Can you doubt you exist

@BassPlayer,

BassPlayer wrote:

...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.
Very Happy

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.

1 Reply

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

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.

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

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

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.

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.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

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

He was cremated.

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

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!

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

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!

I didn't mean to pile on. It is not the universe that has concepts like right and wrong, but people; and our concepts must serve us or they are not forms of relationship as they should be, but forms which we feed, that take energy from humanity to sustain. Now, I can barely talk about what is, and have nothing to offer upon what may possibly be if only some spiritual elevation makes visible the invisible. I know there are sites devoted to speculation. I am not there. Try to remember that there is particular reason why children, and then humanity, believe in magic and in the world where wishes come true. It is because children wish for what they get, but the reason is not the wish; but, because some one who loves them is anticipating their needs. Do you have a need for what you wish for? It is not a metaphysical hand that is guiding you, and no unseen force. What we need we got, or we will have to provide for ourselves.

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

Jessica wrote:

Can we doubt we exist?

Allow me to apologize for re-itterating this point if it had already been made.

The universe seems limitless. When I look around I notice that all objects seem to have a limit. It, therefore, seems like a paradox to me - a limitless universe with limits. It does not seem logical. In a dream I also perceive a limitless universe with limits. This seem more logical as the dream world is a perception of order rather than the amount or size of matter. To satisfy the need for logic, the answer would be that reality is a dream state at a higher level of consciousness. For other people this is best described as a spirit world. The the spirit is not contained in matter; matter is contained in the spirit. This does not disprove our exist. It indicates that we generally view exist inside out. Then if the spirit world is not physical then what is it. Here goes another paradox.

1 Reply

@Sir Neuron,

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.

2 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

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.

Kielicious,

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious wrote:

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.

To your point: It is, and I'd agree with you on this account. This is yet another instance of a trend with some to cast all that can be reasonably, rationally known into doubt. I think doubt serves a good, productive purpose. But doing so to such an extent is counter-intuitive, counter-productive and ignores that core lesson: Whatever I am, whatever this thinking thing is, it is.

By way of Clarification: That being said, VideCorSpoon brings up an excellent point that many (myself included) have misinterpreted much; having to do with the perceptional element and that end result.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Good stuff

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

True I am interpreting it in more of an empirical way but I thought his whole statement was a self-evident truth. 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. Perception is the first self-evident truth. Perception gives rise to different types of consciousness and is the precursor to metacognition. Descartes perceived himself to be a thinking thing. Likewise, I dont see how you can think without perceptions. Maybe I am missing your point idk...

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious,

1 Reply

@Jessica phil,

Jessica wrote:

Can we doubt we exist?

Was Jessica banned for posing this question? I'm just curious.

Doubting one's existence, like doubting the existence of others, or doubting the existence of a "world" beyond ourselves, has always struck me as supremely silly. I am amazed that philosophers have given so much thought to such issues.

It seems to me there is almost something disingenuous in doing so. Each day we blithely go about interacting with other people and things. If we honestly doubted their existence, or our own, why would we act in this fashion? Because we act in this fashion, is it not clear that we don't really entertain such doubts? Is not the fact that we do so at least very good evidence that such doubts make no difference whatsoever? Why have we expended such time and effort in debating matters which we so clearly disregard in everyday life?

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Kielicious,

Im not clearly understanding what you are trying to say. Descartes statement not only implies but cannot work without metacognition. If we didnt have that ability then we would in essence "throw ourselves out of the equation" and not even realize we exist. Metacognition requires thinking, thinking requires perception. Descartes "discovered" his truth by means of introspection.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

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]

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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]

Im sorry but I dont agree at all.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

Metacognition is the active control over the processes of thinking that is used in learning situations. (among other things)

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I disagree with you...

Show me how someone or something can come to Descartes realization without without introspection/metacognition.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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.

Im not talking about doubt. Im talking about our ability to think about thinking. If we didnt have that ability we would never come to Descartes realization. Other animals probably dont have the cognitive ability to introspect. We dont know for sure but it doesnt seem likely, at least in respect to humans. So they wouldnt know Descartes "truth." However, lets say they did have introspective abilities, would they know Descartes "truth" because as you said its an innate idea.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

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

yes, the needed premise is perception.

VideCorSpoon wrote:

if you can show me how someone or something can think without perceptions then your point is valid.

I am enjoying this convo we are having and I hope im not presenting myself as trying to belittle you or anything in any way. Im just trying understand. Smile

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

First: metacognition is a wiki-word but that shouldnt diminish its credibility for it is founded in psychology. Also what word isnt a wiki-word? (Rhetorical) Second: to say that Descartes isnt using introspection is, and i will say this as lightly as i can, absurd. After all, meditation is about taking one's awareness and focusing it inward. Descartes thinks about what has already been taught to him and tries to doubt all of it. So in essence he is thinking about thinking. Third: im using empiricism ambiguously. Im not saying we should put this through the scientific method but rather saying the act of realizing or experiencing this truth is needed. Descartes experienced his truth by realizing it couldnt be doubted, for he didnt know it before he knew it!

To say that it is an innate idea and no need of metacognition is needed is very problamatic. So basically, by that notion, we already knew about Descartes truth before he announced it because its innate? That isnt right. Are animals aware they exist because they have the cognitive understanding that doubting their existence is self-contradictory? No they probably dont. To claim they do would make you the onus and would require some evidence to say the least. Back to humans... what about babies? Since its innate they should be no exception. Do they have that cognitive understanding yet? No. They dont even have the cognitive understanding of object permanence.

So to say metacognition isnt needed is not only contradictory but doesnt fit at all. We need certain cognitive abilities to be able to not only come to these conclusions but function as humans. To say otherwise would be to glorify humans, the way Descartes did, and pretend we are "something special." We do not know things before we know them. Hence what i mean by experience. The act of discovering new knowledge is an act of experience.

0 Replies

@Jessica phil,

Quote:

Can you doubt you exist?

Have to!
Without that doubt spurring inquiry, I would not, perhaps, have found the 'foundational truth' that everything exists.
Existence is context.
Within the appropriate context, everything exists.

One cannot come to the conclusion/belief that one 'exists' (or even use the word) unless one entertains the notion of non-existence, doubt. The term existence implies non-existence, definitionally.

One might never have questioned one's existence, it might be a meaningless concept, and therefore, likewise, there has been no doubt.
With 'certainty' there must be 'doubt', they are the same coin.

1 Reply

@Jessica phil,

Doubt 1:
"Inherent freedom doubts one's inherent being"
- Sartre like
Doubt 2:
"Physical causality doubts one's inherent freedom"
- newton like
These are rational doubts because there are valid reasons for them.
If one does use methodological doubt to find a foundation for the sciences e.g. "cogito ergo sum", impossible rational doubts provide the beginning of rational physics as the fundemental assumptions. Also the impossible rational doubt proves the underlying metaphysical methodology irrational somehow.

0 Replies

Can you doubt you exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know