Descartes fallacy: "I think then I am"

[thinkandmull]

If you know you are thinking, you know you are existing. The same goes to feeling, although all internal actions in the soul were called “thinking” by Descartes because thought is primary

 

[GEddie]

If you know you are thinking, you know you are existing. The same goes to feeling, although all internal actions in the soul were called “thinking” by Descartes because thought is primary

But one can feel without knowing, while that is not true of thought.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bahman]

Rocks exist. Do they have the ability to experience?

No, Rock is but it doesn’t exist.

 

[Bahman]

Is a nothing – a non-existence – capable of thought?

tee

By nothing you mean something which doesn’t have any essence which is not equal with non-existence which is disability to experience. Of course both of them are not capable of thought.

 

[Bahman]

Why was he full of beans?

According to Linus only Thomas is correct and you don’t need to read anything else. Well, I assume that Descartes contribution in math and philosophy are all wrong according to Linus.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

According to Linus only Thomas is correct and you don’t need to read anything else. Well, I assume that Descartes contribution in math and philosophy are all wrong according to Linus.

Descartes should have stuck with math, his philosophy was a joke.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, Rock is but it doesn’t exist.

Well erhrr, wow, now you have become a solipsist.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Well erhrr, wow, now you have become a solipsist.

Linus2nd

By which I mean that it is in objective reality but it has no self-awareness.

 

[tee_eff_em]

First what is the difference between to be or to exist.

To be means to have an essence (which is consciousness).
To exist means to have the ability to experience.
Consciousness is the essence which can experience and affect mental states.

Now we can judge between right and false phrase:

I am consciousness. Right.
I think then I am. Wrong.
I think then I exist. Right.

By nothing you mean something which doesn’t have any essence which is not equal with non-existence which is disability to experience. Of course both of them are not capable of thought.

Wow, you’re really deep.

And of course, by *“deep” *I mean “dead wrong”.

You can’t make up technical definitions of *“to be” *and *“to exist” *400 years after the fact, and claim that Descartes was fallacious 400 years ago because he wasn’t using your made-up technical definitions. Descartes also did not work in English, so you are arguing about the wrong language!

You might as well try to teach your horse analytic geometry – You can’t put Descartes before the horse.

“Bah”, man,
tee

 

[Bahman]

You can’t create technical definitions of *“to be” *and *“to exist” *400 years after the fact, and claim that Descartes was fallacious 400 years ago because he wasn’t using your technical definitions. Descartes also did not work in English, so you are arguing about the wrong language!
tee

You could be wrong if you don’t define thing precisely!

 

[tee_eff_em]

You could be wrong if you don’t define thing precisely!

You can be wrong even if you define thing precisely.

But what I can’t be wrong about (and here I’ll pay more credit to your made-up definitions than they deserve):

[SIGN1]I am an existence, and I am capable of thought.[/SIGN1]

No matter how evil and powerful you may be, even if your sole occupation is to put wrong thoughts in me, you cannot make me falsely think that I am thinking. If I think I’m thinking, then I’m thinking.

“Bah”,
tee

 

[inocente]

First what is the difference between to be or to exist.

To be means to have an essence (which is consciousness).
To exist means to have the ability to experience.
Consciousness is the essence which can experience and affect mental states.

Now we can judge between right and false phrase:

I am consciousness. Right.
I think then I am. Wrong.
I think then I exist. Right.

Descartes wanted to find one thing of which he could be certain, from which to build his philosophy. It had to be a priori knowledge, something he could know without reference to the world. He decided that he could be certain that the act of thinking necessarily requires a thinker.

As the wiki article puts it, “This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one’s own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one’s own existence, or at least of one’s thought.”

Whether or not we agree with him, in philosophical circles he cannot be dismissed with the confusion of your OP or with another poster’s bizarre “Descartes should have stuck with math, his philosophy was a joke” as if arguing about the bestest boy-bands on twitter.

 

[Bahman]

You can be wrong even if you define thing precisely.

That is not true. Your conceptions either are consistent with your definition or not. In my case, my conceptions are consistent with my definition hence I am right, unless you show otherwise.

But what I can’t be wrong about (and here I’ll pay more credit to your made-up definitions than they deserve):

Well.

[SIGN1]I am an existence, and I am capable of thought.[/SIGN1]

[SIGN1]I am consciousness and I am capable of thought because I have a brain.[/SIGN1]

No matter how evil and powerful you may be, even if your sole occupation is to put wrong thoughts in me, you cannot make me falsely think that I am thinking.** If I think I’m thinking, then I’m thinking.**

How?

 

[Bahman]

Descartes wanted to find one thing of which he could be certain, from which to build his philosophy. It had to be a priori knowledge, something he could know without reference to the world. He decided that he could be certain that the act of thinking necessarily requires a thinker.

As the wiki article puts it, “This proposition became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it was perceived to form a foundation for all knowledge. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception or mistake, the very act of doubting one’s own existence arguably serves as proof of the reality of one’s own existence, or at least of one’s thought.”

Whether or not we agree with him, in philosophical circles he cannot be dismissed with the confusion of your OP or with another poster’s bizarre “Descartes should have stuck with math, his philosophy was a joke” as if arguing about the bestest boy-bands on twitter.

You experience thought as you experience an object. Isn’t it? Hence thought belong to objective reality, outside, opposite to you/consciousness, inside. What does thought, your intellect/brain.

 

[inocente]

You experience thought as you experience an object. Isn’t it? Hence thought belong to objective reality, outside, opposite to you/consciousness, inside. What does thought, your intellect/brain.

Sorry, I didn’t understand any of that. Except no, we don’t experience thought as we experience an object such as a fright train or a pillow.

In any event, using your own thoughts to try to analyze your own thoughts is bound to be subjective. How do you know, for instance, that your consciousness isn’t just a narrative formed from processes in your unconscious mind?

 

[Bahman]

Sorry, I didn’t understand any of that. Except no, we don’t experience thought as we experience an object such as a fright train or a pillow.

But your thoughts are external to you. Why do you need to experience them if they were part of you? Hence they are part of your brain activity which is not you.

In any event, using your own thoughts to try to analyze your own thoughts is bound to be subjective.

But you experience them hence they do belong to outside.

How do you know, for instance, that your consciousness isn’t just a narrative formed from processes in your unconscious mind?

Because I know that I am free to act and judge, because I experience and affect.

 

[tee_eff_em]

[SIGN1]I am consciousness and I am capable of thought because I have a brain.[/SIGN1]

What is brain? You have not precisely defined thing. You are hoist upon your own petard and you are wrong.

tee_eff_em;12716756:

No matter how evil and powerful you may be, even if your sole occupation is to put wrong

thoughts in me, you cannot make me falsely think that I am thinking. If I think I’m thinking, then I’m thinking.

How?

How could it not be?

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

What is brain? You have not precisely defined thing. You are hoist upon your own petard and you are wrong.

What is brain? A quantum computing system so called subconsciousness.

How could it not be?

My question was how you could make a single thought?

 

[tee_eff_em]

My question was how you could make a single thought?

Because I have a brain – D’uh!

If you get to assert it, so do I.

“Bah”,
tee

 

[Bahman]

Because I have a brain – D’uh!

If you get to assert it, so do I.

“Bah”,
tee

Then what do you mean with “I”?