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

[Mentat]

This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.

Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:

And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".

What is your opinion?

 

[quantumcarl]

I drink, therefore, I am.

Originally posted by Mentat
This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.

Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:

And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".

What is your opinion?

You know my opinion on this one Mentat... so far its holding at 33.3 percent of the vote!

I don't think thinking has anything to do with proving that I exist. Thinking does not involve the exterior world... only the interior. If we were to rely on our interior thoughts as proof of existence... then we would believe that the "Demon" who approached the man exists as well. We would believe pretty well anything our brain could come up with and as has been pointed out in other threads... the mind can be wrong, a lot of the time

That's why I enjoy the idea of changing, slightly, the wording of good ol' Des Cartes statement to read as follows:

I drink, therefore I am.

Now, right off you think I'm talking about drinking alchohol when I say this... and even I get that drift... hmmm...

But... realistically... I am talking about "drinking" of experience.

I see the use of our senses and our logic as a kind of drinking... a way to meld with the experiences exterior to our mind and the experiences inside our mind.

This to me becomes a pathway to understanding that I exist... using the interaction of the exterior and the interior experiences to come to the conclusion that... yes... I exist, not only in my head... but out there... in this universe.

That's my opinion, for the moment.

EDIT: let me put it this way.
If I didn't drink (water for example) I would not exist.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I like Carl's answer so much I hate to post after him but . . .

After reading Descartes you can see his point is how one knows one exists, and his conclusion is that he can know "so long as it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."

Yet, my experience has been that the more still my mind is, the more I become aware of my existence, which seems just the opposite of Descartes' statement.

But after thinking about it, I've concluded that he might have meant thinking rationally (i.e., reason, not just a wandering mind) takes place in front of another part of consciousness that witnesses that thinking. So when one reasons, one is made more aware of the inner witness and consequently of one's existence.

Nevertheless, attentive stillness of the mind can also accentuate the inner witness, as does deeply feeling (attentively). So I believe it is more the attentiveness to one's being that makes one most aware of existence rather than thinking.

However, second to that I'd chose to drink.

(BTW Mentat, how did you get your "Radio Wave" status? Are we doing that here or is that your addition to your handle?)

 

[Iacchus32]

I think therefore I am ... I think?

Even though the idea of "thinking" (being caught up in one's thoughts) is subjective, which is to say he may not "know" he exists, doesn't change the fact that he exists. Even an inanimate object such as a tree, which doesn't "think," still exists ...

 

[RageSk8]

I like "I think therefore I know"




-Stolen from Nagel in his characterization of Davidson.

 

[Iacchus32]

I'm not thinking at the moment I'm aware. I just see ...

 

[wuliheron]

And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".

Descartes was evidently an optimist, and a pretty self-assured one at that in light of this argument. Note that this is literally true from historical accounts of the man as well as from an analysis of this argument. However, he was also a rather sarcastic argumentative cuss as well. Perhaps that is where the ego thing of

"I think, therefore I am" comes from.

An Optimist is someone who believes this is the best of all possible worlds, and a pessimist is someone who's afraid they are right. In light of his extremes in attitude, for all I know he had a bit of both in him when he made this argument and was being sarcastic yet again. Certainly his sarcasm was more characteristic of his writing. Who can say? :0)

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I agree with Sensei and QuantumCarl. They've basically said what I was going to say.

 

[Mentat]

Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.

I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.

Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):

I can think about not existing, thus, I exist

In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I like your argument, Mentat. But how about inanimate objects? It doesn't apply to inanimate objects.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.

I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.

Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):

I can think about not existing, thus, I exist

In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.

Mentat. I can switch sides in a second if you like. That's what philosphy is all about!

I can say... yes, I do agree, the statement holds true in one frame of mind and one way of seeing.

The mind is our only qualifying factor when it comes to the existence of anything and everything.

I can say the "sun" exists because I feel its warmth and I notice when its not there. The only way I can feel its warmth is by way fo receptors in my skin sending signals to my brain which then interprets the temperature change as being warmer. This information becomes a thought about how warm the sun is... or how the sun has just been hidden by the horizon.

Therefore, it is only by way of thinking that I can verify the existence of the sun... or of myself... or of you.

Therefore, again... Des Cartes was on to something... in a myopic way. His view was myopic in that it considers the mind to be the total authority when it comes to existence. And I strongly disagree with that.

I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.

Mind you... it is always the pioneers of any science that end up making mistakes or miscalulations about a new frontier. These were the people willing to make mistakes in the name of truth. They were often willing to stake their lives on such claims as those made by Des Cartes.

(2039 characters)

 

[eleutheria]

I think therefore I am.

It must be read in its context. And the Meditatins suggest that what Descartes is talking about is not the thinking process, but the intuition of the "I", which is what one cannot doubt about. Therefore, one can conclude that he exists. Remember that the way we use the verb "to think" is different from the use Descartes made of it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Mentat. I can switch sides in a second if you like. That's what philosphy is all about!

I can say... yes, I do agree, the statement holds true in one frame of mind and one way of seeing.

The mind is our only qualifying factor when it comes to the existence of anything and everything.

I can say the "sun" exists because I feel its warmth and I notice when its not there. The only way I can feel its warmth is by way fo receptors in my skin sending signals to my brain which then interprets the temperature change as being warmer. This information becomes a thought about how warm the sun is... or how the sun has just been hidden by the horizon.

Therefore, it is only by way of thinking that I can verify the existence of the sun... or of myself... or of you.

Therefore, again... Des Cartes was on to something... in a myopic way. His view was myopic in that it considers the mind to be the total authority when it comes to existence. And I strongly disagree with that.

I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.

Mind you... it is always the pioneers of any science that end up making mistakes or miscalulations about a new frontier. These were the people willing to make mistakes in the name of truth. They were often willing to stake their lives on such claims as those made by Des Cartes.

(2039 characters)

Well, I don't want you to play Devil's Advocate in this particular occasion. I would prefer an argument for your side.

I think you may have come closer to the point of Descartes' Philosophy, and then missed it again. I mean no offense by this, I just think that the phrase "I think, therefore I am" detracts from the actual philosophy, and confused many of those who responded/voted. That's why I tried to break it down, in my last post. You see, Descartes was not saying that the qualifying factor for being alive was thinking, he was saying that the fact that he could think about not existing proved that he existed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I like your argument, Mentat. But how about inanimate objects? It doesn't apply to inanimate objects.

And it doesn't have to, because you wouldn't try to convince an inanimate object that it didn't exist. Descartes' point was not that the qualifying factor for existing is thinking; his point was that the fact that he could think proved to him that he existed - and that the Evil Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (and thus cause him to contemplate non-existence) proves that he does exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.

Or the physical evidence of the tree laying on the ground when you happen to stumble upon it when hiking in the woods.

Don't mind me. This is related to an argument I had a long time ago, when someone tried explaining to me that it actually didn't happen.

 

[wuliheron]

I think therefore I am.

It must be read in its context. And the Meditatins suggest that what Descartes is talking about is not the thinking process, but the intuition of the "I", which is what one cannot doubt about. Therefore, one can conclude that he exists. Remember that the way we use the verb "to think" is different from the use Descartes made of it.

Don't forget the personal context, not just the abstract. Descartes was using this abstract argument to fight the Church in an effort to promote experimental science and reason. Thus, from both the personal and the abstract it is more clearly a tautological assertion and affirmation of ego and reason.

 

[eleutheria]

When coming to the personal context, things get a bit...uncertain. Descartes had an insane relation with the church, expecially with the jesuits. So while elaborating a scientific method on Galilei's line, at the same time he always searched the jesuits approval as his intellectual counterpart, as it is clear from the premises of his books.
I don't think his "cogito" was a tautological assertion, no more than it is tautological the identity of Esperus with Phosphorus. It is always Venus, but there was a time when it was regarded as two different celestial bodies, one of the morning, the other one of the evening.
If you're looking for a foundation, the I is a very good one. (What Descartes began to deduce from this foundation, is a totally different story). After hundreds of years of kantian "copernican revolution" and successive idealism, it looks like a banality, but it is not.

 

[wuliheron]

A mad man's mind is always hard to distinguish from that of a genuis, hence the name.

I don't think his "cogito" was a tautological assertion, no more than it is tautological the identity of Esperus with Phosphorus. It is always Venus, but there was a time when it was regarded as two different celestial bodies, one of the morning, the other one of the evening.

Ohhhhh, sounds good. I admire good poetry. If it doesn't touch the ego, it speaks to the soul. Tell me the plot, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

If you're looking for a foundation, the I is a very good one. (What Descartes began to deduce from this foundation, is a totally different story). After hundreds of years of kantian "copernican revolution" and successive idealism, it looks like a banality, but it is not.

Sounds good. It sounds very pantheistic to me and denies the mystical if you want. Hence it speaks to the heart of the matter without actually necessarilly touching the situation. What remains unadressed is the inexplicable and, of course, ineffable.

 

[steppenwolf]

i don't agree with descartes because i don't consider the thinking process a voluntary and premeditated one. if you think of an action like waving your arm around then you can definitely say 'i wave my arm around' as there is a hierarchy involved in this decision, your brain can decide, plan and eventually carry out this task, thinking is however different, there is no higher brain that controls your doing (ie thinking) brain, therefore you don't think, thinking just happens.

when i realized this (although it might be wrong, counter-arguments are very welcome) it really annoyed me as i was trapped by this seemingly foreign thinking process, the ideas just happen and even though i feel they are 'mine' i didn't chose for them to happen as i chose to wave my arm around. the problem is you can't 'think' your way out of this conundrum as the thinking process is the very thing you can't control.

argh!

 

[Ishop]

I voted yes, because while it is possible that none of what we percive or think really exsist (ie. we are a part of someone elses dream, ect.) it is so highly improbable that it is reasonable to asume that it is impossible.

If something is doing an action, then it must exsist. Laws of physics. Thinking is an action. However this also applies to drinking, kicking, sleeping, ect.) The problem lies in what people asume comes after the word "am" in that statement. People apply the idea "thinking being" after it. The statement is made as just proof that one exsist. Either we are alive or not, this statement does not inquire this. It simply asks if you exsist. Which if you think or do any action, you do.

 

[Ishop]

Also, Stepenwolf, remember that thinking require the firing of neurons in your brain and thus is just a s physical a thing as moving your arm. Agreed there is no mystical thinking. It is a chemical and electrical response that moves us to thinking. Plus I do not think that the "I" in that statement was supposed to the the soul, but the person as a whole. I could be wrong in which case I would just disagree with descartes.

 

[eleutheria]

Ohhhhh, sounds good. I admire good poetry. If it doesn't touch the ego, it speaks to the soul. Tell me the plot, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Once upon a time...people knew of a morning star, the brightest, and they called it Phosphorus, the light bringer. There was another star that appeared in the evening, which was called Esperus. It came out, I don't know exactly when, maybe in the seventh century B.C., that the two stars were the same one, the planet which is called Venus. Later on it became a classic example in philosophy of language of how the same denoted can be conveyed in two different senses. I think Frege used this example firstly in Uber Sinn und Bedeutung.

 

[wuliheron]

So, are you then proclaiming the rational is the paradoxical and vice versa as Parmenides and Hegel did?

 

[eleutheria]

The example were meant to state that, being the cogito informative, it is not a mere tautology. But what you say is true, for individual identity is what reveals existence as an evidence, at the same time rational as an identity can be, and ineffable as existence can be.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
i don't agree with descartes because i don't consider the thinking process a voluntary and premeditated one. if you think of an action like waving your arm around then you can definitely say 'i wave my arm around' as there is a hierarchy involved in this decision, your brain can decide, plan and eventually carry out this task, thinking is however different, there is no higher brain that controls your doing (ie thinking) brain, therefore you don't think, thinking just happens.

when i realized this (although it might be wrong, counter-arguments are very welcome) it really annoyed me as i was trapped by this seemingly foreign thinking process, the ideas just happen and even though i feel they are 'mine' i didn't chose for them to happen as i chose to wave my arm around. the problem is you can't 'think' your way out of this conundrum as the thinking process is the very thing you can't control.

argh!

With all due respect, I believe you missed the point of Descartes' philosophy (as have quite a few people on this thread). May I suggest that you read my previous posts on this thread?

 

[steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Ishop
Also, Stepenwolf, remember that thinking require the firing of neurons in your brain and thus is just a s physical a thing as moving your arm. Agreed there is no mystical thinking. It is a chemical and electrical response that moves us to thinking. Plus I do not think that the "I" in that statement was supposed to the the soul, but the person as a whole. I could be wrong in which case I would just disagree with descartes.

that's fair enough then, i always considered the 'i' in descarte's philosophy to be a something more then the body, well i have made a right fool of myself and shall retreat with what scrap of dignity mentat will allow me

subjectively i can't see why you can't convince someone they don't exist as you yourself have no real evidence of their thinking procss (oh sure they try to tell you they exist and will kick up quite a fuss but it's all a front). just cos something doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't engage in the 'convincing' process, i once had to convince someone in a dream that they weren't real (gotta love those lucid dreams), the person in my dream could (apparenty) consider their own non-existence but that didn't mean they actually existed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by steppenwolf
that's fair enough then, i always considered the 'i' in descarte's philosophy to be a something more then the body, well i have made a right fool of myself and shall retreat with what scrap of dignity mentat will allow me

subjectively i can't see why you can't convince someone they don't exist as you yourself have no real evidence of their thinking procss (oh sure they try to tell you they exist and will kick up quite a fuss but it's all a front). just cos something doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't engage in the 'convincing' process, i once had to convince someone in a dream that they weren't real (gotta love those lucid dreams), the person in my dream could (apparenty) consider their own non-existence but that didn't mean they actually existed.

Well, to apparently consider something, and to actually consider something are two different things. And that is part of the point of Descartes' philosophy.

Steppenwolf, I would only think badly of you if you were wrong, and refused to admit the obvious. I admire that you can just state that you were wrong, upon realizing it.

 

[zimbo]

I agree with Mentat in taking Descartes to mean that even if the evil demon is controlling all our sensory experiences and twisting our thoughts, we are certain of our own existence.

To put it into perspective: in the 1st meditation, Descartes questions everything and tries to find a firm foundation for the rest of his knowledge. What if everything he thought he knew was wrong? He then looks at how we can gain knowledge. By sensory experiences? But what if one is just dreaming? (Considering that inside a dream, a person usually doesn't know that he/she is dreaming!) How about rational thought? Surely when I think '2+2=4', I would be right whether I am thinking it awake or thinking it inside a dream. But what if there's some evil demon playing around with your mind and deceiving you, so that you are never thinking straight? So it seems that we can't be sure of ANYTHING at all. . .

Until Descartes thought about how one's self-awareness of existence can never be wrong. If I am being deceived, then I must exist. It all comes down to the self-referential nature of the word 'I'.

When I say 'I am seeing a horse', I may be wrong (because I may be dreaming, hallucinating, blind etc.) But I can never be wrong when I honestly say that 'I seem to be seeing a horse'. The fact 'that my sensory experiences and thoughts exist' is never in doubt, even if the content of such experiences is doubtful. Since 'I' am certain that thoughts and experiences exist, and that there can't be thoughts and experiences without someone/something doing the thinking, something must exist! And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'.

The sentence 'I am here now', when uttered by a subject directly, is always right, no?

I think Descartes is pretty much correct in the first 2 meditations.

 

[Ishop]

Zimbo love your little...marshmellow? cheering thing lol. I agree as well, I think you explained better exactly what I was trying to say. However I like Steppenwolf's dream. Just because the person in his dream said "I" doesn't make them real. I do not think you are saying this either, but thought it was good to point out that you weren't. The truth is that the man in your dream while you may hear him say "I" is not really thinking it, you are. And what proof do we have that "real" people are not the same...we do not. THe only thing we know is that we are real because we think "I" when we say it. And we know we think. The only reason why we should continue to believe other people are real is so that they will think we are real, for we only have the right to expect from others what we give. If we accept they are real, then they should accept that we are. And thus we accept everything.

 

[MacTech]

he is right, but i would or rather say... this question should go first...

"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do." --B. F. Skinner, Contingencies of Reinforcement (1969)

hehe, do people really think, i mean many of our actions are quite sheepish...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by zimbo
I agree with Mentat in taking Descartes to mean that even if the evil demon is controlling all our sensory experiences and twisting our thoughts, we are certain of our own existence.

To put it into perspective: in the 1st meditation, Descartes questions everything and tries to find a firm foundation for the rest of his knowledge. What if everything he thought he knew was wrong? He then looks at how we can gain knowledge. By sensory experiences? But what if one is just dreaming? (Considering that inside a dream, a person usually doesn't know that he/she is dreaming!) How about rational thought? Surely when I think '2+2=4', I would be right whether I am thinking it awake or thinking it inside a dream. But what if there's some evil demon playing around with your mind and deceiving you, so that you are never thinking straight? So it seems that we can't be sure of ANYTHING at all. . .

Until Descartes thought about how one's self-awareness of existence can never be wrong. If I am being deceived, then I must exist. It all comes down to the self-referential nature of the word 'I'.

When I say 'I am seeing a horse', I may be wrong (because I may be dreaming, hallucinating, blind etc.) But I can never be wrong when I honestly say that 'I seem to be seeing a horse'. The fact 'that my sensory experiences and thoughts exist' is never in doubt, even if the content of such experiences is doubtful. Since 'I' am certain that thoughts and experiences exist, and that there can't be thoughts and experiences without someone/something doing the thinking, something must exist! And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'.

The sentence 'I am here now', when uttered by a subject directly, is always right, no?

I think Descartes is pretty much correct in the first 2 meditations.

Very good summary, Zimbo.

 

[Mentat]

So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?

 

[chosenone]

I think we are aware yes,but if god is evergy thing and created us,the gods life in his universe is to do something to pass the time,so he created us in the begining,and has waited 15 billion years to get the universe to this point,so all we are is what god decided for us,so all are thoughts now and forever are what god already decided they where going to be,so we don't think for ourselfs god does,so to say we are not just gods imagination being acted out by god,as we percieve the real world is an illusion,may be more truer that not.so i say he was wrong!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?

So, "I think therefore I am" only applies to a conscious being, right? So the statement is limited.