'I think, therefore I am'

[sofyst]

I have been in a discussion with an Atheist friend. And have boiled it down to a question that has plagued me for a while. If any here would be utterly truthful they would recognize that even their knowledge requires some amount of faith. I know that the word is so shunned among some and so despised by others based upon the evil religious connotations that it reeks of. Yet one must recognize that faith is simply belief, and believing is knowing.

What my question is, is this. I can see an object in front of me. Let us say this cup of chai. Now I can taste the chai, see the chai, touch the cup and smell the divine odor. I can sense all these things about the chai. Yet how do I know that I am not somehow being decieved? How do I know that although I feel the cup and see the liquid that it is not really something else that only tastes and smells like chai? And even then, how do I know that I am truly touching and seeing and that somehow my eyes and hands are not somehow being manipulated into these particular sensations?

I know it was Descartes who said 'I think therefore I am'. That is not my question. I understand that I think I see the chai, and I think I smell the chai therefore I really am in existance. I do not doubt that I exist, however I do doubt whether or not the existance which I 'believe' I am experiencing is what I truly am experiencing. How do I know I am not some brain within a jar somewhere that is being manipulated into thinking that these sensations are true? When in all reality the only sensation I should be feeling is none at all as I do not have the extremities to sense these sensations (eyes, hands, nose, ears).

I think this is a question that can plague both Christian and non-Christian alike. I do not think that being a Christian will help the matter any more. Because as a Christian I think I experience the moving of God. The question becomes even more complicated because now I must question whether in fact I really do feel the Spirit of God or whether I am being manipulated into sensing this.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[sofyst]

Whether or not you now believe in God, your belief in Him will be affirmed, or your non-believe will be irradicated, the moment you take a sip of the drink from the God/gods...

Chai is a type of black tea, I am currently addicted. Drinking one right now actually.

[ST88]

In a practical sense, does it matter? Every time you are presented with the chai, assuming it is the same formula and you are in reasonably good health, it will appear almost exactly the same every time. Either your manipulator is exquisitely consistent or you are an actual physical perceptor of the universe.

Perhaps, perhaps................

But then, if it doesn't matter whether or not you are brain in a jar where some other being is giving all these sensations, would that apply to other beings controlling you? If they were controlling you in a similar manner, would it matter?

Naturally, that would apply to the beings controlling my environment. (Note: controlling my environment in this situation, not me. And you could go on back to infinity with controlling beings. The point is not to say that we, as brains in a jar, have no way to get out of the jar or even out of the paradigm of the jar -- the point is that we have a world here in front of us and all around us to live in mostly as we choose. And it responds in such a consistent way that we should be philosophically allowed to treat it as an actual, tactile-response world.

The predestination argument pops up again and again because free will is apparently absent if another knows your fate. Now some other being is controlling what you feel, what you see, and what you will see tommorow, and you say 'does it matter?' Then again, it may or may not. You seem more experienced than I, but I didn't expect that.

Correction. That being is not controlling what I feel. If I'm a brain in a jar, then the only thing the being is controlling is the input from the purported five senses. This is the basis for "does it matter?"; the original question is about fooling the senses to such a degree that we can't sense our jar-ness. But we are still sentient brains.

Anyway, if it's 'does it matter' for knowing whether or not your world is real, what of yourself. Does it matter who you are?

My brain is me. My body is merely an automaton that carries it around. If there is no body that does not change the me-ness of me. Though it may change my outlook to know that I have no body, I am still me.

ed: clarity (I hope)

[scorpia]

A good place to start, from the perspective of eastern philosophy is with Sri Ramana Maharshi. In the west, in recent times, an American by the name of Ken Wilber has written extensively on the topic.

Well, it is interesting Bernee, thanks. I'll look into it

the point is that we have a world here in front of us and all around us to live in mostly as we choose. And it responds in such a consistent way that we should be philosophically allowed to treat it as an actual, tactile-response world.

But think, any concern about your predetermined actions has already been given to you by this being. Either way, there is nothing that can be done. One can either enjoy one's externally controlled or self controlled life .. or decide to ponder such questions as "is it through my own volition that I am pondering such questions".

In other words, either simply live this life, or spend it wondering if it's real?

I cannot fly to the moon, or travel through a door, and because of this, I can never do anything I want.

No. there are many limiting factors I can see myself in life...........

Free will is absent if a a fate exists at all.

In reality, free will is never truly free.

So in any case there wouldn't be any free will anyway?

I am me. ST88 is ST88. I have never understood self-discovery. I am my self; what is there to discover?

Well, self discovery is always important to me. I must always improve myself lest I would hinder those around me more than help them. I may always be Scorpia, but what I am today may be different from what I am tommorow. Hopefully though I would improve myself more.

Correction. That being is not controlling what I feel. If I'm a brain in a jar, then the only thing the being is controlling is the input from the purported five senses. This is the basis for "does it matter?"; the original question is about fooling the senses to such a degree that we can't sense our jar-ness. But we are still sentient brains.

But it can control what you feel, if it could go so far as to wire your brain up, it could select those sections responsible for emotion. It could look up those sections tied to memory, couldn't it?

Sorry......... I merely wanted to stretch the question to consider if it could control what you'd think, too.

My brain is me. My body is merely an automaton that carries it around. If there is no body that does not change the me-ness of me. Though it may change my outlook to know that I have no body, I am still me.

Yes........... But even the brain is an automation that carries you somewhat. It gives you input, stores information, etc. And somewhere in it is the origin of your thoughts as well as your perception of them. Without a body you'd still be you, which is what I think you're saying. But what are you then? You would always see through the same eyes, but does that make you you? What makes ST88............. ST88?

Usually I tend to base identity on a general set of behavioural characteristics, one or two being set enough that any deviation from them resulting in disbelief that 'ST88 is really ST88'. What if you are someone who is famed for say.......... Ninjitsu. It has been your life, so much so, that if one day, out of the blue, you decide you don't want to do it anymore, it would be shocking.

You would still be the same person on the outside still be the only one living your life, still be the one looking through your own eyes, but inside you have differed from what you were the day before. You are no longer the 'ninjitsu obsessionist.'

[DarkSaying]

I know I am not dreaming right now because in a few minutes I will lie down in my bed and dream. And given the very idea of dreaming I do not think it possible to dream while in a dream.

Consider the poets:

All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream

Awakened out of life
wherein we sleep and dream
of what he knows and sees, being dead.

Has some unknown omnipotence unfurled
The veil of life and death?
or do I lie In dream, and does
the mightier world of sleep spread far around and inaccessibly
Its circles?

The question of what is reality has long been a preoccupation of the human soul, and the possibility that this is all a dream or fabrication has a powerful draw.

On the pragmatic side, I honestly say, "what does it matter?" If you did find out that reality was just a dream or you were a brain in a pan, would it change your behaviour? If so, would it change for the better? Again, if so, why not change your behaviour now. If it wouldn't, or if you would change for the worse, then it is pointless to consider.

Of course, being humans, pragmatism doesn't always satisfy. I tend to believe that there is much more out there than we can see/sense, but that it does not diminish the "reality" that we experience. I also believe that this reality is merely temporal and will pass -- we will one day experience a "greater" reality.

[Dilettante]

Cogito ergo sum? Why not "cogito ergo doleo" (I think, therefore I am deppressed) and then "doleo ergo sum" (I am depressed, therefore I exist)

[ST88]

Correction. That being is not controlling what I feel. If I'm a brain in a jar, then the only thing the being is controlling is the input from the purported five senses. This is the basis for "does it matter?"; the original question is about fooling the senses to such a degree that we can't sense our jar-ness. But we are still sentient brains.

But it can control what you feel, if it could go so far as to wire your brain up, it could select those sections responsible for emotion. It could look up those sections tied to memory, couldn't it?

That would stretch the question a bit, because then we would no longer be brains in a jar, but merely black box mechanical devices. The Great Manipulator would not only be controlling the Cause, It would also be controlling the Effect. But if such is true, why would It allow us to ponder these things?

Yes........... But even the brain is an automation that carries you somewhat. It gives you input, stores information, etc. And somewhere in it is the origin of your thoughts as well as your perception of them. Without a body you'd still be you, which is what I think you're saying. But what are you then? You would always see through the same eyes, but does that make you you? What makes ST88............. ST88?

Although there are different parts of the brain that handle different processes, I don't agree with you in principle. The brain is the mind is the brain. That we perceive electrical impulses and chemical reactions as memories and thoughts is merely a function of how the brain works. There is no "self" that is outside the brain. I can point to various different brain injury syndromes and how they affect personality and "self-ness" in order to back this up. If the self was different from the brain then a brain injury would not matter. Split-brain studies in which the corpus collosum has been severed are particularly interesting in this regard.

Usually I tend to base identity on a general set of behavioural characteristics, one or two being set enough that any deviation from them resulting in disbelief that 'ST88 is really ST88'. What if you are someone who is famed for say.......... Ninjitsu. It has been your life, so much so, that if one day, out of the blue, you decide you don't want to do it anymore, it would be shocking.

For example, if I were paralyzed from the waist down. I would still be me, filtered and leavened through the psychological trauma of having been through a life-altering injury. The example is a little misleading because the idea of not being able to perform ninjitsu moves must come from a physical limitation or mental defect of some kind. In such cases, the injury would have an effect on me. That I am no longer able to do ninjitsu would subsequently become a part of who I am. I am the me that I was before, minus ninjitsu. This is quite different from being a me who had never before learned ninjitsu and am currently unable to do it.

But I get your meaning. If the Evil Demon was somehow to rob me of my ninjitsu skills in a metaphysical sense, I would be different afterwards than I was beforehand. But I still say I am me. What I do with my me is different from what the me is. To do is to be? I don't think so. Even if one day I should tire of being a ninjitsu obsessionist, it would have been because of who I was.

[scorpia]

The Great Manipulator would not only be controlling the Cause, It would also be controlling the Effect. But if such is true, why would It allow us to ponder these things?

Which I consider to be one of the questions about God. He controls all, but apparently he doesn't control me. So then does he control everything?

Back to the brain jar situation, I guess the manipulator simply allows it, or you're just not a brain in a jar. I don't consider all my life whether my life is real or not, so I tend to presume taht there is no brain in a jar. But when it comes to God, I opt for the former; I am simply allowed to.

There is no "self" that is outside the brain.

No, no. I'm not arguing the self outside the brain. Like you said;

The brain is the mind is the brain. That we perceive electrical impulses and chemical reactions as memories and thoughts is merely a function of how the brain works.

So the brain as a whole is where the self is 'held', or the self is a function of the brain. Just like a program is a function of a computer.

In such cases, the injury would have an effect on me. That I am no longer able to do ninjitsu would subsequently become a part of who I am. I am the me that I was before, minus ninjitsu. This is quite different from being a me who had never before learned ninjitsu and am currently unable to do it.

Okay, that's a point

But I get your meaning. If the Evil Demon was somehow to rob me of my ninjitsu skills in a metaphysical sense.

Evil demon?

To do is to be? I don't think so. Even if one day I should tire of being a ninjitsu obsessionist, it would have been because of who I was.

Yes. Yet sometimes when a person changes their perspective, their behaviour, etc, whether voluntarily or not, for some reason, the personality a person had before is considered as 'dead'. Not dead-dead. But the old personality has gone. The name ST88 would still be held. You would still be the one who lives ST88's life. But you got the idea anyway;

I would be different afterwards than I was beforehand

[Dilettante]

ST88:

The brain is the mind is the brain. That we perceive electrical impulses and chemical reactions as memories and thoughts is merely a function of how the brain works. There is no "self" that is outside the brain.

So, if an exact replica of my brain (storing all my memories and past experiences) could be made, would there be two Dilettantes? Which one, if any, would be "me"?

It seems to me that a disembodied "me" would not be really me, not completely. I don't think I could be myself without my body. Maybe I am not just the "ghost in the machine". Perhaps I am the machine as well.

This is why I think that, for the afterlife hypothesis to work, there would have to be a resurrection of the body. Without a body I lack eyes to see, ears to hear, hands to touch...I would be like the guy in "Johnny Got His Gun". That kind of an afterlife, or even an afterlife without consciousness, I don't find desirable at all.

[ST88]

The Great Manipulator would not only be controlling the Cause, It would also be controlling the Effect. But if such is true, why would It allow us to ponder these things?

Which I consider to be one of the questions about God. He controls all, but apparently he doesn't control me. So then does he control everything?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that there was any claim that God controls all, just that He knows all. I suppose some believe that the original Creation event is effectively asserting control, but does that apply on a day-to-day basis? Do the Calvinists believe in absolute Divine control?

Back to the brain jar situation, I guess the manipulator simply allows it, or you're just not a brain in a jar. I don't consider all my life whether my life is real or not, so I tend to presume taht there is no brain in a jar. But when it comes to God, I opt for the former; I am simply allowed to.

In that case, the control would be exclusively over your environmental variables.

So the brain as a whole is where the self is 'held', or the self is a function of the brain. Just like a program is a function of a computer.

I think that's a fairly apt analogy.

But I get your meaning. If the Evil Demon was somehow to rob me of my ninjitsu skills in a metaphysical sense.

Evil demon?

Descartes again:

And yet firmly implanted in my mind is the long-standing opinion that there is an omnipotent God who made me the kind of creature that I am. How do I know that he has not brought it about that there is no earth, no sky, no extended thing, no shape, no size, no place, while at the same time ensuring that all these things appear to me to exist just as they do now? What is more, just as I consider that others sometimes go astray in cases where they think they have the most perfect knowledge, how do I know that God has not brought it about that I too go wrong every time I add two and three or count the sides of a square, or in some even simpler matter, if that is imaginable? But perhaps God would not have allowed me to be deceived in this way, since he is said to be supremely good; [...] I will suppose therefore that not God, who is supremely good and the source of truth, but rather some malicious demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies in order to deceive me. I shall think that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely the delusions of dreams which he has devised to ensnare my judgment.
-- Brains in Vats and the Evil Demon

The "Evil Demon" is Descartes' meditation on the concept behind The Matrix. While not quite the brain in the jar, it is the same idea. This Great Deceiver could not be God because God does not deceive, it could only be an Evil Demon. And there is no way of knowing to what extent this Evil Demon is controlling you or is even allowing there to be a "you" that you can conceptualize. Descartes' only way out of this scenario was to assert that he could vouch for himself that he was a thinking being.

If I recall correctly, he did not go into solipsism, but instead came to the specious conclusion that God exists because he thinks about God.

To do is to be? I don't think so. Even if one day I should tire of being a ninjitsu obsessionist, it would have been because of who I was.

Yes. Yet sometimes when a person changes their perspective, their behaviour, etc, whether voluntarily or not, for some reason, the personality a person had before is considered as 'dead'. Not dead-dead. But the old personality has gone. The name ST88 would still be held. You would still be the one who lives ST88's life. But you got the idea anyway;

And yet, through all these changes of character, we are still who we are. The idea of identity encompasses the arrow of time and all of the baggage that we pick up along the way. Consider the idea that we are the sum of our experiences at any given time. One single moment can be defined, but the flow of change can't truly be tracked as it is happening, only in hindsight. In effect, we are changing at every single moment we live our lives because from moment to moment we accumulate moments that we hadn't had before.

[Regular_Guy]

Hey great thread. Everyones thoughts are really fascinating.
I was wondering, what did he mean exactly when he said
"I think therefore I am" ?
What comes first thought or being? Or do they "happen" at the same time?