Author |
Topic: we think therefore we are? (Read 17065 times) |
|
ThudnBlunder
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
The dewdrop slides into the shining Sea
Gender: 
Posts: 4489
|
 |
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #100 on: Jan 21st, 2008, 11:09pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jan 21st, 2008, 10:21pm, shasta wrote:| But come on, "I think therefore I am"? Is there anyone here who can defend this ludicrous proof of one's existence? |
|
Cogito ergo sum is so 17th century. Icarus has since improved upon it:
on Dec 17th, 2004, 6:28pm, Icarus wrote:
I think he is saying both, and if he isn't, then I am. |
|
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 22nd, 2008, 8:02am by ThudnBlunder » |
 IP Logged |
THE MEEK SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH.....................................................................er, if that's all right with the rest of you.
|
|
|
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
    
Gender:
Posts: 2872
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #101 on: Jan 22nd, 2008, 10:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 21st, 2008, 10:21pm, shasta wrote:| But come on, "I think therefore I am"? Is there anyone here who can defend this ludicrous proof of one's existence? |
|
Descartes started with the same problem that had defeated philosophers for over 2000 years - how can you know anything for sure? Anything you think you know is based on your potentially fallible memory and your potentially fallible sense-impressions. The only sane solution, and the one the vast majority applies, whatever philosophical positions they may profess, is to take the world as it seems, except where it appears to be self-contradictory.
Even so, it seems kinda unsatisfactory to have to say "we can't really prove anything, so we'll just go with our best guess" so philosophers spent a lot of time looking for any sort of provable truth and either came up with some theory that another philosopher came along to poke holes in, or else came to the conclusion that all a philosopher can really do is question everything.
Then along came Descartes, who followed the same path to the same apparent dead end and concluded that all he could do was doubt everything. But then he came to the insight that escaped generations of philosophers before him: in doubting everything, he was doing something. Because he knew he was doing something, he knew he existed.
In other words, what you view as the flaw in the argument, is in fact the whole point of it - in order to think, to doubt, to question, you have to exist, so, knowing that you are wondering whether you exist, you know that you must exist in order to wonder. Yes, it's blindingly obvious once it's pointed out, but thousands of years of philosophers missed it, and it's still the only thing any philosopher has managed to prove absolutely.
Of course, it's also an incredibly weak result - it says nothing about me beyond the mere fact of my existence.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
SMQ
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2084
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #102 on: Jan 22nd, 2008, 11:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 22nd, 2008, 10:32am, rmsgrey wrote:| Of course, it's also an incredibly weak result - it says nothing about me beyond the mere fact of my existence. |
|
Well, it says slightly more than that; it also shows that your nature is such that you are capable of positing your own existence.
--SMQ
|
|
IP Logged |
--SMQ
|
|
|
Three Hands
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 715
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #103 on: Jan 22nd, 2008, 11:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, subsequent critics have suggested that it would be more correct to say "There is thought, therefore something exists", in order to avoid the implications brought in by "I". However, that seems to me to be taking things to extremes. Suffice to say that, yes Descartes could have opted for "I [verb], therefore I am", with "doubt" being the safest bet at the time, but he was still the first person creditted with actually pointing it out.
In terms of the issues of circular arguments within Descartes' works, I would guess that you are thinking of the issue of how Descartes can prove the existence of God through pure reason when he requires the existence of God to guarantee the validity of his reasoning. Here, apologists for Descartes turn to his use of "clear and distinct" ideas, suggesting that by this he meant ideas which he was unable to doubt. This leads towards the interpretation of the Meditations as a guide for a thought process Descartes had undergone, and believed others would experience similar results if they attempted the same - namely to try to doubt everything, and challenge how they could know anything. Eventually, it seems he could not doubt the validity of some of his thoughts - the "clear and distinct" ideas - and developed his arguments from there.
Also keep in mind that Descartes was the first of what are viewed as the "Modern Philosophers". Yes, it's fairly easy to argue against a lot of what they have written, but then, there's been a few centuries' worth of thought gone in to analysing what Descartes has produced, and so the context of the society he was writing for and in has been lost. Claiming Descartes to have been a fool for not working all of this out for himself is akin to claiming Newton was an idiot for not coming up with Relativity instead of his laws of motion...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
shasta
Newbie
Posts: 29
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #104 on: Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
"But then he came to the insight that escaped generations of philosophers before him: in doubting everything, he was doing something."
That's still a circular argument. "I doubt therefore I am" presumes it's conclusion in it's premiss. If you allow as a presumption that the three headed elephant in my backyard doubts it's existence, from that I can prove to you there is a three headed elephant in my backyard.
"There is thought, therefore something exists"
That's yet another circular argument. "There is" is being used as a synonym for "there exists" in this case, and "There exists X therefore something exists" is obviously circular.
In my opinion, these problems are the result of feeling there is a need to prove things without allowing for any assumptions. I don't believe this is possible, however that doesn't mean there aren't some things we can treat as absolutely true. The way in which I handle it goes like this.
Certain things must be true in order for the statement I am thinking rationally to ever be possible. If these things are not true and it is not possible for me to think rationally, it hardly matters what I think at all, if indeed I exist and am capable of thought. Thus, simply to be rational, I must assume the following things whether they can be proven or not.
I am thinking rationally
1. I exist.
2. There exists at least one trait, that of rationality.
3. It is possible for me to have that trait.
I think we can all agree that these three things are necessary conditions for me to ever be able to accurately say "I am thinking rationally". Working from them, I believe we can infer the following.
4. I have free will. The reason is because free will is a requirement for rationality. If an object without free will performs an action, I do not believe that action can't be said to be a rational action, only the result of various stimuli acting on it. If my thoughts are only the result of outside stimuli and I have no control over them, then I came up with this assumption as the result of such stimuli and determinism forces me to assume it anyway. 
Here's another base assumption that I find useful.
5. The degree to which it is possible for me to rationally interpret something is directly proportionate to my ability to acquire accurate information about it. This applies to everything in the universe, including itself.
Of course, not all of the information I've gained about the universe is accurate, but I act as though enough of it is for me to interpret it largely rationally. I'm still justifying it with the "If it's true then I should use the information I've gained to attempt to interpret the universe. If it's not true then any guesses I make seem as likely as any others. So I might as well hedge my bets and treat it as true." viewpoint that I've been using all along here.
This is as far as I've taken my "base assumptions" to date. In my model of the universe, these are at the top of the knowledge tree, (think binary tree, without the requirement for each branch to split exactly 2 times. The name of this kind of tree escapes me at the moment). The next level down on the tree for me would be those conclusions which I've inductively drawn directly as the results of the information I've gained and heard others agree they've gained about the universe. These I do not treat as being required assumptions for my rationality, but as things which I'll usually assume freely. An example would be if I see something, it's there. I know this isn't always necessarily true, and am willing to examine something like this if I have reason to doubt it, but normally I just assume it is true. From here, proceeding down the tree ideally involves using proofs that take the upper levels of the tree as their assumptions and doesn't add anything to them. I don't always achieve this ideal, but it's what I aim for.
"Claiming Descartes to have been a fool"
Well my condemnation isn't really so much aimed at Descartes himself, (I do believe he was intelligent and respect his work in the field of mathematics). It was intended to be aimed at the obviously circular arguments he presented which are still largely hailed as brilliant.
"akin to claiming Newton was an idiot for not coming up with Relativity instead of his laws of motion..."
I think it would be more akin to condemning Newton for having come up with astrology, (had he done so), perhaps a bit harshly due to frustration from living in a society that still thought of astrology as praiseworthy science, (again if it did so); while acknowledging his great work in physics. But again, the criticism is aimed at the argument, not the man.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Three Hands
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 715
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #105 on: Jan 23rd, 2008, 1:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am, shasta wrote:"But then he came to the insight that escaped generations of philosophers before him: in doubting everything, he was doing something."
That's still a circular argument. "I doubt therefore I am" presumes it's conclusion in it's premiss. If you allow as a presumption that the three headed elephant in my backyard doubts it's existence, from that I can prove to you there is a three headed elephant in my backyard.
"There is thought, therefore something exists"
That's yet another circular argument. "There is" is being used as a synonym for "there exists" in this case, and "There exists X therefore something exists" is obviously circular.
In my opinion, these problems are the result of feeling there is a need to prove things without allowing for any assumptions. I don't believe this is possible, however that doesn't mean there aren't some things we can treat as absolutely true. The way in which I handle it goes like this. |
|
OK, circularity is not necessarily a bad thing. It might appear simplistic, and generally not very insightful, but the fact remains that, if you accept the premise (like "I think" or "There is thought"), the conclusion MUST be true. This is what is known as a "sound argument" - an argument may be sound without the conclusion being true. Since Descartes found reasonably irrefutable evidence for the existence of doubt, this showed that the initial premise holds, and thus the conclusion ("I am" or "Something exists") must also be true.
Granted, the conclusion may not seem particularly profound, but it still counts as a breakthrough against solipsistic philosophies. By proving that there is at least something in existence by the mere existence of the thought, claims that "nothing is real" take a fairly heavy blow. Granted, Descartes' attempts to prove the rest of reality through a similar process run into much stronger criticism, and justifiably so. But the damage done to solipsism, which was generally the popular philosophy of the day, is still not to be understated.
Also, as you have suggested, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to actually say anything is true without some assumptions being made. Descartes' efforts are probably the most famous attempt to do so, largely because it has largely stood up to attempts to knock it down completely much better than most others. It may not appear that profound, and open to accusations of stating the blindingly obvious, but it is still robust.
on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am, shasta wrote:Certain things must be true in order for the statement I am thinking rationally to ever be possible. If these things are not true and it is not possible for me to think rationally, it hardly matters what I think at all, if indeed I exist and am capable of thought. Thus, simply to be rational, I must assume the following things whether they can be proven or not.
I am thinking rationally
1. I exist.
2. There exists at least one trait, that of rationality.
3. It is possible for me to have that trait.
I think we can all agree that these three things are necessary conditions for me to ever be able to accurately say "I am thinking rationally". Working from them, I believe we can infer the following.
4. I have free will. The reason is because free will is a requirement for rationality. If an object without free will performs an action, I do not believe that action can't be said to be a rational action, only the result of various stimuli acting on it. If my thoughts are only the result of outside stimuli and I have no control over them, then I came up with this assumption as the result of such stimuli and determinism forces me to assume it anyway. |
|
First of all, I'd suggest that an action can be rational without being brought about by an act of will. Causality, I think, is perfectly rational - the reason for the effect is contained within the cause and the nature of the causal relationship. However, that's purely semantics.
I believe the real problem for this argument you are smuggling the capacity to think into the capacity to act. There's a difference between being able to think and to be able to affect change in the world. Rational thought can exist impotently, but it would be impossible to prove that an object were thinking rationally without some outward action to show the thought. However, the basis for your argument have been based in introspective thought, rather than relating to outside actions, and as you could quite conceivably have rational thought without the ability to act on it, the claim does not follow.
on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am, shasta wrote:Here's another base assumption that I find useful.
5. The degree to which it is possible for me to rationally interpret something is directly proportionate to my ability to acquire accurate information about it. This applies to everything in the universe, including itself.
Of course, not all of the information I've gained about the universe is accurate, but I act as though enough of it is for me to interpret it largely rationally. I'm still justifying it with the "If it's true then I should use the information I've gained to attempt to interpret the universe. If it's not true then any guesses I make seem as likely as any others. So I might as well hedge my bets and treat it as true." viewpoint that I've been using all along here.
This is as far as I've taken my "base assumptions" to date. In my model of the universe, these are at the top of the knowledge tree, (think binary tree, without the requirement for each branch to split exactly 2 times. The name of this kind of tree escapes me at the moment). The next level down on the tree for me would be those conclusions which I've inductively drawn directly as the results of the information I've gained and heard others agree they've gained about the universe. These I do not treat as being required assumptions for my rationality, but as things which I'll usually assume freely. An example would be if I see something, it's there. I know this isn't always necessarily true, and am willing to examine something like this if I have reason to doubt it, but normally I just assume it is true. From here, proceeding down the tree ideally involves using proofs that take the upper levels of the tree as their assumptions and doesn't add anything to them. I don't always achieve this ideal, but it's what I aim for. |
|
You might appreciate one of the conclusions Hume came to when considering the problem of induction. Essentially, it boils down to "OK, we can't prove it to be true, but since we're going to believe it is true anyway, we might as well take it as a given."
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Icarus
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Boldly going where even angels fear to tread.
Gender:
Posts: 4863
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #106 on: Jan 23rd, 2008, 7:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am, shasta wrote:
"There is thought, therefore something exists"
That's yet another circular argument. "There is" is being used as a synonym for "there exists" in this case, and "There exists X therefore something exists" is obviously circular. |
|
No, it is not circular. Instead, it is a tautology. If X exists, then something indeed does exist. It is the statement ( x)  (x).
The premise of this statement is not proven by itself, but rather by the existence of the statement. If the statement were false, then there would not be a statement to be false. And this discussion would not exist either.
|
|
IP Logged |
"Pi goes on and on and on ...
And e is just as cursed.
I wonder: Which is larger
When their digits are reversed? " - Anonymous
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: we think therefore we are?
« Reply #107 on: Jan 24th, 2008, 7:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am, shasta wrote:| That's still a circular argument. "I doubt therefore I am" presumes it's conclusion in it's premiss. |
|
I think you've failed to notice something about arguments in general; the conclusion is always entailed by the premises. That does not make them circular.
Thinking entails existence.
Therefore, if I think, I must also exist.
That I think, is something I can observe/know; and by that know I exist.
There is nothing circular about the argument
A&B -> B
A&B
therefore B
And in many circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to leave A&B -> B implicit
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print