There are 4 choices, 6 votes for loveyourfate's debate

Is there an argument against 'cogito ergo sum' ?

So, Decartes's 'cogito ergo sum' (I think therefore I am).
I was wondering if that reasoning could be countered. And if that argument would sound reasonable.

Ever since I first heard it, years ago, I wondered if there could be anything against it.
Your thoughts please ? thanks
  • Vae Victis
    If you've ever read Descartes entire thought on this... you would know he's probably the biggest fluff philosopher made famous.

    Basically, he says "I think, therefore I am... I think". Did anyone catch that circular reasoning? He is interpreting the universe through his sense of conceptual tangibility... Which is why he assumes thought is axiomatic to existence!

    It would be like making a computer tell you if it existed or not. And ultimately it run through all of its possible states and conclude "I am binary code, therefore I am."

    Is the computer only binary data? Or is there more to it (such as the metal casings and wires) that it itself cannot interpret or comprehend directly. When the computer is turned off, does it cease to be? Parallelly, when someone is in a comma, do they no longer exist?

    Thought is a fairly vague word to begin with. Do you think in a dream? do you think when you are in a trance? Or is the presence of thought only in the afterthought?

    Ultimately, thought is more of a symptom of existence rather than evidence of. It is the harmonious resonance of "thought" among brain tissues that allows there to be an identification of self (because the registration of thought is undifferentiated between the active zones carrying the "thoughts") someone with Multiple-Personality-Disorder (MPD) may have thousands of momentary "selves" which never manifest into a recognizable personality of the person. Would that be a chunk of the self? or a different self?

    The way to treat MPD is to make the personalities confront eachother and meld back into a single identity. What happened to the multiple selves then? Are they still thinking individually? no. So they have lost their "self" despite the fact they think? ...We think, therefore 'I' are?

    Descartes' idea only works because it is vague enough to work. I think he is an outspoken charlatan, nothing more.
    50%  Voted for by Molzahn, endsofbread, restore-innocence.
    View 2 comments
  • :

  • I don't think
    Therefore, I'm not.
    Voted for by mudgod.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • I don't think so
    Though really one could argue you are like, someone's imagination. A character in a book or movie, and you are written to have these thoughts. But that's farfetched on one hand, and technically you STILL exist on the other hand.

    If you're thinking, you're here--existing--doing so. That much is certain lol
    Voted for by Weydon.
    Add a comment
  • :

  • Its all about interpretation...
    From above: "Descartes' idea only works because it is vague enough to work. I think he is an outspoken charlatan, nothing more."

    This is just plain wrong. Descartes was making reference to the great conundrum of philosophy - if I try to figure out what is "real" all I have to go on is my sensation of the world, nothing else. Everything I know is known to me through the senses, and since the senses are subjective (ie. science has proven that colour does not "really" exist, and that our minds interpret light and create colour - hence it is a subjective experience and not "really real") then we can't really ascertain what is real apart from experience.

    This brings me to my second point: the phrase 'cogito ergo sum' does not literally translate to "I think, therefore I am" anyway. There is no reference to the word "I" in this statement at all.

    Cogito refers to consciousness, or cognition (as in thought - but slightly more complex than what we call thought today) while 'sum' refers to 'being' or 'existing' (a kind of 'amness' or 'isness'). The phrase more accurately translates to "Consciousness, therefore existence," which is an Eastern style thought much closer to ying-yang philosophy and quantum physics. In quantum physics everything is a multiplicity and has no certainty. Everything breaks the 'laws' of space and time which dictate existence as we understand it. When we become conscious of something (by looking at it, or experiencing it with the senses) it is 'fixed' and starts to 'exist'. Before this moment of cognition, or sensation, there is nothing but a multiplicity there - nothing exists (which brings us to ancient Eastern philosophical thought). Nothing exists until something cognizes it through the senses, through the consciousness. Before this moment there is nothing. Then, when we become conscious the quantum elements are fixed into a pattern of experience which becomes an existence. It is not the only way of thinking, but it is a very interesting one.

    “In quantum physics, multiple possibilities exist — are superposed — and it is not until observation (or, synonymously for this purpose, measurement) that the state function collapses to just one of these actualities.” Robert Paster, New Physics and the Mind.

    Hence;

    consciousness
    therefore
    existence!

    Without consciousness, there is no 'existence' to speak of, at least not in the way we perceive existence (as within the boundaries and limits of space and time).

    Just a few thoughts.

    Voted for by richardwhyte.
    Add a comment
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →