on what foundation can you claim that I do not think? if i did not think there would be no "I" in the situation... nearly all humans have an egotistical mind and those that dont are vegetables... you cannot tell me what is in my head, but I KNOW my conciousness is there...

now there IS a possibility that we are all threads of a collective conciousness, but that does not negate our individual conciousness.

youll find out soon enough... heheh

Circ did not say that you didn’t think. Circ said that you couldn’t prove that you think. The fact that human thought is self-absorbed proves nothing. Just because you think of yourself as an individual does not even mean your thoughts are your own. The media is very good at making people think they thought something they didn’t really think.

Circ certainly didn’t tell you what is in your head; he is just implying that your head may not be real, since you can’t prove it is real. Deception is a powerful thing. Assume someone is a real individual, flesh and blood. Outside sources could make them believe, even under the tests of touch, taste, and smell, that something is real when it isn’t even there.

The egotistical mind has nothing to do with this, and neither do vegetables. References to that (an egotistical mind) have nothing to do with whether or not something is really thinking, having thoughts passed through it, or is merely the product of thought itself. You may believe your consciousness is there, and that is great. It is true for you, because you’ve duped yourself into believing it. However, Circ does not believe your consciousness is necessarily your own, as there are many other possibilities (which have been stated).

a) there's a differance between the Egotistical mind and the Self-Absorbed mind... its a small differance, but it exists... read a bit of descarte and Sartre for that... and it deals with primary motivations of the self vs. perception of only self as important

b)cogito ergo sum IS the proof of thought... cmon, how many times must i say it...

c)while deception may INFLUENCE an individual (say by increasing the ODDS that someone might think one way on a particular issue), but there are too many factors to day that an outside influence had complete control of a person's Self...

d)Nick the Rogue is not saying that Circ has to believe anything, but that PROOF, as in TESTED hypothesis such that a theory is presented is enough for Nick the Rogue (who does not need to speak in the third person to acknowledge existence and only does it to illustrate a point)...

Circ never said that an egotistical and self-absorbed mind were one and the same. He never asked you to state they were different. He thanks you for clearing away any confusion the readers of this board may have had. Circ doesn’t need to read Descartes or Sartre, when in fact he is creating his own philosophies of madness.

Cogito Ergo Sum: 'I am thinking, therefore I exist.' That proves that the person doing the thinking exists, naturally. But what if YOU aren’t thinking, but are influenced by another source, or are actually created by the thought of another source? It doesn’t apply in that instance. You don’t have to restate it. It is, as Circ is restating, inapplicable to this argument. Circ doubts Descartes questioned whether it was actually himself doing the thinking, or if it and he were the product of a mind other than his own.

You are excused, and Circ will allow this. People are naturally gullible, stupid, and led. It wouldn’t take much to influence them with deception. Circ truly pities/admires your apparent faith in mankind. Movies like the Matrix represented the theory that all humans weren’t really thinking, but were living in a pseudo-reality. If you replace that battery-world with a higher power, it is much the same thing.

Rogue may believe it, which Circ doesn’t care about really; Circ is just explaining that Rogue may really not exist at all, since his existence cannot be proven.

Circ speaks of himself in the third person because it is fun, and derives a humorous reaction from readers. That is the only reason.

using the matrix doesnt work since, although they were controlled, they still had the ability to think until one of the black coats took over their body. at no time could the enemy read their mind, only through torture could they change a persons DISPOSITION so they would tell what they wanted to know..

actually i have NO faith in mankind (with few excpetions), i beleive in my SELF in totality... i think, i reason, i act... i am unpredictable... i am not scripted, i am not directly controlled...

if you cannot philosophically distinguish between your Self and a strange nonentity then more is the pity...

as of now I have supported my arguement and suggested some readings to help you understand where im coming from... all you have done is say im wrong without substantiating... logically reason your explanation or quote a philosopher, but unsupported meanderings of a newbie carry no bearing here...

What if we never truly died?

interesting but it fails......

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.....

so when i say i think, i think!

expand on that?

blimey i think i need to check back on what i write more often.

ok waterbearer i take your point, but i wasn't calling the belief invalid, i was indicating the difficulties in describing mere belief as a faith rather than a rational thought, due to the lack of evidence or tangible stuff to show others. all you have is wishy washy statements that are a bit weak. that's not attacking your belief. it's just that i struggle to accept that which has no reason (in the proof sense). i accept you may think my life is a little desolate without faith in things i have no proof of, but i am content in knowing what i know, and not knowing what i don't (but that doesn't stop me from wanting to know more).

i think i'm a bit out of my depth here though. :fear:

the statements are always going to be weak in your mind. Science cannot prove, therefore we cannot state as an absolute. And even if science COULD prove, who's to say it couldnt change?

Everything is relative.

I am not offended by what you said at all. But you have to realize, the are dealing with the fallibilty of the human mind.

infinity and the collective unconscious. how can there be an end if there was no begining. there is no start, no finish, no middle, there is only everything, at all times in all places. i am here already, how absurd and unlikely and irrational is that? how logical would it be then, to say that something after this part of everything, is unlikely and irrational and absurd. finicy is a human concept. it comes from humans limitations to understand the everything. there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end... there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end..............there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...............there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end....there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end...there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end.......there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end............there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end......there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end..........................there is no end....there is no end.......there is no end.....

Circ yawns. There is no end, hmm? Circ hopes that doesn't apply to this thread.

Another demented cackle, and Circ is gone.

I just happen to be a Druid, and I believe in reincarnation.

Ever think abotu deja vu? Its when you see/say/hear etc something you've never really seen/said/heard before? That is something you remember from another life out of the 90 percent of our brain we dont use.

Deja vou is also from instances we HAVE heard/seen/said/did before, but simply don't remember. Also, some people have deja vou experiences from something they had daydreamed about. It could've happened while they were sleeping, and not necessarily have been real.

Just a thought. It isn't like it can be proven one way or another, though. The same may very well apply to reincarnation. However, here is a question: if reincarnation is based off karma (Circ believes that's what it is centered around, and may be incorrect) and somebody was reincarnated into a fly, what could that fly possibly do to 'ascend' back to its higher state of being? A fly can't do good or evil. It eats shit and dies.

Likewise, if being turned into a fly is karma's way of punishing somebody, once they're done being a fly, they aren't going to remember it. The fly probably doesn't care, either. So what kind of punishment is that? Karma must be really stupid.

Just a few thoughts to rumble those quietly drifting brain cells.

hey, i agree with you Circ about the fly.....seriously, is someone going to argue that there is a set hiearachy when it comes to animals, with humans on top and lets say, flies #457, then in order to be reincarnated back to human we must go through 457 lives? i don't think so......besides, what if we take not just individualistic lives, such as concerning ourselves with human lives, but what if we instead concern ourselves with life in general? to explain, i would find it ridiculous that any one here would deny that the earth will one day vanish, die, and cease to exist.......in which case, when it does reincarnation is thereby gone (unless other planets/life forms have reincarnation too).....therefore, for reincarnation to essentially be reincarnation of life, as opposed to individualistic lives (which i think it could thereby be dismissed as a part of life) the earth and this galaxy and this universe would have to exist again.....thereby defining time as circular and everything infinate

I've always believed in reincarnation. . . And even if Circ's point makes sense about the fly, why would karma even bother to make a human a fly in punshiment if the human's not going to remember it at all after the fly dies? A moot point.
My reason for believing that reincarnation is real is that I have felt infinite emotions of being here before. Anyone knows the earth's age...? We're actually still new creatures, not so long-lived as the dinosaurs yet, and I still feel as old as Earth herself.
Perhaps I'm just better connected to my inner self than anyone will be their entire lives.
Go ahead... I want to know what you think.

If the same energy is used over and over and over again, which it must be since energy itself is never truly gone, just altered, then ther ewould be the potential for remembrance of what that energy pattern which you inheret was once like.