Something philosophical to say

[ritter]

But in its literal form, it sounds strange, as it doesn't take much thought to see that we exist independently of whether we are thinking or not, as in dreamless sleep.

Perhaps he simply believed that, in order to exist, he didn't have to be thinking all the time. Just saying...

[Henk]

Or I get syphilus or I have it now all sorted out 😇, I guess the second thing.

[Mandryka]

Perhaps he simply believed that, in order to exist, he didn't have to be thinking all the time. Just saying...

Maybe it's like this (I'd have to re-read the Meditations to be sure.)

He knows he exists while he thinks. This (he argues) lets him prove that a good God exists. And this good God would not mislead him into believing that he exists continuously - because good Gods don't mislead.

(This may be an appalling parody of the subtleties of his argument. As I say, it's been a while.)

[drogulus]

He knows he exists while he thinks.

     Thinking is a proof of existence. The nonexistent don't think. It does not say or mean the nonthinking don't exist.

[steve ridgway]

Somewhat similar. I try to see where it leads to though, solving riddles, might not be the most sensible thing. It's a seduction, but it fails, should give up on it, and as I wrote let it be a mystery.

EDIT: Even thinking in terms of 'mystery' seems to make no sense.

Foresight is needed, direction is needed. One must walk the road to the next destination, but look no further. Looking further brings madness. This with respect to one's health and development.
It's also good to make dreams, they have meaning, but they can't be put to work in the sense of getting healthy or directing ones life.

This counts for me, can't generalize.

I feel messy, somewhat mad. Need to take my rest and get back on track.

Yes, the next destination is about as far as I can ever see and am careful to avoid madness. The human mind may not be capable of understanding the way the universe actually works; for example looking at it logically and scientifically may only reveal its logical and scientific aspects.

[AnotherSpin]

Maybe it's like this (I'd have to re-read the Meditations to be sure.)

He knows he exists while he thinks. This (he argues) lets him prove that a good God exists. And this good God would not mislead him into believing that he exists continuously - because good Gods don't mislead.

(This may be an appalling parody of the subtleties of his argument. As I say, it's been a while.)

Here, the statement 'I know that I am' is simpler and more accurate. The following inquiry is 'Who am I?', and here philosophy is no longer needed, nor is it capable to assist.

[AnotherSpin]

Yes, the next destination is about as far as I can ever see and am careful to avoid madness. The human mind may not be capable of understanding the way the universe actually works; for example looking at it logically and scientifically may only reveal its logical and scientific aspects.

The human mind has tried and will continue to try to explain how things work, what happens to objects within perception. When attention shifts to the perceiving subject, things may lose their significance.

[LKB]

I'm not sure whether the few conclusions I've managed to reach amount to any particular philosophy as such, but for whatever they're worth:

1) No treasure is as valuable as a true friend.

2) Consider with some care how you should spend whatever free time comes your way. Money, entertainment, material goods and food/drink are all replaceable or repeatable for the most part, time is not. ( This has seemed more critical as I've aged. )

3) Learn to value simple pleasures. A lovely dawn or sunset, the birds in the  trees, a freshening breeze, a child discovering new joy... All free of charge, and restorative to those who can be receptive. 

[Mandryka]

Thinking is a proof of existence.

It proves the existence of thoughts for the duration of their being perceived. The  question which emerges is: how to justify the belief in personal continuity through time. Descartes leapt straight from Cogito ergo sum to Sum res cogitans; Hume objected that he is aware of no res cogitans -- just a "bundle of sensations". And now the question is, what does the identity of this bundle consist in?

[Henk]

Yes, the next destination is about as far as I can ever see and am careful to avoid madness. The human mind may not be capable of understanding the way the universe actually works; for example looking at it logically and scientifically may only reveal its logical and scientific aspects.

I tried to sort a few destinations, actually the essential ones, into a logical pathway. This sounds mad and it's madness, but at least I found some calm now. It makes some sense to me. I think about the 'world riddle' for a long time (or what Nietzsche calls 'a deeper world of truth') and how I relate, could be all very narcistic, but I think it's fate as going the own way was my fate. I think of it as gifts, not narcism or vanity. I'm a lucky man, although what I regard as lucky others would judge as unfortunate.
At the origin of this lies my fascination with the writer Harry Mulisch and I began to develop it later with Nietzsche.
I might be a madman but I manage each time to find calm. It's a kind of private religion, but without a God. The way I went, it's a very heavy epical story (It's better not to tell, I have done that elsewhere and with my psychiatrist) and this seems to be typical of all those who create a religion, however my way was also very atypical to it, the difference being my epic being conditioned by 'the death of God' and nihilism.

[drogulus]

It proves the existence of thoughts for the duration of their being perceived. The  question which emerges is: how to justify the belief in personal continuity through time. Descartes leapt straight from Cogito ergo sum to Sum res cogitans; Hume objected that he is aware of no res cogitans -- just a "bundle of sensations". And now the question is, what does the identity of this bundle consist in?

    It consists in what one thinkster calls the "user illusion". From a historical standpoint it might have originated from the invention of a natural language. Talking to others enabled the brain to talk to itself. But it took even more time for brains to get loaded with layers of abstraction and myth to make it possible to invent the kind of consciousness we have today.

    One author opines a major boost came with the Bronze Age collapse when people started to believe the voices in their heads didn't belong to an external being. It's not enough (on this view) to be aware that there are voices in your head. You have to create an entity capable of doing all the work, a "self". The myth of the gods, damaged when their homes were destroyed, was replaced by the myth of the self.

   

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

It proves the existence of thoughts for the duration of their being perceived. The  question which emerges is: how to justify the belief in personal continuity through time. Descartes leapt straight from Cogito ergo sum to Sum res cogitans; Hume objected that he is aware of no res cogitans -- just a "bundle of sensations". And now the question is, what does the identity of this bundle consist in?

I think the cells of human bodies, including those of brains, are completely renewed every 12-15 years. Ship of Theseus. 😄

Possibly, the senses of self-consciousness, unidimensional time, three dimensional space and continuing self were gradually developed in the evolutionary process as they tended to enhance the reproduction of human species?

[drogulus]

I think the cells of human bodies, including those of brains, are completely renewed every 12-15 years. Ship of Theseus. 😄

     It's useful to grasp that the universe don't have no "entities". A mind divvies up the flow into "things" because they are stable enough for long enough to be noticed. Entities and selves really seem to be real, but as a wiseguy once said "there's no such thing as real seemings". 

     Have you ever heard how consciousness can't be reduced to brain activity? I think the answer is that brain activity is reduced to consciousness.

     How could billions of neurons firing seem like my self consciousness?

     Ok, turn it around. How would it be if my self consciousness seemed like billions of neurons firing?

     It isn't consciousness reduced to brain activity, it's brain activity reduced to consciousness, and consciousness, being an output, can't be found elsewhere in the calculations that produce it. If it was there's be a homunculus in your head watching a screen and another one in the head of the homunculus watching its own tiny screen, and so on and on and on. Ah, no, I don't think so.

[AnotherSpin]

It's useful to grasp that the universe don't have no "entities". A mind divvies up the flow into "things" because they are stable enough for long enough to be noticed. Entities and selves really seem to be real, but as a wiseguy once said "there's no such thing as real seemings". 

     Have you ever heard how consciousness can't be reduced to brain activity? I think the answer is that brain activity is reduced to consciousness.

     How could billions of neurons firing seem like my self consciousness?

     Ok, turn it around. How would it be if my self consciousness seemed like billions of neurons firing?

     It isn't consciousness reduced to brain activity, it's brain activity reduced to consciousness, and consciousness, being an output, can't be found elsewhere in the calculations that produce it. If it was there's be a homunculus in your head watching a screen and another one in the head of the homunculus watching its own tiny screen, and so on and on and on. Ah, no, I don't think so.

In India, they would say that in reality, there is no observer (homunculus) or observed, consciousness is non-dual, it is neither a product nor a result, and it cannot be reduced to anything separate. The division of the world into "things" is illusory, indeed.