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).
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.