[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 9 KB, 340x336, descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4310505 No.4310505 [Reply] [Original]

I think, therefore I am.

But what if I don't think, am I?

>> No.4310520

I think 'thinking' here refers to all kinds of conscious activity so there's no way you can 'not think' while you're alive.

>> No.4310519

No. You cease to exist.

Congratulations, you just learned the essence of Zen.

>> No.4310525

>>4310520
Wrong. That's what meditation is about.

>> No.4310529

>>4310525
meditation is bullshit though.

>> No.4310536

>>4310529
Incorrect again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation

>> No.4310540

I experience, therefore I am.
My computer can think.

>> No.4310545

>>4310540
No it can't. Your computer is an automated device, built for a specific purpose. There is no thought process going on. There are only routines.

>> No.4310562

>I think, therefore I am.

Falsely assumes the existence of "I".

>> No.4310566

>>4310562
Have you read Bertrand Russell?

>> No.4310569

>>4310562
Nope. He observes something is thinking, concludes it exists, and labels it "I".

>> No.4310584

>>4310569
Then why can't you just say 'something is thinking'

>> No.4310600

>>4310584
"I" is shorter. Descartes was world-renowned for his efficiency.

>> No.4310604

>>4310584
because that is not the correct language

just like most people won't say me eaten when they are trying to indicate 'I would like something to eat'

>> No.4310619

>>4310569

Unless it is definitional (ie "One must exist to think." ) the conclusion isn't self evident.

>> No.4310620

>>4310600
Descarte didn't write in English.

>> No.4310624

>>4310620
Then "Je" is shorter. Geez.

>> No.4310638

>>4310624
He actually wrote in Latin and didn't even include a pronoun. Haha.

Sorry for being a linguistics nazi dick.

>> No.4310668

>>4310604
then 'someone is thinking', what's wrong with this
?

>> No.4310680

>>4310505

Its shit no matter what.

Non sequitor, existing doesnt follow from the ability to think.

Its like saying that since i can push a rock, i am.

>> No.4310724

>>4310668
someone is thinking is equivelant to the statement
<span class="math">\exists x | x \in Thinking[/spoiler]
I think, therefore I am is equivelant to the statement
<span class="math">x \in Thinking \rightarrow x,exists[/spoiler]

>> No.4310754
File: 20 KB, 241x230, cigs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4310754

>>4310505
Saying "There is an object that thinks" is about as useful as dividing 1 by 0.

The possibilities of what that object could be are limitless and completely undefined. While it's conventional to believe that one exists, it's inherently beyond verification. You never knew anything and you died knowing nothing. But then again, at least you were aware of that enough to make use of the fact. Even if you still wound up in the grave, I'd say that puts you ahead of the rest in at least one way or another.

>> No.4310759

>>4310680
You obviously don't get it.

>> No.4310954

>>4310759
Actually i'm a different guy and i don't get it either.
Can you explain what it's supposed to mean logically and calmly, cause i would really like to know.

>> No.4310980

>>4310954
see
>>4310724

>> No.4311024

>>4310954
Well, basically, the question is "how can you know anything is true/exists?". Through his method of doubt, it seemed that nothing could be proven to be axiomatically true (a statement is true if all the premises leading to its conclusion is true). This was a huge problem for philosophers. However, the one thing he could prove to be true was his own existence. If he lived in his own dream world, being manipulated by demons (or in some matrix-esque reality), or just being in a purely non-existent "place", he could be sure that he existed, merely because he is conscious. This is regarded as the basis of knowledge, but it is also an example of how philosophers could never get anywhere.

>> No.4311046

It doesn't really amount to more than "something is happening therefore something exists"

>> No.4311056

>>4311046
No, "something is thinking, therefore it exists"

>> No.4311072

>>4311046
No, it means, if you use language and belong to this species which thinks using language, repeating this sentence in your head makes it always valid, since the first preconditions are almost always met.

But of course, someone sleeping or in a coma can't think voluntarily, so they can't be.

>> No.4311084

>>4311056

Why does there need to be an "it"? We only know (can observe) that the process of thinking exists, whether it comes from an entity is unknown.

>> No.4311081

>>4311072
>But of course, someone sleeping or in a coma can't think voluntarily, so they can't be.

Why is that a "but"?

>> No.4311108
File: 44 KB, 500x667, 1327408257344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4311108

>> No.4311109

>>4311084
I think Descartes was referring to consciousness, which can not be observed, especially considering Descartes was a rationalist.

>> No.4311121

>>4311109
Correction: Observation is not axiomatically true, as it (rightly so for scientists) takes for granted the fact that this reality can not be proven to be real. (However, the subjective reality within a consciousness is _proof_ that this subject exists in some kind of way, thus cogito ergo sum)

>> No.4311125

>>4311121
can be proven to be real*

>> No.4311133 [DELETED] 

"Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think," I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity an operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego", and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking -- that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps "willing" or "feeling"? In short, the assertion "I think" assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further "knowledge," it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."

-Nietzsche

>> No.4311148

>>4311081
Because it's a constrasting statement.

>> No.4311194

>>4311121

>However, the subjective reality within a consciousness is _proof_ that this subject exists in some kind of way

What subject? All that subjective reality is proof of is that the process of thinking is occurring.

>> No.4311201

"Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think," I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego", and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking -- that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps "willing" or "feeling"? In short, the assertion "I think" assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further "knowledge," it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."

-Nietzsche

>> No.4311203

Can't we just trust our senses enough to confirm that this reality we experience is, in fact, real? And even if it's not, the fact that we're experiencing it at all should be regarded as a very, very lucky circumstance to find ourselves in, perhaps even sacred, or holy.

No, I'm not religious

>> No.4311283 [DELETED] 

>>4311133
What a bunch of nonsense.
You need to prove to yourself that it is you ("I") who thinks, not a different entity?

Descartes' cogito only asserts mental empiricism. He is stating that whenever a human who was taught language will use it while thinking (it's also possible to have cognitions without using language), it will be an act of consciousness.
It will be consciousness producing itself, "empirically", using language. Consciousness becomes aware of itself by an act of verbalised self-reflection, using the only tool it has internalised and which is always available to itself - language.

>> No.4311287

>>4311201
What a bunch of nonsense.
You need to prove to yourself that it is you ("I") who thinks, not a different entity?

Descartes' cogito only asserts mental empiricism. He is stating that whenever a human who was taught language will use it while thinking (it's also possible to have cognitions without using language), it will be an act of consciousness.
It will be consciousness producing itself, "empirically", using language. Consciousness becomes aware of itself by an act of verbalised self-reflection, using the only tool it has internalised and which is always available to itself - language.

>> No.4311298

>>4311203
Well, that's what we do. But it requires, as you said, "trust"

>> No.4311319

>>4310525
No it isn't. Meditation is sharp focus on a particular thing to the point where you stop thinking of the "self," not simply "not thinking"

>> No.4311360

>>4311203
"Whoever ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of intuitive perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"-- will encounter a smile and two question marks from a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken; but why insist on the truth?"--"

>>4311287
"With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact, which these superstitious minds hate to concede -- namely, that a thought comes when "it" wishes, and not when "I" wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject "I" is the condition of the predicate "think." It thinks; but that this "it" is precisely the famous old "ego" is, to put it mildly, only a supposition, an assertion, and assuredly not an "immediate certainty." After all, one has even gone too far with this "it thinks"-- even the "it" contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: "Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently--""

>> No.4311361

>>4311287

>You need to prove to yourself that it is you ("I") who thinks, not a different entity?

You can't even prove there is an "I" entity, let alone an "I" that participiates in "thinking".

>> No.4311379

what constitutes "I"?
is it my cells? they cycle every few years.
is it my memories? they fade.
is it the relationships i have to things and people?
could "I" exist in a vacuum?

>dualists, kill yourselves

>> No.4311392

>>4311360
:O
So there is no "will to power".

There is an ""it" wishes to power".

>> No.4311413

>>4311361
Empirically I agree.
But for consciousness, there is an I. Otherwise you couldn't use language.

>> No.4311444

>>4311413
The "I" is what the dictionary defines for me.
I have no emotional investment in the "I".

>> No.4311456

Solipsism is bullshit.

>> No.4311626

Was there an "I" before "I" was born?

>> No.4311847 [DELETED] 

>>4310505
What we do is highly developed routine.
routine = Basics of life.

>> No.4311853

>>4310545
All life is is highly complex molecular routine.
No different.

>> No.4311911
File: 320 KB, 349x415, 1313981648503.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4311911

Neutral Monism master race reporting in.