When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. His body could be a figment of his thoughts. There is no doubt that one's consciousness exists. — Ree Zen

It's even more serious than this. How did Descartes establish there was an "I" doing the thinking? He made some assumptions even here. A more accurate exclamation might have been, 'There is thinking."

When Descartes exclaimed "I think therefore I am, he proved the existence of his mind," not his body. — Ree Zen

Please use "Quote" to give me the exact reference to what I have said. Because I don't remember having ever said that Descartes, with this or any other statement, proved the existence of his body!

It's even more serious than this. How did Descartes establish there was an "I" doing the thinking? He made some assumptions even here. A more accurate exclamation might have been, 'There is thinking." — Tom Storm

(BTW, I have never said or left be implied that Descartes proved the existence of this body, as @Ree Zen mentioned.)

Interesting point. However, the existence of "I" is not based on an assumption. It is self-evident. I am aware of being aware. That's the proof --for me-- that I exist. And if you need a proof for yourself too, I could ask you, "Whom are you talking with?". And if this is not a "hard" evidence, I could make it harder: by kicking you. You will feel that kick and you will know for sure that I exist, and you will never ask me that again! :grin:

Then, stating "There is thinking", as you say, brings questions like, "Where?", "Who claims that?", "OK, but what does that prove?", etc. It's also a circular argument/reasoning, because saying "There is thinking" is itself a thought, i.e. it comes from thinking.

"There is thinking and a world that I perceive. I stands between them. I is the body."

(BTW, I have never said or left be implied that Descartes proved the existence of this body, as Ree Zen mentioned.) — Alkis Piskas

Never said you did. :smile:

Interesting point. However, the existence of "I" is not based on an assumption. It is self-evident. I am aware of being aware. That's the proof --for me-- that I exist — Alkis Piskas

I get that common sense seems to indicate an "I" in daily living, which we may well have to presuppose is true to function in the reality we seem to be in, so we can certainly stop here. But this only goes so far. Even Nietzsche said of the cogito that there was an unjustifiable presupposition that there was an I.

And just to be a pain, and I don't know where I sit on this - Descartes went to all the trouble of imagining that an evil demon might have tricked him into seeing a fake world, but he never went the whole way to wonder what if the thoughts he was having were inserted by the same demon? Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? Thought insertion and the sense that your mind isn't really yours is a common experience.

Not that Heidegger is popular around here, but my shallow, incomplete reading of him suggests that the Cartesean distinction between subject and object are open to question. Heidegger appears to reject this distinction and posit that there is no subject distinct from the external world of things. He challenges the very idea of subjectivism and individualism that emerged from the cogito. All this means is that some very smart thinkers have taken the cogito in ways alien to Descartes' conclusion. I don't have the ability to tell for certain which view is the more accurate account. But I can say which one is more useful. :razz:

Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? — Tom Storm

I saw one in the mirror! She thought she was me... I told her not to talk nonsense.

Never said you did — Tom Storm

I know! But the quote by @Ree Zen's that you brought up was an anwer to me and leads back to me! (OK, I'm a little sensitive to being attributed statements I have never made, esp. if they are false! :grin:)

Even Nietzsche said of the cogito that there was an unjustifiable presupposition that there was an I. — Tom Storm

I see. But there a lot f things Nietzsche has said that I don't agree with! :smile:

Descartes went to all the trouble of ... — Tom Storm

OK, I think enough is said about Descartes ... I have not even mentioned him in my present topic!

Ever met anyone with schizophrenia? Thought insertion and the sense that your mind isn't really yours is a common experience. — Tom Storm

Only in movies! :smile: But, not only schizophrenics, a lot who suffer from severe mental illnesses have no sense of themselves; they are not aware that they exist. Their mind is just messed up.

As you see, I avoid using "I" or "self" as concepts, because they only create confusion, misunderstandings and trouble! I prefer using "YOU", "ME" etc. referring to real and concrete things: human beings, persons, myself, yourself, ourselves, ... This clears up a lot of things because one has to think in real terms: personal experiences, examples in life, etc.

All this means is that some very smart thinkers have taken the cogito in ways alien to Descartes' conclusion. — Tom Storm

If you mean that they misunderstood Descartes' thoughts, ideas and conclusions, I can really believe it. That's why I never rely on what known philosophers or "experts" say. I prefer to use my own positions on a subject --if I have any-- and talk with persons based on their own positions. Some depend only on quotes by and positions of philosophers to provide arguments in a discussion. And very often, they bring in quotes that are either false or have never been actually said by the person: E.g. the famous "I know that I know nothing" is know to never having been actually said by Socrates! :smile:

My intention was only to prove that the belief of "We are our bodies" is nonsensical and unsubstantiated. — Alkis Piskas

So, the rest of your statement not withstanding, this appears to be your conclusion. In which case I am going to have to assert the fact that this is complete nonsense. To assert that you are not your body, one would have to provided instances of oneself existing outside of one's body. The illusion that you are highlighting is little more than the human brain and its structures (all a part of the body, mind you), operating in unison to provide the body with consciousness capable of, in particular, superior pattern processing - info on that can be found here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4141622/ - And which is little more a higher form of cognitive trackinf of patterns of reality, which the body is a part of. The brain is perceiving it's own body in a manner that can be reliably patternized; that is perception of all objective patterns, not "the self." The self is the sum total of all biological systems that distinguish human life from all other forms of life, both in terms of species and in terms of individual members of the same species. Each human is itself and is perceiving itself and is perceiving other humans. The issue you are highlighting is a non-issue. It's not that we are our bodies, it's that we can be nothing OTHER than our bodies and all of that which comprises us, including self-perception. Hope that helps.

-G