"I think, therefore I am"

[+Sherapy]

On 11/17/2021 at 3:46 PM, Mr Walker said:

You truly don't read my posts do you? 

Not only do women have the right to do as the y wish, they (in general) happen to be better cooks than men.

That is probably because even today more girls are taught to cook than boys or it might be the result of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation. 

Second, "genetically", men are cognitively  specialists, and women  are generalists, due to the evolution of human labour over millions of years 

Hence, men tend to be be the best specialists at a particular task, but  more women tend to be overall more competent  at most tasks 

Thus the top exerts in many fields tend to be men, but there tend to be more very good women in those fields 

ie the top 10 chefs in the world are all men, but overall there are more women in the professional food catering and cooking field than men  and thus more competent women cooks than men

Likewise, the top 10 computer programmers in the world are men, but generally women are better at using computers than men and do more jobs using computers than men.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/28/18760073/barbecue-grilling-men-stereotype
 

Perhaps you buy into the stereotypes?

Edited November 19, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

16 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/28/18760073/barbecue-grilling-men-stereotype
 

Perhaps you buy into the stereotypes?

Oh, that never happens.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[+Nuclear Wessel]

5 hours ago, Sherapy said:

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/28/18760073/barbecue-grilling-men-stereotype
 

Perhaps you buy into the stereotypes?

He also left out a lot of criticism the author made. I wonder why. 

[8th_wall]

I read saw something that nearly made me **** a brick, consternation and bemusement, of laughter hahahahahahahha.

The grave site of Renes Descartes creating a paradox, no longer thinking and no longer existing yet still real in the memory hahahahahahahhhhhaha.  I think this provides, actually, the contradiction necessary to finally lay this to rest.  Since the premise is contradicted the logical following for the tautological flip is I think therefore I am not!  And this is precisely correct, when one is busy thinking, in the throes of the deepest thought, one is not in a state of Being.  One is in a state of being what isn't!  Thinking!

Therefore we can conclude, I think therefore I am not!  Still a pretty stellar result speaking of the nature of nonexistence, perceptually at least,.and the idea that existence is self contained and subjective, naturally!

[taniwha]

On 6/29/2021 at 5:59 AM, Saru said:

Philosopher René Descartes famously said Cogito, ergo sum, which translates to "I think, therefore I am".

If you had to sum up the concept of existence in one sentence, what would it be ?

The 3 comprehensive steps to 'Thought Existing'

1. 'I did think, therefore I was.'

2. 'I think, therefore I am'

3. 'I will think, therefore I will  be'

[Abramelin]

On 1/21/2022 at 11:50 AM, taniwha said:

The 3 comprehensive steps to 'Thought Existing'

1. 'I did think, therefore I was.'

2. 'I think, therefore I am'

3. 'I will think, therefore I will  be'

You forgot the 4th:

'I don't think, therefore I am not'.

[taniwha]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

You forgot the 4th:

'I don't think, therefore I am not'.

Funny  A pearl of wisdom proclaimed after a successful reconstruction of Descartes original experiment by none other than the wisest village idiot of them all, ...None The Wiser

hahaha.

[Abramelin]

7 hours ago, taniwha said:

Funny  A pearl of wisdom proclaimed after a successful reconstruction of Descartes original experiment by none other than the wisest village idiot of them all, ...None The Wiser

hahaha.

It gets even better: without thought there is no *I*.  The *I* is sustained by thoughts.

[taniwha]

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It gets even better: without thought there is no *I*.  The *I* is sustained by thoughts.

Now that really is unthinking outside of the box! 

[Golden Duck]

On 11/17/2021 at 11:00 AM, Sherapy said:

Nonsense,, nowadays boys love to cook and many are quite good at it, too. 
 

‘’Lots of women barbecue, too. They don’t need your okay to have a go at it, mr. “I am not superior to anyone.” 
 

Walker is talking about the typical Australian BBQ.

Quote

Examining National Identity Australian Barbecue Culture

4.1.2 Holding tongs in the right hand and grabbing a drink in the left hand 
Australian love beer, they are more likely to hold something and drink during the process of
barbecue. However, the truth seems to be opposite since alcohol is often not allowed in public areas 
such as parks or beaches. The interesting point is that Aussies tend to be more likely to hold tongs in
their right hands even some of them are left-handed.

4.1.3 Males always round the grill
Rhodes (2012) pointed out the women always do indoor cooking and outdoor cooking is the 
guys’ job. Aussie barbecue in association with masculine outdoors represents a method of food 
preparation that maintains a perception of manhood (Hodge, Fiske& Tunner, 2016).

https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/55912079.pdf

Thus, the origins for the "one hand one bounce" rule in back yard cricket; and, the usefulness of a lemon tree to keep the men outdoors.

[Golden Duck]

On 11/18/2021 at 7:28 PM, Mr Walker said:

Generally the common Aussie barbecue has  the alpha male cooking chops sausages and,  if you are lucky, some steak

Generally the host.  It's his barbecue.  Ettiquette says leave it to him.

[Golden Duck]

On 11/20/2021 at 12:24 AM, Sherapy said:

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/6/28/18760073/barbecue-grilling-men-stereotype
 

Perhaps you buy into the stereotypes?

Men talk shoulder to shoulder. Women talk face to face.

Men are outside with the grill where they can be distracted with things.

The stereotype will change as backyards disappear.

[taniwha]

On 1/31/2022 at 9:50 PM, Abramelin said:

It gets even better: without thought there is no *I*.  The *I* is sustained by thoughts.

Yes!  But wait there's more!

The only thing certain for Descartes is that his thoughts exist, but does he himself really exist by default?  Is it reasonable to conclude that the mere process of having a 'thought' somehow proves your existence independant of the thought? 

I propose that thinking is all that there is and that there never was anything else except past thoughts and that there  never will be anything else but future thoughts. 

Which means that our reality is no more than an infinite and timeless manifestation of  concentrated and ceaseless imaginings that are  restlessly  dreamed, visualised, organised,  designed and created and energised in the greatest minds eye so to speak.

So in a nutshell, 'I thought, therefore I am thought, and the thought is me'

No disrespect to Descartes.

"I think, so I am" is hypothetical reasoning and so I don't think it is an undeniable truth

'I think, therefore I think I am' is more in keeping with his own wisdom.

 

[oslove]

On 6/29/2021 at 1:59 AM, Saru said:

Philosopher René Descartes famously said Cogito, ergo sum, which translates to "I think, therefore I am".

If you had to sum up the concept of existence in one sentence, what would it be ?

 

The default status of existence is reality.

[oslove]

54 minutes ago, oslove said:

On 6/29/2021 at 1:59 AM, Saru said:

Philosopher René Descartes famously said Cogito, ergo sum, which translates to "I think, therefore I am".

If you had to sum up the concept of existence in one sentence, what would it be ?

"The default status of existence is reality." -Oslove

 

Dear Saru, here is another one:

"The default status of reality is existence."

[oslove]

6 hours ago, oslove said:

 

Dear Saru, here is another one:

"The default status of reality is existence."

 

The category existence is the sine qua non status, so that as we humans have intelligence we immediately know that first we must exist before we can do anything else.

So, existence cannot be proved according to logic, but it is experienced, and that is the proof from experience - i.e. the consciousness of every man's awareness of his own conscious status.

This implicates that when a human is not conscious of his own consciousness, then he does not exist to himself - in a way he is dead but not the death that leads to decay of the flesh.

 

However, to conscious fellow humans, he exists though in a comatose status - say like in hibernation.

[lightly]

On 5/26/2022 at 7:27 AM, taniwha said:

Yes!  But wait there's more!

The only thing certain for Descartes is that his thoughts exist, but does he himself really exist by default?  Is it reasonable to conclude that the mere process of having a 'thought' somehow proves your existence independant of the thought? 

I propose that thinking is all that there is and that there never was anything else except past thoughts and that there  never will be anything else but future thoughts. 

Which means that our reality is no more than an infinite and timeless manifestation of  concentrated and ceaseless imaginings that are  restlessly  dreamed, visualised, organised,  designed and created and energised in the greatest minds eye so to speak.

So in a nutshell, 'I thought, therefore I am thought, and the thought is me'

No disrespect to Descartes.

"I think, so I am" is hypothetical reasoning and so I don't think it is an undeniable truth

'I think, therefore I think I am' is more in keeping with his own wisdom.

 

   Interesting thought .    Would I be reasonable in thinking that it could occur independent of a  thinker?     

[oslove]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

   Interesting thought .    Would I be reasonable in thinking that it could occur independent of a  thinker?     

 

Read below and think and react.

The category existence is the sine qua non status, so that as we humans have intelligence we immediately know that first we must exist before we can do anything else.

So, existence cannot be proved according to logic, but it is experienced, and that is the proof from experience - i.e. the consciousness of every man's awareness of his own conscious status.

This implicates that when a human is not conscious of his own consciousness, then he does not exist to himself - in a way he is dead but not the death that leads to decay of the flesh.

 

However, to conscious fellow humans, he exists though in a comatose status - say like in hibernation.

[lightly]

15 minutes ago, oslove said:

Read below and think and react.

The category existence is the sine qua non status, so that as we humans have intelligence we immediately know that first we must exist before we can do anything else.

So, existence cannot be proved according to logic, but it is experienced, and that is the proof from experience - i.e. the consciousness of every man's awareness of his own conscious status.

This implicates that when a human is not conscious of his own consciousness, then he does not exist to himself - in a way he is dead but not the death that leads to decay of the flesh.

 

However, to conscious fellow humans, he exists though in a comatose status - say like in hibernation.

            I think existence is it’s own proof, and it would be illogical to think otherwise. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by lightly

[oslove]

20 hours ago, lightly said:

            I think existence is it’s own proof, and it would be illogical to think otherwise. 

 

You mean that you and I each one of us all humans are conscious of each one's respective consciousness.

 

Now, I ask you, how do you prove to yourself or I to myself that I am not into delusion, illusion, or hallucination, if you or I were all alone, for if there are at least two of us, then we can mutually and bilaterally prove to each other and thus ascertain that I exist and you exist and we exist?

 

What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself? 

[lightly]

1 hour ago, oslove said:

You mean that you and I each one of us all humans are conscious of each one's respective consciousness.Now, I ask you, how do you prove to yourself or I to myself that I am not into delusion, illusion, or hallucination, if you or I were all alone, for if there are at least two of us, then we can mutually and bilaterally prove to each other and thus ascertain that I exist and you exist and we exist?What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself? 

         IS = exist  .    ?  

Edited June 30, 2022 by lightly

[oslove]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

         IS = exist  .    ?  

 

2 hours ago, oslove said:

You mean that you and I each one of us all humans are conscious of each one's respective consciousness.Now, I ask you, how do you prove to yourself or I to myself that I am not into delusion, illusion, or hallucination, if you or I were all alone, for if there are at least two of us, then we can mutually and bilaterally prove to each other and thus ascertain that I exist and you exist and we exist? What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself? 

 

 IS = exist  .    ?

That is correct, now answer my question:

"What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself?"

How do you ascertain for yourself that you exist?

[oslove]

7 hours ago, oslove said:

 

 IS = exist  .    ?

That is correct, now answer my question:

"What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself?"

How do you ascertain for yourself that you exist?

 

How do you ascertain for yourself that you exist?

Here is how you can ascertain infallibly, bang your face against a concrete wall, there: that is the undeniable empirical evidence that you exist and are alive.

[lightly]

8 hours ago, oslove said:

 

How do you ascertain for yourself that you exist?

Here is how you can ascertain infallibly, bang your face against a concrete wall, there: that is the undeniable empirical evidence that you exist and are alive.

I am aware of my existence… I don’t need to bang my face against a concrete wall to  ascertain existence.

Edited July 1, 2022 by lightly

[+Liquid Gardens]

22 hours ago, oslove said:

"What about when you or I or any human is all alone by himself?"

How do you ascertain for yourself that you exist?

It's easy.  If lightly did not exist then that would mean that you are posting messages to a person that doesn't exist as if they did. Lightly must exist then because the alternative would be that you are something less than 100% rational at all times which we know just cannot be the case.