Up for philosophy meme
Still you can't think yourself into existence
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
585 points (99.2% liked)
196
2925 readers
1623 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
If you think, then you must already exist. I don't understand how people get confused by that.
Descartes is a proper mindfuck when you're a kid, reality seems super sketchy, AND he's got cool geometry that is completely fantastical yet rigid and unbreakable
yeah but what if uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
what if you shut up, nerd?
Why not?
I don't have access to whoever is in charge of physics for this simulation, so I'm not sure
I have. Let's check. Can something that does not exist think?
No
Can something that thinks not exist?
No
Does thought therefore imply existence?
Yes
Does non-thought imply non-existence?
No
Makes sense. But if something does not exist in one moment, and that something then thinks in the next moment, has it gone from non-existence to existence?
Yes
So either it might be possible to think yourself into existence, or anything that thinks has always existed. Or the third option, you go from non-existence to existence through some other process than thinking, a process that enables you to think. But we cannot prove the existence of such a process.
Or... thinking is neurons and synapses and tiny bits of energy all zapping about insanely fast, but I'm just an unaccredited expert on the internet
the definition of existence to me is just all of it, plus whatever I'm not aware of. Which might be quantifiable, but I doubt humans will ever know. And thinking is in there somehow, as a biological function
I agree thinking is almost surely a biological process involving brains. But the exercise here is to try and make the simplest true statement we can about existence based on as few assumptions as possible.
You know your senses can be deceived. You know your memories can be unreliable. You have no proof that anything or anyone exists which does not rely on your senses or memories.
Except one thing. Your thoughts exist. That observation does not rely on any unreliable sources of information. It does not assume that your senses or memories are reasonable sources of facts.
This is the statement by Descartes. It is not a particularly sensible worldview, or a better one than yours, but it's an interesting philosophical exercise.
Isn't it, oh architect of all physics?
Yes.
Thoughts are only informed by sensory input. Nothing there otherwise.
But if Descartes is correct, thoughts exist before sensory input. What is he thinking about? He's a mind without a brain.
My own mental illness reminds me my mind is unreliable. Not some indivisible font of understanding. I mean I'm mostly there. The dreams are fantastic. It's helpful to write things down, perhaps I should go full Memento and start tattoing facts on myself.
Sorry to hear you're suffering from illness. Wishing you best of health!
that's what god did though
Who oder whom did what to deserve this
i agree
I think, therefor I'm.
Many people are saying this
I do not think, therefore I forgor :3
Corgito Ergo Sum
Not sure if this is the right place for questioning philosophical theories, but I have a few questions about this one.
- The sentence is "I think, therefore I am". What if we don't think? Let's imagine, for example, that there is a god or gods, that are the only beings capable of thinking, and that everyone just recieves those thoughts from the god(s), just gets them delivered right to the brain. In that situation, we wouldn't be capable of thinking, would we? (iirc this was one of the main critics to Descartes's chain of to thought. In this situation, I think the sentence could be generalised to remain valid.)
- The sentence is "I think, therefore I am" (or if we generalise it to remain valid due to the previous point, "if something thinks, it exists"). Why can't it be "I eat therefore I am", or "I breathe, therefore I am"? What makes thinking more valid than any other action we can do when trying to prove our existence? How is thinking capable of proving our existence at all if nothing else is said to be capable? In fact, what shows that thinking can prove someone's existence? (this one feels like a reworded common critic, although I'm not sure)
I would like to invite anyone to comment/evaluate/counter/correct what I wrote here (just pls don't attack me (>~<), attack the content instead). I know I could just research these things on my own, but I have a bit of trouble understanding the formal language that is used by specialists when discussing this type of problems, and I find it likely that others feel the same, so it felt cooler to talk about it here.
P.S.: it's kinda sad that this theory doesn't quite prove the existence of our brainrot homies :3
You can't prove that material existence exists, but you experience your thoughts, so I think "I think" here more refers to experience/qualia/consciousness more so than anything else. You can't really prove that anything at all exists, but you do experience something, so you know at the very least that your experience exists.
Re: your first point
If we define "I" as the thinker, then the thought implies the existence of the thinker.
Whether the thinker's perception of what "I" is is true or false does not matter. If the thinker believes they're an individual french man in fancy clothes, but they're actually a divine being imbuing all thinkers with thoughts collectively, the thinker still exists and can refer to themselves as "I".
I see! That's a great point! Thank you!