Hume and Descartes

[James_Tyler]

In my Introduction to Philosophy class we have been discussing the early rationalists. I made the following post and wanted to share my thoughts here.

“To be is to be perceived”. This is George Berkeley’s belief. This is an alternative to Descartes’ method to deduce the existence of a “self”. Even if I were dreaming reality and other people were figments of my own imagination, still these figments do perceive me. If I did not exist, how could they look at me? So empirically, it can be deduced that we exist as well. It depends on other perceivers to work though. It wouldn’t work if you were born on Mars out of thin atmosphere. Descartes’ method works in a void.

Well, maybe it is premature to say it doesn’t work in a void. If we were to allow that one can perceive oneself then it works. If I were to instantly be born out of thin atmosphere on Mars, as I am, I could perceive my own body and deduce that my own body exists. If I had no body and existed in a void I could perceive my own thoughts and deduce what Descartes’ deduced. Yet, if I existed in a void without a body and had not yet begun to think, if I perceive the void then both the void and myself exist.

Then I might agree with the empiricists. Perception precedes both knowledge and thoughts. What do you think?

Of course, one must exist to perceive. So really it becomes, I exist, therefore I perceive, therefore I know, therefore I think.

Or the other way around. I think, therefore I know, therefore I perceive, therefore I exist.

What does this mean in light of abortion or euthanasia? Does it mean that the moment of existence must precede thought, knowledge, and perception and that existence may well follow these things as well?

 

[James_Tyler]

---

 

[STT]

In my Introduction to Philosophy class we have been discussing the early rationalists. I made the following post and wanted to share my thoughts here.

“To be is to be perceived”. This is George Berkeley’s belief. This is an alternative to Descartes’ method to deduce the existence of a “self”. Even if I were dreaming reality and other people were figments of my own imagination, still these figments do perceive me. If I did not exist, how could they look at me? So empirically, it can be deduced that we exist as well. It depends on other perceivers to work though. It wouldn’t work if you were born on Mars out of thin atmosphere. Descartes’ method works in a void.

Well, maybe it is premature to say it doesn’t work in a void. If we were to allow that one can perceive oneself then it works. If I were to instantly be born out of thin atmosphere on Mars, as I am, I could perceive my own body and deduce that my own body exists. If I had no body and existed in a void I could perceive my own thoughts and deduce what Descartes’ deduced. Yet, if I existed in a void without a body and had not yet begun to think, if I perceive the void then both the void and myself exist.

Then I might agree with the empiricists. Perception precedes both knowledge and thoughts. What do you think?

Of course, one must exist to perceive. So really it becomes, I exist, therefore I perceive, therefore I know, therefore I think.

Or the other way around. I think, therefore I know, therefore I perceive, therefore I exist.

What does this mean in light of abortion or euthanasia? Does it mean that the moment of existence must precede thought, knowledge, and perception and that existence may well follow these things as well?

I would say that both Descart and Berkley could be wrong. We experience thoughts and our bodies and we deduce that we exist. We however could be wrong since experience could just happen without any need for a self to be conscious of it.

 

[mVitus]

I disagree with Descartes’ Clear-and-Distinct idea, but his proof of self is ireffutable. Even if you think you don’t exist, having that thought proves you do.

 

[STT]

I disagree with Descartes’ Clear-and-Distinct idea, but his proof of self is ireffutable. Even if you think you don’t exist, having that thought proves you do.

That is not clear to me that how having a thought can prove that we do exist. Thoughts are part of our experience and I think we need a stronger proof, if it is possible, to show that you need a self in order to experience. You could simply say that experience happens.

 

[mVitus]

If you didn’t exist, how you could you have the thought in the first place? In order to experience ANYTHING, you actually need to exist to experience it.

 

[STT]

If you didn’t exist, how you could you have the thought in the first place? In order to experience ANYTHING, you actually need to exist to experience it.

The act of experience is suffice that we realize our thoughts or external world. There is no need for a self to experience things unless you can justify it.

 

[Vico]

In my Introduction to Philosophy class we have been discussing the early rationalists. I made the following post and wanted to share my thoughts here.

“To be is to be perceived”. This is George Berkeley’s belief. This is an alternative to Descartes’ method to deduce the existence of a “self”. Even if I were dreaming reality and other people were figments of my own imagination, still these figments do perceive me. If I did not exist, how could they look at me? So empirically, it can be deduced that we exist as well. It depends on other perceivers to work though. It wouldn’t work if you were born on Mars out of thin atmosphere. Descartes’ method works in a void.

Well, maybe it is premature to say it doesn’t work in a void. If we were to allow that one can perceive oneself then it works. If I were to instantly be born out of thin atmosphere on Mars, as I am, I could perceive my own body and deduce that my own body exists. If I had no body and existed in a void I could perceive my own thoughts and deduce what Descartes’ deduced. Yet, if I existed in a void without a body and had not yet begun to think, if I perceive the void then both the void and myself exist.

Then I might agree with the empiricists. Perception precedes both knowledge and thoughts. What do you think?

Of course, one must exist to perceive. So really it becomes, I exist, therefore I perceive, therefore I know, therefore I think.

Or the other way around. I think, therefore I know, therefore I perceive, therefore I exist.

What does this mean in light of abortion or euthanasia? Does it mean that the moment of existence must precede thought, knowledge, and perception and that existence may well follow these things as well?

Per Berkeley, subjective (or empirical) idealism, an object has real being as long as it is perceived by a mind. The sensory qualities pertain to ideas. Matter is at best a completely empty notion. Berkeley presupposes that all direct or immediate perceptions are ideas.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The act of experience is suffice that we realize our thoughts or external world. There is no need for a self to experience things unless you can justify it.

Nothing can not experience anything. Only things that exist can experience anything. Can you name anything that doesn’t exist but experiences things? No you can not because it is a logical impossibility. Therefore, you are saying nonsense.

 

[STT]

Nothing can not experience anything.

We are not talking about nothing but a being which has a brain, there are processes in the brain which lead to physical states including experience. The experience is an event and can stand alone hence there is no need for an experiencer.

Only things that exist can experience anything.

So the burden of proof/evidence is on you to show how a thing/self can experience.

Can you name anything that doesn’t exist but experiences things?

We are not talking about nothing but a being. This is covered in the first comment.

No you can not because it is a logical impossibility. Therefore, you are saying nonsense.

What I am saying make complete sense.

 

[mVitus]

“We are not talking about nothing but a being which has a brain,”

And if that’s what you’re talking about, then you’d know that if you experience something, you know you’re at least a “being which has a brain.” You’d know you existed because you’d know you couldn’t be nothing and therefore are something. That’s how you know you exist if you experience something.

 

[STT]

“We are not talking about nothing but a being which has a brain,”

And if that’s what you’re talking about, then you’d know that if you experience something, you know you’re at least a “being which has a brain.” You’d know you existed because you’d know you couldn’t be nothing and therefore are something. That’s how you know you exist if you experience something.

A brain is not an expriencer but something which allows that experience as an event happens. So Descartes’ argument doesn’t follow.

 

[mVitus]

The brain has to exist for the experience to be experienced yet you say that doesn’t prove one’s existence? You’ve lost me to be honest and I’m not really sure what point to make against that so I’ll go into more detail about Descartes’ view.

In his Meditations, the first section is about existence with the famous “I think therefore I am.” That’s used to argue he knows he exists because to think he’d had to exist since a nonexistent thing could not think. Even he thought he didn’t exist, that would still be a thought to prove his existence. However he couldn’t argue how he existed. Thinking gives the possibility that one could be a human, but maybe you’re just a formless soul (for a lack of a better word) or a giant reptile. But no matter how you existed, you knew you existed. So while having a thought doesn’t prove how one exists, it does prove that one exists.

 

[STT]

The brain has to exist for the experience to be experienced yet you say that doesn’t prove one’s existence?

No, brain has no capacity to create experiencer so the experience could experienced. Think of like this: experience just happens as an event. There is no need for experiencer. That is what I am stressing.

You’ve lost me to be honest and I’m not really sure what point to make against that so I’ll go into more detail about Descartes’ view.

I think you have lost me.

In his Meditations, the first section is about existence with the famous “I think therefore I am.” That’s used to argue he knows he exists because to think he’d had to exist since a nonexistent thing could not think. Even he thought he didn’t exist, that would still be a thought to prove his existence. However he couldn’t argue how he existed. Thinking gives the possibility that one could be a human, but maybe you’re just a formless soul (for a lack of a better word) or a giant reptile. But no matter how you existed, you knew you existed. So while having a thought doesn’t prove how one exists, it does prove that one exists.

First, experience is prior to thought. But you cannot prove that you exist, are an experiencer, even if you experience. I just mentioned before experience can happen as a event.

 

[mVitus]

So your argument is kind of like the proverbial “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” and saying that “Yes, because it doesn’t need to be witnessed to happen.” Am I correct?

If I’m correct, I think I understand what you’re saying that we ourselves don’t need to exist for other things to happen.

And if I’m correct about that, what I’m saying is “If you hear a tree fall in the forest, do you exist?” and saying, “Yes, because you wouldn’t have heard it if you didn’t exist.”

 

[STT]

So your argument is kind of like the proverbial “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” and saying that “Yes, because it doesn’t need to be witnessed to happen.” Am I correct?

Well, you are correct if that is a metaphor. I mean if the sound is experience. Experience is simply physical state and a physical state is simply the result of physical process (movement of electron, shape of thing, etc). So in that sense the act of falling of the tree is the physical process and the sound is experience. You don’t need any experiencer.

If I’m correct, I think I understand what you’re saying that we ourselves don’t need to exist for other things to happen.

That depends how do you define existence of a being. There are two ways to define existence of a being: (1) A being who can experience (experiencer) and (2) a being which causes experience (for example human with sole brain and no soul/mind). What I am stressing is that we cannot deduce that we exist, in the first sense, because we experience. Please note that experience is primary to thought.

And if I’m correct about that, what I’m saying is “If you hear a tree fall in the forest, do you exist?” and saying, “Yes, because you wouldn’t have heard it if you didn’t exist.”

If you hear the sound then there is an experiencer which is the first case in the previous comment. So your metaphor is in fact very interesting.

 

[mVitus]

Quick post: Though whether you experience or caused experience, you would have to exist to do either of those things and therefore know you existed.

 

[STT]

Quick post: Though whether you experience or caused experience, you would have to exist to do either of those things and therefore know you existed.

Yes, but as I mentioned existence of a being can be defined differently.