Cogito ergo sum

[MindOverMatter2]

You are making a typical Cartesian error in dealing with knowledge. The first step should never be criticism or a critiquing of knowledge. Rather the first step, should always be an attempt to explain the knowledge that we do have, what makes it possible.

You believe in first principles, and you are willing to build up knowledge on that foundation. That’s fine. Here you are talking strictly about “method”, rather than about certainty of knowledge; and perhaps Descartes method is not a practical way to go about things. I am not somebody that thinks that the principles underlying realism is a bad way to go about things; but it is not relevant to whether we can have “certain” knowledge of somethings objectivity beyond subjective appearance.

For example; it appears to me that there are other people in what appears to be bodies. I am receiving information that suggests to me that because the bodies are behaving in a similar manner to my own and making consistent sounds like my own, it is reasonable of me to conclude that it is highly likely to be true that these bodies have minds like my own; in fact i take it for granted. However; i have no ability whatsoever of determining that this is in fact true to a degree of certainty that cannot fail. The same problem arises for the existence of the universe in general, since we cannot determine that appearances aplly to objectively real objects. It seems to me that what Descartes was trying to do is create a superior metaphysics free of speculative probability or failure. I think that metaphysics can get us to God regardless of whether the particular appearances we experience are objectively true or not. I think Descartes got us some of the way by cogito ergo sum. I think that i have demonstrated to my self that we can have certain knowledge of God on the foundation of “i think there for i am” (i use a different to Descartes). What we cannot have certain knowledge of, however, is the physical universe in its “particularity”. We cannot have any certain knowledge of particularities.

We can only speak of illusion and such because we know what real is. Otherwise, there is no basis for asserting or distinguishing something is illusory.

We might have no practical reason to doubt, but we still don’t have any “certain knowledge” that appearances correspond to objective reality. We distinguish illusion not by knowing what is real, but by first assuming that our consistent experience is objectively real. We take it for granted because we experience it all the time from the day of our birth; and then when we find irrational “inconsistencies” in that information we become speculative of what we are receiving.
For example two people are in a desert dehydrating. One of them sees an oasis appear out of nowhere in front of his eyes. His companion, however, doesn’t see it and says, “you are not really seeing an oasis”. But because it seems so objectively real, the guy jumps into the oasis expecting to experience the delights of H20, but instead gets a mouth full of sand. Why did he do it? It was because, for him, the illusion was very real.

If you have ever seen the “matrix”, you will see that this film presents to us the possibility of ones experience being a life long illusion and people never knowing it.

Descartes knew his position would lead to solipsism, which is why he had to resort to God as guaranteeing our ideas.

That some idea leads to a negative result is not by itself necessarily proof that the founder of such an idea is wrong. That somebody likes cheese and pickle sandwiches is not a proof that i will like cheese and pickle sandwiches.

David Hume realized that Descartes position necessarily entailed skepticism

It entails it or suggests it, but as i said, i don’t believe that it truly or necessarily undermines knowledge of “all” objective reality. It merely undermines those realities that are the objects of empirical science. It seems to me that Gods existence can be proven from the foundation of cogito ergo sum just as effectively as from a position realism. Of course, i am only speaking here in respect of absolute “certainty”. I am not saying that we have to begin with cogito ergo sum. In respect of the science, i believe that the sciences are valid in so far as “empirical knowledge” (which is a probabilistic knowledge) is concerned .

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You pretty much have the situation inverted and standing on its head. The metaphysical notion of “being” begins with sense knowledge, not with some artificial mind experiment about certitude.

Yes the metaphysical notion of being begins with experience, but this does not necessarily entail the objectivity of the contents of that experience and neither does it need its objectivity in order for the notion of being to be objectively valid. The Meta-physician merely needs an indirect point of reference from which he or she can acknowledge being as being. You can conceive of the concept of being from an hallucination just as well as from true objective knowledge. Cogito sum is built on the experience of “being”; experience of being is the foundation of the principle. I think there for i am expresses the fact that you can’t think full stop with out “being”. That is all it means.

 

[itinerant1]

You believe in first principles, and you are willing to build up knowledge on that foundation. That’s fine. Here you are talking strictly about “method”, rather than about certainty of knowledge; and perhaps Descartes method is not a practical way to go about things. I am not somebody that thinks that the principles underlying realism is a bad way to go about things; but it is not relevant to whether we can have “certain” knowledge of somethings objectivity beyond subjective appearance.

For example; it appears to me that there are other people in what appears to be bodies. I am receiving information that suggests to me that because the bodies are behaving in a similar manner to my own and making consistent sounds like my own, it is reasonable of me to conclude that it is highly likely to be true that these bodies have minds like my own; in fact i take it for granted. However; i have no ability whatsoever of determining that this is in fact true to a degree of certainty that cannot fail. The same problem arises for the existence of the universe in general, since we cannot determine that appearances aplly to objectively real objects. It seems to me that what Descartes was trying to do is create a superior metaphysics free of speculative probability or failure. I think that metaphysics can get us to God regardless of whether the particular appearances we experience are objectively true or not. I think Descartes got us some of the way by cogito ergo sum. I think that i have demonstrated to my self that we can have certain knowledge of God on the foundation of “i think there for i am” (i use a different to Descartes). What we cannot have certain knowledge of, however, is the physical universe in its “particularity”. We cannot have any certain knowledge of particularities.

We might have no practical reason to doubt, but we still don’t have any “certain knowledge” that appearances correspond to objective reality. We distinguish illusion not by knowing what is real, but by first assuming that our consistent experience is objectively real. We take it for granted because we experience it all the time from the day of our birth; and then when we find irrational “inconsistencies” in that information we become speculative of what we are receiving.
For example two people are in a desert dehydrating. One of them sees an oasis appear out of nowhere in front of his eyes. His companion, however, doesn’t see it and says, “you are not really seeing an oasis”. But because it seems so objectively real, the guy jumps into the oasis expecting to experience the delights of H20, but instead gets a mouth full of sand. Why did he do it? It was because, for him, the illusion was very real.

If you have ever seen the “matrix”, you will see that this film presents to us the possibility of ones experience being a life long illusion and people never knowing it.

That some idea leads to a negative result is not by itself necessarily proof that the founder of such an idea is wrong. That somebody likes cheese and pickle sandwiches is not a proof that i will like cheese and pickle sandwiches.

It entails it or suggests it, but as i said, i don’t believe that it truly or necessarily undermines knowledge of “all” objective reality. It merely undermines those realities that are the objects of empirical science. It seems to me that Gods existence can be proven from the foundation of cogito ergo sum just as effectively as from a position realism. Of course, i am only speaking here in respect of absolute “certainty”. I am not saying that we have to begin with cogito ergo sum. In respect of the science, i believe that the sciences are valid in so far as “empirical knowledge” (which is a probabilistic knowledge) is concerned .

There is something inherently flawed in a project that assumes God created man with cognitive abilities which must be questioned as to their reliability.

And Matrix is not a documentary.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes the metaphysical notion of being begins with experience, but this does not necessarily entail the objectivity of the contents of that experience and neither does it need its objectivity in order for the notion of being to be objectively valid. The Meta-physician merely needs an indirect point of reference from which he or she can acknowledge being as being. You can conceive of the concept of being from an hallucination just as well as from true objective knowledge. Cogito sum is built on the experience of “being”; experience of being is the foundation of the principle. I think there for i am expresses the fact that you can’t think full stop with out “being”. That is all it means.

This begs the question about the Cartesian experiment. Knowing “being” does not mean we perceive the acts of the mind, such as thinking itself, as Descartes claimed. Knowing is always a knowing of some thing, real or imagined. And this is what Descartes denied. To assert that we know “being” is to claim that we know some thing rather knowing the means “by which” we know it. Again, this contradicts Descartes assumption about knowledge.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There is something inherently flawed in a project that assumes God created man with cognitive abilities which must be questioned as to their reliability.

And Matrix is not a documentary.

You can try to undermine my intellectual integrity if you want, but it will only do harm to your character. As for matrix, I never said that matrix was a documentary, i just used it as an example of how somebody can be deceived all there lives; and yet still they can acquire and understanding of being as being; since they think and there for they are.

If you cannot challenge my argument its better not to speak at all.

In any case, you are assuming that God created man with reliable cognitive abilities. Without that assumption there is no reason to think that we cannot be deceived. That is precisely why Descartes said that we must believe in God in order to trust in our senses; thus placing God as the ground of epistemology. In so doing he undermined those people who think that they can only know things through science. However, what Descartes showed us is that in order for us to truly know anything with reliability and certainty you have to assume Gods existence as a first principle of knowledge. Otherwise there is no justifiable reason to claim scientific theories as objective truth since they have no supported ground in truth. He tried to save God from from scientific or philosophical indifference. We have to affirm God in order to ground objective reality in category of certain knowledge. Thus far from promoting idealism; he seems to be trying to save realism using God as a first principle.

There are many philosophers to day who use a similar argument against atheistic Darwinism. For example; how can we trust are cognitive senses and our ability to reason if it evolved by chance alone. Surely we need a perfectly good God in order to justify our thinking that we do have reliable senses?

I am not saying that Descartes argument is correct; but a lot of the criticism he gets is undeserving, and i certainly agree with him along the lines that we cannot have certain knowledge about the particularities of objective reality, but we can know that something objective, apart from our selves, actually exists. This is what i call a sub-realism or objective reality in general.

It seems to me that you have read critical books about Descartes and you are merely repeating what you have read, instead of expressing what follows logically.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This begs the question about the Cartesian experiment.

Does it really?

Knowing “being” does not mean we perceive the acts of the mind, such as thinking itself, as Descartes claimed.

I agree, In knowing being in “general”, you can think about being. You must know being first before thinking, this is true, but this does not really have any relevance in respect of what Descartes was trying to achieve with cogito ergo sum in particular. The two sentences “I know therefore i am”, and “i think therefore i am”, are relatively the same thing in respect of what they set out to achieve. Regardless of the fact that knowing comes first, they both set out to reflect the fact that a particular “act”, what ever the act may be, is an act of existence. That is the whole point of cogito ergo sum. True, his putting thinking before knowledge of being is a categorical error; but it is still true that if you are thinking then you exist. Do you not know that you are thinking? True, you have to be thinking about something (being). But you can certainly know that you are thinking by the act of thinking. And if you are thinking, than one can say that the thinker exists. Given that he went about formulating this argument through his ability to think, it seems understandable to me that he would use thinking as the act that would show ones existence.

Knowing is always a knowing of some thing, real or imagined.

I agree, and the fact that Descartes said i think therefore “i am”, is in itself an affirmation that in the act of thinking you must know being in general, since you thinking about something is an act of being, not an act of nothing. However, being in particular (scientific reality) still cannot be known with certainty.

And this is what Descartes denied.

Did he really? I deny your interpretation. I think that Descartes is misunderstood.

To assert that we know “being” is to claim that we know some thing rather knowing the means “by which” we know it. Again, this contradicts Descartes assumption about knowledge.

I don’t understand what you are getting at here. It seems you are making a mountain out of a molehill.