Computers are Zombies

[Obvious Leo]

My objection to this aphorism is the assumption that there exists such a thing as a definable Self which constitutes the "I". As a process philosopher I define the notion of Self as an entity which evolves over time, which means the "I" can only be defined in terms of the sum of my life's experiences. It is the journey of our existence which defines us as what we are and it is what we are which determines how we think.

It's also worth bearing in mind that infant humans are consciously aware of the existence of others before they become consciously aware of their own existence. They have to evolve a Self before they can identify themselves as one.

[mickthinks]

I agree that the nature and identity of the self is problematic. But the cogito doesn't face that problem and isn't defeated by it. The nature of "I" does not have to be settled in order to achieve what the cogito requires. Descartes (and each one of us) just needs to be sure there is something to call "I".

Now, you may feel able to show why calling that something (whatever it is and whatever form it takes) "I" depends on some assumption that itself is doubtable. If so, be my guest ...

[Obvious Leo]

You open up a Pandora's box of worms, red herrings and mixed metaphors, mick, if you think we can nail down the notion of the Self. However I see the Self more as a suite of causal inter-relationships between the mind and its external environment rather than the Self as a master-conductor of the neural orchestra. The Self both acts and is acted upon in a continuous process but the actual continuity of Self is largely illusory. In other words I perceive myself as being the same bloke as I've always been but when I stop and think about it I know this must be bollocks.

[Impenitent]

I never said he was insincere ...

It is firmly implied by your "the cogito was simply to appease ...". If an argument and its conclusion are sincerely believed, the belief is itself a powerful motive for an ambitious philosopher to make the argument. Your "simply" here is a denial of any motive other than the appeasement you claim (falsely, I think) he intended.

... although I should add physics and astronomical to mathematical ideas ...

LOL you mean you should correct your original statement!

It has been suggested that Descartes supported the Copernican heliocentric cosmos, the idea which got Galileo in trouble with the church, so you could say Descartes's astronomy contradicted church teachings. But since he never published those ideas, it is simply false to suggest that he was, or even needed to, appease the church because of them. And none of your links says otherwise.

"Fortunately for Descartes, his writings were not seen as “heretical” for the ecclesiastic authorities but it is also true that he was afraid of persecution and censure which clearly reveals the withdrawal of the work “The World” in which he supports the Copernican theory that earned Galileo a condemnation by the Church and house arrest. "

I guess not...

-Imp

[mickthinks]

You open up a Pandora's box of worms, red herrings and mixed metaphors, mick, if you think we can nail down the notion of the Self. However I see the Self more as a suite of causal inter-relationships between the mind and its external environment rather than the Self as a master-conductor of the neural orchestra. The Self both acts and is acted upon in a continuous process but the actual continuity of Self is largely illusory. In other words I perceive myself as being the same bloke as I've always been but when I stop and think about it I know this must be bollocks.

Leo, you are talking to yourself—it's as if you hadn't even read my previous response:

I agree that the nature and identity of the self is problematic. But the cogito doesn't face that problem and isn't defeated by it. The nature of "I" does not have to be settled in order to achieve what the cogito requires. Descartes (and each one of us) just needs to be sure there is something to call "I".

Now, you may feel able to show why calling that something (whatever it is and whatever form it takes) "I" depends on some assumption that itself is doubtable. If so, be my guest ...

[Obvious Leo]

Mick. Australians drink far too much beer to be logically definable as sentient so you'll have to make due allowance for this fact. If you feel that I haven't understood your question then repeating it won't help. Perhaps you could rephrase it in a form of language more accessible to a cognitively challenged antipodean.

[mickthinks]

I think you are claiming to be too pissed for philosophy, Leo. If that is the case, there's nothing I can do for you. Any remedy is entirely in your hands, but maybe you should take a break till you sober up?

[Obvious Leo]

Actually I very rarely drink at all these days, mick, let alone get pissed, but it's possible that the damage was done in my younger and more reckless years. I'm not quite sure what you're asking of me.

[mickthinks]

I'm asking you to do some philosophy, Leo. I think you have explained why that can't happen, in this or any other thread.

1. The nature and identity of the self is problematic. I agree with you about that.
2. But Descartes's Cogito ergo sum doesn't depend on resolving any of the difficulties mentioned in 1. The nature of "I" does not have to be settled in order for Cogito ergo sum to work in the way Descartes intended.
3. Descartes (and each one of us who is trying to understand his argument) just needs to be sure there is something to call "I".
4. So, in order to claim that Descartes got Cogito ergo sum the wrong way round, you need to show that the conclusion "Something exists which can be called I" requires some assumption in addition to the experience of thinking.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm asking you to do some philosophy, Leo. I think you have explained why that can't happen, in this or any other thread.

1. The nature and identity of the self is problematic. I agree with you about that.
2. But Descartes's Cogito ergo sum doesn't depend on resolving any of the difficulties mentioned in 1. The nature of "I" does not have to be settled in order for Cogito ergo sum to work in the way Descartes intended.
3. Descartes (and each one of us who is trying to understand his argument) just needs to be sure there is something to call "I".
4. So, in order to claim that Descartes got Cogito ergo sum the wrong way round, you need to show that the conclusion "Something exists which can be called I" requires some assumption in addition to the experience of thinking.

Descartes even knew he had "Cogito" wrong.
He reviewed the term I think therefore I am, with "I think, I am", then he dropped the comma. "I think I am." and he wasn't sure about that.

[Obvious Leo]

Descartes even knew he had "Cogito" wrong.
He reviewed the term I think therefore I am, with "I think, I am", then he dropped the comma. "I think I am." and he wasn't sure about that.

Love it.

You're right, mick, I can't do philosophy on those terms because the monist and the dualist think the world in different conceptual magisteria. Since I didn't invent Descarte's notion of the self in the first place why do I have the burden of proof in disqualifying it? He was a competent mathematician but as a philosopher he would have made a good pastrycook.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Descartes even knew he had "Cogito" wrong.
He reviewed the term I think therefore I am, with "I think, I am", then he dropped the comma. "I think I am." and he wasn't sure about that.

Love it.

You're right, mick, I can't do philosophy on those terms because the monist and the dualist think the world in different conceptual magisteria. Since I didn't invent Descarte's notion of the self in the first place why do I have the burden of proof in disqualifying it? He was a competent mathematician but as a philosopher he would have made a good pastrycook.

I'm not mick BTW.

I think he was a man of his times. His meditations start with the usual and predictable obeisance to god, which for the rest of the book add and subtract nothing to his work, which was remarkable. It's almost as if he did not believe in god at all. Curious.

[mickthinks]

I can't do philosophy on those terms because the monist and the dualist think the world in different conceptual magisteria.

No, I believe you were right the first time. You can't do philosophy because your thinking is impaired, not least by a lack of resolve. But you like to pose as a philosopher so you come here and snark like a sniper picking off other people's thoughts from an indecipherable position and a safe distance. You are a negative and destructive presence here with your erudite bullying and your intellectual cowardice.

Since I didn't invent Descarte's notion of the self in the first place why do I have the burden of proof in disqualifying it?

That's claptrap dressed up in clever words, Leo. Since when was refutation the preserve of the refutee? You have the burden of justifying your counter-claim because you made it against Descartes and he has a more solid reputation than you have.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So, in order to claim that Descartes got Cogito ergo sum the wrong way round, you need to show that the conclusion "Something exists which can be called I" requires some assumption in addition to the experience of thinking.

So we have two preporitions.

I think therefore I am.
I am therefore I think.

The first is a posteriori taken as a a priori and the second is an a priori taken as an a posteriori.

Thinking is evidence that I exist; and existing is a necessity for thinking. This seems to be a perfect circular argument. perfect in the sense that both offer a support for the other. It is parallel with Franscico Sinatros answer to Sartre's puzzle of existential reality, posed thus.

To do is to be
Jean Paul Sartre
To be is to do
Maritn Heidegger
To be do be do
Fransisco SInatra.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So, in order to claim that Descartes got Cogito ergo sum the wrong way round, you need to show that the conclusion "Something exists which can be called I" requires some assumption in addition to the experience of thinking.

So we have two preporitions.

I think therefore I am.
I am therefore I think.

The first is a posteriori taken as a a priori and the second is an a priori taken as an a posteriori.

Thinking is evidence that I exist; and existing is a necessity for thinking. This seems to be a perfect circular argument. perfect in the sense that both offer a support for the other. It is parallel with Franscico Sinatros answer to Sartre's puzzle of existential reality, posed thus.

To do is to be
Jean Paul Sartre
To be is to do
Maritn Heidegger
To be do be do
Fransisco SInatra.