"I am that I am"

Benj96

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes.

However, "I am that (therefore) I am" assumes less than "I think therefore I am." Because it doesn't need to address what thinking is and how thinking can prove the existant that does the thinking.

Therefore, "I am that I am" goes a degree further, reduces one level more in the amount of assumption within the statement, from descartes "thinking and being dynamic".

"I exist". This is a statement you can argue as false, sure, but in doing so, who are you arguing with? If you remove me from the equation then the only "I" you can argue with is yourself. Which no less exists. The statement "I am that I am" remains verifiable from the self alone. It is self evident in proof and reasoning.

It isn't even circular because there is no cause or effect relationship as a relationship requires 2 things. All relationships are based on 2 separate and distinct phenomena with a contrast delineating the nature of each. One of which is "the cause" of the other (effect).

"I am" is not a relationship. It is one singular thing. I think and I am, is a relationship with 2 distinct phenomenon - being and thinking.

The who, what, when, where, why and hows of "I am" require 4 dimensional relationships that interact (time, space, matter, energy etc). But do not detract from the verifiability of "I am" as a standalone statement.

So it has power in its simplicity of requiring none other than self to verify itself. All other things, phenomena and relationships removed. All assumptions reduced to a singular one.

So here we have a truth not dependent on anything else for being true.

It's also not solipsism as the definition for solipsism is that only ones own mind exists or can be known to exist(which comes back to "thinking" again) and is already a separate assumption (mind) from that of being (existing).

"I am that I am" has no indication in the statement of the existence of "mind" or "thought". So solipsism is more appropriate to the statement "I think (have a mind) therefore I am".

I believe energy is that which is because it is. Energy doesn't have a cause other than itself. It cannot be created nor destroyed but simply "is". It's "ability to do work" thus is it's ability to create relationships (time, space, matter etc). And thus "be" in relationship to "itself" (assume multiple existant forms).

Gnomon

I believe energy is that which is because it is. Energy doesn't have a cause other than itself. — Benj96

In my own Information-based thesis, EnFormAction (generic energy) is the pre-space-time Cause of all change, including the Big Bang. It's the Cause of all causes. :smile:

180 Proof

↪Benj96

In other words ... Deus, sive natura :fire: (contra "Cogito, ergo sum"; contra Exodus 3:14; contra 'transcendent X-of-the-gaps').

frank

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes. — Benj96

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here. Whatever you may think of Descartes, there's no doubt (ha!) that the Meditations are one of the most important philosophical works ever written. Sooo much is built off of his thinking, not just philosophically, but in Western culture in general. It's pretty easy to read because Descartes wasn't trying to dazzle with bullshit. He was passionate about what he was saying, and about the revolution in thought that it could represent. He was essentially wresting the foundations of thought away from the Church and placing them squarely in the hands of the common man.

In short, read it!

Hanover

↪Benj96

This predates Descartes. Exodus 3:14

Ciceronianus

↪Benj96

This serves to emphasize the wisdom of the greatest of sages, Popeye the Sailor Man. "I am what I am" he proclaimed, dispensing with "that" as a mere redundancy, expressive of nothing more than faux doubt of the kind Descartes indulged in. But he added "and that's all that I am." Thus, he not only affirmed his existence, but disdained to speculate regarding his nature, being and destiny. He is Popeye, singular and manifest!

Benj96

In my own Information-based thesis, EnFormAction (generic energy) is the pre-space-time Cause of all change, including the Big Bang. It's the Cause of all causes. :smile: — Gnomon

I think we have similar views Gnomon.

However, I have some questions. When I look at the word "EnFormAction" I see three qualities: energy, information and action. Unless of course "form" refers to both matter and in"form"ation.

I have 5 qualities required of the singularity or "prime mover" : energy, time, space, matter and information.

How can we reconcile your term "action" into my terms: space, time and matter? Because the other 2: information and energy, are already agreed upon between us.

For me "action" requires time and matter. As pure massless energy travelling at the same velocity (c - the speed of light) cannot act on itself. There is no difference in rate/velocity for which work to occur, or information to be imparted.

Thus it requires matter. Because matter cannot travel at such velocity, matter cannot be at the speed of light (this is of less potency/power) to do work and so becomes done/acted upon instead. The more potent (pure potential energy - speed of light) will always act on the less potent (matter with mass and thus less momentum).

So as I see it, the singularity (potential energy or as you put it "generic energy" simultaneously became matter - by decelerating, and in that very same process of deceleration is the emergence of spacetime - space for which energy to "occupy" (ie matter) and time for which matter (the done/acted upon) to assume a different framerate or velocity of existence with respect to lightspeed energy (the doer).

Information would be what is comes into play when these 4 parameters are established: energy, time, space and matter. All future interactions between them is novel information (reorganisation of relationships) as opposed to the inherent/innate information of a singularity (which has no relationship to anything other than itself).

In essence EnFormAction may indeed have imbedded/hidden within it the 5 phenomenon I outlined above. But for me this makes the term confusing as it suggests only 3 of them.

This is why I prefer the term "Potential" instead of EnFormAction. As simply put, potential has less assumption (imbedded or hidden information) in it than EnFormAction which conceals time, matter and space in the term "Action".

When asked which came first, I would say potential rather than EnFormAction, as potential gives rise to energy, form (or information) and action (time and product - matter and space).

What do you think?

Benj96

. "I am what I am" he proclaimed, dispensing with "that" as a mere redundancy — Ciceronianus

For me "what" and "that" are synonymous. In my case the choice between the two is redundant in and of itself.

"That" which causes bananas to be yellow = "what" causes bananas to be yellow.

faux doubt of the kind Descartes indulged in. — Ciceronianus

What is faux about the doubt which he expressed? He doubted everything else (the entire external environment) and was left with himself, which he could not doubt, as "doubting" comes from something that doubts (self). No self = no doubt to be had.

He is Popeye, singular and manifest! — Ciceronianus

I do enjoy the humour/satire in your answer. I'm a fan of popeye.

However for me singular and manifest are somewhat contradictions. How does a singular entity "manifest" in any other way than being singular. For me "manifestation" requires a relationship between "the manifested" and the backdrop of "the unmanifested". Ie "is" on the backdrop of "that which isn't".

Benj96

This predates Descartes. Exodus 3:14 — Hanover

Yes it does indeed. And... What of it?

Benj96

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here — frank

I don't see how I have tbh. Can you elaborate on exactly what I have mischaracterised.
I simply said a statement involving a dynamic between thinking and being is more presumptuous than an argument based on being alone.

Meditations are one of the most important philosophical works ever written. Sooo much is built off of his thinking, not just philosophically, but in Western culture in general. It's pretty easy to read because Descartes wasn't trying to dazzle with bullshit. He was passionate about what he was saying, and about the revolution in thought that it could represent. He was essentially wresting the foundations of thought away from the Church and placing them squarely in the hands of the common man. — frank

He indeed revealed something significant in philosophy. He is highly meritable for his endeavours. A fantastic mind through and through.

He was passionate I agree. No doubt there (ha!).

And again, I agree, he challenged the blind subservience to the church. Amen to that. Lol.
He demonstrated skepticism to the extreme and thus placed the psychological foothold for science in place, so that the common man had a guide to challenge former ideas.

But ultimately, what of it in the context of this thread? I still don't see how any of this implicates me as mischaracterising him.

What he did was nothing short of exceptional. But people have argued his ideas away based on the irrationality of circular argument.

What I am offering is an argument or statement (ancient as it is) that is not circular in the way Descartes statement "I think therefore I am. Then, as follows, I am therefore I think. Then, as follows, I think therefore I am" which indeed is circular.

"I am that I am" or simply "I am" assumes nothing, and is immediately, at any moment, verifiable by the statement maker. It is singular and thus not subject to circularity.

Benj96

In other words ... Deus, sive natura — 180 Proof

Yes. Energy is both the creator (potential) and the created (matter). Thus nature is innately that which creates the nature of itself.

Consciousness or awareness is a product of the dynamic of energy and matter (also energy, e=mc2) organised in a sophisticated or complex relationship/interaction with itself (negentropy/order) - the direct and necessary/obligate opposite to entropy (disorder) because "every action has an equal and opposite reaction (newton's third law).

The universe simultaneously becomes more disordered at large, and more ordered at the miniscule scale. It condenses information (life) and de-condenses/expands information (the chaos of the cosmos).

frank

You've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized Descartes here
— frank

I don't see how I have tbh. Can you elaborate on exactly what I have mischaracterised. — Benj96

What if we did a reading of the Meditations? That way we could have Descartes resolve the question.

Would you be up for that?

dclements

So here we have a truth not dependent on anything else for being true. — Benj96

"The only truth that there is, is that there is no truth" - anonymous

Anyone that seriously studies philosophy should be cautious of any so called "truths", "objective morality", or claims by those that know the will of all-knowing, all-powerful good "God", Descrates "I think therefore I am" isn't a truth since it obviously doesn't prove anything. It doesn't explain what it really means for one to think, or what it means for one to exist. For example if someone "exists" merely as a computer simulation instead of an actual physical person this simulation could be just one of of thousands of other processes that are sharing the same resources. If for some reason this simulation only had a few nanoseconds during any given second could you say such a person actually exists if it takes several centuries to process the thought "I think therefore I am" where as a regular human being processes such a thought in a couple seconds.

180 Proof

↪Benj96

:up:

Gnomon

How can we reconcile your term "action" into my terms: space, time and matter? Because the other 2: information and energy, are already agreed upon between us. — Benj96

EnFormAction*1 is only intended to be an evocative name for the universal causal Force or Energy behind all change in the world*2. And "Action" is simply what it does (it's job). EFA transforms Potential into Actual. And yes, the "form" element includes both Platonic ideal (the abstract design) and real material forms (the enformed thing)*3. "Space" is a necessity for "Matter", and "Time" is a consequence of Action. :smile:

*1. EnFormAction :
That neologism is an analysis and re-synthesis of the common word for the latent power of mental contents : “Information”. “En” stands for energy, the physical power to cause change; “Form” refers to Platonic Ideals that become real; “Action” is the meta-physical power of transformation, as exemplified in the amazing metamorphoses of physics, whereby one kind of thing becomes a new kind of thing, with novel properties. In the Enformationism worldview, EnFormAction is eternal creative potential in action : it's how creation-via-evolution works.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

*2. EFA is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical conjecture. It's only intended to be way to make sense of the multifarious roles of Generic Information in the world. If it makes sense to you, then that's all that "matters". If not, ignore it.

*3. For clarity, I spell the Platonic Ideal as "Form", and the real things built upon that logical structure, as "forms". Otherwise, people tend to confuse one with the other : the Ideal with the Real or vice-versa.

This is why I prefer the term "Potential" instead of EnFormAction. As simply put, potential has less assumption (imbedded or hidden information) in it than EnFormAction which conceals time, matter and space in the term "Action". — Benj96

I agree that Potential is more fundamental & comprehensive. Yet the distinction I make is that capital "P" potential is eternal & unchanging, while EFA creates (actualizes) the evolving space-time world. It's not intended as a religious concept. But as a biblical metaphor, it could be likened to the Holy Spirit moving across the face of the deep to create the world. Some will take EFA literally, as-if I'm saying its a real thing, or even a god*4. But for me, it's just a way to think about how Information (power to enform) works in the real world. So, yes, Potential came first. :cool:

*4. I don't pretend to know what that abstract Eternal Potential thinks. But if it is an intelligent being, "I am that I am" might be descriptive. Personally, I try to avoid personalizing the creative Potential that uses trial & error evolutionary methods to create a world from scratch over eons of time. "Scratch" being nothing but Enformation = Energy (causation) + Laws (intention).

Benj96

"The only truth that there is, is that there is no truth" - anonymous — dclements

A paradox. For this to be true, there is no truth. For it to be false, there is a truth. In either case truth is necessary and involved in the statement. It's like the liar paradox.

And it follows the same idea that "the only constant is change" or "the only thing that doesn't change is change itself". Again change is implicated in the requirement to negate itself.

Just as "change" can change everything except itself, or energy being able to all work except the work of destroying or creating itself, truth can be true only to itself, whilst being false or only partially true to all other existants.

or example if someone "exists" merely as a computer simulation instead of an actual physical person... ..... could you say such a person actually exists if it takes several centuries to process the thought "I think therefore I am" where as a regular human being processes such a thought in a couple seconds. — dclements

Yes. Simulations still require existing, regardless of being a simulation. Firstly a simulation of "what" exactly? It still requires to "simulate" (replicate, emulate, mimick) something to any degree of precision or accuracy verses the thing it is simulating. In other words simulations still have to exist in a universe/ reality where they can take place, hold or have present their operating systems.

The statement "I am that I am". Is true. It does not pertain to any quality by which one "is" - be it a simulation, a person, a donkey, a dream, an AI algorithm, some Gods creative imagination or otherwise. They still exist (are).

Anyone that seriously studies philosophy should be cautious of any so called "truths", "objective morality", or claims by those that know the will of all-knowing, all-powerful good "God — dclements

I didn't pertain to such. I merely spoke about the existence of a singular truth, something that underlies all of reality, and the fact that for falsehood or untruths to exist, then logically truth must also exist.

Whether one can call this " God" and whether such a "God" is benevolent or "all Good" as you say, is an entirely different topic to the one regarding a fundamental truth.

Benj96

↪Gnomon

thank you for your clarification, I agree with it. No qualms here. It seems we are indeed speaking of the same things.

But if it is an intelligent being, "I am that I am" might be descriptive. Personally, I try to avoid personalizing the creative Potential — Gnomon

Ah! See for me, personalising "I am that I am" still assumes too much. It assumes personhood. In that it personalises/personifies it.

That is the "who" and/or "what" nature of "I am that I am." what the "I am" is, is many/innumerable things (including forms of matter) : "who" of the "i am" pertains to "who's" or beings or let's say for simplicity "people" - merely one set of the category. These categories emerging by natural selection as you pointed out. I think natural selection is the "intelligence" or following of basic logic that you speak of. "intelligence" and how it manifests "consciousness/sentience" not being the same thing. But having overlap.

For me the "I am that I am" can be qualified by all: whos, what's, where's, when's, how's, and whys of existence and thus encapsulates or captures all distinctions or sets within it's universal Venn Diagram, of course all set having overlap between them: "I am a human", "I am an animal", "I am a living thing" "I am a part of /made of/living on earth (an earth entity/earthling)", "I am energy and matter" "I am potential" - with a non capital P, or I am "part of/derived from Potential" with a capital P.

These are all truth statements, but distinct ones, and they are sets that overlap with other things on varying ranges of specificity/definition.

The universal = "I am". Or I exist. No question of whether any given existant is a person, or has a mind, or is aware. The "I" in this case is not necessarily pertaining to a sentient self or being, but an existant or universal "self" - the term used loosely ofc.

The fundamental existant Potential contains all "I" s - sentient beings and inanimate objects alike, linked by being all made of energy - a very large set indeed on the Venn diagram.

The sentience of that state of energy is another matter.

Ciceronianus

What is faux about the doubt which he expressed? He doubted everything else (the entire external environment) and was left with himself, which he could not doubt, as "doubting" comes from something that doubts (self). No self = no doubt to be had. — Benj96

He "doubted" what he unquestioningly interacted with every moment of his life. Do you think he doubted the food he ate was food? Or that the paper he wrote on existed, or the pen (or whatever he used) did, as well, or doubted the chair he sat on? If so, it would be a very curious kind of doubt, one that was disregarded and that caused no uncertainty.

Benj96

↪Ciceronianus

Well, I would imagine ultimate doubt (lack of trust) in all things would lead to a pure stasis of inaction. Or even more extreme pure nihilism and death.

Of course this is impossible as one cannot doubt their heartbeat, their breathing or the heat their body gives off with metabolism. These things occur whether we doubt them or not. And more importantly we cannot cessate them due to doubt lest we commit suicide - which could be conceived as the ultimate degree of doubt - extreme scepticism and unwillingness to obey any unspeculated, unaccepted action without our mental determination and thus action towards it.

So Descartes doubted everything except that which was necessary for him to function - paper, chairs, food (as you pointed out).

Fooloso4

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes. — Benj96

There is nothing fallacious about it. If you begin by doubting everything is there anything that cannot be doubted, anything about which you cannot be deceived? I doubt therefore I exist. I can be deceived therefore I exist. If I did not exist I could not doubt. If I did not exist I could not be deceived.

"I am" is not a relationship. It is one singular thing. I think and I am, is a relationship with 2 distinct phenomenon - being and thinking. — Benj96

He says that he is a thinking thing. One singular thing.

It isn't even circular because there is no cause or effect relationship as a relationship requires 2 things. — Benj96

There is no causal relationship here between between being and thinking. Being and thinking are one and the same. To be is to think. He is not claiming that he is a thing that thinks but that he is "a thinking thing or substance" (Meditation 3). Thinking is the kind of thing that he is, (Meditation 2) not something he does. For example, he walks but is not a walking thing. That is something he does.

Now we may not agree with Descartes claim of a thinking substance, but if so, we should disagree with what he says not with a misrepresentation of what he says.

Manuel

↪Benj96

Perhaps you might get more mileage out of this thought experiment if you argue that I am this, where "this" denotes the existential intuition that you are something that is part, but also apart of the world.

But staying at the level of "being" or "thinking", we will have trouble, because of the abstraction and uncertainty of these words.

Benj96

doubt therefore I exist. I can be deceived therefore I exist. If I did not exist I could not doubt. If I did not exist I could not be deceived. — Fooloso4

I like this very much. Bravo for bringing this to attention. I have a vague memory of having read such before but it did not arise for me when composing my thoughts on this thread.

Now we may not agree with Descartes claim of a thinking substance, but if so, we should disagree with what he says not with a misrepresentation of what he says. — Fooloso4

If we are to take Descartes thinking = being sentiment, then we must assume the universe "thinks". Which makes sense regarding his "proof" of God.

But for me "thinking" requires at its basis more than one "being" such that thought "leads" or "traverses" between once concept (one state of being) and another.

Not to mention thought requires memory otherwise it is a constant state of "what was I thinking about?" or "forgetfulness".

Thus reference point as opposed to new thought (comparison) requires at the minimum 2 things (2 states of being) - that which is in memory, and that is new /different to memory.

Therefore for me thinking cannot = being. It can only equal 2 beings: 1). memory/past and 2). a new state (present) that is not identical to past/memory. For which thought can extrapolate/perceive change, and thus perceive of/anticipate future (further change from memory).

Benj96

Perhaps you might get more mileage out of this thought experiment if you argue that I am this, where "this" denotes the existential intuition that you are something that is part, but also apart of the world. — Manuel

Perhaps. I see what you're saying. And agree with your qualification of "this" as something that denotes a "sense" of unity and separateness alike. Being both a part of/and a part distinct from.

For me this is "ego" - or the sense of a finite and limited collection of matter and energy to distinguish itself (the sense/intuition) from the remainder of matter and energy (the external world).

public hermit

↪Benj96

I understand Descartes' circular reasoning to be, not the Cogito itself, but the argument that God can be proven by clear and distinct ideas since God would not be a deceiver, which presupposes the reliability of clear and distinct ideas.

The Cogito, in itself, is not circular. At least, one's ability to think does not assume self-existence so much as it entails self-existence.

"I am that I am" seems to be a tautology that does not seem, on the face of it, to show self-existence. It's a proclamation, or maybe just an iteration. Then again, if you mean, "I say that I am; therefore, I am," then that does seem to have a similar sense of entailment as the Cogito.

Fooloso4

If we are to take Descartes thinking = being sentiment, then we must assume the universe "thinks". — Benj96

There are two substances, two kinds of being, thinking and extended.

But for me "thinking" requires at its basis more than one "being" such that thought "leads" or "traverses" between once concept (one state of being) and another.

Not to mention thought requires memory otherwise it is a constant state of "what was I thinking about?" or "forgetfulness". — Benj96

He has a broad notion of what thinking is:

I am a thing that thinks: that is, a thing that doubts, affirms, denies, understands a few things, is ignorant of many things, is willing, is unwilling, and also which imagines and has sensory
perceptions; for as I have noted before, even though the objects of my sensory experience and imagination may have no existence outside me, nonetheless the modes of thinking which I refer to as cases of sensory perception and imagination, in so far as they are simply modes of
thinking, do exist within me - of that I am certain.

(Meditation 3)

Gnomon

For me the "I am that I am" can be qualified by all: whos, what's, where's, when's, how's, and whys of existence and thus encapsulates or captures all distinctions or sets within it's universal Venn Diagram — Benj96

Yes. I sometimes refer to the infinite pool of Potential --- from which our space-time world probably emerged --- not as an eternal regression of Multiverses --- but simply as THE ALL. It's the unknowable, but imaginable, WHOLE -- "universal Venn diagram" -- of which all concrete things are parts. And one of those emergent features is the feeling of self-existence (Ego ; I am) characteristic of sentient observers. So, it's easy to imagine that the Whole is also self-aware. There is a human tendency to personify such abstract concepts metaphorically, to make them seem more real & tangible. But history shows how such a reified metaphor can go wrong.

Therefore, since I have no reliable knowledge of anything existing before the Big Bang. I think philosophical modesty requires us to avoid epitomizing the hypothetical ALL into a humanoid god. To paraphrase Wittgenstein : whereof we do not know, we must not speak. FWIW, in order to avoid the errors & excesses of world religions, I avoid imagining the philosophically necessary Eternal Potential as a humanoid ruler of the universe.

For the purposes of my Information-centric thesis*1 though, I do sometimes refer to that source of all forms as The Enformer*2, or The Programmer. I even sometimes call it "G*D", as an ambiguous reference to an almost universal human concept. Unfortunately, the intentional ambiguity is lost on some literal-minded posters, who interpret it as a reference to Jupiter or Jehovah. :smile:

*1. A thesis, not about ideal deities, but about how the information-based real world works. Since Shannon, scientists have learned that Information is both physical and mental. Physicist John A. Wheeler posited his "it from bit" theory, which other scientists are still developing into a useful way of understanding how the world works.

*2. The Enformer :
AKA, the Creator. The presumed eternal source of all information, as encoded in the Big Bang Singularity. That ability to convert conceptual Forms into actual Things, to transform infinite possibilities into finite actualities, and to create space & time, matter & energy from essentially no-thing is called the power of EnFormAction. Due to our ignorance of anything beyond space-time though, the postulated enforming agent remains undefined. Metaphorically I call it The Programmer.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Alkis Piskas

"I think therefore I am" is the cartesian circle, the basis or hallmark for fallacious circular argument from Descartes — Benj96

Not if you know in what context has Descartes said that and why, i.e. how he arrived at that idea.

For Descartes, "cogito ergo sum" was a fundamental principle, which was based mainly on his irrefutable --not "seeming"-- truth that I cannot doubt my own existence and hence I think therefore I am. That's why, he expressed it elsewhere as "I doubt, therefore I am".

There are of course a lot of references .. A good one is the following:
Why does Descartes say that he is not his body in the second meditation?

***

BTW, ideas cannot be examined and discussed on the level of language alone. Do you believe that Descartes wouldn't have thought of the possible circularity of this statement, e.g. "I am, therefore I think"? Even a child can think of that.

Benj96

Do you believe that Descartes wouldn't have thought of the possible circularity of this statement, e.g. "I am, therefore I think"? Even a child can think of that. — Alkis Piskas

Of course I can conceive that he considered this. The only thing I don't understand is why, having considered that, and it's circularity, it did not lead him to a further reduction based on skepticism to the simpler statement "I am".

He could have doubted that "thinking" exists, no? Why stop at 2 things or phenomena to contend with: "thinking" and "being". When for me at least, it seems logical that "being" suffices as a standalone that cannot be doubted (an act of thinking, ironically, and rather humorously). If doubting (thinking skeptically) about ones being really did exist, ie if thinking truly exists as a distinct separate to simple "being", then doubting one exists would naturally lead to one not existing. Unless that is, "being" is more fundamental (less doubtful) than the ability to think.

Can one exist without thinking? I would imagine so, or else dreamless sleep would be ultimate death. As might deep and silent meditation.

Alkis Piskas

why, having considered that, and it's circularity, it did not lead him to a further reduction based on skepticism to the simpler statement "I am". — Benj96

Most probably because such questions were not raised at that time. See, there was no Internet and philosophical forums at that time, were people could doubt and ask questions about such pholosophical statements! :grin:

He could have doubted that "thinking" exists, no? Etc. — Benj96

I know that a host of questions can be raised and arguments made about this famous statement. I myself did that. Until I found out how D came with it. Have you read the reference?

***

Now, after all that being said, I personally don't agree with this idea. Thinking, is not a proof for someone that s/he is aware of being alive, i.e. that s/he exists. In fact, the contrary may be true: when my mind is absorbed by thinking, I kind of stop being alive. Hence the term "absentminded". We say "He looks like not being here". People in heavy grief, being absorbed by thinking about a big loss, are almost "dead". And so on. Indeed, we feel and know we exist at a maximum level when we live in are just in present and fully aware of out environment and ourselves. Isn't that so? So, instead of "I think, therefore I am", I would say "I am aware, therefore I exist". One can replace "aware" with "conscious", which is about the same thing. Consciousness is the the absolute proof someone is alive. Because consciousness means life. And vice versa.
(Note: By saying "thinking", maybe D meant "conscious" ... The concept of consciousness --more specifically, "conscious"-- was first used a little later, by John Locke, about 1620.)

Can one exist without thinking? — Benj96

As I said, one can feel alive at a maximum degree esp. when they are thinking. I say that from my personal experience. (There are techniques, like meditation, with which you be in that state; total absence of thinking.)

Benj96

Most probably because such questions were not raised at that time. See, there was no Internet and philosophical forums at that time, were people could doubt and ask questions about such pholosophical statements! — Alkis Piskas

True. It would have been a time where Descartes mindframe was less common. Not as much of the population was privy to such contemplations, nor at the level of communication of ideas, and ability to argue rationally from education. Many would have been preoccupied with baser needs for survival than philosophising.

Let's not forget "absence seizures" which are pathologies where one becomes unaware of anything external (ie with lost time/no recollection) in that moment. They aren't even aware of any blip or absence in the continuity of their experience.

So between those seizures, comas, hypothermia, deep intoxication, dreamless sleep, extreme distraction or catatonia and blackouts or maybe dementia, it certainly seems to suggest that being continues whether one is aware at all times or not.

So being conscious is at most neccesary for one to affirm they exist. But being unconscious, whilst not enough for one to affirm they are aware, is enough for everyone esle to affrim that they are alive and exist. And if they wake up, is ksot time for them but not lost being - as others can account.

Fooloso4

He could have doubted that "thinking" exists, no? — Benj96

No. To doubt is to think. He says so explicitly in the third meditation quoted above.

The only thing I don't understand is why, having considered that, and it's circularity, it did not lead him to a further reduction based on skepticism to the simpler statement "I am". — Benj96

It did:

So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

(Second Meditation)

... doubting one exists would naturally lead to one not existing. — Benj96

He does not doubt he exists. That is the point:

I will proceed in this way until I recognize something certain, or, if nothing else, until I at least recognize for certain that there is no certainty. Archimedes used to demand just one firm and
immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakeable.

(Second Meditation)

Can one exist without thinking? I would imagine so, or else dreamless sleep would be ultimate death. As might deep and silent meditation. — Benj96

Can one consider that question if one did not exist? Descartes is not claiming that he only exists as long as he is thinking. You misconstrue what "therefore" means in the statement "I think therefore I am". It means, therefore I can be certain that I am. About this I cannot be deceived.

"I am that I am"

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories