o. I already made this point. Both are assumed.
— Tom Storm
... & you’ve yet to define what disqualifies a thing from being “assumed” or an “assumption.” When I first asked you, this was your response...
It's not about what I think assumption means.
— Tom Storm
This may be one of the least philosophical things that I think that I’ve ever heard (no disrespect is meant here, truly). Of course what you think a word means within your argument is significant. If it’s meaningless to you, how am I ever to grasp your meaning?

The salient point is that there may not a straight forward 'I am' as the Cogito suggests. The experience of thought insertion leads some folk to doubt that they are a self and that their thinking may not be their own.
— Tom Storm

Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs

If you can't grasp my meaning there might be bigger problem here than you being concerned about what an assumption is.

In fact, it's hard to imagine you don't understand it since you used the same word in the same way as me when you wrote this:

So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? What makes it that the latter isn’t but the former is? — ItIsWhatItIs

What have I missed? You seemed to have grasped my point rather well for someone who doesn't understand how assumption was being used. And it remains curious that you missed me saying this:

there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm

So we seem to agree on this point and I don't think there's a serious quibble about words being used.

Do you have any thoughts about the actual point being made? I'll concede it's not especially interesting of itself.

Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs

Agree. But where did you get the idea that something is being presented as 'true'. And what's this about saying and thinking? We know that the cogito was an attempt to identify that which cannot be doubted by a person. The point I made was that thought events do not necessarily convince everyone that there is an "I" at the centre.

Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia's pedestrian entry on cogitio ergo sum lists philosophers who make similar arguments -

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring."

One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".

What do I think about these arguments? They are interesting but I'm not sure. I'm here to understand the range of views.

Do you know of any compelling arguments/evidence against the existence of 'I,' as representing
I think therefore I am, as opposed to thinking exists, therefore thinking has A source, but we can't confirm with 100% surety, what that source is.
My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this?

I like the example of:
Think of a film title.
Now think of another film title.
Why did the two titles manifest to/in you in the order they did, and why those two film titles, as opposed to all others your brain has stored?

Did 'I' make the choice of film title 1 and film title 2, as an act of free will? Did I use some criteria to make the choice, almost in auto mode? As I had to respond quickly?
Did some external source make the choice for me? In which case, my thoughts are not fully my own, dualism is probably true, we have no free will and the universe is deterministic.

If 'I' does not really exist then does dualism, determinism and no free will, then not follow?
I currently don't find any arguments for any of these 3 proposals, convincing, do you?

If 'I' does not really exist then does dualism, determinism and no free will, then not follow?
I currently don't find any arguments for any of these 3 proposals, convincing, do you? — universeness

Well, the real question is probably if 'I' isn't there, then what is? And the answer to this is, fucked if I know. :wink: There are philosophical views which would consider you and I to be dissociated alters of the same eternal conscious mind. But as you might say, do we have sound evidential warrant to accept this?

I'm just interested in the various understandings regarding this foundational and hoary chestnut of philosophy - the cogito, that is.

My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness

This seems to be the case. But we are getting perilously close to a layperson's discussion on neuroscience and consciousness.

Are you convinced by the cogito as a foundation for certain knowledge that can withstand doubt and skepticism?

And the answer to this is, fucked if I know. — Tom Storm

I think this is the best answer most current humans should offer, on most of the current 'big' questions, as it's probably the most honest one. It is certainly my most honest response. The rest is just an exchange of personal opinion, based on limited understanding of the scientific field involved. It still remains interesting to hear the musings of others to compare with my own.
I freely admit that non-scientific opinion, for me, falls somewhat beneath my interest in the scientific musings of myself and others.

Are you convinced by the cogito as a foundation for certain knowledge that can withstand doubt and skepticism? — Tom Storm

I would not assign any aspect or concept of knowledge as ever being outside of the reach of doubt or skepticism. I am deeply comforted by that, as it means I am immune to accepting proposals like god/perfection/infinity etc as truth.

:up:

Knowledge is not green either, and was never meant to be. Was it ever meant to be "perfect, complete or absolute"? — Banno

Since the word 'absolutely' appears in the thread title, I thought it appropriate to address. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps I should say, rather, that however perfect and complete other people's knowledge of trivial facts may be, my own knowledge is never absolute.

my own knowledge is never absolute. — Vera Mont

Are you certain of this?

Are you certain of this? — Banno

99.99% certain

Randomness does not exist. Some possibilities are merely impossible.

99.99% certain — Vera Mont

You mean one time in every ten thousand you act as if you're omniscient?

Go you!

You mean one time in every ten thousand you act as if you're omniscient? — Isaac

Very possibly - doesn't everyone? I wouldn't have been aware of it if I behaved that way, or recall how many times it happened. I can only tell you the degree of confidence I have in my present state of knowledge.

Go you! — Isaac

Indeed. And now what?

My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness

Well... this is besides the bickering between the two of you, but...

The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent.

99.99% certain — Vera Mont

Ah, a number. That must make you feel so much more confident...

That must make you feel so much more confident... — Banno

Does speculation about my possible feelings make you feel more confident?

Do you mean relations between the smallest possible things? — Janus

Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits?

But the absolute is thought as the polar opposite to the relative. — Janus

A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’”

Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits? — ItIsWhatItIs

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the question is incoherent to me: I cannot get any conceptual grasp on it.

A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’” — ItIsWhatItIs

From memory and roughly paraphrased, Hegel said something like "every determination is a determinate negation". So a tree, for example, is defined as much by what it is not as what it is. It is not a shrub, or a mountain, a river, or an animal. This is how the game of "twenty questions" proceeds.

In fact, it's hard to imagine you don't understand it since you used the same word in the same way as me when you wrote this: — Tom Storm

What have I missed? You seemed to have grasped my point rather well for someone who doesn't understand how assumption was being used. And it remains curious that you missed me saying this: — Tom Storm

L.o.l.,, why won’t you just (simply) define “assumption”? It’s actually quite funny that you won’t & avoid it by referring to a single reader for the purpose, such as myself.

Although, yeah, I used it however you originally or firstly used it, as a term to describe things. Yet I never considered a definitive definition for it because I was ready to use it, & thus ultimately understand your meaning, in whatever way you were to choose to express your argument.

You literally just said that both the thinker & the idea of thinking are assumed. I just then merely asked you, for affirmation, if you mean that the thinker & the idea of thinking are assumed, i.e., is that how you’re choosing to describe them? To which you replied positively. Okay, now that that’s out in the open, the next is question is or was: what do you mean by an “assumption,”i.e., what makes something an “assumption”? Yet you refuse to do that, oddly yet not surprising enough. If you go this whole time without defining it, that’s really something, l.o.l..

I'd like to go this whole discussion without defining it.

You literally just said that both the thinker & the idea of thinking are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs

I literally did not. I said I had described these as assumptions, as a concern some might have. I was in fact referencing Nietzsche. You may notice from the conversation that I have no particular commitments in this space. I am simply interested in the various responses to the cogito.

the next is or was: what do you mean by “assumption,”i.e., what makes something an “assumption” — ItIsWhatItIs

A you and I both know, an assumption is like a presupposition, or something which is taken as a given.

What do you think of the cogito as a foundation of indubitable knowledge?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the question is incoherent to me: I cannot get any conceptual grasp on it. — Janus

It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem.

From memory and roughly paraphrased, Hegel said something like "every determination is a determinate negation". So a tree, for example, is defined as much by what it is not as what it is. It is not a shrub, or a mountain, a river, or an animal. This is how the game of "twenty questions" proceeds. — Janus

So, you’re saying that the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree?

It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem. — ItIsWhatItIs

I understood it that time. In theory something could have a relation with just one other thing, but I doubt that is possible in actuality. Take anything you like: I think the relations that thing has with other things cannot be quantified.

So, you’re saying thar the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree? — ItIsWhatItIs

Yes.

Yes — Janus

So that means that you accept that “x = not-x,” or “a tree = not-a-tree.” I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction to absurdity than that, being led to say that a thing is not what it is.

It’s now to be understood why your theory on relativity is, in my opinion, incomprehensible (no disrespect is meant here). It’s because the basis of your view is contradictory.

I'd like to go this whole discussion without defining it. — Tom Storm

L.o.l., man, that’s hilarious.

I literally did not. — Tom Storm

So, you didn’t say...

No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — Tom Storm

... ???

Yeah, bro, it’s cool, man, l.o.l.. Leave it alone, man, it’s cool.

So that means that you accept that x = not-x, or a tree = not-a-tree. I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction than that, saying that a thing is not what it is. — ItIsWhatItIs

No, it does not follow that if something is defined in terms of not being something else, that it is that thing. In fact, it's precisely the opposite, the tree is defined, not only in terms of what it is, but what it is not.

You mean one time in every ten thousand you act as if you're omniscient? — Isaac


Very possibly - doesn't everyone? — Vera Mont

No. I think you're on your own there. I can't recall a time where I became convinced that I know everything there is to know. But hey, next time it happens to you, perhaps have a crack at one of the millennium problems, could be your route to fame and fortune.

Interesting response, it sounds like you are determined to distort my account.

So, you didn’t say...
No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs

That's right I didn't say it, I paraphrased the point which has been said by others. Let's look at the full quote together and the context.

Nietzsche also argued that there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm

You had added this as a point (about thinking being assumed) yourself after me as if it hadn't been said yet.

I was trying to reference what people have said about the cogito. You were hung up on a word.

Are you happy with the word assumption/presupposition or not? I'm very happy to hear an alternative word. I'd be even happier to hear what you think of the cogito, which seems not to have come up in all this.

But if you want to pass that's cool too.

The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent. — creativesoul

A computer can act forever, as a stand alone device. A human brain can also function as a completely stand alone device (hermitical human). You can connect computers together in a network by wired or wireless means and allow them to communicate, via language/code. Human brains can also network via language/code, yes. But, networking is optional, and is not evidence that refutes the existence of 'I.'

Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." — Tom Storm

“….. I take the word ‘thought’ to cover everything that we are aware of as happening within us, and it counts as ‘thought’ because we are aware of it. That includes not only understanding, willing and imagining, but also sensory awareness…..”
( Principia Philosophiae, 1. 9., 1644)

Pretty indicative of occurring, I should think.

Still, there will be those that insist heartbeats are thoughts…..occurring inside and conscious of, and all that…..hence the advent of a proposed substance not the kind to be laid out on the cutting table.

Pretty indicative of occurring, I should think. — Mww

No argument there, but Lichtenberg's point (which I must have made unclearly or I am not following you) was that he might have said instead thinking is occurring and not also the latter part therefore I am. This, as I wrote, has been questioned by some and I kind of get it. But it's not going to convince all.

thinking is occurring and not also the latter part therefore I am. — Tom Storm

So would you be more attracted to 'thinking is occurring (as a presupposition), therefore I probably am?
To me, the best we can do individually, is analyse what we 'think' we know, and assign our own personal level of conviction/credibility towards the available positions. I am 99% convinced that me, myself and I exist. I am still quite attracted to the fact that I genuinely experience 3 contributors, when I think about an issue. They debate the merits of a point. Overall, I could call them a collective that I refer to as 'I.' But, I am also happy to call them me(Rcomplex), myself(Limbic system) and I(cortex.) This is in no way novel, but it does seem to match what goes on inside my head.
As you say, we are not discussing real neuroscience here but, as I said, I have always experienced these three contributors. Do you have any commonality with that experience?