Is 'I think therefore I am,' subjective?

In philosophy, subjective specifically means relating to an object as it exists in the mind, as opposed to the thing as it exists in reality (the thing in itself). — ArielAssante

My bike puncture 'exists in my mind' in the sense that I'm thinking about it. A puncture also, alas, exists in reality. So now I've got two punctures. Damn. This philosophy makes no sense.

So, what are debates about? Seems like: my philosophy is better than your philosophy. — ArielAssante

The standard by which I judge a philosophy is whether or not it is useful for a particular purpose in a particular situation.

Philosophy is intersubjective, insofar folks collaborate to use language and logic to question/analyze what they believe in methodical ways.

All perception relies on your mind — ArielAssante

Is there nothing other than my mind that a perception relies upon? If I decide to take a trip to England, does the material stuff I take to be England occur in the field of my perception because I'm actually a hallucinating Boltzmann brain floating in some outerspace? Is there then no concept of cause and effect with respect to what could be considered separate from me? How could perceptions be their own cause?

If all perception relies on my mind, how could there also be the possibility of a thing-in-itself, as if something outside of it was a cause?

Is there a good reason, if not due to an instersubjective fact, that the mind does not encompass all things? Is there only one mind? If so, whose mind is it? It must be mine... unless my mind is also your mind and there is no difference between the two.

Where is my mind?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The ‘thing-in-itself’ is also your perception. — ArielAssante

Our loosy goosey language use is gonna get us in trouble from those who might know better. Careful you don't contradict yourself, or inconsistently/incorrectly define things with respect to intersubjective standards and what you are arguing.

I agree with your sentiment. That is a fundamental irony that even purely objective truths are subjective. It is an irony that becomes more pronounced as one's objective knowledge produces results opposite of what one expects. In light of that, I nevertheless believe that there are objective truths, even though the whole truth escapes us leaving us inevitably surprised.

Philosophy 101

'I think therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes. — ArielAssante

Yeah? I am not academically qualified in philosophy, Computing Science is my expertise but I always considered descartes statement to be presented as a universal truth or an objective truth about sentient existence. I thought it was solipsism that challenged this as it suggested that this might prove to a person that they exist but it does not prove that anyone else exists. I have always considered solipsism to be nonsense but If academic philosophy insists that 'I think therefore I am,' is subjective then I don't really have the quals to argue.

is quite right; if everything is subjective, there is no point to philosophical discussion.

It follows that if you think everything is subjective, you shouldn't bother posting here.

So, to all subjectivists, so long, and enjoy doing something else.

Coherence and correspondance "theories of truth" can be applied within a subjective framework.

For example, language is a thought up system of symbols. It doesn't rely on objective rules, but on agrees upon "subjective" or mads up rules, if you will. (At least the grammar rules)

When two or more people agree on made up rules, they become sort of objectified in a sense. Even though the subjects are free to abandon the rules if they want. Its just they don't agree on a shared system they will have a hard time communicating.

The axioms of thought can also apply.
For example, even if there is only my mind...I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time.

I can imagine up all kinds of worlds, but those worlds will be grounded in some sense in the axioms of thought, at least, in addition to other rules I could imagine up.

Does that make any sense?

'I think therefore I am', a subjective declaration by Descartes. — ArielAssante

Was not the point of the declaration to remark upon how the experience is given as fact? An aspect of the given reality no more or less 'real' than the other stuff we are stuck with?

When two or more people agree on made up rules, they become sort of objectified in a sense. — Yohan

That bit. I'm of the opinion that the distinction between subjective and objective, as set out here, cannot be made coherent.

Is it not a fact that Paris is spelled (in English) P.a.r.i.s?
And then isn't it a fact because English speakers by and large agree how to spell it?

If everyone started to spell Paris P.a.r.e.s then that would be the new spelling, while P.a.r.i.s would be considered an archaic spelling.

If Idealism is true, something like the distance of the sun from the Earth would be a fact about our shared subjective reality. That subjective reality is still as it is, even if I have a thought which doesn't correspond with it.

If everything is thought forms (another way of saying subjective) then objective facts are facts about objectified thought forms.

But objective facts are not ultimate truths.

Is 'I think therefore I am,' subjective? — universeness

The Münchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts.

.I still can't both think about an elephant and not think of an elephant at the same time. — Yohan

It depends on how true 'superposition' is. In the many words theory you can think of an elephant and not think about it at the same time, just not in the same universe.

This question was asked on Quora:
How is it possible for atoms to be at 2 different places at the same time according to quantum mechanics?

The answer given by Michael Price (MSc in quantum field theory) was:
Not just two places, but an infinite number of places. All particles or objects (from electrons to elephants to galaxies) have their position (and state) given by a probability amplitude - called the wave function - which you can use to calculate the probability of the object being at some point (or in some state) if you look. After you look the wave function needs adjusting (wave function collapse) to reflect the fact of where you saw the object. Between observations the wave function evolves according to a wave equation, the nature of which is quite well known in most situations. Wave function collapse occurs either when a particle or object encounters decoherence (usually some form of environmental heat) or when someone (big, hot, squishy, decoherent things like us) observes it.
In the time between one collapse and the next, evolving according to a wave equation (as mentioned), the particle exists in more than one position or state. The interpretation of this is debated, there is no consensus. I go with the many worlds interpretation, but take your pick!

The answer given by the very popular Viktor T. Toth (IT pro, part-time physicist) was:

It is not.

The moment you imagine that atom as a miniature cannonball that is in two places at once, you lost the game: you are failing to understand quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics does not say that the atom is in two places at once. What quantum mechanics says is that the atom has no classically defined position at all between measurements. Its position, rather than being represented by a set of numbers (as in classical mechanics, where the position would be a set of coordinates), is represented instead by the so-called position operator. Unlike the numbers, the position operator does not tell us where the atom is. The atom is neither here nor there, nor anywhere else. The position operator tells us how likely it is that we find the atom at a particular place, if we look. It does not tell us where the atom is.

But when you actually look and find the atom somewhere, the atom is in exactly one place: the place where you found it. It is never in two places at once. However, most of the time (that is, always when you are not looking) it is in no place at all, in a classical sense, as it has no well-defined position.

(And just to be clear, when I somewhat whimsically say, “when you are not looking”, I don’t really mean that a human or a cat has to look at the atom for it to have a position. No, the atom simply has to interact with a macroscopic object or instrument, one that consists of a very large number of particles such that any quantum behaviour is averaged out and it behaves classically.)

Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes.

Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff!

The Münchhausen Trilemma takes care of Descartes' cogito in my humble opinion. I ain't sure though, I'm a skeptic, comes with the territory or thereabouts. — Agent Smith

Google reports:
In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma, also commonly known as the Agrippan trilemma, is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the theoretical impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics, without appealing to accepted assumptions. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three ways of completing a proof:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition presupposes the truth of that very proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.

Ok but do you think the speed of light in a vacuum, or the mass of an electron is the same for every measured electron are absolute, universal FACTS and are TRUE facts. Such measurements can always be improved in accuracy but if they are not absolute truths, they are probably the closest we are every going to get to such.

I'll get back to you.

Depends on what we mean.
When I say "not think about an elephant" do I mean in any universe or just this one. I would think I am only talking about this me. Not mes in other universes. — Yohan

I agree, and it also depends on whether or not all the superpositions of you are all connected as you.
They are not clones of you or separable from you they are all physically you, just in different states and positions in a multiverse. I am not convinced by the many worlds theory, I am more attracted to cyclical universe theories such as the Penrose bounce.

Thanks for QM explanations. I'm inspired to watch some YT videos on the subject. Confusing stuff! — Yohan

:up:

:smile: :up:

Danke for understanding mon ami!

:up: No worries. If the many worlds theory is true then you have already answered me in every way possible, superpositionally speaking of course. which must include an absolutely true answer as well, so the many worlds theory at least suggests that absolute truths must be possible within the many worlds reference frame.

Vide Trust


You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting - to argue that no argument is good enough is indeed to shoot oneself. Is it a murder-suicide though?

You hit the nail on the head when you said skepticism is self-refuting — Agent Smith

I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster. I am a great fan of skepticism but I think its true that whenever humans push the limits of propositional logic, they just seem to encounter paradox or self-refuting logic, quite quickly. Perhaps the knowledge that lies beyond that particular sealed door will remain off limits to the human race for some time yet. We just cant figure out how to open that door yet but......one day......

I don't recall ever typing the phrase 'skepticism is self-refuting,' If I did then I copied it from somewhere as it's seems greater than my skills as a wordsmith could muster. — universeness

Skepticism is not self-refuting - absolute or global skepticism is self-refuting and probably psychologically impossible. More conventional skepticism is how science generally works. It shouldn't be confused with cynicism or denialism. For a modern skeptic a claim may not be provisionally accepted until there's evidentiary warrant or it's supported by sound reasoning.

As I already typed Tom, I have no recollection of every typing the phrase, 'skepticism is self-refuting.'
I also did not type that I agreed with it. I merely typed that my skills as a wordsmith are rarely able to put words together in such an aesthetically pleasing way or at least aesthetically pleasing to me.
I agree with your application of skepticism towards any scientific theory, without sufficient empirical evidence or sound reasoning to support it. That would be my approach as well.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.