• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I think therefore I am?

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
The objective cause of thoughts is God.

It seems this thread has come back to life, so I want to make sure I understood. Is it that you believe that since existence is due to God's thoughts, the fact that we exist means we are God's thoughts, and that is what you meant by "I think" in the statement "I am therefore I think"?

Hmm. Not sure that you could ever demonstrate that in any meaningful way.

Apparently not over the internet at least :D

i am therefore i think

I'm having deja vu.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

We had one person say that God's thoughts created everything, which lead to this belief. Is this what you believe too?


Thinking maybe isn't necessary for awareness (depending on how we define awareness). You can probably catch a ball or something without thinking about it.

Your body does all kinds of stuff that require awareness yet you don't really think about it, like orienting yourself in space, but there's different kinds of awareness.

There's awareness that you are aware of, as in looking at something and knowing that you see it.
There's focus, which is being aware of what you want to be aware of and consciously causing yourself to focus on that thing.
There's subconscious awareness. You're taking stuff in, and it registers, like walking through a crowd - you know it's a crowd without having to take in all the people individually and discern it. Something might also come out of the background and demand your conscious attention, like noticing a clown among 1,000 people wearing business suits.

When I made this thread, I used a very matter-of-fact use of the word thinking...that is having thoughts....the ones we consciously notice. But people have been far more creative in their interpretation that I would have anticipated. Note however, that Descartes only need the very rudimentary and surface observation of his own conscious thoughts to be aware of his own existence.

It is clear (to me, at least), that existence does not require having conscious thoughts.

If my thoughts are God's and my existence is God's thoughts, well we are using the words very differently from the way people usually talk about thoughts. Perhaps it is true that the common usage of "thinking" illustrates an illusion. But, I believed, my original statement, based on the use of "thinking" in it's common meaning, was fairly self-evident.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Apparently not over the internet at least :D
I admire your stamina. ;)

Note however, that Descartes only need the very rudimentary and surface observation of his own conscious thoughts to be aware of his own existence.
Not to be "aware", to be *convinced*. He could doubt everything else apart from his own doubt and what (he thought) that entailed- existence.

It is clear (to me, at least), that existence does not require having conscious thoughts.
It doesn't, but awareness does.
This argument is more semantic than philosophical.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I admire your stamina. ;)
Thank you :D

Not to be "aware", to be *convinced*. He could doubt everything else apart from his own doubt and what (he thought) that entailed- existence.

True. He was aiming to be convinced of his existence. But all he needed was awareness of his existence for that.

Unless he was deaf or blind, why doesn't "I see therefore I am" or "I hear therefore I am" work? Was he aiming at making an argument that would work for those who were deaf or blind? Why would he need to do that for himself?

It doesn't, but awareness does.
Really? You cannot stop the voice and images in your mind and still be aware? Remember I was using a matter-of-fact definition of "think".

This argument is more semantic than philosophical.
Perhaps, but I usually find that mapping the semantics can be a fruitful exercise.
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sense data can be doubted. He doesnt know if he really sees or really hears. He could be hallucinating, or dreaming. He could be a brain in a vat.

To be aware there must, of necessity, be something that one is aware of. That isn't necessary to simply exist.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Sense data can be doubted. He doesnt know if he really sees or really hears. He could be hallucinating, or dreaming. He could be a brain in a vat.

To be aware there must, of necessity, be something that one is aware of. That isn't necessary to simply exist.

The content of the sense data can certainly be doubted, but that he had sense data cannot. Even if he was a brain in a vat. The sense data is one possible thing to be aware of. There is no need for an internally generated voice or image to be aware.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm having deja vu.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

We had one person say that God's thoughts created everything, which lead to this belief. Is this what you believe too?

i wouldnt think if i wouldnt exist.

i think its thought of a person(not god) that creates everything. im of course talking of the subjective point of view. now i think this creation has to be split to few separate things of creation. first there is the creation of our subjective view on things(creating our sense of world, which naturally is not what the world actually is), this is created by our thought(mostly unconscious thought tho). then there is the creation of what we as humans create to the external world(like build a house), there would not be creating this house without us having the thought/idea of the thing first, thus its the thought that created the house, not only because of creating the idea of the house, but also because it requires thought to use the tools and hands physically building the house. then there is this creation what you were talking of, like creating the solar system, earth and the whole universe. personally i think that we can never perceive this because we can never perceive things as they truly are, since it would require understanding things in quantum level, perfectly understanding the interactions between things, seeing the position of every atom, seeing where they came from and where its going etc etc. and because we cant perceive this, and only perceive things in very subjective point of view, its not the world that "god" created which we live in, but its the world that we created that we live in(even tho people often dont understand this and live in illusion that they see the world as it is).

i think the image of god is really an image of the human wholeness, therefore i could claim that human = god. also i think that its the subjective world that we live in, which was created by the wholeness of self, the idea that some outside force we call god would had created this world is just an illusion, which on the other hand reveals some of the truth, but is more of misconception of the truth. naturally one aspect of what people call god is the platform(and creator of it) that we live in, aka the universe(including us), but i dont think there is anything supernatural with it, its just that things that we dont properly understand are said to be magic or god, because it has helped us in our evolution.

its that being what i am is what enables me to think. thinking is what comes out of being an structure called human being, not the other way around(which is what the phrase "i think therefore i am" is suggesting)
 

Salomé

meh
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,527
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The content of the sense data can certainly be doubted, but that he had sense data cannot. Even if he was a brain in a vat. The sense data is one possible thing to be aware of. There is no need for an internally generated voice or image to be aware.
What does that mean: " he had sense data"? If its a hallucination / dream then it is internally generated.
I don't understand what you're adding to the cogito argument.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
i wouldnt think if i wouldnt exist.
Yes. This is the contrapositive of "I exist if I think" or "If I think, I exist" or "I think therefore I am". The contrapositive statement is true when the original statement is.

Note that "I am therefore I think" would mean "If I exist, then I think" which means "I think if I exist". The contrapositive of this is "I wouldn't exist if I didn't think". Do you still say that "I am therefore I think" is valid?

i think its thought of a person(not god) that creates everything. im of course talking of the subjective point of view. now i think this creation has to be split to few separate things of creation. first there is the creation of our subjective view on things(creating our sense of world, which naturally is not what the world actually is), this is created by our thought(mostly unconscious thought tho). then there is the creation of what we as humans create to the external world(like build a house), there would not be creating this house without us having the thought/idea of the thing first, thus its the thought that created the house, not only because of creating the idea of the house, but also because it requires thought to use the tools and hands physically building the house. then there is this creation what you were talking of, like creating the solar system, earth and the whole universe. personally i think that we can never perceive this because we can never perceive things as they truly are, since it would require understanding things in quantum level, perfectly understanding the interactions between things, seeing the position of every atom, seeing where they came from and where its going etc etc. and because we cant perceive this, and only perceive things in very subjective point of view, its not the world that "god" created which we live in, but its the world that we created that we live in(even tho people often dont understand this and live in illusion that they see the world as it is).

i think the image of god is really an image of the human wholeness, therefore i could claim that human = god. also i think that its the subjective world that we live in, which was created by the wholeness of self, the idea that some outside force we call god would had created this world is just an illusion, which on the other hand reveals some of the truth, but is more of misconception of the truth. naturally one aspect of what people call god is the platform(and creator of it) that we live in, aka the universe(including us), but i dont think there is anything supernatural with it, its just that things that we dont properly understand are said to be magic or god, because it has helped us in our evolution.

its that being what i am is what enables me to think. thinking is what comes out of being an structure called human being, not the other way around(which is what the phrase "i think therefore i am" is suggesting)

I agree with the bolded part. But "I am therefore I think" would be saying that existing comes from thinking. Are you sure about that statement too? Are you just making the statement that we would not survive very long if we were not able to think?

What does that mean: " he had sense data"? If its a hallucination / dream then it is internally generated.
I don't understand what you're adding to the cogito argument.

I suppose that it is a matter of semantics. A hallucination would be internally generated, and a perception of one that is externally generated, but both would be evidence of existence.

The experience is all that is needed. I'm not adding much, other than saying that the evidence of existence need not have come from thought. It may require thought to recognize it and make a statement. But if I empty my mind of thought, I can still know I exist (and not state it).
 

Stanton Moore

morose bourgeoisie
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
3,900
MBTI Type
INFP
derek Jensen, in a book called 'A Language Older Than Words' says something to the effect of, If Descartes had had a lover in his room instead of a wood stove, maybe he would have decided that 'I feel, therefore I exist.' It's a valid conjecture, vis-a-vis this thread.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
But "I am therefore I think" would be saying that existing comes from thinking.

my existing comes from me thinking, because if i wouldnt think(at all or as i do), i wouldnt be me. i think you existing as you is also quite dependent of you thinking. also, there wouldnt be sense of I without thinking, so someone who says "I am" has to be someone who thinks :D
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Wasn't this answered a while back, obviously didnt read the entire thread but I thought someone summed it up succinctly earlier.

Basically for the thought to be had something has to be thinking it. Regardless of form or data. Some would say the mistake is the use of I as in myself and my ego.

But id say thinking you are you is enough, even if you are not you but part of someone or something elses you. You are still you, so some part of you exists in the you-ness.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
my existing comes from me thinking, because if i wouldnt think(at all or as i do), i wouldnt be me. i think you existing as you is also quite dependent of you thinking. also, there wouldnt be sense of I without thinking, so someone who says "I am" has to be someone who thinks :D

A person's ability to think is necessary for a person's existence? Even as a baby? or in a coma? I am trying to find the boundaries of what you believe regarding the link between existence and thought.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Wasn't this answered a while back, obviously didnt read the entire thread but I thought someone summed it up succinctly earlier.

Basically for the thought to be had something has to be thinking it. Regardless of form or data. Some would say the mistake is the use of I and in myself and my ego.

But id say thinking you are you is enough, even if you are not you but part of someone or something elses you. You are still you, so some part of you exists in the you-ness.

Yes. I believe almost everyone would say that existence is necessary for thinking, the question brought up later, however, is if thinking is necessary for existence?

In some belief systems, both would be true. But so far, it seems like these systems make use of words like "think" and "am" in ways quite different from ordinary usage.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Yes. I believe almost everyone would say that existence is necessary for thinking, the question brought up later, however, is if thinking is necessary for existence?

In some belief systems, both would be true. But so far, it seems like these systems make use of words like "think" and "am" in ways quite different from ordinary usage.

Depends on whether or not thinking is defined purely by human standards.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
derek Jensen, in a book called 'A Language Older Than Words' says something to the effect of, If Descartes had had a lover in his room instead of a wood stove, maybe he would have decided that 'I feel, therefore I exist.' It's a valid conjecture, vis-a-vis this thread.

Indeed.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Depends on whether or not thinking is defined purely by human standards.

I was using it in the way I have seen it normally used. I believe these would be human standards. I am interested in what sorts of definitions you had in mind, however.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
I was using it in the way I have seen it normally used. I believe these would be human standards. I am interested in what sorts of definitions you had in mind, however.

Well if thinking is necessary to exist we have to consider what it is we are talking about. We have no proof that a planet, or a star thinks, but we also have no proof that they dont, spurious I know but bear with me. But neither are humans and so even if they did think, it would be unrecognisable to us. So we can only know that we, or rather I as in a creature of self recognition, can think therefore I am.

So the question of thinking being necessary to exist isn't needed here because the definition is wholly human in intention. From this we can understand that the idea of existing is meant as just that; an idea. It is not existance in a literal sense. So because we can have this idea in some form, we exist.
 

Pod'lair

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
11
You are energy evolving who can think, feel, etc.

The energy exists and you are energy. But everything is energy. Therefore, you must be part of one thing. However, there may be a kind of duality going on here.
 
Top