# 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:** 3
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/41 "2003-02-26T16:37:02Z")
The same _can_ be said of everyone. ---
**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, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/42 "2003-02-26T16:39:04Z")
That looks a bit ambigious by itself. I mean that _cogito ergo sum_ does not attempt to solve the problem of other minds; it notes the ‘problem of _my_ mind’. ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/43 "2003-02-26T17:20:24Z")
> [@](#): > > **erislover** said: > 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. That’s because it’s not really a “proof.” It is a starting point, an assumption. I can be sure that my awareness exists because I am aware of it. it’s really an epistimological statement more than an entological one. Descartes is making a statement about the only two things that can be _known_\*. I think _and_ I exist (because thought is contingent on a thinker). It makes no assertion about anything other than the “I” in the axiom. ---
**Author:** ![Kerriensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b5ac83/32.png) [@Kerriensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kerriensis)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/44 "2003-02-26T17:29:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cabbage \* > \*\*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. \*\* Interestingly, ‘Cogito, Ergo Sum’ comes from Descartes’ Meditations, a work written in French. The phrasing in Latin is therefore seen as significant by some commentators, who suggest that the phrasing in Latin is intended to highlight this very point. (_Si fallor, sum._) ---
**Author:** ![julian64](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/aca169/32.png) [@julian64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/julian64)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/45 "2003-02-26T17:56:24Z")
Kerriensis’s point is very interesting, namely that Descartes, in using Latin (“cogito ergo sum”) rather than French (“je pense, donc je suis”), may have been aware of the problem of this presupposition of an “I”. That said, working from my extremely limited knowledge of Latin, I believe that “I”-ness is inherent in “cogito.” Compare with “amo, amas, amat” (I love, you love, he/she loves) - which, tragically, is about the limit of what I remember with any certainty about Latin. I wonder if Nietzsche’s demolition of the Cartesian axiom (presupposition of an “I” argument) is still valid if one says “thinking presupposes being”? All that then remains to prove/assume is that a particular cluster of thoughts can be definitively associated with an individual. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/46 "2003-02-26T18:11:30Z")
posted by \*\* Diogenes the Cynic \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s because it’s not really a “proof.” It is a starting point, an assumption. I can be sure that my awareness exists because I am aware of it. You can’t be aware of awareness. > [@](#): > > it’s really an epistimological statement more than an entological one. Descartes is making a statement about the only two things that can be known. I think \*and I exist (because thought is contingent on a thinker). It makes no assertion about anything other than the “I” in the axiom Thought is contingent on a thinker but the thinker isn’t the thought. Yet all we have is the thinking. There’s no thinker in thought. **Thoughts and Thinking** are the experience not the experiencer. * * * I can stop thinking and still exist. In Buddhism/nondualism it would be, “I think therefore I’m not” ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/47 "2003-02-26T18:26:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > > You can’t be aware of awareness. Whyever not? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > > Thought is contingent on a thinker but the thinker isn’t the thought. Yet all we have is the thinking. There’s no thinker in thought. > > **Thoughts and Thinking** are the experience not the experiencer. “thought is contingent on a thinker” reads to me as ‘thinking implies thinker’, and thus if ‘all we have is the thinking’, then we can straightaway plug it into the implication and deduce a thinker. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > > I can stop thinking and still exist. > > In Buddhism/nondualism it would be, “I think therefore I’m not” 😕 Speaking logically, ‘thought implies thinker’ isn’t the same as ‘no thought implies no thinker’ (or ‘thought implies no thinker’ !) I’m _really_ not sure what you’re trying to say. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/48 "2003-02-26T18:40:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > I can be sure that my awareness exists because I am aware of it. This is not an assumption. Analytical philosophers for a loooong time have had little problem phrasing all sorts of things as assumptions that were not obviously tautologous. I’ll have to reread my Descartes tonight/this weekend for a more thorough exposition on my own concerns here, I can’t do it justice offhandedly. But IMO it can’t say as much as it seems to. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/49 "2003-02-26T18:41:34Z")
so, let’s try this more precisely this time. (there exists P) & (P thinks) ((there exists P) & (P thinks)) -\> (there exists P) :. (there exists P). does that not seem circular? it is a trivial proof, because we assume what we set out to prove. to say it is an axiom, the equivalent axiom would be: (there exists P) & (P thinks) & (i am P) i do not think descartes intended it as an axiom. his goal was to rid himself of anything he could doubt, and he could not doubt that. he offered as proof “cogito ergo sum.” it does just fine as an axiom, but it does not prove that i exist, for in order for the proof to work, there must be an i which is thinking, so it is circular. it seems beautifully truthful when you don’t think about it too hard, but if you analyze it logically, it is meaningless. ---
**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, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/50 "2003-02-26T18:44:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **Iamthat** said: > You can’t be aware of awareness. You’re referring to the Buddhist definition of pure awareness as opposed to the _content_ (the thoughts) of awareness. From a Buddhist standpoint, you can’t be aware of your awareness, that is, you can’t have a meta-awareness of your awareness in the same sense that you can’t see your own eyes or bite your own teeth. This is not important to Cartesian epistimology though, because the content of awareness is enough to establish awareness. Awareness is like space and thoughts are like matter. If matter exists, it must exist in space. > [@](#): > > I can stop thinking and still exist. Of course you can. Descartes does not say that existence proves awareness ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/51 "2003-02-26T19:02:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > it does just fine as an axiom, but it does not prove that i exist, for in order for the proof to work, there must be an i which is thinking, so it is circular. It does not prove that ‘i’ exist; it proves that ‘I’ exist! For the proof to work it does indeed need an I who is thinking, which is readily supplied by the person ‘thinking’ about the argument. Or, in Descartes case, thinking about a question like ‘is there any indisputable evidence that my mental self exists’. The argument is visibly unable to be generalized, as it is not considered an acceptible solution to the aforementioned ‘problem of other minds’. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/52 "2003-02-26T19:03:46Z")
posted by \*\* Diogenes the Cynic \*\* > [@](#): > > That’s because it’s not really a “proof.” It is a starting point, an assumption. I can be sure that my awareness exists because I am aware of it. You can’t be aware of awareness. > [@](#): > > it’s really an epistimological statement more than an entological one. Descartes is making a statement about the only two things that can be known. I think \*and I exist (because thought is contingent on a thinker). It makes no assertion about anything other than the “I” in the axiom Thought is contingent on a thinker but the thinker isn’t the thought. Yet all we have is the thinking. There’s no thinker in thought. **Thoughts and Thinking** are the experience not the experiencer. * * * I can stop thinking and still exist. In Buddhism/nondualism it would be, “I think therefore I’m not” ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/53 "2003-02-26T19:14:36Z")
**Iamthat** , was that an accidental post, or are you trying to convey some point? ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/54 "2003-02-26T19:43:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > The argument is visibly unable to be generalized, as it is not considered an acceptible solution to the aforementioned ‘problem of other minds’. If we tackle the issue epistemologically then the problem of other minds comes into play through several different routes, one of which is a radical skepticism. I think Hume took this skepticism to its logical conclusion, not Descartes, when he “abolished” the notion of an empirically distinct self and _stopped_. MHO, I like Hume very much even though I disagree with some of his worldview. Being a “fan” of Wittgenstein I think Descartes misconstrued _the grammer_ (the logic… grr, we need to have a good SDMB discussion on Wittgenstein some day) of the everyday expressions of thinking with the philosophical import we grant such statements. One such example is: why would he trust introspection? If perception of the external world could be an illusion, why not memory? If not memory, how can he say he was thinking? This is a sort of hyper-solipsism where I can’t even be sure I think, nevermind that I exist. The constancy of subject seems a strange think to assume or trust after all that other doubt. ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/55 "2003-02-26T19:44:48Z")
Oh Gaudere, what hast thou done to me? To misspell an emphasized word like “grammar”… ::weeps:: ---
**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, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/56 "2003-02-26T20:03:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*One such example is: why would he trust introspection? If perception of the external world could be an illusion, why not memory? If not memory, how can he say he was thinking? This is a sort of hyper-solipsism where I can’t even be sure I think, nevermind that I exist. The constancy of subject seems a strange think to assume or trust after all that other doubt. \*\* Memory can be an illusion (I certainly don’t trust _my_ memory :)) but that doesn’t invalidate cognition. Even if you assume that an entirely _false_ mental awareness is being contemplated, that doesn’t exorcise the act of contemplating, which implies the contemplator. After all, the phrase isn’t “I think, therefore I am _me_”! And while saying to yourself, “I’m going to assume I don’t exist,” and _stopping_ does indeed allow you to conclude that you don’t exist, it kind of skips the step of examining the implications of your assumption for internal contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/57 "2003-02-26T20:45:20Z")
\*\* begbert2\*\* > [@](#): > > - You can’t be aware of awareness.\* > > **Whyever not?** Because awareness isn’t an object. Whatever we are aware of isn’t awareness because awareness is doing the observing. > [@](#): > > “thought is contingent on a thinker” reads to me as ‘thinking implies thinker’, and thus if ‘all we have is the thinking’, then we can straightaway plug it into the implication and deduce a thinker. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If there is no thinker (subject/entity) in thought or thinking then you cannot “think” of your **self** , as awareness/subject/entity. We can imply a thinker but we cannot turn it into a an object of thinking, because the thinker is not merely a thought. > [@](#): > > Iamthat, was that an accidental post, or are you trying to convey some point? I don’t know how that happened, 🙂 ---
**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, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/58 "2003-02-26T21:01:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > \*\* > Because awareness isn’t an object. Whatever we are aware of isn’t awareness because awareness is doing the observing. > \*\* Hmm; I am aware of any number of things that aren’t objects, such as peace, war, time, life, and tuesdays. And there’s no law against _self_-awareness, is there? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Iamthat \* > \*\* > If there is no thinker (subject/entity) in thought or thinking then you cannot “think” of your **self** , as awareness/subject/entity. > > We can imply a thinker but we cannot turn it into a an object of thinking, because the thinker is not merely a thought. > \*\* Your first statement is obviously true, and in fact, the crux of the argument in _favor_ of “cogito ergo sum”. By self-awareness (or darn-near any other thing you can think of, including the thought of thinking of things to think of) we can establish that there is a thought. Having created this thought, we apply the fact that it could not exist without a thinker to prove the existence of some entity that had the thought. The thinker is not the thought itself, but is required by the fact that the thought got thought. ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/59 "2003-02-26T21:09:51Z")
Think of it this way, **Iamthat**. I think, therefore my awareness exists. We have no need to define ourselves as anything beyond that awareness. ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/60 "2003-02-26T21:35:38Z")
posted by \*\* Diogenes the Cyn\*\* > [@](#): > > You’re referring to the Buddhist definition of pure awareness as opposed to the content (the thoughts) of awareness. From a Buddhist standpoint, you can’t be aware of your awareness, that is, you can’t have a meta-awareness of your awareness in the same sense that you can’t see your own eyes or bite your own teeth. This is not important to Cartesian epistimology though, because the content of awareness is enough to establish awareness. Awareness is like space and thoughts are like matter. If matter exists, it must exist in space. I was referring to your statement: \*\* I can be sure that my awareness exists because I am aware of it.\*\* and I replied, You cannot be aware of awareness. and you agreed. If I say, “I am aware.” ….it is incorrect because the “ I “ that is saying it is not aware. > [@](#): > > I can stop thinking and still exist. > **Of course you can. Descartes does not say that existence proves awareness** I can stop thinking and still exist and still be aware. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=4)