The cogito ergo sum is an unsound argument. It can't prove that thinkers exist just because thinking takes place. — TheMadFool
One common critique of the dictum is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".[3] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
it doesn't validate the thinker of the thought; it only validates that thought occurs — javra
How does one know that thinking takes place to begin with? — javra
That established, there's a follow up question: How does one know that thinking takes place to begin with? In other words, what entitles Descartes to say "thinking is occurring"? — javra
- is abstracted from a world that, Descartes himself acknowledges could be not real. — TheMadFool
It's taking place alright. I'm thinking right now, so are you and everybody else too but as crazy as this sounds, we may not exist in the sense there may not be a thing doing the thinking. — TheMadFool
If you can't say, "this is thought now" then there is no thinking. It's an assertion of awareness. Thought is aware of its own authorship. It is fundamental to the nature of thought. — Pantagruel
Yea, but I'm not addressing this from that vantage of language realism, or some such. — javra
Right, but - again - how do we conclude that thought is taking place? — javra
aware — javra
but to infer that there's an aware-er we need the premise that says doing implies a doer in all cases of doing but [,,,] — TheMadFool
instead, we as first-person points of view are aware of any such inference, and are thereby, QED, aware beings. — javra
Hmm. Can't one be aware while devoid of thoughts? As one example, while zoning-out? But this gets into the murky issue of what one interprets by the abstraction of thought. In short, is not awareness and thought two distinct - though intimately entwined - givens? — javra
You've made an inference from "...are aware..." to "...aware beings." For this to work you need the premise 1. All doings are things that have doers to be true. — TheMadFool
If you think we should get into the mechanics of thought [...] — Pantagruel
No. Philosophy of mind is a vastly complex issue, I agree. I was only interested in whether you interpret "thought" and "awareness" to be identical. — javra
Then, if it is granted that an ameba can in its own way be aware of what is relative to itself predators and prey, and act accordingly, would you then also confer thoughts to the given ameba? — javra
First, "aware" is an adjective, not a verb. As such, it's a state of being; not a doing. — javra
being an "aware-er" — javra
I don't aware; I am aware. — javra
hought is caused by X, whereas awareness isn't caused by X but, instead, is a state of X's being ... thereby making thought and awareness ontologically distinct givens. — javra
Come to think of it, even if "aware" is an adjective - a state of being - you still must rely on the premise that asserts that being (verb) in that state implies something that can be (verb) in that state. — TheMadFool
Definition of aware (courtesy Google): having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. In other words awareness consists of the actions knowing (verb) and perceiving (verb). — TheMadFool
Also, what's the proof for the premise If in a state (awareness) then exists something that is in that state (the entity that's aware)? — TheMadFool
What's really getting me worked up [...] — TheMadFool
Definition of aware (courtesy Google): having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. In other words awareness consists of the actions knowing (verb) and perceiving (verb).
Also, what's the proof for the premise If in a state (awareness) then exists something that is in that state (the entity that's aware)? — TheMadFool
It lands on, I am consciousness, and from there it can not go any further. — Pop
Consciousness by definition is always the consciousness of something (the world). So the world does not spring of consciousness, it is a logical requirement for any consciousness. — Olivier5
OK, but here ordinary language clashes with ontology: "be" is classified as a verb, yes, but then does it make any sense to affirm that X causes - or else is an agency for - its own being (let's avoid the God's causa sui issues, please). For example, does the phrase "I am" entail that the "I" addressed causes - is an agency for - its own being? — javra
To know and to perceive are both ambiguous terms in ordinary language. We can get into this if you'd like. Knowledge by acquaintance, or else by experience - such as in knowing oneself to be happy/sad or certain/uncertain in manners devoid of inference - for example. Or seeing that apple one imagines to be: the perception of imaginary givens. I'm thinking so doing might deviate too much from the topic, though. — javra
In a state, like Texas? Or in a state of being then exists some given that is in that state of being. And who on Earth is describing this given that is as an entity?! Concepts matter here. — javra
But where did the ego get introduced? Where is the step from "There is something." to "I am aware of something."
The nature of being could be self-fulfilling, self-sufficient. — Heiko
"Cogito" is the first person singular form of "cogitare".My research, for what it's worth, shows that cogito ergo sum actually means: Thinking. Therefore I am. — TheMadFool
What I actually wanted to say is that you cannot easily exchange thought for awareness as it might change the argument. I did not read much of Descartes however.That "could be" is the key phrase. It brings into question the soundness of Descartes' argument. — TheMadFool
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.