I am pleased with how well the semester is going. School actually seems energizing, which is good, I think I was stuck in a rut. My set is done too, just need to get the damn thing to submit right, but it keeps giving me stupid errors, and it doesn't seem to want me to post a question to ask y it won't work for me either. Oh well, Ill figure it out with the help of all of the geeks at school. 
Technology always did hate me. But anyway, on to more important things, one must never forget that even in the mist of all the things that keep u physically alive, there are far greater things to be considered which make it worth while to be alive!
So I figured it was about time to get back to the basics, mostly cuz I was randomly having this arguement on "I think therefore I am" in my head on my way over to work. Everytime I have argued the situation, I come to the same conclusion: the observance of thinking is not enough to empirically prove existance any more than observing a computer thru ur eyes proves its existance. It may be far easier to picture being fooled into believing u see something that isnt really there than being fooled into believing u think something. But just because something is inconcievable to the human mind does not mean its impossible, especially when u are talking about proving something from nothing, u must hold anything u believe from observations to be uncertain untill u prove that u r indeed observing. So Descartes was wrong, u cannot prove u think and therefore u cannot prove ur exist, and in fact u cannot prove anything, noty without first assuming something.
Now one is left with 2 options, to believe their observations even tho they may be false, or to refuse to believe them altho they may be true. If u choose the later how do u act? Anything could be the truth, so what behavior is discernably correct? That is the sole reason I choose to believe the former. There is no reason to believe that the reality we percieve is any more likely than any other of the infinate possible realities, but it is the only one which we have enough information about to react to. Thus, I choose to believe my senses, that is the assumption on which I base all of my proofs off of.
So after all the above, I pose a question: Lets take for a moment the following sittuation: u accompanied by 2 people, who both appear perfectly real, sit together in a locked room. There is nothing else in the room that can give u additional information, nor can u leave the room at this time. Both people in the room with u tell u that they are the only person in the room with u and that the third person must be a figment of ur imagination. How do u react?
I shall take some time to consider and post my answer soon.
Anyway happy school for those starting the new semester, and tons of enving thots for those of u who rnt! lol
<33
~Abunai
Technology always did hate me. But anyway, on to more important things, one must never forget that even in the mist of all the things that keep u physically alive, there are far greater things to be considered which make it worth while to be alive!
So I figured it was about time to get back to the basics, mostly cuz I was randomly having this arguement on "I think therefore I am" in my head on my way over to work. Everytime I have argued the situation, I come to the same conclusion: the observance of thinking is not enough to empirically prove existance any more than observing a computer thru ur eyes proves its existance. It may be far easier to picture being fooled into believing u see something that isnt really there than being fooled into believing u think something. But just because something is inconcievable to the human mind does not mean its impossible, especially when u are talking about proving something from nothing, u must hold anything u believe from observations to be uncertain untill u prove that u r indeed observing. So Descartes was wrong, u cannot prove u think and therefore u cannot prove ur exist, and in fact u cannot prove anything, noty without first assuming something.
Now one is left with 2 options, to believe their observations even tho they may be false, or to refuse to believe them altho they may be true. If u choose the later how do u act? Anything could be the truth, so what behavior is discernably correct? That is the sole reason I choose to believe the former. There is no reason to believe that the reality we percieve is any more likely than any other of the infinate possible realities, but it is the only one which we have enough information about to react to. Thus, I choose to believe my senses, that is the assumption on which I base all of my proofs off of.
So after all the above, I pose a question: Lets take for a moment the following sittuation: u accompanied by 2 people, who both appear perfectly real, sit together in a locked room. There is nothing else in the room that can give u additional information, nor can u leave the room at this time. Both people in the room with u tell u that they are the only person in the room with u and that the third person must be a figment of ur imagination. How do u react?
I shall take some time to consider and post my answer soon.
Anyway happy school for those starting the new semester, and tons of enving thots for those of u who rnt! lol
<33
~Abunai
I'd guess that "thinking is being" would be a better translation into modern English; that is, Descartes is echoing Socrates (IIRC), "the unexamined life is not worth living".
I am probably completely wrong