Descartes I Think, Therefore I Am Disproven?

[Skepdick]

I was told in a thread that shall not be named that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" position was recently attacked and disproven.

It was ever proven?

[Age]

That's a good question.

'What', EXACTLY, is, supposedly, 'a good question' here?

I do NOT SEE ANY question ANYWHERE in that post.

Could it be that you weren't looking at the title of the thread?

I LOOKED AT the title of this thread, just before I opened this thread. BUT I, VERY FOOLISHLY, did NOT LOOK AT 'it' AGAIN, AFTER I read your post.

I, AGAIN, VERY FOOLISHLY, ONLY LOOKED IN the opening post but NOT at this thread's title again. But, 'now', that I can, CLEARLY, SEE what you are/were REFERRING TO, I still wonder how 'it' is a so-called 'good question'?

Descartes I Think, Therefore I Am Disproven?

[Age]

I have a long exposure to the use of coercive force. It doesn't win you friends. Well.... it does if you just want to show off. Proper use, with maximum preservation of self judgment and sense of free will leaves people thinking you are the offender causing a ruckus. It is like police in poor, crime ridden neighborhoods. If they do their job just right, everyone stands around staring at them like they are the bad guys for arresting a parent in a crowd with a kid crying. Kid is gonna think the cop evil.

I just regret I let a few close to me fall through the cracks. Lost a brother and sister to gangs and prison. But I also have alot of regrets other. Lived a complex, complicated life.

Are 'you' talking TO ANY 'one' in particular here?

[Age]

Because it was assumed in the other thread by him/her.

And there are circumstances were you can have a selfless intelligent AI orienting and observing, such as cameras doing facial recognition searches that lack self awareness. Hence my frog conversation.... that was the biological side of the phenomena. But this wasn't really what the other thread was about. It was weird. He really wanted to win.

'Winning' is, EXACTLY, what most of 'you', people, in 'philosophy forums' think, or BELIEVE, is even possible, and what MOST of 'you' WANT TO DO, MOST of the time, anyway.

LOL MOST of 'you', people, even think, or some even BELIEVE, that there is even some 'thing' here 'to win'. Which is even MORE LAUGHABLE when read AGAIN.

[Age]

Ok. You win too.

WHO?

AND WHAT?

[Age]

I'm aware of the argument. I said you won.

WHAT 'argument'?

AND, won WHAT, EXACTLY?

[Age]

I was told in a thread that shall not be named that Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" position was recently attacked and disproven.

It was ever proven?

Are you TELLING, or ASKING?

The question mark confuses the sentence, as well as the way that sentence is written, by the way.

[Iwannaplato]

How can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".

I don't go around worrying there is no I. But if we are philosophically mulling and checking assumptions, it seems to me all we can demonstratin to ourselves is experiencing is happening. Why need there be an 'I'? A self? There could just be this experiencing, a phenomenon.
The 'I exist' adds on an assumption that there is some kind of I that is thinking. Rather than just this moment, this experiencing or really, since 'experiencing' implies an experiencer, just a phenomenon. No separate self having experiences and perhaps no objects being experienced. Just a phenomenon.

I am not arguing this is what is happening, I am just saying that I think this is a weakness in the cogito. That it doesn't somehow finally prove that you exist.

And what I wrote does not disprove the cogito. I think it points to a weakness, that's all.

Here's how others have worded similar reactions:

It's a classic example of begging the question. The premise I think establishes that I exist, so the conclusion I am is just restating the premise.

A better version might be There are thoughts therefore there is a thinker. But this is still problematic because it assumes that thoughts must be owned by thinkers. It also doesn't establish that you are that thinker.

My personal view is that experience exists and is undeniable, but the concept of a subject is full of philosophical problems. I would like to see more progress made in moving beyond subject/object dualism.

or from Wikipedia (there are more objections there)

In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue.[54] The first to raise the "I" problem was Pierre Gassendi, who in his Disquisitio Metaphysica,[55] as noted by Saul Fisher "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. …[T]he only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present."[56]

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks" wherein the "it" could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence "It is raining."[5]

Or even within Descartes own meditations, perhaps the Evil Genius is capable of making it SEEM like something so obvious is true when it isnt'

[Perhaps some God could have given me a nature such that I was deceived even in matters which seemed most evident. (Med. 3, AT 7:36, CSM 2:25)

I can convince myself that I have a natural disposition to go wrong from time to time in matters which I think I perceive as evidently as can be. (Med. 5, AT 7:70, CSM 2:48)

I saw nothing to rule out the possibility that my natural constitution made me prone to error even in matters which seemed to me most true. (Med. 6, AT 7:77, CSM 2:53)

[T]he most serious doubt [arises] from our ignorance about whether our nature might not be such as to make us go wrong even in matters which seemed to us utterly evident. (Prin. 1:30; AT 8a:16, CSM 1:203)

So this is not a disproving, it is a way to doubt in general, anything, even what seems obvious.

[Wizard22]

Self-identity, "I" at the very least, refers to feelings of pain and pleasure which are NOT shared with others.

At most, it refers to complicated thought-structures, ideas, aspirations, also which others do not necessarily have.

Does a dog have a sense of Nobility or Godliness? Do most humans?

[Age]

How can there not be an "I". Are you at this instant in which you are typing, not conscious? While I admit you could be an AI chatbot for all I know, I can attest to the fact that I exist at this moment, and that I am having what we conscious beings refer to as "thoughts".

I don't go around worrying there is no I.

I do NOT think ANY one does.

It is pretty well OBVIOUS, literally 'Self'-evident, and 'Self'-explanatory that the 'I' ACTUALLY EXISTS.

But if we are philosophically mulling and checking assumptions, it seems to me all we can demonstratin to ourselves is experiencing is happening.

And, TO WHO? Is THE QUESTION. Of which, THE ANSWER does become ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS. That is; once one LEARNS and KNOWS HOW to FIND THE ANSWERS to these Truly MEANING-FULL QUESTIONS, in Life.

Why need there be an 'I'? A self?

There is NO 'need', as such, but BECAUSE 'experiencing' IS HAPPENING, then there OBVIOUSLY IS an and thee 'I'. Also known as, thy Self.

There could just be this experiencing, a phenomenon.
The 'I exist' adds on an assumption that there is some kind of I that is thinking.

'Thinking' is just ANOTHER PART of 'the experience', which IS HAPPENING.

Contrary to popular BELIEF, in the days when this was/is being written, there is NO 'I', that is thinking. There IS, however, 'thinking', or 'thoughts', going on, or happening, and of which there IS an, or thee, 'I' that IS AWARE OF 'them'.

Rather than just this moment, this experiencing or really, since 'experiencing' implies an experiencer, just a phenomenon. No separate self having experiences and perhaps no objects being experienced. Just a phenomenon.

ALL of which thee 'I' is AWARE or CONSCIOUS OF.

I am not arguing this is what is happening, I am just saying that I think this is a weakness in the cogito. That it doesn't somehow finally prove that you exist.

'you' does NOT exist in the way that 'you', people, in the days when this is being written, think, BELIEVE, NOR IMAGINE.

And what I wrote does not disprove the cogito. I think it points to a weakness, that's all.

But what you WROTE here is just ANOTHER MISINTERPRETATION and MISREPRESENTATION of what 'cognito' WAS ALLUDING TO, and POINTING TO.

Here's how others have worded similar reactions:

It's a classic example of begging the question. The premise I think establishes that I exist, so the conclusion I am is just restating the premise.

But, 'I think', has ALWAYS BEEN Wrong, in the way that 'it' is 'thought' to mean.

A better version might be There are thoughts therefore there is a thinker.

MUCH, MUCH CLOSER. But STILL False, Wrong, and Incorrect.

But this is still problematic because it assumes that thoughts must be owned by thinkers. It also doesn't establish that you are that thinker.

Correct.

And, by the way, the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth here is ACTUALLY WAY MUCH SIMPLER, and WAY MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, then was FIRST IMAGINED.

My personal view is that experience exists and is undeniable, but the concept of a subject is full of philosophical problems. I would like to see more progress made in moving beyond subject/object dualism.

But there are NO ACTUAL 'philosophical problems' here AT ALL, which have NOT YET ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, and thus RESOLVED.

or from Wikipedia (there are more objections there)

In Descartes, The Project of Pure Enquiry, Bernard Williams provides a history and full evaluation of this issue.[54] The first to raise the "I" problem was Pierre Gassendi, who in his Disquisitio Metaphysica,[55] as noted by Saul Fisher "points out that recognition that one has a set of thoughts does not imply that one is a particular thinker or another. …[T]he only claim that is indubitable here is the agent-independent claim that there is cognitive activity present."[56]

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks" wherein the "it" could be an impersonal subject as in the sentence "It is raining."[5]

Or even within Descartes own meditations, perhaps the Evil Genius is capable of making it SEEM like something so obvious is true when it isnt'

This just REFERS TO what is known, by some, as 'the devil'.

Which is just A PART of HOW the brain, with the BELEF-system, WORK, EXACTLY.

So this is not a disproving, it is a way to doubt in general, anything, even what seems obvious.

I do NOT SEE ONE 'problem' ANYWHERE here.

Also, and by the way, WHEN one LEARNS how to DISTINGUISH what MIGHT BE True, FROM, what IS ACTUALLY True, and KNOWS the ACTUAL Truth, then WONDERING what IS True or NOT, OBVIOUSLY, diminishes.

'Doubt' is then REMOVED, exponentially.

[Age]

Self-identity, "I" at the very least, refers to feelings of pain and pleasure which are NOT shared with others.

At most, it refers to complicated thought-structures, ideas, aspirations, also which others do not necessarily have.

Does a dog have a sense of Nobility or Godliness? Do most humans?

And it was this kind of 'thinking' and 'wondering', WHY it took human beings SO LONG to COME to UNDERSTAND and KNOW what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, especially in regards to MEANING-FULL QUESTIONS in Life like, 'Who am 'I'?' for example.

[Skepdick]

Are you TELLING, or ASKING?

Are you TELLING, or ASKING?

The question mark confuses the sentence

[Age]

Are you TELLING, or ASKING?

Are you TELLING, or ASKING?

OBVIOUSLY I AM ASKING.

One can, VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLE, TELL, just by the question mark at the end AND just by the way the sentence IS structured.

The question mark confuses the sentence

ONLY quoting HALF, or A PART of, the ACTUAL sentence could be conceived as BEING EXTREMELY DECEPTIVE.

BUT please feel ABSOLUTELY FREE to DO whatever you consider would provide 'you' WITH THE BEST ADVANTAGE here.

[Wizard22]

And it was this kind of 'thinking' and 'wondering', WHY it took human beings SO LONG to COME to UNDERSTAND and KNOW what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, especially in regards to MEANING-FULL QUESTIONS in Life like, 'Who am 'I'?' for example.

When you respond in the third-person and Appeal to the Audience, it sounds like you have a Disassociative Schizophrenic tendency, just fyi.

[Age]

And it was this kind of 'thinking' and 'wondering', WHY it took human beings SO LONG to COME to UNDERSTAND and KNOW what IS ACTUALLY True AND Right, in Life, especially in regards to MEANING-FULL QUESTIONS in Life like, 'Who am 'I'?' for example.

When you respond in the third-person and Appeal to the Audience, it sounds like you have a Disassociative Schizophrenic tendency, just fyi.

Okay, thank 'you' for letting 'us' KNOW how 'you' are READING, and JUDGING, 'me'.