Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 1 of 30 (131667)
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


What does this mean for humans who obviously think?
What does this mean for other forms of life that do not think? Right now - staring at my dog - I can't be sure he doesn't think, because it looks like at least something is ticking around in there.
Life is way too confusing for me.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-08-2004 3:54 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2004 6:25 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 2:30 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-10-2004 6:55 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 25 by portmaster1000, posted 08-11-2004 9:17 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

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


Message 2 of 30 (131670)
08-08-2004 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


I don't know, therefore Am I?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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 14 by Morte, posted 08-10-2004 4:11 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 3 of 30 (131688)
08-08-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


I don't mean to take the air out of the tires of this thread, but DesCartes's famous line is meant for people that are thinking.
He was simply trying to get to the very foundation of knowledge. The one true fact which cannot be removed is that since you are thinking, you must exist.
I imagine many other living beings think. There is a question of how deeply and about what, but the clearly have brains and make decisions and so have some form of thought.
They just don't seem to think so deep that we would call it abstract reasoning, or logical deduction/induction. As far as we can tell they just don't care what they really know, or what can be truly known. Or maybe they figured it out already and are spending the rest of their lives enjoying themselves?

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 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 08-08-2004 3:52 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Amlodhi, posted 08-08-2004 9:00 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 08-09-2004 3:03 PM Silent H has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 30 (131710)
08-08-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
08-08-2004 6:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by holmes
Or maybe they figured it out already and are spending the rest of their lives enjoying themselves?
Indeed. When I had a dog, I used to object to people calling him a dumb animal.
Afterall, he had me working to support him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2004 6:25 PM Silent H has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 30 (131718)
08-08-2004 10:17 PM


quote:
Or maybe they figured it out already and are spending the rest of their lives enjoying themselves?
Dogs are Zen masters.
-Neil

  
tkster
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 30 (131719)
08-08-2004 10:26 PM


What you think makes who you are as a person.

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 2:31 PM tkster has not replied

  
tkster
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (131720)
08-08-2004 10:26 PM


Eh, double post
This message has been edited by tkster, 08-08-2004 09:27 PM

http://www.skeptictimes.com/
April 1rst - National Evolutionist Day!!!

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 30 (131949)
08-09-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
08-08-2004 3:52 PM


quote:
What does this mean for other forms of life that do not think? Right now - staring at my dog - I can't be sure he doesn't think, because it looks like at least something is ticking around in there.
We have no way of confirming that dogs think in the same way we do. That is, we lack communication of abstract thoughts. Therefore, nothing concrete can be concluded one way or another.
However, owning a dog myself, I know what you mean. They can often respond to a simple gesture or your overall demeanor and react accordingly. My dog, for example, knows when I am going for the leash, even if I am walking away from the leash at the time. There is communication between humans and dogs, and it does appear that there is a "hamster running in the wheel", but we will probably never be able to communicate at the same level as we do with other humans. We will never be able to confirm the structure of our inner thoughts with any other species besides our own (barring extraterrestrial intelligent aliens, and maybe not even then).

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

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 30 (131951)
08-09-2004 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by tkster
08-08-2004 10:26 PM


quote:
What you think makes who you are as a person.
But . . . does being a person MAKE you think a certain way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tkster, posted 08-08-2004 10:26 PM tkster has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 10 of 30 (131972)
08-09-2004 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Silent H
08-08-2004 6:25 PM


Isn't it possible that Descartes got it backward? Isn't it more reasonable to say that I am therefore I think?
It's like saying tornados don't usually form inside the cities because the cities are there. In reality, the fact that tornados almost never form in those areas made it possible for cities to grow.

The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Silent H, posted 08-08-2004 6:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 3:50 PM coffee_addict has not replied
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 7:54 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 30 (131990)
08-09-2004 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
08-09-2004 3:03 PM


quote:
Isn't it more reasonable to say that I am therefore I think?
No. A rock "is" but it doesn't think. Also, Rene postulated that "thinking" was not necessarily tied to the physical being. Instead, thought could be all there is while the physical is a "dream within a dream". However, you could rephrase Rene's argument (by not unfairly switching around the premises) to make his claim read "I am, therefore I am". Within the rules of logic Rene's argument is really poor, but I think it does portray some truth. To know that you are thinking, you have to BE. He inserts the conclusion into the premise, which is an obvious no-no. At best, we can conclude the being and thinking coexist, but one is not the cause of the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by coffee_addict, posted 08-09-2004 3:03 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 8:05 PM Loudmouth has replied

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


Message 12 of 30 (132092)
08-09-2004 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by coffee_addict
08-09-2004 3:03 PM


Isn't it possible that Descartes got it backward? Isn't it more reasonable to say that I am therefore I think?
No. He was simply trying to find absolute truths, things which could not be removed by any evidence, nor any logic.
I must disagree with Loudmouth in that I don't see the logical error he commited in this statement. He certainly makes quite a few when moving on from that statement, but I think that one is pretty solid.
Perhaps he made a semantical error, which leads to much confusion. It might be better if he had stated it as:
Since I think, and it takes the existence of a thinker to have a thought, I must necessarily exist. Therefore I know for a fact... since I am thinking... that I exist.

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 10 by coffee_addict, posted 08-09-2004 3:03 PM coffee_addict has not replied

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


Message 13 of 30 (132098)
08-09-2004 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Loudmouth
08-09-2004 3:50 PM


However, you could rephrase Rene's argument (by not unfairly switching around the premises) to make his claim read "I am, therefore I am". Within the rules of logic Rene's argument is really poor, but I think it does portray some truth. To know that you are thinking, you have to BE. He inserts the conclusion into the premise, which is an obvious no-no.
Uhmmmmm... I think one of us has got DesCartes wrong. From how I read it, and it was taught to me, the passage in which he write that phrase, had nothing really to do with establishing cause and effect of thinking and being.
What it had to do with was grinding all knowledge down till he found what he could positively know, without any doubt. So it was a more question of epistemology, not necessarily existence. What could he KNOW?
And it turned out that he could be made to doubt everything experience had given him... but one thing. He experienced thought, and that meant he (as the thinker, or perceiver of a thought) must exist. THAT he could not be fooled about.
From there he tried to build up a body of knowledge using logic. Oh boy, not so hot writing after that.

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 11 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 3:50 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Loudmouth, posted 08-10-2004 1:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Morte
Member (Idle past 6102 days)
Posts: 140
From: Texas
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 14 of 30 (132261)
08-10-2004 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
08-08-2004 3:54 PM


Reminds me of another few...
"I doubt, therefore I might be."
...and...
"I think I think, therefore I think I am."
***
I believe, if I remember correctly, that holmes is right in the regard that he didn't mean the original statement so much as a logical, cause-and-effect statement. Not that the fact that he thinks determines his existence, but the fact that he knows he exists because he thinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 08-08-2004 3:54 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by 1.61803, posted 08-10-2004 6:43 PM Morte has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 30 (132379)
08-10-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Silent H
08-09-2004 8:05 PM


quote:
He experienced thought, and that meant he (as the thinker, or perceiver of a thought) must exist. THAT he could not be fooled about.
Yeah, you are right. It is more of an axiom within metaphysics than an actual argument that depends on logic. Good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2004 8:05 PM Silent H 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