In The Matrix they COULD read their minds, that was how they could find the people whenever they did something not too humanish.

i dont think so... else why did they have to torture Morpheus to get the codes to Zion? in ANY case i think using this movie is a bad way to try and disprove cogito ergo sum...

Morpheus was NOT linked to the Matrix directly, therefore they were unable to go into his mind..

Dumbass :p

Rogue, Rogue, Rogue,

You calling Circ's argument groundless is cruel, and groundless in itself. He has explained carefully his philosophy, and backed it up. The problem is that YOU do not comprehend it, or are unwilling to accept it as a possibility.

In the Matrix, everyone hooked to the Matrix had a physical body, but they were under the complete control of a system; so even though their bodies existed, it was not THEM doing the living. It was a pre-programmed life. As such, cogito ergo sum has nothing to do with them. "I think, therefore I exist" means YOU have to be thinking. Not some outside entity controlling your thoughts, but YOU, yourself.

Also, you've never addressed the possibility that all life is product of another's thoughts, who, assuming that 'another' did exist, wouldn't be creating anything other than a thought. To exist, to TRULY be an individual, somebody has to be capable of their own thoughts, and have their own will. It is an inalienable right humans hope they have: the freedom to think.

Why do you continue to post such a worthless defense, when it isn't applicable? As Circ said before, if Descartes took into consideration that his mind wasn't his own, and that his entire universe were a merely a dream resulting from the indigestion of another being, he would've known that his statement isn't true. According to Circ's argument, the "I think" has been removed from "I think, therefore I am." --- why? Because Circ is arguing whether or not we're the ones really doing the thinking.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, and yet it is. Why does Circ deal with small-minded people? Why?

forget the matrix ordeal cuz thats hokey pokey fiction.....and did you read my qoute earlier?

First off, Circ knows the Matrix is fiction, but it does present an interesting point. There is no way anyone can prove that all human life isn't hooked up to a computer, and they're just living out some programmed instructions while the natural heat they emit is used to conduct electronic equipment. It cannot be proven or disproved, unless somebody managed to escape and unhook us all.

Sixxx(sic)six, you said:

if, as you say it was some other being doing the thinking, then that other being is thereby that who we consider Descartes....there is no thinking for someone, there is only thinking in oneself; so if perchance i was thinking for you, you are thereby me! so, when in you if i said, "cogito ergo sum", it still works, for i am you....what you are suggesting is an entity that has two modes of thinking, this does not work because overall the thinking is one.....

Now, despite the very marginal amount of sense that made, Circ will attempt to address strange points you appeared to be making. However, he really isn’t sure exactly what you said because it was written in such poor English.

First off, why would Descartes be that other being? Maybe you just weren’t making any sense there.

Secondly, are you saying that you cannot put thoughts into the mind of another person? If you think that can’t be done, you're mistaken. Science has proven that if you hook up a person to a computer properly, you can actually inject thoughts into their mind. Not to mention, people can be reprogrammed. A good reference for that is the Manchurian Candidate. Something else can think for somebody, and just because something is putting thoughts into your brain, this doesn't mean you are them, and they are you.

How is overall thinking one? In fact, what on earth are you even referring to by saying that?

first off, considering the matrix ordeal brings about whther or not computers have the ability to think for themselves, which a whole course in philosophy studies, bery interesting i might ad, but seeing how a computer is nothing more than data reading series of numbers does not mean it has the human ability to jump from thought to thought without any connection whatsoever....

as for the computer hook up thing, what you seem to be saying is that a computer can inject thoughts......such as having a mental image of a person walking a dog.....this does not mean that the computer is thinking for you, you are doing the thinking by experiencing what the computer is injecting......i see no difference in this ordeal than a person actually seeing another person walk a dog......how the imformation gets there, whether injected empirically or mentally, does not make a bit of difference.....

as for what i was saying, if person A is thinking for person B, then person B is really nothing more than person A......what you seem to be suggesting is that person B is not (for lack of better word) real, because his thoughts are person A's.....which i thereby interpret as person A having 2 seperate entities (physical bodies) but sharing the same mind.....all this really means, is that person A is actually physical body A and physical body B, but mentally it is still A and therefore it is A thinking and proving that he therefore does indeed exist even if he uses physical body B to say it.....difference in physical body does not make two different people.....for example, if person X has a sex change operation, the physical body is now different but the mind is still the same....

i just had another thought, and another way to simplify what i was trying to say.....

take the ordeal again of person B not thinking because person A is thinking for person B......i see this as mind X thinking for both physical body A and B, and when you say person A is thinking for person B, you can justly say person B is thinking for person A, because in reality mind X is doing the thinking, and just happens to be physical body A and physical body B

but what i think you were suggesting that person B not only has his own thoughts, but also has the thoughts of person A.....which thereby suggest that person B's mind is now mind AB.....which is fairly interesting; however, the question now becomes whether or not person B's mind B comprehends person A's mind A.....is this is the case, that person B can comprehend mind A, then again this nothing more different than comprehendind a man walking a dog....no matter how the information is injected, you are still the one comprehending and hence the one thinking.....i think

they werent able to "go into" anybody's mind... all they can do is provide stimulus and interpret the command signals leaving the brain... until i see the new movies then there is NOTHING that will change my mind on that idea of FICTION...

and NO circ, you have NOT supported your arguement suffiecintly, you just keep going in a circle. deal with it and move on.

Every person linked to the matrix was linked via a mental type, therefore allowing for the matrix to even exist.

By that standard then it allows for them to study what the people are seeing, since the matrix was regulating the brain patterns of everybody.

If, at any time, there was a strange disturbance, then it would show up in the matrix, and the agents would be informed automatically via that ear piece they all had.


Morpheus, however, had hacked into the matrix, and therefore was not linked directly to it, though he was within it in the end. It means that it would take a time to track down where he is, as well as hack into his own brain patterns, since they would have some sort of "firewall" up to protect from any potential agents getting into them.

Circ has supported his argument sufficiently, and Rogue is the one who keeps arguing in circles. Rogue keeps claiming "I think, therefore I exist," and Circ has substantially proven that it isn't necessarily Rogue doing the thinking. This isn't a hard concept to understand. It could be Rogue thinking, sure, but it MIGHT not be.

As to Sixxx(sic)six: You're obviously insane. However, Circ doesn't hold that against you. Let Circ put forth an analogy. Circ programs a computer to perform certain tasks at certain times, which the computer interprets, and does. Does this make the computer merely an extension of Circ? No. It lacks an identity, and it is a transmitter of Circ's will, but Circ isn't the one doing the processing in the end. It is the computer.

Much like the theory Circ is presenting, if a being were having thoughts placed in its mind, it would not be the author of those thoughts. That being would be interpreting them as if they were its own, but they wouldn't be. Do you follow? There is a difference between processing information and producing information. To restate: Circ is not the computer, the computer is not Circ, but the computer is interpreting Circ's will without any knowledge as to where the data it is processing originated from.

i dont know where you seem to be getting all of this insider information, but it doenst stand up... its fiction plan and simple, you can make up whatever you want, but the analogy doesnt stand here because instead of comparing what an author is portrayting, you are using the technobabble that the author threw in for cool factor... kinda looses its validity that way...

A) dont call people insane or i will delete the post... personal attacks are a no no... keep in to validity and support issues please. (yes even IF you said you wouldnt hold it against him i consider it to be a personal attack)...

that whole paragraph just proved my point, it is through your misuse of analogy and such an inappropriate (though seeminglt workable) example that you have lost what little credabilty you had left with me for this arugement... move on and get back to Water's arguement or i will split your posts out to the deleted pages... capiche?

we have somewhat gotten away from the real issue at hand, reincarnation, but in some way the argument about the mind seems to fit because someone once metioned whether or not it was possible for a reincarnated soul to split into two and thereby live two seperate lives........however, i am thoroughly intrigued in this mind argument (thoug maybe it needs its own thread) and wish to continue my discussion with Circ......

this computer ordeal is confusing me.......first off, even when considering the matrix, the computer is NOT the one doing the thinking althoug it is the one shaping thoughts, much like empiricism and experience, etc.......for, as you know, even after Neo was unplugged, he still knew how to speak English, he still knew what he was, he still knew a life, he still knew how to comprehend the situation, etc etc etc........he is, thereby, the one doing the thinking, even if it is dreamlike, he still has the ability to think......for, if it were truly the computer doing the thinking, then when he was unplugged all prior information i stated would have been lost, he would had a fresh mind.....

and another ordeal with the computer, when this computer produces thoughts, does the subject have the ability to comprehend? can the subject still perfor other modes of thinking, such as seeing the tube stuck to his head, or speaking to the doctors, if so, then he is still the one thinking......again, it does not matter how the information is produced, he is still the one thinking

Rogue, Circ thinks you're probably right in that this does need another thread, but it is still considered philosophy, however unintelligible it may appear at times. Also, in order to be reincarnated, you have to have an existing spiritual component; something beyond physical memory and the husk of tangible existence. Therefore, this argument is loosely connected (although not very well) to the original intention of discussing reincarnation.

Perhaps Circ would have phrased it better if he said the way Sixxx(sic)six thought process works is insane, instead of just calling him insane. Circ apologizes for the apparent slander (although Circ himself wouldn't really care if somebody called him insane).

The analogy of the computer was addressing Circ’s third argument about actual existence. Whether or not we do exist, but our thoughts and our world is all a lie. If this were true, Circ believes we wouldn’t have a real identity, in as much as our worlds tend to shape who we are almost all the time. Humans, like animals, adjust to their environment. We just add on the emotional levels of comfort.

His second argument (these weren’t labeled, but Circ will do it now for organizational purposes) was that all that is considered reality is just the product of another’s thinking, in which case Sixxx(sic)six would be partially right; we all would be existing, but we’d just be a part of a whole. The reason Circ was disagreeing with him was because we, as parts, would have no way of knowing that we were a part of a whole, and our entire reality would be a deception. It would be equivalent to creating a vapor and imparting on it only enough thought that it would perceive itself as its own identity (nor that a vapor is capable of perception, but it does contain the same intangible nature that this would require).

However, Circ disagrees with you in your opinion that the argument has been defeated. You've shown no proof that it has. The one who has come closest to refuting it is Sixxx(sic)six who (despite how confusing they may be), appears to b the most logical thinker of all of us.

Circ would like to address Sixxx(sic)six’s post. First off, processing information and thinking are two different things. In order to think, you would have to perform certain tasks, such as Sixx said, “shape thoughts;” which is different than processing information.

Circ will post a dictionary reference: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=thinking – as you can see, most of the definitions include shaping thoughts, reasoning, and using intelligent judgment. It takes a sentient being to create its own thoughts from nothing (as opposed to programmed reactions based on a pre-set bias and its perceived environment), so with that in mind Circ will address the second half of Sixxx’s argument.

If humans were to be used like computers (with ram/short term and a hard drive/long term memory), they wouldn’t actually be thinking. Sure, to process information, they would have to exist. But they wouldn’t have an identity of their own or their own opinion on the world. Everything processed through them would contain the bias of the entity placing its thoughts their mind.

Lastly, if we were to be ‘unplugged,’ our hard drive would remain intact, just like on a computer.

Circ decided he would post something else, in regard to the Matrix. Sure, it was a stupid movie and a stupid analogy, but most analogies are just that: an analogy. It isn't an exact description of what a person was describing.

Also, if they had everyone hooked up to a computer with an input/output line on their brain, they'd have to be able to read the thoughts of the people connected to the Matrix. The mind shows activity through elecronic-like inpulses, and Circ's sure if the computers were able to construct something like that apparatus the people were connected to, they'd have the sophistication to interpret brain activity and in turn read the minds of the bodies hooked up to it. It is simple logical deduction.

thank you

this is where i wish to address that if this were the case, then just because the physical person/body is under the controll of another mind, then when that mind says "cogito ergo sum" it is still proving that it thinks, it exist......

you seem to be trying to declare that the physical person/body is the one not existing, but all this physical person/body is merely the physical person/body of that mind......so, when descartes said "cogito ergo sum" then despite if it was his own physical person/body mind thinking it, or some other mind using his body, it still proves that the mind thinking it exists.....whoever or whatever mind is controll doesn't matter, for it is the mind.....i find it hard to consider that some other mind could be started and then just completely taken over, erased, and started anew......

whatever mind starts, will forever be the mind that is, despite what happens to it, it is still the mind doing the thinking