NationStates Jolt Archive

Cogito ergo sum

I think, therefore I am.


What do you think of Descartes universal truth? Is it truly axiomatic?

What do you think of Descartes universal truth? Is it truly axiomatic?

No. It contains the hidden assumption that thinking must require an agent.

It always confused me because it sounds to me that that means that nothing that isn't sentient doesn't actually excist... like this computer, or a rock. Does that make them just figments of my imagination?

"I think therefore I am", could, in essence, be taken to mean that because one can think that they realise who they are in terms of individuality.

No. It contains the hidden assumption that thinking must require an agent.

Do actions not require an agent?

It always confused me because it sounds to me that that means that nothing that isn't sentient doesn't actually excist... like this computer, or a rock. Does that make them just figments of my imagination?

He does not say that things that do not think do not exist, he only shows that we can be sure of our own existence because we possess the property of thought.

He does not say that things that do not think do not exist, he only shows that we can be sure of our own existence because we possess the property of thought.
Ahh, gotcha. That makes a lot more sense than my interpritation.

Do actions not require an agent?

In our experience there appears a correlation between actions and agents, but if we are to stay true to Cartesian method we are unjustified in supposing that all actions require agents.

He does not say that things that do not think do not exist, he only shows that we can be sure of our own existence because we possess the property of thought.

However, he then goes on to attempt to prove that those things which do not think (as parts of the world which are not our self) and other presumably thinking beings also exist, but in order to do so he first has to prove the existence of God. Needless to say his proofs are a tad flakey.

In our experience there appears a correlation between actions and agents, but if we are to stay true to Cartesian method we are unjustified in supposing that all actions require agents.

Why would an action not necessitate an action regardless of our own perception. Certainly actions and properties cannot manifest on their own.

What if you think you are thinking but you are wrong?

(Note: This is a rhetorical question based on an imagined conversation with Descartes. It ends with him throwing a bun at me.)

What if you think you are thinking but you are wrong?

(Note: This is a rhetorical question based on an imagined conversation with Descartes. It ends with him throwing a bun at me.)
(Aren't imaginary conversations with people like Descartes fun?)

This is a flawed statement. The very act of thinking you are thinking is, by its own nature, thinking in and of itself. Therefore, you are thinking.

Why would an action not necessitate an action regardless of our own perception.

Should that second 'action' be 'actor'?

Certainly actions and properties cannot manifest on their own.

You are forgetting Cartesian method. Just because in our past experience, which Descartes has set aside as it is based on the faulty evidence of our senses, we have perceived a link between actions and agents, that does not mean we can assume that such a link does exist or must exist.

However, he then goes on to attempt to prove that those things which do not think (as parts of the world which are not our self) and other presumably thinking beings also exist, but in order to do so he first has to prove the existence of God. Needless to say his proofs are a tad flakey.

His system of proof is a pretty big failure. How Decartes can talk about casting off established thought, yet rely on clear and distinct ideas to establish existence is beyond me.

Why would an action not necessitate an action regardless of our own perception. Certainly actions and properties cannot manifest on their own.
According to quantum physics, they can.

Should that second 'action' be 'actor'?

Yes, my brain gets ahead of my fingers.

You are forgetting Cartesian method. Just because in our past experience, which Descartes has set aside as it is based on the faulty evidence of our senses, we have perceived a link between actions and agents, that does not mean we can assume that such a link does exist or must exist.

I am saying that we can prove the necessity of actors for actions through reason and not experience. By the very concept of action, there must be an actor.

According to quantum physics, they can.

Do you mean that they manifest without cause, or that the manifest completely independent of an agent?

I don't think.

Yet I type this. Fuck you descartes. (And your bloody stupid co-ordinates).

Do you mean that they manifest without cause, or that the manifest completely independent of an agent?
Forgive my ignorance: what's the difference?

By the very concept of action, there must be an actor.

A possible failure of imagination... "stranger than we can think".

it's really very eurocentric.

Zazen or something.

Forgive my ignorance: what's the difference?

The agent is that which is acting, that which possesses a property. A cause is originator or impetus for action or a property. It is not necessarily the same thing, in fact, I would argue that they are never the same thing.

(Aren't imaginary conversations with people like Descartes fun?)

This is a flawed statement. The very act of thinking you are thinking is, by its own nature, thinking in and of itself. Therefore, you are thinking.
Or you might just be mentally wanking off. Does that count as thinking? Is a fantasy a thought? What if it's a really boring fantasy that doesn't even get the fantasizer off? (This is where Descartes reaches for the buns, and then, when I start quoting Alexander Pope...) "You beat your Pate, and fancy Wit will come: Knock as you please, there's nobody at home." (...he throws it.)

The agent is that which is acting, that which possesses a property. A cause is originator or impetus for action or a property. It is not necessarily the same thing, in fact, I would argue that they are never the same thing.
So if I walked into a dark room and turned on the lights, the action would be flipping the light switch, the agent would be my hand, and the cause would be me thinking it was too dark?

it's really very eurocentric.

Zazen or something.
:confused: Zazen is Japanese.

:confused: Zazen is Japanese.

Aye, as in the sense that cogito ergo sum is very eurocentric because other non euro types reject it.

Anyway, I drive a car.

J'ai noté que le Français et je suis devenu attristé quand ce n'était pas une discussion française. :(

J'ai noté que le Français et je suis devenu attristé quand ce n'était pas une discussion française. :(

C'est la vie.

According to quantum physics, they can.
According to quantum physics, Schroedinger's cat is only 50% alive. Quantum physics is not exactly perfect.

J'ai noté que le Français et je suis devenu attristé quand ce n'était pas une discussion française. :(

nous pouvons toujours commencer une discussion française...

According to quantum physics, Schroedinger's cat is only 50% alive. Quantum physics is not exactly perfect.

I think not. More that it is neither alive nor not alive.

I think not. More that it is neither alive nor not alive.
But if the experiment was controlled so that 50% of the time, the cat dies, then the cat IS 50% alive and 50% dead. The number does vary though...i think...

nous pouvons toujours commencer une discussion française...
quelqu'un doit commencer un autre discussion en francais sur NS. :D

But if the experiment was controlled so that 50% of the time, the cat dies, then the cat IS 50% alive and 50% dead. The number does vary though...i think...

Not really. The cat is at best indeterminate until you open the box.

Then it's either dead, or not dead. You can't assign percentages to it.

Not really. The cat is at best indeterminate until you open the box.

Then it's either dead, or not dead. You can't assign percentages to it.
:eek:

Then he lied to me! *goes off to kill that boy*

quelqu'un doit commencer un autre discussion en francais sur NS. :D

i dont think many will take part in a french discussion...:(

i dont think many will take part in a french discussion...:(
I would...I'll bet Lacadaemon will too, right?

According to quantum physics, Schroedinger's cat is only 50% alive. Quantum physics is not exactly perfect.
There are acutally two cats. One is alive, and one is dead. Once you observe the cat(s), however, only one cat remains.

No, I don't understand it either.

Aye, as in the sense that cogito ergo sum is very eurocentric because other non euro types reject it.

Anyway, I drive a car.
Oh, that explains it.

I would...I'll bet Lacadaemon will too, right?

3 people? thats not enough, silly...

I think not. More that it is neither alive nor not alive.

I thought that it was both alive and not alive.

Glass half empty/glass half full.

A possible failure of imagination... "stranger than we can think".

Isn't that a universal denial? I don't even think Decartes went that far into doubt did he, after all it would deny the ultimate truth of mathematics as well.

So if I walked into a dark room and turned on the lights, the action would be flipping the light switch, the agent would be my hand, and the cause would be me thinking it was too dark?

It is difficult to designate agents and causes, but in that situation, I suppose that your physical body would be the agent and your response to the darkness of the room would be the cause.

I looked up 'Schrodinger's Cat', and the only thing I found out is that physicists have twisted imaginations.

bump