I'm sorry about repeating this part of my argument but it seems it hasn't sunk in. Doubting is thinking but if thought waves are real, there's no such thing as thinking and so there can't be a thinker and Descartes' self is, by all accounts, the thinker. Nobody is actively thinking in this scenario, everyone's just passively receiving thought wave signals that are traveling through space. — TheMadFool

Regardless of how you define "thinking," and regardless of whether Descartes is actually thinking, he most certainly thinks he thinks.

Regardless of how you define "thinking," and regardless of whether Descartes is actually thinking, he most certainly thinks he thinks — Hanover

Let's study this very carefully. There's "thinking", there's "Descartes", and then there's Descartes' "I" in "I think therefore, I am". To what does the "I" in Descartes' argument refer to? Surely, it refers to the thinker who's allegedly thinking but...if thought waves are real, no one, let alone Descartes, is actually thinking. If there's no thinking, there's no thinker and if there's no thinker then it becomes impossible for Descartes to identify himself with a thinker as a thinker doesn't exist.

Hmmmm.....Ol’ Rene was right after all; there is a demon. What else but a demon would be so callous to send me a thought wave manifesting in me as thinking thought waves are the stupidest thing I could ever imagine, then deceive me into doubting I ever thought it.

Amplitude modulation presupposes a carrier. If thoughts are the modulation, they can’t be the carrier, which is the inherent characteristic of FM, so where does the carrier come from?

Let's study this very carefully. There's "thinking", there's "Descartes", and then there's Descartes' "I" in "I think therefore, I am". To what does the "I" in Descartes' argument refer to? Surely, it refers to the thinker who's allegedly thinking but...if thought waves are real, no one, let alone Descartes, is actually thinking. If there's no thinking, there's no thinker and if there's no thinker then it becomes impossible for Descartes to identify himself with a thinker as a thinker doesn't exist. — TheMadFool

Descartes wouldn't have argued there were "thought waves" because a wave implies physicality, and thought was non-physical in his dualistic system. Regardless, though, it is entirely irrelevant what thought is composed of and what it means to be physical and non-physical. Descartes did something when he doubted, and that something, whatever it was, meant something happened. That's all the cogito proves.

What produces the thought waves?

. If a thing is changing, it is better described as "becoming" and so we have the ancient dichotomy between being and becoming. Since thinking is better described as an activity of change, it is better classified as a sort of becoming, and Descartes would have been more accurate to say I think therefore I am becoming (as changing). — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Descartes would have been more accurate to state that we are in a process of self organization. Not so much a being, or I am, but a becoming like an evolving process. A process of what you might ask? Self organization seems to be the answer, as this is the activity the entire universe and hence all of its component parts are constantly involved in. Self organization relative to the change we constantly experience, where time is a measure of change.

Descartes actually considers this. Its sometimes called "The Evil Demon" argument. Basically he questions whether everything he observers is falsified and put in front of him by an evil demon.

For your radio analogy, Descartes did consider that something else was streaming things to him. But he had to be able to process it. The "I" is the radio doing the processing.

Now if you're stating that the processing is also streamed, that the I is simply created elsewhere and streamed in to some processor, Descartes would still state the part that is thinking that it is a self, is the self. The "radio" receiving the processing would not be the self. Does that make sense?

Self organization seems to be the answer, as this is the activity the entire universe and hence all of its component parts are constantly involved in. — Pop

The entire universe is involved in self-organization? I thought only living things did this.

No, everything self organizes. Including rocks :smile: over time they change from magma, to rock, to sand, to minerals, minerals can become amino acids, which can become life, etc, etc.

Descartes would still state the part that is thinking that it is a self, is the self. — Philosophim

From that point of view, it is the most unavoidable activity. I am the witness to myself that nobody else is. So, how does that work as a limit to anything else?

From that point of view, it is the most unavoidable activity. I am the witness to myself that nobody else is. So, how does that work as a limit to anything else? — Valentinus

Descartes idea was to then build from that starting point. If he could find a starting point that was irrefutable, then he could use that to build his philosophy.

In the Discourse On Method, the enormity of the enterprise is noted where Descartes explained why he decided to publish many works posthumously:

But I decided that I should never content to have them published during my life, for fear that the opposition and controversy which they might arouse, and the reputation which they might possibly bring to me, would cause me to waste time which I plan to use for research. For although it is true that each man is obligated to do as much as he can for the benefit of others, and that to be of no use to anyone is really to be worthless, yet it is also true that our interest should extend beyond the existing time, and that it is well to avoid things which may bring some profit to the living when it is done with the intention of profiting our descendants still more. So I want it to be understood that the little I have learned thus far is a mere nothing compared to what I do not know and yet do not despair of learning. — Rene Descartes

(Sixth Part, page 568 translated by Laurence J Lafleur)

The juxtaposition of humility and confidence is part of the method. The daunting presence of so many unknowns is no reason to stop operating.

[Again, sorry for repeating myself but Descartes' argument is that he is the thinker in the sense actively generating thoughts. Now this is necessary for Descartes' cogito ergo sum argument because if he's a passive recipient of thought waves then it's not him that's thinking. Just give it some "thought" - If the thoughts that I'm thinking aren't mine, i.e. I don't generate them on my own, then, how can I claim to be a thinker and if I'm not a thinker then how can I identify my self as a thinker? How can I say I am that which I'm not! — The Mad Fool

You repeat yourself and you keep repeating the same mistake. Why would being a passive recipient undermine Descartes argument that he is thinking? Whether thinking is active as in generating a certain something or passive as in receiving a certain something is of no importance. Just as for me to be 'seeing' might be to actively construe an object in my eye or receiving light waves. For thinking it is only necessary for there to be thoughts in my head but whether they are generated by myself or by some evil genie does not matter. I keep thinking. That is actually all of Descartes' point.

That said the thoughts are of course mine, because of self identification of thought. Also that is the point of the cogito. I attach it to everything I think and utter. What you are doing is actually handily disproven by Kant, we cannot know the thing in itself, only what we make of it. So the question whether thoughts are really really radio waves is pointless. It may be a handy metaphor for something at best. That something seems to be a critique of sorts of a purely individual consciousness. That is fine but we can do that without odd metaphysics.

I really don't believe that thinking can be identified with being in this way. This is because "being", though the "ing" signifies an activity, is really a passive, unchanging sort of thing, a temporal continuity of the same identified thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I take a rather dialectical view that being is indeed becoming, but not identical with it. For there to be any becoming there must be a being that becomes. I would disagree that it is a passive unchanging sort of thing. and besides, notice how your description 'unchanging' then also denotes an activity, that is if every 'ing' denotes that. I don't see much of a problem actually. Being is a concept, a notion we use to make sense of the world. Pure passivity is actually negated by it, because if 'something' is purely passive, how would we notice it as a certain something, it must have all kinds of categorical qualities for us to be able to make sense of it at all.

Well I take a rather dialectical view that being is indeed becoming, but not identical with it. For there to be any becoming there must be a being that becomes. I would disagree that it is a passive unchanging sort of thing. and besides, notice how your description 'unchanging' then also denotes an activity, that is if every 'ing' denotes that. — Tobias

The issue here is "identity". If being is actually a becoming, but you then posit the necessity of "a being" (notice the noun now) which is becoming, then that being must have an identity. Therefore we need something to account for its temporal continuity, its temporal extension, its identity as the same being, throughout its changing existence. Without this principle of identity, it's just a different existence, or different "being" from one moment to the next, as it changes.

This problem is well described in Aristotle's "Physics", where he discusses the principles required to account for the nature of change. The underlying identity, by which we say that a thing persists as the same thing (retains its identity) despite having a changing form, is provided for by the concept of matter. This supposed, assumed, or posited "matter" accounts for the notion that "there must be a being that becomes".

and besides, notice how your description 'unchanging' then also denotes an activity, that is if every 'ing' denotes that. — Tobias

Well, to be fair, the 'un' prefix negates the 'ing' suffix, so that what is signified by 'unchanging' is a lack of activity.

Being is a concept, a notion we use to make sense of the world. Pure passivity is actually negated by it, because if 'something' is purely passive, how would we notice it as a certain something, it must have all kinds of categorical qualities for us to be able to make sense of it at all. — Tobias

The point though, now, is that "being", as a concept, implies, in all of its senses of use, an identity. The difficulty in negating "pure passivity", is to do that without negating identity. I do not see how we could remove all passivity from the concept "being", or existence in general, without denying ourselves the capacity for identity.

A being can continue to be itself differently. Ain’t that what self-organization implies? A being that continues to be itself over time not identically , but through a system of interactions with an outside. It conserves its manner of functioning by assimilating the world to itself and accommodating or adjusting its functioning to the novelties of that outside.

That said the thoughts are of course mine — Tobias

Therein lies the rub. If thought waves are real, you can't be thinking

One way or the other, we are thinking while talking about this. I am having trouble understanding the exclusion you are proposing.
Are you qualifying the thinking as only recognizable after some things can be ruled out?
My impression from reading Descartes is that we are stuck with ourselves and have to make the best of our limitations as discovered. It is a lot less explanatory than other approaches.

Therein lies the rub. If thought waves are real, you can't be thinking — TheMadFool

And if light waves are real you cannot be seeing, so the things I see are not mine and somehow not seen by me. :chin: You are deeply confused.

And if light waves are real you cannot be seeing, so the things I see are not mine and somehow not seen by me. :chin: You are deeply confused. — Tobias

You can see of course but you can't be the light waves. Thoughts, in the scenario I described, are thought waves and you can't be thought waves.

My argument is simple. If thoughts are like radio waves permeating space as thought waves, and our brains are simply receivers for these thought waves, we can't claim to be thinking, right? Our brains would be merely playing the contents of the thought waves just like radio playing the contents of the station its tuned in to.

A being can continue to be itself differently. Ain’t that what self-organization implies? A being that continues to be itself over time not identically , but through a system of interactions with an outside. It conserves its manner of functioning by assimilating the world to itself and accommodating or adjusting its functioning to the novelties of that outside. — Joshs

I know that a being continues to be the same being despite changing, but the point is that we need a principle of identity to validate logically, what we know intuitively. If I am different from what I was last year, then logically I am a distinct, or different, being from what I was last year. Intuitively, I know that I am the same being, with the same identity, but how do I support this logically?

The receiver idea is interesting. I don't get how it displaces other ideas. It is not like we are given packages of possible thought. We just try to imagine things as closely as possible to what we experience.

You can see of course but you can't be the light waves. Thoughts, in the scenario I described, are thought waves and you can't be thought waves. — TheMadFool

Yes but you imply that for Descartes we are somehow thoughts. I have no idea how that would work, radio wave theory or not, and I do not think Descartes would have any idea as well. His phrase is not "I am thoughts therefore I am", but "I think therefore I am" You first commit Desscartes to a position he needs not hold and subsequently refute his 'position'.

This problem is well described in Aristotle's "Physics", where he discusses the principles required to account for the nature of change. The underlying identity, by which we say that a thing persists as the same thing (retains its identity) despite having a changing form, is provided for by the concept of matter. This supposed, assumed, or posited "matter" accounts for the notion that "there must be a being that becomes". — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes and from here on the problem between the rationalists and the empiricists emerged, resulting in stalemate because neither by logic nor by the senses do we have access to this underlying 'identity'. Kant's brilliancy was to turn this on its head. Identity is not there waiting to be discovered by the perceiver, but a quality added in perception. Identity therefore is not passive, but active, identification.

The point though, now, is that "being", as a concept, implies, in all of its senses of use, an identity. The difficulty in negating "pure passivity", is to do that without negating identity. I do not see how we could remove all passivity from the concept "being", or existence in general, without denying ourselves the capacity for identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes being implies an identity but it does not imply an identity that is present and unchanging. In fact I would say that being itself is not identifiable at all. It is a mere mental operation. I never saw being, I only ever encountered a being, qua an existing thing. For me actually that explains the difference between being and existing. Being is being and therefore no different from nothing. When we say of something that it is, we say nothing yet. If I tell you that the girlfriend of my dreams is beautiful, there is indeed an identity, namely between my dream girlfriend and the aspect of beauty, however, she does not exist, never is that identity to be encountered in an existing something. Being is therefore nothing...yet. An identity yes, but a totally abstract and general one, important in our conceptual apparatus, but nowhere else. (Aside, that is why in language, such as in Turkish, the verb being is not encountered).

best of luck in the new year :)
Tobias

Descartes' claim that he's thinking is no more justified than a radio's claim that it's creating the contents it's playing on its speakers. — TheMadFool

If this were the case, a conversation between two folks would be equivalent to a radio tuned to (say) the weather report making noise next to a radio tuned to (say) Beethoven's fifth. nobody could have a conversation with nobody else, because radios can’t exchange ideas that are not theirs. But instead, we can have conversation because we decide what to say, and we direct our thoughts. Or at least it feels like it.

So Descartes was right. It’s annoying, right?