Quote:
|
Originally Posted by primus
If I stop "thinking", do I stop to "exist"?
|
No; existing can take place without thinking, as seen with inanimate objects. However, thinking cannot take place without existing, and so the case that one thinks necessarily implies the case that one exists, by virtue of its dependence on the case that one exists.
Quote:
|
Can I "exist" without "thinking"?
|
See above.
Quote:
|
Can I "think" without "existing"?
|
See twice above.
Quote:
|
Can "thinking" take place without an entity that "thinks"?
|
Of course not. An entity that thinks must perform the process of thinking, for only the condition of thinking characterises the entity as an entity that thinks.
Quote:
|
Does "observing" an entity "think" prove the "existence" of the observer, of the observed entity, or both?
|
The observing proves the existence of the observer if by "observing" one refers to the action of conscious perception. One may say that a plant "observes" the sun, but such an observation relies, not on conscious perception, but on purely mechanical reactions to stimuli.
The observing does not prove the existence of that which appears to think, for one's perception of another thinking does not necessarily imply the case that the object of perception actually thinks.
Quote:
|
If the entity equals the observer, what proves its existence: "observing", or "thinking", or both, or neither?
|
One cannot observe if one does not think, so both the observing and the thinking prove the existence of the entity as observer, with the former a product of the latter.