Questions about Descartes ''I think therefore I am''

[RG1]

When I say “thinking” thoughts, I mean “authoring” (constructing/creating/selecting) the very thoughts that we experience.

You mean intentionally authoring them (as opposed to them simply originating in us)?

I'd agree that can't work, since intentionally authoring thoughts would of course be thought itself, so you get an infinite regress.

I'm skeptical that that's how most people conceive of thought working though.

I think most people believe they have a ‘mind’ (a “self” within), that authors their thoughts, AND controls their bodily actions.

Neither is logically possible. We don’t (and can't) dictate our thoughts, nor our actions. We can only experience our experiences (bodily reactions).

Psychologically, this logical truth is very difficult for most to accept. For the sake of psychological survival, most would rather believe (and defend) in a “magical genie within” (aka mind/self).

[Dontaskme]

You write that the 'separate self' is an illusion, but you also write 'Life is a happening without doubt'. I think this is just shifting the same understanding we have just rejected for 'self' or 'consciousness' onto the word 'life'. Just as 'consciousness' isn't something distinct from examples of consciousness, so 'life' isn't something distinct from the 'happenings' that make up life. In other words, life is not a happening, for much the same reason 'infinity' or 'number' is not a number.

Life is happening, but not to an I

Can you find anyone/anything making happening happen?

Do you make yourself happen? Or do you just happen?

Is there a difference between daytime 'reality' and night time dreams? If so, what is the difference?

[Terrapin Station]

I think most people believe they have a ‘mind’ (a “self” within), that authors their thoughts, AND controls their bodily actions.

Neither is logically possible. We don’t (and can't) dictate our thoughts, nor our actions. We can only experience our experiences (bodily reactions).

Psychologically, this logical truth is very difficult for most to accept. For the sake of psychological survival, most would rather believe (and defend) in a “magical genie within” (aka mind/self).

You didn't answer my question about intentionality.

The reason I'm asking is that it's not clear to me just what you're saying.

I believe I have a mind, a self, and I also believe that I intentionally "author" some thoughts and actions.

I don't believe that it's possible to intentionally author all thoughts. That would create an infinite regress.

I don't know if that's all that you're saying, though.

[Dontaskme]

Psychologically, this logical truth is very difficult for most to accept. For the sake of psychological survival, most would rather believe (and defend) in a “magical genie within” (aka mind/self).

[Londoner]

Life is happening, but not to an I

Can you find anyone/anything making happening happen?

Do you make yourself happen? Or do you just happen?

Like 'life' in the sense you use it, I do not think the word 'happen' describes anything. Particular things happen and we can say how they come about, and who they involve, but 'happen' doesn't happen; there is no event 'happen'.

I do not 'happen'. There aren't two seperate things, me and my happening.

Is there a difference between daytime 'reality' and night time dreams? If so, what is the difference?

There are several differences. For example, experiences in a dream do not persist. Events in reality persist in that they have effects, effects that I cannot wish away. For example, if I drop a heavy weight on my foot then I will have bruises, the weight will be on the floor and so on. These effects will persist, they will also be evident to people who did not see the event itself. By contrast, if I dream of the same event, once I am awake there will be no sign that it happened.

Both are experiences/happenings/parts of life, but they are different types of experience/happenings/parts of life, so I give them different names.

[Dontaskme]

Like 'life' in the sense you use it, I do not think the word 'happen' describes anything. Particular things happen and we can say how they come about, and who they involve, but 'happen' doesn't happen; there is no event 'happen'.

I do not 'happen'. There aren't two seperate things, me and my happening.

The experience of 'You' is the happening ...known in the instant one with the knowing. Here now, there is no room for knower and known, ... there is nothing outside this immediate now of ''knowing'' ...'You' do not happen, you are the happening.

There are several differences. For example, experiences in a dream do not persist. Events in reality persist in that they have effects, effects that I cannot wish away. For example, if I drop a heavy weight on my foot then I will have bruises, the weight will be on the floor and so on. These effects will persist, they will also be evident to people who did not see the event itself. By contrast, if I dream of the same event, once I am awake there will be no sign that it happened.

Both are experiences/happenings/parts of life, but they are different types of experience/happenings/parts of life, so I give them different names.

Every thing is made of impermanence - every thing is coming and going..always changing in constant flux, and is what makes all things possible. All things arise in nameless changeless no thingness. Hence the impermanent, ethereal nature of all things. Both night and day dreams are appearing in the same one awareness aka no thingness. The one seeing a night-time event/dream.. is the same one seeing/experiencing every day-time event.
Any difference is an illusion.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not think the word 'happen' describes anything. Particular things happen

So what are you saying there if you do not think that the word "happen" describes anything?

[Terrapin Station]

Did Don Imus name one of his kids "Anon"?

[Londoner]

The experience of 'You' is the happening ...known in the instant one with the knowing. Here now, there is no room for knower and known, ... there is nothing outside this immediate now of ''knowing'' ...'You' do not happen, you are the happening.

I sort of agree, but although there may be nothing outside this immediate now of knowing, it doesn't follow that all types of knowing are the same. We can and do differentiate between them.

Every thing is made of impermanence - every thing is coming and going..always changing in constant flux, and is what makes all things possible. All things arise in nameless changeless no thingness. Hence the impermanent, ethereal nature of all things.

Or one could make the same observation and conclude by denying that any change is real. If the nature of all things is impermanent, then nothing that happens changes their nature.

The problem with this sort of pronouncement is that it robs all your words of meaning; if everything is in the process of change, then the word 'change' has no meaning, because to speak of change is to say that something that was A is now B, but you deny it was ever in either of those states.

Both night and day dreams are appearing in the same one awareness aka no thingness. The one seeing a night-time event/dream.. is the same one seeing/experiencing every day-time event.
Any difference is an illusion.

It would be the same in one respect - that both appear to the same awareness - but different in others; what appears has a different character.

It all seems an unnecessarily obscure way of pointing out that we can either discriminate based on differences or generalise based on similarities. I'm not sure what point is being made.

[Dontaskme]

Or one could make the same observation and conclude by denying that any change is real. If the nature of all things is impermanent, then nothing that happens changes their nature.

The problem with this sort of pronouncement is that it robs all your words of meaning; if everything is in the process of change, then the word 'change' has no meaning, because to speak of change is to say that something that was A is now B, but you deny it was ever in either of those states.

''What is'' and 'EXPERIENCE' are one and the same ‘thing’. There is no ''What is'' and EXPERIENCE. Experience/What is/This/Awareness/IT are different labels for the same ‘thing’. Experience Itself.

This is no thing experiencing itself as every thing.

It would be the same in one respect - that both appear to the same awareness - but different in others; what appears has a different character.

It all seems an unnecessarily obscure way of pointing out that we can either discriminate based on differences or generalise based on similarities. I'm not sure what point is being made.

Difference is an appearance of The SAME ONE
As an example of what I'm pointing to ...Clouds appear in different shapes and colours, and even though the different shapes and colours are known, there is still knowing that the shapes and colour are made up of clouds. So, no matter how the clouds appear, they are still clouds. Do the different shapes and colours change what clouds are? The same applies to experience.

The idea of a self-conscious 'I' experiencing would mean there is you AND experience. That ‘you’ is just an idea appearing as experience. Without the idea 'i exist' there would still be 'the knowing of/as experience'.

What IS (aka experience), IS the KNOWING and KNOWN.
Experience has nothing. Anything it supposedly has, it actually IS.
Experience doesn’t have the idea, it IS the idea.

[Londoner]

Difference is an appearance of The SAME ONE
As an example of what I'm pointing to ...Clouds appear in different shapes and colours, and even though the different shapes and colours are known, there is still knowing that the shapes and colour are made up of clouds. So, no matter how the clouds appear, they are still clouds. Do the different shapes and colours change what clouds are? The same applies to experience.

The clouds are similar enough so that all are described by the word 'cloud', but different in other respects, such that we also say 'that cloud' or 'cumulus' or 'fog'. The same applies to experience.

The idea of a self-conscious 'I' experiencing would mean there is you AND experience. That ‘you’ is just an idea appearing as experience. Without the idea 'i exist' there would still be 'the knowing of/as experience'.

One of my experiences is a sense of continuity. There is 'me and experience', in that I do not identify myself with any particular experience.

What IS (aka experience), IS the KNOWING and KNOWN.
Experience has nothing. Anything it supposedly has, it actually IS.
Experience doesn’t have the idea, it IS the idea.

As in earlier posts, I do not think it makes sense to talk of existing, your 'IS', as if it was a thing in itself. I agree that 'experience' is nothing in the sense that all words that refer to a category are not (usually) themselves members of that category; thus 'experience' is not the name of an experience. But it is no better to do the same thing with 'is'.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if you are going to have a problem putting it across with words.

[RG1]

When I say “thinking” thoughts, I mean “authoring” (constructing/creating/selecting) the very thoughts that we experience.

You mean intentionally authoring them (as opposed to them simply originating in us)?

You didn't answer my question about intentionality.

“Intentionality” is irrelevant to the logical impossibility of “thinking” (i.e. authoring one’s own thoughts). It does not matter if you experience the “intent” (the strong conscious urge/desire) to author or not, “thinking” is still not logically possible!

Furthermore and as a side note: the feeling/experience of “intention” is just an experience, and ALL experiences are EFFECTS (…not causers). And, just because I experience the “intention” to do something, does not mean that it was “I” that dictated/created this “intention” upon myself. In fact it is impossible (via infinite regress) to do such a thing, as I must first have the 'intention' to (intentionally) create the 'intention' to do anything! ...and then where does that first intention come from, must I intentionally create that one too? ...for-ev-ver and ev-ver.

I believe I have a mind, a self, and I also believe that I intentionally "author" some thoughts and actions.

Minds/selfs are logically impossible. We don’t (and can't) dictate our thoughts, nor our actions. We can only experience our experiences (bodily reactions). That's all.

I don't believe that it's possible to intentionally author all thoughts. That would create an infinite regress.

The “authoring” or pre-selecting of ANY thought is logically impossible! We can’t know and select our thought prior to experiencing the thought!

If we pre-select our thoughts, we would have to think to do so. But then those thoughts would also have to be pre-selected. Thus, since the pre-selection of thoughts would require pre-selecting other thoughts, the pre-selecting of thoughts would fall into an infinite regress and no thoughts would ever be selected. So, no, we cannot pre-select (or “author”) ANY thought(s).

[Terrapin Station]

RG1, what the heck are you talking about? Why would thinking be logical impossible then?

[RG1]

RG1, what the heck are you talking about?

Can you think (create/construct/select/author) your own thoughts? …or do you just experience them? This distinction is critical to understanding Descartes error (dualistic position).

Why would thinking be logical impossible then?

You've already answered this yourself.

I'd agree that can't work, since intentionally authoring thoughts would of course be thought itself, so you get an infinite regress.

Yes. It is impossible to know and select ANY thought prior to ‘experiencing’ the thought. In other words, We cannot script-write our thoughts! We don't know what we are going to think (experience) until we think (experience) it!!!

...or do you actually believe you can select your own thoughts? ...and if so, then does this selecting process require thoughts? ...if so, then did you select those thoughts too?, ...and so on into infinity (and beyond).

And again... Most people believe they have a ‘mind’ (a “self” within), that authors their thoughts, AND controls their bodily actions. Neither is logically possible. We don’t (and can't) dictate our thoughts, nor our actions. We can only experience our experiences (bodily reactions).

Descartes (first) error was in his first premise - he assumed the impossible, he assumed he could 'think' ("I think, therefore...), when he could only experience thought, which then led him to his dualistic belief of a 'thinking thing' (res cogitans) called "mind".

[Terrapin Station]

Can you think (create/construct/select/author) your own thoughts? …or do you just experience them? This distinction is critical to understanding Descartes error (dualistic position).

The distinction that would make sense there is whether you can intentionally author ALL of your thoughts or not. You can intentionally author some. Not all.

It is impossible to know and select ANY thought prior to ‘experiencing’ the thought.

"Know and select" is adding new concepts into what you'd said before.

In other words, We cannot script-write our thoughts!

You can some. For example, you can intentionally author something in a creative mode: "I'm going to come up with a melody for this chord progression," then you make an effort to do so and do so.

We don't know what we are going to think (experience) until we think (experience) it!!!

That's not the same idea as authoring our thoughts though.

...or do you actually believe you can select your own thoughts?

"Select" and "author" are different. I'm not sure what it would amount to to suppose that we have a number of thoughts present but we're selecting some. The idea of that doesn't even make much sense to me to be able to answer it.

And again... Most people believe they have a ‘mind’ (a “self” within),

Yes, I believe that, too. It's a set of brain processes, by the way.

that authors their thoughts,

You can intentionally control some thoughts.

AND controls their bodily actions.

And you can certainly intentionally control some bodily actions. I do that all the time.

Neither is logically possible.

That's a completely ridiculous thing to say.

We don’t (and can't) dictate our thoughts, nor our actions.

How the heck would you believe that you can't intentionally dictate your actions? What in the world??