LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

"I doubt, therefore I panic" resembles a bad acid trip.

Cut it short and doubt your doubt

We might not be certain what "actually exists" in "reality" - but even if we can't percieve our emotions clearly, don't they still exist as an ill-defined blob? Even if our "self" is an illusion, aren't we perceiving the illusion? Barring a state of nirvana, can't we be certain that phenomena are "phenom"-ing? Great video by the way

getting big!! i knew you'd pop off!! such good content 🔥

Haven't watched yet, but I swear, your insights on philosophy are always so intriguing. Thanks for making these videos :>

Its good to catch one of your videos so early. I can't watch it right now, but I've been watching your videos and will make sure to check this one out later today. Good video essays.

Love to see one from you about marcus aurelius, I love the way you explain things. Binge watched your others, keep up the great work! Much love from The netherlands!

Your channel is one of my favorite on youtube, keep making content I WANT MORE

A great video again! Your channel is insightful and I am close to watching almost everything that you have created so far. I also find myself having the same thoughts on certain topics but you have worded them concisely it was such a delight. Please keep doing what you love and I hope you succeed in all your good endeavors. 🙏🏻

Your insights are masterful bruv from Madrid, take care.

Finally you posted!

I find it interesting that Descartes' philosophy almost perfectly resembles that of depersonalization and derealization disorder. He may have had it in his time.

The precise application of pain makes the ability to doubt impossible

Great work very easy to understand.👍

Listening to this on a bus, from Sunderland and hearing you say it I had to double check 😂

i'm currently reading a book linked to this topic. it talks about the "self" from a neuroscientistic perspective and how it actually confirms the buddhist views. they've discovered that there is no specific region in the brain responsible for the "I"-feeling. we often think there is an "I" who thinks our thoughts but this book speaks about it actually being the other way around. the thoughts we have rather create the "I" - or the illusion of the "I". the one to blame is our Left Brain Hemnisphere, which is responsible for pattern recognition, speech/language, "mapping" and categorization. the scientist michael gazzaniga discovered that our LBH creates explanations and reasons to make sense of what's happening around us - he calls this the "interpreting Authority". he also discovered that its interpretations are often completely wrong, like it's just making things up based on our own personal experiences. the book is called "Kein Ich, kein Problem" (german for "No I, No Problem") by Dr. Chris Niebauer. i tried to explain and translate it as far as i understood it. i'm not through with it so i don't fully understand it yet but i find this approach really interesting. and potentially groundbreaking.

I feel, therefore I am. "Think" is only a sort of feeling.

The assertion that according to Descarte if we stop thinking even for a moment we would cease to exist is wrong. Just because the proof I have that my girlfiriend (who lives really far away and no one has ever seen) exists disappears or is destroyed does not disprove or negate the existance of my immaginary... I mean my very real girlfriend. It is only the evidence that has been affected not the thing itself. Just because you stopped thinking, you don't cease to exist. Only the proof you exist ceases to exit.

Things I concluded when I practiced the same exercise as Descartes: -Something exists. It's not all nothingness. Past this point, it all becomes probabilistic. -Cause and effect probably exists, but it is also possible that you are just experiencing the tiniest possible slice of time. Without time, there isn't cause and effect. -The universe probably has a certain structure, which you can derive with mathematics. Even weird things like quantum particles have mathematical properties. This means that existence is stable at higher scales, where the odds of your laptop teleporting to Mars are basically zero. -Concepts exist. To me, it seems like there is no such thing as an 'illusion', just the same thing viewed from different angles, metaphorically speaking. Every illusion has some real counterpart. Even if you are a hallucinating boltzman brain, there are processors firing to produce the illusion. In a sense, the illusion is just as real because either everything is an illusion or nothing is. Some concepts are changeable and can be misunderstood, but there is always a seed of reality. -We can be pretty sure that consciousness exists. It's essentially an incompressible concept. You can explain the mechanics that cause it, but we're just changing the definition, not the fact that it exists. Maybe it's just an effect of processing or maybe it is totally deterministic but some form of it still exists. Instead of 'something exists', you could say that 'consciousness exists' as a ground truth. But consciousness still has some faint definition, and we can't be sure that definitions exist. There is some kind of 'I', whether it is two brains, a thousand, or a trillion all working together. We don't know if other people are conscious, or if cells are conscious, or if crowds are conscious because we can't feel their sensations, and if we did, it would be debatable about whether 'they' were also experiencing something or if your own consciousness had just expanded to encompass their sensations as well. But there is some property of consciousness and you can usually model it pretty accurately as 'I'. People may genuinely be confused about what they are processing (like an emotion they think is anger but is really sadness) but it's not like the feeling of the emotion has changed. The emotion is just being processed differently. This is why I'm usually not sold on the 'illusion' arguments. We can refine our knowledge of something until we have an extremely accurate model, but it is always a model and never the truth. Something I think about often is unconscious processing. Your brain is constantly controlling your heartbeat but you don't notice or have conscious control over it. It seems like consciousness can be represented as a spectrum. I'm interested in how our understanding of consciousness evolves when we're able to create it in computers and then pause, edit, or comment out parts of it. Like many topics, I think the confusion around consciousness is around its size. Humans can only process small chunks of information at a time, so we are always making compressed versions of reality. Working in the field of AI essentially taught me that compression is the secret to intelligence. In the future, we'll hopefully have better compressions of 'I', consciousness, and how reality works as a whole. I'm fairly new to philosophy but I study AI Alignment, so this topic is super interesting to me. I'd love to see a video about AI Alignment! +1 sub

Hey! Thank you for sharing your knowledge! Any chance you’ve encountered the concept of Obscurantism? It would be a very interesting concept to explore in a video. Great work and good luck!

"I know nothing" my most favorite of recent quotes. Words are man made. Therefore this very comment holds no weight. But remember, i know nothing

5:45, doubt is clearly a mental process inside our minds, that mental process thus must exist for doubt to manifest. Whatever the medium or situation such as the natural world or ‘simulation’ hypothesis is fundamentally irrelevant. These thought patterns exist, therefore there is something that spawns them into metaphysical existence. One might ponder if math exists without humans (on earth), or is it merely some undecidable scribbles in books and papers? I would say that math exists because people think about mathematics irregardless of any medium, books or theorems. The real question being; is there such a process which manifest doubt in understanding of the world. And if such a process exists, then doubting itself seem entirely rational, yet counterproductive.

There is a continuity of awareness or perception of the changing inner states. It is this which constitutes the being of the thinker, not the specific, often deceptive thoughts as such.

Previous comment not popping up (yet) so just in case, let me say it in another way. Great video. You earned a like and subscribe from me. Can't wait to throw my objections and thoughts into future rings of your making.

You're almost to 100k🔥🔥

"I doubt therefore I am" is one if the stickers I'll gladly buy

I remember learning about “I think therefore I am” and the reasoning being “we can doubt all things but the fact we exist due to our ability to think about existence” and my first thought was “of course I can, that’s just a lack of imagination” That’s like saying your random emotions exist because from their perspective they experienced existence. You can easily imagine “your” ideas as spontaneous life forms being born and dying repeatedly and “your” consciousness is the after image; like a fossil or something.

philosophy usually goes overmy head so vids. Like urs are a great source of knowledge, great work.

An interesting addition about the perceptions point and blurred periphery vision, is it can be taken further; you don’t use your eyes to see out into the world. Light hits the 2D surface of eyeballs, sending information to the brain which creates the 3D world entirely in your head. Other senses add to this image. Alan watts said if you want to see what inside your mind looks like you just open your eyes

I think therefore I want dinner.

Thank you. Loved your Dostojevskij video.

Great video on a brilliant mind whose ideas I'll never get around to reading in the original source materials. While dorks like me find this interesting and insightful, they always seem to be a combination of a philosophical Rube Goldberg Machine and academic jobs program. Thinkers like Camus, Nietzsche, and Sartre are to me much more relevant to the gritty realities of life.

Very interesting 😎🤔

If this philosophy doesn't acknowledge a invisible or spiritual faculty, it's either wrong or incomplete.

I would argue that while what you percieve may be different to reality i.e. emotions what you percive is truly what you think, as with the apple mad to look like an orange. A demon is not required for perception to be wrong all your thoughts are correct in the sense that what you're thinking of is truly what you're thinking of even if they didn't originate from you.

I stink; therefore, I need a shower.

To me, the argument read as not we *only* exist when we think, but that we only have *proof* of ourselves when we think, doubt, and perceive

Eckhart Tolle: Separate the Thinker and the Watcher

I mean, there is one thing we can certainly know. SOMETHING exists. After all, engaging with the premise necessarily requires it. And everything in existence indeed seems to be a mass of disconnected parts, reducible to singular properties that constitute the definitions of their smallest physical components. The only thing really binding them together is ontological grouping, and it's something we take for granted. It all depends on your interpretation about whether those (somewhat-arbitrary) connections mean anything to you. And, like, surely they must

O.75x speed does God's work for me haha. Btw great video as alwayssss

David Hume and the Buddha both argued against the idea of the concrete self. The idea that "I" am not a single thing, but a bundle of perceptions and sensations, all constantly changing.

I think, therefore I think I am and think I am not and think that I am thinking.

I prefer to look at this problem as the proof of one's existence lies in others and their existence is proved by me recognizing them. I am would not have any meaning without the recognition of you are. Both come into existence simultaneously when the reflection is recognized as not our own. This entire idea is encompassed in a greeting that is used in South Africa. Solyabana (don't know the actual spelling) it means I see you and by seeing you I bring you into existence.

But what if doubt is an emotion like anger or happiness and that would then mean that doubt is fleeting because you can have times where you don't doubt, so in saying that, we are not what we think but we just are. Nothing more than we just are what we are. And, if we just are, then we can have infinite possibility in what or who we are. This is where the problem exists because of the myriad of things we could be but we don't want to make a definitive decision on what or who this is in case we are wrong. This is what creates "doubt" and proves its an emotion and not a static theory. Its our indecisiveness in accepting ourselves as nothing until we give ourselves a description. And, the circle begins again.

You know there are people who have no internal monologue so they do not not have never existed because they have never had a thought

Read the passage you have linked, and I now feel odd, I don't understand the wording too well however the message feels understood. Though I have no clue what in it I understand, which is....actually kind of fun!

Ngl, 17th century bro had existential anxiety and wrote down his logic to bring it back in line

That's why I've always thought his famous argument was misworded somewhat for being the foundational minimal floor of perfect understanding that it is meant to assert itself as. "I think, therefore I, (a 'person', with all of the necessary assumptions regarding individuality and definite composition) am" should instead be "I think, therefore something had thoughts." We might be fundamentally and logically incapable of comprehending ourselves from our own actual vantage point without plenty assumptions and liberal application of abstractions, and I think that this is actually necessarily the case unless we accept the assumption that we have a third eye of sorts that is able to give us an intuitive and perfect understanding of our own nature delineated from the rest of reality clearly (such as an omniscient god or some other metaphysical sensory organ bequeathing such unto us as held by many of the thinkers who held such an optimistic view of the capacity of pure reason).

I'm interested in adding Turkish subtitles to your videos for fun. How can I proceed?

Virgin 'I think therefore I am' vs Chad 'I am therefore I think'

My problem is the definition of "existence" because it's really just a circular definition, existence is relative to non-existence which is relative to existence, that means something can't exist without it being relatively not existing, and visa versa. That means words like "reality", "existence" doesn't mean anything at all.

Are you planing on going to more obscuring e controversial philosophies? like for example Mainländer, Julius Evola, Giovanni Gentile and Marquis de Sade?

This video made my brain short-circuit. :)))

I think, therefore something is

My version is " I believe that I think, therefore I believe that I am "

Should be im aware, therefore I am

It will be insightful.... Got sickness unto death... Age of reason and the rebel... The one you suggested wasn't available there ...

I have severe doubt about my existence.

Perhaps, identifying with our thoughts, is a source of much conundrum?

The second part about how we can be wrong about our perceptions i think is under an incorrect understanding of the mind as far as i know the mind exists in 2 forms one is perception and one is the conception so i would say are conception can be incorrect about are perception but are perception can not be deceived about itself.

Why should I take seriously anything what Descartes said in view of his claim, that animals are just machines without consciousness and emotions, who feel no pain and therefore can be cut to pieces alive because their crying is just a mechanical reaction without any meaning? Is it not obvious that this mind has been seriously disturbed? It was him who stood at the beginning of our "enlightned" era, and sure he was inspired by some evil demon. A trully thinking man could never come with such an odiousness.

To think is an action an non-being cannot take an action, I typed a youtube comment therefore I am.

You didn't understand anything from that argument. He could have equally said "I jump, therefore I am". Is not the profound argument that you took it to be. Is just some random observation: "I eat, therefore I am", "I watch tv, therefore I am".

Memes (from evolutionary biology) transfer between hosts and this concept of “doubt” could just be an evolved meme to help other memes extend into the future. I feel like memes breaks a lot of this thinking

I think, therefore I doubt that I exist

(Haven’t watched yet) I’ve always doubted this assertion. What if we’re just the unit that consciousness is being transferred through? Like a TV, projecting a signal, we are not the signal itself. What is ‘me’? The projection or the physical or both? I’m going crazy thinking about this so maybe I’ll stop and watch this later haha

Honestly I doubt the premise of "I think"

Thought creates the thinker. "When thought is not the thinker is not either" Jiddu Krishnamurti. I find in relationship I am a self that has a completely different life and quality than the self created by thought aka 'the thinker'

I think, therefore I'm confused!

Aye. Def a couple things lacking with "Cogito Ergo Sum". e.g. What of the SPACE / Emptiness / GAP between our thoughts? Are we REALLY expected to believe lack of NEUROTIC "Monkey Mind" thought patterns mean we no longer exist? Moreover, HOW does one say the more PASSIVE 2nd person "i thinks therefore i IS?", in BOTH french & LATIN?

i personally prefer the idea of nietzsche about my and myself, as i am not my soul nor my mind, i am my brain, and what i think about me or what i think as being me is not more than a well puted facade of the neural conections in my brain that form me and myself, and for each concious thought i have, i have thousand if not hundred of thousands of differents processes in my mind that are unconcious, similar to what freud says

9:54 I didn't realize just how many imaginary people I deal with on a daily basis. Thanks for the bite-sized philosophy lesson.

The Orthodox take would be "I love, therefore I am."

6:30 That is impossible. Being truly able to imagine something means that one is able to conceive of a scenario where said thing is possible. To believe something one has to first be aware of a scenario where that thing is possible, after that its just a matter of quantity and quality of evidence one needs to convince themselves that the thing isn't just possible but likely and these criteria can be changed. Therefore once someone can imagine something there is always a finite chance that they will believe it.

I think therefore my ego exists.

A problem: The very arguments you put forward refuting Descates' claim can only be cognitively understood by presuming the very thing your arguments seek to disprove. Thus your arguments refute themselves.

I'm with Nietzsche on this one. When you get rid of (1) the grammatical bias that requires you to put in an I or an o and (2) the cognitive bias that presupposes agency everywhere, what you get is "thinking happens, therefore there is a thinker." This is far from what Austin called _incorrigible._ One could go further in debunking the statement, but that is enough for me to lose interest. What I find very interesting is that this is one of many statements that is either (1) meaningless or taurological on the one hand, or (2) wrong. This is very much like entanglement in quantum physics in which you can know everything possible about a system but not know anything about the parts. I am not trying to assert that (1) cognition is quantum, which, though it cannot be ruled out, but is silly and unsupported or that (2) the math and logic of QM, which we worked out long ago is exactly the same, but I do think the fact that people have a hard time both seeing the flaws in the Cogito and QM points to a limitation in cognition, how real wet brains _try_ (see how difficult it is not to presume agency?) to understand such cases. This supports the ideas of cognitive science that we think by metaphors to _embodied_ ideas, those that use brain structures there to run bodies. We know that brains think logic using structures rather unfortunately called _topographic maps._ They are used to do many things; the cortex is wrinkled to have more surface area for lots of them. One use is understanding when something we're chasing goes to the left or right of a tree. Charles Addams once drew a picture where a fleeing skier's tracks go around both sides, a fair metaphor for, say, light not hitting an atom and stopping because the only valence gap has too high an energy for the photons, thus resulting in the light taking longer to go through even though it always travels at _c._ It can be thought of as a nondeterministic slalom that goes both or all ways, but our meatware insists that it can only go one way or the other because that is the question it tries (!) to answer.

They don’t think but they are

As Descartes, I’m not searching for a belief that is true, rather one belief I simply cannot doubt….yeah ☕️

Even if the perceived self is a temporary reality it is still a reality. Even if the "I" only exists for a mere instant and is substituted by another "I" there are still a series of "I"s we are talking about

simplicity of life is not simple at all is it , harder than this complexity we learn and experience… i think my goal is simplicity…

His deliberate use of "I Am" is a religious reference, the five senses cannot be relied on. This is why faith is so valued by God, it transends beyond our senses and logic and is an act of free will.

Cogito ergo sum does not refer solely to what we call thought, but to all aspects of consciousness: "In fine, I am the same being who perceives, that is, who apprehends certain objects as by the organs of sense, since in truth, I see light, hear a noise, and feel heat. But it will be said that these presentations are false, and that I am dreaming. Let it be so. At all events it is certain that I seem to see light, hear a noise, and feel heat; this cannot be false, and this is what in me is properly called perceiving (sentire), which is nothing else than thinking." - Meditations, Part Two

I do not buy that someone can "stop thinking".

ChatGPT: I think, therefore I am.

Here are the facts. All that we know or think we know or don’t know etc has one biased source. Our minds. We conjure up everything we think of from it and can never truly know if what we know is the truth. We can only believe we do

If you do not think, where is the i am?

Then, if i percieve (even if i percieve a lie) i exist. Perception as a basis. Like electricity for a computer. Or its Input. Without an input the computer will never turn on, or if its on already, it will never do anything. So if i can percieve something, anything, wether a lie or a truth, then its confirming my existance. No need to "think". We just need to percieve.

10:03 *"if we take his definition of a person seriously, if we ever stop thinking we will just pop out of existence".* Fallacy of denying the antecedent. There may be other things that imply existence besides thinking.

I am therefore I am.

I fail capsha tests, therefore I am a machine.

1:16 missed the sausage

I stink therefore I am: if I can smell me I am me.

My book says I think there for I am

Perhaps it would help if you change your style of thumbnails.. Regardless, quality content!

I never liked the phrase that “we don’t exist”. It feels like a bait and switch where what the speaker is really saying is “we, in this very particular way as shown by this particular explanation, don’t exist” Unless someone opposes the view that something is the case, then we, I, and/or it clearly exist as whatever is the case.

Will if I don’t exist how can i be deceived to think that i exist because you can’t deceive something that doesn’t exist

It is just a tautology, saying "I think" assumes the "I" is there, and exists. Saying it without the tautology: "Somthing thinks, therefore I am " is far less convincing.

Well consciousness seems to just be an illusion or mirage as a post hoc expression of processes done in the brain.