# I think therefore i am..... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533 "2003-02-26T02:00:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/21 "2003-02-26T10:13:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you think this is an accurate _way_ to define existance To _define_ existence? No. To illustrate the _petitio principii_ nature of ontology, and indeed logic and philosophy in general (_ie_ they are “based on themselves”)? Certainly. Incidentally, on the subject of rocks not exist: A-\>B does not imply ~A-\>~B. (This logical fallacy is called Denial of the Antecedent.) _Help, I’m turning into **Libertarian**!!!_ ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/22 "2003-02-26T10:27:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gyan9 \* > \*\* > Whose existence are we talking about here ? From Descartes’ statement, I infer the existence of consciousness/awareness, but not necessarily anything else. \*\* It may soon be difficult to determine whether a computer is consious or not - already programs have been written that can fool many people into thinking that the computer that runs that program is human and/or conscious- give it ten years, and a ccomputer that says _I think therefore I am_ may have such a comprehensive repertoire of responses that no-one (but the programmers) would be able to catch it out- yet it would be no different when it was switched on to when it was switched off. Would such an entity be conscious? Would it necessarily therefore exist? It is possible that we are no more than programs which mimic consciousness ourselves. IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/23 "2003-02-26T10:34:18Z")
We’re not talking about anything tangbile here though, are we; ‘I exist’ is not the same as 'This arrangement of matter exists and is me"? ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/24 "2003-02-26T11:01:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*We’re not talking about anything tangbile here though, are we; ‘I exist’ is not the same as 'This arrangement of matter exists and is me"? \*\* Exactly. I look at Descartes’ statement as self-evident. Whatever thinks, exists. If it’s an illusion, then the illusion exists. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/25 "2003-02-26T11:26:30Z")
Yes, so it boils down to ‘X does Y’ in which X must exist in order to do Y. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/26 "2003-02-26T13:57:06Z")
it does seem circular to me. propositionally: (there exists an i which thinks) -\> (i exist) there exists an i which thinks :. i exist. to say be able to meaningfully say “i think” we must already assume the existence of i. it seems to me pretty presumptuous, actually, to assume there is such an i. that there seems to be can’t be denied, but to assume so is to assume dualism. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/27 "2003-02-26T14:05:10Z")
I think, therefore I think I am. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/28 "2003-02-26T14:18:20Z")
I don’t think it’s presumptuous at all; in order for X to do Y, X must exist. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/29 "2003-02-26T14:34:36Z")
I think I think, therefore I think I am ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/30 "2003-02-26T15:06:30Z")
I think [I think I think], therefore I think [I think I am] I think [I think[I think I think]], therefore I think [I think[I think I am]] And so on… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/31 "2003-02-26T15:07:32Z")
Although to be quite honest, I’m not terribly convinced that I _ **do** _ actually think. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/32 "2003-02-26T15:08:52Z")
Certainly the word _think_ doesn’t mean anything to me now, after typing and subvocalising it so many times. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/33 "2003-02-26T15:11:03Z")
Axioms do not have the word “therefore” in them. ---
**Author:** ![Cabbage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Cabbage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cabbage)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/34 "2003-02-26T15:27:22Z")
I think the real argument being debated here suffers from being verbalized. The sentence, “I think, therefore I am” may presuppose the existence of “I”, but I believe that’s just an artifact of translating the argument into a coherent sentence. The real meat of the argument can get loss in analying picky details of the sentence structure. I, and I assume the rest of you, are constantly experiencing various sensations. We don’t need to presuppose anything to know this is true, the experiences themselves are all that’s necessary. And to have these experience, there must be _something_ that is “me”. Think of the argument without the words getting in the way. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/35 "2003-02-26T15:39:12Z")
> [@](#): > > **erislover** said: > Axioms do not have the word “therefore” in them. Like **Cabbage** said, you’re getting too hung up on the phrasing. Even though it has the word “ergo” in it it is still not really a proof but an axiom. A verb requires a subject. “Thinking” requires a thinker. This is self-evident. It does not require proof. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/36 "2003-02-26T15:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cabbage \* > The sentence, “I think, therefore I am” may presuppose the existence of “I”, but I believe that’s just an artifact of translating the argument into a coherent sentence. Well, IIRC, you’re a math guy. How about the definition of numbers? Do they assume the existence of numbers? > [@](#): > > The real meat of the argument can get loss in analying picky details of the sentence structure. Noting a begged question is not “nitpicking”. 😃 > [@](#): > > I, and I assume the rest of you, are constantly experiencing various sensations. We don’t need to presuppose anything to know this is true, the experiences themselves are all that’s necessary. I don’t know if you _need_ to presuppose anything, but _you did_. 😉 > [@](#): > > And to have these experience, there must be _something_ that is “me”. There must be a subject of experience. Very well, we now know how to use the verb “To experience”. Think of a newborn baby. Would we say its existence is intuitively obvious to itself? Would a cow say “cogito ergo sum” if only it could?—for of course cows have experiences. (don’t they?) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/37 "2003-02-26T16:03:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Think of a newborn baby. Would we say its existence is intuitively obvious to itself? Would a cow say “cogito ergo sum” if only it could?—for of course cows have experiences. (don’t they?) \*\* Hang on though; I think therefore I am does not necessarily need to work in reverse and from outside ([it is, therefore it must be thinking], or even [it appears to be thinking, therefore it must be aware that itself exists]) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/38 "2003-02-26T16:14:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Think of a newborn baby. Would we say its existence is intuitively obvious to itself? Would a cow say “cogito ergo sum” if only it could?—for of course cows have experiences. (don’t they?) It’s a solopsistic axiom. It only applies to “I.” ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/39 "2003-02-26T16:17:30Z")
The concept is that, though you can reasonably doubt almost everything, by the time you’ve finished all that, there’s no way to doubt the fact that you’re doubting a lot of stuff. By attempting to observe your own thought processes, you establish a reality in which you are an observer, and, therefore, ‘are’. As for wether a rock or cow thinks; there’s no way to tell from the outside; the observer can only validate its own existence to itself. Even things that more actively claim to think (like, say, people) might be figments of my own imagination; it is only when I try to claim that my imagination is a figment of my (non-existent)imagination do I fail. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/40 "2003-02-26T16:32:32Z")
Of course it needn’t work that way, **Mangetout** , the reason I suggested it was because of **Cabbage** ’s exposition about others. **Diogenes** , it doesn’t matter to me if it is solipsitic or not, it still assumes what it attempts to prove. I don’t mind the axiomatic assumption “I exist.” If that’s all “cogito ergo sum” was then it wouldn’t have made it into the popular consciousness. **begbert2** : _“As for wether a rock or cow thinks; there’s no way to tell from the outside”_ Then either we misuse the verb “to think” or the same can be said of everyone (the problem of other minds). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=3)