Eventually, after I determine that I exist, we are able to attribute that knowledge to a real entity: myself. Until then, however, that knowledge has the same uncertain value as the rest of my doubtable thought, which is why the mere act of “knowing what I’s existence looks like” isn’t enough alone to prove the existence of either the doubtable thought or the thing being observed.
The metaobserver, “observing” the situation like an impartial witness, says, “I can doubt that I’s experiences and life and memory and thought are anything but random static, since random static could concievably appear like something ordered to itself. However, since ‘nothing’ cannot look like anything to itself, I cannot be nothing.”
In the end, of course, it turns out that there was something real thinking all along, but until then, it is not assumed.
Think about this for a moment, and recall your own mention of the truth table for implication (unless you have conceded that logic does not hold in a disjointed instant). What three states are possible for this implication to be true? If we accept implication, how do we discern between the three states (most importantly, when the antecedent and the consequent are both false– see next paragraph)?
If we do not, then we have something else to work with. Why do thoughts require a thinker without implication? You suggest this is definitional. I suggest it is a grammatical remnant of our everyday use of the term, not a strictly philosophical one. Indeed, what a thought is is itself taken for granted in this proof… and in fact, thoughts on what thoughts are can be the very thing which undermines a consistent subject. The possibly devestating point is that Descartes’s proof is just as “true” even then (mostly because it is circular).
Truthfully, the link to Stanford’s online encyclopedia says it well (I linked previously but it is there again):
No, I think in fact it is that subjectiveness which begs the question (i.e.- the “problem” with us is that we aren’t assuming a subject!!), and we are drawn to Russell’s [unsatisfying, perhaps] conclusion if we attempt to leave the circle.
Ah! A-ha! A possible breakthough? For notice that if it is so that thoughts require a thinker, we do not get to conclude a subject from a thought, it is necessary and simply unstated. It is unstated in order to come to the “conclusion” that there is a thinker… an artful dodge (and I’ll say that time and time again, without analysis Descartes’s “proof” is quite compelling), but a dodge nonetheless.
Which still leaves the devestating questions from Spiritus open, which I will again reiterate:
How do I know that I ask the question “Do I exist?”; and, How do the assumptions necessary to answer [that] impact our eventual conclusion?
Of course, those questions are not addressed, only pushed off (to deal with observation rather than thought), by stating, “I observed it.”
Hmm? I derived the implication “Thoughts imply a thinker” from the definition of existence; the only assumption is that a ‘thought’ requires an origin. That was DfD, remember? However, I didn’t use that implication in the argument you just quoted from; in fact, I didn’t even refer to the nature of thoughts, or “I”, at all.
The more I examine it, I think that Descartes had a good idea, but stopped before he reached the end, probably due to being personally unable to doubt the validity of his own thought. (Since philosophers literally think for a living, the idea doesn’t surprise me much.)
I think I’ll call my most recent formulation “That which I observe to be my thoughts cannot by definition have been derived from a non-existant source, therefore I can be certain that I have some basis that exists, about which I know nothing”. (Render that into latin for me, will you? If it’s going to become a catchy household phrase replacing “cogito ergo sum” and make my name immortal, it should be in latin.) By this formulation, “How do I know that I ask the question “Do I exist”?” is answered, “Well, you don’t really, but by the fact that it seems to you that you are having such a thought, you can know that you are exhibiting behavior incinsistent with nothingness”. The assumption is that nothingness, being definitionally unvarying, cannot produce a varying result. You can listen to interstellar static and decide that you’re hearing encoded messages from aliens, but if you listen to nothing, no such conclusion can be drawn. If “you” were nothing, then there would be no “thoughts” to interpret, period, by definition.
Here, I’ll save you the trouble. “That’s really REALLY circular!!”
Yeah, that does sound bad, and it does base itself off of the notion that “thinking” is a verb; what an odd notion!! Here is the exact premise: “If something doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t think, ask questions, or anything.” If you don’t like the notion that ‘thinking’ is a verb, then it is most fortunate that my most recent formulation doesn’t include such an assumption. (The primary loss is, you cannot assume that you are NOT the thought.)
In other words, after a lengthy meditation in which we pretend to doubt all things doubtable we conclude: I exist because I seem to exist to my seeming self.
All in all, I prefer Descartes’ circle. At least he tried (though failed) to establish a significant result.
Consider nothing. (ohhhm…) Notice that all nothing is alike. The condition of non-existence excludes all other properties, incuding every property that can be mistaken for another property, such as static mistaken for thought. Because we are either thinking, or doing something that can seem to be thinking, or exhibiting the property of being mistaken that we are observing ourselves, we do not fail to exist.
that “i exist because my nonexistence is inconsistent with all i know” already presumes existence.
so does starting with everything and whittling it down.
taking it as a granted truth, however, makes things a whole lot simpler, as you’ve noted throughout this discussion. but try proving it by noting an action of yours just falls right back into that circular hole descartes cut for you.
to reiterate, we’re not asking you to think about what it would be like to not exist. no one is suggesting that you don’t. merely that descartes’s logic does not demonstrate anything.
Starting with everything and whittling it down requires that you entertain the idea of existence. If you presumed it, you could not whittle.
And how does “i exist because my nonexistence is inconsistent with all i know” presume existence? If something is exhibiting properties that, say, a duck cannot exhibit, then is it presumptious to presume that that thing is not a duck?
Assuming our own non-existence fails to take into account the aforementioned observation of existence. This is what we like to call, a problem with the assumption. More strongly, a proof by contradiction.
Making this assumption of non-existence does not automatically revoke any contrary evidence. To successfully entertain the notion that one might not exist, one must find a way for that to be true and still take into account (ie: explain away) all evidence against.
Basically: “This doesn’t demonstrate that I exist? Well then, how do youexplain it?”
It is not a demonstrate of anything, but it’s a fine place to set an axiom.
BTW, have you ever stopped to question by what right you so blithely assign properties to ‘nothing’, or exactly how you have built the dichotomy between “existence” and “nothingness”.
you haven’t so far whittled away the existence. i agree that it’s hard to if you start with it.
in order to gain a set of knowledge with which your existence might be inconsistent, you must exist.
first, no one is assuming non-existence. quite the opposite, we are assuming existence. yes, it is contradictory to assume existence and non-existence. you must exist in order to observe your existence, no? i believe you said just that, here. so how is it that existence is observed before you believe that it is true?
all the evidence against it (thoughts, doubts, ducks, etc.) is only deduced from existence. quite simply, you don’t know that thoughts exist if you don’t exist. there is no inconsistency there.
explain what? sorry, not trying to be obtuse. do you mean the “evidence” in favor of existence? i explain that saying that in order to gather that evidence, you must first exist. first. there is no evidence otherwise.
there is no reason to say you exist without that evidence. there is no way to gather that evidence without existing.
So, S.M.'s stance is “I don’t give validity to the evidence” (our the definitions, or much of anything else), and Ramanujan’s stance is “Well, duh. I already assumed that.”
Come on, assuming the conclusion is hardly a good way to enter an argument. Note that the fact that existence is required to observe the evidence does not mean that you have to be aware of or admit your existence in advance of examining the evidence in favor of it. (Hey, that’s a fun sentence, isn’t it?)
Regardless, if you don’t think about it at all, it would not be obvious. And presumably not everything can apply this proof, even subconsciously; self-awareness, and the application thereof, is required. Egro, it is neither trivial nor meaningless.
Not before I have established an epistemology I don’t. That’s what epistemology is for. Descartes, at least, understood this goal. I have no idea what you understand.
Yes, so you should stop doing it. Ramanujan, as opposed to Descartes and yourself, does not pretend that he has proven his existence after assuming it.
Of course not, but it does mean that I have to be aware of or admit my existence before granting any validity to my examination, because I can have no grounds for trusting the byprodcts of my existence unless I have accepted that existence as valid. I admit this to myself because I value intellectual rigor.
Another way to look at it is to say that you are right, I do not need to admit my existence to examine the evidence that I claim can only be presented by my existence. I can practice self-deception instead. This appears to be the approach that you favor.
Wait, it’s self-deception to admit evidence that could not be true if the thing that is under contention is true? You guys must be really hard to prove anything to.
I’m picturing Jurassic Park:
“Look at that footprint! It’s huge! It must be a dinosaur!”
“Hey, you’re only able to say that because you’re assuming that dinosars exist!”
“What about this footprint?”
“Well, if you assume that there are dinosaurs, of course it’s a dinosaur footprint!”
“Oh my holy mother of- Look at that pile of crap! It must be seven feet high! This MUST be from a dinosaur!”
“You’re just saying that because you’re ASSUMING there are dinosaurs!”
“What do you think made that pile?!?”
“I’m not even going to consider it, because if I did, I’d just be giving in to your shallow attempt to beg the question!”
“!!! It’s a dinosaur!! Right there!! RUN!!!”
“What, sensory evidence now? No, I’m not going to fall for-” GULP.
Uh, you’re supposed to examine evidence, and if the evidence cannot be argued away, then it is resonable to admit the conclusion to which the evidence points. Wether you’re considering UFOs or ESP or the Loch Ness monster, it’s kinda traditional to consider the evidence and, if you DON’T believe the conclusion, ferret out reasonable alternate explanations of the so-cald evidence, wether fakery or odds or luck. Descartes provided the deciever as an alternate to trustable senses, a static image of a mind has been proposed as an alternative to continuous temporality. But I have yet to hear a way that the perceptions, in total, can be explained away enough to allow for complete nonexistence. Have at. (I disproved it by definition, but feel free to try.)
If there can be found no alternate explanation of the evidence in favor of existence, then existence is proven. No assumption necessary.
you have yet to hear it because no one here has yet claimed a reason to doubt their existence.
you can provide innumerable reasons and evidence pointing toward believing that we exist. each one i see as yet another reason to take it as granted.
innumerable evidence is not the same as logical proof, though.
no, it is not proved. it is stated that no evidence to the contrary can be found. it is stated that there are many reasons for believing it, and no reasons for not believing it. in short, it is taken as granted. it is not proved.
let me just make this point again. no one is doubting existence. let me make it again, this time in bold. no one is doubting that we exist. rather, we simply recognize that there is no positive logical proof of the fact, and that there are innumerable reasons to take it as granted.