I was wondering, if "I exist" sole on the basis of thinking (all realms of thinking), how would I know that I'm think or what if something is controlling my thinking. When I sleep, it's scientifically proven that my body has autonomic processes for breathing, and other processes (or sleep walking for other people). How can I prove that I, in fact, am thinking? *In regards to Renes Descartes' Meditations 2. — dakota
At some point the boundary of knowledge is just axioms and presuppositions. To escape from the possibility of an infinite cascade of, "How do I know (that I know (that I know...)...)... you take a different tack. For example, define "know/knowing"; assume that you know, and attempt to find a contradiction, or confirmation. In this sense I would call all knowing, knowing in consequence of.......how would I know... — dakota
You are directly aquainted with the fact that you are thinking. It is right there before your mind, and when something is before the mind in this way, there is just nothing more you could want by way of proof. — PossibleAaran
But if it is 'before your mind' then you are not directly acquainted with it. We would have two separate things, subject (your mind) and object (your thought). 'Consciousness' would then just be another object of perception and we certainly can doubt any object of perception. Or if we can't, why wouldn't it apply equally to any object before our mind? 'I see a doughnut, therefore I exist'. — Londoner
In practice I am always conscious-of some thing, I am always thinking-of some thing. — Londoner
To conclude from 'I think' that 'I exist' — Londoner
If we remember that the object of the exercise is the 'I am' bit, then the problem with saying: when you are acquainted with the thought "the bacon smells good", it makes no sense to doubt that you are thinking that thought is that it doesn't explain what is meant by that 'you'. Indeed, there is no need for a 'you' to be involved at all, that reaction to the bacon need be no different in kind to a chemical reaction, where we find no need to posit that there is a 'you' within each chemical that is 'having' that reaction. Or, if we did extend 'you' to such things, that is not the sort of 'you' we were trying to get to, the one with 'consciousness'.
I think it only works the other way round. We must start from 'I am'. How do I know I am? I just do; I have no choice. If I say things like 'I think' it is only because it is founded on an already existing sense of myself, as something that does things. As I say at the beginning; 'I think...' is predicated on that 'I', there can be no 'think' without an 'I', so the 'I' cannot be the conclusion. — Londoner
It seems to me that we are begging the question, as does the formulation 'I think therefore I am'.
What sort of argument is that? Plainly, the conclusion is entailed in the premise! So is the bit after 'therefore' telling us something new? Is 'I am' something more than 'this thought'? If it is, we need something more, some additional premise. Or is it only saying 'I' is synonymous with 'this thought'? — Londoner
Because, if it is only meant as a synonym, that 'I' seems to quickly take on extra meanings. For example, we shift to talking of 'consciousness', something that is distinct to the 'thought' , we have 'awareness', we have 'particular thoughts', all of which are assuming notions of perception, of personal continuity through time, that were not there in the single original 'a thought'. — Londoner
Indeed, there is no need for a 'you' to be involved at all, that reaction to the bacon need be no different in kind to a chemical reaction, where we find no need to posit that there is a 'you' within each chemical that is 'having' that reaction. Or, if we did extend 'you' to such things, that is not the sort of 'you' we were trying to get to, the one with 'consciousness'. — Londoner
how would I know that I'm think or what if something is controlling my thinking. — dakota
I was wondering, if "I exist" sole on the basis of thinking (all realms of thinking), how would I know that I'm think or what if something is controlling my thinking. — dakota
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.