[replying to WhYNOT]:
I don't know that I am Mikkel or that you are you.
You don't know that you are Mikkel? What makes you think you don't know it?
Read René Descartes. .......
It comes from the primacy of existence over the primacy of consciousness. That you know/are aware is a result of existence and not the other way; i.e. it is not your awareness that makes you exist.
This is to be understood as a clear rejection of Descartes' position then?
No, because I think, therefore I am doesn't mean that because I think it is when makes it is so that I am. Rather I think means something is thinking.
Consider that you are a computer simulation; i.e. you are not Xray. What do you know then?
Isn't "You are a computer simulation" a contradiction? For either I exist in reality or I don't.
So in case the audiovisual symbol 'Xray' did not refer to me as an individual existing in reality, it would not be 'me' that is "a computer simulation".
The question breaks down into these two parts:
- Do you, Xray, and I, Mikkel, exist as Xray and Mikkel directly inside reality with one to one correspondence. I.e. when you read this, then the monitor is front of you is a monitor and you are you?
- Or do you, Xray, and I, Mikkel, exist as something else? That is not directly inside reality, but rather inside a computer, which is inside reality. It means that you are not you as with one to one correspondence, because you don't exist as you, you exist as a computer simulation inside a computer, which is inside reality.
- There exists something. This something is dependent on something else (reality as such).
- This something knows this but that is what it knows. Axiomatic or self-evident if you like.
- This something can't know anything else with certainty because anything else it knows is dependent on reality as such and not something it controls itself.
- Awareness is passive, i.e. epiphenomenal, in that awareness doesn't control what it knows and how the relationship is with the rest of reality.
P1: Axiomatic and self-evident thus sound: Something exists, that is aware of something else.
C: Therefore I exist as I and I am aware of the monitor in front of me as the monitor.
That is not valid, because it doesn't logically follow from something that it is me nor that something else is the monitor.