I Think Therefore I'm Not...?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosomophizing, Cogito Ergo Sum, I Think
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What level of thought must one achieve in order to be? Do you know of someone who, perhaps, doesn't do a lot of thinking? Maybe who speaks without thought behind their words? Maybe who just smiles and nods with a blank stare? Can these people be?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 4,290 • Replies: 40

No top replies

@A Lyn Fei,

To be is to be conscious. So, when is a person conscious?

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

That is really my question. What merits consciousness? If one merely reacts to their environment and lives instinctually, what separates them from being an animal? Or maybe animals are considered to be.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

Is there a difference in the consciousness of a baby compared to a child or adult?

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

Excellent question. For the sake of this question, no. A baby may not have memories, but it is certainly conscious. What separates a baby's mind from that of a child and both from that of an adult is memory and language.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

Is a dog conscious? If not, what is the difference between a dog and a baby?

1 Reply

@de Silentio,

Perhaps a dog is conscious. The only difference between a dog and a baby is the potential to retain knowledge. I will add that I find it fascinating that my dog wasn't afraid of thunderstorms until he was about 9 years old. I have contemplated that it may be due to some awareness that he is a mortal being.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

Is a drunk man conscious? Is a sleeping person? Perhaps it would be more useful to consider consciousness as one possible corollary effect of being, rather than equating it as the only sign. Perhaps it is one sign, but hardly the only one.

...or am I totally misreading the purpose of this thread? If so, apologies.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

I think therefore I am not, is contradictory.

(x exists) if and only if (there is a property that x has).
(x does not exist) if and only if (there is no property that x has).

I think therefore I am, is logically true.
ie. (I have the property of thinking) implies (I have some property).
I pee therefore I am, is also logically true.
...If I have any property then I exist...

If (there is a property that x has) then (there is no property that x has), is contradictory.

(I have the property of thinking) implies (I have no property), is a contradiction.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

What level of thought must one achieve in order to be? Do you know of someone who, perhaps, doesn't do a lot of thinking? Maybe who speaks without thought behind their words? Maybe who just smiles and nods with a blank stare? Can these people be?

The thought does not make real... It is our forms of relationship that allow us to be, and more than that, which give us the sense of being...

1 Reply

@Owen phil,

Owen phil wrote:

I think therefore I am not, is contradictory.

(x exists) if and only if (there is a property that x has).
(x does not exist) if and only if (there is no property that x has).

I think therefore I am, is logically true.
ie. (I have the property of thinking) implies (I have some property).
I pee therefore I am, is also logically true.
...If I have any property then I exist...

If (there is a property that x has) then (there is no property that x has), is contradictory.

(I have the property of thinking) implies (I have no property), is a contradiction.

To be honest, it was a typo on my part. I meant to write "I don't think, therefore I'm not". I do apologize and feel quite silly for not catching this before the editing limit expired.

1 Reply

@Fido,

While our forms of relationships might give us purpose, our sense of being does not come from anything else but ourselves, in my opinion, of course. Descartes' I think therefore I am was the only thing he could really prove. Beyond this statement, his work is still great, but he never quite proved anything else.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

The OP is merely a point for starting conversation, so your post is appreciated. My response is that a drunken person cannot prove that they exist when they are so drunk as to black out. A sleeping person, likewise, cannot prove that they exist unless they are aware of their dreams. The only way to prove my own existence is in thinking, being aware. What else might prove existence? Keep in mind our senses can be tricked, and they are also useless unless interpreted by the brain and then our conscious mind. (We do have instinctual reactions, but any conclusions about our existence have to be thought about, even if they are empirical.)

0 Replies

A Lyn Fei wrote:

To be honest, it was a typo on my part. I meant to write "I don't think, therefore I'm not".

How come you didn't vanish yet?

1 Reply

@Francis,

Because I think. It is the people I generally don't see much thought from that I surmise may not exist as much as those who continually think. What fueled this thread for me is my father's statement yesterday "you're mother just doesn't think! She doesn't think, therefore she's not!" And I wondered if she truly doesn't have as much awareness as, perhaps, my father does.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

I don't think your father has much awareness saying that

A Lyn Fei's father wrote:

you're mother...

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

What level of thought must one achieve in order to be? Do you know of someone who, perhaps, doesn't do a lot of thinking? Maybe who speaks without thought behind their words? Maybe who just smiles and nods with a blank stare? Can these people be?

In this and subsequent posts/questions is sounds as if you're really talking about self-awareness; the different between a dog and a baby, those who just wander blindly through life without any real awareness of that thinking thing within them.

Consciousness, to me, is best differentiated when we contrast its antithesis: Unconscious. Animals can be/are conscious, as can those severely mentally impaired or underdeveloped.

Old Rene was able to reason out that he must exist because - if nothing else - he could think this thought and concurrently be aware of having thought it. That he was then this "thinking thing". For those creatures unable to rationalize this line of thought, it doesn't show much except that they're not able to conclude this.

There are degrees of self-awareness; touch a bug and he responds in that he responds to the sensation received. We can't justifiably anthropomorphise this much - its simply a reaction. But add to that the realization, "You just touched my foot that's a part of me!" and you have a higher level of self-awareness. Its this aspect, coupled with intelligence and sentience, that culminates into the being that's able to rationalize that they are.

Degrees of subtlety, methinks.

Thanks

0 Replies

@Francis,

Actually it reverberated well with me... But, I am going to agree with Khethil on this one. There are levels of consciousness/self awareness. What I further state is that different people have different levels of self awareness.

0 Replies

According to Hegel, being is nothing and nothing is being. Coming from his stand-point, then, I would think that one is whether one is doing or not (as in the case of thinking).

I think this coincides well with Descartes: He was looking for a certain proof of anything. But his proof of his own being (doing) doesn't necessarily mean that in not-doing being is no more.

If one is doing, then one necessarily is.

The implication holds as true whether or not one is doing so long as being is true.

0 Replies

@A Lyn Fei,

Hi A Lyn,
I thought about this for a while, and conclude thusly - Even a stone or a water droplet "Is". We can't determine if there is no thought process at the quantum or sub-quantum level, or even at the universal (All peripherals apply) level. IMO "If anything exists, I exist".
Might sound a bit off-the-wall, but that's how it is.
Have a splendid everything, always A Lyn.
Mark...

1 Reply

I Think Therefore I'm Not...?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know