Philosophy Now Forum

I think, therefore I am... Does that mean the majority of the population is NOT?

Alien Experiment wrote:I think, therefore I am... Does that mean the majority of the population is NOT?

Not what? It's possible that much of the population doesn't think too deeply, but I would guess that they do think, at least a little, just enough to exist.

Alien Experiment wrote:I think, therefore I am... Does that mean the majority of the population is NOT?

Yes. As Simone Weil wrote" "I am, therefore I can." How many can be masters of themselves? If they cannot, do they have a right to say "I am?"

thedoc wrote: they do think, at least a little, just enough to exist.

There we have it, straight from the horse's mouth.

Nick_A wrote:Yes. As Simone Weil wrote"

GROAN!

Descartes forgot about time. He was existent long before he could think, just that he didn't know it then. Otherwise, where is the line between when one cannot think and when one can?

There isn't one. It's a gradual shifting from reflex to intent. An infant exists, feels and responds, although only on a reflex level. Gradually a baby's actions become a little more deliberate even before being aware of itself. The lines between life, consciousness and conscious awareness are indistinct.

Greta wrote:Descartes forgot about time. He was existent long before he could think, just that he didn't know it then. Otherwise, where is the line between when one cannot think and when one can?

No he didn't. Descartes was in the process of doubting whether there is a single consistent person to experience sequences of thought when he concocted the think therefore I am bit. The actual reasoning was very specific in that it describes how in this moment there is a subject experiencing this thought whose existence is beyond logical doubt.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Greta wrote:Descartes forgot about time. He was existent long before he could think, just that he didn't know it then. Otherwise, where is the line between when one cannot think and when one can?

No he didn't. Descartes was in the process of doubting whether there is a single consistent person to experience sequences of thought when he concocted the think therefore I am bit. The actual reasoning was very specific in that it describes how in this moment there is a subject experiencing this thought whose existence is beyond logical doubt.

He still forgot about the time before he could think. There's no dividing line - as a baby one "level" of awareness melded into the next over time until he was capable of being consciously aware that he exists. Yet he "was" long before he thought any thoughts - feeling, crying, eating, bonding etc.

I am therefore I think is arguably a more accurate statement for thought can only come after existence
You cannot think before you exist as that would violate the law of cause and effect and so is impossible

Descartes 1596-1650 Common Era is doubting. '...I exist' is certain. Cartesian is no legitimate grounds for doubting. Doubt is whatever thinks. 'I think' is doubt. Contingent is matter of fact. You have to learn about the kinds of knowledge. A priori verse a posteriori. Rene' Descartes was a genius.

Greta wrote:He still forgot about the time before he could think. There's no dividing line - as a baby one "level" of awareness melded into the next over time until he was capable of being consciously aware that he exists. Yet he "was" long before he thought any thoughts - feeling, crying, eating, bonding etc.

He didn't forget that at all. It's quite explicitly one of the things he was making a philosophical point of doubting. Everything that you are describing falls within the tricky demon bit of that book.

If you are of the position that Descartes overlooked the fact of time and/or that there was a time when you existed but could not think, please note that the proclamation is not, "I think therefore I was."

The statement applies only to the present moment.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

Greta wrote:He still forgot about the time before he could think. There's no dividing line - as a baby one "level" of awareness melded into the next over time until he was capable of being consciously aware that he exists. Yet he "was" long before he thought any thoughts - feeling, crying, eating, bonding etc.

He didn't forget that at all. It's quite explicitly one of the things he was making a philosophical point of doubting. Everything that you are describing falls within the tricky demon bit of that book.

commonsense wrote:If you are of the position that Descartes overlooked the fact of time and/or that there was a time when you existed but could not think, please note that the proclamation is not, "I think therefore I was."

The statement applies only to the present moment.

Ah, the ignorance of a science-head in philosophy laid bare - mea culpa! I should have said "disregarded time" rather than "forgotten". Still, I don't much trust models that disregard something as fundamental as time.

I understand that the proposition stemmed from a thought experiment where he looked inwards, trying to understand what may be fundamental within and individual. Flash, isn't Descartes's the tricky demon just our unreliable senses? If I'm mistaken, all guidance appreciated.

To future artificial intelligences this saying will be as fundamental as the so-called 6th day of creation when God created man.

Flash Dangerpants wrote:

Descartes was in the process of doubting whether there is a single consistent person to experience sequences of thought when he concocted the think therefore I am bit. The actual reasoning was very specific in that it describes how in this moment there is a subject experiencing this thought whose existence is beyond logical doubt.

But Descartes regarded this "I' business as mind not body. D's mind was the subject that had the experience of the thought not D's body. The Cogito shows up the problem of how Descartes was going to connect up mind and body. The bit about the pineal gland was pre-scientific speculation.