If you do not communicate with us, what grounds could there be for supposing that you even have thoughts?

The issue here was if someone could have a concept of "me" without a concept of "not me". You've moved to someone with no concepts whatsoever.

If you do not communicate with us, what grounds could there be for supposing that you even have thoughts? — Banno

I don’t know what the correct place to start would be. Assume I do because I’m a human, and humans have similar biology and experiences, or that I don’t because I’ve shown no evidence of thought? But my point is that either way all you can do is assume.

The issue here was if someone could have a concept of "me" without a concept of "not me". You've moved to someone with no concepts whatsoever. — Banno

I’ll tentatively say it’s possible. “Me” could represent a set containing parts (hands, heart, feelings, beliefs, etc.) that collectively make up the concept of “me.” I don’t need to know about or have access to anything external. I can simply identify with everything I do have access to.

Sure. Go ahead and make up whatever you want.

Sure. Go ahead and avoid critiquing any arguments I present... :roll:

An assumption is not an argument; give us something to critique that goes beyond

I’ll tentatively say it’s possible. — Pinprick

Otherwise: Sure. Go ahead and make up whatever you want.

Largely for the sake of argument I took the position that it was possible to have the concept “me” without necessarily needing the concept “not me.” I gave reasons for taking this position. I have no evidence, so of course the starting place is an assumption, as are most starting places for most arguments.

Prior to this, I questioned the methods used to assess thoughts in the evidence you referenced. You sidestepped the question, and haven’t tried to answer it.

Prior to this, I asked about the necessity of language to have thought after it seemed you asserted that it was necessary. We both asked each other to define “thought” and neither of us complied.

To sum up, and try to get back on topic, I’m mainly interested in learning more about your claim that language is needed in order to have thoughts. I don’t claim to know enough to know whether this claim is accurate or not, but I need something more than just this assertion to figure out whether I agree or not. Maybe this isn’t even what you are claiming, as it seems to hinge on the so far undefined term “thought.” I’m happy to accept however you define the term. After all, it’s your argument.

Largely for the sake of argument I took the position that it was possible to have the concept “me” without necessarily needing the concept “not me.” — Pinprick

I'm going to take the other approach, since the private language argument and what little evidence I have found leads me there.

And I'm not all that interested. Google it.

no... because there is a difference between you as an individual entity, and the experience you are having. They are two different things.

you cannot prove whether or not reality is only taking place in the mind, and further I'd wager that it isn't. Thought and an individual's reality are not the same thing.

because there is a difference between you as an individual entity, and the experience you are having. They are two different things. — Lif3r

I'm sorry, says who? I am something other than my experiences? Fancy that.

uhh... yeah?

Your psychology might be an accumulation of your experience, but you are also an entity. A real thing.

I would even go as far as to say you are one part in everything in existence, and you retain ownership of it because you are the one experiencing it.

I am something other than my experiences? Fancy that. — Pantagruel

Are you still you after you die and cease to experience?

Are you still you after you die and cease to experience? — Pinprick

I wouldn't know, that wasn't at issue.

Your psychology might be an accumulation of your experience, but you are also an entity. A real thing — Lif3r

My experiences are real. My experience of my physical form is real. My experience is inclusive of everything I am. I'm an advocate of the embodied/embedded school of cognition.

'I think therefore I am', means nothing. It is the same as saying:

• I sense, thus I am.
• I move, thus I exist.
• I fart, thus I live.

You can take any key part of your experience, and say that because of this, the simulation exists.

It gives no idea of what "I" is, the pronoun I is not explained; the key words in that phrase are "think" and "am", and both can be exchanged in multiple ways.

The problem is that you walk away from this thinking I is explained.

So you think, therefore, you exist (no random thought about 'you' should come to mind; because it lacks meanings). Therefore, 'you' is? A thinker?

You can take any key part of your experience, and say that because of this, the simulation exists. — opt-ae

Cogito ergo sum doesn't say thinking is the cause of existence, only evidence of it, qua certainty.

So "I" is defined as "certain of existence"?

I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I am thinking now.

I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I am thinking now. — Pantagruel

In fact, I'm the only one thinking now. I'm that demon Descartes was always going on about, and I'm pretending you're thinking, just as I pretended he was. Sorry.

In fact, I'm the only one thinking now. I'm that demon Descartes was always going on about, and I'm pretending you're thinking, just as I pretended he was. Sorry. — Ciceronianus the White

Aha! A dispute!

ah, it was you all along...

No...

I am
Just am
He's just saying he is an entity. An existence. He isnt describing it. He's saying he's capable of recognizing that he is an entity because of his ability to report the nature of his existence to himself. If he weren't able to do this, he could not even prove whether or not he exists at all, but because he can think, he can know he is existing.