i have awareness, therefore I am

descartes ‘i think, therefore I am.’

is enhanced by: ‘i have awareness, therefore I am’

because awareness is thinking, feeling, consciousness, and point of reference… all in one. thinking is only thinking. what do you think?

I think we are vibrations, eminating into an all encompassing forcefield called the Universe :angry:

Anyone that that has pondered over the idea and hadn’t gathered that it is not completely accurate is borderline retarded.

See as I ‘enhance’ it some more.

‘I am aware of myself, therefore I know I am’ .


‘[Anything can go here here], therefore I (or it) exist’.

Or even better:

‘When existence exists, existence exists.’

Of course theres the all encompassing silence as the whole of existence does its thing without us dirtying it up with inaccurate language.

Still i wonder what [ir]rational line of thought got philosophers and intellectual to make so many blatantly, false statements.

It’s not like those without the relevant critical analysis abilities can get ideas when they aren’t put clearly.

Many don’t understand well their meaning or logical implication, they just go for a statements interest and amusement value, cant beat a good ol’ logically incoherent sound bite.

I disagree

awareness is not thinking . being aware stimuates thinking.

Descartes did a good job to retard both philosophy and science with his ‘ghost in the machine’ nonsense. His ideas of a mind/body dualism (the whacking material of philosophy 101 students) is totally undermined by modern science, but people still take it seriously.

To be aware of one’s own existence requires thought doesn’t it?

no , first is a stimulation from an outside experience that galvanizes the seperation of the without from the self. then one " thinks " .

This I guess I just don’t understand.

Stimulation from an outside source comes first? - Then - the seperation of the without from the self…

could you give me an example? Perhaps then I will get it.

He did.

the cogito begs the question


But you can’t beg the question if you can’t’ beg the question. :stuck_out_tongue:

Awareness is neither a single ‘thing’ nor a sum total of ‘things’. It is not necessary to see processes as things (i.e. “I am” indicates belief in a self) in order to make sense of the world.

Any thing that has existence is by necessity an exist-thing.

Sounds true to me.

In other words, ‘I have awareness, therefore I am’ indicates belief in an essential self, meaning that the person quoted believes in some sort of essence ‘from it’s own side’ to describe human processes (has reified an abstraction into a concrete reality). This is a different animal from attributing agency as a possibly useful conventional and habitual application to phenomena. Not believing in essential ‘thingness’ is no barrier to scientific inquiry, whereas believing in an essential self (‘soul’) could very well become a barrier to scientific inquiry.

This is not actually a sophistication of Descartes’ axiom. He did not restrict thinking to, say, internal utterances of propositions of language. He actually used it in the same way as you are using awareness. If we had a logically perfect language these words would have stricter usages, but in practice words like “thought”, “consciousness”, and “awareness” are used interchangeably. Descartes used “thought” to mean any operation of the mind. So basically all you are doing is saying that you prefer the word “awareness” to “thought”, rather than actually providing a sophistication of Descartes’ axiom.

I don’t really understand what you are trying to say in your post. What is inaccurate about the cogito? How do you understand it? I’m unsure that you understand it in the same way Descartes did. Anyone who understands what Descartes was saying in this section of the Meditations should be able to see that it is logically unassailable and verging on the tautological.

I wonder if you could explain clearly how modern science has totally undermined mind/body dualism. I’m not saying that you can’t explain it clearly, I would just like to see you do it and have the opportunity to address it if I can. For one thing, not everybody has the same idea about what mind/body dualism is.

I don´t think you could be aware without thinking; pretty much the same thing.

Further, “There is thinking” is way better than “I think, therefore I am”, because no dubious “I” is smuggled in.

The cogito does not beg the question. Begging the question means to assume the very thing that you are attempting to prove. I’m sure you know this. I’m assuming that you think it begs the question because the premise “I think” implicitly contains the proposition “I exist”, and so it appears as though Descartes is assuming the very thing he has set out to prove. But this isn’t quite right for two reasons:

(1) Descartes did not set out to prove that he exists. He set out to see if he could find one thing that he could not doubt. He concluded that whether or not he was being deceived about the external world, he could not doubt that he existed as a thinking thing, because he directly experienced being that thinking thing. The problem of external world skepticism arises from the indirect relationship we have to the world. Since we have a direct relationship to the contents of our own minds, we do not have the same basis for doubting that we exist as thinking things as we do for doubting that our senses give us an accurate representation of the external world.

(2) “I think, therefore I am” expresses the same observation that the premise “I think” implicitly contains the assumption “I exist”. It expresses the fact that if thought obtains, then it follows logically that existence obtains, since thought is predicated on existence. If one set out to prove that he existed, and merely assumed that he was a thinking thing, then you might have a leg to stand on by accusing him of begging the question. But that I am thinking thing is not a mere assumption - it is an empirical fact that I experience constantly. “I think, therefore I am” merely expresses the truism that if I am thinking, then I must exist, because thought is predicated on existence. This isn’t at all the same thing as begging the question.