The sad thing is a lot of people out there would concur with that interpretation. — Whickwithy

Yes, its rusted in to the psychie. Its interesting that Descartes was one of the first people to consider self organization. I appropriated it from abiogenesis theory, and a few insights of my own. It works as a panpsychic definition of consciousness, but could stand a little more honing in regards to why it should occur. I have a theory of consciousness here, It is just a sketch, and incomplete, and even a few months after completion I can see blunders.

As I ponder, I sometimes wonder about our wonder. I would go a step further on panpsychism. It is almost as if the universe desires to be sensed in all its wonder. — Whickwithy

I have a similar feeling. As an element of the universe I can guarantee it. :smile:

Humanity's sentience has changed the game. It is no longer just a genetic improvement in self-organization. It is a conscious improvement on self-organization. — Whickwithy

From the Philosophical Zombie argument it is sentience / emotion, that creates consciousness, not computation. If consciousness = self organization, then self organization might be sentient ( emotional ) in some way.

You can direct your reply, by hovering the cursor next to the time indicator at the bottom of a thread, and clicking the reply arrow that pops up.

even a few months after completion I can see blunders. — Pop

Hahahahaha! Yeah. I know the feeling.

Are you equating sentience and emotion? I equate sentience with heightened awareness. I think our normally jumbled emotions as a race of beings is predicated on the blur that is applied to our sentient awareness that we have yet to overcome. I was just mentioning paradigms and blurring of our sentience in another thread. This is running parallel. We've got so much nonsense stuffed in our heads from childhood that we can't see a true vista yet.

Thanks for the insight on replying.

Are you equating sentience and emotion? I equate sentience with heightened awareness — Whickwithy

Yes I was. It is a wider concept, but one enabled by feelings / emotions.

We've got so much nonsense stuffed in our heads from childhood that we can't see a true vista yet. — Whickwithy

Yes, it takes a long time to sift through all that baggage to arrive at an understanding one can have some confidence in, but the process never ends. Understanding is never complete. It seems whatever one focuses on, more information can be extracted and understanding can be improved.

Yeah, I'd just like humanity to get past all of the boulders of nonsense paradigms that are absorbed in our youth. What a train wreck it causes regarding everything.

I guess I've always thought of emotions as an extension of our heightened awareness.

I guess I've always thought of emotions as an extension of our heightened awareness. — Whickwithy

I suspect emotions / feelings are the fundamental force that causes behavior , as per the Philosophical Zombie argument. I'm certain all life possesses them to some degree, what I wonder is if all life possesses them, why shouldn't everything else in the universe posses them? Of course I have no solid evidence for this - yet! :grin:

I think therefore I am. — Pop

No interpretation is necessary. It is exactly as stated.

No interpretation is necessary. It is exactly as stated. — MondoR

But why do you think, and what exactly are you? I bet you are a different person today then you were 5 years ago, or 10, 20, 30, etc....years ago.

But why do you think, and what exactly are you? I bet you are a different person today then you were 5 years ago, or 10, 20, 30, etc....years ago. — Pop

Why do we think? That is a different question. Probably to create something new was opposed to not thinking and being absolutely stagnant - and bored.

We are an accumulation of all of our experiences, both at a micro and macro level. So yes, We think, therefore we are.

We are an accumulation of all of our experiences — MondoR

Exactly. We are an evolving process of self organization. We are not a static - I am. We think because we are conscious, there is no choice in the matter. We must evolve with the change we experience.

For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Does it work for you? — Pop

I follow you up until the last couple words. How about simply an "evolving process"? Which is to say: something which is constantly changing. I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. But if we're constantly changing, then isn't that saying we're temporal?

So: "I am constant change" or "I am temporal." But then the question is: what is this "I" and, more importantly, what is the "am" (the sum)?

Maybe instead it should be something like: "I am." The "I" implies a split, a separation between one "thing" and "thingness" in general. So yet another way to formulate it would be simply "existence" or "there-ness" or "am-ness." No need for an "I."

As far as consciousness goes -- true, we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.

Why? Because, as you know, we're not conscious of 99.9999999999% of the world, including our own bodies and, in fact, our behavior -- which psychology has shown to largely be habitual and automatic.

So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative.

These aren't easy questions, but you're right to take up Descartes as a good starting point.

I like and agree with most of what you say. We are not that far apart. :smile:

I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. — Xtrix

The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe.

As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable. — Xtrix

We have to start with consciousness. We have to start at the foundation and build from there. Of course there is so little we know, and so much to be learned, and so much change yet to be experienced. But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion.

So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative. — Xtrix

I think therefore I am, is one of these habitual and rusted in tenets of western thought. It is synonymous with Cartesian dualism. It is not the deepest understanding of self that can be obtained, and I am interested in exploring other options, and better understandings. What exactly we are is not likely to be an object ( I am ), but an evolving process of self organization. We will change over time, in response to the change in circumstances we find ourselves in.

The bright side is that consciousness ( an evolving process of self organization ) is endlessly variable, but is completely open ended - it has no upper limit. :starstruck: So it is worth exploring, in my opinion.

The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe. — Pop

OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means.

As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.
— Xtrix

We have to start with consciousness. — Pop

I once thought this way, and of course in some respects (as I mentioned) it HAS to be true -- how can we even talk about whether we're conscious or unconscious without being conscious? Etc. But what I was getting at is whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, in epistemological or "knowing" relations with the world -- particularly as a subject, with sensations and perceptions (representations) of some "outside" object, which the tradition has thought of us as being (since at least Descartes). I'm not questioning whether those relations exist, just whether they're primary or not. I think there're good (and "common sense") reasons to believe they're not.

But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. — Pop

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.

I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion. — Pop

Very true -- but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? Or, better: what of the actions that we're awake and conscious for (in a way), but which we do without attention -- like driving? I can drive and hardly be conscious of what my foot is doing. Sometimes I arrive at a place while being completely lost in thought.

Martin Heidegger used to talk about turning the doorknob to get into the classroom. What about these kinds of actions? Perhaps starting there will tell us something about what we are, besides what we are conscious of, what we know, and what we think?

OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means. — Xtrix

I can not say I understand the metaphysics of self organisation either. I'm only just beginning to understand it. I can say that it is a process that creates a self, and preserves a self in relation to the information surrounding and effecting the self - hence self organisation.

whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, — Xtrix

Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. This would not be the flexible self awareness that we enjoy, but likely an inflexible / totally dedicated to self organization - force like process, that maintains a consolidation of information, energy, and matter, that has differentiated itself from other similar consolidations surrounding the self. So first and foremost a self has to be created, then maintained. I cannot see how this is different to our own consciousness, in respect to its primary function.

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out. — Xtrix

He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. I deeply suspect his final construction was in part politically expedient, given the context of the times. Also very significantly, I think therefore I am, preserves the self, whilst I am consciousness, challenges the self and the Ego, and results in a very different understanding, as was the case in eastern philosophy.

but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? — Xtrix

This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry:

whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity,
— Xtrix

Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. — Pop

That's fine. Assuming we know what self-organization is, it could plausibly account for abiogenesis and the concept of the "self," and even consciousness generally. But we don't fully know what consciousness is, so describing a mechanism isn't yet telling us much. Furthermore, as I mentioned, it's arguable whether "consciousness" (in the sense of awareness of anything whatsoever) is really sufficient to define a human being, when so much of our lives are unconscious (looking strictly at what we typically do).

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.
— Xtrix

He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. — Pop

This is why I was referring:

"By the word 'thought', I understand all those things which occur in us while we are conscious, insofar as the consciousness of them is in us. And so not only understanding, willing, and imagining, but also sensing, are here the same as thinking. For if I say, I see, or I walk, therefore I am; and if I recognize this from seeing or from walking which is performed by the body; the conclusion is not absolutely certain: because (as often happens in dreams) I can think that I am seeing or walking, even though I may not open my eyes, and may not be moved from my place; and indeed, even though I may perhaps have no body. But if I deduce this from the action of my mind, or the very sensation or consciousness of seeing or of walking; the conclusion is completely certain, for it then refers to the mind which alone perceives or thinks that it is seeing or walking." - Principles of Philosophy, Part 1 section 9: "What thought is." —

but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness?
— Xtrix

This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry: — Pop

Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields.

Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative.

So while Descartes doesn't necessarily take up Aristotle's zoon echon logon (rational animal), he will essentially say we're "conscious things" or the "res cogitans" (thinking/ conscious substance"; a.k.a., "minds"). Not long afterward, we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.

Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields. — Xtrix

Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing.

Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative. — Xtrix

It is unconscious activity, but highly self organized activity. I am a process of Self organization acknowledges what you have stated, whereas; " I think therefore I am " does not.

we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards. — Xtrix

Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile:

I'm certain all life possesses them to some degree — Pop

I wouldn't go so far as to say all life has emotions (I'm thinking of amoeba, bacteria, etc here). But, certainly animals and such.

I wouldn't go so far as to say all life has emotions (I'm thinking of amoeba, bacteria, etc here). — Whickwithy

The way I understand it, self organization occurs when, enabled by intrinsic qualities, disparate materials integrate and start acting as a unit. They form a self that is biased to be - biased to continue existing in the newly integrated form, rather then to disintegrate to their former form - a bias is emotional information.

In more evolved life forms, such as Bacteria, Amoeba, etc, the bias to be, or the will to live is clearly evident. The bias to be most likely forms the basic code of DNA shared by all of life. "Neurotransmitters acetylcholine and biogenic amines dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine are present not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms." - Neurotransmitters In Plant Life, V.V. Roshchina.

A bacterium would likely possess the equivalent emotional experience of a single human cell, but a person experiences the collective emotional experience of ten trillion cells, in my opinion.

Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing. — Pop

Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum.

we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.
— Xtrix

Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile: — Pop

Why not call it "being," then?

Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum. — Xtrix

There are very few things we understand definitively. The chap in the video below has a much more advanced handle on it then I do. The first 10 mins is relevant to your question.

I think therefore I am.

Thinking is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is the fundamental activity and thinking being its result. So the sentence can be rephrased:

I am conscious therefore I am.

This is closer to the truth, but now the sentence highlights what was implicit and inconsistent in the original phrase –there are two identities where there can only be one.
I am conscious and therefore I am. It can be rephrased:

I am consciousness - the therefore I am, is superfluous - what I am is consciousness.

I like it. It now cannot be reduced any further, and it is closer to the truth of our being. I believe, at its base. I like the way it does away with false identity and equalizes and unifies everyone.
What do you think? Is it logical?

For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Dose it work for you?

The construction is a challenge to the notion of identity and its product the ego, so an exploration of this might lead to insights about human nature. — Pop

Emerson in Self Reliance says "Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage."

If this is, as I believe (as does Stanley Cavell), a critique of Descartes, Emerson has taken out the "therefore"; our identity/existence is not contingent (on consciousness, on thought--on anything). But what is left is a standing up for ourselves. As it were in Emerson's example, I no longer speak from others mouths. I am saying this! I am claiming myself! "I am an evolving process of self organization!" Yes!, you be you. But this identifying is not ego, so much as a courageous carving out for ourselves (even if aligning with others, along party lines, against our mother, etc.). It is the opposite of "equalizing and unifying". A ramification of this active claiming is that: not everyone thinks, or is. If you want to be, if you want to be said to be thinking--something must be done! Being and thinking are not given, ever-present states of the human condition; sometimes we act like others without consideration, speak their opinions; some are even ghosts of themselves, lost to themselves. We are not ensured or given; there is only the possibility to think, to be.

Hi, thanks for engaging. The term "self organization" is universally accepted in abiogenesis theory as the cause of life. It is a notion that goes back a long way, even Descartes dabbled with it, but in the modern era , Chilean biologist and philosopher Humberto Maturana is widely cited as its originator, within the Santiago theory of cognition. He and his followers use the term autopoiesis, which really is just self organization as it pertains to biological systems. I came to understand the term, in its deepest sense, whilst trying to understand consciousness. Prof Neil Theise is the best commentator on the topic that i have found. He takes the Santiago theory of cognition, and marries it to panpsychism, and the result is a complete theory of life and consciousness, within a monistic panpsychist universe.

The way I understand it, and put very simply, the universe is in a state of self organization, and thus so too must be all of its component parts - including ourselves. That every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization was a difficult thing to get my head around, within the context of Cartesian / materialistic anthropocentrism. It took a long time to warm to the idea, to break free of prevalent thought, and to accept something logical that makes sense - that integrates and unifies the universe. Self organization is not something we can break free from, or step aside from, even in pure self aware reflection we are self organizing. This perspective has very broad consequences for understanding everything, but in terms of identity and I am, it puts those static notions in doubt, and replaces them with an evolving process of being, as a biological system, where self organization is always taking place -however it may manifest itself.

Self organization is not something we can break free from, or step aside from, even in pure self aware reflection we are self organizing. This perspective has very broad consequences for understanding everything, but in terms of identity and I am, it puts those static notions in doubt, and replaces them with an evolving process of being, as a biological system, where self organization is always taking place -however it may manifest itself. — Pop

I understand this as an underlying, necessary occurrence, and maybe you are aligning this with Descartes' desire for something to connect us (to).** But the idea of something inseparable from us, however fundamental, does not replace our possibility to claim our existence, our responsibility to, even, or we may, in a sense, not exist at all. Emerson's method is to investigate the concepts in these words; bring them back from hovering alone in space with Descartes (like "exist"), e.g., say, that consciousness is not a condition of humanity, but a state of being that comes and goes, like sadness, or focus. This is to say that we may be speaking apples and oranges here, only that "thought" and "being" are also not constants, and so neither "static" nor "notions", but more akin to activities, and so saying an evolving biological system "replaces" them is more like ships passing in the night, e.g., are evolution and character in the same conceptual realm? That being said, your desire/claim that: "I am an evolving process of self organization" is legitimate (you could be making the point that you are like all of us, or that there is hope in being human, etc.). But to say that all of us are is a different claim (factual or general), without the moral force of one claiming their own identity--"I am the means of production!" I'm not saying our thought or identity cannot be forced on us, but, in that case, do I exist?

** Some say the trouble Descartes got into was he set his standards and terms first, and then started investigating his thoughts, but each word has its own criteria already (before us) and each sense its own conditions. Are we looking or insisting? That's only to say: is there a goal and/or desire for certain implications which may have created the form of the concept?

We are an evolving process of self organization. We are not a static - I am. We think because we are conscious, there is no choice in the matter. — Pop

I can agree that "We are not a static - I am", but, in what sense are we agreeing? Factually, sure. But we can also disagree: "I am a static; I've always been a Bruins fan". And maybe if one part stands still, anyways, not all of us does. Sure, but that is to say.... what? Something is always happening? And who would disagree? (Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.)

We can be said to think unconsciously (say, without words, or attention--perhaps working on a Rubix cube), and we can say we choose to avoid thinking ("I'm too busy to think about the funeral arrangements", or "I'm going to clear my mind of any thought"), or even choose not to be conscious (unaware). If we desire to stretch these terms beyond their ordinary use, they loose traction to do anything for us but what we want. Maybe we want them to be given or our nature, but then maybe we overlook what makes them special and that can be lost.

All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. — Pop

Making uncertainty certain could be said to be the goal of every philosopher since before Plato; but it's like grasping harder, where everything falls through your fingers says Emerson (and Heidegger). Wittgenstein would say the desire for certainty creates a particular picture of our concepts (blocking the actual view) and that without any specific context there is nothing to grab onto at all, so we are back floating around with Descrartes, searching for the thing that will hold down the universe.

I understand this as an underlying, necessary occurrence, and maybe you are aligning this with Descartes' desire for something to connect us (to). But the idea of something inseparable from us, however fundamental, does not replace our possibility to claim our existence, our responsibility to, even, or we may, in a sense, not exist at all. — Antony Nickles

You raise excellent issues that I've been grappling with for a long time. Self organization is hard to dispute, but it is a challenge to a lot of established thought. I'm convinced it is the underlying process responsible for all creation so I have to explore it, but I cannot predict with absolute certainty what it will result in. I believe, that whilst we must self organize, we do so in a way that suits us best - that is most pleasant, so people will either integrate it, or they will otherwise ignore it. As you say, what is attractive about it is that it relates us all ( humanity ) in a singular process, but equally importantly it relates us to all of life - to the biosphere, the earth, solar system, etc. I think this is something worth promoting in these desperate climatic and ecological times. The notion that we are something separate from the ecology of the earth has been a very destructive force on this planet, in my opinion.

But to say that all of us are is a different claim (factual or general), without the moral force of one claiming their own identity--"I am the means of production!" I'm not saying our thought or identity cannot be forced on us, but, in that case, do I exist? — Antony Nickles

I am only beginning to understand the metaphysics of self organization. The thing that organization initially does is create a self. It then protects and preserves a self, in relation to the information, energy, and matter that is not self. So yes, you do exist as an amalgam of information, energy, and matter, as dose everything else - as I see it. But I understand your point. You do not dispute the premise so much as you are peeved off at having to deal with it. I admit, it is an identity and ego destroying conception, but then there are benefits in that you get the opportunity to identify with something much greater, in my opinion. On a related thread, it was found that if you identify with the universe you can never die! :smile:

I can agree that "We are not a static - I am", but, in what sense are we agreeing? Factually, sure. But we can also disagree: "I am a static; I've always been a Bruins fan". And maybe if one part stands still, anyways, not all of us does. Sure, but that is to say.... what? Something is always happening? And who would disagree? (Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.) — Antony Nickles

What do you mean - then nothing is happening?
The teen years can be difficult, but 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, etc, are great.

(Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.) — Antony Nickles

That’s funny.

What do you mean - then nothing is happening?

Other than a joke, it is also a play on the idea that the words 'nothing' and 'always' and 'happening' have different senses depending on the context, your focus, your interests--to show that 'exists' changes too, as does 'identity'. Your vantage point is harmless to the extent it includes everything and connects everything, and I grant you that, but does it have to occlude everything else?--my interests, my vantage point, the myriad of other ways in which the world exists, in the sense that it comes alive only for me. I can understand though the wonder and awe and comfort and company and connectedness in having something in common with everything else. Cheers.

Other than a joke, it is also a play on the idea that the words 'nothing' and 'always' and 'happening' have different senses depending on the context, your focus, your interests--to show that 'exists' changes too, as does 'identity'. — Antony Nickles

Well that's a relief! Yes, nothing is ultimately fixed and unchanging. In Descartes time this was not so obvious. Ship building was the high tech of the times and it had not changed for 200 years. Compare this to the rate of change today! In your lifetime the rate of change on so many fronts will continue to accelerate, so I think in future an understanding of self as an evolving process will be even more relevant. It is a shift in paradigm, but dose not entirely constrain / occlude the freedom a self can enjoy. We need to remember that we have always been a process of self organization subconsciously. As you understand, the main point / hope - is to create connection, to promote empathy and so responsibility for everything else within the concept of self.

Wishing you a happy birthday and a great life. :smile:

If I think, therefore I am, at least while I think. I cannot think and, at the same time, deny that I exist. Such is the discovery he enunciates in “Cogito ergo sum”. But then, he realizes that from this purely subjective certainty he cannot deduce anything about the outside world, not even the existence of a physical universe around it. Trapped in his solipsist cage, Descartes realizes that, to get out of it, he needs a second certainty: the certainty of the physical world. And where will he pick it up? Get it in the following argument: if I have the feeling of the existence of the outside world in me and if this feeling cannot be deduced from myself, that is, from the initial certainty of the “cogito”, then it can only have been put in mine soul by God Himself; and, as God is good, he would not deceive me by infusing me with the certainty of wrong things. Therefore, it is proven that the outside world exists.

That is very nicely put, but I have one question for you - what is God?

All abiogenesis theory, from the perspective of physics, biology, chemistry, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology agree that self organization led to life. The only alternative proposed is God. But God the creator comes up against the question of who created God? The common answer given is that God created him / her self. So we are back at self creation / self organization as the origin of life.

What I'm wondering is could self organization be God? If God was self created / self organized, then self organization would be the creative force in the universe, more powerful then God. For God to be the most powerful force in the universe, God would have to be self organization.

Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. What Descartes was doing was self organizing. What you and he and I, and everybody describes in their thoughts is an evolving process of self organization. The thoughts are an expression of our consciousness.

Consciousness occurs as a result of biological or cellular self organization, which arises as a result of molecular self organization, which arises as a result of quantum self organization, which arises as a result of the self organization of whatever goes all the way down. But it dose not stop there. The universe arises as self organization, and is in an evolving process of self organization, as you can appreciate, then so too must all of its component parts be a process of self organization! And voila - every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization! Self organization is consciousness and it is an all pervasive concept - just like God. So I'm wondering, could it be God?

If self organization was God, it would be a unifying concept present in everybody and everything. Man would be made in Gods image as self organization? There would be universal agreement as to the origins of life via self organization as a Godly force?

Descartes was French and I doubt that the conversion to English is exact.
I think therefore I am is simplicity redundancy
Simple, easy for everyone to understand, and a summation of the human philosophical condition.
Can't argue with it because it says nothing.
Is a thought a physical thing?
Is he saying I think therefore I am not physical?