However, since the dreamed person is unaware that its thinking and existing originate in and depend upon the dreamer’s imagination, the truth of the dreamed person’s Cogito Sum performance must be false. — charles ferraro
Can you prove it reliably?By definition, a dreamed person can neither think, nor exist independent of the dreamer. — charles ferraro
Your experience is simply your experience.Once I'm able to do this, I'll let you know. — charles ferraro
Let us see, then, if there is a hyperbolic doubt which the purported truth of the Cogito Sum cannot overcome. — charles ferraro
In other words, this hyperbolic possibility constitutes a hyperbolic doubt that cannot be overcome by my Cogito Sum performance despite its existential consistency and existential self-verification. — charles ferraro
First, I would need to feel a genuine need for it (which I don't).How, exactly, would you tailor your explanation? — charles ferraro
My assumption is that epistemology is done by persons, so no argument can somehow stand on its own two feet, regardless of the person making it.The question, as I see it, is simply whether, or not, the Cogito Sum argument has an inherent integrity, regardless of Descartes' motivations. Can the argument stand on its own two feet? If not, explain why. We're talking epistemology here, not religion.
In line with his wishes, I have simply tried to formulate a new version or example of hyperbolic doubt which I have argued the purported truth of the Cogito Sum performance cannot survive. — charles ferraro
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.