Since you referenced Descartes and implied his evil demon in this thread, I'd say as long as you can doubt, you're fine.

I necessarily must ‘doubt’ to know anything at all. What is ‘known’ is known only in the sense that I appreciate it as an evolving process that cannot be held down as ‘true’. If you think about ‘knowing’ that if you relax your body you’ll fall, yet the ‘truth’ of this means I don’t spend all my seconds thinking about falling over or gravity - in some circumstances these items are more important (self preservation being one).

The ‘question’ itself is what intrigue me more than anything/

I'm taking this to another level, even further than Descartes who doubted the reliability of his perception. I'm asking you to think about your mind, i.e., think about thinking itself. Ask yourself, "What if my own cognition is distorted?" Maybe I'm not thinking straight, or perhaps I even have skewed version of reality? It's easy to point to a person who has "lost their minds", and not so easy to ask yourself, "have I lost my mind?". — Purple Pond

In psychology, this is called reality testing. Something the insane don't do much. *Happy thoughts*

てしまう

。それは

Can you trust your own mind?

Not really, because you are your consciousness, which is a virtual machine emulated inside the machine called subconsciousness. And from the consciousness point of view, being a virtual machine system, it is effectively running inside a simulator.

Although, this does not necessarily mean reality is an illusion, however we know it certainly is not the full or accurate description either, so likely it's just an abstraction, kind of like operating system graphical user interface hiding all the complexities of the underlying lower level details of the system.

You should try and live a day thinking in 3'rd person.

Shit is awesome for these disquietudes.

think about thinking itself. — Purple Pond

That's an imperative approach.

We are all fallible creatures prone to forming, having, and/or holding false belief. Other people are required - in some way, shape, or form - in order for one to become aware of their own mistakes.

Trusting our own mind is something one has no choice in doing, for the minute one surely doesn't they have arrived at insanity. Grasping one's own mind requires acquiring knowledge of not only what ones believes but where the belief originated... it's source... as well as all of the autonomous systems that the mind is itself existentially dependent upon... as well as what all thought and belief consist of, and/or require.

Baby steps.

What do you believe and why and/or how did you arrive at that belief? Here we look towards statements, claims, assertions of thought and belief. We pull out the operative foundational beliefs, the ones that are as unshakable as they can be... depending upon the individual. Some are more certain that others. It's a long road.

"My mind is absolutely unreliable". How would I proceed from there? Perhaps I can rely on someone else's mind. — Purple Pond

If your mind is absolutely unreliable, yet you ask after other minds for the reconciliation of the problem, you’ve immediately contradicted yourself, for the potential reliability of other minds cannot be given from the unreliability of your own.

What do you believe and why and/or how did you arrive at that belief?

Problem is much deeper, it's called "symbol grounding problem". We don't know where do we get the meaning for anything at all. We don't really know what the word "meaning" actually means.

Doubt any thought process that leads you to believe your thinking is globally unreliable. Either that thought process is reliable or it isn't, if it's reliable then there is at least one reliable thought process; if it isn't reliable then the claim that your thought process is globally unreliable is unreliable.

We always have to rely on something to get going in a process of reasoning; but relying on how things are is only one part of our thoughts and actions. Instead I believe that the more interesting properties of thought processes are to what degree they enable discoveries and dispel distortions; to what degree the process of thought is productive.

As a rough rule of thumb, a thought process tends to be productive when:
(1) It is genuinely interested in a subject matter.
(2) It takes care to stay relevant to a subject matter.
(3) It is aware of its own limitations regarding the scope of its consideration of the subject matter.
(3a) global doubt can't be aware in this way, it ranges over all thought, belief and justification as if that
were all there is. It suspends connection with any subject matter while remaining connected with itself; a performative contradiction. Beware of greedy operating principles; framing devices, methodologies; they
have a habit of transforming the subject matter (generating irrelevancies) rather than interacting
with it (generating relevant thoughts).
(4) Its operating principles can be checked to see if they are helpful in dealing with the subject matter.
(4a) global doubt can't check any operating principles, except that it can't check them. It is entirely
unproductive.

We don't know where do we get the meaning for anything at all. We don't really know what the word "meaning" actually means. — Zelebg

Some of us do.

Some of us do.

Go ahead then, say it.

"It"...

Suppose I muster the courage to say, "My mind is absolutely unreliable". How would I proceed from there? — Wheatley

You can't.

Besides, without grounds to claim this, or to doubt your own mind (pace Descartes), this question is unwarranted (as well as a performative contradiction à la "I doubt I exist") and merely neurotic.

What does: "My mind is absolutely unreliable" even mean?
Presumably you are capable of tying your own shoelaces, typing a post to a forum and walking in a straight line (most days anyway)... so what more do you want?

The notion that everything one perceives or believes or knows is somehow perfectly 'true' is naive.

But if you can get through the day without banging into walls or babbling nonsense.. (actually skip that bit about babbling nonsense) then that is all the reliability that is required of a mind. Or do you expect something more?

Does this OP make sense? I don't know, I don't trust my own mind, so I leave it to you. — Wheatley

Sowing the seeds of doubt...eh...Mr. Thomas...I mean Wheatley?

I'm no fan of religion although I do recognize there's something compelling about it. I believe there's a mystery in religion that needs more detailed investigation.

Anyway...

Religion is the best place to start discussing doubt. Does religion not represent the paragon of certainty? Religion, no matter what its form, is claimed to be truth.

For the sake of simplicity and ease of relatability let's talk about doubting Thomas.

Thomas, if anything, represents the quintessential skeptic, refusing to believe in the resurrection. He is said to have run his finger through the crucifixion wounds of Jesus to, well, confirm that Jesus had, in fact, risen from the dead.

Perhaps in Thomas we can find an answer to your question. What was he doing, "poking" another man, here Jesus?

In my humble opinion the great Thomas was looking for what seems to completely forgotten outside of academia viz. evidence. Said otherwise he was using logic.

Yes, logic is limited by the premises it is fed and that is in fact the primary concern here but many, if not most, claims are amenable to verification and rational analysis. I guess I'm saying the mind can't be trusted but logic is the cure for that. Not perfect I agree but not that bad either.

Can a person, for example, doubt the reliability of their own minds? — Wheatley

Personally, I constantly remind myself of the vast scope of "cognitive biases", mental prejudices to misinterpret data in specific ways, and make an extra effort towards self-awareness and objectivity. The deck is definitely stacked against unbiased thought.

"My mind is absolutely unreliable". How would I proceed from there? — Wheatley

One carries on regardless, because one's mind is absolutely unreliable.

Or else one stops and does not proceed.

It's easy to point to a person who has "lost their minds", and not so easy to ask yourself, "have I lost my mind?". — Wheatley

Tell me, how would you then define a perfectly sound mind? Assuming it is so easy to spot which minds in the crowd have been lost, the opposite effect by this logic must be equally true.

Suppose I muster the courage to say, "My mind is absolutely unreliable". How would I proceed from there? Perhaps I can rely on someone else's mind. — Wheatley

In fact we do. I'm not worried about my own mind's reliability. There are plenty of markers around to remind us that we are just imagining things or what we believe is what's true. Nature, for one, has been an excellent guide. Have you really doubted nature's clock?
Mathematics is an excellent guide as well. The bridge will stand and safe to drive over. It is reliable to lease a building for 15 years. None of these happen by luck.

The only thing that's unreliable is luck.

Perhaps I can rely on someone else's mind. I think I can. In fact I think we do it all the time, we rely on experts, people who's minds are reliable (albeit in that specific expertise) — Wheatley

In the process of deciding who is an expert and that their minds are reliable (in that specific expertise) you are trusting you own mind.

Surely the only way we can, or ever could. live is by provisional hypotheses and habit? If our minds aren't in reasonably reliable contact with the world, what answer but treatment or suicide?

Re: Can you trust your own mind?

What is the "you" that is being referred to in this sentence? Is the mind something that is separate from the "you", and is something that the "you" owns?

2.5k

Re: Can you trust your own mind?

What is the "you" that is being referred to in this sentence? Is the mind something that is separate from the "you", and is something that the "you" owns? — Harry Hindu

I took it to mean 'perceptions and conclusions'. People can clearly see and hear things that aren't, for the rest of us, there at all. We must assume we need confirmation for our world-view, I suppose.

I took it to mean 'perceptions and conclusions'. People can clearly see and hear things that aren't, for the rest of us, there at all. We must assume we need confirmation for our world-view, I suppose. — iolo

So the question can be re-written as "Can perceptions and conclusions trust the perceptions' and conclusions' own mind?"? How does that make any sense?

I'm asking what the "you" is that is having trouble trusting it's "mind" - whatever the mind is if it isn't "you".

It is a linguistic problem, I suppose. The language s we inherit from our distant forebears require an 'I', and we assume it must stand for something. None of it makes any sense whatever as far as I can see.