Cogito ergo sum

[Prodigal_Son]

In reading Descartes’ meditations, he states that he knows that he exists and that he thinks. Both of these statements are incorrigible. However, something I am wondering about is this – how can he claim to know that he exists and thinks, without first knowing what thinking and existing are, in and of themselves? It seems like he is jumping the horse here.

This is the most important philosophical work of the modern period, so I assume there’s something I’m just not getting here. Any thoughts?

Descartes wasn’t doubting analytic knowledge, such as “food is edible”. The statements “food is edible” or “a nonexistent thing cannot doubt” are true on the basis of the meanings of words. There could be no food, or no things, and yet such statements would still be (vacuously) true.

Descartes was searching for synthetic knowledge, essentially: something that is true because of the state of the world, not the semantic content of the sentence. His reasoning:

1. A nonexistent thing cannot doubt.
2. I doubt.
3. Therefore, I exist.

#2 and #3 are assertions about the world. #1 is a necessary truth.

 

[twinc]

my philosophy is a bit rusty but here’s what I do recall. Descartes was searching for that Idea which cannot be doubted at all because of it’s obviousness. So he says that he searched high and low for this idea but found out that he can cast a doubt on every idea he found. This was important for him because unless he found an indubitable truth he could never proceed with his philosophical system. There should be at least one truth to start with and from that truth everything is built upon. He looks into himself and discovers something. He says that he noticed that he is able to think (which was pretty obvious otherwise he could not say nor write anything without first thinking). So if he is a thinking being then he surely must be existing because who would be doing the thinking if he were not existing in the first place (again another obvious truth according to Descartes). Therefore he says he has discovered the first indubitable truth which is “Cogito ergo sum!”- I think therefore I am (I exist).

flawed at the very start for neither Descartes nor you or I really think,for in truth we only think we think whereas in fact thoughts occur - the truth of this is established when we find it impossible not to think.So if I do not think I am not - btw it is possible for a thing to exist and yet not be real - twinc

 

[twinc]

I don’t see why the rest of Descartes’ arguments are shot to hell. The fact still remains that our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness. To expect to understand the nature of existence completely is to expect to understand Ultimate Reality, i.e. God. How can minute specks in the vastness of time and space hope to fathom the Infinite?
There are many books on the nature of knowledge by philosophers, theologians, psychologists and neuroscientists. The sheer depth and complexity of the subject illustrates how difficult it is. There is no simple answer but no one has refuted the point made by Descartes. It is even more significant in the light of another fact noted by another French philosopher:

“La pensee fait la grandeur de l’homme.” - Pascal

(Man’s greatness is due to his power of thought…)

He also pointed out that we are aware of the universe whereas the universe is not aware of us! Astonishing when you come to think of it…

the Universe is indeed aware of each of us,for is it possible that somewhere,somehow there blooms a flower unseen and wastes its sweetness on the desert air - twinc

 

[tonyrey]

If the universe means the entire physical realm, since awareness operates through organs that are of the universe, could all earthly awareness be said to belong to the universe?
Maybe we are the cognizance of the universe.

It may be disconcerting to think we are the only conscious beings in the universe. Leibniz thought the universe consists of an infinite number of substances called monads, all of which have some mode of perception - ranging from unconscious perception to conscious awareness and memory to self-consciousness and reason.

Awareness can be said to belong to the universe in the sense that awareness operates through organs that are of the universe but there is no evidence that inanimate matter is aware of anything. Consciousness seems limited to living organisms and self-consciousness to human beings. In this respect there are levels of consciousness, all of which require explanation.

Consciousness cannot be the result of the increased complexity of the brain because many organisms do not have a brain. It is a fact as inescapable as gravity and for us even more fundamental than gravity because without it we wouldn’t know gravity exists!

 

[tonyrey]

the Universe is indeed aware of each of us,for is it possible that somewhere,somehow there blooms a flower unseen and wastes its sweetness on the desert air - twinc

Its sweetness is not wasted because God - and probably other beings - appreciate it.

 

[twinc]

What Descartes was saying is; Everything we “know” about the world we infer from our observations, and all our inferences and observations could be wrong, we could be living in a dream world created by a demon to delude us, we could be a “brain in a vat”, we could be in a “Matrix” world, or numerous other illusions. The world we “observe” with our senses could be “not real”. But the one thing we *Do know *is *real *is that we experience. Everything else may be an illusion but there is no denying our experiencing mind, hence the one thing we know is that our experiencing mind is real.

could it just be true that all the world is a dream and every dream is true.So who is the dreamer here and who the participants “for this vault of heaven under which we move,is but a magic lantern this to prove - the sun is but the lamp and we the magic figures that dance and jig and move” and also “all the world is put a stage and men and women merely players and one man in his life plays many parts” - twinc

 

[twinc]

It may be disconcerting to think we are the only conscious beings in the universe. Leibniz thought the universe consists of an infinite number of substances called monads, all of which have some mode of perception - ranging from unconscious perception to conscious awareness and memory to self-consciousness and reason.

Awareness can be said to belong to the universe in the sense that awareness operates through organs that are of the universe but there is no evidence that inanimate matter is aware of anything. Consciousness seems limited to living organisms and self-consciousness to human beings. In this respect there are levels of consciousness, all of which require explanation.

Consciousness cannot be the result of the increased complexity of the brain because many organisms do not have a brain. It is a fact as inescapable as gravity and for us even more fundamental than gravity because without it we wouldn’t know gravity exists!

so what is this mysterious thing outside of which nothing can exist - this thing that is or is not aware that it is aware or is not aware but will merely stand and stare but is unaware it stands and stares - twinc

 

[twinc]

It may be disconcerting to think we are the only conscious beings in the universe. Leibniz thought the universe consists of an infinite number of substances called monads, all of which have some mode of perception - ranging from unconscious perception to conscious awareness and memory to self-consciousness and reason.

Awareness can be said to belong to the universe in the sense that awareness operates through organs that are of the universe but there is no evidence that inanimate matter is aware of anything. Consciousness seems limited to living organisms and self-consciousness to human beings. In this respect there are levels of consciousness, all of which require explanation.

Consciousness cannot be the result of the increased complexity of the brain because many organisms do not have a brain. It is a fact as inescapable as gravity and for us even more fundamental than gravity because without it we wouldn’t know gravity exists!

so then does consciousness exist in the brain or brain in consciousness - twinc

 

[twinc]

Drop a 25 pound dumbell on your big toe and see if you *know *it exists.

Pain is a pretty good indicator that you exist, and think.

how do you jump to that conclusion - for where exactly is the pain felt - twinc

 

[pcg2]

Descartes wasn’t doubting analytic knowledge, such as “food is edible”. The statements “food is edible” or “a nonexistent thing cannot doubt” are true on the basis of the meanings of words. There could be no food, or no things, and yet such statements would still be (vacuously) true.

Descartes was searching for synthetic knowledge, essentially: something that is true because of the state of the world, not the semantic content of the sentence. His reasoning:

1. A nonexistent thing cannot doubt.
2. I doubt.
3. Therefore, I exist.

#2 and #3 are assertions about the world. #1 is a necessary truth.

Define “existence.” This is where my problem lies. How can he claim to know that a nonexistent thing cannot doubt, when he doesn’t know what existence is first?

 

[pcg2]

What Descartes was saying is; Everything we “know” about the world we infer from our observations, and all our inferences and observations could be wrong, we could be living in a dream world created by a demon to delude us, we could be a “brain in a vat”, we could be in a “Matrix” world, or numerous other illusions. The world we “observe” with our senses could be “not real”. But the one thing we *Do know *is *real *is that we experience. Everything else may be an illusion but there is no denying our experiencing mind, hence the one thing we know is that our experiencing mind is real.

So is experience how you would define “existence?”

 

[twinc]

could it just be true that all the world is a dream and every dream is true.So who is the dreamer here and who the participants “for this vault of heaven under which we move,is but a magic lantern this to prove - the sun is but the lamp and we the magic figures that dance and jig and move” and also “all the world is put a stage and men and women merely players and one man in his life plays many parts” - twinc

correction: " for this vault of heaven under which we move is but a magic lantern this to prove,the world is the lamp and the sun the light and we the comic figures that come and go and dance and jig and move"[Khayyam] - "all the world is but a stage and men and women merely players with their exits and entrances and one man in his life plays many parts etc[Shakespeare] - twinc

 

[BenjaminLumen]

PI… 3.141597------------------------------------------

is that the idea, perhaps mathematics give us this inherently because they are closed
systems. Axioms that are unchanging for the basis for their formalization, you do not
use non-existent models to do mathematics, Mathematics is utterly devoid of non-existent
models and structure to do mathematics.

There is only one way to Calculate PI, so PI must be the result…

No Descartes is thinking about THE undeniable truth, but Rhetoric is not the
system that is going to give you an undeniable truth, because its not a closed
System.

Rhetoric is an open system, there will always be another truth.

If I have a frame for an apple, and I have a frame for an orange, and you look at both
the frames and what they contain, that is truth,ie, that is a form of assertion that is taken to be a truth, That is a Truth, but then I
swap the frames for both fruit, Then I have just screwed up your truth, and that
is what Descartes is struggling with, Why the mind will not accept a truth by way of
Rhetoric as an unalterable truth.

Because the mind is switching frames on Descartes

But it will in Mathematics, the MIND WILL NEVER TRY TO MAKE PI ANYTHING BUT PI. The Mind has no problem with PI.

But shouldn’t there be Undeniable Truth in Mathematics only, theoretically speaking the answer should be NO, there Should be an Undeniable Truth in Rhetoric also, but there
doesn’t seem to be one.

So we know that the mind is capable of accepting and holding unalterable truths, because
our Minds do that with Mathematical Systems.

But we also know that our minds do not seem to want to Accept as Unalterable Truth by Rhetoric, or sylogism or tautology.

The real question is WHY, Then our Minds accept mathematical systems as unalterable, which they do and Rhetorical models as non rigid or completely alterable…

Is it a real problem, MOUNTAIN, WATER, APPLE, GRAVITY, our minds don’t try to bend these concepts when they exist in Nature… That is the mind accepting another unalterable truth.

Further Down on Existence.
1] A nonexistent thing cannot doubt…
2) I doubt.
3) Therefore, I exist.

The World is EXISTENCE DRIVEN, that is all their is, are things that exist… So nonexistence doesn’t itself exist, but you can create the term, but truly only existence
exists. So you cannot form a tautology and have it hold up to scrutiny because Assertion 1 , isn’t there. So you are tricking yourself from the get go, because there is no such
thing as non-existence, The term itself , albeit a creation of a human mind, doesn’t
exist in actuality, because the UNIVERSE IS NOT BUILT WITH NONEXISTENCE AS A
ENTITY OR ENTITY BEARING A QUANTITY… THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SET OF OBJECTS CALLED “NON-EXISTENCE” IN THE WORLD IS ZERO. YOU CAN HAVE EMPTY SETS, BUT YOU CANNOT IN THIS SENSE HAVE AN EMPTY SET BECAUSE IN THIS UNIVERSE NON-EXISTENCE DOESN’T EXIST. You may be tempted to argu that I have contradicted myself here, but I haven’t IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS INDEPENDANT OF MAN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NON-EXISTENCE.

SO IF YOU WANT YOUR TAUTOLOGY TO HOLD , YOU HAVE TO GET RID OF NON-EXISTENCE FROM ITS FORMALIZATION. SO DESCARTES KEPT TRICKING HIMSELF

1] EXISTENCE EXISTS
2] THEREFORE I AM…

DOUBT IS A HUMAN TRAIT, GOD HAS NO DOUBT, FOR GOD DOUBT DOESN’T EXIST.
DOUBT IS ANOTHER TERM CREATED BY HUMANITY INDEPENDANT OF GOD,

there are a couple of items in the bible that show that God doesn’t have a term …
Divource, God has no conception of the term Divource, but Jesus is using it(which is a problem because you have God speaking a term that GOD DOESN’T USE).
GOD HAS MARRIAGE, because GOD has to be totally about Marriage, so he doesn’t
have an opposite state for man… Man may quantify his universe to himself as DIVOURCED AND MARRIED Persons, but GOD HAS MARRIAGE… God doesn’t know the term Divource, You could live 1 billion years and you will never ever hear God utter the word Divource. see God has no opposite state for Mountain either, THERE IS MOUNTAIN. AND THERE IS NO NOT MOUNTAIN, EVEN THOUGH MAN WILL ORGANIZE HIS WORLD MOUNTAIN AND PLAINS, BUT PLAINS ARE NOT THE OPPOSITE OF MOUNTAINS, PLAINS ARE PLAINS AND MOUNTAINS ARE MOUNTIANS…

So Descartes real aim now makes itself clear. Descartes wants to be able to quantify his own existence using NO Non-existent terms. HE DESIRES AN ABSOLUTE, BUT that takes omnipotence, and Descartes May have access to Omnipotence, but he is not omnipotent… And that is how you get Descartes to the Catholic Church.

Man is not capable of being omnipotent, Complete Knowledge takes omnipotence,omnipresence,omniscience, that is why GOD has those qualities.

 

[BenjaminLumen]

It takes an infinite being of infinite scope to have everything as an Absolute with no non-existent concepts , ideas or objects.

“IS”, is the term your looking for …

God says to Moses, “I am who AM.” And he means just that, if Descartes could deal with I AM WHO AM, OR I AM WHO IS,

Descartes is looking for GOD… But he takes off over yonder, thus frustrating himself completely… Because you can get to what Descartes is after, with one Sentence, “I AM WHO AM”

See its like PI, I AM WHO AM, is like PI, because PI represents everything that PI is. GOD Represents himself as I AM WHO AM, and that is everything and everyone who IS. there again NO NON-EXISTENCE. HE UTTERLY EXISTS, HIS UNIVERSE UTTERLY
EXISTS, so naturally it can be seen that if you try to formalize a concept using the
abstraction of non-existence , then you are going to do nothing but keep yourself
confounded, and that is fine for philosophy, and philsophers, because they like
what they do.

Existence is Axiom Numero UNO!!!

How do you know that you exist?

I EXIST…

How do you know??

I EXIST.
CONT:

That is the argument, but you have existence being doubted in truth, but that will
always set you up for failure, but if we go to Descartes first assertion, A Non-Existent thing cannot doubt… There is no Non-existence so Descartes Tautology fails with respect to the UNIVERSE automatically and we quickly find ourselves arguing for what is it now, 300 + years, see in one argument Descartes has set up infinitely long amounts of work that gets philosophers paid.

I EXIST.

I think therefore I am, is true, but eventually I EXIST THEREFORE I AM. is the actual
true way of saying it. but people don’t like that… for some reason, they will argue with
I EXIST THEREFORE I AM… and converse works also, I AM THEREFORE I EXIST…

BUT we are philosophers. we have to argue… and you can’t argue with
I EXIST THEREFORE I AM…

 

[tonyrey]

Define “existence.” This is where my problem lies. How can he claim to know that a nonexistent thing cannot doubt, when he doesn’t know what existence is first?

Nothing can come from nothing! We don’t have to know **how **we exist in order to know **that **we exist. That is the miracle of our existence. It is an inescapable fact. We are conscious - not of ourselves but of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, sensations, fears, hopes, desires and decisions. We cannot understand what existence is but we can understand what it entails. We don’t have to prove we exist because it is absurd to think our experiences exist in a vacuum. The most economical and adequate explanation is that each of us is an individual, a self with an enduring identity, a person.

We can try to pretend we don’t exist but we finish up by contradicting ourselves because there is always a silent observer on the scene! We forget ourselves when we are absorbed in thought but sooner or later we distinguish ourselves from what we are thinking about. Thought and feeling are at the very core of our being. External objects are peripheral. We all interpret the same physical environment differently but each one of us knows exactly what we are thinking and feeling…

 

[tonyrey]

So is experience how you would define “existence?”

A more accurate description would be that personal existence is experiential! It does not exclude the existence of non-experiential objects.

 

[BenjaminLumen]

A more accurate description would be that personal existence is experiential! It does not exclude the existence of non-experiential objects.

Rock can exist without experience, so can Man, so it doesn’t take existence being
experiential for existence to exist. Existence can exist without experience, it just
happens to not exist without experience when it comes to man.

I think bringing experience in it is not needed.

Its a trick, yes you exist, in the Universe there exists 1 and exactly one Tonyrey.

But if you put that darn thing in a brain, and it will doubt it…

See God isn’t a Brain… HE IS UTTER EXISTENCE, when we say we are existing in Christ what are we saying, that We exist in a being who is utterly without fault, utterly without doubt, utterly incapable of being confounded… So we can rest asured then that we are existing to a being that actually has us as Person(s) existing. Therefore we must exist, because we exist in GOD… So then we make it God’s Problem, Does God Exist? YES!!

So there is no way that we cannot exist if we exist in GOD!!.. NO YOU YAHOO’S DOUBT YOURSELVES!!! I WANT TO SEE YOU TRY TO DOUBT YOUR EXISTENCE IF YOU KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS AND YOU EXIST IN GOD!!! COMMON I WANT TO SEE YOU TRY IT!!!

IS THE DOUBT GONE YET??

LETS DOUBT THAT WE WILL BE EATING ICECREAM ON MONDAYS…
THAT IS A BETTER BET…BECAUSE MOST PERSONS DO NOT CONSUME ICE CREAM ON MONDAYS.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

No it’s not. You can get phantom pain, for example.

Phantom pain is pain. You are still aware of it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Define “existence.” This is where my problem lies. How can he claim to know that a nonexistent thing cannot doubt, when he doesn’t know what existence is first?

But he does know, roughly, what existence is. Existence is not an object, but an idea. Descartes wasn’t doubting that he had ideas!

He knew at least one property of existence: “Only existent things can doubt”. Why? Well, assume some thing x does not exist. Now form the idea that “x doubts”. In order for the statement to make any sense, the term x must REFER to some thing; but if there is no x, then x fails to refer. Thus, x does and does not exist, a contradiction. By reductio, we conclude that x does exist.

All this does presuppose the truth of logic and the capacity of a human being to successfully refer (to himself, at least) as an entity. So it’s not truly foundational, but it is logical.

 

[twinc]

It takes an infinite being of infinite scope to have everything as an Absolute with no non-existent concepts , ideas or objects.

“IS”, is the term your looking for …

God says to Moses, “I am who AM.” And he means just that, if Descartes could deal with I AM WHO AM, OR I AM WHO IS,

Descartes is looking for GOD… But he takes off over yonder, thus frustrating himself completely… Because you can get to what Descartes is after, with one Sentence, “I AM WHO AM”

See its like PI, I AM WHO AM, is like PI, because PI represents everything that PI is. GOD Represents himself as I AM WHO AM, and that is everything and everyone who IS. there again NO NON-EXISTENCE. HE UTTERLY EXISTS, HIS UNIVERSE UTTERLY
EXISTS, so naturally it can be seen that if you try to formalize a concept using the
abstraction of non-existence , then you are going to do nothing but keep yourself
confounded, and that is fine for philosophy, and philsophers, because they like
what they do.

Existence is Axiom Numero UNO!!!

How do you know that you exist?

I EXIST…

How do you know??

I EXIST.
CONT:

That is the argument, but you have existence being doubted in truth, but that will
always set you up for failure, but if we go to Descartes first assertion, A Non-Existent thing cannot doubt… There is no Non-existence so Descartes Tautology fails with respect to the UNIVERSE automatically and we quickly find ourselves arguing for what is it now, 300 + years, see in one argument Descartes has set up infinitely long amounts of work that gets philosophers paid.

I EXIST.

I think therefore I am, is true, but eventually I EXIST THEREFORE I AM. is the actual
true way of saying it. but people don’t like that… for some reason, they will argue with
I EXIST THEREFORE I AM… and converse works also, I AM THEREFORE I EXIST…

BUT we are philosophers. we have to argue… and you can’t argue with
I EXIST THEREFORE I AM…

if I exist,what am I or who am I ? - twinc