An interesting interpretation. I did not understand Descartes to be doing this. Rather, I see a deeper argument: that is, that without a thinking agent, all questions simply disappear. The right translation of the cogito might be "I doubt, therefore I am."Dave Mangnall wrote:You mention consciousness. I hope I’ve said nothing to lead you to think that I disbelieve in consciousness. My point about Descartes was that his Cogito was supposed to establish his own existence, but that he was assuming his own existence in order to prove it.
That is, if there is a doubt being expressed, then some consciousness must be expressing it and perceiving the question it raises. If that is not so, then neither is there any question or doubt anymore. But there IS a question or doubt, and I DO perceive it, said Descartes; therefore there must be a "me" to perceive it.
He goes on to admit how hard it is to say what that "me" is. But he's laid that foundation in bedrock, it seems to me: we can't even pose the question of existence unless there is some conscious agent to do so. That conscious agent could be a quadruped, or a brain-in-a-vat, or a ghost, or whatever -- we have not yet said -- but Descartes is saying we are secure in the certainty that one of the above sort of entities does, in fact exist...even if that's all we know.
Agreed.I don’t seriously doubt my own existence, or even yours.
Ah. Well, here I have to remind you of your objection to Spheres. He thinks that "feeing free" is equivalent to "being free." Clearly you don't think that's true; but it does nicely represent the difference between my position and what I think yours might be. For I say that being free is more than a feeling, and you -- if you're a Determinist -- would have to insist it was just a sort of weird, psychological effect or impression overlaid on the pure factuality of predetermination of all things.I'm still not convinced we understand each other on mind changing. What is it you think that determinism would prevent from happening in this respect?
What secures our confidence in that axiom?But everything happens as it must happen.
How can a Determinist future ever be accorded the adjective "unpredictable"? Not in human practice, I mean; I understand that people quit routinely feel unpredictability -- but rather in theoretical implication. That is, if nothing but causality applies, then IF we had the data and computational ability to do it, then in theory ALL events would be predictable: or so Determinism must hold. So why call any "unpredictable"?... the unpredictable future...
I don't think it does. Determinism, if true, works as well on rocks and trees as it does on persons. It would rather seem that Determinism is quite indifferent to which you happen to be. It just moves you according to its tides anyway.Not that determinism requires me to be a totally rational person, any more than anybody else is.
Well, and so do I, and so does every other human being on the planet. At some point, that has to become an interesting fact. And while it cannot prove that Determinism isn't true, it does seem to require some sort of better explanation than, say, "It's just because it was determined to be so."And I do confess that at times even I find myself under the thrall of the Free Will Illusion, which is a very powerful illusion, even when I know that an illusion is what it is.
It's almost as thought we self-aware entities have a built-in doubting ability for Determinism -- or more, that we cannot seem to function as living entities without acting as if physical causality isn't really all that's true, as if it just isn't the whole story. And isn't it odd that physical causality should have built that into us, if indeed, it is purely physical causes that have done that? But it's so generally observable that at least we've got to ask that question, no?
