# 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:** 4
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/61 "2003-02-26T21:38:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > It does not prove that ‘i’ exist; it proves that ‘I’ exist! mmm kay. > [@](#): > > 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’. if there needs to be a thinker in order to have a thought, we can just as easily say there is no thought. but that’s mucking with the definition of “thought”. so let’s say the fact that there is a thought implies that there is a thinker. i can deal with that, based on a certain definition of thought. so we have: thought -\> thinker. so then, if we do not assume that there is a thinker, how do we determine that there is in fact a thought? to me, the argument looks like this: thinker -\> thought thought -\> thinker :. thinker ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/62 "2003-02-26T21:43:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > 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. Two responses: 1. that only instructs us on the use of the verb “to contemplate”, to wit, it must have at least an implicit subject; and, 2. we are using the recollection of our contemplation to drive a conlcusion that we are contemplating, when just such a recollection can be questioned. I wouldn’t argue with Descartes should he say, “I think.” I would like to know what he is thinking of when he _observes that he is thinking_, and if it is appropriate to call that “thinking” given the word’s normal use. > [@](#): > > After all, the phrase isn’t “I think, therefore I am _me_”! I’m curious to hear what more this says that isn’t already contained in the phrase in question. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/63 "2003-02-26T21:54:16Z")
posted by \*\* begbert2\*\* > [@](#): > > 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? A thought/feeling/intuition is an “object” of awareness. It’s not a question of the law,🙂 There is not self awareness, unless the **self** is nothing but an idea. > [@](#): > > 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. I agree in one sense with the proviso that the thinker cannot be thought of. From another perspective: Thoughts don’t need a thinker. There could just be this steam of continous thoughts. ---
**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, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/64 "2003-02-26T21:54:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **Iamthat** said: > I can stop thinking and still exist and still be aware. Correct (if we accept the Buddhist distinction between awareness and thought) but this doesn’t contradict Descartes. You still can’t be aware without existing. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/65 "2003-02-26T22:01:28Z")
> [@](#): > > **Iamthat** said: > From another perspective: Thoughts don’t need a thinker. There could just be this steam of continous thoughts. In that case “I” am a stream of continuous thought which _exists_. There is no definition “I” contained in _sum_. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/66 "2003-02-26T22:03:24Z")
That should say, there is no definition of “I” contained in _sum_. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/67 "2003-02-26T22:17:10Z")
Posted by \*\* Diogenes the Cynic\*\* > [@](#): > > Correct (if we accept the Buddhist distinction between awareness and thought) but this doesn’t contradict Descartes. Descartes didn’t distinguish between awareness and thinking He didn’t say, “I am aware that I think therefore I am” As such, “I think therefore I am” doesn’t say much > [@](#): > > You still can’t be aware without existing. You can’t? You would have to define “exist” Awareness cannot be defined as any form of an existent. ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/68 "2003-02-26T22:21:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\* > thinker -\> thought > thought -\> thinker > :. thinker \*\* I’m not convinced that the best way of approaching the ‘Cogito’ is on the level of ‘logical analysis,’ which essentially boils down to the analysis of our ‘signed representations’ of reality (_however one may want to define that!_). In this situation, ‘reality’ consists of the act of ‘Cogito.’ It seems to me mistaken to translate this ‘Cogito’ simply as ‘I think’ and then subject that statement to ‘logical analysis’. (I am here taking a very specific definition of logical analysis. By logical analysis I mean analysis of the ways in which our signed representations may/should be combined and manipulated. I propose instead a non-logical analysis, by which I mean an analysis focusing at a level other than that of the sign.) Rather the ‘Cogito’ could be considered as being the ‘spiritual act’ in general, (by ‘spiritual act’ I simply mean thought, doubt, desire, fear, etc… One could perhaps use the term ‘mental act’ if one wanted to avoid religious connotations, but to my mind ‘spiritual act’ in the proper sense expresses what is meant less ambiguously) and in particular consideration of and doubt of the existance of self. But having initiated this particular ‘cogito,’ the exercise of the act provides resistance to the act itself! The harder one doubts one’s existance, the more evidence one provides of one’s existance. The reality of ‘self’ bubbles up and confutes the doubt. Whilst the ‘logical analysis’ of ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ may or may not provide a solid basis for one’s existance is not the point. ‘Cogito’ is but a sign! The ACT of ‘Cogito’ is something else, it is at this level of ACT that the reality and existance of self is exposed. (I’m not 100% sure, but I think that Descartes introduced the ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ in his Discourses on Method, but that in a later work, perhaps the Meditations, he rephrased it ‘Cogito, Sum’ which is very obviously NOT a syllogism, and this may indicate that it should not be analysed as a syllogism - Perhaps someone with access to the works in French could confirm!) (_Si fallor, sum!_) ---
**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, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/69 "2003-02-26T22:25:43Z")
**Ramanujan** , the thought in question is **you** thinking about wether there is a thought. I can’t vouch for there being thoughts in your head; it’s a personal thing. It is difficult for onesself to deny that onesself has thoughts, because that denial is in itself a thought. So, you have a thought. (Or, more correctly, I only know ‘I’ do; this is kind of a ‘bring your own thought’ party.) Given that thought: thought thought -\> thinker :. thinker **erislover** , > [@](#): > > Originally posted by something I recall to be myself > 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. I used the term ‘comtemplating’ because I’ve been getting darned tired of the writing word ‘thinking’. And the distinction I was trying to make was, in response to the valid point that memories can be flawed or unreal, that that fact does not mean you’re not able to think about them. > [@](#): > > After all, the phrase isn’t “I think, therefore I am me”! The long (doubtable) notion I was trying to state succintly with the ‘me’ addition is: “I think, therefore I am myself as I understand it given my collective cache of memories”. The addition is the incorporation of one’s self-image into one’s self-awareness, which is not a defensible axiom. You could be a cognitive thought in the mind of god, or a venusian sludgeworm having a bad dream, or whatever. Whatever we are, though, we’re self-aware enough to consider wether or not we’re self-aware, and self-awareness counts as a thought, by my understanding of the term. **Iamthat** Suppose we grant that, if you don’t think, then you aren’t (necessarily). This is a sustainable position; but the problem is, for **you** to understand that, to even entertain that notion for one instant, then **you** are thinking, and therefore are. Personally I doubt that you can pas even an instant without thinking, if at least white noise, but even if you did, when you started to gloat in your non-thinkingness, you’d be existing again. Oh, and don’t think about a purple elephant! Now we have you. ---
**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, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/70 "2003-02-26T22:28:25Z")
posted by \*\* Diogenes the Cynic\*\* > [@](#): > > In that case “I” am a stream of continuous thought which exists. There is no definition of “I” contained in sum. Can “ I “ be constituted in a stream of thoughts? If “ I “ am a stream of thoughts, what am I? There is nothing there, there’s no entity. It’s vacuous. ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/71 "2003-02-26T22:36:12Z")
\*\* begbert2\*\* We would have to define “thinking” But I think there are many people who meditate that transcend/stop thinking, for considerable periods of time. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/72 "2003-02-26T22:42:55Z")
> [@](#): > > **Iamthat said** > Can “ I “ be constituted in a stream of thoughts? Yes. > [@](#): > > If “ I “ am a stream of thoughts, what am I? There is nothing there, there’s no entity. It’s vacuous. No materialistic manifestation is required. consciousness, itself, is enough. If I am a non-materialistic stream of thought, then 'I" exist as a non-materialistic stream of thought. The axiom does not necessitate a physical manifestation for “I.” ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/73 "2003-02-26T22:46:07Z")
> [@](#): > > We would have to define “thinking” > > But I think there are many people who meditate that transcend/stop thinking, for considerable periods of time. So what? How does that contradict Descartes? Cogito ergo sum != Sum ergo cogito. ---
**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, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/74 "2003-02-26T22:46:46Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Iamthat \* > \*\*\*\* begbert2_\* > We would have to define “thinking” > > But I think there are many people who meditate that transcend/stop thinking, for considerable periods of time. \*\* That’s nice; I don’t think they do. But even if they did, Descartes wasn’t, and persons who are considering Descartes’s argument are definitely thinking for the duration. ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/75 "2003-02-26T22:47:55Z")
And bonus points to **Diogenes** ; well stated. ---
**Author:** ![ranwashingt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@ranwashingt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ranwashingt)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/76 "2003-02-26T23:02:18Z")
Nomadic\_One ## I think therefore i am… do you _the people of the board_ think this is an accurate to define existance? Its the only concept I can take absolutely , so yes it works for me…but its kind of limiting and a little egotistic to consider that the visible universe around me could be a figment of my omnipresent imagination…and not being very imaganitve, and barely present it further fuels my impression that “They are because I can’t” ---
**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, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/77 "2003-02-26T23:17:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > _To Ramanujan_ > thought > thought -\> thinker > :. thinker I quite agree this is what he might have hoped could be said, but (two points again) 1. That is not what he said; and, 2. My own inclination is to consider this as a remark of the grammar of “to think” rather than any epistemological or ontological statement. > [@](#): > > _To me_ > I used the term ‘comtemplating’ because I’ve been getting darned tired of the writing word ‘thinking’. No worries. I hope my reply didn’t make you think otherwise. > [@](#): > > And the distinction I was trying to make was, in response to the valid point that memories can be flawed or unreal, that that fact does not mean you’re not able to think about them. Of course not. But my point is that it is their content which is appealed to in the statement we are considering. > [@](#): > > Whatever we are, though, we’re self-aware enough to consider wether or not we’re self-aware, and self-awareness counts as a thought, by my understanding of the term. I agree with this completely. But I need to know that I am aware of myself to make the statement that “I think”—that this is me thinking. Pick a verb that requires a subject, any verb that requires a subject in common speech, and restate it. Think of the oh-so-funny “I shop, therefore, I am.” Sure, I can doubt that there was anything to “really” buy, or that I bought the right thing when I could have actually bought the wrong one, (that is, by analogy, whether the memories are mine, or whether they are true, or etc) but how can any of this _demonstrate_ that I am? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/78 "2003-02-26T23:18:55Z")
What do you mean by “I am”? ---
**Author:** ![bluemoonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c57346/32.png) [@bluemoonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluemoonz)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/79 "2003-02-27T00:28:50Z")
Any good philosophy gives advice. If it doesn’t, it is a fact or theory. “I think, therefore I am” is just a theory if that. I think it was just some guy trying to be profound. Monkeys can think, are they aware that they exist? Chairs can’t think, does that mean that they don’t exist? ---
**Author:** ![Iamthat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Iamthat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iamthat)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/80 "2003-02-27T00:55:33Z")
posted by **Diogenes the Cynic** > [@](#): > > If “ I “ am a stream of thoughts, what am I? There is nothing there, there’s no entity. It’s vacuous. > **No materialistic manifestation is required. consciousness, itself, is enough. If I am a non-materialistic stream of thought, then 'I" exist as a non-materialistic stream of thought. The axiom does not necessitate a physical manifestation for "I."** I agree, but you’re missing the point. There is no awareness in the thoughts. They’re insentient. I, as the thought, “I am,” or “I think” exists as an object of awareness, an unconscious fleeting idea. > [@](#): > > So what? How does that contradict Descartes? Cogito ergo sum != Sum ergo cogito. I didn’t say it did. I said (above) \*Descartes didn’t distinguish between awareness and thinking He didn’t say, “I am aware that I think therefore I am” As such, “I think therefore I am” doesn’t say much\* Because the “I” is not the awareness. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=5)