Cogitas and the seven dwarfs.

Re: Cogitas and the seven dwarfs.

Of course Berkeley was serious when he insisted that to be meant to be perceived ("esse est pecipi"). But then he was wrong.

And so are you.

The problem is your assumption that if you are - you must have been created by evolutionary processes wholly.

There is no firm connection between mind and body that can be proven - unless you speak of body and brain - but because your brain evolves does not mean that your mind evolves or that there is even a mind.

TF

There is a logical flaw in your reasoning, cyracuz. The fact of "I am" does not necessarily presuppose "therefore I was created." Perhaps you always were and are simply not aware of it. To make that a valid sylogism, you would need at least two premises to reach your conclusion. For example:

All things that are, are created.

I am.

Therefore I was created.

Descarte's (and, yes, Berkeley's) point was that the only thing I can be sure of when I begin my investigation is that I exist. How do I know this? Descarte's answer is cogito, I think. He goes on from this, of course, to postulate a whole universe, including a First Cause or Creator. Berkeley comes to similar conclusions by a somewhat less credible route; Berkeley's observations sometimes skate awfully close to solypsism.

The problem with all these philosophers is that they pose questions with the answers already pre-conceived in their minds. These are not really honest examinations of the problem at all; they are setups to "prove" something which the philosopher has already decided must be so because of personal prejudices, rather than evidence. The evidence is made to fit the preconception.

Re: Cogitas and the seven dwarfs.
Cyracuz

I think that first we must understand what Descartes meant with his "cogito ergo sum". He postulated a systematic doubt: supposing that a demon mixed, among his true thoughts, other that were false, and not knowing what thoughts were the work of that demon, he had to doubt of everything he knew. Except two things: that he existed and was thinking (because his thoughts could only be falsed by the demon if Descartes was a thinking entity). I think Descartes said with his "cogito" much more that his systematic doubt would allow (example: he said "Je pense", and that means a "je". Or the "je" or "I" supposes already the existence of another entities. That is why Nietzsche prefered "there are thoughts").

So, according to the systematic doubt, I don't see how you can say that, if I exist I must have been created. That is a fact of experience, but remember that we are dealing with a systematic doubt, that involves all experience.
What I mean is that you cannot use the postulate, that was created in the context of that systematic or radical doubt, and then apply rules of experience.

I know I was created because I have a father, who had a father who had a father. I remember a time when my reflection in the mirror was totally different from now, and I remember a time when I couldn't speak english. This is to me solid proof that my making is an ongoing process.

Further, it is beyond doubt than evolution is the engine of my making. No matter what vessel brought me, this vessel was in turn made by evolution somewhere along the line.

Is that clearer now? Can we state that all our existences are a result of evolution? I think we can.

If our existence today is a result of evolution, then our existence is evolution, since today will be history tomorrow, and then today is part of the creation of me.

It was here that cogitas ergo sum came into it. My thoughts are part of me, and therefore, since my existence is evolution (as shown above), then my thoughts are evolution.

A clue is something Nietszche wrote in Beyond good and evil: What is this "I" that is supposed to be thinking? A thought comes when it wants to, not when the thinker wants to.

Cyracuz

I agree with your reply. But I was only claiming that, if you use Descartes sentence you must accept it's context.
Because, if you are using the "cogito ergo sum" out of that context, than I would say the proposition is false.

You are right val.



I cannot argue with that. Experience tells me I will die one day. But when you think about it, is not Cogitas ergo sum also derived from experience? From the accumulated evolution of homo sapiens sapiens?
Besides, descartes couldn't really know that HE was the thinker. ( I do not know if Cogitas ergo sum incorporates some idea of the self, or wether it is something gained during translation.) Anyway, if he had said "I experience thought, therefore I am, it would have been better. Maybe our minds are just receptors to some signal or other? But then he could say "I experience ergo I am". To me that is more accurate.