Cogito ergo sum, however, I dont know you exist, prove to me you exist

[Madmonkey]

"I think therefore I am"... This means that I know I exist but I don't know you exist... This then leads onto metaphysical skepticism. The whole universe and everyone and thing in it, except for myself does not exist, other than within my own thoughts.

Keeping this simple. If we consider the big bang, the creation of the universe seems to be impossible as to why it happened in the first place. Not how, but why. It would be far simpler to conclude it didnt happen and therefore does not exist. This supports: I think therefore I am but you may not exist.

"Cogito ergo sum,.. however, I don't know you exist, prove to me you exist."

 

[Hurkyl]

"I think therefore I am"... This means that I know I exist but I don't know you exist...

That doesn't follow.

 

[Madmonkey]

think ...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Prove to me you think.

 

[Doug Huffman]

This then leads onto metaphysical skepticism. The whole universe and everyone and thing in it, except for myself does not exist, other than within my own thoughts.

Not 'metaphysical skepticism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism

 

[Newai]

Not 'metaphysical skepticism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_solipsism

Metaphysical solipsism is the variety of idealism which is based on the logically valid argument that no reality exists other than one's own mind or mental states. The individual mind is the whole of reality and the external world has no independent existence. It is expressed by the assertion "I myself only exist", in other words, no reality exists other than one's own mind.

Well, this is silly. I take this to mean that my brain is capable of producing every physical experience I have, and within a set of boundaries that make up all the laws my mind has written, including ones I haven't consciously become aware of yet. I suppose then as well, since a human brain isn't capable of this feat, that my being must be self-deceived, that some other "organ" is producing my experience.

This is one helluva holodeck!

 

[JoeDawg]

Well, this is silly. I take this to mean that my brain is capable of producing every physical experience I have...

That would be incorrect. Brain is a physical thing. Solipsism doesn't require physical things, its about the 'self'. The idea being that what we consider 'brain activity' is just a small part of the self.

 

[Newai]

That would be incorrect. Brain is a physical thing. Solipsism doesn't require physical things, its about the 'self'. The idea being that what we consider 'brain activity' is just a small part of the self.

Which is why I referred to "some other organ" producing my experience, whatever that may be.

 

[JoeDawg]

Which is why I referred to "some other organ" producing my experience, whatever that may be.

But that would still be missing the point, as self doesn't imply the need for any organs. The point is that you don't really need to know what self is, where it comes from, or what if anything causes it. That is not important part.

 

[Newai]

But that would still be missing the point, as self doesn't imply the need for any organs. The point is that you don't really need to know what self is, where it comes from, or what if anything causes it. That is not important part.

Err, sorry. I wasn't trying to limit "organ" to anything physical.

Something is an agent (if that word is acceptable in place of organ) that is responsible for my experiences. I'm saying that this agent would be unreasonably powerful, nearly if not wholly god-like, to produce such a consistently stable universe I experience. And that's just silly. Because with that scope of talent or ability, I shouldn't be so limited in my present experience, unless I sandboxed myself in a limited consciousness/awareness. Possible, but silly.

 

[JoeDawg]

Possible, but silly.

Yes, it is a silly theory of existense, but Descartes is not advocating it as such.
Descartes was making an argument against radical skepticism.

The important part is, while it may seem silly to believe otherwise, we can't say for 'certain' that the external world exists. And Descartes was looking for something 'certain', on which he could base his philosophy.

Descartes was a rationalist, so he believed that all knowledge could be logically deduced. All he needed was a first principle, which he could know with absolute certainty.

We might think solipsism is silly, and most people would actually have a very difficult time maintaining it as a philosophy, but we can't be 'certain' that the outside world exists.

So what can be be certain about?
For Descartes, there can be certainty that the 'thinking self' exists.
So, this becomes his starting point. From there he uses logic to deduce other things.

Descartes was not advocating solipsism.

 

[Boy@n]

So what can be be certain about?
For Descartes, there can be certainty that the 'thinking self' exists.
So, this becomes his starting point. From there he uses logic to deduce other things.

I am.

I'd not call the state of "amness" (self-awareness) just a thinking state.

Thinking is usally very connected to usage of human language.

I can chose to silence my brain to the point it produces no thought, not even a single word, yet, I am AWARE of my presence/existence.

Thus, to me, it's way more logical to state with certainty this:

1. I am, therefore I exist.

And from this statement I'd deduce these two, which to me are also certainty:

2. Since I exist existence must be eternal, or I could never exist.

3. Given eternity supreme being(s) had to evolve.

Now, we can discuss what existence is (no matter what it is, it still IS), what supreme beings might be and to what level they evolved, etc. Well, to me it's a certain thing that there must be a being who evolved way above our human current state of evolution (especially in capacity of understanding and way of being). I imagine supreme beings as beings of a very high (if not highest) state of awareness, and deep (if not deepest) state of love.

Some might call such a being God, but to me, it's more a state of beingness than being itself.And sure, we can discuss if you exist for real, or just in my mind...

To me, it doesn't really matter how I and/or you exist, the important thing is experience of existence -- if all of it is just in my mind, or physically true, or whatever, it's not of any real importance, the only important thing is recognizing existence, experiencing and feeling it, learning from it and evolving (I'd call this progressing in our individual eternal soul's consciousness).

I see life like a process, a process of going from lowest state of awareness to the highest possible one. (Via our soul, which is not bond to one life-time or one life-form.)Awareness is all there is. It includes me, you and everything. There is no you, nor me, because we are all the same stuff. Thus, there is only one "I".

I am.

Awareness is.

Am.

 

[JoeDawg]

I am.

I'd not call the state of "amness" (self-awareness) just a thinking state.

Of course not, but that doesn't really tell you anything.

For instance:

I am, therefore I exist
I am, therefore I am
I exist, therefore I am
I exist, therefore I exist

In each case, you have a tautology. Something that is true by definition, but not something that follows from something else. You're just using different words.

But, let's take a step back.
What is the question?

Can I, honestly, doubt that I exist?
Can I be certain that I exist?

Descartes was not concerned with 'whether or not' he existed, but rather if it was possible to "know for certain" that he did.

So, your tautology is not helpful.

One can, however, contemplate a thing that 'exists' but does not think. A rock, for instance. So thinking and existing are not the same.

Now, I can doubt that you exist, you might be a clever AI, or a dream, and I can doubt my computer exists because sense data is often contradictory.
That said, I'd have be a pretty hardcore skeptic to consider this doubt I have to be valuable. But I can always honestly doubt the outside world.

Can I doubt that I exist?

"X" therefore I know I exist.

In order for me to be certain I exist, X has to be self-evident, undeniable, and it has to imply that I exist. I can't just repeat myself, or that is a circular argument.

I doubt many things, therefore I am a thing which doubts.
If I am a thing which doubts, then that thing which doubts, must exist.

"I think therefore I am" is not a tautology. The 'I think' part is self evident, and the 'I am' part follows from this.

 

[Boy@n]

"I think therefore I am" is not a tautology. The 'I think' part is self evident, and the 'I am' part follows from this.

I see it just the opposite.

I am therefore I can think, or not.

Being is a given (at least while we are alive), while thinking is a matter of choice, but usually it's more useful to think than not, but not always, when one wants to really concentrate/focus/meditate thoughts are not welcome.

The state of Amness is what enables us to be aware, to think, to feel.

Obviously a rock isn't in the same state of amness as we are, but it surely is in its own state.

And the way I see it, there are countless of states of amness/awareness.

From total non-awareness (which would be perfect void) to total awareness (which would be "final", or highest awareness), and all in between. And that in between is an atom, a rock, a plant, an animal, a human, and who knows who and/or what more.

To conclude, first is amness, only then can arise though and thinking (and for a thinking being it has to be at certain "height").You didn't comment on my 2nd and 3rd premises, which I'd like you to invite to do so. I value your insights even if I don't (yet) agree with all you share.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see it just the opposite.

I am therefore I can think, or not.

Being is a given

Being is not a given. The only thing we know for certain is that we are thinking. We do not know for certain what is doing the thinking. But we can label this thing as "I", whether it is even corporeal or part of a computer simulation.

 

[JoeDawg]

first is amness, only then can arise though and thinking.

First is existence, only then can arise thought and thinking... fine.
This is an ontological statement, a statement about being.
Yes, thinking implies existence, but Descartes wasn't making an ontological argument.

He was making an epistemological argument.
An argument about what can be known (for certain).

The question is not 'whether I exist', but 'whether I can know that I exist'.

You didn't comment on my 2nd and 3rd premises, which I'd like you to invite to do so. I value your insights even if I don't (yet) agree with all you share.

Until we are talking about the same thing, I don't think you would get any value out of it.
There are many people who come to this forum who say the exact same thing as you have just said. Its not 'wrong', per se... but it is not what Cogito Ergo Sum is about.

 

[Boy@n]

Being is not a given. The only thing we know for certain is that we are thinking. We do not know for certain what is doing the thinking. But we can label this thing as "I", whether it is even corporeal or part of a computer simulation.

I used word "being" in sense of "existing", but being to me means something more than just existing, it also means being aware of existing. For example, a rock is existing but is probably not aware of own beingness, while a human being is existing but also aware of own existence and beingness.

I agree though, that we cannot know for certain who is doing the thinking, but whoever or whatever that is, it is existing and also is in state of beingness (it IS!), since it's not only existing but also being aware of it.

And the main part of my statement was, that thinking cannot exist without something first existing/being.

 

[Boy@n]

First is existence, only then can arise thought and thinking... fine.
This is an ontological statement, a statement about being.
Yes, thinking implies existence, but Descartes wasn't making an ontological argument.

He was making an epistemological argument.
An argument about what can be known (for certain).

The question is not 'whether I exist', but 'whether I can know that I exist'.

If I know for certain that I am thinking, then I also know for certain that I am being/existing, or else I couldn't be thinking. Agree?

I'd like to explain a bit better though why I disagree with statement "Cogito Ergo Sum":
I cannot know for certain that I am thinking, first, because I cannot know who I really is (as DaveC pointed out too) -- is it really some unique/individual property of me and only mine, or is it perhaps a sophisticated computer program "pretending" to be an individual, thus, experience of "I am" is not really true, but false, and second, I cannot know that I am really doing the "thinking process" in a true sense as we now understand it, or it is something else making me think I am thinking.

What I can be absolutely certain about is only "amness" -- now, what exactly is causing amness, awareness and beingness (either it is really me, a computer program, God playing humans, or whatever) is not the question right now, but simply what can "I/we" be certain about.

IMO, that I am doing the thinking is not absolute certainty, but experiencing amness (existence of something) IS.

Until we are talking about the same thing, I don't think you would get any value out of it.
There are many people who come to this forum who say the exact same thing as you have just said. Its not 'wrong', per se... but it is not what Cogito Ergo Sum is about.

I've never seen anyone say what I've said, which is simply put:

1) I am.

2) Existence must be eternal, or else I could never exist.

3) Supreme beings must of have evolved, given eternity.

But of course, I am open to the possibility of being wrong.

No matter, I'd still like you to consider my 2nd and 3rd statements. (I am sure I'll find value in your sharing, either is it agreeing with me or not.)

So, how possible is it in your view that supreme beings have evolved (something we might consider alike Gods - perhaps not in the classical sense of being all-powerful, but more in the sense of having very high level of awareness and love, so to say), since existence (of something) has to be eternal, or nothing would ever exist...

 

[JoeDawg]

If I know for certain that I am thinking, then I also know for certain that I am being/existing, or else I couldn't be thinking. Agree?

Yes, I think, therefore I know I exist.
Don't get caught up with 'I think therefore i am', its a translation.

I cannot know for certain that I am thinking, first, because I cannot know who I really is

Cogito Ergo Sum does not define the "I". What you really are... is an ontological question.

So they are two different things. Its not really relevant to what Descartes was talking about.

(as DaveC pointed out too) -- is it really some unique/individual property of me and only mine, or is it perhaps a sophisticated computer program "pretending" to be an individual, thus, experience of "I am" is not really true, but false, and second, I cannot know that I am really doing the "thinking process" in a true sense as we now understand it, or it is something else making me think I am thinking.

Again, it doesn't matter what is doing the 'thinking', all that matters is that 'thinking exists', and by thinking you know that thinking exists, so it is self evident.

What I can be absolutely certain about is only "amness"

All you have done here is lump together thinking and existing together into one concept. You are certainly free to do so, but it neglects the point Descartes was making, it doesn't address it.

1) I am.

2) Existence must be eternal, or else I could never exist.

3) Supreme beings must of have evolved, given eternity.

Sounds similar to buddhism... and various other eastern styles of mystical traditions.

1) Again this is uninteresting from an ontological point of view, its merely a statement of fact.
2) I see no reason this should be true, but I find the word 'eternal' doesn't have much meaning either.
3) I think you misunderstand what 'evolution' means. Evolution is about adaptation to circumstance, not attaining any sort of perfection. And as to, supreme beings, supernatural god things are invariably vague and self-contradictory... theologies are generally more trouble than they are worth, at least, to philosophers. Fiction writers can get lots of use from them.

 

[magpies]

1) I am.
2) Existence must be eternal, or else I could never exist.
3) Supreme beings must of have evolved, given eternity.

To the I am part... Call me in thirty million years and say the same thing.
To the existence must be eternal part... If it must be eternal then how did it start?
To the supreme evolved part... I don't think I understand what you mean by evolved.

Asking if other exist has to be about as bad as asking if someone you'v met on the street is god.

 

[Boy@n]

Don't get caught up with 'I think therefore i am', its a translation.

Didn't know that it was such a bad translation. (BTW, English is my 2nd language.)

I think, therefore I know I exist.

It sounds much better than the above translation.

But I still cannot fully agree with it. I'd put it this way:

I am aware, therefore I know I exist.

(Since as said, I can silence my mind and not think at all, but still be aware of myself and my existence.)

Cogito Ergo Sum does not define the "I".

I see. It's kinda interesting how often "I" comes up in English language. In my Slovenian language one rarely uses word "jaz" (meaning I"), and I guess in some other languages it's not even used...

What you really are... is an ontological question.

(I) don't know what ontological means, or how it translates into my language. If you want so spare a minute (I) would be glad to hear your explanation of it. (E.g. in my language I'd not use any of "I" in these two sentences.)

So they are two different things. Its not really relevant to what Descartes was talking about.

You mean word "thinking" and "I" as being separate? OK.

Again, it doesn't matter what is doing the 'thinking', all that matters is that 'thinking exists', and by thinking you know that thinking exists, so it is self evident.

Well, as said, I am not sure what thinking is, is it a free-willed physical brain process? Is it combination of soul (non-physical element) and brain process? Is it a computer game? Perhaps it's not even a process, but a very predictive reaction to information brain gathers?

I am not sure I am really thinking, but I am sure there appears to be thinking.

And what I can be sure about is, that something exists which "makes" thinking possible.

And that's the ONLY thing I am sure about. Existence.

All you have done here is lump together thinking and existing together into one concept. You are certainly free to do so, but it neglects the point Descartes was making, it doesn't address it.

I don't understand what you mean by this. If I say that thinking cannot be known for sure, since we don't know what it is, and then I add that all we know is that there appears to be thinking, you say I don't address his point? How so?

Sounds similar to buddhism... and various other eastern styles of mystical traditions.

Was not aware of that, since I don't read any such literature.

1) I am (aware).

1) Again this is uninteresting from an ontological point of view, its merely a statement of fact.

Well, it's the main statement to lead to the other two...

2) Existence must be eternal, or else I could never exist.

2) I see no reason this should be true, but I find the word 'eternal' doesn't have much meaning either.

Can we discuss this a bit? There is a "hidden" statement within the one I made. It's that out of absolute nothingness (or call it pure void, true emptiness, non-existence) existence cannot arise. And if you agree that something cannot come out of nothing (and I don't mean just things, I mean all, energy, awareness, whatever), then it means since I exist that something has to exist since ever, or else, how could I possibly come into existence? So, if we agree on two things, that "I exist" and that "I cannot come into existence out of absolute nothing" then it means something before me had to exist since ever (eternally). Sounds truer now? If not, I'm looking forward to see your reasons why not.

3) Supreme beings must of have evolved, given eternity.

3) I think you misunderstand what 'evolution' means. Evolution is about adaptation to circumstance, not attaining any sort of perfection. And as to, supreme beings, supernatural god things are invariably vague and self-contradictory... theologies are generally more trouble than they are worth, at least, to philosophers. Fiction writers can get lots of use from them.

Evolution is just a English word. It's not a perfect word, as there is no perfect word to describe that which is part of observable reality, less so can it be perfect to describe that, which might be beyond our nature/reality, but I like it. Since in my second statement I claim eternal existence, then in this context evolution is not just adaption to circumstances but, say, a progression of beingness and awareness. Supreme being doesn't have to be based on physical stuff, but it can be based on pure energy, or more interestingly, on "pure awareness", which would make it timeless and boundless, fully aware and perfect in own sense and meaning. As said, I imagine God not as some being, person or thing, but as a "state of beingness". State of beingness is also what matters to us the most, and state of beingness I am talking about includes stuff like awareness, love, joy, peace. The higher those are, IMO, the more "evolved" being is. God would thus be a state of Ultimate Beingness, where awareness reaches highest possible level, where love goes as deep as it's possible, where experience of joy is as intense as it can be, where peace is pure and complete, and so on.

Please note that the above is just a (limited) description of what I honestly think and feel, I surely cannot pass onto another my vision and inner feelings with words. But I'd like to pass along an "image" for others to consider as (potential) truth. I expect nothing of course (I don't expect acceptance of my image), but it feels good to share that which I find most precious for myself... the above, and the recognition that life is a beautiful process of reaching Ultimate State of Beingness. And with "life" I don't mean just one life-time or one life-form. Also, life is not only about "reaching the final station", but equally important is the voyage itself.

 

[JoeDawg]

Didn't know that it was such a bad translation.

Descartes makes a complicated argument.
That phrase is only meant to sum up his point.

I can silence my mind and not think at all

I don't know what this means. It sounds like nonsense to me. Awareness requires thinking.

(I) don't know what ontological means

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology" is the study of what exists.
As opposed to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology" , which is the study of what can be known.
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)" , which is the study of what we experience.

Before you can talk about 'what exists', you have to first define what 'knowledge' is, and how you have access to knowledge.

Well, as said, I am not sure what thinking is

Doesn't matter, if you are questioning what it is, you are thinking.

And what I can be sure about is, that something exists which "makes" thinking possible.

No, all you can be sure of is that thinking exists, it might not have a cause. Thinking might be self-caused.

And if you agree that something cannot come out of nothing

I'd say that is debatable. You're using 'no thing' as a noun, which is useful, but its a function of language. 'Nothing' is just a negation of whatever thing you are talking about. Nothing is not a thing, like an apple is a thing. Nothing is a lack of something.

The real issue here is causation. In our everyday life, we experience a world of cause and effect. The old problem of course is, if everything has a cause, you get an infinite regress of events. That doesn't solve the problem however, that is the problem. Because the next question is, what caused the world be like it is?

Some people address this by saying that there was a 'first cause' which started the ball rolling. But if a first cause exists, then that means that not everything needs a cause, so you really don't need a first cause. There could be a dozen, or a million things that aren't caused. You could have random events.

Causation is problematic... and that's not even getting into the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction" '.

Since in my second statement I claim eternal existence, then in this context evolution is not just adaption to circumstances but, say, a progression of beingness and awareness.

If something is eternal, then progress is meaningless. In order to have progress, you have to have a significant difference between point A and point B. But if the universe is eternal... any difference between any points becomes insignificant.

I imagine God not as some being, person or thing, but as a "state of beingness".

I don't have much use for supernatural explanations, they don't really explain anything, and they tend to just add further complications.

Also, life is not only about "reaching the final station", but equally important is the voyage itself.

I'd say the voyage is the only important thing.

 

[mjrpes]

3) Supreme beings must of have evolved, given eternity

At the point the supreme being was evolving (but before it was supreme), it too must have also said to itself "I notice that reality is eternal. There must be other supreme beings that has evolved to be supreme before me." Whereupon you enter an endless loop, supreme being realizing the evolution of previous supreme beings in the eternal past, never ending.

Does it ever stop? Was there ever a first supreme being? If so, there you don't have an eternal past. If not, then you seem to have a contradiction on your hands.

 

[DaveC426913]

Does it ever stop? Was there ever a first supreme being? If so, there you don't have an eternal past. If not, then you seem to have a contradiction on your hands.

"It's turtles all the way down..."

 

[Boy@n]

At the point the supreme being was evolving (but before it was supreme), it too must have also said to itself "I notice that reality is eternal. There must be other supreme beings that has evolved to be supreme before me." Whereupon you enter an endless loop, supreme being realizing the evolution of previous supreme beings in the eternal past, never ending.

Does it ever stop? Was there ever a first supreme being? If so, there you don't have an eternal past. If not, then you seem to have a contradiction on your hands.

Does a circle have a beginning and ending?

Universes 'breathe', they get born and die, and each one in its 'lifetime' can 'produce' supreme beings, who go beyond physical existence and join the eternity club.

Why would this process have a beginning and ending?

 

[JoeDawg]

Does a circle have a beginning and ending?

When I draw one it does, they are just really close together.

who go beyond physical existence and join the eternity club.

That is self contradictory, if you are eternal, you have no beginning, so therefore, you can't join at a specific time, you are either in the club, or not.

 

[Boy@n]

When I draw one it does, they are just really close together.

Until you finish drawing that which might become a circle it's not a circle. When circle appears, there is no beginning or ending to it, since a circle has no points, except imagined ones (moreover, every imagined point is beginning and ending, but since a circle has infinite points then there are infinite beginnings and endings, but then, it's pointless to talk about beginnings and endings).

That is self contradictory, if you are eternal, you have no beginning, so therefore, you can't join at a specific time, you are either in the club, or not.

I see no contradiction. Beings who are temporal, like human beings, also arise out of eternity, but are not only made of essence of eternity (which is absolute awareness), they are a mix of eternal existence and nothingness, thus are relative. Those beings (species) then progress in states of awareness and in time become fully aware themselves, become absolute, eternal, and at that point relativity and time ceases for them, but still is there for other relative beings.

 

[JoeDawg]

Until you finish drawing that which might become a circle it's not a circle.

It still has a beginning in time, which is different from its end, in time.

Beings who are temporal, like human beings, also arise out of eternity, but are not only made of essence of eternity (which is absolute awareness), they are a mix of eternal existence and nothingness, thus are relative.

Without more specific defintions, what you just said is just pseudo-mystical nonsense, not philosophy.

 

[wofsy]

"I think therefore I am"... This means that I know I exist but I don't know you exist... This then leads onto metaphysical skepticism. The whole universe and everyone and thing in it, except for myself does not exist, other than within my own thoughts.

Keeping this simple. If we consider the big bang, the creation of the universe seems to be impossible as to why it happened in the first place. Not how, but why. It would be far simpler to conclude it didnt happen and therefore does not exist. This supports: I think therefore I am but you may not exist.

"Cogito ergo sum,.. however, I don't know you exist, prove to me you exist."

I think Descartes was saying that all explanations of the empirical world, the world that we recognize with our senses, are always subject to doubt. But there is no doubt that I exist when I am doubting my existence. That is his point.

For Descartes the statement that the Universe exists is itself subject to doubt.

 

[Boy@n]

It still has a beginning in time, which is different from its end, in time.

Not necessarily. You can draw a whole circle in one stroke.

Without more specific defintions, what you just said is just pseudo-mystical nonsense, not philosophy.

What I said was continuation of what I said earlier.

If I put it simple, existence has to be eternal (without beginning) or nothing would ever exist. Human beings are obviously not eternal, but that which we are made of is.

 

[magpies]

Some things that don't have a beginning might have had a beginning but have a found a way to transend it.

 

[sidestreet]

I remember a speculation by a neuroscientist. Can’t remember his/her name, but it should brighten your day.

It says that I am just a narrative made from different regions of the brain vying for attention. That would explain, for example, why dreams are unrealistic - in REM sleep only a few areas are active at anyone time. I can fly when none of the regions that know it’s impossible are active during the dream.

If this is true then:
- I am an illusion, assisted by my brain’s shared long-term memory of what ‘I’ did last week, other people recognizing me, the photo on my driving license, etc.
- “I think therefore I am” can only be true for, at most, the duration of a single train of thought – I’m more like a transient interference pattern than the entity I’d like to be.
- Having a soul is physically impossible.

Comforting or what?

'I' quite like it, if only because it cuts through a whole load of metaphysics.