Cogito ergo sum. Descartes famous words. What do they actually mean to us?

Discussion in 'Serious Discussion' started by SOCRATE_MMXII, Aug 30, 2012.

  1. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    Yes, correct, but the loop needs to be recognized by somebody.


    Right, sid_16. But it will be ever one's own truth which will be accepted by others (or not :D). Philosophy just as all sciences doesn't find the truth straightforward.
    There will be ever opposed Philosopher / scientists. If Philosophy would achieve its goal to find 'the' truth then every Philosopher would have the same view. And each epoch has its own truth.


    I agree with that.


    To debate can be boring. You are the only one who here explained what Descartes meant. That's the reason why I always appreciate it when you contribute at such matters.

    Who are those denier of an ego? o_O To break out of an loop one might just invent new aspects which never had been mentioned.

    Better versed in the subject. This statement has always a relation to something. The point is that one needs to choose the theories / models which are suitable to explain a phenomenon and nothing else everybody here is doing.
    When A Physicist explains refraction then he uses the model of light behaving as ray. When he wants to explain the phenomenon interference then he uses the model of waves, when he wants to explain absorption he uses the particle model being light as a flow of Photons.

    But light itself is neither a ray nor a wave nor a flow of Photons. It are ideas OF light. A good scientist is a person who is good in using his toolbox. Nothing I do when I teach. To teach actually means one to force to use a established box of tools.


    Sid_16. I know and I thank you for that. You are a person who tried to build a bridge most, even more than I've tried. I appreciate that. :) Do you already know what you will study, or are you studying / have you already?
    The aspect you have here reposted about Descartes I even can comply with.
    To me the fact that Descartes intention had been to find what is absolute certain is the point I am struggling with. :)

    I have not missed reasoning. I tried to prove that nobody (Descartes also) can 'find' something which is absolute certain by thinking, which he was intended to try. You didn't get what I have written or you have not got Heisenberg.

    So here another aspect: Can one ever see its own eye? Don't say now yes in the mirror, lol.
    In the mirror one sees ever a virtual image of the eye, but not the 'real' eye.
    This incompleteness regarding introspectiveness is actually an aspect of Heisenberg. One's introspectiveness is ever incomplete, because that what is doing that introspectiveness cannot introspect itself.
    Existence is absolute. I am that I am. Existence cannot prove itself. There are no 2 existences one that proves the other. Most have problems with their mind here. I don't know what reasoning you are missing. Can you remember a time where you have not existed?


    Subject and object are not separable. This knowledge almost has ruined the entire Physics. It was in fact shocking this new knowledge, and with it Decartes' intent to prove absolute certainty by thinking failed. He has proved something else. (something incomplete. something which is uncertain his ego) ...what was somewhere written.... denier of ego....???
    People thought they can explain or describe or measure a matter without to affect /change it. But that is never possible.

    A good scientist can apply theories at different matters IF he has fully understood the theory: And that I have actually meant what is a black pearl. Black pearls are the progress in science. White pearls do not (cannot) leave their territory. The barrier is one's mind.


    My way of thinking has changed drastically for some reasons, anyway I am a scientist and have no problems at my daily work. I can use the right tools there where they work.
    But here Descartes does neither comply with Heisenberg (Gödel) nor Satre IMO. One needs to choose and there is always one left which is personally declared to be wrong. But you cannot have all them right.
    To gorsky Satre is nobody (Lots of those poor sods), what's about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle or Gödel (wasn't Gödel a Philosopher, too??? besides of a mathematician) he never said.
    And that is not science it is 'Better versed in the subject.'

    END OF LOOP
    EXIT.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    #122 Yen, Sep 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
    Allow me to reply anyway. It's the last day I have time for it, except weekends.

    Your dad likes 'this sort of stuff'? How did he get interested? Travel? Study? :D;)
    I have got what reincarnation means and it is not opposed to 'western' science IMO.
    I guess when I would have lived in another age I had been put on a pyre.

    In my heart I have the wish that science and yes even religions come together. Western and eastern!
    This is of course bad for the right to remain autonomous and far more for their individuals. :D
    They would lose their claim to be the only one to have found 'truth'. No, no not good for their ego.:p
    But 'truth' was before science and before religions already.

    For your dad:

    Reincarnation happens at present. It is basically the determination of the 'I'-Idea what one thinks one is. The old idea dies the new is born. This happens 'all the time'.-->cycle of rebirths.
    There is no limit for this 'I' idea, but those of the mind.
    When 'one' stops to create ideas of oneself, when one stops to live his idea, when one lives 'what one really is'.
    The bold bit is difficult to understand, because it actually cannot. As soon one tries to think about what it is it immediately becomes the 'I' idea again. :D Too bad Descartes..:D
    Then 'one' leaves the cycle of rebirths and won't be reincarnated anymore.
    This is called to awake. Buddha is 'one' of them. And that 'one' is not different to your Self='what you really are'.
    Buddha is actually a name for something that cannot have one even for this reason above (idea)

    I only can say it is 'my' truth, experienced in meditation. Theoretically I got it explained from monks and books.
    To live with absolute certainty one needs to live now, presently. I am. and not I am Yen. This is absolute existence.

    Like: Don't live your idea, be what you really are!"
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    #123 sid_16, Sep 10, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
    Do you mean that because the discussion does not quickly settle the issue, it cannot be settled? And that because there is no final and complete answer to the question, that no progress has been made on the question in the way of clarification of the issue, and discovering which answers will certainly not do, and which are more plausible than others? That, after all, is often how science works too. By gradually, and asymptotically approaching the answer rather than, as you appear to require, getting the answer rapidly, thoughtlessly, and easily.

    Propositions which are true are discovered to be true, when they are verified. However, we ought not to refer to them as true until they are known to be true or have been verified.

    I wrote something about Descartes, what I was taught in the college just a year and half back and I'm a student and will remain as a student. I've a passion to learn new things by acquaintance with more knowledgeable people I met or exchange thought in public or in private place . I have a passion to teach but that will be decided after I completed my studies.:biggrin:

    And for the theme of this thread- Descartes questions everything and tries to find a firm foundation for the rest of his knowledge. What if everything he thought he knew was wrong? He then looks at how we can gain knowledge. By sensory experiences? But what if one is just dreaming? (Considering that inside a dream, a person usually doesn't know that s/he is dreaming!) How about rational thought? see my post #70 page #7

    Surely when I think '2+2=4', I would be right whether I am thinking it while awake or thinking it inside a dream. But what if there's some evil demon playing around with your mind and deceiving you, so that you are never thinking straight? So it seems that we can't be sure of anything at all ...

    Until Descartes thought about how one's self-awareness of existence can never be wrong. If I am being deceived, then I must exist. It all comes down to the self-referential nature of the word 'I'.

    When I say 'I see a dog', I may be wrong (because I may be dreaming, hallucinating, blind etc.) But I can never be wrong when I honestly say that 'I seem to be seeing a dog'. The fact 'that my sensory experiences and thoughts exist' is never in doubt, even if the content of such experiences is doubtful.

    Since 'I' am certain that thoughts and experiences exist, and that there can't be thoughts and experiences without someone/something doing the thinking, something must exist! And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'.

    The sentence 'I am here now', when uttered by a subject directly, is always right, no? I think he was very much correct in the first 2 meditations.

    But I don't appreciate when you put "i idea", "I amness" like "something happening now "as it "is" "soul," "reincarnation","consciousness" "existence is" or the spiritual subjective stuffs (spirituality is the idea that one applies to their inner most morals only)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. SOCRATE_MMXII

    SOCRATE_MMXII MDL Expert

    Jan 25, 2012
    1,033
    318
    60
    #124 SOCRATE_MMXII, Sep 10, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
    (OP)
    "Education is a wonderful thing, provided you always remember that nothing worth knowing can ever be taught."


    Who drew the line between science and spirituality?
    Why is not science guided by spirituality?
    Why science has to be manly theoretical and not mainly practical? Who decided that? And most important "why"?

    These questions won't have an answer at until "this world passes"...

    I respect your decision to live only inside your head, but I can tell you there are other realms more real than this one, not just in theory, but in practice. The realms (dimensions) are there. It's up to you to access them or not, but eventually you will, 'cause no "scientific" answer will satisfy you anymore...and then you'll start questioning yourself again and again...until the answer hits you in a moment of complete silence of the mind and when you snap out of it you'll realize...all is dust in the wind.

    PEACE.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    Socrate, do you have any explanation or have you tried any logical method to deconstruct the replies you got for the question you asked in the title of this thread? Why are you people always beating around the bushes and not coming to the point of this discussion?

    Most people seem to see spirit and spirituality as metaphysical parts of us that are separate from our brains and minds. When they look at a beautiful natural phenomenon they say they have a spiritual experience. I can look at a fantastic sunset, a beautiful young animal, a beautiful scenery or the grandeur of the universe and be awe struck. That is, however, still my personal mental experience, not something different from my normal thought processes.

    What a waste of time and energy describing such stuff to an audacious and stubborn listener?:p
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Socrate and Yen... if only you knew... :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. SOCRATE_MMXII

    SOCRATE_MMXII MDL Expert

    Jan 25, 2012
    1,033
    318
    60
    @sid_16: you see the sunset something apart from you, I don't. I don't see the difference between you and me and Yen or Gorski or any living thing in/on in the Universe. I'm really glad I can have this "debate" with <you>.

    PEACE.:friends2::gathering:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    #128 Yen, Sep 10, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2012
    OK, got some spare time. :D:)

    sid_16, I agree with what you have written. Your interpretation of I think therefore I am is OK with me.
    As I had mentioned, I struggle with 'therefore' and with his intention to find something what is absolute certain.

    "Do you mean that because the discussion does not quickly settle the issue, it cannot be settled?"
    When the demand of absolute certainty persists then not. IT is actually the driving force of science. Science has no point where something is settled.
    The German word for science is Wissenschaft. Wissen = knowledge, schaft means to achieve. Means a claim of progress, not to settle.

    "Propositions which are true are discovered to be true, when they are verified. However, we ought not to refer to them as true until they are known to be true or have been verified."
    Yes, absolutely. That is my daily work. A relative truth is the result. The flaw is that the verifier isn't verified.
    When I had looked at a job, a boss asked me (job interview), when I measure something will be the result then true?

    "So it seems that we can't be sure of anything at all ..." Yes right, not absolute sure. (Heisenberg). We= subject(s) any-thing object(s). The subject affects / changes the object when measuring / determining.
    We temporarily settle as long as the relative sureness lasts until another aspects creates an new doubt or an new question. Hence Descates was right a long time.
    BTW: It is not me alone who has doubts at Descartes. (It is just a finding, not an argument that I am 'more' right).

    And when a scientist wants to know what the phenomenon light IS then he does not know what it really IS, he creates an idea of it. Those ideas are suitable depending on the relation he uses them. And he has the freedom to use different ideas to explain the attributes and to create verified conclusions.


    When debating about something that is absolute certain, then we are debating about the absolute. Correct me if I am wrong here, that's a major point.
    (Another debate would be to think about IF there is something absolute at all.....)

    "like "something happening now "as it "is".... you don't appreciate this. My (the) dilemma is that I have to put something what is absolute into terms, which is not possible.
    That has nothing to do with spirituality. The absolute is as it is and now. Suggest me please other terms and I will use them. To think about the absolute or about what is absolute certain, there must be the thinker and the matter to be thought about. But 'the matter to be thought about' is not the absolute anymore. It excludes the thinker, which is also not absolute (anymore)
    And then I have just replaced the terms: Thinker: Descartes. Thus no thinker can think about something what is absolute certain.


    "And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'." OK. Let's do it now. :)

    Everybody can state that one thinks. To do that there must be a witness of thinking. But this witness exists already (I). Thus there is no relation of thinking and existence, thinking doesn't prove existence. I am (already). I am therefore I am. This is no prove, since it can't be proved. 'I' cannot prove 'itself's existence'. 'I' = singular, a prove needs duality, somebody proves something.

    Feel free to comment my words, hope you are not bored. :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    No, you deffo do not get it, sorry, m8...:(
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    No problem I can live with that. It has no consequences (pros / cons) for 'my' life, it's just a mind game. I enjoy to debate here. :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. R29k

    R29k MDL GLaDOS

    Feb 13, 2011
    5,171
    4,811
    180
    @Yen
    :eek:Your answer to this is Heisenberg ?
    We will never see eye to eye on this topic since I'm not too impressed by the Uncertainty Principle and applying something that was meant for quantum physics to the reality of a human makes no sense. The Uncertainty Principle is only any good in the unknown, if you have a full grasp of all the variables involved then it becomes worthless.


    @ Reincarnation
    My Dad and I traveled quite a bit when I was younger, we used to visit at least one different country for Summer Holidays every year. He got his curiosity with reincarnation from doing philosophy at school. He doesn't get much time now though he works with the CDC in Atlanta and I'm a couple thousand miles away. We were supposed to go to Japan this year to look for those little stone houses you see in the movie Spirited Away, which they say are houses for spirits. :D But the tsunami screwed that up so that's on hold for a bit.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    #132 sid_16, Sep 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2017
    http://forums.mydigitallife.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by gorski http://forums.mydigitallife.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png



    Just imagine, What happens, when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?:p
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    'Pity he 'lost' the "mind game"... :D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    #134 sid_16, Sep 11, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2012
    Yes you are right R29k. The problem is that Newton-Einstein physics and Quantum Mechanics are mutually exclusive. If a particle is large enough where it is subjected to Newton-Einstein physics, QM doesn't apply... and if a particle is small enough to be subjected to QM, Newton-Einstein physics doesn't apply.

    Theoretically it is possible to come up with a single set of Laws that would explain both QM and NE physics, but so far none have been discovered.

    Theory of Everything (TOE) is a proposal that applies to both QM and NE physics and there are several of them including Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. Unfortunately, none of them has provided a testable prediction in order to be verified.

    What you have to realize before even looking at the field of Quantum Mechanics is that everything in the field is inferred rather than observed. In other words, nothing is ever proven, it's merely shown to be consistent. This is why there are conflicting theories in QM that are partially or completely mutually exclusive such as Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory.

    On top of that, much of the newer theories in QM are considered "sloppy science" by physicists because of a lack of testable predictions. One noteworthy physicists even went so far as to state, that "Quantum Mechanics is the only field of science where experiments result in excuses rather than results."
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    #135 sid_16, Sep 11, 2012
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2012
    Yen sir wrote;
    Have you read my very 1st.post of this thread? or ignored it? Because to say that someone does something, is to imply "someone's" existence. You, yourself, have stated that when you say "I" it implies an 'I'. This is a proof of my (and Descartes') stance.

    He (Descartes) saw it necessary that the thinker exist, before the thinker thought? I ask you again: How can the thinker think, if the thinker doesn't exist?. You are contradicting yourself.

    You really lost me. From what I understand, your reasoning doesn't apply to something like the "I am therefore I am" philosophy. I say this because "I think therefore I am" is made up of the following propositions:

    1) I exist (because I refer to myself as an entity).
    2) I think.
    3) Number 1 implies number 2.

    Just think about it.:D
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  16. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    #136 Yen, Sep 11, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: May 23, 2017
    Heisenberg, Gödel, Schrödinger, from one aspect, Satre from another. You are not a black pearl. :)
    All what I wanted to say by 'using' them: Descartes cannot be absolute certain what he said and hence it's no prove.
    But this is only one issue at him....there are basic errors.
    "if you have a full grasp of all the variables involved". He had not. One never can when refering about a matter of oneself.



    Then a Philosopher meets knowlege. :D Result: cessation.


    Can you be absolutely certain about this? lol



    We do not know we exist because we think. We know we exist because we are aware that we are thinking. :p

    That's what I mean and pardon my bad English.

    Thinking is a function of the mind. That what is aware of it exists. A function of the mind does not prove existence. If it would then: I can see myself in the mirror therfore I am would be right as well.


    Do you know Rudolph Carnap?

    He discovered an error at the transition from 'I think' to 'I exist' as well:
    'I am an European' does not mean 'I exist', it means an European is existent.

    Thus from 'I think' it follows NOT I am (existence), BUT something that thinks.

    Also one might think about Kant's thesis that existence can be only in reference to a predicate, but not referenced to a nominator. :p I am careful here Kant is far away to me....:eek:

    Guys it is only one little thing: I think therefore I am a...... and everything is right.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. gorski

    gorski MDL Guru

    Oct 21, 2009
    5,514
    1,452
    180
    Absolutely certain, Yen! Only you and Socrate do not know that yet... Or do you? :bye1:

    But you keep going on quibbling about thinking or being aware and what gives one certainty that one is... Ahem...
    :rolleyes:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  18. Yen

    Yen Admin
    Staff Member

    May 6, 2007
    13,081
    13,977
    340
    Do you think I am not sure that I really exist? :biggrin:
    If one could do that (doubt about) then it would be an individual only. (ego).


    I am is absolute existence. I am is absolute certain. ('I' do not need to think to get 'that') :)
    What gives certainty? No-body. No-one, no-thing. Absolute certainty = existence. Anything one could give is everything but no absolute certainty.

    Wittgenstein: In the world is everything as it is and it happens as it happens. In her there is no value-and would there be one then it would be without value.



    @R29k: Heisenberg

    The basics are: Location and impulse (velocity) of a particle cannot be determined at the same time. Basically this means nothing, but that the nature -when having a closer way of looking at things by humans- eludes itself (of a explanation).
    This applies to every-thing.

    This knowledge caused a absolute new conception of the physical reality and a final turning away of the determinism.

    Bohr's model of an atom had fixed electron paths, whereas the orbital model has probabilities of presence, this 'rooms' are the orbitals with their special shapes......
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    Please tell me that you are just feigning ignorance. I'm sorry to say Yen sir, but how is it possible that you missed the fact that two premises are required for the statement "I think therefore I am"? It is not anything like "x is thinking". Descartes is saying that if 'x' is thinking then 'x' exists. (I've asked this before, but...) isn't that obvious? You cannot truthfully say that 'x' does something, unless 'x' exists.;):D

    Yen sir, paradox or circular reasoning is only possible if you choose to stick to your belief of 'uncertainty' principle. It does not, however, help you to learn anything, to keep this uncertain attitude - and, since I devote myself to learning, I don't stick to irrationality, which leads to paradox, which is the death of all learning process and progressive knowledge.o_O:bye1:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. sid_16

    sid_16 MDL Giveaway Organiser

    Oct 15, 2011
    2,494
    5,362
    90
    The fundamental meaning of absolute meant not relative. As long as there is a relationship, even if it only need to be related to you, it is relative and thus not absolute. Note no exception nor qualification.

    Having no qualification meant not qualified to anything, i.e. your body, mind or as you say very often your consciousness.:D Therefore you cannot be absolute certain of your idea of I am is absolute existence.:rolleyes:

    If we define God as all knowing, all powerful and present everywhere then-
    P1-Only God is absolutely certain.
    P2-No human being is God.

    Therefore, no human being is absolutely certain.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...