I think, therefore, I am

[freeztar]

Is existence determined by thought?

 

Viruses exist, but they don't think. Does this mean that viruses don't exist, or that only thinking creatures can know of their existence?

 

And why the heck is this statement so famous when it is obviously fallacious?

[Qfwfq]

Viruses exist, but they don't think. Does this mean that viruses don't exist, or that only thinking creatures can know of their existence?

It means the second, or... actually, they exist only in the thought of thinking creatures.

 

And why the heck is this statement so famous when it is obviously fallacious?

Fallacious? It's the most certain thing in philosophy!

 

The mind can be certain of its own existence. What else can the mind prove the existence of?

 

Is existence determined by thought?

Logical argument cannot answer this question. The mind can't disprove existence of that material world, which sensory input tells it is out there, neither can it prove the existence of the same. There's no conclusive argument either way.

 

We do of course trust that all that stuff out there exists, but the mind can have no logical proof.

[freeztar]

It means the second, or... actually, they exist only in the thought of thinking creatures.

 

Well, here's the problem. If a virus attacks a plant, the plant will not know of the virus, since it can not think. Yet, we can see the results of the virus affecting the plant. So, we presume the existence of the virus due to our perceptions showing us the effects of its actions.

 

But is it not real to the plant, that consequently shrivels and dies?

 

In other words, why would viruses affect plants if there is no way for the plant to know of its existence. According to the plant, viruses don't exist, yet they are affected none the less. Why is that (in the context of the title)?

Fallacious? It's the most certain thing in philosophy!

 

The mind can be certain of its own existence. What else can the mind prove the existence of?

I suppose the answer you are looking for is that it can not prove the existence of anything else. But, taking a step back, how can it prove the existence of itself for that matter. Perhaps we exist in another universe and the mind is just a projection. It makes me think of the movie "Total Recall".

 

I guess though, that an argument could be made that it doesn't matter *how* the mind is manifest, only that it exists in some form or another.

 

Logical argument cannot answer this question. The mind can't disprove existence of that material world, which sensory input tells it is out there, neither can it prove the existence of the same. There's no conclusive argument either way.

 

We do of course trust that all that stuff out there exists, but the mind can have no logical proof.

 

I agree. Though, that seems to be paradoxical in a sense. If we assume stuff out there exists, then we can assume that stuff "in here" exists as well. If we assume that stuff out there doesn't exist, then how can we be certain that stuff "in here" exists?

[Qfwfq]

I guess though, that an argument could be made that it doesn't matter *how* the mind is manifest, only that it exists in some form or another.

Exactly.

 

If we assume that stuff out there doesn't exist, then how can we be certain that stuff "in here" exists?

The mind is certain of its own existence because it is capable, in whatever manner, of receiving all the "sensory input" or whatever it is, reality or simulation, posing and pondering over questions including such dumb ones as whether or not the whole thing exists.

[Michael Mooney]

Psychologically speaking, it would be equally valid for less cerebral, more emotional folks to say, "I feel, therefore I am."

 

Or someone whose "identity" is focused on appreciation of the olfactory sense, could, in absence of opportunity to bathe, say, "I stink, therefore I am."

Existentially speaking, the assertion of "I" needs no further phenomenlogical/experiential verification, i.e., the most basic, fundamental existential statement is simply, "I am."

Michael

[Turtle]

Is existence determined by thought?

...

And why the heck is this statement so famous when it is obviously fallacious?

 

the statement is famous for being famous; I might say, a mere meme. wait for it...

 

...

Existentially speaking, the assertion of "I" needs no further phenomenlogical/experiential verification, i.e., the most basic, fundamental existential statement is simply, "I am."

Michael

 

humor redacted for brevity, but acknowledging that it was funny. ;) :hyper:

 

so mick, i agree "I" is enough, but then after saying as much, you put "am" back in to qualify. :doh:

 

further, descartes didn't "say" i think therefore i am in his original reference to "I" as evidence of one's existence in his meditations on first principles, and later qualified his intent when the cogito got legs. ;)

 

note: before anyone blasts my wiki source, please have in hand another source that you feel is "more" qualified.

 

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...

The phrase Cogito ergo sum is not used in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. Descartes felt that this phrase, which he had used in his earlier Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he avoided the word ergo and wrote "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditation II.)

 

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?

 

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17) ...

 

There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. ...

 

that's what i think anyway.

[Moontanman]

I think therefore I am? Does that mean that all of the minds of a person with split personalities are equally real?

[Turtle]

I think therefore I am? Does that mean that all of the minds of a person with split personalities are equally real?

 

yes; but only one at a time. :)

[Michael Mooney]

Turtle:

so mick, i agree "I" is enough, but then after saying as much, you put "am" back in to qualify.

What I said was:

...the most basic, fundamental existential statement is simply, "I am."

 

"I" is not a statement.

Michael

[Turtle]

Turtle:

 

What I said was:

 

 

"I" is not a statement.

Michael

 

ay

[modest]

Even in the matrix a person can get away with saying "I exist". I think Descartes put it in language of a devil... everything we think exists (trees, plants, popsicles, people named Jennifer who said they'd call you, but never did even though we hit it off really well...) that could all be a devil tricking a person so we can't say with 100% certitude that those things exist. The only thing that I can say for sure exists is me. If I'm pondering the question of what exists then a priori I exist otherwise I wouldn't be pondering the question.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Even in the matrix a person can get away with saying "I exist".

~modest

 

you're not in mommie's matrix now son. :D i needs must decry your "i exist" as mucheth as mickey's "i am" on account of qualifying "i". buddha said, more or less: "unity can only be manifested by the binary. unity itself and the idea of unity are already two." i also see this binary-unity in douglas hofstadter's field/ground expositions. buckminster fuller says 1=2. i therefore say that "i" implies "i [qualifier]" and so writng/adding/appending [qualifier] to "i" is a superfluous distraction. :phones:

 

ps went looking for a specific quote of hofstadter's using "field/ground" and found not that, but a new work by dougy of which i was not previously apprised. in an ironic twist, it is titled I am a Strange Loop :)

>> An Interview with Douglas R. Hofstadter, following ''I am a Strange Loop''

[freeztar]

Descartes had no idea about computers.

What if I wrote a simple program that pondered its own existence?

 

Something like:

 

if exist=1 then;

ask "Do I exist?"

if $answer=yes; exist=1

else exist=0; goto end

repeat

end

 

Aside from the crappy code, this program would continually find itself to exist. Hence, we either have to be very liberal with our definition of existence or accept that Descartes postulate is in error. Yes/no?

[Turtle]

Descartes had no idea about computers.

What if I wrote a simple program that pondered its own existence?

 

Something like:

 

if exist=1 then;

ask "Do I exist?"

if $answer=yes; exist=1

else exist=0; goto end

repeat

end

 

Aside from the crappy code, this program would continually find itself to exist. Hence, we either have to be very liberal with our definition of existence or accept that Descartes postulate is in error. Yes/no?

 

no. the "postulate" is not in error. the "postulate" is about "i", not you or they or it. colloquially, you don't know what it's like to be me. neither do i know what it's like to be you. we all only know what it's like to be "i".

 

curious if you found the book and or hofstadter reference i noted in the earlier post properly on topic. :phones: this being your thread & all and i not knowing what you're thinking & all, i thought i better check with ya...& all. :)

[modest]

you're not in mommie's matrix now son. :D i needs must decry your "i exist" as mucheth as mickey's "i am" on account of qualifying "i". buddha said, more or less: "unity can only be manifested by the binary. unity itself and the idea of unity are already two." i also see this binary-unity in douglas hofstadter's field/ground expositions. buckminster fuller says 1=2. i therefore say that "i" implies "i [qualifier]" and so writng/adding/appending [qualifier] to "i" is a superfluous distraction. :)

 

Typical of Bucky... I am lost. :phones: or is "am lost" a superfluous qualifier of "I"

 

Descartes had no idea about computers.

What if I wrote a simple program that pondered its own existence?

 

Something like:

 

if exist=1 then;

ask "Do I exist?"

if $answer=yes; exist=1

else exist=0; goto end

repeat

end

 

Aside from the crappy code, this program would continually find itself to exist. Hence, we either have to be very liberal with our definition of existence or accept that Descartes postulate is in error. Yes/no?

 

I think our definition of existence should be quite liberal. But, there is a subtle problem with considering the computer program. Descy's analysis must be in the first person. You could think of a schizophrenic person who imagines a bird which seems quite real. The bird asks "do I exist?". The person could wonder if the bird is real and the answer would be "not with complete certitude". But, if a bird or a computer program or anything else asks itself if it exists then it must indeed exist in some form. We aren't proving that computer programs are real, we're proving that anything with a first-person perspective is real.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Typical of Bucky... I am lost. :phones: or is "am lost" a superfluous qualifier of "I"

~modest

 

not superfluous in this instance, no. :) so succinctly, "i" has no meaning without "not i". hofstadter's field, say/think foreground, has no meaning except juxtaposed with a ground, say/think background. fuller says a point is the field/foreground/i, and cannot exist, i.e. have meaning, without reference to "not point". he expands this to certain geometric constructs in which "1" usually/traditionally/rigorously counts "1", but he counts "2". we discussed this i think in the synergetics thread *.

buddha likewise implies there is no meaning, no comparing, no referencing "i" without implicitly acknowledging "not i".

 

wireless mouse just died and must try and key my way out. :D i'm mellllllting....

 

* from post #16: Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking

 

100.010 Awareness of the Child: The simplest descriptions are those expressed by only one word. The one word alone that describes the experience "life" is "awareness." Awareness requires an otherness of which the observer can be aware. The communication of awareness is both subjective and objective, from passive to active, from otherness to self, from self to otherness. Awareness = self + otherness

Awareness = observer + observed

>> 100.00 SYNERGY

[jedaisoul]

Descartes had no idea about computers.

What if I wrote a simple program that pondered its own existence?

 

Something like:

 

if exist=1 then;

ask "Do I exist?"

if $answer=yes; exist=1

else exist=0; goto end

repeat

end

 

Aside from the crappy code, this program would continually find itself to exist. Hence, we either have to be very liberal with our definition of existence or accept that Descartes postulate is in error. Yes/no?

This code will do nothing of the kind. Where does $answer come from? Either you are pre-supposing the existence of a self-aware computer that replies to it's own questions (which as far as I'm aware do not exist), or the program will hang waiting for a reply it's never going to get unless someone types it in.