what 'I think therefore I am' means

[wollet2]

the identity of 'that that thinks therefore is', doesnt matter here

i used to think it matters as a kid and say "what if its all a simulation, what if you dont really exist, what if this thought is being influenced by someone else " etc

the way i see this argument holding value and what prob this guy had in mind is

"I (dont care who I is) think, therefore an experience happens/exists"
or
"I experience, therefore an experience exists"

and an experience cant be experienced without something/someone experiencing it

so something/I exists that experiences.

 

[Vermilioncore]

buddy using this as his word document for his philosophy essay

 

[wollet2]

buddy using this as his word document for his philosophy essay

nah idk philosophy
i just understood what this fag meant
he didnt care who he was but that he existed, which he did

 

[Vermilioncore]

nah idk philosophy
i just understood what this fag meant
he didnt care who he was but that he existed, which he did

nah get in my van cmon I have a puppy wanna see it?

 

[Azonin]

It's a philosophy for a reason, cogito ergo sum is true depending on what axioms you subscribe to/what you perceive as basis of truth. Some people will say it is circular while others will say circularity is necessary for a consistent complex system.

 

[wollet2]

It's a philosophy for a reason, cogito ergo sum is true depending on what axioms you subscribe to/what you perceive as basis of truth. Some people will say it is circular while others will say circularity is necessary for a consistent complex system.

wym, that its accepted in philosophy as true? i didnt know that this is an axiom

but "I think therefore I am" seemed less intuitive to me, then i read the whole writing and thought he mustve been speaking about the fact of experiencing in 1st person

since he is thinking (a 1st person experiencing is happening) , something/someone which he identifies with himself must exist to be experiencing this

its more simple this way

you can also use this to identify with the experience itself, definitely experience exists. that avoids the circularity

 

[wollet2]

It's a philosophy for a reason, cogito ergo sum is true depending on what axioms you subscribe to/what you perceive as basis of truth. Some people will say it is circular while others will say circularity is necessary for a consistent complex system.

this argument but better imo with no circularity involved

"I think therefore an experience exists"

i use it to prove that something exists, which is experience

 

[Azonin]

wym, that its accepted in philosophy as true? i didnt know that this is an axiom

but "I think therefore I am" seemed less intuitive to me, then i read the whole writing and thought he mustve been speaking about the fact of experiencing in 1st person

since he is thinking (a 1st person experiencing is happening) , something/someone which he identifies with himself must exist to be experiencing this

its more simple this way

you can also use this to identify with the experience itself, definitely experience exists.

By philosophy it means that it's a matter of opinion and there is no single right answer, it's like arguing semantics in math on whether 1/2*3 equals 1/6 or 3/2.

From the three axioms of logic (identity, excluded middle and noncontradiction), saying a therefore b follows if a reveals the existence of b in an identifiable way. Thinking therefore you are being true is like saying that thinking identifiably reveals your existence, this becomes a philosophy in the sense that not everyone is so sure of themselves so it is just subjective.

 

[Azonin]

this argument but better imo with no circularity involved

"I think therefore an experience exists"

i use it to prove that something exists, which is experience

I don't think you know what circularity means, it is entangled to a system of truth.

You should read godel's first and second incompleteness theorems about a system of truth verifying its own validity.

 

[wollet2]

saying a therefore b follows if a reveals the existence of b in an identifiable way.

i obviously know this logical sequence

thing is why do we take his use of this logical sequence as correct? he could be saying nonsense like "i eat banana, therefore the sky is yellow"
can you "think but not be" ?

 

[Azonin]

i obviously know this logical sequence

thing is why do we take his use of this logical sequence as correct? he could be saying nonsense
can you "think but not be" ?

By modus tollens assuming the cogito is true, you can't "think but not be"

 

[wollet2]

By modus tollens assuming the cogito is true, you can't "think but not be"

yes by assuming it is true you can't "think but not be"
but why is the cogito true, because Descarte said it?

i mean it makes some sense, but never took it as such a hard truth because i didnt understand it completely
the way i rephrased it is more untuitive to me

 

[Azonin]

yes by assuming it is true you can't "think but not be"
but why is the cogito true, because Descarte said it?

Like I already said, the veracity of the cogito is a philosophy, it's up to you.

But for a more interesting answer, I think a lot of philosophy that has problems like this boils down to certainty, that is, you accept a philosophy solely depending on whether you are certain. I think the cogito logically makes sense since we naturally accept the things that we have to accept for it to be true, such as existence of thinking.

I know bertrand russell once tried to debunk it or something in a very vague way and he did in the same way that I am which is that its truth depends on the certainty of the individual.

 

[Azonin]

Like I already said, the veracity of the cogito is a philosophy, it's up to you.

But for a more interesting answer, I think a lot of philosophy that has problems like this boils down to certainty, that is, you accept a philosophy solely depending on whether you are certain. I think the cogito logically makes sense since we naturally accept the things that we have to accept for it to be true, such as existence of thinking.

I know bertrand russell once tried to debunk it or something in a very vague way and he did in the same way that I am which is that its truth depends on the certainty of the individual.

By contradiction had the cogito not been true none of us would be accepting the idea of thinking, but we do so the cogito must be true.

 

[wollet2]

Like I already said, the veracity of the cogito is a philosophy, it's up to you.

But for a more interesting answer, I think a lot of philosophy that has problems like this boils down to certainty, that is, you accept a philosophy solely depending on whether you are certain. I think the cogito logically makes sense since we naturally accept the things that we have to accept for it to be true, such as existence of thinking.

I know bertrand russell once tried to debunk it or something in a very vague way and he did in the same way that I am which is that its truth depends on the certainty of the individual.

when you read the cogito dont you tie it to some form of self identity problem as well?

i used to do that

anyway, whole point of the thread is that indeed from what i read descartes didnt care about his identity, more that something exists which experiences (thought or whtever), which he identified as himself. idk why this didnt seem water to me.

this makes more sense to me

"I experience, therefore an experience exists"

 

[dehydrated]

Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am A.M, I am