Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "I think therefore I am" - Decartes
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 30 (132413)
08-10-2004 3:27 PM


I know this is off topic but I really can't be bothered to make another new post so I'll try to relate it to this one.
Has anyone ever seen the movie "21 grams"? It's actually very well done. I think the obvious question to ask next is, is it true? Is there any proof that a person weighs 21 grams less the moment they die? To me, it sounds like fiction, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.
I wonder if animals weigh 21 grams less when they die. If they do, it must mean that they think... ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Melchior, posted 08-10-2004 4:04 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Melchior
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 30 (132427)
08-10-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Mission for Truth
08-10-2004 3:27 PM


Duncan MacDougall, (in)famous for doing the measurements of dying patients almost a hundred years ago, is said to have repeated the experiments on a number of dogs, but did not notice any drop in their weight like he claimed happened to humans.
Note that the 21 gram was just the number that happened to come from his first test with a human. Tests with other dying patients gave slightly different results (but still with a definite claim of a loss of weight exactly at the moment of death).
On the whole, I wouldn't put much emphasis on these experiments, partially because it was done with only a few subjects, and partially because no one has really repeated the test. Unless it can be confirmed by modern medicine/science that the loss is definite and consistent, and that it can't be explained otherwise, you can't really use it as a basis for arguments.
ADD: Maybe of interest is that Lewis E. Hollander is said to have made a similar test later that involved sheep. The reported result here is that the sheep actually gained a significant weight for a few seconds after they stopped breathing, but that this extra weight vanished a very short while afterward. He had no explanation for this.
This message has been edited by Melchior, 08-10-2004 03:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Mission for Truth, posted 08-10-2004 3:27 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 30 (132467)
08-10-2004 6:20 PM


Strange
I would have thought that the loss of 21 g at death was just a fairy tale. Although, I do agree it's probably not quite worthy of proof for anything. Still, it would be interesting if someone would find out, I like exploring these elusive little "facts".

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 19 of 30 (132482)
08-10-2004 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Morte
08-10-2004 4:11 AM


or...Excrementus ergo sum. "I shit therefore I am."

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Morte, posted 08-10-2004 4:11 AM Morte has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 08-10-2004 6:45 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 20 of 30 (132484)
08-10-2004 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by 1.61803
08-10-2004 6:43 PM


Unless one has rectaloptilitis.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by 1.61803, posted 08-10-2004 6:43 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 21 of 30 (132490)
08-10-2004 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


The British empiricist ripped this Cartesian "congito" apart. How do you KNOW you are thinking. You can't really KNOW anything.
And the battering ram to that (Kirkegard) is You can't even KNOW that you don't know. So if you can't really know that you dont know then the point is moot. My question would be is there a 'thinker' behind the thought. Or is the 'thinker'/Self an illusion of the brain? Hmmmmm.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 08-08-2004 3:52 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2004 7:33 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2004 1:02 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 30 (132514)
08-10-2004 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by 1.61803
08-10-2004 6:55 PM


The British empiricist ripped this Cartesian "congito" apart.
Please let me know who and where. I never saw an acceptible critique of DesCartes's cogito argument... and I am an empiricist!
I think he did a great job of showing what the limits of pure logic can get you with regard to knowledge. Although the irony is that there is still one perception anyway, so even that isn't "pure" a priori rationalist logic.
How do you KNOW you are thinking. You can't really KNOW anything.
This does not address DesCartes's position at all. I suppose it may have been more accurate for him to have said perceive rather than think, but either is really fine.
In the end you cannot be tricked that you are experiencing a thought. You are or you are not. Whether it is true or not is besides the point (and even DesCartes points this out while nixing all the rest of knowledge to get to the bottom).
All that one needs is a single perceived thought to KNOW one does exist.
And the battering ram to that (Kirkegard) is You can't even KNOW that you don't know.
This is really losing the point of the argument. You are moving into epistemological arguments which only address (at best) DesCartes's later attempts to acertain knowledge past his own existence.
Unfortunately modern epistemological theorists have become bogged down in what you mentioned above and it has killed that field of philosophy.
Real (or practical) empirical epistemologists became practicing scientists and worked out methodological naturalism.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-10-2004 06:33 PM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-10-2004 6:55 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by 1.61803, posted 08-11-2004 2:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 23 of 30 (132875)
08-11-2004 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
08-10-2004 7:33 PM


The Cartesian Impasse
Hi Holmes, Cartesian dualist notions of the "Congito" critics where as I said the empiricist. Whether or not they are acceptable to you is a matter of opinion perhaps? John Locke's (An Essay concerning Human Understanding) Book IV "of Knowlege and Probability" Chapter I-II-III and IV. All, in my opinion are acceptable critiques of Descarte's Congito. I should not of said "rip to shreds" though. That was a little sensationlist on my part. David Hume's writings also present (at least to me) acceptable critiques of Cartesian thinking. I am not a phylosopher or Phd. in the field so my opinion bears little weight in regards to this subject. I should of hedged my previous post with that. I was operating on memory of what I read. It is possible I misunderstood Descarte. I will read him again. Good day.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 08-10-2004 7:33 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Silent H, posted 08-11-2004 3:44 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 30 (132890)
08-11-2004 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by 1.61803
08-11-2004 2:22 PM


Unfortunately all my philosophy books are in storage back in the states so I can't easily get to the refs. I like Locke anyway, so maybe I'll scratch around to see if I can find the refs you gave.
Unfortunately I'm not going to hold my breath that you are right because I am an avid Hume fan, and I know you are wrong about him.
I think you mistake their critiquing the remainder of DesCartes's arguments with critiquing the cogito argument. DesCartes quickly derailed himself after at first setting out a beautiful sceptical position on knowledge, and finding the one thing he could say for sure.
He has "clear ideas" and garbage like that to build back up his knowledge base. Boy oh boy did the empiricists shred THAT.
But as far as the cogito goes I believe the best anyone can do is point out that thought is still an experience of some kind and so knowledge (even of one's exeistence) relies on experience (which is the position of the empiricists).
Don't worry about having been caught sensationalizing. I myself have a tendency for the dramatic while making a point. But do make sure your refs actually address the specific point of debate... that can be embarassing.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by 1.61803, posted 08-11-2004 2:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 30 (133034)
08-11-2004 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


A Funny
This quote always reminds me of one of my favorite jokes...
Descartes walks into a local pub. A guy at the bar sees him walk in and yells, "Hey everyone! The next round is on Descartes." Descartes promptly says, "I think not!" and disappears.
Old but I still get a chuckle out of it.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 08-08-2004 3:52 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 26 of 30 (133074)
08-12-2004 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 1.61803
08-10-2004 6:55 PM


[ You can't even KNOW that you don't know. So if you can't really know that you dont know then the point is moot. My question would be is there a 'thinker' behind the thought. Or is the 'thinker'/Self an illusion of the brain? Hmmmmm]
Should it be 'I feel therefore I am'? Isn`t the act of self-awareness a 'feeling'? Hit your thumb with a hammer. Have you really hit your thumb or are you imagining you`re aware of the act. Try hitting it several times.:-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-10-2004 6:55 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 08-12-2004 11:53 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 27 of 30 (133194)
08-12-2004 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Nighttrain
08-12-2004 1:02 AM


Descarte's Matrix
Hi Nighttrain :
nightrain writes:
"I feel therefore I am"
Descarte was careful to not use feelings as a way of proving his existance because he contended that the human sensory perception could be decieved. He postulated that a powerful demon could be controling you by hypnosis and you only 'think' you are feeling something. The Matrix movie I believe was a spin off of Descarte's existential writings. I will hedge this post with: This is MY opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2004 1:02 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Nighttrain, posted 08-13-2004 6:14 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 28 of 30 (133512)
08-13-2004 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by 1.61803
08-12-2004 11:53 AM


Re: Descarte's Matrix
So if you eventually kick the bucket, you only 'think' you are dead? :-P

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 08-12-2004 11:53 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 08-13-2004 12:27 PM Nighttrain has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 29 of 30 (133578)
08-13-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Nighttrain
08-13-2004 6:14 AM


nighttrain writes:
So if you eventually kick the bucket, you only 'think you are dead? :-P
No. you think nothing any longer when you are dead because the organ responsible for thought is non functional in death. But I see the point you are trying to make. If I drop an anvil on my foot, experiance tells me that it will hurt and most likely result in injury. Therefore I must exist if I feel that pain and sustain a injury. BUT...how do I know I am not a brain in a vat dreaming I dropped a anvil on my non existant foot? Prove to me night train that YOU are not a brain in a vat some where in some evil scientist lab. What evidence do you have that is not the case?

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Nighttrain, posted 08-13-2004 6:14 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Loudmouth, posted 08-13-2004 12:34 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 30 (133579)
08-13-2004 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by 1.61803
08-13-2004 12:27 PM


quote:
BUT...how do I know I am not a brain in a vat dreaming I dropped a anvil on my non existant foot?
It is a curious fact that hypnosis can block pain. I have seen blindfolded volunteers undergo hypnosis and upon waking are not able to feel needles being plunged more than an inch into their forearm. Now, is this the vat being neutralized, or the conscious report of pain within the brain that is being blocked? We can't really know, but it would appear that pain is reported through conscious channels that are susceptible to the practice of hypnosis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by 1.61803, posted 08-13-2004 12:27 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024