I think therefore I am?

[ilikeitlikethat]

That deaf dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I don't feel, yet I am.
-Anonymous INTP

I don't think, yet I am.
-Anonymous ESFP

INTP - The Thinker

ESFP - The Fool

The most philosophically wise and deep thinking type Vs. the most hedonistic and empty headed type! If the world was ruled by INTPs, the first thing they would do is kill all the ESFPs except Jar Jar because every type hates him and he would be dead before the world domination plan even comes to fruition!

 

[Qlip]

Rocks think, albeit very very slowly.

I think, therefore I shouldn't belabor the point. I used to be deeper, but it wasn't getting me anywhere I wanted to go.

 

[Rasofy]

I dug, dug, and dug.

Not insightful, but quite deep.

 

[ygolo]

Yeah. Otherwise, I wouldn't be me.

"I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.

It is not quite. A->B does not equate with B->A. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if there a genuine disagreement here about converse error.
http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm

personally, I think more "I believe therefore I am", but you being a Ti user and this being an Fi as hell thing to say, this probably makes absolutely no sense to you

This works too. Having a belief is an experience, and that experience validates to the experiencer that (s)he exists.

 

[Ginkgo]

It is not quite. A->B does not equate with B->A. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if there a genuine disagreement here about converse error.
http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm



This works too. Having a belief is an experience, and that experience validates to the experiencer that (s)he exists.

I'm not trolling you. "I think" posits that "I" exist in the first place. Fireshield's statement is valid, it just doesn't arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[ygolo]

I'm not trolling you. "I think" posits that "I" exist in the first place. Fireshield's statement is valid, it just doesn't arrive at the same conclusion.

Just because one posits something, doesn't imply its true or exists. In fact, proof by contradiction works specifically by positing something that we end up proving to be false. We can do proof non-existence of things by contradiction too. Those sorts of proofs start off with "Suppose A exists."...and ends with "Therefore, A cannot exist."

It seems we have two disagreements.

One is methodological...that is in what we consider "valid", and what the process of "deduction" is. This is what I find more troubling than the actual content of the original disagreement. A single statement by itself may be true or false. But I find "valid" to be a strange characterization. Also, the statement that "I am, therefore I think" either follows from or leads to "I think therefore I am", is a basic error in deductive reasoning.

The second is a simple matter of whether or not it is possible (for me, you, etc.) to exist without thinking. I believe it is possible. I tell you that I have had knowledge of my existence in the absence of thought. You can believe me or not. This is a more instinctual way of existing, and possible to achieve.

 

[Ginkgo]

Just because one posits something, doesn't imply its true or exists. In fact, proof by contradiction works specifically by positing something that we end up proving to be false. We can do proof non-existence of things by contradiction too. Those sorts of proofs start off with "Suppose A exists."...and ends with "Therefore, A cannot exist."

It seems we have two disagreements.

One is methodological...that is in what we consider "valid", and what the process of "deduction" is. This is what I find more troubling than the actual content of the original disagreement. A single statement by itself may be true or false. But I find "valid" to be a strange characterization. Also, the statement that "I am, therefore I think" either follows from or leads to "I think therefore I am", is a basic error in deductive reasoning.

The second is a simple matter of whether or not it is possible (for me, you, etc.) to exist without thinking. I believe it is possible. I tell you that I have had knowledge of my existence in the absence of thought. You can believe me or not. This is a more instinctual way of existing, and possible to achieve.

I should have clarified. "I", in this case, is defined as a thinking entity. Knowledge of your existence in the absence of thought? How could you have knowledge of anything without a limited awareness?

No, neither line of reasoning follows from the other. When did I say that? They're just different analysis of the same knowledge.

 

[ygolo]

I should have clarified. "I", in this case, is defined as a thinking entity. Knowledge of your existence in the absence of thought? How could you have knowledge of anything without a limited awareness?

The use of language, may require thinking, but defining "I" as a thinking entity is different from defining "I" as that entity that thinks. Awareness does not require thinking. No words or images are needed in order to be aware.

No, neither line of reasoning follows from the other. When did I say that? They're just different analysis of the same knowledge.

This sounded a lot like you were saying one is deduced from the other:

"I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.

EDIT: Maybe I should be more explicit, because I thought people took certain things for granted.
Do you exist when you are asleep and not dreaming? Do you think in this state?

 

[sprinkles]

I dug, dug, and dug.

Not insightful, but quite deep.

Diggy diggy hole!!

 

[Ginkgo]

EDIT: Maybe I should be more explicit, because I thought people took certain things for granted.
Do you exist when you are asleep and not dreaming? Do you think in this state?

An interesting question. Existential implications. It's irrelevant, though. Even if I did, there's no guarantee I would remember. And, even if I remembered, that was then and this is now. It's relevant that I think about the past, though.

I don't think cogito ergo sum refers to the sort of thinking I think you are describing. I think it refers to awareness and consciousness in general.

 

[WALMART]

"If I do not exist, who's arthritis is this?"

 

[ygolo]

An interesting question. Existential implications. It's irrelevant, though. Even if I did, there's no guarantee I would remember. And, even if I remembered, that was then and this is now. It's relevant that I think about the past, though.

I don't think cogito ergo sum refers to the sort of thinking I think you are describing. I think it refers to awareness and consciousness in general.

Even still. Existence without awareness and consciousness is also possible. What about those who have died, and then are resuscitated?

In a Venn Diagram , existence would be a bigger set that encompasses awareness/consciousness, and thinking would be a smaller set, completely contained within.

 

[sprinkles]

Even still. Existence without awareness and consciousness is also possible. What about those who have died, and then are resuscitated?

In a Venn Diagram , existence would be a bigger set that encompasses awareness/consciousness, and thinking would be a smaller set, completely contained within.

Yes, but 'I think, therefore I am' is in the context of proof for one's own existence.

This is expressed in a lot of different ways such as 'there must be one who is thinking'.

By even saying 'I' it already denotes a conscious entity, because the entity has already named itself. This facet is apparently inseparable, since there's an 'I' on both sides of the equation. 'I am' is an entity naming itself just as well as 'I think' is an entity naming itself, so it really does imply consciousness backwards and forwards.

This isn't to say that something must be conscious to exist. It just says that being conscious is a proof of existence.

 

[Ginkgo]

Even still. Existence without awareness and consciousness is also possible. What about those who have died, and then are resuscitated?

I believe those who have died and are resuscitated exist through the process.

In a Venn Diagram , existence would be a bigger set that encompasses awareness/consciousness, and thinking would be a smaller set, completely contained within.

I agree according to your definition of thinking.

Yes, but 'I think, therefore I am' is in the context of proof for one's own existence.

This is expressed in a lot of different ways such as 'there must be one who is thinking'.

By even saying 'I' it already denotes a conscious entity, because the entity has already named itself. This facet is apparently inseparable, since there's an 'I' on both sides of the equation. 'I am' is an entity naming itself just as well as 'I think' is an entity naming itself, so it really does imply consciousness backwards and forwards.

This isn't to say that something must be conscious to exist. It just says that being conscious is a proof of existence.

Thanks for reiterating what I've been trying to say in a different (and perhaps more palatable) way.

 

[xisnotx]

I am, therefore I think.

That's just you.

I am, but I don't think.

At op:

You think therefore you are?

I think not, therefore you aren't.

But, if you must prove your existence to me, must you control what I think, and change it to what you think?

And if you control what I think, then am I not, but only you are?

I think, therefore, I think I am.

 

[ygolo]

Yes, but 'I think, therefore I am' is in the context of proof for one's own existence.

This is expressed in a lot of different ways such as 'there must be one who is thinking'.

Indeed, for this much, I think we all have agreement.

By even saying 'I' it already denotes a conscious entity, because the entity has already named itself. This facet is apparently inseparable, since there's an 'I' on both sides of the equation. 'I am' is an entity naming itself just as well as 'I think' is an entity naming itself, so it really does imply consciousness backwards and forwards.

This is a limitation of language itself, and our basic point of contention. "I" in many ways is an illusion. Have you ever intentionally blanked out your thinking? Descartes may have himself made this error. But it is still an error. The "I" who thinks is more than the thinker...more than the "I" even.

Have you ever achieved a state of flow doing sports? How aware of the "I" were you? How much did you exist during that time?

Have you meditated on nothing for long periods of time? How aware of "I" were you? How much did you exist at that time?

Do you believe you stop existing every time you stop being aware of yourself? Do you pop back and forth into existence every time you loose and gain consciousness?

This isn't to say that something must be conscious to exist. It just says that being conscious is a proof of existence.

Yes. Again, here, we are in agreement.

I believe those who have died and are resuscitated exist through the process.

Through the resuscitation process, they exist. But do they think? Are they aware of themselves in anyway? Are they aware at all?

Thanks for reiterating what I've been trying to say in a different (and perhaps more palatable) way.

I believe I understand what you guys are saying. I just believe what you are saying is false.

A younger me may have had trouble understanding what I am saying, and may have made the same sort of statements you make. Those who spend a lot of time in their own mind (and I am one of them) may have a difficult time seeing the "I" for the limited version of consciousness that it is.

A much younger me would not have had the same difficulty.

At op:

You think therefore you are?

I think not, therefore you aren't.

But, if you must prove your existence to me, must you control what I think, and change it to what you think?

And if you control what I think, then am I not, but only you are?

Yes. The existence of others is a difficult thing to "prove". But I hope you are convinced I exist.

I think, therefore, I think I am.

lol. OK. This is perhaps a more accurate statement of the moment of thought.

 

[sprinkles]

This is a limitation of language itself, and our basic point of contention. "I" in many ways is an illusion. Have you ever intentionally blanked out your thinking? Descartes may have himself made this error. But it is still an error. The "I" who thinks is more than the thinker...more than the "I" even.

Yes but when I do that I'm not going to be forming logical arguments.

Have you ever achieved a state of flow doing sports? How aware of the "I" were you? How much did you exist during that time?

Have you meditated on nothing for long periods of time? How aware of "I" were you? How much did you exist at that time?

Not aware enough to say "I think, therefore I am". I exist the same 'amount' as always but I stop considering it, which is the key to what I'm saying.

Do you believe you stop existing every time you stop being aware of yourself? Do you pop back and forth into existence every time you loose and gain consciousness?

No, but we already covered that something can exist without consciousness. Something that isn't conscious or thinking doesn't seek proof that itself exists.

 

[Riva]

And an INTP party is was and an INTP party it would continue be 'this thread is' as I suspected.

The focus of our perceptions creates reality. Indeed, the power of focus may be the greatest gift of mental power we possess, it allowing us to impose our willpower upon creation!

Other than in the Secret where else does it say this? I genuinely like to know.

 

[ygolo]

Yes but when I do that I'm not going to be forming logical arguments.


Not aware enough to say "I think, therefore I am". I exist the same 'amount' as always but I stop considering it, which is the key to what I'm saying.


No, but we already covered that something can exist without consciousness. Something that isn't conscious or thinking doesn't seek proof that itself exists.

So when we are considering proofs, or in a state when we are making formal statements, are we to ignore all the times we are not making formal statements? This seems like an odd and limited way to make proofs, and is certainly not the way it is done in Mathematics (even when Descartes was alive).

I just want to narrow down on where the disagreement is:
Which of the statements do you believe to be true:

1. "Being implies thinking."
2. "My existence implies my thinking."
3. "I cannot exist without thinking."
4. "I cannot be when I am not thinking".
5. "If I am not thinking, I am not."
6. "If I am, I am thinking."
7. "I am, therefore I am thinking."
8. "I am, therefore I think."
9. "Existence implies the ability to think."