[RD] Cogito ergo sum

[JohannaK]

Well, the problem is not so much with the self as it is with reality itself. The true problem is 'Is reality real?', to which Descartes withdraws to his metaphysical self to determine. Deeming that perceptions can be wrong and our senses deceived constantly, he decides that he must begin by proving his own existence as an entity to prove that he exists at all. Indeed, that anything exists at all.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, I get all that, and my disagreement isn't in this case with Descartes. It's with those who seem to be saying that since our cognitive self isn't a physical object that can be touched, that we don't really exist.. or something like that anyway.

As for Descartes, I don't think "I think that I think" is a good proof that I exist... I mean, as long as we're saying that maybe just maybe nothing else exists, because you can't really prove that it does.

 

[Borachio]

I think it's an excellent premise, and true.

My proof, and Descartes, is by contradiction.

Imagine the converse: that you think you don't exist; what then is it that's thinking it doesn't exist? If it's something that doesn't exist, how can it be thinking it doesn't exist?

Hence, by contradictionis (thingy): you think therefore you do exist. QED.

It's elegant and simple. And, imo, indisputable.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it's an excellent premise, and true.

My proof, and Descartes, is by contradiction.

Imagine the converse: that you think you don't exist; what then is it that's thinking it doesn't exist? If it's something that doesn't exist, how can it be thinking it doesn't exist?

Hence, by contradictionis (thingy): you think therefore you do exist. QED.

It's elegant and simple. And, imo, indisputable.

You want to say "reductio ad absurdum", and that method is attributed first of all thinkers to the illustrious Zeno of Elea

It is also used in math, of course. Basically you extend the premise to some developments it would need to cause if true, see if they are there, and if they aren't it follows the premise was crap

One of the two main ways of dialectic argument (the other is to examine if the set premise rests on false substrata/basis).

 

[Borachio]

But wait. Zeno thought in Latin, did he? I thought he was a Greek. (I first wrote "Geek", for some reason.)

 

[Kyriakos]

But wait. Zeno thought in Latin, did he? I thought he was a Greek. (I first wrote "Geek", for some reason.)

Whatever, latin is a Greek alphabet from Euboia, brought to Italy through the colony of Kyme/Cumae. And Elea is just south of Naples

Well, yes, the original phrase is Εις άτοπον απαγωγή. (Eis atopon apagoge). It literally means 'abduction to something (evidently) unreal'. Which is a nice symmetry, like moving something to a place you set as by definition not able to move things to, thus you now cancel the playing turn which led to that move

 

[brennan]

What are you warpus? Your brain? Or your thoughts?

False dichotomy. Thoughts are the electrochemical activity of the brain, you cannot have the former in the absence of the latter.

The contention is that strictly speaking you do not think with your brain, but instead are thoughts (and emotions etcetera) produced by your brain (or in a wider sense by your body [or in an even wider sense by the environment which created you to begin with]).
And that is not just word play...

Well, yes it is. It's is precisely analogous to claiming that a programme on a Commodore 64 is some ethereal entity and not the physical processes going on inside the physical Commodore 64, a false dichotomy again, the two things - mind and brain in one case and electron activity and physical hardware in the other - are inseparable in considering both forms of information processing.

I thought the thinker thinks, not the brain. Make up your mind, bro!

No. As per above.

I am interested in why we should assume that there is a thinker who stands apart from the activity of thinking.

How can you have an action without there being an object for it to happen to?

If you mean to say that the thinker is the brain, then I have to ask why thoughts aren't. If thoughts are, then the thinker still consists of thoughts and we are back to square one.

Brain is the object - actually a large number of interacting objects - thought (mind) is our name for the overall process resulting from those interactions.

You have formed sentences that involve emotions, sense-impressions and memory. To even form those statements it is clear that some object must be relating and recalling all these things. This fact alone contradicts the assertion that there is no 'I' making these statements.

@warpus
I don't understand how it can be contentious what you are. You are a stream of consciousness and that stream can be sub-categorized into thoughts, emotions etcetera...

There's a strong whiff of dualism here, how does your stream of consciousness interact with your senses without being itself physical in nature?

I notice the discussion is sidelining into the question of free will. To me this is simple, so long as the mechanism for making a decision is part of my brain, then it is my decision and therefore free will. Quantum processes would allow for spontaneous decision making mechanisms. People want there to be something that is identifiably 'me' in the head making the decisions, but whenever you point to something and say "here it is'' they object "but that's just a thing, that's not 'me', this isn't free will". I don't know what would make those people happy. Something has to be making the choice or there can be no choice.

 

[Perfection]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to terx here in trying to separate the mind from the brain. After all how do you know you really are the brain in your head instead of an NSA supercomputer located in Utah that receives sensor data from a remote control unit in your skull?

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to terx here in trying to separate the mind from the brain. After all how do you know you really are the brain in your head instead of an NSA supercomputer located in Utah that beams your thought to a remote control unit in your skull?

Regardless of whether a circle is formed as a conic section, a bit of a sphere, or a myriad other things, it still holds true that the circle is one thing overall and also can be examined in distinct parts, as its center is a distinct element from the periphery, or the periphery itself can be observed as forming parts and so on.
Likewise it does not really matter what your conscience is, in regards to whether you are distinct from the thoughts you have. The latter seems to be true nomatter what you as the one thinking 'in reality' can be argued to be.

 

[Borachio]

A circle is the path taken by a particle as it moves at a constant distance from a fixed point. But what if it changes direction?

No. Wait. It's constantly changing direction.

I mean, what if it changes from clockwise to anticlockwise? But then at some point it mustn't be moving.

You know, I've really not thought this through. I give up.

 

[Kyriakos]

(edit, cause it is RD )

 

[timtofly]

Perhaps the break through (for humans) will be, when a computer on it's own cognizance will declare. "Cogito ergo sum"? That probably won't convince them either, because they will be in awe at their creation, and still miss the point.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to terx here in trying to separate the mind from the brain. After all how do you know you really are the brain in your head instead of an NSA supercomputer located in Utah that receives sensor data from a remote control unit in your skull?

If it is, why is Jersey Shore allowed to exist?

 

[warpus]

I think it's an excellent premise, and true.

My proof, and Descartes, is by contradiction.

Imagine the converse: that you think you don't exist; what then is it that's thinking it doesn't exist? If it's something that doesn't exist, how can it be thinking it doesn't exist?

Hence, by contradictionis (thingy): you think therefore you do exist. QED.

It's elegant and simple. And, imo, indisputable.

Technically that's actually not a proof by contradiction Not a properly constructed one anyway.

It would go something like this:

1. Assume something
2. Logically deduce a conclusion based on your assumption and other axioms
3. If your conclusion is impossible, your assumption must have been wrong.

In this case you'd have to assume that Every single thing that thinks, exists, or something similar. I don't see a way to construct a proof by contradiction around that.

I mean, I'm just being picky I guess, but..

 

[Borachio]

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof, and more specifically a form of indirect proof, that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition's being false would imply a contradiction.

As far as I can see, that's what I did.

Still, I'm sure you're right. I'm not particularly good at logical stuff. Or anything much.

 

[brennan]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to terx here in trying to separate the mind from the brain. After all how do you know you really are the brain in your head instead of an NSA supercomputer located in Utah that receives sensor data from a remote control unit in your skull?

An NSA supercomputer would still be a physical processor for your thoughts. To my mind, none of the 'brain in a jar' type scenarios refute the physicality of the mind, only demonstrate the ultimate uncertainty we have in the reliability of our senses.

 

[Kyriakos]

An NSA supercomputer would still be a physical processor for your thoughts. To my mind, none of the 'brain in a jar' type scenarios refute the physicality of the mind, only demonstrate the ultimate uncertainty we have in the reliability of our senses.

Moreover the mental/material distinction/category follows from our senses (and material bodies) being a main source of input anyway. A hypothetical being which is not material-formed (at least in its own point of view), but able to "think", would axiomatically pick up notions without this dichotomy/categories. That doesn't mean that 'matter' itself has to be seen as less true than 'immaterial'. It just means that in our own perception it is one distinct category, while in a very different being it might not have been there at all, or not there in this form anyway.

 

[warpus]

As far as I can see, that's what I did.

Still, I'm sure you're right. I'm not particularly good at logical stuff. Or anything much.

I actually messed up quite a bit in my criticism of your proof, but it isn't a proper proof by contradiction nevertheless. Not to bust your bananas, but if it was so easy, somebody would have done it already.

 

[Borachio]

Well, it wasn't actually my own work, but what I thought I remembered Descartes as saying.

 

[warpus]

Well, it wasn't actually my own work, but what I thought I remembered Descartes as saying.

What a doofus, that Descartes.