Can you doubt you exist

...I believe we may not exist simply because there is a chance that we don't.

Descartes rolls in his grave, and ponders the meaning of existence once more.


There is so much inherently wrong with this statement, yet there is no way to dispute it without disputing the very foundation of philosophy that tells us anything has a chance to be possible.

Well, it actually is a theory that the universe wouldn't exist without a conscious viewer. I'm not saying I believe this theory (and the name escapes me right now). As for existence, I do believe there are multiple planes of existence, alternate realties, per se. This is proven to an extent through the double slit experiment and many delves into quantum physics. This September when the hadron collider is turned on, we may learn something more of the quantum world.

Your discussion into the actuity of the understanding of others based on the connectivity of all events doesn't really flow with me. I don't think I quite grasp where you're at with that.

I'm curious, what is inherently wrong with that statement to you?

It would not matter if the universe exists without a conscious viewer because without at least two conscious viewers it would have no meaning, which is a form of relationship that people share with people. For the last person alive the universe might have being, but it would be without meaning. Incredible amount of reality get by us because we cannot say what it is, or we see only a phenomenon without name because it cannot be defined apart from what went before or what follows, or from fore ground and back gound. Nothing a person sees alone can be expressed, and much of life is like music that can be experienced by great numbers, with each experience only subjective, and with no one being able to say its exact meaning. What would be the meaning of music with no one to share it with?

You know, perhaps I should not talk to you, and best wishes. When I find myself saying I believe it is my way of saying I don't know, which I will never say because I am vain about my knowledge, and ashamed of my lack of education, and insecure about my moral weaknesses. I'm not going to tell you that I don't know, but I appreciate that some can still believe.

You're the second person in the last 48 hours on this forum that has said they can't continue a discussion with me. Why is that exactly?

Thoughts like those in your first paragraph are the kind I cycle through daily, and the reason why I struggle much. There are many crazy, mind-blowing ideas in this life - don't push them away, though. Embrace them and share!

Also, many share your moral weaknesses, buddy (yes, even me, as much as I may come off otherwise!). That is what makes us human! Sure, we can philosophize, but when it comes to the end of the day we don't say to our wives, "No, sorry, there's no point to be nice to you. The universe doesn't judge or have a concept of 'right' or 'wrong', so I won't either!" Lol. We're all here for the long haul, and many share beliefs that, when picked apart, don't make sense. Noone can live a life without any beliefs - it would have no meaning (as you noted!). So, try not to interpret you believing as putting your knowledge in vain. Try to accept the fact that it's not wrong to have unexplainable beliefs, but realize that some aspects of our thinking can evolve, allowing you to become enlightened. Cherish that!

Can we doubt we exist?

For some reason alot of people have been attacking Descartes and his statement lately. Even though there are alot of assumptions in his statement, that doesnt mean its wrong. Yes an extra premise or two is needed (which Descartes agreed with) but the conclusion is still valid. I see his statement as "I perceive, therefore I think, therefore I am." Unless someone would like to enlighten me I just dont see how doubting your existence can be true. It seems oxymoronic.

For some reason alot of people have been attacking Descartes and his statement lately. Even though there are alot of assumptions in his statement, that doesnt mean its wrong. Yes an extra premise or two is needed (which Descartes agreed with) but the conclusion is still valid. I see his statement as "I perceive, therefore I think, therefore I am." Unless someone would like to enlighten me I just dont see how doubting your existence can be true. It seems oxymoronic.

The Cogito argument culminates not in the "I think, therefore I am" (i.e. Cogito ergo sum) but rather "I am a thinking thing" (Res Cogitans. There is a drastic difference in the meaning of these two statements that stem from the implications of the statement.

Perception is more of an Empiricist thing.

As for the "therefore I think, therefore I am," I also disagree with this. The Cogito argument culminates not in the "I think, therefore I am" (i.e. Cogito ergo sum) but rather "I am a thinking thing" (Res Cogitans. There is a drastic difference in the meaning of these two statements that stem from the implications of the statement.

Can we doubt we exist?

Kielicious,

Descartes statement that he is a thinking think is not self evident truth per se, but an innate idea. Self evident truth implies some manner of concrete truth that he is not prepared to (at this point in meditations i.e. 1,2, and 3) accept.

That you say, "And the first thing that can be said to be a self-evident truth is not that you are thinking or a thinking thing but rather you are perceiving. " (Kielicious, #91) This is the problem. Perceptions could be illusory. Under the rationalist perspective, perception would be a fallacious self evident truth.

Also, when you say,"Perception is the first self-evident truth. Perception gives rise to different types of consciousness and is the precursor to metacognition." (Kielicious, #91) I am not inclined to buy into this statement? not under a rationalist perspective. And the cogito argument is an essential rationalist perspective. And ultimately, can one perceive their own consciousness??? The senses could be deceived. That perception is a precursor to Metacognition may be true? but I don't know about putting that in the context of the cogito argument.

But Descartes did not perceive himself to be a thinking thing. The second meditation underlines the fact that after the statement of universal doubt in the first mediation, the one thing that could have most likely led Descartes to not believe in his perceptions, namely the malign genius, it is the very fact that he is being deceived that he is inclined to believe that he in fact exists. It is not the perception, but the coincidence of outside interference basically which underlines this immutable truth.

I think you have a very good idea and I appreciate your position. But to my mind, I was aware only that any notion of metacognative thought dealt with sense after the fact. In so many words, metacognition requires knowledge in particular before any type of theory can be put on paper. This underlines the issue of the Cogito ergo sum statement, which I think is connected with your notion of metacognative faculties. "I think, therefore I am" implies the bi-conditionally equivalent "I am, therefore I think." This is problematic on so many levels. One implies the other. Res Cogitans "I am a thinking thing" is more a declarative statement. In this respect, I disagree with you supposition that, "Descartes statement not only implies but cannot work without metacognition." (Kielicious, #94)

So when you state that, "If we didnt have that ability [metacognition] then we would in essence "throw ourselves out of the equation" and not even realize we exist." (Kielicious, #94) I think for one, you are working on the grounds of the problematic Cogito ergo sum argument, which is certainly not as constructive as the Res Cogitans argument. But even beyond that, the fact that we would throw ourselves out of the equation is in fact the point. We have to. We have to throw ourselves out as part of the universal doubt argument in order to find out what we can know clearly and distinctly.

This is in a way a-priori if you think about it and in the end counter empiricist. But when you add "thinking requires perception," this is only true in the case of empiricist thought. It is by no means wrong? but it does not fit with a rationalist like Descartes. Descartes discovered "truth," or really what can be known clearly and distinctly by means of rational and logical thought. Introspection was one of those problematic faculties that he cast in to doubt in the first meditation.

metacognition requires knowledge in particular before any type of theory can be put on paper.

I disagree with you...

But even beyond that, the fact that we would throw ourselves out of the equation is in fact the point. We have to. We have to throw ourselves out as part of the universal doubt argument in order to find out what we can know clearly and distinctly.

So, as you say, "metacognition requires thinking," but it also requires, at least in my opinion, premises to underline that assumption.

But when you add "thinking requires perception," this is only true in the case of empiricist thought. It is by no means wrong? but it does not fit with a rationalist like Descartes.

No need to be sorry over a difference of opinion in an abstract debate.

When you correct my thoughts on metacognition, you state that, "Metacognition is the active control over the processes of thinking that is used in learning situations. (among other things)" My point is an ironic one. How can you evoke any notion of metacognition, a post evaluative knowledge system when the underline premise questions knowledge in particular? Unfortunately? metacognition is more a contemporary wiki-word which splits a hair generated from a-priori/a-posteriori notions. There is certainly nothing wrong with contemporary axioms, only the fact that when you understand the a-priori/a-posteriori facts?metacognition is rather redundant. All I can say on meta cognition is that this is more of a educational term utilizing a-priori/a-posteriori notions rather than a stand alone notion. But I have been on the forum long enough to know not to dispute a wiki-word? it is a discussion that never ends well and proves the exception to the rule that anything written is fact.

You ask, "Show me how someone or something can come to Descartes realization without without introspection/metacognition." Ok. Descartes comes to the realization that he is a thinking thing not by introspection (again, because everything he perceives and knows may be false) but by the fact that he is being deceived. If Descartes came to the conclusion that he was a thinking thing by introspection, he relies on preconceived notions and axioms which may in fact be false. The very first meditation outlines all these problems clearly? at least, as clearly as Descartes was able to considering his locus in philosophical history. For reference, I would recommend "An Anthology of Modern Philosophy" by Ariew and Watkins. You can also look up the meditations online and reference Med II, Para. 2-5.

When you state, "Im not talking about doubt. Im talking about our ability to think about thinking." Ironically, so am I. Doubt, in the context of your original statement, is essential to fundamentally understand the issue on the whole. By over emphasizing the ability to "think about thinking," you forget the deeper ontological issues? whether or not that thinking may in fact not be true? or even thinking. As for other animals probably not having the same cognitive abilities as humans? that is arguable and relative. Would they not know Descartes "truth?" Well, after studying the mediations, even humans have a foggy idea of the truth. Descartes says himself that God, a primary causation in his own particular philosophy, gave humans "an infinite will and a finite intellect? which is why we err." On your hypothetical?could animals have an idea of truth because it is an innate idea? Under the rationalist perspective? yes. An innate idea under the rationalist perspective is basically pre-programmed. Do animals have instincts or do they not?

To your comment that "yes, the needed premise is perception," then you are an empiricist (a-posteriori knowledge) and you cannot utilize any form of cogito argument.

In the end, I think you want to twist the two doctrines of rationalism and empiricism together? but underline an empirical note. So I guess the question is why would you even want to include any sort of rationalist perspectives?. Which were problematic for rationalists in the first place, let alone for the later empiricists. It seems redundant.

But I am also enjoying the conversation, its been a while since I have revisited the Meditations and the rationalist and empiricist camps. And also, don't worry about enforcing your point, it's a good trait to exercise. As for the concern about your argument belittling mine? don't worry! It cannot happen. :whistling: LOL! Just kidding!

Can you doubt you exist?