ку,
писать в борде с таким "громким" именем странно.
Декарт - крут, Фихте - молодец.
Ку-ку!
писать
Постить, ведь. Писают немного в другом месте.
Ешьте у Джо.
4
Что у него есть поесть?
>>5
Аааа. Угловая скобочка пропала! Что теперь делать?
Декарт - крут, Фихте - молодец.
Чем крут и почему - молодец?
Thinking can be simulated or illusory, since the perception of thinking is not equivalent to thinking itself.
Декарт - крут:
Cogito ergo sum is bullshit, lets debug this;
1. I observe 'Descartes' thinking, a mental perception (This is discussed in Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_factors_(Buddhism) )
1b. I assume that perception of thinking process is equivalent to thinking.
2.I Attribute the identity of 'Descartes' to the thinking object
2a. ..and identify it with myself. How can 'Descartes' thinking process observe another mental process and attribute both processes to his identity?
3.I assume that the thinking object has to manifest materially to perform thinking. This is the idea that thinking can be encoded as sense-perception of non-material energy(perhaps electromagnetic waves) which are interpreted as 'thinking illusion'
Fundamental problem with 'cogito ergo sum'
Perception of thought doesn't grant the perceiver the identity
of the thinker. You can 'cogito' that 'something is thinking' but you can't claim this to be the same object that is observing the thought. It could an actor mimicking your thoughts or a clever neural network 'sub-vocalizing' mental patterns.
BALBUTTIO ergo sum.
Is faith required then?
I post on /sol/
therefore I am
posting on /sol/
>>12
You could be using a bot, script or be under hypnosis to post something,
or having an illusion/dream where you post.
>>13
I'm the last one.
Btw solipsism is Flat Earth tier philosophy for narcissists.
If you look at it from outside perspective, a genuine solipsistic individual is indistinguishable from psychotic egocentric narcissist, pretending reality outside his mind is fake.
A real analytic approach would examine the "state of reality" before making claims from a personal perspective:
Its a 'Virtual reality' but what is his part in it?
Is it 'illusion', but how its constructed and what is behind it?
Is it a 'dream' who is the dreamer and what is the plot?
A solipsistic approach just fixates on the individual and not the process of 'perceiving reality', its not explaining anything in terms of finding a 'true nature' because solipsism denies other minds who would define/construct such ideas as figments of his own mind.
>>16
What did I mean by this?
I don't remember solipsism being legitimised as an end by philosophy and instead a fundamental part used by various philosophies but I'm not a scholar. A genuine solipsistic individual wouldn't even be sapient by definition, that requires perceiving reality.
The display uses pixels to form an visual "illusion", that lasy reply wasn't about philosophy but the word "illusion" is fun. Some studies have been done about the focused mind going into beta and lower while doing this so there's the "dream" and "hypnosis", it's really considered more a trance.
So was "I" ever "posting" on "/sol/", is that even possible, which school of thought makes it possible here, I know of some but discussing this is better then entry philosophy.
A being inside a videogame(a virtual reality form) doesn't become less real if he 'actually' exists in some mental plane above the videogame, because the observer and the being both belong in the videogame as entities that require the videogame to exist.
The solipsist is equivalent to a player who thinks everything is single-player, even though he himself has no notion of outside existence.
>>19
"All the world a stage". People have to act their persona to be accepted. A solipsist would have no idea why people act this way, judging them to be NPCs.
Pravda / Правда.
