I think therefore I am... where exactly?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TijgerlelieWijnhard
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:43 pm
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by TijgerlelieWijnhard »

I’m unsure how to properly formulate this question but am nonetheless going to make an attempt at asking it anyway:

If I think therefore I am here in this plane of existence, then where is the (lucid) dreamer?
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Noax »

TijgerlelieWijnhard wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:01 pmIf I think therefore I am here in this plane of existence, then where is the (lucid) dreamer?
You seem to answer your own question with "in this plane of existence", so not really sure what is being asked on top of that.

Yes, I agree that the question needs refinement. For one, Cogito Ergo Sum does not conclude that there is an "I" or a 'where' about anything. It says there is thought (doubt specifically), therefore thought exists. To ask 'where' this thought is presumes things about the existence that is not established merely by the awareness of the doubt.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IYAOs-9NCsM

His life was dedicated to that question.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Noax »

daramantus wrote: Fri Dec 08, 2017 8:03 pm Wrong. He says "I THINK THEREFORE I AM"
Perhaps. He said it in Latin and that is the popular English translation of that.
I think, I have thoughts, therefore I am I exist.
This is begging and thus not beyond doubt. Instead of begging that there is an I doing the thinking, maybe its the other way around where thinking produces an I.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

I cannot understand what`s on your mind?
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Atla »

TijgerlelieWijnhard wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:01 pm I’m unsure how to properly formulate this question but am nonetheless going to make an attempt at asking it anyway:

If I think therefore I am here in this plane of existence, then where is the (lucid) dreamer?
There is only one plane of existence and it's not a dream.

"I think therefore I am" is just some stupid circular reasoning. The entire Western civilization is based on this logical fallacy:

1. Let's assume that "I" exist, as some kind of entity
2. "I", this entity, also does some thinking stuff
3. The "I" can only do thinking stuff if it is exists as some kind of entity. We have now proven the 1. point.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

I have n`t even got the first clue as to what you are talking about, we are humans, not entities. If you were an entity what makes you think that you`d even have the power of thought in the first place, there are other dynamics. All you know is that it exists with certain life forms on this planet, and you know nothing of entities.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Atla »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:36 am I have n`t even got the first clue as to what you are talking about, we are humans, not entities. If you were an entity what makes you think that you`d even have the power of thought in the first place, there are other dynamics. All you know is that it exists with certain life forms on this planet, and you know nothing of entities.
You think that having the "power" of thought makes you really be there? So you think you're some kind of entity then.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by surreptitious57 »

discodave wrote:
we are humans not entities. If you were an entity what makes you think that you d even have the power of thought in the first place
there are other dynamics. All you know is that it exists with certain life forms on this planet and you know nothing of entities
Human beings are entities which are anything capable of independent thought such as biological life or machine intelligence
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

In philosophy, entities, this term, is used to make a distinction between a familiar organism and something other than a familiar organism. If entity were to mean familiar organism this term would be totally redundant. To classify as an entity the parameters of being are not set in stone, they would not be in reality, and this is all which counts. Beings which operate in telepathy, as one example, are not excluded from this term merely because they may not exercise actual thought. Early thought process in machines is unlikely to have them considered as being entities, very unlikely.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by -1- »

Atla wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 3:40 pm
There is only one plane of existence and it's not a dream.

"I think therefore I am" is just some stupid circular reasoning. The entire Western civilization is based on this logical fallacy:

1. Let's assume that "I" exist, as some kind of entity
2. "I", this entity, also does some thinking stuff
3. The "I" can only do thinking stuff if it is exists as some kind of entity. We have now proven the 1. point.
An assumption is not needed. That is the only weak or incorrect part of your argument, and it is fatal to your argument.

"I think" is an experience by the self. Who thinks? I. Therefore I above any doubt exist.

Others' thought I can't experience. Others can't experience my thought. I am the only one who can experience my own thought. Therefore if there is a thought I experience, then it is mine. And if there is thought, there is someone thinking it**. Therefore if there is a thought, then 1. someone is thinking it, and 2. if I think this thought, it can only be I thinking this thought and 3. there IS a thought. Therefore because there is a thought I experience, I think, and therefore I am.

** Having a thought is a dependent process. You can't have a thought without someone thinking it.
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Atla »

-1- wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:10 am An assumption is not needed. That is the only weak or incorrect part of your argument, and it is fatal to your argument.

"I think" is an experience by the self. Who thinks? I. Therefore I above any doubt exist.

Others' thought I can't experience. Others can't experience my thought. I am the only one who can experience my own thought. Therefore if there is a thought I experience, then it is mine. And if there is thought, there is someone thinking it**. Therefore if there is a thought, then 1. someone is thinking it, and 2. if I think this thought, it can only be I thinking this thought and 3. there IS a thought. Therefore because there is a thought I experience, I think, and therefore I am.

** Having a thought is a dependent process. You can't have a thought without someone thinking it.
You have demonstrated the above circular reasoning.

1. You assume that you exist as some kind of entity: a self.
2. This self also thinks.
3. You seem to think that there must be a thinker and a thought. Something can only think it's "own" thoughts if it's some kind of entity, some kind of self, capable of having it's "own" thoughts. So you have reinforced the 1. point.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by -1- »

Atla wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:34 pm
You have demonstrated the above circular reasoning.

1. You assume that you exist as some kind of entity: a self.
2. This self also thinks.
3. You seem to think that there must be a thinker and a thought. Something can only think it's "own" thoughts if it's some kind of entity, some kind of self, capable of having it's "own" thoughts. So you have reinforced the 1. point.
There are no assumptions I made. My thought is an experience. It is not an assumption in the abstract world; it is a real experience.

Therefore if thought exists, which is a dependent thing on something else, a thinker, a thinker must exist. And a thought exists. Therefore the thinker exists.

Who is the thinker? I can only experience my thoughts, so this is an empirical truth applicable only to me if I am formulating the statement.

It is an error to think that any of this is assumed. These are experiences. Nothing assumed or other worldly or abstract about them.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Experiences can be abstract or assumed so your assertion that they can not is demonstrably false
Since dreams and hallucinations are experiences but they are not at all real but totally imaginary
You also assume that just because thought exists it must by virtue of that fact be entirely reliable
Atla
Posts: 6670
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: I think therefore I am... where exactly?

Post by Atla »

-1- wrote: Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:18 am There are no assumptions I made. My thought is an experience. It is not an assumption in the abstract world; it is a real experience.

Therefore if thought exists, which is a dependent thing on something else, a thinker, a thinker must exist. And a thought exists. Therefore the thinker exists.

Who is the thinker? I can only experience my thoughts, so this is an empirical truth applicable only to me if I am formulating the statement.

It is an error to think that any of this is assumed. These are experiences. Nothing assumed or other worldly or abstract about them.
Ok maybe we are talking about a somewhat different circular reasoning here.
There is no such thing as a thought and a thinker, and there is no dependent thing here. Thought and thinker are one and the same, but once we assume two things, we will be lead into circular reasoning that will reinforce the idea that there are two things.
Post Reply