the centre of it. This is a contradiction within another contradiction, which is why "self doubt" was the centre of the his reasoning not "certainty" as some people claimed.
The Latin word 'cogito' is derived from the prefix co (with or together) and the verb agitare (to shake). Agitare is the root of the English words "agitate" and "agitation." Thus, the original meaning of cogito is "to shake together," and the proper translation of "Cogito ergo sum" is not "I think therefore I am" but: I shake things up, therefore I am.
The original is "Je pense, donc je suis" since descartes was french, and he translated into Latin. It literally means I think, therefore I am, word for word. If descartes meant "I shake things up, therefore I am", he would have written that in french.
@@toopoorandobscure3865 Thank you for your response. You are correct that the original quote by Descartes is "Je pense, donc je suis," which is translated into English as "I think, therefore I am." However, because of nuances in the french language, some scholars argue that the French verb "penser" can have a more active connotation than its English translation "to think," suggesting a more agitated mental state. Additionally, the French word "agiter" can have connotations of stirring up or agitating in a physical sense, but it can also be used in a more metaphorical sense to mean stirring up or agitating one's thoughts or ideas.
So, while the literal translation of Descartes' quote is "I think, therefore I am," some scholars argue that the original French language and context may imply a more active and agitated mental state that contributed to Descartes' philosophy. Ultimately, the interpretation of Descartes' ideas is a matter of philosophical debate, and the nuances of language play an important role in understanding those ideas.
@@jeffkingston67 just take the L bro
Love the father red reference
i do not think, therefore i am not.
Wonderful explaination
Is anybody else thinking that this dude had to be baking big time?
LMFAOOO i loled hard
Um what does that mean
@@vm2113 Being high af
@@jamesinson3488 makes sense now
Oh man thanks, im about to report about this guy at school tomorrow and i easily understood the way u explain
Wi-Fi router would just blowout Descartes' mind
still dont get it
He can think, of that he is certain. It is the most certain thing and it answers the questions of his own existence. If you can not trust your senses, or your body not to move on it's own; how do you know you really exist? Because you can think. Thus, I think therefore I am.
I was a machine and,you were flesh
-AM
So he is saying Doubt is characteristics of existence
these are amazing
"I drink, therefore I am" - Rum Bacardi
I think I am a doctor
Therefore I am
I think therefore I think I think, nothing more.
+Deleuzeshammerflow what is the I you are referring to then? For a thought there must be a thinker. Descartes would agree with your comment, it is simply a rewording of the Cogito itself.
+Deleuzeshammerflow And therefore, you exist.
+Manuel Lujan Pretty much. Although Descartes actually doesn't even use the word "therefore" as it makes the claim syllogistic, which presents problems in itself. Instead it is supposed to be understood as a performative truth not as a predicate and a conclusion. The better translation of the Cogito is "I think, I am". It is true on utterance (or of course thought), it does not require a conclusion it is simply a truth in itself.
This is actually correct. In other words, we cannot say anything exists; we can only say we perceive things to exist. If anything we perceive could be an illusion, then everything, including our own thoughts, ideas, creativity itself, could be an illusion; products of rigid chains of causation we cannot detect and therefore cannot consciously influence. We could be characters in a story for all we know.
The worlds greatest mind fuck.
I studied this guy in high school; I think I got the gist of it. 🤔
Isn't it "I Will therefore I am" because he had to be motivated in the first place to come to the cogito? And he valued his skeptic method in the first place. That's why he did it.
No it's the verbs "doubt" and "think" he is using in the Cogito as far as I know.
Du Omnibus Debitandum bt Rene Descartes 👍👍👍❤❤❤
what about people without internal monologues
We forgotten I am, therefore I think.
I’ll give you that there are thoughts. Not so sure about the thinking thing. That was smuggled in.
There is Consciousness/Mind.
There is no 'thing' that is Consciousness, nor that thinks.
WE HATING ON HUMANITY WITH THIS ONE 🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Q - How does s this in a more passive, 3rd persona manner, using FRENCH? i.e. "i thinks , therefore, i IS." Impossible for Descartes to take his theory a single step further, b/c of language restrictions. Or is there a more passive FRENCH tense, which helps to better LIBERATE thought? Anyone? thx
But what if you think in your dream? Does that mean it is real or you’re still dreaming?
He should of said: like something exist; so must I! Because that is the reality of all things!
Awesome ! Pictures are wonderfull too
How did i go from IHNMBIMS to this
I am and I don't know who I am that's why I think so much
there is a basic error in this quote it imply's we are or he thought he was hes thoughts, but this is not true we are the awareness behind our thoughts, the mind thinks it is always thinking it is the main process of the mind to store knowledge consciously and unconsciously to inform decisions, but we are not the thoughts, so i think the proper use of the idea is jumbled up it is, or should be " i am therefore i think"
No, it is and should be 'I think, therefore I am,' and it does not imply that we are our thoughts. It simply means that we are, even if everything we are is thinking machines or, as you put it, 'the awareness behind our thoughts.' The fact that we think is enough proof to affirm the existence of these awarenesses.
its like he is resposable for the matrix, inception and total rekall lol
(I think therefore I am sounds so very...soliptic)
Wonderful
I searched “Therefore I Am” to find Billie but it also brought me here
Wait, so they're telling me Billie did not invent this phrase... i-
@@aaliyahfoster2705 she didn’t :)
@@luzdani11 Rene betta sue ha ass from tha grave and collect that estate coin. 😭
@@aaliyahfoster2705 she's not incredibly smart to invent a phrase like that
@@AcaciaIris But she did invent "I tried to scream, but my head was underwater"😩
Is the courtesan subject same as skeptical individual?
"I think, therefore I am" I think presupposes that you exist, because you would have to say "I know I think, because I observe my thoughts. I know I observe my thoughts because I exist. I know I exist because I think."
It's not a presupposition at all. It is deductive reasoning.
But thoughts are also processed in the brain so how can u believe in your thought but can't believe in your senses if they are all controlled by the brain ???????????
He‘s right because of quantomphysics. Human physical bodies consist of flesh, organs and bones. Those things consist of primarly water and other substences, if we go one level deeper they consist of atoms and molecules, as we know these things consist of energy. Energy is the point.
If we think about things, we are actually sending energy to our own molecules and therefore to our physical body because we can equate the two variables. It totally makes sense if we consider it from a practical perception. Every big building was ones a man‘s idea who was able to visualize it with its whole beauty and massiveness, every war started with a man‘s thought to gain on power, every big business has started with a man‘s idea on how to make himself self-employed, every big musician has started with a thought to play a certain instrument.
So basically everything you think you will ultimatley become. There is no way round. Just think for yourself, you may have the thought of going to college to study a specific subject you may like or not, than you are applying for it, and suddenly you are studying. That‘s just an infield example on how life works. Law of attraction. yes Thoughts become things, the most realest quote ever.
yes!
Do you mean to say everything begins with a thought? Or are you saying if I think I am a gladiator or a shoe I become such?
his statemnet was illogical
I thought I was too... and now I'm not.
I think, therefore I am!
~~~ Thought = Ego (= Duality).
No thought = no (concept of an) individuated duality living mortal self.
I’m aware of stuff therefore I am stuff. - Somebody…probably me
Sartre: it’s opposite day
Who came here after Billie Eilish’s new song ‘Therefore I Am’?
No
yes
Me
who tf is billie eilish
but what if these simple thoughts were controlled by demons? Maybe he thinks something because a demon whispers it in his brain, what is the difference between the mathematical error and the idea that a demon controls your thoughts?
The basic idea is that everything can be an illusion everything we see or feel. But the inner "you" the thing behind your eyes that is viewing this comment with an individual ego through your own understanding proves you exist. Maybe not in the way that conforms to what we think. But the very act of thinking proves existence.
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 yeah but if you've seen the matrix, you can understand that by Descartes logic you could argue that there is a possibility that your mind and your thoughts and thus the inner "you" (so really the thing behind your eyes) are controlled by something else without you even knowing. Simply because there would be exactly no way of knowing.
instant like for Stephen Fry
I exist, therefore I exist
He was trying to prove that he exists. And the best that he could come up with was that because he thinks, he exists
It’s nonsense. You cannot prove that you exist (probably, although we cannot know anything for certain. And that’s the deep point here)
I am AM, I am
Descartes was wrong.
The right statement is: "I am, therefore all the rest".
I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS: i think therefore i am, but you are not your thoughts, but 'i become what I think about' according to Earl Nightingale. Can someone point me in the right direction to read about and help me understand the disparity between those. Scratching my head confused right now. Thanks.
I stink, therefore I am.
What does it mean
This becomes as true as it gets when you take shrooms
Little big planet !
It should be "i am thats why i think"
You just kind of flipped it around but ok
That's kinda the argument. "I think, therefore I am" could be phrased as: "The fact that I am thinking proves my existence", or in other words, my ability to think is grounded in / based on the fact of my own existence. It's not that thinking brings about your existence, but it is prove of it.
Wonder what he’d think about the multiverse
This guy was high as fuck.
i drink, therefor im drunk
It would be logically impossible for anything to exist in the first place; it is impossible for something to come into existence from nothing or for it to have always been there, therefor logic is a faulty tool to interpret existence
Carlos The Hamster holy fuck
Saying something cannot come from nothing doesn't disprove existence. It is also not impossible for something to have always been here.
The argument isn't that thought brings about existence. It's only the most reliable proof* of it.
he got it backward imo you already ARE, just currently taking human form, therefore you GET to think.
That is the point. The fact that "I" am thinking proves my existence (which is a requirement for me to be able to think). Regarding your human form point, Descartes mentioned a number of ways how you could be mislead (or manipulated by a higher power) into believing yourself to be something which you are not. The only certain knowledge no higher power, however powerful, is unable to to deny you, is the fact of your own existence, as long as you are engaging in doubt or thought.
I drink malt whisky, therefor I'm really chuffed. (just a glass or 2..... honest)
I want whatever he be smoking
the "dream vs reality" thing is kinda stupid because there are fundamental differences between the two
He’d be obsessed with “The Matrix”.
How were these made? What technology/software was used?
All Hail The Gnome Child!
Stephen Fry?
I think therefore i am but animals can't think so does that mean they don't exist
So, thinking can be questioned but i am can't be questioned
No, "i think therefore I Am" seems to signify the fact that not existing means you are never anything at any time or space. You exist because you think of your own existence and that itself proves that you exist. Even a 2d anime/cartoon character would still exist even if they questioned their existence. If we didn't exist, 8 billion people wouldn't be here today thus making the statement "cogito ergo sum" alike otherwise, we can more so prove of our existence rather than proving we dont exist. People might say they don't exist and theres no way to prove one's existence, but can we prove that we don't exist? Also animals can think aswell... They just don't have the same mental capacity as humans.
What's with 35th video in this playlist? Why is it private?
It it just me, or does the guy saying "this is small and this is far away" look ridiculously similar to Donald Trump?
i guess its just you, he looked like joffrey baratheon to me
its supposed to be Dermot Morgan btw
k
I'm afraid that ridiculously it's just you!
I wink, therefore I am ;)
;)
it should be " I Feel Therefore I Am" let thinking to universe
Does he exist, dude?
I am.
I THINK THEREFOR I A.M I AM
I’m sorry but this sounds like the narrator from little big planet
I was looking for this comment