"I think therefore I am" - Decartes

or...Excrementus ergo sum. "I shit therefore I am."

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

The British empiricist ripped this Cartesian "congito" apart. How do you KNOW you are thinking. You can't really KNOW anything.
And the battering ram to that (Kirkegard) is You can't even KNOW that you don't know. So if you can't really know that you dont know then the point is moot. My question would be is there a 'thinker' behind the thought. Or is the 'thinker'/Self an illusion of the brain? Hmmmmm.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Holmes, Cartesian dualist notions of the "Congito" critics where as I said the empiricist. Whether or not they are acceptable to you is a matter of opinion perhaps? John Locke's (An Essay concerning Human Understanding) Book IV "of Knowlege and Probability" Chapter I-II-III and IV. All, in my opinion are acceptable critiques of Descarte's Congito. I should not of said "rip to shreds" though. That was a little sensationlist on my part. David Hume's writings also present (at least to me) acceptable critiques of Cartesian thinking. I am not a phylosopher or Phd. in the field so my opinion bears little weight in regards to this subject. I should of hedged my previous post with that. I was operating on memory of what I read. It is possible I misunderstood Descarte. I will read him again. Good day.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Nighttrain : Descarte was careful to not use feelings as a way of proving his existance because he contended that the human sensory perception could be decieved. He postulated that a powerful demon could be controling you by hypnosis and you only 'think' you are feeling something. The Matrix movie I believe was a spin off of Descarte's existential writings. I will hedge this post with: This is MY opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

No. you think nothing any longer when you are dead because the organ responsible for thought is non functional in death. But I see the point you are trying to make. If I drop an anvil on my foot, experiance tells me that it will hurt and most likely result in injury. Therefore I must exist if I feel that pain and sustain a injury. BUT...how do I know I am not a brain in a vat dreaming I dropped a anvil on my non existant foot? Prove to me night train that YOU are not a brain in a vat some where in some evil scientist lab. What evidence do you have that is not the case?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche