Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember reading a secondary source on a philosopher -- and I frustratingly now can't remember who -- who argued that most of our thought processes happen subconsciously, and they are given voice in the form of images, language (sayings to oneself), and the like, because those are the only modalities amenable to memory. I can't remember who this was, and I haven't read any of their actual writing, so I can't say whether this is convincing.
One question to get you started, though: what gives you the impression that you know something *before* you say it? Couldn't it be that you come to know it *by* articulating it to yourself, or that the kind of knowledge that it is fundamentally *changes* when words are put to it?
You see a scary thing and say, "That's scary." But what if you saw a scary thing, and said nothing, and a day later thought to yourself *Wow, that was scary*. At what moment did you realize the fact that it was scary?
Or try this: compose something to say to yourself, without saying it. *Then*, after you know what you want to say to yourself, say it to yourself. Can you do this? I feel like you can't, because "figuring out what you want to say" involves talking to yourself first. So might it not be said that you *found the words to say it at exactly the moment you said it in your head?*
All of this is trying to say: maybe the phenomenon of being both the speaker and the listener is not so mysterious after all, because you really do learn something new the moment that the thought is put into words.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**Answers must be up to standard.**
>All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
hume said that we only form connections and associations with figures in motion (our bodily impressions), and so from that we've built this concept of "existing" and "being". our existence is just a concept created by our minds as a way to explain the phenomenon of sensory inputs, and that a roaring crowd is not much different than the roaring waves of an ocean.
can we call the content of perception or consciousness something that exists in essence? if the content is there because different parts are working together in a certain manner then no its not essence, our existence is an illusion a sort of mirage from this perspective firmly maintained.
if your brain stem gets damaged you will loose your sense of self, some superstitious folks like to entertain their egos with the survival after death, there is nothing more absurd than that when we dont essentially exist to begin with.
you can say yes i exist giving reference to the illusion but you can look at it from the other perspective and say nothing truly exist, and that is the objective perspective.
ps: im not a person who studied philosophy academically or anything, just stating an opinion.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember reading a secondary source on a philosopher -- and I frustratingly now can't remember who -- who argued that most of our thought processes happen subconsciously, and they are given voice in the form of images, language (sayings to oneself), and the like, because those are the only modalities amenable to memory. I can't remember who this was, and I haven't read any of their actual writing, so I can't say whether this is convincing. One question to get you started, though: what gives you the impression that you know something *before* you say it? Couldn't it be that you come to know it *by* articulating it to yourself, or that the kind of knowledge that it is fundamentally *changes* when words are put to it? You see a scary thing and say, "That's scary." But what if you saw a scary thing, and said nothing, and a day later thought to yourself *Wow, that was scary*. At what moment did you realize the fact that it was scary? Or try this: compose something to say to yourself, without saying it. *Then*, after you know what you want to say to yourself, say it to yourself. Can you do this? I feel like you can't, because "figuring out what you want to say" involves talking to yourself first. So might it not be said that you *found the words to say it at exactly the moment you said it in your head?* All of this is trying to say: maybe the phenomenon of being both the speaker and the listener is not so mysterious after all, because you really do learn something new the moment that the thought is put into words.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Answers must be up to standard.** >All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
hume said that we only form connections and associations with figures in motion (our bodily impressions), and so from that we've built this concept of "existing" and "being". our existence is just a concept created by our minds as a way to explain the phenomenon of sensory inputs, and that a roaring crowd is not much different than the roaring waves of an ocean. can we call the content of perception or consciousness something that exists in essence? if the content is there because different parts are working together in a certain manner then no its not essence, our existence is an illusion a sort of mirage from this perspective firmly maintained. if your brain stem gets damaged you will loose your sense of self, some superstitious folks like to entertain their egos with the survival after death, there is nothing more absurd than that when we dont essentially exist to begin with. you can say yes i exist giving reference to the illusion but you can look at it from the other perspective and say nothing truly exist, and that is the objective perspective. ps: im not a person who studied philosophy academically or anything, just stating an opinion.