Cogito, Ergo Sum

Prospero · Post by **Prospero** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:15 pm

Cogito, ergo sum. "I think, therefore I am." It can only mean, "I think, therefore I am a thinker." The truth is that not everything that is, thinks. I believe that existence precedes action (thinking), not the reverse. After all, a blade of grass exists, and yet it lacks the ability to think.

What do you think?

Zantar Black · Post by **Zantar Black** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:18 pm

I doubt, therefore I might be.

Skorpion · Post by **Skorpion** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:20 pm

In the mornings, I am too tired to think, therefore I am not.

SothThe69th · Post by **SothThe69th** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:23 pm

I drink, therefore I'm drunk.

Shyknight · Post by **Shyknight** » Wed Feb 04, 2004 11:55 pm

You're not understanding it correctly, Glue.

"I think, therefore I am" does NOT mean that thought came before existence. It's only a way of proving to yourself that you exist. Even if all of reality were to come crashing down upon you and everything you thought was real turned out to be an illusion, you can always believe in your own existence as long as you continue to think.

Something can exist without thinking, but if it thinks, then it can at least prove to itself that it exists. If you were an illusion, you could not think. Therefore you would only exist as a dream or a hologram of sorts, an illusion of a person and not as a living, breathing reality. That is not real existence. It's possible for everyone around you to turn out to be fake, but it's not possible for YOU to be a dream as long as you have an ego.

Even dreams prove how infallible this reasoning is. In your dreams, are you ever someone other than yourself? Not usually. You may have a different appearance or a different name, but even in dreams you still think and feel the same way about things. And when you wake up, you are the same person. The only constant thing in our lives is our own identity. Our personalities may change but there is always that remnant of yourself from infancy that is distinctly YOU. And you think, therefore you are.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:07 am

Actually, Descartes never actually proved that it was he who was doing the thinking. For all he knows, "he" could have been a character in somebody or something else's dream.

Who are we to say that illusions cannot think if we ourselves are indeed illusions? It's dangerous logic to follow

furre · Post by **furre** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:13 am

I am, therefore I think. Much more interesting, if you ask me. Which of course you shouldn't.

Shyknight · Post by **Shyknight** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:00 am

You can't be an illusion if you think and feel. Otherwise, waking up from a dream would be immoral because it would be murder.

Prospero · Post by **Prospero** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:07 am

I understand what you're getting at, Shyknight. I suppose you're right.

MaverickLlama · Post by **MaverickLlama** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:57 am

[quote="Shyknight";p="271796"]You're not understanding it correctly, Glue.

"I think, therefore I am" does NOT mean that thought came before existence. It's only a way of proving to yourself that you exist. Even if all of reality were to come crashing down upon you and everything you thought was real turned out to be an illusion, you can always believe in your own existence as long as you continue to think.

Something can exist without thinking, but if it thinks, then it can at least prove to itself that it exists. If you were an illusion, you could not think. Therefore you would only exist as a dream or a hologram of sorts, an illusion of a person and not as a living, breathing reality. That is not real existence. It's possible for everyone around you to turn out to be fake, but it's not possible for YOU to be a dream as long as you have an ego.

Even dreams prove how infallible this reasoning is. In your dreams, are you ever someone other than yourself? Not usually. You may have a different appearance or a different name, but even in dreams you still think and feel the same way about things. And when you wake up, you are the same person. The only constant thing in our lives is our own identity. Our personalities may change but there is always that remnant of yourself from infancy that is distinctly YOU. And you think, therefore you are.[/quote]

Thanks!

you've just proved to me that I exist! Unless I'm just imagining that you wrote this and it's not really true....

this reminds me of the little man in Life, the Universe, and Everything that has faith in nothing, not even his cat.

Aether · Post by **Aether** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:12 am

I think a more accurate translation (or interpretation, or whatever) of Descarte's quote would be something like, "I think, and in thinking I exist." It's probably always quoted the other way because it sound prettier.

JudgeMental · Post by **JudgeMental** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:45 am

What is an illusion? How do we KNOW that an illusion cannot think and feel? If we are illusions, then all we experience is (probably) of the same illusion, and thus what WE label "illusions" might not share the same qualities of the far more complex illusions that are us.

So I again ask, who are we to determine what properties an illusion has and does not have if we ourselves are illusions?

Shyknight · Post by **Shyknight** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:16 am

The definition of an illusion is something that is perceived by our senses to be real but is actually not real. Things that are not real do not think and feel. I can write a short story with a fictional character in it, and write about what he is thinking and feeling. But it's still just a story. The character is an illusion, a creation of my mind, and does not really think or feel. If you believe in modal reality then he exists in a seperate universe from ours, but otherwise he's just a collection of thoughts floating around in the synapses of my brain.

Here's a better question, JudgeMental. If you're an illusion, why do you care?

TopCat · Post by **TopCat** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:45 am

We're all illusions, part of a reality that exists in the mind of the Universal AC. In a few billion years, the cosmic AC will find out how to reverse entropy and will recreate the universe. And then we'll be real again. Until then, our minds are melded WITH the AC and are able to think, but not be. Or, by being with the AC, are we also seperate from the AC, as different processes in the whole of the operating system? Anyway, we've moved beyond Analog Computers, so we have nothing to worry about.

post 1 3 3 7. Ph33r this.

Shyknight · Post by **Shyknight** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:35 pm

Wha? Did you pull that out of your ass or somebody else's?

Real Life Forums

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Cogito, Ergo Sum

Who is online