Thinking implies existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Thinking implies existence » Thinking implies existence

Thinking implies existence

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 04/26/09 - 11:05 AM: Subject: Thinking implies existence	#1
Descartes deduced that he existed in a seemingly self-evident manner (post #11): Philosophy of Religion » Cogito Ergo Sum However, what he implicitly understood as "himself", appears to have been beyond what the deduction implied. This also seems to be suggested by 180 Proof's post #20 over here: Philosophy of Religion » Religion (non-philosophical discussions) » A way to test for the afterlife? So what is "thinking about thinking" in relation to "existence of self"? It should be reasonably clear that "thinking" implies "existence" of some kind, though one may object by a charge of presupposition (petitio principii), e.g. all that was "proven" was the existence of thoughts, but that was assumed in the first place. Yet, thinking in itself appears self-evident due to a conceived activity, for example reading these forums; it will be hard to deny thoughts exists while thinking about this sentence. In that sense, some kind of existence also appears self-evident, deductively if nothing else. The disparity between thinking and self, however, does not follow from Descartes' deduction. So, is there a disparity at all? Well, thinking (about thinking), for one, takes time; or in other words, time is a prerequisite for thinking. So, in the usual physicalist manner (though I'm no purist by any stretch), I'll just propose: Memory is a hard prerequisite for any such reflection. What appears to be "thinking about thinking" is meaningless without a previous/other activity, an activity that is exclusively apparent due to memory. This seemingly recursive activity, thus leads to no more than a potential illusion of a "persistent self", in a more psychological sense. What Descartes thought of as a distinct "himself", separate from the rest of reality (and somewhat immaterial), especially separate from, and observing, his "thinking", cannot be justified. What is involved is this potential illusion? Nothing that can't be described by a physicalistic approach. Memory, for one, being an integral part of humans though not (fully medically) understood, can reasonably be justified having purely physical existence. As far as I can tell, this perspective on "thinking" and "self" is (internally) consistent. (I realize there are a number of presuppositions in the above, e.g. time, psychology, medicine, etc, but those are consistent with the proposal.) By the way, I apologize for the repeat, if this has been brought up before.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4150

Posted 04/26/09 - 06:53 PM:	#2
You might find the work of Antonio Demasio interesting. He is a neurologist who studies the brain. From his point of view Descates made a mistake, it should be "I feel, therefore I am." What motivates us to think and place value on reason and logic are our emotions and Demasio has written several books on the issue giving case studies of people who have lost much of the ability to emote through traumatic brain injury. In one case, a woman had no motive to get out of bed in the morning unless someone made the suggestion. Another patient would do anything anyone suggested, even when he knew it was to his detriment. In their cases literally nothing matters.

5kroner
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/27/09 - 11:06 AM:	#3
wuliheron wrote: You might find the work of Antonio Demasio interesting. He is a neurologist who studies the brain. From his point of view Descates made a mistake, it should be "I feel, therefore I am." What motivates us to think and place value on reason and logic are our emotions and Demasio has written several books on the issue giving case studies of people who have lost much of the ability to emote through traumatic brain injury. In one case, a woman had no motive to get out of bed in the morning unless someone made the suggestion. Another patient would do anything anyone suggested, even when he knew it was to his detriment. In their cases literally nothing matters. I don't know if the exception, them not being able to "feel," and therefore being unable to make a decision, places feeling as the cause of being, being a self. It could just lend evidence to feeling being a part of a set of conditions in being a self. I haven't read his work, obviously, so there could be more to it.

~vince~
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 181

Posted 04/27/09 - 11:42 AM:	#4
jorndoe wrote: Descartes deduced that he existed in a seemingly self-evident manner (post #11): Philosophy of Religion » Cogito Ergo Sum However, what he implicitly understood as "himself", appears to have been beyond what the deduction implied. This also seems to be suggested by 180 Proof's post #20 over here: Philosophy of Religion » Religion (non-philosophical discussions) » A way to test for the afterlife? So what is "thinking about thinking" in relation to "existence of self"? It should be reasonably clear that "thinking" implies "existence" of some kind, though one may object by a charge of presupposition (petitio principii), e.g. all that was "proven" was the existence of thoughts, but that was assumed in the first place. Yet, thinking in itself appears self-evident due to a conceived activity, for example reading these forums; it will be hard to deny thoughts exists while thinking about this sentence. In that sense, some kind of existence also appears self-evident, deductively if nothing else. The disparity between thinking and self, however, does not follow from Descartes' deduction. So, is there a disparity at all? Well, thinking (about thinking), for one, takes time; or in other words, time is a prerequisite for thinking. So, in the usual physicalist manner (though I'm no purist by any stretch), I'll just propose: Memory is a hard prerequisite for any such reflection. What appears to be "thinking about thinking" is meaningless without a previous/other activity, an activity that is exclusively apparent due to memory. This seemingly recursive activity, thus leads to no more than a potential illusion of a "persistent self", in a more psychological sense. What Descartes thought of as a distinct "himself", separate from the rest of reality (and somewhat immaterial), especially separate from, and observing, his "thinking", cannot be justified. What is involved is this potential illusion? Nothing that can't be described by a physicalistic approach. Memory, for one, being an integral part of humans though not (fully medically) understood, can reasonably be justified having purely physical existence. As far as I can tell, this perspective on "thinking" and "self" is (internally) consistent. (I realize there are a number of presuppositions in the above, e.g. time, psychology, medicine, etc, but those are consistent with the proposal.) By the way, I apologize for the repeat, if this has been brought up before. can you clarify the exact question?
~vince~ Don't confuse me with the facts.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:19 PM:	#5
"Thinking implies existence, but what existence?" I'd say it implies this existence. How can it be otherwise? An anchor-point is necessary for your thinking. The thinking of thinking of thinking has a certain limit to it. What are the answers supposed to be? I hope you write some more about the issue you are concerned with. Even if you're dreaming of an existence, it's nothing more than a function of the existence from which you are thinking.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 04/27/09 - 01:58 PM:	#6
~vince~ (#4) wrote: can you clarify the exact question? Not really a question, but rather a proposition (in layman terms: a wild, obstinate, and crazy postulate). Well, here's a question then: do you disagree? if yes, fire away. Aetixintro (#5) wrote: "Thinking implies existence, but what existence?" I'd say it implies this existence. How can it be otherwise? An anchor-point is necessary for your thinking. The thinking of thinking of thinking has a certain limit to it. What are the answers supposed to be? I hope you write some more about the issue you are concerned with. Even if you're dreaming of an existence, it's nothing more than a function of the existence from which you are thinking. Sorry for the confusion; the offering was an answer to the title+description. Dreaming does not really come into the picture, since then the dream is simply a subject of examination. I boldly posit that separating "thinking" and "self" disjunctly, in such a manner that each have independent natures, is unwarranted. Any activity such as "self" observing "thinking", or "thinking" about "self", that lead to assume disjoint natures, is an illusion that can be explained through memory. So, by "this existence" you mean "thoughts", no? It's about the relationship between the words "thinking" and "I"; perhaps describing Descartes' deduction as a tautology is more accurate. Moreover, the idea of a persistent "I", is entirely based on memory, but in an implicit manner that leads to an equivocation (can't think of a better word off hand). Apologies if it's unclear, English is only my 2nd language.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387

Posted 04/27/09 - 02:19 PM:	#7
So you actually contend the following: the cause is "self" and its effect is "thinking". In your words, the thinking is the self. I'd say that is bold, indeed. Let me think some more! However, nice going! Also, can't you write a longer article so that your point is more obvious, perhaps explicating words here and there. jorndoe wrote: So, by "this existence" you mean "thoughts", no? No, I don't. By "this existence", I mean whatever it is that generates the mind and the consciousness. I don't really have to explain exactly what I mean since the effect is the human being even in the physicalistic sense. To be honest, I connect this "lowest" reality to God through the soul, directly, but I don't think it's the issue here. You may be able to generate a more complete picture from what I've written in the other threads. Edited by Aetixintro on 04/27/09 - 02:38 PM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 04/27/09 - 03:02 PM:	#8
Aetixintro (#7) wrote: So you actually contend the following: the cause is "self" and its effect is "thinking". In your words, the thinking is the self. Yep, but incomplete. Without memory, any illusion of a "persistent I" does not exist. I (self), thinking, memory: with memory an illusion of a persistent I may emerge, and allows thinking about thinking. An example of thinking about thinking: cogito ergo sum (my perspective detailed in the 1st url in post #1 above). And, memory is entirely physical, at least that's part of my proposition.
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

jorndoe
Investigator

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada,Denmark

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 717

Posted 04/27/09 - 03:12 PM:	#9
Aetixintro (#7) wrote: You may be able to generate a more complete picture from what I've written in the other threads. Too many threads, too little time.. Anyway, this stuff was intended to take aim at the ever-ambiguous "free will".
People are to themselves what they think; people are to others what they do. ∞ ∑ 1/i² = π²/6 i=1

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387

Posted 04/27/09 - 10:14 PM:	#10
Well, it turns out we disagree deeply here, I think. Good luck with your theory! I don't know if there is any use for having me posting anymore in this thread. If I do, I'll promise I'll stick to cognition.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.