NearNihil Experience

Is anyone aware of any problems, formal or otherwise, with the idea that one can be sure he or she exists by the recognition that what is doing, said recognition, is not recognizing itself as part of what is being recognized(perceived..you pick a word). that I am on one side of the process, what I am seeing is another, connected by the process but seperate, part of that input. Is this a good identity marker, "I am not x. I am y(in all that y entails, including its relationship to x).

I am not that which is being perceived, I am that which is perceiving. Good marker to say I exist...

no evil omnipotent demons need be considered seriously
Any aphasia toward the world is a product of limited abilities,
not the Devil.

Locke...Hume...
anyone? help?

ex-xian

I think it was Hume who argued that you actually have no understanding of who "you" are. All you have are bundles of perception w/o a specific identity tied to it.

Then there's Kant's argument of things in and of themselves and we can never know them. If his argument succeeds, that may have relevance to your question. If our perceptions have nothing to with the true nature of reality, then we can never be sure that the identity behind the perceptions has any reality.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I see no reason why I cannot be both perceiver, and what 'I' perceived--regardless of how 'I' is defined (or, whether 'I' believe 'I' can be defined in the first place).

Keith.

John Page

Self perception is the key. The visual analogy is looking into a mirror. It seems we have an "internal mental mirror" a.k.a. consciousness so we can reflect on our own thoughts. If not so, how is philosophy possible?

Cheers, John