Is 'I Think, Therefore I Am' a Valid and Obvious Philosophy?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
I'm saying there is not neccessarily even a single Person of the discreet, self-contained nature that we might expect.

Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.

It needn't be an aentity of any sort. Epistemological doubt can come from many sources.

But whatever source it comes from must be an entity (and not just any entity, but an entity that is capable of doubting).

Grrr...

Just couldn't resist .

I understand. For this argument to work then you have to make two assumptions:
1 for thoughts to occur there must be a Person having the thoughts

Actually, that's not exactly correct. In order for one entity to cause another entity to think, there must be two entities.

So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.

2 If someone tried to trick Descartes, Descartes would have to be exist in order to be tricked.

Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?

1. simply does not follow logically - its just a habit of thinking

That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.

2. assumes the existence of the 'Person' being tricked from the start

Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
It means that there is an "I", to speak of.

Basically, Descartes was denouncing the Demon's attempt to convince Descartes that he (Descartes) didn't exist, by saying that the fact that the Demon had assumed Descartes to be able to think about not existing, proves that the Demon already "knew" (or rather, "believed") that Descartes existed.

I'm not certain how exactly the processing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff. Even if such a distinction is
assumed it only has the data itself to be applied to,
so there's seemingly no likely possibility of any other
type of related distinction. Further more even that type
of distinction is unproved since first it must be proved
that processing of the data indeed takes place rather than
just more misleading input, and that's kin'na hard to do...

Again, I just don't understand the assense of the statement.
It seems meaningless to me.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not certain how exactly the processing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff.

It is not the processing of incoming data that Descartes was referring to (though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?), it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.

Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statement that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.

You are assuming Entity status from the start. Assume as little as possible. All that is known ie observed is a (loosely defined) pattern or body of thoughts and beliefs. If another process 'intends' to change that pattern of thoughts and beliefs, nowhere is there an indication that either grouping of events has the status of a distinct 'entity'.

Originally posted by Mentat
So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.

You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.

There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts

does not follow.

Originally posted by Mentat

Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?

A pattern of thoughts and beliefs is changes into another pattern of thoughts and beliefs.

Originally posted by Mentat

That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.

Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.

Originally posted by Mentat

Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.

Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately. The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules. 'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind. A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
You are assuming Entity status from the start.

Yes, when someone says "I think", you have to assume that there both is an entity (I) and that it thinks.

You have to remember that Descartes illustration of the Demon (which tried to convince him that he didn't exist) is the context of the statement, and thus the meaning of the statement lies in the illustration.

You see, in order for the Demon to attempt to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, he had to assume that there was an entity called "Descartes" to convince. I believe I've said this before. What is so confusing about it?

You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.

That's the point that keeps stopping you from seeing Descartes's reasoning - no one was observing that there were thoughts occurring. All that happened was a Demon assumed that Descartes was capable of thinking about not existing. But, if Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") is capable of thinking about not existing, then there is an entity called "Descartes" that is capable of thinking.[/color] So, it is not just a though being observed, it is a Demon (or whatever you wish to substitute for it in the illustration) assuming that the entity called "Descartes" can think (about not existing).

There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts

does not follow.

No, but it does follow that: "I am going to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist" = There is an I
There is a Descartes
I am capable of convincing
He is capable of being convinced

Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.

Well if that particular "clump of events" happens to be an entity (as all "clumps" are (obviously)), then I can't even speak of a "clump" without speaking of an entity.

Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately.

And I'm not saying that it does. However, in a statement of the form "I [bleep]" there must be an "I", because "I" was identified in the statement.

The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules.

Well this is a whole other discussion, entirely.

'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind.

But you cannot label something, unless it exists (which is another point that Descartes was making, when he said that the Demon couldn't convince him that didn't exist - what is the Demon referring to as "non-existent" if not the entity called Descartes?).

A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.

But is not a cup divisible/distinguishable from a family of swans?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
(though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?),

How do you know that data are being processed ?
Maybe it's just more data.

Originally posted by Mentat
it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.

Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statement that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.

How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?

The whole situation is flawed enitially because it assumes
a Demon entity that is independent of all obsrvation that
asks the question. However, in reality that does not appear
to be possible and if the Demon is part of the observed
data then it's question makes no sense. You see, the
whole situation here requires a separation that doesn't
actually appear to exist and thus the whole thing's seemingly pointless.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"I post, therefore I subscribe"...to this thread, not necessarily to Descarte's statement.

Was directed here...but no time to read just now.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

How do you know that data are being processed ?
Maybe it's just more data.

Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).

How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?

What does that mean? He didn't say that the fact that "he was" was proof that "he was", that would be foolish. He just said that the Demon had already assumed that "he was" - otherwise he (the Demon) would have no one to convince of their non-existence.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).

Yes, but can Descartes himself process ?
Maybe the Demon, what he said and Descrates' thoughts
are just data with no real meaning, as he attempts
to provide here - of separate and/or real Demon/
/Descrates/Descartes' thoughts and so on.

In short, leaving the demon part alone for the moment,
how's all of that at all known ? How can you actually
know anything for certain ? In an abstract hypothetical
situation that may be possible, but Descartes is trying to
mess with our actual perception of reality here.

Originally posted by Mentat
What does that mean?

I am trying to explain why the situation doesn't make sense
and thus there is no real value to the relevant statement.
The relevant problems and assumptions are :
1. A Demon - even with no regards to its qualities this
is an assumption of real existence of a separate entity.
2. Think - that word, when applied to reality, contains
an assumption that says that you can cause something to
change in observation - new relevant thoughts/actions and so on.
3. I am - refers to a distinction. (of what ?)
4. The whole situation - an absolute matter of interpretation(example: what if in another language the Demon's words
mean something totally different ? So, what and
how can absolute communication - another relevant supposedly
real entity here, take place ? As a further example, all our
current communication requires accepted norms - objectivity -
axioms of communication and the accepted reasoning that we use.)

In conclusion, Descartes may've invented a nice abstract
thingy but as something with real meaning it makes
no sense, not even in the likely manner that other things
make sense to us today - because absolutes appear unavoidable
in the posed situation and statement.

Is it clearer now ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Deslaar]

I haven't read this whole thread, I just don't have the patience so if this has already been discussed then I apologise.

First I voted yes because I believe that, for the most part, Descartes got it right.

Descartes application of systematic doubt to the world that he saw around him was intended to achieve one thing. That thing was a philosophical foundation to build from that was beyond doubt. The result is the cogito. While some have argued that Descartes does not go far enough and that "I think, therefore I am" should be reduced to "there are thoughts", the first step in any reconstruction is assigning those thoughts to something in much the same way we assign sensation or emotion to someone. Pain cannot exist without a possessor, just as thought cannot.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Yes, but can Descartes himself process ?

That's the point, the Demon assumed that there was such a thing as and entity called Descartes in the first place (because he assumed that he could convince that entity that he didn't exist). How is this so complicated that it should be beyond understanding? No offense, but can you actually address the fact that, in order for entity A to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, there must be and entity B and that entity must be assumed to be capable of thinking?

Maybe the Demon, what he said and Descrates' thoughts
are just data with no real meaning, as he attempts
to provide here - of separate and/or real Demon/
/Descrates/Descartes' thoughts and so on.

But there is no such thing as thoughts without a thinker (seriously, I mean that, because "think" is a verb. A verb is an action, and an action requires a subject that is acting. For example, the following cannot be a complete sentence: "Thought."

It cannot be a complete sentence because it is just a preposition, with no subject. Now, I know that this has direct reference to Causality, and that Causality is not provable, however it still demonstrates that any statement of the form "P [bleeps]" (where P is an entity and [bleeps] is a verb), requires both the presence of an entity and an action done by that entity.[/color]

In short, leaving the demon part alone for the moment,
how's all of that at all known ? How can you actually
know anything for certain ?

All you can know for certain is your own existence, because to contemplate non-existence require that you exist. Wuliheron has had his own way of making much the same point, but it is pretty much what Descartes was saying too.

I am trying to explain why the situation doesn't make sense
and thus there is no real value to the relevant statement.
The relevant problems and assumptions are :
1. A Demon - even with no regards to its qualities this
is an assumption of real existence of a separate entity.

One has to assume this from the start, because the whole reasoning takes place in the context of someone attempting to convince someone else that they don't exist.

2. Think - that word, when applied to reality, contains
an assumption that says that you can cause something to
change in observation - new relevant thoughts/actions and so on.

Yes, and the Demon had made this assumption.

Remember, the whole point of Descartes' statement was to reveal the flaw in the Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (because the Demon had to make the assumptions that you have pointed out, before trying to get Descartes to deny the very same assumptions).[/color]

3. I am - refers to a distinction. (of what ?)

"I am" doesn't refer to a distinction, but rather to the existence of "I".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Deslaar
I haven't read this whole thread, I just don't have the patience so if this has already been discussed then I apologise.

First I voted yes because I believe that, for the most part, Descartes got it right.

Descartes application of systematic doubt to the world that he saw around him was intended to achieve one thing. That thing was a philosophical foundation to build from that was beyond doubt. The result is the cogito. While some have argued that Descartes does not go far enough and that "I think, therefore I am" should be reduced to "there are thoughts", the first step in any reconstruction is assigning those thoughts to something in much the same way we assign sensation or emotion to someone. Pain cannot exist without a possessor, just as thought cannot.

This is much appreciated, even this far into the thread (after all, the thread took a powerful digressive turn (into a discussion of Aristotelian Logic, it's flaws, human paradigms, the possibility of a "meta-paradigm", etc), and Descartes' reasoning has been on the back burner). I agree with your reasoning here, btw, and it is much like what I posted to drag: any statement of the form "P [bleep]" (where "P" is an entity and "[bleep]" is an action) has direct reference to Causality.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point, the Demon assumed that there was such a thing as and entity called Descartes in the first place (because he assumed that he could convince that entity that he didn't exist). How is this so complicated that it should be beyond understanding? No offense, but can you actually address the fact that, in order for entity A to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, there must be and entity B and that entity must be assumed to be capable of thinking?

That's not the point. I don't care about Demons or whatever.
From the perspective of Decartes the Demon came to him
and posed the question - but, is that TRUE ? How can it be
proved then ?! How can he know that he thinks and makes
sense of the question posed ? How can he be certain of
anything ?

Originally posted by Mentat
But there is no such thing as thoughts without a thinker...

Funny, I was not aware of a proven existence of the
concept "thoughts".

Originally posted by Mentat
All you can know for certain is your own existence, because to contemplate non-existence require that you exist. Wuliheron has had his own way of making much the same point, but it is pretty much what Descartes was saying too.

STOP ! You can not know for certain "your own" existence !
All you can know for certain IS existence - no shape,
no form, no definitions (and you can't even prove this
claim ). That's what wuli talked about, but NOT Descartes.

Originally posted by Mentat
One has to assume this from the start, because the whole reasoning takes place in the context of someone attempting to convince someone else that they don't exist.

Good hypothesys, bad reality.

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, and the Demon had made this assumption.

Remember, the whole point of Descartes' statement was to reveal the flaw in the Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (because the Demon had to make the assumptions that you have pointed out, before trying to get Descartes to deny the very same assumptions).[/color]

No, you have to look at an even broader picture of the
situation - which is precisely why you may feel I'm pushing
you so hard with this most basic level definition and truth stuff.
Descartes indeed used a hypothetical situation, however
he attempted and meant to extract a REAL relevant conclusion
from this situation. I am trying to show you that even if he
was talking about the neighbor and not the Demon and said
that the whole thing actualy happened to him yesterday -
his conclusion is still unbased and uses absolute assumptions.

That's why I'm saying that his statement makes no real sense.
I couldn't care less if it was just about a hypothetical situation and a hypothetical statement. But, that's not what he meant.

Originally posted by Mentat
"I am" doesn't refer to a distinction, but rather to the
existence of "I".

The only way that "I" does not make a distinction, apparently,
is if "I" is a synonym for existence.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

i think I am thinking, therefore i possiably am.

oooohh that throws a metaphorical spanner into the metaphorical works doesn't it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drdeath
i think I am thinking, therefore i possiably am.

oooohh that throws a metaphorical spanner into the metaphorical works doesn't it.

Thanks for your participation, drdeath, however I if you can state with confidence that you (the entity that is you) is thinking, then you must assume that there is such a thing as you (which is the point of Descartes' reasoning). There is no uncertainty of one's existence, if one is definitely thinking.

 

[akhenaten]

But one doesn't know one is thinking. One doesn't know that the thoughts are had by oneself, or anyone else's self. One only experiences thoughts. That thoughts are had by 'selves' is a a concepual and linguistic habit, which is why D assumes that the thoughts are had by a self - his self to be specific.

That there is a phenomenon of thinking is all that is truly known.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
That's not the point. I don't care about Demons or whatever.
From the perspective of Decartes the Demon came to him
and posed the question - but, is that TRUE ? How can it be
proved then ?! How can he know that he thinks and makes
sense of the question posed ?

"How can he know that he thinks"? How about the fact that he did (in obvious fact) concieve of the idea of a Demon? You yourself said that from his persepective, a Demon posed a question. How can one concieve of a Demon, unless they are concieving (thinking)?

How can he be certain of
anything ?

He wasn't certain of all that much, but he was seeking certainty, and thus tried to stay within the bounds of what he knew for certain to be true - one of which was his own existence (because, if he knew anything at all (or thought of anything at all, including the idea of his non-existence) then there must be a "he" who knows whatever it is "he" knows).

Funny, I was not aware of a proven existence of the
concept "thoughts".

Funny, I was under the impression one could not "think" something was "funny" unless one could "think".

STOP ! You can not know for certain "your own" existence !
All you can know for certain IS existence - no shape,
no form, no definitions (and you can't even prove this
claim ).

Wait a minute, drag, you have used the word "you" in this statement more than enough times to undermine your own stance. If "I" can't be certain of anything else, "I" can still be certain that there is an "I" that is uncertain of everything else.

Good hypothesys, bad reality.

What do you mean? It's true. That's what the context was. If you go into a situation where entity A is trying to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, you have to assume that there is such a thing as entity B and entity A (obviously).

No, you have to look at an even broader picture of the
situation - which is precisely why you may feel I'm pushing
you so hard with this most basic level definition and truth stuff.
Descartes indeed used a hypothetical situation, however
he attempted and meant to extract a REAL relevant conclusion
from this situation. I am trying to show you that even if he
was talking about the neighbor and not the Demon and said
that the whole thing actualy happened to him yesterday -
his conclusion is still unbased and uses absolute assumptions.

No, his conclusion is correct, regardless of who/what it is that tries to convince him (notice "convince him") that he doesn't exist.

Let me ask you something: How is it that you attempt to explain entity A's attempt to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, without ever referring to entity A or B?

The only way that "I" does not make a distinction, apparently,
is if "I" is a synonym for existence.

Not exactly. To speak of any entity is to assume it's existence - as how can you speak of something that doesn't (at least conceptually) exist? - thus, "I" is just a reference to an entity like any other reference to an entity, but all entities exist (at least conceptually).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
But one doesn't know one is thinking. One doesn't know that the thoughts are had by oneself, or anyone else's self. One only experiences thoughts.

And here you contradict yourself, and this contradiction is extremely important. You cannot say that one "experiences thoughts" without referring to "one". You see? One can know that one is thinking, because they know that they are thinking about thinking. This needn't go into infinite regress (btw), because you already said "one experiences thoughts".

That thoughts are had by 'selves' is a a concepual and linguistic habit, which is why D assumes that the thoughts are had by a self - his self to be specific.

Why do you refer to "D" (one entity), and then say that "D" assumes (which requires thought), while trying to support an argument against the belief in separate selves, and the ability of individuals to think? This is counter-productive. Usually, when one runs into so many self-contradictions, there is something wrong with what they are trying to say.

That there is a phenomenon of thinking is all that is truly known.

Truly known by who?

 

[akhenaten]

Why do I phrase it in this way? because it is built into our language. Let me rephrase:

The phenomenon of thoughts exists

And what can we deduce from that? Nothing.

In fact, even that is misleading because I use the word 'thoughts' whereas a true sceptic would not make any assumptions about the nature of what he experienced.

Really I should just try to render a stream of D's consciousness:

...must rememeber to write new book...this is such a great idea I've had ...I think therefore I am...wow I'm so amazingly clever...this could form the basis for a whole new pointless movement in continental philosophy...damn I'm good...oh no I've not fed the cat for three days...couldn't have done it if I hadn't thought of sitting in this oven...must be the fumes...

At what point does it become safe for one of these thoughts to deduce that it and all the other thoughts are 'had' by a self? At what point is a self ever experienced?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Mentat, I'm afraid that after reading your response to my
message I can see that my attempts at an explanation of
my opinion on this issue are apparently futile.

All I can advise you is something another Greek philosopher
(probably a much better and smarter one than Descartes) -
Socrates, considered of prime importance - "Question everything".

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

An open letter to Mentat

This is for my friend Mentat,

This is true:

To the insane, sanity appears insane.

To the irrational, rationality appears irrational.

To name a thing is to limit it.

(Think about it.)


This is said:

Royce: I know nothing.

Wuliheron: All including existence is paradox.

Manuel_Silvio: All including existence is uncertainty.


This has been shown:

Einsein showed the world that everything in physics and life is relative to the observer.

Niels Bohr et al, showed the world that everything in physics and life is uncertain.


Mentat, at your stage in life it is important to have a strong firm foundation made of what you know and believe on which to stand and build. Just keep in mind that this foundation is a tool, a useful and necessary tool for here and now, but none the less an illusion. Do not build too high or too strong with your blocks of knowledge.
Do not make strong walls or high castles with your blocks of knowledge for there will come a time in your life when the walls and castles you build may become your prison from which you may never escape. Or they may fade away and become quicksand and you may sink into the abyss.
If you remember in your mind and heart that nothing is known for certain and all is paradox, then when your foundation and walls melt away into the illusion that they are, and you will have no place to stand, no where to place your feet. You will be set free to float like a leave carried on the breeze or soar high into the skies like the clouds drifting in the wind.
With everything relative, unknown and uncertain, nothing will be impossible, nothing will be unthinkable, nothing will be irrational. Everything will be possible, thinkable and rational. Paradox will become doors to open and go through into new worlds of thought and being or at least windows to look through and see those new worlds if you are timid.

I speak/write in metaphor and allegory because it is much easier to express and convey these thoughts by image than by words alone.

 

[akhenaten]

Whoah! I'm starting to hallucinate just from reading that...

Very concisely and poetically put Royce.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

but how do i know i exist what if i am just a figment of somethings imagination, or part of a computer programme, that is programmed to think it exists and to believe that its thoughts are its own and real.??

 

[Another God]

I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?

Its a contingent truth. It just so happens that 'You' exist... Whether 'You' is physically anything like you appear to yourself or not is another question, but if YOU can ask whether you exist, then you have already answered your own question.

 

[DR OF DEATH]

but if i am just a part of somethings vivid imagination or computer programme (matrix situation) then i would think i exist. but would in fact not exist in any tangiable / physical sense, but in a metaphorical sense i may exist.

there is a difference between the two.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Royce, not bad ! wuli would be proud !

Originally posted by Another God
I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?

Is he/she ?
I don't know, in fact, I don't even know if I really don't know...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Another God]

What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?

I am certain that everyone defines themselves as their mind. As such, to ask "Do I really exist?" is a silly question, because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Another God
What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?

they're the same thing. you can't have one without the other.

 

[maximus]

here's what i see: in the phrase "i think therefore i am" the key word is am. if you take this to mean "i think therefore i exist" then it is obvious. you could not think without being in a state of existence. (in this case, the reverse or "i am therefore i think" does not hold true becuase inanimate life doesn't think)

but if you take am to mean something else, then I'm forced to ask: am what?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Another God
...because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).

How can one know that he actualy knows ? Maybe thought
is a prewritten script that can't change and hence
you don't think and don't know - you just "watch".

Assumption is futile...

Originally posted by maximus
in the phrase "i think therefore i am" the key word is am. if you take this to mean "i think therefore i exist" then it is obvious. you could not think without being in a state of existence. (in this case, the reverse or "i am therefore i think" does not hold true

Indeed. To add some clartification, I hope that's what you meant
as well(I didn't understand the inanimate part):
"I think therefore I exist" is, apparently, a statement
that is correct. But, of course, it is a hypothetical
statement since it is relevant if we assume we think.

As for the opposite statement - "I exist therewfore I think",
the entire statement is a clear assumption about existence.
Thus, clearly, not even apparently true/false but reather
more of a subjective nature as this thread appears to demonstrate.

Live long and prosper.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by drag
How can one know that he actualy knows ? Maybe thought
is a prewritten script that can't change and hence
you don't think and don't know - you just "watch".
Assumption is futile...

very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completely unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.

To add some clartification, I hope that's what you meant
as well(I didn't understand the inanimate part):
"I think therefore I exist" is, apparently, a statement
that is correct. But, of course, it is a hypothetical
statement since it is relevant if we assume we think.

what i meant by the reverse does not hold true (or i am therefore i think) becuase you can be a rock and not think. you still exist but you do not therefore think.

 

[Royce]

Thanks akhenaten and drag. I wonder what mentat thought of it or even if he's seen it yet.
Okay, maximus different day, different thread, you ready? No I'm not picking on you just coincidence if yopu brelieve in coincidences too.
First a rock can't think or wonder if it exists so that part is not relevant. Some time ago in another but similar thread I said that Descartes had it wrong or backwards. It should read "I exist; therefore, I think." Caught all kinds of H*** about that because it out of context and not within the subject of the thread that was concerned with Descartes and I didn't understand.
My point was that only a rational, intelligent, aware being could conceive or say "I". If the "I" could say that I, it's existence was already determined and proven. No longer a question worth discussing. If it coukd say "I" then it must think for that's was consious aware being do, THINK. We have no choice really. We are always thinking. The original I think; therefor, I am is redundant and stateing the obvious. But then it is the same my way too.
I've got to go along with Manuel and say the entire statement is meaningless.

 

[maximus]

another thing i realize. the word "I" is an issue. by "I" you you mean my conciousness, becuase after i die my body still exists but is that the same thing? if we're talking about the body beyond the consciousness, than we'd exist even if we didn't think. (i am, therefore i don't think) (after death)

(sorry, AG, i think this is what you were asking in your earlier question, but i answered too quickly)

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
First a rock can't think or wonder if it exists so that part is not relevant. Some time ago in another but similar thread I said that Descartes had it wrong or backwards. It should read "I exist; therefore, I think."

this can lead to problems. if you are a rock you still exist, no? but you do not think or ponder about existence. therefore you can exist and not think. you can exist and think, yes. (we're doing it now, actually) -talk about multitasking! but your existence (if by existence you mean we can be located in a position) does not imply thought.

 

[Royce]

No it doesn't about that your right of course. the statement inclusr bot "I" and think so rocks while they may exix=st in realityare not part of this subject. Let sleeping rocks lie, I always say.

 

[maximus]

the next question to your claim would be what state of "I" are you talking about? (see my above post)

 

[Royce]

Maximus,
The state of the "I" that I'm talking about is any state that can concieve of, be aware of, be conscious of itself and utter, write or think "I" meaning "me and all that I am", alive or dead, in or out of objective reality, in this plane or any other plane of existence or dimension.
If it can concieve of "I" and is consciously aware then it is my assertion that is exists. No other limits or assertions or proof are needed. Merely being self aware and knowing that it is "I" is enough all else is redundant surplufous and unnecessary to prove or comment upon it's existence.
I don't care if it is a computer program or hardware. I don't care if its a spirit or ghost. I don't care if its alive or dead or inanimate. I don't care if its a dream. I don't even care if its you or me. If it meets the above minimum criteria, it is. It exists.
It is of course not the only thing that exist; but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Royce
It is of course not the only thing that exist; but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.

oh? this is remenisanct of the old "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" if a rock exists, and nobody is around to observe it does it still exist. the universe does not go away when you close your eyes.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by maximus
very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completely unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.

Saying I do think is also quite pointless. If it were
useful then it would not be philosophy but rather
turn into physics. The point is not the usefullness of
this statement, rather it is open-mindedness and recognition
of assumptions which is important in any philosophical discussion.

Peace and long life.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Another God
What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?

I am certain that everyone defines themselves as their mind. As such, to ask "Do I really exist?" is a silly question, because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).

The question is being asked, that is all that is known. Even the necessity for questions and other thoughts to be 'had' by 'selves' is just a conceptual habit.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by maximus
very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completely unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.

You missed the point. He doesn't need to prove it. He's just raised one of several spectres of doubt that show that 'I think' is an assumption - a double assumption at that.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Royce
but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.

The data of the mind, including the sense of self, are not experienced in a fundamentally different way to anything else. That the mind is an indivisible point is an illusion caused by its inablity to model itself - actually it is more akin to a nation, with departments, internal conflicts and divided 'pools' of information.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by maximus
oh? this is remenisanct of the old "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" if a rock exists, and nobody is around to observe it does it still exist. the universe does not go away when you close your eyes.

Technically speaking, maximus the tree makes vibrations. It isn't sound until an ear converts the vibrations into electrical impulses and sends them to a brain. When the brain receives the impulses and interprets them to be sound, then it is sound.

Yes I agree that in an objective reality the rock exists but it doesn't know that it exists nor does anyone else unless stumbled upon and discovered. Where as "I" exists in any system that recognizes "I" and is selfevident. That's the point, thinking and existing.

If a raven flew in my window, perched on top of my monitor and quote "Nevermore" I would throw my copy of "In Search For Schrodinger's Cat" at it and tell it to get the hell out of here and leave me alone. However, if a drunken one eyed, pegged leg parrot staggered in through my window, flopped down onto my keyboard, looked up at me with it's one bleary, bloodshot eye and slurred in a cockney accent; "I am." I would offer it my hand or a chracker if I had one handy and say; "Glad ta meetcha. I am too."

The data of the mind, including the sense of self, are not experienced in a fundamentally different way to anything else. That the mind is an indivisible point is an illusion caused by its inablity to model itself - actually it is more akin to a nation, with departments, internal conflicts and divided 'pools' of information.

There I disagree. The sense of self, awareness that "I" exist, does not require thought or analysis. It is selfevident as I said. I can at times choose not to think anything at all, meditate, and as Les said be far more aware of myself, my existence and others existences than at any ther time.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Royce
There I disagree. The sense of self, awareness that "I" exist, does not require thought or analysis. It is selfevident as I said. I can at times choose not to think anything at all, meditate, and as Les said be far more aware of myself, my existence and others existences than at any ther time.

I practice zazen meditation on a regular basis. In such as state awareness heightens, yet there is little or no sense of self. It is interesting that such techniques are used in Buddhism and other religions to dissolve the ego, and to gain insight into the illusory nature of a separate self.

In such states, the existence of 'a self' is not self-evident, if evident at all, it is as nothing more than a mental construct and not as something, ultimate, separate, indivisible or self-evident.

This is also evidence against Hofstadter's theory that consciousness is somehow produced by 'self-awareness' (I don't even see that self-awareness is possible without consciousness).

 

[Royce]

I agree that self awareness is not possible without consciousness; but there are many levels and types of consciousness.
I, too, practice a form of Zen meditation. It is the ego that is the illusion. Once we get past that then we become self aware of our true self not of our self image. It may not be petty but it is in the end all that we have. As a zen-christian or christian-zen-buddhist, I at first likened it to standing naked before God. I don't mean naked as without clothing. I mean really naked without self illusions or delusions. I of cousre have to see myself that way too. Which is probably the real purpose for it.
I thought long ago that before we could begin to make any headway in Zen, we had to do away with our egos. I found this impossible for that is doing away with ourself. It is the illussions and dellusions of the ego, our self images, that must be done away with and seen beyond. Our egos must become integrated with the rest of ourselves so that we become one within ourselves.
From you previous post it sounds to me as if you are just reaching that realization, ie. there is more than just one person in there.
This is just another step in a long road. I may be a step or two ahead of you on that road but a few steps behing on others. It is the same with Wu Li and I.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Royce
I agree that self awareness is not possible without consciousness; but there are many levels and types of consciousness.
I, too, practice a form of Zen meditation. It is the ego that is the illusion. Once we get past that then we become self aware of our true self not of our self image. It may not be petty but it is in the end all that we have.

The illusion is that this self is separate, indivisible and unchanging. It is precisely this delusion that dominates Cartesian dualism and Continental Philosophy in general.

Originally posted by Royce
As a zen-christian or christian-zen-buddhist, I at first likened it to standing naked before God. I don't mean naked as without clothing. I mean really naked without self illusions or delusions. I of cousre have to see myself that way too. Which is probably the real purpose for it.

As a zen atheist I liken it to the wind in the trees.

Originally posted by Royce
I thought long ago that before we could begin to make any headway in Zen, we had to do away with our egos. I found this impossible for that is doing away with ourself. It is the illussions and dellusions of the ego, our self images, that must be done away with and seen beyond. Our egos must become integrated with the rest of ourselves so that we become one within ourselves.

IMO the most important thing is to rid ourselves of our illusions about the ego and to cling to it no more.

Originally posted by Royce
From you previous post it sounds to me as if you are just reaching that realization, ie. there is more than just one person in there.
This is just another step in a long road. I may be a step or two ahead of you on that road but a few steps behing on others. It is the same with Wu Li and I.

Yep, certainly it sounds like you've not got rid of your ego. ;)

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
Why do I phrase it in this way? because it is built into our language. Let me rephrase:

The phenomenon of thoughts exists

And what can we deduce from that? Nothing.

In fact, even that is misleading because I use the word 'thoughts' whereas a true sceptic would not make any assumptions about the nature of what he experienced.

Really I should just try to render a stream of D's consciousness:

...must rememeber to write new book...this is such a great idea I've had ...I think therefore I am...wow I'm so amazingly clever...this could form the basis for a whole new pointless movement in continental philosophy...damn I'm good...oh no I've not fed the cat for three days...couldn't have done it if I hadn't thought of sitting in this oven...must be the fumes...

At what point does it become safe for one of these thoughts to deduce that it and all the other thoughts are 'had' by a self? At what point is a self ever experienced?

And yet you still miss the point. Let me make it clear: DESCARTES' POINT IS THAT ONE CAN NEVER PROVE TO ANOTHER THAT THAT OTHER DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THEY MUST FIRST ASSUME THE EXISTANCE OF THE OTHER, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THAT OTHER[/color].

I'm sorry, but I don't know how much more clear that can be. Descartes had already assumed his own existence (as do all people), but he also found something that should have been obvious: Any attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (indeed, any attempt to convince him of anything) proves that the "convincer" (the "demon" of his illustration) believes that there is an entity that can be convinced.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Mentat, I'm afraid that after reading your response to my
message I can see that my attempts at an explanation of
my opinion on this issue are apparently futile.

All I can advise you is something another Greek philosopher
(probably a much better and smarter one than Descartes) -
Socrates, considered of prime importance - "Question everything".

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

But did he ever question his questioning of all things? Wait a minute, why would he do that, if he didn't already accept the "question everything" motto? ...paradoxes are fun, aren't they?

It seems as though you still disagree with me. Why is that? Perhaps, when you think of a more concise way of explaining yourself, you will post it here, please?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
This is for my friend Mentat,

This is true:

To the insane, sanity appears insane.

To the irrational, rationality appears irrational.

To name a thing is to limit it.

(Think about it.)


This is said:

Royce: I know nothing.

Wuliheron: All including existence is paradox.

Manuel_Silvio: All including existence is uncertainty.


This has been shown:

Einsein showed the world that everything in physics and life is relative to the observer.

Niels Bohr et al, showed the world that everything in physics and life is uncertain.


Mentat, at your stage in life it is important to have a strong firm foundation made of what you know and believe on which to stand and build. Just keep in mind that this foundation is a tool, a useful and necessary tool for here and now, but none the less an illusion. Do not build too high or too strong with your blocks of knowledge.
Do not make strong walls or high castles with your blocks of knowledge for there will come a time in your life when the walls and castles you build may become your prison from which you may never escape. Or they may fade away and become quicksand and you may sink into the abyss.
If you remember in your mind and heart that nothing is known for certain and all is paradox, then when your foundation and walls melt away into the illusion that they are, and you will have no place to stand, no where to place your feet. You will be set free to float like a leave carried on the breeze or soar high into the skies like the clouds drifting in the wind.
With everything relative, unknown and uncertain, nothing will be impossible, nothing will be unthinkable, nothing will be irrational. Everything will be possible, thinkable and rational. Paradox will become doors to open and go through into new worlds of thought and being or at least windows to look through and see those new worlds if you are timid.

I speak/write in metaphor and allegory because it is much easier to express and convey these thoughts by image than by words alone.

You write well, and I agree up to a point. Yes, we should never trust our premises too much, but we must trust in some premise, at least for some period of time. We can never deny all premises at once. Indeed, "deny all premises" is it's own premise, and is thus an impossible demand. Also, if all was paradox, then it would be impossible to know that all was paradox. However, I see that you are hinting at something much more important - the ability to be free of human and self-imposed paradigms. This seems to me to be of utmost importance (especially after my conversations with Manuel_Silvio (see previous pages of this thread)).

I thank you for your words of wisdom, and am unceasingly flattered that you directed them at me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Another God
I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?

Its a contingent truth. It just so happens that 'You' exist... Whether 'You' is physically anything like you appear to yourself or not is another question, but if YOU can ask whether you exist, then you have already answered your own question.

Ah. Beautifully put. A breath of fresh air. Kudos.

People, please read this post carefully. It explains what Descartes was trying to get across very eloquently: It is foolish to question whether you exist or not, because the act of questioning cannot be made by non-existent people.