Yes. the complete opositte of that would be a dream. As all dreams appear to be real at the time, it doesn’t feel as though ‘‘i’’ am experiancing a dream but rather that i mold into the dream and i become that dream and it seems real.
As you say, if there were device like that then ‘‘i’’ would actually be like a visitor inside your mind/conciousnous. I would still be ‘‘me’’ but on a field trip Imagine i’m seeing pain and observing your mind at a time of pain or hurt or whatever. ‘‘I’’ as me would be completely seperate to those thoughts but rather probably have my own concious opinion of the the matter. I would still be a single entity seperate from your thoughts, though i would be inside them observing.
No, because if you discard all knowlege, like he was trying to do, you discard logic. I think therefore I am is an appeal to logic. Therefore you have to assume logic befor eyou can make that statement. And judging from what other people have said, even if you do assume logic you have problems.
Oh, god, now I know at least I am not losing my mind, or worst–becoming dogmatic with Descartes. Though I cannot honestly comment here in this thread because I still have to read more on the Meditations and the objections, I sincerely can say that what I understand so far agrees well with Pax’s comments.
Is it an appeal to logic, though, or is it an appeal to something more fundamental (i.e. clear and distinct perception)? I mean, although we can formulate the argument as “I think… I think → I exist… I exist”, this is really an illustration of the cogito rather than an explanation.
That is, I rather think the truth of the cogito is supposed to be an inherent piece of knowledge that it is both true and impossible to doubt, rather than something we arrive at by means of logical deduction.
Whether or not this is utter balls is, of course, a moot point.
Fraid not if you look at Descartes overall philosophy he seems to be confusing how you know something? I.e. cause my mum told me, or because logic prooves it etc.
With how you know something? I.e. how the mind works. much like how does a car work? Internal Combustion etc, etc.
Okay, let’s say something else is doing the thinking and all we’re doing is viewing… how can we be viewing if we don’t exist? That’s the point! We can only be fooled if we exist! Therefore in the trying to fool us it proves our existence.
Does not the idea of the viewer contain an infinite regress? How do you know you are viewing, unless you view the viewing, and then view that viewing, and so on into infinity? The viewing is really an after the fact construction. The ‘I’ is a grammatical category, not the rock upon which all can be built.
pax your confusing the point we are not saying that something doesnt exist, but it may not be ‘I’ it could be a collective consciousness a group of minds. Like the demons in the bible “We are legion for we are many”. so really it should be there is thought so something exists.
i cant understand how this discussion is interesting. i mean are there people who are saying that its possible we dont exist? are there problems with the specific things descartes said about it?
i agree with what pax just said. if YOU say that there is no proof of your existence, then surely youll also say that your denial happened, and had a source and the source exists!? whats the definition of exists?
i hate discussing what exists, nobody cares to define what it means when they say stuff doesnt exist.
its not, its all based on his assumption that thinking is a property of things that exist. the way its written, with the word ‘therefore’ makes it sound like its based on logic, but like all logic its based on an assumption. descartes was just saying that this particular assumption is a pretty darn solid one.
and nobody will ever present one shred of evidence saying otherwise.
Well like I’ve said previously, the only thinking I know that exist singularly is me, as that’s how I experience my thinking… Now if you are Legion and many, then fine you’re legion. But my existence is different to yours I can only accept what I know, and that is my existence is real while yours could be some daemon just trying to wreck my head with this idiotic babble. You’re also in the same position when reading my posts.
if i experience it, it exists as an experience, which could be artificially inserted into my brain. if i can control it and decide to do things to it and i can predict how it will work, then it really exists. descartes problem is that the things that i remember could just be implanted memories that didnt really happen. the things that i see now could be illusions.
the only thing thats constant is that i am thinking about these things, and something is putting thoughts into my head. they might not be people in an array of baryons, but theres a thing thats being thought of by me.
whew! it sure is hard to define it, but its damn sure hard to come to the conclusion that we can contemplate the idea of existence and then claim that nothing exists, not even the things that are contemplating.
“…the only thinking I know that exist singularly is me…”
So how to you know that the ‘I’ of Descartes’ Cogito, that is his own particular thinking, has anything to do with the singularity that you experience? Why does it constitute a proof? Is it not the continuity of language and culture that provides this connection? And how why is your singular you not subject to doubt? If it was later revealed to you that this entire life of yours was a dream of another person, would the singularity that is you have existed? Would its existence simply be transferred to another “person”? What if it was revealed that your entire life was an advanced computer program of the future? Would you still have existence? The “I” is as chimerical as existence itself. They both are ungrounded. They both are constructs, albeit appearing to depend upon each other. Descartes may more properly have said, “Western European culture thinks, therefore I am.â€
It’s hard to rightly argue against axioms such as this, therefore the only ones who do, usually do not understand what it says.
Let the ‘I’ just mean ‘Individual’ So that the argument is against, “An Individual thinks, therefore an Individual is”
Define the subjects first:
Individual- existing as a distinct entity
Think- to have as an opinion, to revise logically
Exist- to be
Now, one may ask, how could an Individual think, without being?
Or rather, How may one think, if one is not.
Therefore, an individual may not EXIST as a DISTINCT entity if he may not think? How may ‘he’ be if he does not know that ‘he’ is?
Let me be among the ones who “usually do not understand”.
Your definitions are recursive:
“Individual- existing as a distinct entity”
Presumably, the “distinction” you refer to was created by thinking.
At bottom what Descartes really said was, “Something exists, therefore something exists.” Upon that tautology he grafted higher level definitions which are not beyond skepticism.
you cannot possibly know that the only thing that exists is a singular you. Descartes defines your essence as being a thinking thing thus if many creatures all share the same thoughts they are technically indistinguishable from one another (providing they are merely thinking things) so really the legion argument is valid, you wouldn’t even have to be aware of it.
Oh and the interesting thing about this thread is everyone cares what exists thats why there is a whole branch of philosophy dedicated to it - namely ontology.
My attacks against this are logical attacks against the cogito itself.
I believe it is intended as a psychological statement i.e. that when I think I cannot doubt I exist, by way of the method of clear and distinct ideas.
yes he could have doubted his existence, he simply didn’t try hard enough…
and the cartesian demon could easily have made rene falsely believe in a omnibenevolent and omnipotent god as part of his evil scheme just so he would think he was justified in stopping his doubting and appeasing the church… but remember your history… rene saw the truth of galileo’s work and he saw what the church did to galileo… rene found his own mathematical proofs that ran counter to the church and took the coward’s way out…
Imagine i’m seeing pain and observing your mind at a time of pain or hurt or whatever. ‘‘I’’ as me would be completely seperate to those thoughts but rather probably have my own concious opinion of the the matter. I would still be a single entity seperate from your thoughts, though i would be inside them observing.