Rousseau_CHN

Cogito ergo sum.

Before he discovered this, he called on all us to doubt everything (de omnibus dubitandum).

His doubting is a little wanting in my opinion. How sure is he that it is the "I" that thinks. What if it was an evil genius who was doing the thinking?

Again, is it really "I" that thinks or the "Think" that I?

Come on, Descartes fans, can you really doubt everything?

Mr. Sammi

Is it reaslly the 'I' that thinks or the "Think", that's I. If so then who doubts? Is it I who doubts the think, or the think who doubts the I?

In dualism the mind and body are seperate entities. My interpretation of dualism is a body seperate from the mind, with itz own characteristics which can function in automation without an active thinking agent - Preprogrammed control. A form of dualism exists with this body, it is automata OR it is controllable by an active agent. A simple example of this is breathing. We can unconsciously allow the body to breathe on itz own, OR through an active agent breathing can be slowed, paused, or sped up. For the sake of clarity, I term the automata of the body, LowerBeing. This LowerBeing is evident in the form of a newbown baby.

The automata of the body is connected to the head, within the brain and as such the LowerBeing of the body can be said to encompass all body parts including some of the brain. Why some of the brain? Evidently because the unconscious control of the body has itz locus in the brain. To top this the conscious control of the body is also located in the brain. Implying there is automata within the brain AND there is a thinking agent in the brain which has access to the dual nature of the body, shown by the thinking agent's interaction and control over the body.

At this point we should agree that the body itself is dual in nature. This duality exists because the body can act due to pre-programmed or apriori conditioning AND the body can act because of the influence of a thinking agent.

For an analogy and correct me if I am outclassed here concerns
a jetliner that uses jetfuel to drive itz engines. Without fuel the jetliner will not function properly. Without proper accomodation for the fuel the jetliner will not function correctly. This implies the jet needs the fuel and the fuel needs the jet in order to operate a fully functional jetliner.

In our case the fuel corresponds to the thinking agent, but unlike our jet without fuel a real jet has no automata of itz own to wheel itself around in the absence of fuel.

* * *

With the clarification of this position, we can analyse what can be doubted, and to what extent would this doubt be real.

Obviously LowerBeing the automata of our body cannot doubt itself. OH no, perhaps it can, as I doubt my own knowledge on this matter seeing I have no access to this automata as I have always been the active agent. But perhaps if I place my mind into my history books looking for a history lesson, I may be able to find my automata in doubt as a child without my thinking agent active. At this moment I cannot think of a valid case to be presented here.

Let me move on to the active agent of what I consider to be me, the thinking part of the body, again for the sake of clarity I wish to nominate ThinkingBeing as itz referent. Obviously the body needs to be in worlking order in order to accomodate this thinking agent (ThinkingBeing) in all itz glory. I part company with Antonio Damassio (spelled correctly?) here. Damage to the brain cannot accomodate ThinkingBeing any more.

What can this ThinkingBeing doubt? It can doubt itz own source, that's for sure. It can doubt itz real natire, that's for sure, It can doubt itz real location, that's for sure, especially when the Being is in full working condition (LowerBeing & ThinkingBeing).

It becomes difficult to doubt ThinkingBeing's attatchment to LowerBeing. When ThinkingBeing leaves due to whatever reason, what is left would hardly be in a position to encompass many doubts, except to doubt what it previously was.

Can ThinkingBeing doubt itz own existence, regardless of itz nature, source and inclination? Perhaps here all doubt is removed, ThinkingBeing is I, I am ThinkingBeing, I may be an evel (spelled correctly?) genius from without, but that is me, I may be able to doubt my true nature BUT I cannot doubt I do have a nature, and as the great Rene once said : I think therefore I am, and that is absolute beyond all doubt.


Sammi Na Boodie (I doubt I am not(good) though)

Hubrys Polymetis

Cogito Ergo Sum

1. I think
therefore, I am.

Or more correctly,

I, a thing which exists, think
therefore, I exist (whoops, didn't I already say that?)

Circular logic is a nasty problem here.

Kantian

That is the myth of Cartesianism - not how Descartes argued his point. A careful reading of the Meditations demonstrates that Descartes never deduced his existence from his cogito.

To attribute circularity to Descartes is to mislead the potentially curious and perpetuate the "myth of Cartesianism."

Edited to add: In the Meditations, Descartes does not write: "I think, therefore I am," but "I am; I exist." This is an incontrovertible intuition, not an argument. Descartes is not deducing his existence from the fact he thinks, but rather stating that it is impossible to think without being aware that he exists.

~Transcendentalist~

Mr. Sammi

I, a thing which exists PRESUPPOSES perception. I, a thing which exists is only deducable through cognition. The seperation of the three, I - a perception of cognition, thing - a perception of cognition, exists - a perception of cognition. Cognition cognises itz cognition - Reflection.

You were only REFLECTING on a way to beat-up on poor Rene. He is dead and cannot defend himself BUT I WILL defend Descartes.

No circularity, no point, no reward, no fame, no gain.



Sammi Na Boodie ()

AnthonyAdams45

The claim "I am, I exist" is seen here to follow from "I exist, since I am deceived." Descartes would have done better to listen to Sammi.