Cogito, ergo...?

[Nucular]

Okay, for those 'staring into middle distance' occasions that happen more and more frequently throughout my day, I sometimes think about Descartes' attempt at utter and complete scepticism, when he asked - what can we really know about anything?

In the Meditations, he came up with the famous cogito ergo sum, and went from there. Which is all very well, except that, as (I think) Russell pointed out, he wrongly inferred an 'I' to do the cogitating, which doesn't necessarily follow. So all we can really know is, 'there is thought' (cogitatio est?)

Where can we go from there? For all my blank staring, I can't really get past that. From this starting point, is there anywhere else we can go? Or are we stuck with that?

[Fade]

You make the assumption that the universe is consistent and logical, and work from there.

Solipsism is a weak minded position, in my opinion. Our senses aren't 100%, but they are trustworthy enough to give us an idea of what goes on.

[Nucular]

Yeah, but the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that - we don't need to introduce any assumptions. In everyday life, and in science, I'm happy to make the assumption that the universe is logical, and that our senses are adequate to investigate it.

But we don't know that, it's an assumption - probably a correct one, but it's not as solid as cogitatio est.

Also, I don't think that's identical to solipsism: I'm also doubting the existence of my own mind. I'm not assuming the source of thought, I'm just saying that all we know at the moment is, it's there.

Can nothing else be said without assuming?

[MRC_Hans]

Well, what we can know without assuming is that the world is adamant that it exists. Anybody can try to act as if it does not for even a few hours, and they will percieve this acutely (if nothing else, they will need to pee). We can then observe the rules that the world follows, and in time we will percieve that they are quite consistent.


Hans

[Yahweh]

This topic properly illustrates the primary flaw of philosophy, logic. "You cant really know anything, it might be all an illusion" AHHH I HATE THAT!

Until we rationally conclude that everything is an illusion, the logical conclusion is everything we experience exists. But you dont really know that do yo--SHUT UP!

[CFLarsen]

"cogito cogito ergo cogito sum"

I think I think, therefore I think I am.

[Fade]

Yeah, but the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that

No you don't. As Claus put it, you think you think. You have no direct knowledge, unless you accept what your senses are telling you. Thought is simply another process in the brain. You have no insight into the workings of your own mind due to your "consciousness," in fact most people are under the mistaken impression that consciousness is something real, and tangible.

Your "thoughts" are a set of processes. The aggregate whole of them is your "mind."

[hammegk]

Either *I* think, or *I Think* is part of the The Solipsist -- who does think, right?

Or do you prefer turtles all the way up through infinity? ;)

[TheERK]

Yeah, but the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that

Originally posted by Fade


No you don't. As Claus put it, you think you think.

By claiming that he just 'thinks' that he thinks, you are validating his statement.

Basically, you're saying "You don't think, you just think that you do." Perhaps you might want to reword your reply.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Cogito ergo velcro.

I think, therefore I stick.

See, philosophy has done something for me lately!

~~Paul

[xouper]

Nucular: Yeah, but the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that

Fade: No you don't. As Claus put it, you think you think. I nominate this for the funniest line of the month. As TheERK already observed, if you think you think, then there is obviously some thinking going on. Thinking that you think also counts as thinking. Good thing I didn't have any Coke® in my mouth when I read Fade's comment. I apologize, Fade, I don't mean that as a criticism of you personally, and I hope you can see the humor in what you said.

[CFLarsen]

I did actually mean it as a joke.....;)

[Roadtoad]

Then, of course, there's Ferrari's engineers' favorite saying:

"Cogito, Ergo, Zoom..."

[Fade]

Originally posted by xouper
I nominate this for the funniest line of the month. As TheERK already observed, if you think you think, then there is obviously some thinking going on. Thinking that you think also counts as thinking. Good thing I didn't have any Coke® in my mouth when I read Fade's comment. I apologize, Fade, I don't mean that as a criticism of you personally, and I hope you can see the humor in what you said.

Think, in this case, has two different meanings. If one should accept the act of thought as fact, than one must logically conclude that all things we experience are, objectively, real.

That is the point. English prevents exact exchange of idea. It's up to you to understand.

[xouper]

Nucular: ... the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that

Fade: No you don't. As Claus put it, you think you think.

xouper: ... if you think you think, then there is obviously some thinking going on. Thinking that you think also counts as thinking.

Fade: Think, in this case, has two different meanings.How so?

[Fade]

How so?

Think can mean the process of thought. Think can also mean "believe" as in a concept. The context should have made that clear.

As I have said, language prevents me from exactly relaying to you the contents of my brain. I can try to give the groundwork, and fill in most things. However, it is always left up to the reader to understand. Language is a series of noises and symbols which we agree mean a certain thing. The English language in particular is notorious for having sounds/symbols that are the same mean several different things. You of all people should know I tend to phrase things carefully :p

Anyway.

I have always challenged the idea that one can know, for absolutely certain, that their thoughts are real, while at the same time not granting the same right to those things outside their "consciousness."

Think of it this way; what makes you, you? Where is the precise terminus from "the rest of the universe?" Why is there some core, inner being that is real, while everything else is suspect? It seems to be extremely arbitrary to me. If a sense is by nature suspect, than everything must be. A thought is just another type of sense. It's internalized, but is still, in my opinion, subject to the same criticisms and questions as those things which my eyes tell me are out there.

Why would my eyes lie to me?
Why would my skin lie to me?

By extention, why would my brain lie to me?

We are the sum of our processes.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Nucular
.....the point about "there is thought" is that we solidly know that..... You might think you solidly know that there is thought but unless you know what thought is how can you really know?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

RIGHT ON BILLY!
RIGHT ON BILLY! :cool:

[BillyJoe]

:hit: Hey HornyFrogLegs. :bricks:

(Or was that a compliment?)

[xouper]

Fade: Think can mean the process of thought. Think can also mean "believe" as in a concept. The context should have made that clear.The act of believing is also a process of thought. Doubting is also a process of thought, which is what Descartes was saying. He found he could legitimately doubt the existence of everything his senses were telling him, but when he tried doubting the existence of his doubts, he realized he could not.

Try it yourself. Can you doubt your own existance? If you do, then who is doing the doubting? This is what Descartes meant when he said, "Cogito, ergo sum."

[BillyJoe]

But he was assuming there could be such a thing as a disembodied thought.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Fade
Think of it this way; what makes you, you? Where is the precise terminus from "the rest of the universe?" Why is there some core, inner being that is real, while everything else is suspect? It seems to be extremely arbitrary to me. If a sense is by nature suspect, than everything must be. A thought is just another type of sense. It's internalized, but is still, in my opinion, subject to the same criticisms and questions as those things which my eyes tell me are out there.

Why would my eyes lie to me?
Why would my skin lie to me?

By extention, why would my brain lie to me?

We are the sum of our processes.

Ever heard of ciguaterra? (If I'm misspelling this, please help me correct this.) It's a disease carried in fish in the South Pacific. If you catch it, it makes hot things feel cold, and cold things feel hot. Some folks who get it don't live long enough to go through that part of it. But in essence, your skin "lies" to you.

(See also "Transcendence" thread, as I just covered some of this.) We may be the sum of our processes, but sometimes, the perspective is skewed, and that's a real danger. Your brain does not lie, but it also is lacking critical information, sometimes.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Fade


Think, in this case, has two different meanings. If one should accept the act of thought as fact, than one must logically conclude that all things we experience are, objectively, real.


That is not true. I'm not going to take sides here about whether or not 'thought' is an objective thing as dualists view it, but I will argue with what you're saying here.

I can experience my wall being yellow, and accept that thought as fact (my experience of yellow, that is) without even believing that the wall really is yellow.

Similarly, I can experience a hallucination, and say "yes, the experience was real", without admitting that the object of the hallucination existed physically. If I dream of a red apple, I will call my experience of the redness of the apple real, without thinking that the apple is real itself. Get my point?

Eric

[Nucular]

There's the whole behaviourist denial of subjective experience I suppose... I never really did buy into that though. I don't think that would apply here anyway - whatever thought is, whether or not it has any explanatory value or communicable nature, it's still here doing the processing. Even if that processing's wrong. Thought is still happening, even if you're a behaviourist, I think.

And I'm not arguing for dualism, it wouldn't matter what the source of that thought is - like I said, Descartes' version of dualism was based on that faulty premise.You might think you solidly know that there is thought but unless you know what thought is how can you really know? I've just being trying to come up with a definition of thought to answer that, but it's damnedly hard... I think though, that if we define thought as something like "processing of information (real or hallucinatory)" - oh but wait, what do I mean by processing? Maybe instead then... Oh Christ, I don't know.

Do we really need a definition to be able to know it exists? If it defies definition, it doesn't cease to exist. I'm not trying to make inferences about its nature, in fact I'm trying not to, and that's what makes it hard to define. I'm sure we could agree that something exists... do we need to define 'something' in order to be sure?

Heh, I just read through this post, and it doesn't sound like I thought it would when I started typing... I think I'll post this, then go away and think about it.

[Dymanic]

'Thought' is hard to define. How about something like:

"A composite of outputs from various specialized cognitive subsystems". By this definition, some low-level outputs wouldn't be 'thoughts' in and of themselves; merely fragments of thoughts; 'pre-thoughts' if you will.

Just a thought.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dymanic
'Thought' is hard to define. How about something like:

"A composite of outputs from various specialized cognitive subsystems". By this definition, some low-level outputs wouldn't be 'thoughts' in and of themselves; merely fragments of thoughts; 'pre-thoughts' if you will.

Just a thought.

It's quite a postmodern reiteration, but it doesn't help unless you're in policy debate and you want to be reeeeal specific.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well the problem is when you jettison all truth and etsablish pure skepticism, (the method of hyperbolic doubt) there literally is no way of getting out.

Descartes does try, this is true but I believe he failed.

Basically because Descartes, before he stated his famous "Cogito" threw out logic and math as doubtful. Descartes stated "sure it may seem convincing that 1 plus 1 equals 2 but a demon may be convincing me."

But then justifies his Cogito by stating that "for a demon to trick me, I must exist."

But why must Descartes exist in order to be decieved?

Well, one can answer "Because the idea of a non-existence thing being decieved is asburd, its a contradiction."

But...logic and the law of noncontradiction were already thrown out.

Hence Descartes Cogito itself is now just as doubtful as everything else. The demon may just be decieving Descartes into thinking he must exist in order to be deicieved, just like he did that 1 plus 1 must equal 2.

So the method of hyperbolic doubt does get one literally nowhere.

It is only by recognizing such doubt itself as unwarranted, questing begging and ultimately absurd that one does get anywhere at all.

[DialecticMaterialist]

But we don't know that, it's an assumption

Is there necessarily a difference? If by assumption you do mean "non-inferred belief" and not something different from knowledge by definition, which would be a meaningless tautology.

[sorgoth]

We exist. Maybe not in this form, maybe we're just part of a program and aren't truly separate entities. But there is something causing us to think. No matter what you do (you simply think you think) there IS some thought involved. And, this thought is 'you'.

And basic math can't be wrong. 1+1=2, no matter how you do it.

Of course, in the 'real' universe (assuming this one isn't), it might be hard to distinguish separate things, so the term '1' might have no meaning...But in THIS reality we are experiencing, 1+1=2.

[whitefork]

In any event, there is no reason to assume that even if there is an I that says "I think", that it persists beyond its saying "I think". The identification of the I that says "I think" today with the I that said "I think" yesterday is an unjustified leap.

Now, if you start with "I thought, therefore I was" you might have something to work with.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kullervo

Now, if you start with "I thought, therefore I was" you might have something to work with.
Yup, an interesting question -- apparent time continuity with the same "something" as the Thinker.

I speculate when *me* -- this perceiving & perceived, memory-storage unit -- is no longer available for use *I* may well lose that apparent continuity. What do you think? :confused:

[whitefork]

Continuity - facticity - historicity -

always there, always already there.

without those, there is no I.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

I speculate when *me* -- this perceiving & perceived, memory-storage unit -- is no longer available for use *I* may well lose that apparent continuity. What do you think?
Here's something from Francis Crick and Christof Koch:
We have suggested that one of the functions of consciousness is to present the result of various underlying computations and that this involves an attentional mechanism that temporarily binds the relevant neurons together by synchronizing their spikes in 40 hz oscillations.
What exactly is meant by present is not clear, but it is interesting to consider whether it is the underlying computations that are called by the attentional mechanism, or the attentional mechanism that is called by the underlying computations. If the latter case is true, then what we percieve as *I* might be the result of a re-creating, each time, on demand, of an attentional mechanism, with continuity as a result of favored use of a particular set of rules for doing that (possibly a product of a streamlining of that process necessitatied by demands for efficiency).

When the computer is off, Windows is gone. Yet it reappears on each reboot, recreated from the same set of rules.

[TLN]

Thanks all, now I have a headache. ;)

[St_Hereticus]

If there is thought, then there must also be time, no? Thought, being a process, must take place sequentially, so time must also exist.

Also, we perceive our thought as much as we perceive anything else. I believe that the experience of thought is part of the brain communicating with other parts of the brain. The question I'd like the answer to is: what part of the brain is it that perceives thought? This would seem to me to be the "I" that supposedly doesn't exist.

[Nucular]

Woah there - how do we know there's such a thing as brains? Brains are made of stuff - how do we know there's stuff?

But yeah, time, good thought... trouble is, Descartes' evil demon keeps getting the better of me, and pointing out that he could be tricking me. Could the idea that sequences (i.e. the stages of a process) require a temporal platform also be an illusion?

In fact, when we look at time in terms of the universe we perceive to exist, many things seem to operate beyond time - anything faster than the speed of light (tachyons?); particles whose actions can be as well described dancing backwards through time as forwards; malleable space-time itself. If these things can act independently of the arrow of time - which may well be dependent itself upon circumstantial things, such as inflation - then presumably, from our completely sceptical position, so could consciousness? Not to say it does, but as it stands it the moment, it could, I think?

[St_Hereticus]

Originally posted by Nucular
Could the idea that sequences (i.e. the stages of a process) require a temporal platform also be an illusion?
I don't see how. Doesn't the very notion of sequence presuppose "a temporal platform"? I'm not sure about tachyons and antimatter (which has been theorized to travel backward in time). I only mean "time" in the sense of "change", so I guess I should say that "change happens" as a consequence of "thought occurs".