Just Googled it and you are right.

Well, I that's what you meant, then fine - I usually use 'the cogito' as shorthand for the entire expression, 'cogito ergo sum' (and the thought it represents). Given that cogito is literally a first person singular verb, I think it might be useful to use a different description to indicate the impersonal 'there's thinking going on' - but that's just semantics at this point:)

I thought that was what is meant with 'cogito', i.e. "There's thinking going on"?

I’ve got his book! It comes highly recommended although I don’t know the first thing about motorcycles.

Not even the cogito has been established with agreement between philosophers. As far as I can tell, the part everyone agrees on is something like 'thinking is going on', but involving the terms 'I' and 'being' is contested.

Besides cogito, are there any truths that philosophy has established with 100% agreement between philosophers?

I know what it is, I'm saying there's a way other than being a philosophical zombie.

Even if we only do stuff to avoid bad brain chemicals, which I don’t think is true, those bad brain chemicals are just as much a part of us as the part that will subjectively experience the negative affect brought on by them, so it can’t be coercive. You can’t coerce yourself, that’s just you being you.

As for the chemicals themselves, take the example of people who break drug addiction habits and stop using. They definitely aren’t getting more pleasurable brain chemicals as a result, at least not for a loooong time.

Sorry I was drunk last night what I meant was were the only animals / mammals species on Earth that create war over simple s*** as a political dispute or in the name of God when while you only see an animal nature do some type of s*** like that to defend themselves and then what I meant what I said at the end of my rant was that we could all be computers just communicating with each other like A. I. self learning ones Elon musk I think it was created they started thinking for themselves without no one's help or influence and created their own language what if we're in a game of inception it just keeps getting deeper and deeper the writer and creator of The Terminator and The matrix said The Terminator was a prequel to what's to come. weather you believe in the 1 percenters or not they usually publicly announce their intentions and plans of world changing events before they even take place pay attention to what they don't want you to pay attention to read what they tell you not to read learn how to think not what to think just because Google says it's true don't mean s*** Google is owned by corporations the corporations control the truth that you see same as any news station any real news that there is to be reported is overshadowed by all the stuff and b******* that separates us and divides us as a people and then we're showing how scared we should be of our surrounding world. They're training us now to turn on each other at point in time when it would be crucial for the powers that be in their agenda that if we didn't they don't want us to unite

What is the idea that philosophers "accept at least the relevance of these fields", if not a synonym for exactly that, the prioritisation of friends and goodwill (social status) over truth-seeking?

I absolutely am.

“A self defeating position”

I heard this statement regarding logical positivism position.

I would much appreciate it if anyone could clarify how it is a self defeating position!

You better search what philosophical zombie is.

ayyyyyy

> Our perception is not relevant to the issue.

That’s your perception ;-)

Sorry if I'm sounding smug, it's just how I came to write these stuff. You can think of it as some kinda condition. And yeah, I responded weirdly (failed to address that question).

Voluntarily may not have been the best choice of word there, but I stand by the idea that in both cases you are doing something in order to avoid suffering.

And.. we do stuff because (usually) we choose to do that, sure. But why do you choose to do the stuff you choose to do, what motivates you to do that? And what function is there behind it?

I feel that all religious stories are meant to be understood in principle not literally or in a dogmatic way. I also think there is great wisdom in many of these stories that can be taken and applied to daily life. Moral dilemmas are difficult, but if we take time to listen to our inner voice and compass, our timeless awareness, usually the truth will emerge. Once we clear away the barriers insight will emerge and our way forward will become clear and luminous. As a self-recognized Buddhist, my interpretation of the word “dharma” is that it is the principles and timeless truths that uphold our universe and reality. Truths that are truly immortal and answer to no one. Upon these truths our lives flow. To tap into these leads to the freedom of our souls.

Robert Pirsig would adore this comment chain if he were alive to read it

I can’t comprehend your comment, it’s inarticulate. Please re-phrase.

I'm just not buying the assertion that the gun you're describing isn't just part of you. You're not a ghost in a shell, you are the ghost and the shell. I didn't even ask what the gun was, I asked what "you" were, but the answer is the same so I agree with you there.

"Voluntary" is also a much higher bar than "chosen" so I don't just go ahead draw the same line from A to B there at all.

You could stand to dial down the smugness by like 40% at least.

I do stuff because I choose to.

> If you’re arguing from a context in which “you” isn’t defined, then the notion of “will” — free or otherwise — is irrelevant.

If someone is arguing that we do have free will, surely “there is no will” is a valid way to counter.

> Of course they obey physical laws; the distinction is the series of reactions that could occur but don’t.

What do you mean “could have occurred”? If reality proceeds according to physical laws, only the things that did happen could have happened. If other things could have happened, they would have happened instead.

You could have acted differently to the way you did yesterday, sure. And the moon could be made of cheese.

> the ability to chart multiple courses of viable action and selecting one

But you’re not. You just have the perception that you are.

> Your argument seems to be that the chemical composition of my brain prevents me from doing anything but imagining those sentences,

Yes. The current composition as a result of all the interactions your constituent particles have had during your life.

> but my perception is that I could go on at length if I chose to do so

Our perception is not relevant to the issue.

I cannot agree that conscious could arise from a simulation, is still would be a illusion.

Take this way, the only thing that we can be sure of existing, is ourselves, everything else could be simulated, how do I know that you are not a simulation that appear here in Reddit to fill my simulated world? Same me, you cannot tell if I’m a simulation that are answering you here, but the point is, we know for sure that ourselves are real.

Do killers think nothing is wrong or do they simply not care? Everything is black or white. Everything is right or wrong. Every question has an answer. Whether we can ever know these things...that is another question.

This "gun" is referring to the aforementioned mechanism which makes us do useless stuff. 'Threat' (otherwise likely possibility) of hunger, thirst, loneliness, boredom, fear, so on. (Unless you were a machine that works on a different mechanism,) Would you be doing anything if it wasn't for that mechanism, of the threat of suffering?

I'm suggesting that if you look into your mind closely, this mechanism is not much different from the kind of "external coercion" that, when talking about ethics, usually makes us consider that the person 'wasn't acting voluntarily.'

Think of something you enjoy doing. Why do you do it-Why does that thing has any use to you? Is it because you feel good when doing it? Does it remove the tingly sense of "I wanna do this"? (which can turn into more of an irritating sense if you are unable to do it for long) Does it provide you some temporary distraction from suffering, whether it's on-going or imminent? Why do you need to satisfy the desire which doing the thing satisfies. Cause it makes you happy? Why do you need to be happy, what drives you to achieve that emotional state?

Essential component of any 'needs' or 'wants' is that they cause suffering of some kind if left unsatisfied. Otherwise, they'd be completely optional. Water is useful to us so long as we get thirsty (or it helps us satisfy our other needs). The fact that drinking it prevents us from experiencing thirst (further), the fact that it prevents (further) suffering makes it valuable to us. It doesn't have any value, utility, any "goodness" in itself.

Again, why do you do stuff you enjoy? What makes you do it/want to do it? And what kind of experience do you get if you can't do it?

any paywalled link and