psychic chess masters

I believe affinity is the cut-off point. If I have an affinity with a being, then I can understand or empathize with it. I have no such affinity with plants or bacteria.

Sorry to be clear, the corollary to "I think, therefore I am" that I was referring to is I can't be certain you think (I'm not in your head to experience it), therefore I can't be certain you are.

The point of cogtio ergo sum was that it was the only thing Descartes (or any of us for that matter) could be certain of.  It's entirely possible that I might just be a brain in a jar, but at least I know I exist.

Okay, I think I understand you now. Descartes was certainly looking for certainty. But "certainty" doesn't have much to do with existence. It's just in the realm of concepts. 

I look at "cogito, ergo sum" as more of introducing subjectivity to philosophy than positing certainty in philosophy.

Obnoxiousness and trolling are personality defects, and the only ones who can't figure that out are the trolls.  It's like trying to get a dog to figure out it has bad breath.

A bike that you can take a tour with? Yes, I already imagined bikes were a capable mode of transportation

All of this purely philosophical debate about existence and consciousness is derivative from the fact that nobody really knows what the f' is going on, nor can prove either way psychic phenomena is real, or whether extra-terrestrial UFOs are real.  It is quite likely we will not ever really understand the mystery of our origins or the origin of consciousness, or existence itself.  If we can't understand the fundamentals, we will never really be able to put the edifices we build on top of them into their proper perspective or understand the possibilities.

To be more precisely, Descartes wrote 'dubio, cogito, ergo sum'.

I doubt, hence I think, hence I am.

His self awareness was still an uncertainty, but his doubt about his thinking not anymore. That was his only certainty. Trysts you are correct that I think would bring subjectivity into philosophy, but that was not his goal. So he went further and ended with his doubting anything, but not being able to doubt the doubt.

James Randi demonstrates that many people who believe they have supernarural psychic abilities are probably mistaken or consciously fraudulent. You can find many youtube videos of him. I believe he had a television show, netzach:)

But he had a 'beard' and looked like an alien trysts? Is that right??

(or am a I thinking of the wrong nutcase)

I knew you would read this.

Thank you for the additional word "dubio", LoekBergman! I read Hazel Barnes interpretation of "cogito, ergo sum", and she translated it as "I doubt, I am", and gave a similar explanation as yours:) 

He has a beard, but I don't think he's a nutcase

Am scratching my head what an "alien trysts" looks like. I dont even know what the terrestial one looks like. 

But yeah, Randi was awesome. He exposed so many frauds.

Ok, well her translation is only partially correct, but her interpretation is. :-)

That doubt makes it impossible to return with certainty to the real world and to overcome the body/mind problem. How can the mind know the existence of the outside world for sure? It is impossible to prove. And that is where the solipsism comes in.

An old friend of mine in the eighties said that he had refuted solipsism. He proved that solipsism was a problem of the language.

He must have been a bit too old if he thought something like solipsism was refutable.

Why is the world outside of your imagination in doubt at all? Why would it have to be proven to you?

Discuss solopsism all you want, but if you can't refute it, it could very well be because you are merely talking to yourself.

All you can do is make an assumption here, you are not going to be able to prove or disprove something like solipsism.

Now does it become difficult for me, because I do not doubt it at all. I will try however.

Noone can claim to have an objective perspective on reality. Although practically it works all quite well, if we are very precise, then must we conclude that every perception is preceded by a will and a capacity. Descartes was living in the Netherlands (Amsterdam to be precise), when he wrote his Meditationes and part of his inspiration became from his amazement how Dutch people differed in cultural beliefs from what he was used to and that those Dutch people defended their 'strange' beliefs with the equal certainty he had about his own beliefs.

He was very impressed noone doubted about the certainty of their own beliefs. That was his starting point. That implied that he had to leave behind all certainties, hence also all things he knows how to perceive. He must leave that certainty behind as well. Once left behind using the method of doubt, can you never get it back again.

Yet, he remembered his starting point: the certainty of different, mutually exclusive beliefs. Which were true? Could he get at some point, now that he had found the ultimate starting point of reasoning: the doubt of the doubt is unmistakingly the same as the doubt itself. He knew something with certainty, beyond any doubt so to speak: the first thing being the doubt itself, the next thing the subject that is doubting, and the realisation that that subject called itself me. Slow by slow did he try to rebuild all his knowledge of the world based on doubt and try to prove what was certain and what can not proven to be certain.

And of course, it has not to be proven to you, only to me. :-)

You are right, I am not going to do that. He already did. :-)