I am thinking about whether I exist as a conscious being. Therefore there must be an ‘I’ to be thinking that.
I can’t prove that my senses can be trusted with 100% certainty to tell me truth - in fact I can prove the opposite with things like optical illusions. However, when interacting with the world that I only know is real through my senses, basing my behaviour on those same senses that let me know the world exists seems reasonable to me. That’s what I call practical knowledge, rather than true knowledge.
I am thinking about whether I exist as a conscious being. Therefore there must be an ‘I’ to be thinking that.
I can’t prove that my senses can be trusted with 100% certainty to tell me truth - in fact I can prove the opposite with things like optical illusions. However, when interacting with the world that I only know is real through my senses, basing my behaviour on those same senses that let me know the world exists seems reasonable to me. That’s what I call practical knowledge, rather than true knowledge.
How do you define “I”?
In other words you believe what your senses tell you to be real even though you cannot objectively prove your senses to be trustworthy?
‘I’ is the thing that is thinking it
I don’t ‘believe’ that my senses are real, but that it’s good enough to act as though they are real, regarding the sensory world.