I think therefore...

[PolyHedral]

I think therefore I am.
But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )
A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I'm fairly sure there's a flaw in this reasoning, but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

cogito ergo erratum

 

[Revoltingest]

I think therefore I am.
But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )
A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I'm fairly sure there's a flaw in this reasoning, but I'm not sure what it is.

I underlined the flaw.

 

[PolyHedral]

How would a process run on itself?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

How would a process run on itself?

Very carefully.

 

[Tarheeler]

I think therefore I am.
But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )
A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I'm fairly sure there's a flaw in this reasoning, but I'm not sure what it is.

It only works if you totally reject Descarte's reasoning.

He deliberately threw out memory and sensory data because it isn't always accurate (you can remember something differenly that it actually happened and the senses can be misinterpreted, hot can feel cold for example). Since theose things cannot be absolutely verified, then they are suspect. And he was all about rejecting everything suspect and starting at the very bottom. So we get cogito ergo sum.

But philosophy never was my strong suit, and I never did like Descartes in particular, so good luck to ya!

 

[Tre-L]

I think therefore I am.
But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )
A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I'm fairly sure there's a flaw in this reasoning, but I'm not sure what it is.

If you are you are, if you weren't there would be no recognition of "I". We are creatures of awareness, and each of us experience what is differently. Whether all is one, or we are experiencing outside influences, we exist. The mind is a terrible thing to waste on vain philosophy. Why not enjoy what is and leave the thinking to those who have no life to live.

Envy life,

Te-L

 

[Willamena]

cogito ergo erratum

erratum ergo addendum

 

[PolyHedral]

quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur!

If you are you are, if you weren't there would be no recognition of "I". We are creatures of awareness, and each of us experience what is differently. Whether all is one, or we are experiencing outside influences, we exist. The mind is a terrible thing to waste on vain philosophy. Why not enjoy what is and leave the thinking to those who have no life to live.

Envy life,

Te-L

Um, you seem to be agreeing with me?

 

[Revoltingest]

How would a process run on itself?

I don't know. But the premise that it cannot run on itself looks unsupportable.

 

[Willamena]

I think therefore I am.
But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )
A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I'm fairly sure there's a flaw in this reasoning, but I'm not sure what it is.

"I think: therefore I am."

or my favourite: "I think I must be ran by something other than myself. Therefore I am."

 

[Willamena]

Neitzsche's answer:

"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true à priori" our belief in the concept of substance-- that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate--Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.

If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon--that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself.

The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," [then] the precondition for "substance" in general disappears. One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being.

 

[PolyHedral]

It only works if you totally reject Descarte's reasoning.

He deliberately threw out memory and sensory data because it isn't always accurate (you can remember something differenly that it actually happened and the senses can be misinterpreted, hot can feel cold for example). Since theose things cannot be absolutely verified, then they are suspect. And he was all about rejecting everything suspect and starting at the very bottom. So we get cogito ergo sum.

Yes, so his reasoning works whether or not you take sensory data, etc, into account. The only reason I mentioned those in the first place is because someone might have a different vision of "consciousness" being a state, rather than a process.

that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed.

A deed without something doing it is nonsensical. A nonentity can't perform any action, since it doesn't exist.

Very carefully.

I assume you're a writer for Star Trek, then? (See the section about the Heisenberg Compensators)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

erratum ergo addendum

beautiful

 

[Eliot Wild]

The mind is a terrible thing to waste on vain philosophy. Why not enjoy what is and leave the thinking to those who have no life to live.

Te-L

As crazy as it may sound to those who have never experienced it, some people actualy 'enjoy' thinking. Believe it or not, some people actually believe, like Socrates, that the unexamined life is not really worth living, regardless of what other endeavors one packs into that particular life.

Besides, why is philosophy vain? And furthermore, who says one can't 'think' while they live life to the fullest? For all we know, our buddy Mr. PolyHedral may have been posting his OP while skydiving with Playboy Bunnies near his summer house in Nice, France. I would assume, if that is true, then he was using his laptop. Maybe he can tell us how easy it is to find a network while freefalling toward the Mediterranean coastline.

 

[YmirGF]

I think therefore I am.

I exist independently from my thought process. My thoughts merely reflect my current emotional state. They are very much a mood thing and ebb and flow accordingly.

But "I" is a process. (if you object to this, please explain how a consciousness works without memory or sensory data. )

In my view, the shifting sands of being do not serve to undermine being itself.

A process must be "ran" by something other than itself.
Therefore, there must be something external to me.

I tend to see being as action personified and in that respect is autonomous and runs itself. It cannot do otherwise. In a sense, being is the original perpetual motion machine.