'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.

[LillSnopp]

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?

Perhaps because you can use cognitive thinking, you can relate to what you are ?

[Regular_Guy]

But what exactly am I according to the quote "i think therefore I am"?
I am what? Aware of self?
And also I was wondering when does thought begin? Is it an impossible question to answer?

[LillSnopp]

But what exactly am I according to the quote "i think therefore I am"?
I am what? Aware of self?
And also I was wondering when does thought begin? Is it an impossible question to answer?

You could equate "am" to existence if this makes it easier for you?

This would of course bring us several philosophical problems, such as, "So a Toaster that does not think, does not exist?".....


You can safely say, that all Animals and Homo Sapiens have thought. Then if plants have it, whom knows, they are living forms depending on what you claim to be "life". Do they have understanding? Perhaps, they do live, and they do exist, so they must exist because of their means to be able to exist.

[ST88]

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"?

Well, hey. I'm glad this thread was revived. I didn't even notice these questions.

Dilettante: You would have to keep track of which one of you was the original and which one was the copy for tax purposes. The copy would be a copy of you at one specific point in time. Almost immediately, the copy would be treated differently than the original, accumulating different experiences than the original. YOU, as a conscious Dilettante, would still be you, but now you would have something that the copy doesn't have -- a copy of you. Since the Dilettante (copy) is the copy, unless there was some sort of Stephen King type nefariousness, the copy would have the experiences of being a copy. Assuming he was a perfect copy, he would have sentience, but would be in the perhaps unhappy situation of being a sentient copy.

There was a Star Trek:NG episode where Ryker was copied in a transporter accident. After they sorted out who was who, the Ryker copy went off and made his own life as if he were simply a twin.

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.

In my view, there is no thought without the physical nature of the brain. So I can't imagine how a non-physical entity could retain the same thoughts as the physical entity.

[Regular_Guy]

You could equate "am" to existence if this makes it easier for you?
it dose'nt. Because this would mean if I don't think then I do not exist.

This would of course bring us several philosophical problems, such as, "So a Toaster that does not think, does not exist?".....
Right

You can safely say, that all Animals and Homo Sapiens have thought. Then if plants have it, whom knows, they are living forms depending on what you claim to be "life". Do they have understanding? Perhaps, they do live, and they do exist, so they must exist because of their means to be able to exist.

Plants thinking? hmm I wonder I mean they know what they need to do to survive. Does that constitue as a thinking process?

[Bro Dave]

Cogito ergo spud (I think, therefore I yam)

Just to keep us on track with a little levity...

Bro Dave

[Dilettante]

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?

They happen at the same time. The way he (Descartes) worded his sentence is a little misleading because the insertion of "therefore" makes it look like an argument or an abbreviated syllogism when it is not. It should read "I think, I am". It really is just the realization that it would be absurd to doubt that he himself is thinking, absurd to doubt he himself exists. Then he (Descartes) takes that as his starting point.

[Regular_Guy]

Thanks for the insight Dill
What an amazing discovery is must have been for him.

[Dilettante]

Thanks for the insight Dill
What an amazing discovery is must have been for him.

You bet! No problem. Here is the original quote (as you can see there was no "therefore" in the original of Descartes' Meditations) so you can follow his thoughts:

Descartes: I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25)

[Regular_Guy]

But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me
Ahh it's refreshing to see im not the only paranoid one
Thx again dil awesome read. Im going to research him a little further