• yetAnotherUserEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Not sure if this is the right place for questioning philosophical theories, but I have a few questions about this one.

    • The sentence is “I think, therefore I am”. What if we don’t think? Let’s imagine, for example, that there is a god or gods, that are the only beings capable of thinking, and that everyone just recieves those thoughts from the god(s), just gets them delivered right to the brain. In that situation, we wouldn’t be capable of thinking, would we? (iirc this was one of the main critics to Descartes’s chain of to thought. In this situation, I think the sentence could be generalised to remain valid.)
    • The sentence is “I think, therefore I am” (or if we generalise it to remain valid due to the previous point, “if something thinks, it exists”). Why can’t it be “I eat therefore I am”, or “I breathe, therefore I am”? What makes thinking more valid than any other action we can do when trying to prove our existence? How is thinking capable of proving our existence at all if nothing else is said to be capable? In fact, what shows that thinking can prove someone’s existence? (this one feels like a reworded common critic, although I’m not sure)

    I would like to invite anyone to comment/evaluate/counter/correct what I wrote here (just pls don’t attack me (>~<), attack the content instead). I know I could just research these things on my own, but I have a bit of trouble understanding the formal language that is used by specialists when discussing this type of problems, and I find it likely that others feel the same, so it felt cooler to talk about it here.

    P.S.: it’s kinda sad that this theory doesn’t quite prove the existence of our brainrot homies :3

    • WillStealYourUsername@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPMEnglish
      8·
      2 days ago

      You can’t prove that material existence exists, but you experience your thoughts, so I think “I think” here more refers to experience/qualia/consciousness more so than anything else. You can’t really prove that anything at all exists, but you do experience something, so you know at the very least that your experience exists.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      Re: your first point

      If we define “I” as the thinker, then the thought implies the existence of the thinker.

      Whether the thinker’s perception of what “I” is is true or false does not matter. If the thinker believes they’re an individual french man in fancy clothes, but they’re actually a divine being imbuing all thinkers with thoughts collectively, the thinker still exists and can refer to themselves as “I”.

    • Yozul@beehaw.orgEnglish
      19·
      3 days ago

      If you think, then you must already exist. I don’t understand how people get confused by that.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        7·
        3 days ago

        Descartes is a proper mindfuck when you’re a kid, reality seems super sketchy, AND he’s got cool geometry that is completely fantastical yet rigid and unbreakable

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 days ago

          I have. Let’s check. Can something that does not exist think?

          No

          Can something that thinks not exist?

          No

          Does thought therefore imply existence?

          Yes

          Does non-thought imply non-existence?

          No

          Makes sense. But if something does not exist in one moment, and that something then thinks in the next moment, has it gone from non-existence to existence?

          Yes

          So either it might be possible to think yourself into existence, or anything that thinks has always existed. Or the third option, you go from non-existence to existence through some other process than thinking, a process that enables you to think. But we cannot prove the existence of such a process.

          • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
            1·
            2 days ago

            Or… thinking is neurons and synapses and tiny bits of energy all zapping about insanely fast, but I’m just an unaccredited expert on the internet

            the definition of existence to me is just all of it, plus whatever I’m not aware of. Which might be quantifiable, but I doubt humans will ever know. And thinking is in there somehow, as a biological function

            • SmoothOperator@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              1 day ago

              I agree thinking is almost surely a biological process involving brains. But the exercise here is to try and make the simplest true statement we can about existence based on as few assumptions as possible.

              You know your senses can be deceived. You know your memories can be unreliable. You have no proof that anything or anyone exists which does not rely on your senses or memories.

              Except one thing. Your thoughts exist. That observation does not rely on any unreliable sources of information. It does not assume that your senses or memories are reasonable sources of facts.

              This is the statement by Descartes. It is not a particularly sensible worldview, or a better one than yours, but it’s an interesting philosophical exercise.

              Isn’t it, oh architect of all physics?

              Yes.

              • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                1·
                1 day ago

                Thoughts are only informed by sensory input. Nothing there otherwise.

                But if Descartes is correct, thoughts exist before sensory input. What is he thinking about? He’s a mind without a brain.

                My own mental illness reminds me my mind is unreliable. Not some indivisible font of understanding. I mean I’m mostly there. The dreams are fantastic. It’s helpful to write things down, perhaps I should go full Memento and start tattoing facts on myself.