the world is our interpretation of this information, rather than an accurate integration of the facts of the world as they might exist. — Pop

I think we all know instinctively that the world can disagree with us, that it can very well contradict our interpretations of it. The facts of the world impose themselves on us.

"Cogito" is the first person singular form of "cogitare". — Heiko

:up: :ok:

What I actually wanted to say is that you cannot easily exchange thought for awareness as it might change the argument. — Heiko

The crux of Descartes' argument is that if an action is being performed then, for him, necessarily the existence of a thing performing that action - thinking, ergo, thinker.

Come to think of it, there's something else wrong with Descartes' cogito ergo sum. It's backwards. What comes first in an existential sense? An action or an actor, a doing or a doer?

Consider first the matter of a not-real or hypothetical world. There are actions like (switch off your religious side and forget your encyclopedic knowledge of superhero lore for the moment) levitating, resurrecting from the dead, becoming invisible, shrinking to ant-size, etc. are actions that, well, precede the existence of anything that can actually, in real-life, do them.

However, in real-life, in the real world, an actor (a doer) exists before actions (doing). In other words, in the real world, you wouldn't and you couldn't speak of an action without there being an actor capable of that action. In other words, every action in the real world comes prepackaged, so to speak, with the implicit acceptance of the existence of an actor.

In other words, Descartes can't claim the action thinking if he hasn't already assumed the existence of a thinker. If this isn't the case then Descartes' would have to admit that thinking doesn't necessarily mean that there's a thinker but if he does that his argument doesn't work. To conclude, Descartes' has assumed the very thing he's trying to prove. I think this error in Descartes' logic is exposed in the English translation of cogito ergo sum viz. I think. Therefore, I am. The I seems to be inseparable from, is part of, is presupposed in, thinking. I'm not completely sure about this. Thanks to Descartes and his radical skepticism. Mind if you take a look at it and get back to me.

:chin: Cogitations on 'The Cogito' - some old threads via my posts:

"But there is no such substratum; there is no 'being' behind doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction added to the deed - the deed is everything."
— Freddy Zarathustra
— 180 Proof

(emphasis is mine)

'I cannot doubt that I'm doubting'? Yeah, big whup ... There are no grounds, René, to doubt everything else in toto, and it's this lack of grounds for doubting of which (my) certitude consists (Witty). Sorry Monsieur - 'radical doubt' is a performative contradiction (i.e. global skepticism is self-refuting). Or, if one prefers, 'my doubting' - with or without grounds - presupposes (my) existence (i.e. ontological nihilism is self-refuting (Spinoza)). In sum: 'The Cogito' doesn't prove anything that needs to be proven. — 180 Proof

What existential, factual or formal grounds did Descartes have to "doubt everything"?

re: "paper doubts" ...

[ ... ] — 180 Proof

Descartes' main problem, for some, appears to be his nationality.

There is a different quality to thinking than to perceiving. For example, one cannot decide to hear something or not, but can decide to think about something.

There is a different quality to thinking than to perceiving. For example, one cannot decide to hear something or not, but can decide to think about something. — Heiko

Indeed there is and thank you for pointing that out but what's its relevance to the topic? What about ear plugs and closing one's eyes or blindfolds?

one cannot decide to hear something or not, but can decide to think about something. — Heiko

Yes, one can direct one's thoughts to a degree, or at least it feels this way, and this is a big reason why we identify with 'our' thoughts. We have some control over them, while we have no control over quite a few other things 'out there', things which, as a result, we don't identify with.

What about ear plugs and closing one's eyes or blindfolds? — TheMadFool

Or just shooting the tweeting bird. Sounds like an idea!

Or just shooting the tweeting bird. Sounds like an idea! — Heiko

A macabre choice to make but it'll do the trick...I guess.

A macabre choice to make but it'll do the trick...I guess. — TheMadFool

Question then would be how to get it back singing on demand.

Question then would be how to get it back singing on demand. — Heiko

The problem then would be if it's changed its tune. :lol:

The problem then would be if it's changed its tune. — TheMadFool

Must be a different bird then.

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

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

Well, as I see it, the English translation of cogito ergo sum viz. I think. Therefore, I am, is slightly inaccurate. My research, for what it's worth, shows that cogito ergo sum actually means: Thinking. Therefore I am. — TheMadFool

A disingenuous answer to the issue at hand. My point is that in the phrase "it is" the being (verb) addressed is not a doing: the specified "it" doesn't do the specified "is".

Your retort is to tell me the obvious about what the cogito translates into.

My issue is with premise 1 and I've already said what I wanted to say. Your point concerns argument 2. — TheMadFool

No it is not. I agree that argument 2 is faulty.

Let's look at the issue of awareness from a different angle. In my humble opinion, if one is aware, necessary that one doing something with one's mind e.g. thinking, perceiving, etc. — TheMadFool

You've here gone off into abstractions regarding awareness rather than sticking to concrete instantiations of its first-person occurrence - with the latter including, for example, an immediate awareness of one's own emotive states of being (e.g., being happy/sad), this in addition to perceptions, sensations, and understandings.

Mind, however, is an abstraction whose occurrence can be doubted. Some eliminative materialists do so often enough.

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

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

Read above. — TheMadFool

Another disingenuous answer to the issue addressed.

You want to avoid the issue of awareness and stick to the "I think therefore I am" argument, go for it. As I stated in my first post on this thread, I too find Descartes' cogito to be possible to doubt in practice.

I've seen no evidence that the world cannot exist without consciousness in it. In fact, it must have started as a totally stupid universe. — Olivier5

I appreciate the paradigm you are coming from, but to what extent can something exist independent of a viewer / interpreter? And that the world develops such that inanimate matter becomes animated, and conscious, brings into question the stupidity of the universe, I believe.

I think, we have to start, as Descartes did, with; I think, therefore I am, and so the world is, and so on.
Today we can start with I am consciousness, and explore the world from its most fundamental perspective, in my opinion.

I think, we have to start, as Descartes did, with; I think, therefore I am, and so the word is, and so on. — Pop

But that is an implication that does not bear any information about the nature of being. Maybe Descartes was only the hallucination of a higher entity. As far as we can tell he died at some time and hence stopped thinking and disappeared just as hallucinations do. I guess it is time to sleep now.

to what extent can something exist independent of a viewer / interpreter? — Pop

I have no evidence that things disappear when I don't look at them. In fact, conservation of mass and energy requires that the existence of things does not depend on them being observed or not.

brings into question the stupidity of the universe, — Pop

Not really. It's more that everything that can happen does happen, given enough time.

I think, we have to start, as Descartes did, with; I think, therefore I am, and so the word is, and so on. — Pop

Yes, that's where everybody starts.

But that is an implication that does not bear any information about the nature of being — Heiko

It suggests that consciousness is the fundamental element of being from which everything else must be interpreted.

Not really. It's more that everything that can happen does happen, given enough time. — Olivier5

I think you dismiss this too easily. In my theory, consciousness = self organization. That everything that can happen dose happen, given enough time, is due entirely to self organization.

It suggests that consciousness is the fundamental element of being from which everything else must be interpreted. — Pop

You have not said anything about what "being" shall mean in this context either. Descartes concludes
"I think => I am" which is called a material implication. So "being" must be given to "think". On the other hand "being" would be possible without thinking - as there is no equivalence relation.

You have not said anything about what "being" shall mean in this context either. — Heiko

It implies that being is a function of consciousness. Consciousness must decide what consciousness is, and being is a function of that. Being is not a fixed quantity, it evolves with consciousness. It is endlessly variable and open ended.

In my theory consciousness = self organization, so being will always entail self organization, but what form this self organization takes is variable.

It implies that being is a function of consciousness. — Pop

And I told you how I think that sentence is to be interpreted. "therefor" is a formal conclusion.

And I told you how I think that sentence is to be interpreted. "therefor" is a formal conclusion. — Heiko

Are you arguing that being is a fixed quantity? Being evolves with consciousness, in my view. It has changed throughout history, and will continue to evolve, as we aquire new information.

Are you arguing that being is a fixed quantity? — Pop

I am arguing that from
1. A=>B and
2. A
B can be concluded.

I am arguing that from
1. A=>B and
2. A
B can be concluded. — Heiko

I have not disagreed with this. I have simply stated that B will continue to vary with A. B is not a fixed quantity, it varies with A.

I have simply stated that B will continue to vary with A. — Pop

Okay, you didn't take this from the text, though. In fact, in the example given above, B may apply while A does not.

B may apply while A does not. — Heiko

It would be impossible to reach such a conclusion without consciousness, hence we start with consciousness.

It would be impossible to reach such a conclusion without consciousness, hence we start with consciousness. — Pop

Okay, and... do you make the conclusion?

Okay, and... do you make the conclusion? — Heiko

I think its fairly obvious that all is ineffable without consciousness, beyond this I'm not really sure what you are asking?

I think its fairly obvious that all is ineffable without consciousness, beyond this I'm not really sure what you are asking? — Pop

Oh, that's really Descartes matter, I guess. He lands at "being", not at thinking. He did not state a tautology.

He lands at "being", not at thinking — Heiko

I think its a matter of interpretation. I believe he could have gone further, and landed on consciousness, but then he would have challenged the soul and the clergy, so we have what we have.

I think its a matter of interpretation. I believe he could have gone further, and landed on consciousness, but then he would have challenged the soul and the clergy, so we have what we have. — Pop

So... you do not arrive where you started? Then it was a step forward!