Is 'I Think, Therefore I Am' a Valid and Obvious Philosophy?

[Preator Fenix]

On determinisim you are right. The mind is a complex system and is not deterministic. The point though that I was making is that the two are the same because they both are the same insofar as they follow the same logic gates. That they evolve differnt "identities" is due to the complex nature of the universe. Identity expersees itself as a distinct but self similar pattaer across humanity, the espersions are differnt but it is the same fundamental logic the same. Like fractels. Each one is very unique, but still part of the larger selfsimaliar pattern. And as well, the fractel really isn't the shiney inifinietly repetting pattarn on book covers,...the fractel is the simple elegant mathamathical formula underneath that gernerates every fractel pattern. Which is way I say that existence may be proven but not personality(or more precisly personality can't be justified or made into a axiom)

Personality is a symptom of our reality, it is not our reality itself.

I agree that delivery of my thoughts is a little obtuse at times. I don't have as much experience in verbal debate as you guys have.

 

[Mentat]

Drag, I don't approve of the use of an "I don't understand the question" choice. It makes one give up his/her ability to choose between on of the real choices - once they've understood the question - just to ask about the question. That's why I never use it. I just expect someone to post that they don't understand, and then I would attempt to explain it (so that they could reach their decision, and vote).

BTW, what is it, exactly, that you don't understand?

 

[Mentat]

Drag,
You may find it interesting that Manuel_Silvio and I have digressed from the Descartes discussion (though we still discuss it in our posts), and have discussed things such as "Meta-paradigms" and "Complete Uncertainty (which is impossible, btw)". That's what's happened for the last few pages, anyway.

 

[Mentat]

Preator Fenix,
Thanks for your participation. It's been a two-person discussion for a long time. I will try to respond to your post, as Manuel seemed to think I would have some insight...

Originally posted by Preator Fenix
Maybe we should try an other angle of attack on this problem of "i". Much of the problems with the concept of "i" stem from the idea of ownership of "i" ( in that this "i" that I speak of is 'mine' )It is the idea that thought, or thinking, is the product of ONE, SINGLE, *INDIVIDUALIZED authoritive entity (namely "i")that somehow uses a *THING called reason (logic) for its production.

Human thought is by no means singular, continuous, individualized, or hireacahely orgainized( In fact it is quite impossible to distinguish between enviormental influencaces (body) and mental processeics (mind)) nor is logic a thing to be used. I intend to demonstrate how human personality has little to do with indipendant existence, and of the pittfalls in trying to use thinking as a meauring tool to define and prove ourselfs as persons and individuals...

Alright then, here we go...

'i think therefore i am'

I agree with miguel that this statement presupposes that to think one needs to have "i". In most case's yes but not all. If I program an AI engine to think in the same way that I do following a set of predefined formulations I have provided it who is the one thinking, me or the AI?

It is the AI that is thinking, and thus this situation doesn't fall into the category of "I think therefore I am" (since "I" and the AI are distinguishable entities).

Does the AI's thinking prove its existence or mine? More fundamentally, when the AI says "i am", is that the AI's "i", or mine? The only logical escape is to say that we both have "i", but in that sense our "i's" would be one and the same.

I disagree. You "I's" aren't the same, and this is proven by your own reasoning; you said that it is either the AI's existence that is proven, or it is "I's" existence that is proven, thus showing that they are seperate, distinguishable, entities.

I make another AI engine but this time was lazy and didnt make it a copy of myself, but instead made it much simpler.

I see, so the reason you said that the two "I's" are the same entity is because they are exact copies. Well, think of this: if the AI says "I think", but you don't, then you have distinguished one from the other (and only validated the existence of the one).

Thinking to itself it can never say "i think...i am" if it does not exist as an "i" in the frist place, this AI has no "i" to speak of no matter how much it thinks.

This is not true. If something thinks, then it obviously exists (which is the whole point of Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am"). If it exists, and can think about itself, then it can easily declare itself an "I".

I agree with Mentat that people are miss reading Descrates. When he says "i" he refers to an OBJECTIVE entity. When this entity does ANYTHING, it exist.If it diplayed ABSOULUTLY no output then it could be said that it doesn't exist at all.

Well, everything up to that last sentence, is implied in Descartes' reasoning, yes.

Unfortunately "we" are not such entities ("we" are far too 'subjective'). What could I possiblely mean by all this?

I've been asking myself the same thing (just kidding).

Yes there exist an "i", but this "i" has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with "me", as a person, as Emanuel Wazar, or as an individual.

What?! What is the purpose of using the word "I", if not to refer to yourself?

Take the case of an AI conviecned of its its individuality. What can its thinking prove? At frist you might say it can prove "itself". But then what is "itself"? The AI shouldn't make the mistake to think that's its output (eg. actions, emotions, feelings) ARE its "i" (namely because it is only output).

But Descartes did not believe that the "I" is the "output", he just believed that the fact that one can think about oneself proves that there is such a thing as "oneself".

Its thinking only proves that there are rules (logic)to its output, its thinking implies the presance of logic in its design, its thinking proves the reality of its own objective existence, but its thinking does not nesaccarly imply the existence of what the AI at first would define as its own "i", its individuality (eg. actions, emotions, feelings).

There is thought therefore there is logic.

The thought logically leads to the conclusion of the existence (as an individual entity).

(logic, wrong or right, because to think IS to use logic. To think does not imply that YOU thought about it.)

It does if you believe in cause-and-effect. If one says "I think", what they are really saying (when you break it down logically) is: "something is thinking" and "that something is me".

logic is not a THING,...logic is an inherant property of the universe which is taken advantage of by nature ( in humans in particular) to futher biological surviaval (but it is not the only property and so can't be used to handle ALL situations.

While I slightly disagree with this definition of "logic", I'll just direct you to this thread, about logic, instead of debating it here.

'...when the deamon takes everything away from you,(eg. actions, emotions, feelings, and even your memories) "you" (the individual) DO NOT exist anymore!

Not true, as the fact that there is someone for him to take something away from, proves that you exist.

so to summarize here is what I posulate.

1.That which we call personality and Logic thought process are completely differnt things.

Very true.

2.That they can exist independant of each other.

Only in one direction. In other words, yes, personality can exist without logical thinking (and Descartes knew this), but logical thinking cannot occur without some entity doing the thinking (according to Causality).

3.Thinking(any aciton) proves(implies) existence, but it does not prove(imply) PERSONAL existence.

Why not?

4.The universe need not be fundamentally rational.

Also true.

5.Decartes "I" may be said to be his soul, but that soul has nothing to do with Decartes the person.

Why not?

Feel free to critic.This is my frist post.

Welcome to the PFs. You are a good thinker. I hope to see your responses soon.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, what is it, exactly, that you don't understand?

I do not understand the meaning of the word "think".
I know it has a linguistic definition and I know
and understand what it is supposed to refer to. However,
when I answer a question such as the above I need to
be adequetly = scientificly certain of its meaning
and unfortunately I'm not, at all.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
For other parts of your post, I leave it to Mentat. Will you take it please, Mentat?

I have attempted it.

2. For Mentat:
I'm in agreement. Descartes thought he existed before he started thinking about it, so the Demon's challenge "further" validated his thoughts.

It's nice that we've finally come to an agreement - though the debate was rather fun.

What is wrong here is violation of the rules of a logical system, one that we've chosen to abide. In this case we've chosen Aristotelian logic as the logical system.

One of its rules says that loops are forbidden. Anywhere we find a loop, we have to run away and avoid it. The problem is that these loops sometimes occur at the most basic statements, where we expected the logical system to be the most efficient and the most decisive.

We've studied two of these loops:

00. The loop in "I think therefore I am," when there's a premise saying "I's thinking is in undeniable relationship with I's being." When one tries to deduce one's existence by using that premise, one encounters a loop. In order to remain bound to the chosen logical system, one has to avoid making such loop, to avoid that deduction.

Nice summary.

01. The loop in "object A exists." You invented the Entity D category of beings. I described this category as every being that can be said to be a "being that is." Then we agreed that this category is all-encompassing, that every being is an instance of Entity D. "Object A" in an Entity D, too. Aristotelian logic, however, forbids definitions that include a being's existence (eg, "being that is") and does this because of the restriction put on loops (eg, "being that is" itself is a loop for it's the logical equivalent of "that which exists, exists"). So the statement "object A exists" is a problem within Aristotelian logic for it declares "object A" existent while it's pre-assumed the existence of "object A" right when it named "object A."

Also a very good summary.

These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being."

YES! This is why I rebelled against the very idea for so long, but it seems rather inevitable doesn't it?

It seems exhaustive because we're used to Causality. Causality has become dominant and has found its way into language functions. When these functions are re-defined to correspond to a substitute for Causality, there's no need to repeat the definition every time. After re-defining "I [beep]," one can simply use "I [beep]." The same process has happened, though at a slower pace, for Causality.

Wait a minute, I thought that all statements, of the form "I [beep]" were inherently related to Causality.

Current language functions have been gradually re-shaped to correspond to Causality but this shape isn't stuck to them. That "I [beep]" implies Causality is part of our current condition, not an innate property of "I [beep]," for it can be re-defined at will and it will function with its new definition just as it would function with its previous definition.

How so?

I think you're right but then aren't you "reasoning" right now? This "reasoning" suffers the same flaw. You're pointing at a flaw which, by its paradoxical nature, ought to be non-existent, but you're still referring, and what you're referring to is another "nothing at all."

Good point. Hey, wait a minute, this is my mind game to play on you, and you've turned it around!

Even though human reasoning is "cracked" only "somewhere," it will "sink" as "whole." And we're all on board .

Yeah, and the real conundrum is how to "jump off" without landing back on the boat (since it is part of human reasoning to think we should jump off) .

I would say Uncertainty, as a concept, is usable and existent but Uncertainty, as an entity, is unusable and non-existent.

Fair enough re-phrasing.

Uncertainty, as an entity, is what is referred to by Uncertainty, as a concept. The reference itself is usable and existent while the entity referred to is unusable and non-existent.

Are we in agreement?

Definitely (at least, in this paradigm (*evil laughter*)).

Yes, Science is based on inductive method. That's why theoretical and empirical revision is Science's main concern.

Well great! Oh well, at least now I have some more basis for saying that Science is unprovable and unfalsifiable (as that is the nature of any inductive reasoning).

That isn't right for "sheer difference."

A traffic light, for example, is "distinguished" by human observer. A human observer distinguishes it by "structure" and by "function." Its "red" light isn't merely a "wavelength," it has a "meaning" associated with the "wavelength;" the same for the "green" light. This is the basis of distinguishing "red" and "green."

Well, sure, I'lll agree with this. Of course, our eyes had to distinguish between the different wavelengths of light, before our brain had any "color" to process.

A cosmic observer "perceives" the "wavelengths" but not the "meaning." It won't associate "meaning" with "red" and "green." Here the difference is "sheer," "red" and "green" aren't anything but two wavelengths. "Red" won't be distinguished from "green," as much as it won't be distinguished from "the traffic light."

But these wavelengths would be distinguished from darkness, would they not? If not, then the cosmic observer can never "see".

Suppose you have an exceptional particle which "exists" without "interaction" with anything (you know, such particle won't be perceived by anyone for it doesn't "interact" with them). What this particle is able of is to be "affected." It can "be acted on" but it can't "act on." One side of "interaction" lacks in it. This particle is a "cosmic observer." It receives everything, it has an input stream but it doesn't affect anything.

Observation without change is impossible, it's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Right. I said before, "this is a human name for something totally alien."

I see. This is really just an analogy to help a human mind understand the "cosmic observer" state. Much like I would use the analogy of a two-dimensional being's existence, relative to ours, to help a human mind comprehend higher dimensions (which the human mind is not really capable of actually conceiving).

Thanks. I really didn't mean you don't read them, I only wanted to call for high sensitivity.

That makes sense.

And the call was successful, judging by your response, as it was brilliantly responsive.

You're intelligent and I'm in envy. Be proud!

Thank you very much , and I promise not to mention that I disagree (oops).

You know, nothing is left for me beyond this thread .

Well, the revival of an old "meta-paradigm" thread might help us share these insights with the rest of the members, would it?

These two questions point at the same thing. I learned about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).

Rather paradoxical, don't you think?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I do not understand the meaning of the word "think".
I know it has a linguistic definition and I know
and understand what it is supposed to refer to. However,
when I answer a question such as the above I need to
be adequetly = scientificly certain of its meaning
and unfortunately I'm not, at all.

Live long and prosper.

Well, to "think" is to process incoming data.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
"Fairness," "precision and "clarity," all my criteria of preference, are part of my current paradigm, and the remnant of my previous ways.

I know that I'll always be biased someway, why not determine part of my biases consciously. Most individuals are satisfied this way but I know you're clever and you'll ask, "Why consciously? Why do you prefer it?" And I have no answer. After all, relativity is everywhere, even in relativity itself.

Thus you admit your human nature. I am bound in exactly the same way. We are all "going down with this particular ship" and have absolutely no way out.

Kind of makes your mind claustrophobic, doesn't it?

Your answers are the best I could think of even though I can't tell you more about them. I don't know the answers. I don't even know if the questions are eligible. No one can tell others of right and wrong when they've reached this balance.

There are countless questions which may never be answered.

Yes, but speculating on them is fun (in this paradigm).

"Existence" itself is part of your current paradigm, "concept" as well.

Can't argue with that - except to point out that, in a discussion of entities that only exist within my paradigm, we are forced (by some unknown human tendency towards logic) to use the logic of that paradigm.

These things can be explained for in other ways as well. They needn't be result of "a shared part of individual paradigms." These other ways are equally creditable.

Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them. One has a free port of type A, the other has a free port of type B. In order to connect them using one line your have to choose a line that is able of translating A to B and B to A. Now the two appliances are able of talking to each other. Appliance 1 produces a message, M1, that is put on the line by its port of type A, the line translates A to B and Appliance 2 reads a message, M2, from its port of type B. M1 and M2 aren't identical, even worse they may be of different natures, for example, M1 may be a mechanical movement while M2 is an electrical pulse. The two appliances can talk continuously without noticing inconsistency as if they were connected without any translator in between. Although the two appliances are totally different and may experience totally different experiences they can "share" these experiences. They may even "cooperate" on this basis as long as they follow an innate protocol on interpreting each other's messages. Their only chance of getting notified of the situation is when one of them tries to "understand" the other's messages as if they were its own messages. Now, the messages may seem totally absurd and the pondering appliance will get confused.

Hasn't it come? Are we still "distinct beings?"

That depends on your "body of knowledge". As I see it, in a meta-paradigm - which is where the "cosmic observer" must reside - all paradigms are just twists of the reality that both is, isn't, and some other option that I know nothing of.

An interesting aspect of a paradigm is its interaction with its inhabitant. The inhabitant is characterized by its paradigm for its image of itself has been gained through the same paradigm. Its entire actualities and potentials lie somewhere in the paradigm. In a sense, it "knows" all that can become "known" to it for the paradigm determines all that "is" and all that "can be" and the bearer of a paradigm realizes its paradigm.

Nevertheless, analysis of paradigms is only part of my current paradigm, like you said.

This also makes my mind feel claustrophobic.

*Sudden thought*: Have we taken a sort of "side-ways" approach toward the true Uncertainty, which really doesn't exist, in this paradigm? You see, we can't actually approach Uncertainty, but there is something that it's concept is hinting at (perhaps meta-paradigms) and we seem to be at least seeing faint shadows of it.

I don't know.

Are you sure about that?

Brilliant! Yet like an arrow in the darkness...

You have it there, it's the human situation.

Yeah, but one can't strike the human situation, without stepping outside of it, and one cannot step outside of it, without wanting to (as a result of the human condition). Thus, any attempt we make to leave it, lands us right back in it.

The frustration could drive one mad!

That's an assumption you have to prove "consciously." I guess there's no way out.

Well, consciousness exists, in the human paradigm. Also, any attempt to prove anything must be done consciously, and is thus just as hopeless.

Or it forces "you" into putting restrictions where there needn't be restrictions .

Yes! And then, when you try to break free, you realize that breaking free is just another form of restriction.

Something from Tao-te Ching (not to be taken too seriously):

20. 1. When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?

What all men fear is indeed to be feared; but how wide and without end is the range of questions (asking to be discussed)!

2. The multitude of men look satisfied and pleased; as if enjoying a full banquet, as if mounted on a tower in spring. I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled. I look dejected and forlorn, as if I had no home to go to. The multitude of men all have enough and to spare. I alone seem to have lost everything. My mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of chaos.

Ordinary men look bright and intelligent, while I alone seem to be benighted. They look full of discrimination, while I alone am dull and confused. I seem to be carried about as on the sea, drifting as if I had nowhere to rest. All men have their spheres of action, while
I alone seem dull and incapable, like a rude borderer. (Thus) I alone am different from other men, but I value the nursing-mother (the Tao).

Very interesting.

Well said. And what concept doesn't defy definition?

Well, complex concepts have definitions, but one could just take the reductionist approach, succesfully bringing them to their most basic level, and then all that is left is either a circular reasoning system, or nothing at all (drag stated this a bit more eloquently, IMO, but this is the gist).

Good question. Very good indeed. Alas, I have no answer for it... like countless other questions.

And yet, it's starting to seem as though we must both embrace our ignorance, and try to pursue knowledge, at the same time.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, to "think" is to process incoming data.

Hmm... O.K. In that case it's clear.

Next, I do not understand what "I am" means.

 

[akhenaten]

The subjective experience of thoughts does not justify the conclusion of 'I am'. Because linguistically and conceptually we always associate thoughts with an 'I', 'you', 'him' or 'her', it was natural for Descartes to do the same, yet from that habit he produced a supposed proof of the existence of the Self, upon which much philosophy (esp Continental philosophy) was based.

All he was justified in saying was 'there appear to be thoughts' or something similar.

His proof of God was equally flawed.

 

[Manuel_Silvio]

Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Silvio: These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being."

Mentat: YES! This is why I rebelled against the very idea for so long, but it seems rather inevitable doesn't it?

You mean this situation is inevitable? Inbound Aristotelian logic, you're right but we could simply use another logical system capable of expressing Existence. This new logical system will have its own deficiency but this one may be located somewhere less controversial.

A modification of Aristotelian logic would suffice: just throw away the restriction on Loop and Paradox. We'll have a new logical system at hand which is less error-prone and more capable of expressing what we esteem more in our current paradigm (eg, it may be less capable in another paradigm).

Wait a minute, I thought that all statements, of the form "I [beep]" were inherently related to Causality.

How so?

Causality's dominance is part of our current condition. It's become dominant through centuries of Science's effort for establishing its necessary yet not sufficient principle.

A few centuries ago Causality wasn't this much honored. What's made it so useful and honored is the paradigmic content of our times. As a farmer from Middle Ages you needn't have organized your mind in your entire life as much as a high school student does in our times. To organize your mind, to build up mental patterns, mental patterns that you're aware of, you have to observe empirical patterns and categorize them. One way of categorizing the empirical patterns is Causality (eg, you categorize events happening in a space-time locality as causally bound while you categorize other events as irrelevant or indirectly bound).

This form of categorization has gradually become dominant and has found its way into language functions. Remember, these functions have "never" been static for the language has always been fluctuating. Even current language functions aren't the same as those of, say, 40 years ago.

If scientific experiments which show Causality's insignificance (EPR Experiment, for example), as only one form of categorization and not the only one, gradually become of more importance then language functions, too, will gradually undergo changes towards more capable forms of categorization. For example, "quantum entanglement" which is used in EPR Experiment is crucial to Quantum Computation, future networking, cryptography and communication security. These new effects can no more be expressed in terms of Causality, so it will become less dominant in favor of a more capable form.

Definitely (at least, in this paradigm (*evil laughter*)).

Get you on the coming paradigm (evil grin depicted).

But these wavelengths would be distinguished from darkness, would they not? If not, then the cosmic observer can never "see".

Their difference from "darkness" is equal to their difference from an "Ostrich." This is the point: distinguishing incorporates "evaluation of difference," in other words, it answers the question "how much difference?" while "perception of sheer difference" incorporates only "passive re-action to difference."

A "cosmic observer" only "passively re-acts." It's shaken and it shakes, it's moved and it moves. The re-action to being shaken and being moved is different but the difference is "sheer," there's no "evaluation of difference."

And yes, a cosmic observer "can't see," in human sense; just as much as an electron can be said to be "unaware," in human sense.

Observation without change is impossible, it's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

That's another ground for the claim that "cosmic observer" is an impossible state for human beings.

That's why I called my particle an "exceptional" particle. Clearly, it's non-existent, as an entity, but as a concept we can think of it.

Well, the revival of an old "meta-paradigm" thread might help us share these insights with the rest of the members, would it?

Surely, but not now. Of course, you're free to open a "meta-paradigm" topic but I won't be able to participate, for I need some time free. And this isn't meant to cut my participation in this topic, "I think therefore I am." I'll be here until I've nothing more to say.

Silvio: These two questions point at the same thing. I learned about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).

Mentat: Rather paradoxical, don't you think?

Why paradoxical? Human thoughts are all "anthropomorphic," only to different degrees.

"Human is the ultimate creation" is utterly anthropomorphic while "human beings think with their brain" is much less anthropomorphic.

Thus you admit your human nature. I am bound in exactly the same way. We are all "going down with this particular ship" and have absolutely no way out.

Kind of makes your mind claustrophobic, doesn't it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but one can't strike the human situation, without stepping outside of it, and one cannot step outside of it, without wanting to (as a result of the human condition). Thus, any attempt we make to leave it, lands us right back in it.

The frustration could drive one mad!

Not that much. Our options are bounded but virtually countless. We're restricted to our being human beings but we have much space, at least for being different human beings, within this restriction (a bit of optimism).

What you call "frustration," I'd rather call "Awe" and like it. This species would survive much longer if it learned how to feel Awe against what exceeds its entire resources (more bits of optimism).

Can't argue with that - except to point out that, in a discussion of entities that only exist within my paradigm, we are forced (by some unknown human tendency towards logic) to use the logic of that paradigm.

Can you have the slightest certainty on that I have the faintest idea of your paradigm?

Silvio: Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them...

Mentat:

You mean it's too complicated or something? I can explain it more clearly with some mathematical notation.

Appliance 1 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:

I1 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 1}
O1 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 1}

Appliance 2 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:

I2 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 2}
O2 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 2}

Function f(x) is defined as, f: O1 -> I2.

Function g(x) is defined as, g: O2 -> I1.

Now, the connection line is f(x) from Appliance 1 to Appliance 2 and g(x) from Appliance 2 to Appliance 1.

An output of Appliance 1, which is a member of O1, is given to f(x) as x. This function maps x to f(x) and this will be a member of I2. Thus Appliance 2 will receive a message which is comprehensible to it in that it's made up of Appliance 2's possible inputs.

An output of Appliance 2, which is a member of O2, is given to g(x) as x. This function maps x to g(x) and this will be a member of I1. Thus Appliance 1 will receive a message which is comprehensible to it in that it's made up of Appliance 1's possible inputs.

The two appliances won't notice the presence of f(x) and g(x), the "translator" functions.

The two appliances can be considered human individuals, and the translator functions can be seen as their respective paradigms. The appliance won't notice the presence of different paradigms, they'll think they're using a "shared" paradigm. Presence of totally different paradigms won't be noticed and the two human individuals may think they're living in a "shared" paradigm.

*Sudden thought*: Have we taken a sort of "side-ways" approach toward the true Uncertainty, which really doesn't exist, in this paradigm?

You decide... I've done no mischief, believe me ...

... complex concepts have definitions, but one could just take the reductionist approach, succesfully bringing them to their most basic level, and then all that is left is either a circular reasoning system, or nothing at all...

Really well said. Drag has done it really well.

And yet, it's starting to seem as though we must both embrace our ignorance, and try to pursue knowledge, at the same time.

Perhaps, who knows...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Hmm... O.K. In that case it's clear.

Next, I do not understand what "I am" means.

It means that there is an "I", to speak of.

Basically, Descartes was denouncing the Demon's attempt to convince Descartes that he (Descartes) didn't exist, by saying that the fact that the Demon had assumed Descartes to be able to think about not existing, proves that the Demon already "knew" (or rather, "believed") that Descartes existed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
The subjective experience of thoughts does not justify the conclusion of 'I am'. Because linguistically and conceptually we always associate thoughts with an 'I', 'you', 'him' or 'her', it was natural for Descartes to do the same, yet from that habit he produced a supposed proof of the existence of the Self, upon which much philosophy (esp Continental philosophy) was based.

All he was justified in saying was 'there appear to be thoughts' or something similar.

His proof of God was equally flawed.

Please see my previous post (the response to drag), as it appears that you have slightly misconstrued what Descartes said.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please see my previous post (the response to drag), as it appears that you have slightly misconstrued what Descartes said.

I don't think I've misconstrued anything. The demon was essentially a conceptual device for the purpose of pushing scepticism as far as possible. Descates conclusion of 'I am' was naively taken as proof of the existence of something which was no more than a lingiustic and conceptual device ("I").

The demon was tricking him with illusions and delusions including his own existence. Descartes felt that this was the only case where he felt that this was impossible, however reach that conclusion he had to assume that thoughts had to be had by an "I".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
I don't think I've misconstrued anything. The demon was essentially a conceptual device for the purpose of pushing scepticism as far as possible. Descates conclusion of 'I am' was naively taken as proof of the existence of something which was no more than a lingiustic and conceptual device ("I").

The demon was tricking him with illusions and delusions including his own existence. Descartes felt that this was the only case where he felt that this was impossible, however reach that conclusion he had to assume that thoughts had to be had by an "I".

Alright, so I guess you're not going to read what I've written before. That's alright, but you should have just told me so, so that I could re-explain it right away.

The fact that the Demon was trying to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes"), that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, proves that there is such a thing as the entity called "Descartes". Otherwise, who would the Demon have been trying to trick?

Descartes' statement comes from the fact that the Demon didn't just assume that Descartes existed, but also assumed that Descartes could think about not existing.

 

[Preator Fenix]

Well I must concede that you have made some good points in conter of my examples. Thinking can be indepadant and individual, but it still does not imply presonality. Irregardless I think I can try for more lingisticly stable arguments. In your reply youve made a very good case for the fact that to think implies existence of a thinking entity. But again I ask why that would imply the existence of a personlity? In the orginal statement the demon puts into question all of descrates statements...even those of his own personality (eg. emotions) Descrates is left with only the his own very existence as a thinkging entity as his only stable reality. Personality is a subjective reality given to be very illusanary in nature. Personality is (by definition) the human copacity to generate an illusonary world for himself. But such a system can be twisted and truned to user demand rendering it irrelavant to an outside objective reality ( and in many cases personality uncheck to lead to chatostrophic error) personality can itself be at times be fundamentaly untrue and so is not at all sutible for checking the varicity of universal truths. Individual Thinking in my opion is not nessacrrly the same as personallity.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, so I guess you're not going to read what I've written before. That's alright, but you should have just told me so, so that I could re-explain it right away.

The fact that the Demon was trying to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes"), that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, proves that there is such a thing as the entity called "Descartes". Otherwise, who would the Demon have been trying to trick?

Descartes' statement comes from the fact that the Demon didn't just assume that Descartes existed, but also assumed that Descartes could think about not existing.

I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Descartes. Anyway, the question is not what was Descartes thinking when he wrote it, but whether he was right to conclude the absolute certainty of a discreet self from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. I hold that he was not.

The self is a construct. It is neither fixed, nor separate, nor indivisible.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Appliance 1 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:

I1 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 1}
O1 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 1}

Appliance 2 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:

I2 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 2}
O2 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 2}

Function f(x) is defined as, f: O1 -> I2.
Function g(x) is defined as, g: O2 -> I1.

Thats very interesting example, because, imo, it encodes fundamental aspect of existence. Consider fundamental particles as appliances, and above description as fundamental interaction between the two. Add some functions for p(x): I1->O1 and q(x): I2->O2 to describe 'inherent properties' of particles, and attempt to resolve any interaction, causally.

It is immediately apparent, that such resolution is selfreferential, loop. And while at that, particle 1 has no way to distinguish between inherent property q(x) of particle 2 and translational function f(x). Same applies to other particle. Translational functions f and g can be seen as 'action-reaction', and eventual outcome of interaction as (mutual) cause-and-effect.

It seems quite obvious that there can be no 'cause' distinguishable from 'effect', or, there is no sense in asking which occurs 'before' and 'after', unless there is objective separate notion of time. Even state of the pair-system is completely undeterminate unless there is notion of quantification, in both time and state-values.

Simplest 'inherent function' is negation of input, that in case of any kind of quantification would lead to wildly oscillating system. (Which human communication in its most part .. is )

Also interesting is to note that translational 'appearance' of other particle is indistinguishable from what it really is. And because particles are in mutual interaction, it appears that other particle 'is' what it 'appears' to be, and it appears to be that because 'this' particle 'is' like that. Basically this is notorius fallacy of circular reasoning.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Preator Fenix
Well I must concede that you have made some good points in conter of my examples. Thinking can be indepadant and individual, but it still does not imply presonality. Irregardless I think I can try for more lingisticly stable arguments. In your reply youve made a very good case for the fact that to think implies existence of a thinking entity. But again I ask why that would imply the existence of a personlity?

This is what I really haven't been able to understand about your argument. What does Descartes' "I think therefore I am" have to do with personality?

In the orginal statement the demon puts into question all of descrates statements...even those of his own personality (eg. emotions) Descrates is left with only the his own very existence as a thinkging entity as his only stable reality.

Yeah, that was the whole point of the "Demon scenario".

Personality is a subjective reality given to be very illusanary in nature. Personality is (by definition) the human copacity to generate an illusonary world for himself.

Well, I really don't understand what you are saying here; but, more importantly, I don't see the relevance to my argument.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Descartes.

Why not?

Anyway, the question is not what was Descartes thinking when he wrote it, but whether he was right to conclude the absolute certainty of a discreet self from the fact that thoughts were being experienced.

He didn't conclude it from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. He concluded it from the fact that thoughts were being experience by him - along with the fact that the Demon had apparently already assume his ability to "think about not existing".

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat

He didn't conclude it from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. He concluded it from the fact that thoughts were being experience by him - along with the fact that the Demon had apparently already assume his ability to "think about not existing".

"by him"? Only lack of rigour lead him to assume that thoughts had to be experienced by a 'person' in order to exist and that that person must be Descartes. He never actually experienced himself or any 'self' experiencing the thoughts - he only experienced thoughts and habit of mind and his fallacious use of the principle that if he could not conceive of something it could not exist and if he could then it could exist, and perhaps the feeling that they 'belonged' to himself.

The 'Demon' thought-experiment was no more than that. Don't get too attached to it. From the start he covertly assumes his own existence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
"by him"? Only lack of rigour lead him to assume that thoughts had to be experienced by a 'person' in order to exist and that that person must be Descartes. He never actually experienced himself or any 'self' experiencing the thoughts - he only experienced thoughts...

That is a contradiction. You said that the thoughts didn't have to be experience by a particular person, and then you said "he only experienced thoughts" - thus showing that it was, in fact, him that was thinking.

Basically, the Demon and Descartes both assumed Descartes' ability to think. The Demon assumed it when he tried to get Descartes to think about not existing, and Descartes assumed it after having actually done it. Therefore, the Demon's challenge further validate Descartes' previous belief that he existed.

The 'Demon' thought-experiment was no more than that. Don't get too attached to it. From the start he covertly assumes his own existence.

Exaclty, and the Demon's challenging it further validates it.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
That is a contradiction. You said that the thoughts didn't have to be experience by a particular person, and then you said "he only experienced thoughts" - thus showing that it was, in fact, him that was thinking.

No offense, but DUH! It's a figure of speech - and the due to that figure of speech Descartes made the same error as you are. Anyway, I'm not saying there is no self, I'm saying that that there is no justification for believing in a separate, certain, indivisible or fixed self.

Originally posted by Mentat
Basically, the Demon and Descartes both assumed Descartes' ability to think. The Demon assumed it when he tried to get Descartes to think about not existing, and Descartes assumed it after having actually done it. Therefore, the Demon's challenge further validate Descartes' previous belief that he existed.

Forget the goddam demon. There's no such thing as demons. What this hypothetical demon assumed or didn't assume is besides the point. It didn't exist - it was probably only there to illustrate a point and certainly would only be viewed that way nowadays. Descartes may have made that assumption, his imaginary fiend may have made that assumption, but they were wrong to and that's the point. *I* don't make that assumption. And please don't tell me I'm contradicting myself by using the word "I".

Originally posted by Mentat
Exaclty, and the Demon's challenging it further validates it.

Forget the goddam demon. Imagine instead that the source of the delusion of separate self is not a demon, but a natural artefact of neural architecture. Then nothing and no one validates it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
No offense, but DUH! It's a figure of speech - and the due to that figure of speech Descartes made the same error as you are. Anyway, I'm not saying there is no self, I'm saying that that there is no justification for believing in a separate, certain, indivisible or fixed self.

I'm trying to understand your point, but I may have missed it. Are you saying that there are not necessarily "many people"?

Forget the goddam demon. There's no such thing as demons.

Whatever. If you get rid of the demon, you have to replace it with someone else, who is trying to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist, and you have the same situation. It needn't be a demon.

What this hypothetical demon assumed or didn't assume is besides the point. It didn't exist - it was probably only there to illustrate a point and certainly would only be viewed that way nowadays.

I know that the Demon was just there to illustrate the point. That's why you should be looking at the point being made, instead of worrying about who or what it was that was (in the illustration) trying to convince Descartes that he didn't exist.

Descartes may have made that assumption, his imaginary fiend may have made that assumption, but they were wrong to and that's the point. *I* don't make that assumption. And please don't tell me I'm contradicting myself by using the word "I".

Well, you've already told yourself, so I needn't tell you.

Anyway, what you don't realize is that if it was "you" in the illustration, instead of a Demon, you still couldn't convince Descartes that he didn't exist, because in trying to, you assume there is someone to convince. Do you get it now?

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'm trying to understand your point, but I may have missed it. Are you saying that there are not necessarily "many people"?

I'm saying there is not neccessarily even a single Person of the discreet, self-contained nature that we might expect.

Originally posted by Mentat

Whatever. If you get rid of the demon, you have to replace it with someone else, who is trying to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist, and you have the same situation. It needn't be a demon.

It needn't be an aentity of any sort. Epistemological doubt can come from many sources.

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you've already told yourself, so I needn't tell you.

Grrr...

Originally posted by Mentat

Anyway, what you don't realize is that if it was "you" in the illustration, instead of a Demon, you still couldn't convince Descartes that he didn't exist, because in trying to, you assume there is someone to convince. Do you get it now?

I understand. For this argument to work then you have to make two assumptions:
1 for thoughts to occur there must be a Person having the thoughts
2 If someone tried to trick Descartes, Descartes would have to be exist in order to be tricked.

1. simply does not follow logically - its just a habit of thinking
2. assumes the existence of the 'Person' being tricked from the start

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
I'm saying there is not neccessarily even a single Person of the discreet, self-contained nature that we might expect.

Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.

It needn't be an aentity of any sort. Epistemological doubt can come from many sources.

But whatever source it comes from must be an entity (and not just any entity, but an entity that is capable of doubting).

Grrr...

Just couldn't resist .

I understand. For this argument to work then you have to make two assumptions:
1 for thoughts to occur there must be a Person having the thoughts

Actually, that's not exactly correct. In order for one entity to cause another entity to think, there must be two entities.

So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.

2 If someone tried to trick Descartes, Descartes would have to be exist in order to be tricked.

Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?

1. simply does not follow logically - its just a habit of thinking

That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.

2. assumes the existence of the 'Person' being tricked from the start

Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
It means that there is an "I", to speak of.

Basically, Descartes was denouncing the Demon's attempt to convince Descartes that he (Descartes) didn't exist, by saying that the fact that the Demon had assumed Descartes to be able to think about not existing, proves that the Demon already "knew" (or rather, "believed") that Descartes existed.

I'm not certain how exactly the processing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff. Even if such a distinction is
assumed it only has the data itself to be applied to,
so there's seemingly no likely possibility of any other
type of related distinction. Further more even that type
of distinction is unproved since first it must be proved
that processing of the data indeed takes place rather than
just more misleading input, and that's kin'na hard to do...

Again, I just don't understand the assense of the statement.
It seems meaningless to me.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm not certain how exactly the processing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff.

It is not the processing of incoming data that Descartes was referring to (though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?), it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.

Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statement that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.

 

[akhenaten]

Originally posted by Mentat
Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.

You are assuming Entity status from the start. Assume as little as possible. All that is known ie observed is a (loosely defined) pattern or body of thoughts and beliefs. If another process 'intends' to change that pattern of thoughts and beliefs, nowhere is there an indication that either grouping of events has the status of a distinct 'entity'.

Originally posted by Mentat
So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.

You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.

There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts

does not follow.

Originally posted by Mentat

Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?

A pattern of thoughts and beliefs is changes into another pattern of thoughts and beliefs.

Originally posted by Mentat

That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.

Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.

Originally posted by Mentat

Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.

Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately. The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules. 'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind. A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by akhenaten
You are assuming Entity status from the start.

Yes, when someone says "I think", you have to assume that there both is an entity (I) and that it thinks.

You have to remember that Descartes illustration of the Demon (which tried to convince him that he didn't exist) is the context of the statement, and thus the meaning of the statement lies in the illustration.

You see, in order for the Demon to attempt to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, he had to assume that there was an entity called "Descartes" to convince. I believe I've said this before. What is so confusing about it?

You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.

That's the point that keeps stopping you from seeing Descartes's reasoning - no one was observing that there were thoughts occurring. All that happened was a Demon assumed that Descartes was capable of thinking about not existing. But, if Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") is capable of thinking about not existing, then there is an entity called "Descartes" that is capable of thinking. So, it is not just a though being observed, it is a Demon (or whatever you wish to substitute for it in the illustration) assuming that the entity called "Descartes" can think (about not existing).

There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts

does not follow.

No, but it does follow that: "I am going to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist" = There is an I
There is a Descartes
I am capable of convincing
He is capable of being convinced

Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.

Well if that particular "clump of events" happens to be an entity (as all "clumps" are (obviously)), then I can't even speak of a "clump" without speaking of an entity.

Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately.

And I'm not saying that it does. However, in a statement of the form "I [bleep]" there must be an "I", because "I" was identified in the statement.

The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules.

Well this is a whole other discussion, entirely.

'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind.

But you cannot label something, unless it exists (which is another point that Descartes was making, when he said that the Demon couldn't convince him that didn't exist - what is the Demon referring to as "non-existent" if not the entity called Descartes?).

A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.

But is not a cup divisible/distinguishable from a family of swans?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
(though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?),

How do you know that data are being processed ?
Maybe it's just more data.

Originally posted by Mentat
it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.

Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statement that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.

How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?

The whole situation is flawed enitially because it assumes
a Demon entity that is independent of all obsrvation that
asks the question. However, in reality that does not appear
to be possible and if the Demon is part of the observed
data then it's question makes no sense. You see, the
whole situation here requires a separation that doesn't
actually appear to exist and thus the whole thing's seemingly pointless.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[M. Gaspar]

"I post, therefore I subscribe"...to this thread, not necessarily to Descarte's statement.

Was directed here...but no time to read just now.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

How do you know that data are being processed ?
Maybe it's just more data.

Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).

How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?

What does that mean? He didn't say that the fact that "he was" was proof that "he was", that would be foolish. He just said that the Demon had already assumed that "he was" - otherwise he (the Demon) would have no one to convince of their non-existence.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).

Yes, but can Descartes himself process ?
Maybe the Demon, what he said and Descrates' thoughts
are just data with no real meaning, as he attempts
to provide here - of separate and/or real Demon/
/Descrates/Descartes' thoughts and so on.

In short, leaving the demon part alone for the moment,
how's all of that at all known ? How can you actually
know anything for certain ? In an abstract hypothetical
situation that may be possible, but Descartes is trying to
mess with our actual perception of reality here.

Originally posted by Mentat
What does that mean?

I am trying to explain why the situation doesn't make sense
and thus there is no real value to the relevant statement.
The relevant problems and assumptions are :
1. A Demon - even with no regards to its qualities this
is an assumption of real existence of a separate entity.
2. Think - that word, when applied to reality, contains
an assumption that says that you can cause something to
change in observation - new relevant thoughts/actions and so on.
3. I am - refers to a distinction. (of what ?)
4. The whole situation - an absolute matter of interpretation(example: what if in another language the Demon's words
mean something totally different ? So, what and
how can absolute communication - another relevant supposedly
real entity here, take place ? As a further example, all our
current communication requires accepted norms - objectivity -
axioms of communication and the accepted reasoning that we use.)

In conclusion, Descartes may've invented a nice abstract
thingy but as something with real meaning it makes
no sense, not even in the likely manner that other things
make sense to us today - because absolutes appear unavoidable
in the posed situation and statement.

Is it clearer now ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Deslaar]

I haven't read this whole thread, I just don't have the patience so if this has already been discussed then I apologise.

First I voted yes because I believe that, for the most part, Descartes got it right.

Descartes application of systematic doubt to the world that he saw around him was intended to achieve one thing. That thing was a philosophical foundation to build from that was beyond doubt. The result is the cogito. While some have argued that Descartes does not go far enough and that "I think, therefore I am" should be reduced to "there are thoughts", the first step in any reconstruction is assigning those thoughts to something in much the same way we assign sensation or emotion to someone. Pain cannot exist without a possessor, just as thought cannot.