I Think Therefore I Am

[cho_pilo]

In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

“I Think Therefore I Am”, a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600’s in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he “demolished” the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and “I” (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of “I” (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. “I think therefore I am” could also be “I am therefore I think”.

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?

 

[meltzerboy]

In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

“I Think Therefore I Am”, a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600’s in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he “demolished” the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and “I” (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of “I” (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. “I think therefore I am” could also be “I am therefore I think”.

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?

I agree with your reasoning, deluded as we both may be! Not only does Descartes display tautological reasoning, but he also begins with the premise that doubts, even if deluded, are still his own thoughts. However, if these thoughts or perceptions are the product of supernatural trickery, how can he be certain they are in fact his thoughts? Perhaps the very fact he is doubting is an illusion. Insofar as substituting something else for thought, in the Middle Ages, one of the mottoes used to define self-existence among knights and warriors was in effect “I act, therefore I am” rather than “I think, therefore I am.”

 

[GEddie]

It’s no more than a head game, for you may know that you are thinking, but nobody else does. You cannot prove to others that you have a mind.

Descartes’ statement, used incessantly to prove the transcendence of the human mind, really emphasizes the importance of the body. If someone puts a chokehold on your neck, you would cease thinking at once, and cease being shortly thereafter.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neil_Anthony]

His argument is circular. “I think therefore I am” could also be “I am therefore I think”.

…

Your thoughts?

I disagree with you. If “I” am thinking about this problem, that’s the proof that “I” exist.

 

[Zundrah]

It’s no more than a head game, for you may know that you are thinking, but nobody else does. You cannot prove to others that you have a mind.

Descartes’ statement, used incessantly to prove the transcendence of the human mind, really emphasizes the importance of the body. If someone puts a chokehold on your neck, you would cease thinking at once, and cease being shortly thereafter.

ICXC NIKA

LOL

 

[Zundrah]

In following the rules, I will explain in detail what exactly is up for debate here, so this thread will not be locked.

“I Think Therefore I Am”, a common phrase (maybe the most common phrase), was written by Rene Descartes in the 1600’s in his book Meditations II. In Meditations I, he “demolished” the certainty of anything existing. His reasoning was that there is no way to prove that his thoughts are deluded or being deceived, as humans have been wrong. Some of the examples he provided was you could not disprove that there is an evil supernatural being tricking the human mind or simple everyday optical illusions that trick the mind. The next day in Meditations II, he wrote that there is one thing that he could be completely certain of, that he existed. His logic was that doubts of certainty were because of deluded thoughts. If there are thoughts to delude, thoughts exist, and “I” (in this case, Descartes) is a thinking being that exists.

Question: Does this common phrase which is often seen as self-evident provide solid proof to remove the doubt of “I” (in your case, yourself) existing.

---

My personal opinion:

Essentially descartes’ proof is:
X is true. Y is true. Therefore, X is true.

His argument is circular. “I think therefore I am” could also be “I am therefore I think”.

It’s the same thing as to say unicorns are pink, therefore unicorns surely exist. How could something be pink if it doesn’t exist. It’s tautological. It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Philosophy is a part of linguistics. We use words, as our only means, to try to prove our ideas to other people. There is so many limitations to language. We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?

You can’t replace “think” with anything at all really. Remember, we see and hear (amongst other things) then we think about our response and/or feeling about what we experienced. The brain serves as an awareness to our surroundings, collecting all received sensations available to analyze what is going on around us and towards us.

We think because we felt.

To me it is very physical, as physical as it is psychological. It isn’t complicated. It needn’t be poetic. I don’t understand why it must be complicated into philosophy. Philosophy, to me, is just poetry from the minds concept of the world which not all people can relate to. Rather than poetry that is usually in response to surroundings and such, which other people can relate to. Such as sightings and typically strong emotions felt in most peoples lives even if they are only experienced once so often.

I don’t know, maybe I shouldn’t even be commenting here.

 

[GEddie]

You can’t replace “think” with anything at all really. Remember, we see and hear (amongst other things) then we think about our response and/or feeling about what we experienced. The brain serves as an awareness to our surroundings, collecting all received sensations available to analyze what is going on around us and towards us.

We think because we felt.

To me it is very physical, as physical as it is psychological. It isn’t complicated. It needn’t be poetic. I don’t understand why it must be complicated into philosophy. Philosophy, to me, is just poetry from the minds concept of the world which not all people can relate to. Rather than poetry that is usually in response to surroundings and such, which other people can relate to. Such as sightings and typically strong emotions felt in most peoples lives even if they are only experienced once so often.

I don’t know, maybe I shouldn’t even be commenting here.

Finally, another nonphilosopher!!!

The problem with using another verb in the place of “think” is that such verbs do not imply consciousness, and/or do not go on all the time. “I can see, therefore I am” is true, but what happens when you are in the dark?

“I breathe, therefore I am” is even truer than the Descartes statement, since a human
being can “be” without thinking but not without breathing. Still, breathing is unconscious, so it does not prove one’s being to oneself.

It’s no surprise to me that a philosopher would define his being in terms of his ability to do philosophy. It is, after all, the most uniquely human activity. No use of limbs or senses is involved, only the uniquely human head.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Julia_Mae]

It’s the equivalent of saying apples are red and they are delicious, therefore apples are surely red.

You can replace the word think with ANYTHING. I eat therefore I exist. I dream therefore I exist. I walk therefore I exist. There’s no difference of what you say.

Your first sentence is not correct, your second sentence is. The operative part of Decarte’s statement is “I.” Awareness of self = existence of self. Whether through walking, thinking or eating.

We may exist, but we are unable to use words to prove it.

Your thoughts?

 

[A_G]

I remember studying Descartes in college. I don’t remember all the details of those particular lessons, however I remember he said “I think, therefore I am,” but we came to the conclusion that a more accurate statement is "God is, therefore we are"

 

[Zundrah]

Finally, another nonphilosopher!!!

I despise it greatly!

The problem with using another verb in the place of “think” is that such verbs do not imply consciousness, and/or do not go on all the time. “I can see, therefore I am” is true, but what happens when you are in the dark?

“I breathe, therefore I am” is even truer than the Descartes statement, since a human
being can “be” without thinking but not without breathing. Still, breathing is unconscious, so it does not prove one’s being to oneself.

It’s no surprise to me that a philosopher would define his being in terms of his ability to do philosophy. It is, after all, the most uniquely human activity. No use of limbs or senses is involved, only the uniquely human head.

ICXC NIKA

Some philosophers spout such “deep” “emotional” insights into the human mind (usually just their own) and it’s “whys” and “hows” because they think they are something special. You are a mass and nothing more. You can think, but thinking will not will anything to happen. I can think, therefore I shall remain seated.

Animals think too, you can sometimes get a good look at the hilarious expressions on the face of a dog when it is trying to work something out and has been at it for some time. Then it might take a deep groan and walk away.

But to kill the sentence quickly; “I think therefore I am” is maybe to contemplate this…

You think because of physical chemical cycles in your body and brain and because of nothing else. Therefore you are as real yet as complicated as the vivid emotions of a log.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am sorry to say this; but I have never understood peoples ridiculous objections to the famous “I think therefore I am”

It simply means that while I cannot have absolute certain knowledge of anything external to my mind, I can have certain knowledge of the fact that I have a mind and that a process of thinking is occurring. Therefore I know I certainly exist insofar as I am self-aware; I have certain knowledge of myself, and since an act of knowledge cannot rationally be distinct from the fact of having an act of reality, it follows necessarily that If knowledge is real then it has some form of “existence”.

This is obviously true. Descartes opponents wanted us to believe that nothing is certain. Some people would like us to think that all knowledge is probabilistic, scientific, or not knowledge at all. But as Descartes has shown, there is such a thing as Metaphysical certainty which begins with the knowledge of having a mind. In fact this is a crucial element to metaphysics. There is nothing bizarre or unreasonable about the concept, and all arguments to the contrary appear to misunderstand the context and the essence of what Descartes was trying to express.

 

[Zundrah]

I am sorry to say this; but I have never understood peoples ridiculous objections to the famous “I think therefore I am”

It simply means that while I cannot have absolute certain knowledge of anything external to my mind, I can have certain knowledge of the fact that I have a mind and that a process of thinking is occurring. Therefore I know I certainly exist insofar as I am self-aware; I have certain knowledge of myself, and since knowledge cannot rationally be distinct from the fact of having an act of reality, it follows necessarily that If knowledge is real then it has some from “existence”.

This is obviously true. Descartes opponents wanted us to believe that nothing is certain. But as Descartes has shown, there is metaphysical certainty which begins with the fact of having a mind. There is nothing bizarre or unreasonable about the concept, and all arguments to the contrary appear to misunderstand the context and the essence of what Descartes was trying to express.

But your concept of its meaning and others ideas of it do differ quite significantly.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But your concept of its meaning and others ideas of it do differ quite significantly.

It what sense?

 

[Zundrah]

It what sense?

It’s like, down to perception. Interpretation is the best way to put it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You think because of physical chemical cycles in your body and brain and because of nothing else.

This is actually impossible to demonstrate. Theoretically, thinking is what stimulates some processes in your brain, while the physical environment stimulates other processes. Analogously, your brain is like a radio, what comes out of the speakers is a function of processes in the materials that make up the radio. But what causes the processes that produce sound, is an electromagnetic wave emanating from a source outside the radio. Also, some sounds that come through the speakers, like static, can come from the immediate environment affecting those processes, i.e., a great deal of humidity.

Science doesn’t know how thought begins or what it is, really. Science only measures the result of thought occurring and not very precisely. There is some evidence to suggest that some thought “appears” in the mind without the ability to be generated by the individual. There is also evidence that thought and be directed and affect the physical environment. And there is evidence of memory being created, that is, experience happening the individual later can recall, while all brain activity has stopped.

I think therefore I am does not make a statement of physicality, but of beingness.

 

[tonyrey]

I am sorry to say this; but I have never understood peoples ridiculous objections to the famous “I think therefore I am”

It simply means that while I cannot have absolute certain knowledge of anything external to my mind, I can have certain knowledge of the fact that I have a mind and that a process of thinking is occurring. Therefore I know I certainly exist insofar as I am self-aware; I have certain knowledge of myself, and since an act of knowledge cannot rationally be distinct from the fact of having an act of reality, it follows necessarily that If knowledge is real then it has some form of “existence”.

This is obviously true. Descartes opponents wanted us to believe that nothing is certain. Some people would like us to think that all knowledge is probabilistic, scientific, or not knowledge at all. But as Descartes has shown, there is such a thing as Metaphysical certainty which begins with the knowledge of having a mind. In fact this is a crucial element to metaphysics. There is nothing bizarre or unreasonable about the concept, and all arguments to the contrary appear to misunderstand the context and the essence of what Descartes was trying to express.

Our sole certainty is to be found in our thoughts, feelings, perceptions, intuitions and decisions. Our knowledge of everything else is based on** inference **from what we perceive…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s like, down to perception. Interpretation is the best way to put it.

Indeed. Interpretation presupposes an interpreter who precedes that which is interpreted.

 

[tonyrey]

This is actually impossible to demonstrate. Theoretically, thinking is what stimulates some processes in your brain, while the physical environment stimulates other processes. Analogously, your brain is like a radio, what comes out of the speakers is a function of processes in the materials that make up the radio. But what causes the processes that produce sound, is an electromagnetic wave emanating from a source outside the radio. Also, some sounds that come through the speakers, like static, can come from the immediate environment affecting those processes, i.e., a great deal of humidity.

Science doesn’t know how thought begins or what it is, really. Science only measures the result of thought occurring and not very precisely. There is some evidence to suggest that some thought “appears” in the mind without the ability to be generated by the individual. There is also evidence that thought and be directed and affect the physical environment. And there is evidence of memory being created, that is, experience happening the individual later can recall, while all brain activity has stopped.

I think therefore I am does not make a statement of physicality, but of beingness.

You have skilfully demonstrated how the cart is being put before the horse!

I’ve often wondered how thoughts could float around in a void without being connected.

 

[GEddie]

You have skilfully demonstrated how the cart is being put before the horse!

I’ve often wondered how thoughts could float around in a void without being connected.

They don’t float in a void. They are held together in your head.

 

[lemondiesel]

how do I know that all of you aren’t different perspectives of my own mind?

in all seriousness, to the topic if the thread, “I think therefore I am” indicates our transcending above and beyond being stuck in the now. Do you agree that everything would still exist regardless of whether or not an intelligent being (human) ever came along to describe it?

but I’m sure you will imply that consciousness can not be derived from unconscious matter.