"You Are What You Think"

As an agnostic, heavily leaning towards atheism, I believe our soul is the good and evil we leave behind when the last breath has left our lips.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
These ancillary, intellectualized tirades aren't helping.

🙄

Are you sure you know what a 'tirade' is?

Originally posted by LemonJello
🙄

Are you sure you know what a 'tirade' is?

"Definition of TIRADE: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language. | Origin of TIRADE: French, shot, tirade, from Middle French, from Old Italian tirata, from tirare to draw, shoot. First Known Use: 1802 | Related to TIRADE: ynonymsdiatribe, harangue, jeremiad, philippic, rant." (Merriam-Webster) ... yes. (gb)

Originally posted by googlefudge
"I think therefore I am."

Pretty much the only thing Descartes got right.

The fact that there are thoughts means that there must be something having those thoughts.

This is compatible with both dualist and non-dualist views of the world as the something doesn't have to be the bodies we perceive ourselves as inhabiting.

It works whether we are ...[text shortened]... y (albeit with a very high degree of certainty), whereas I can know that I exist absolutely.

"I think therefore I am."

Pretty much the only thing Descartes got right.

The fact that there are thoughts means that there must be something having those thoughts.

Even if the fact that there is thought entails there exists something having those thoughts (which I tend to think is plausible by analytic connection as I discussed with JS357), it still wouldn't follow that Descartes got this one thing right.

If you think Descartes was successful in demonstrating one can know he exists with epistemically certainty, I would have to disagree. I would tend to agree with JS357's objection, which as I understand it is basically the objection of Georg Lichtenberg, which is that the 'I' in the antecedent was not justified by Descartes. Even if the introspection of the meditator gives direct acquaintance of the existence of thought, it does not give the same to an "I" doing the thinking.

I'm not convinced there is any proposition you can know "absolutely" (ie, with epistemic certainty).

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Definition of TIRADE: a protracted speech usually marked by intemperate, vituperative, or harshly censorious language. | Origin of TIRADE: French, shot, tirade, from Middle French, from Old Italian tirata, from tirare to draw, shoot. First Known Use: 1802 | Related to TIRADE: ynonymsdiatribe, harangue, jeremiad, philippic, rant." (Merriam-Webster) ... yes. (gb)

So you know the definition of the term but don't know how to properly apply the term? Is that it?

Originally posted by JS357
I think Hume said something to the effect that, when he looks inside for what I will call this "haver" of thoughts, all he finds are the thoughts. In this sense, GB's OP has a similar point. But I think identifying ourselves with our thoughts is not what Descartes meant, and would not satisfy Hume. Or GB.

Nonetheless, we are drawn to identify ourselves as e they exist. Is there something wrong with this?

Time to review theory of mind.

From an evolutionary perspective this sense of self is not universal among living beings (I think) and/or seems to be possessed to varying degrees among living beings. For example some animals seem unable to recognize "themselves" in a mirror.

This fact (depending on our opinion of evolution) makes me think that "I think, therefore I am" should be considered carefully. Is an animal that recognizes prey, notices its own hunger, calculates and follows a trajectory to capture prey, but does not recognize itself in a mirror, existent in the sense that I consider myself to be existent?....Maybe Descartes should have said, "I think I am, therefore I am." This would limit existence (as we mean it here) to animals that think they exist. Is there something wrong with this?

The number of species for which we have good evidence to think they have self consciousness or self awareness is remarkably small. And I mean small like you can count them on your fingers small.

But I really don't understand your point here. This alternative wouldn't "limit" existence to those animals that think they exist. That's absurd. I think you're deeply confused. From P therefore Q it is obviously fallacious to infer not-P therefore not-Q.

Anyway, this rendering would still fail to your Lichtenberg objection. As I mentioned I tend to agree with you there.

Originally posted by Phranny
Regarding animals, dogs display dreaming behavior including vocalizations, leg and foot movement and sometimes drooling and a smile. Seems they must be "thinking" about prey they chased earlier in the day but perhaps failed to catch. Is this not thought on some level?

The wife tells me about it when I do it. 🙂

Originally posted by LemonJello
[quote]From an evolutionary perspective this sense of self is not universal among living beings (I think) and/or seems to be possessed to varying degrees among living beings. For example some animals seem unable to recognize "themselves" in a mirror.

This fact (depending on our opinion of evolution) makes me think that "I think, therefore I am" should l fail to your Lichtenberg objection. As I mentioned I tend to agree with you there.

I had said, "This fact (depending on our opinion of evolution) makes me think that "I think, therefore I am" should be considered carefully. Is an animal that recognizes prey, notices its own hunger, calculates and follows a trajectory to capture prey, but does not recognize itself in a mirror, existent in the sense that I consider myself to be existent?....Maybe Descartes should have said, "I think I am, therefore I am." This would limit existence (as we mean it here) to animals that think they exist. Is there something wrong with this?"

You said, " This alternative wouldn't "limit" existence to those animals that think they exist. That's absurd. I think you're deeply confused."

I agree that that's absurd... if existence is predicated on thinking, as in, I think, therefor and only on account of that, I am. What Descartes really meant was, I think that there is an "I" that I am, an "I" that I am, on account of my thinking, which non-thinking entities, while existent, are not. An existent entity that does not think, like a rock, has no "I-ness". But I raised the possibility of gradients, between the rock and the human, the existence of gradients that Descartes denied. This mistake of his is actually a side issue.

I will study the Lichtenberg objection. I may have stated it without knowing it had a pedigree.

Originally posted by JS357
I had said, "This fact (depending on our opinion of evolution) makes me think that "I think, therefore I am" should be considered carefully. Is an animal that recognizes prey, notices its own hunger, calculates and follows a trajectory to capture prey, but does not recognize itself in a mirror, existent in the sense that I consider myself to be existent?....Ma ...[text shortened]... chtenberg objection. I may have stated it without knowing it had a pedigree.

Nineteen (19) Appearances of the Singular Personal Pronoun "I" within One (1) Spirituality Forum Post
which doubts the Prior Existence of "Self" to Thinking/Thought seems somewhat amusing. Bob

Originally posted by JS357
For example some animals seem unable to recognize "themselves" in a mirror.

From what I have seen of 'mirror tests' they are often poorly conducted and too much concluded from them.
I do know that I have seen cats try to jump through a mirror, get scared by their reflections, but then i have seen humans do the same. I do believe however that my cats are familiar with mirrors and typically do not think their reflection is another cat.

Originally posted by twhitehead
From what I have seen of 'mirror tests' they are often poorly conducted and too much concluded from them.
I do know that I have seen cats try to jump through a mirror, get scared by their reflections, but then i have seen humans do the same. I do believe however that my cats are familiar with mirrors and typically do not think their reflection is another cat.

You would call this study poorly conducted and having too much concluded.

You know about kittens turning sideways to each other, arching their backs and hissing. I have seen kittens do that in front of a mirror. They soon lose this instinctive reaction.

Originally posted by JS357
You would call this study poorly conducted and having too much concluded.

You know about kittens turning sideways to each other, arching their backs and hissing. I have seen kittens do that in front of a mirror. They soon lose this instinctive reaction.

So do you conclude that they eventually figure out that it is themselves in the mirror, or do they think it is a tv set?
At what age do humans realize how mirrors work?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So do you conclude that they eventually figure out that it is themselves in the mirror, or do they think it is a tv set?
At what age do humans realize how mirrors work?

"From the age of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror's reflection. Self-admiring and embarrassment usually begin at 12 months, and at 14 to 20 months most children demonstrate avoidance behaviors.[7] Finally, at 18 months half of children recognize the reflection in the mirror as their own[8] and by 20 to 24 months self-recognition climbs to 65%. Children do so by evincing mark-directed behavior; they touch their own nose and/or try to wipe the mark off."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

However I am not clear on how this relates to having a sense of self.

Originally posted by LemonJello

"I think therefore I am."

Pretty much the only thing Descartes got right.

The fact that there are thoughts means that there must be something having those thoughts.

Even if the fact that there is thought entails there exists something having those thoughts (which I tend to think is plausible by analytic connection as I discussed wi ed there is any proposition you can know "absolutely" (ie, with epistemic certainty).

And the theists here wonder why people with thoughts like these (perhaps I should call them 'logic apologists', certainly 'logic' IS owed an apology for them ) don't believe in God. According to this post, he can't even be sure he, himself, exists.

(DISCLAIMER: To be crystal clear to LJ and others who seem a little slow sometimes, I'm not responding to LJ, I'm merely using his post as a prop for my post. I'm just cutting the 'define what the word 'exists' means, please' crowd off at the pass. 🙂 )

Originally posted by Suzianne
And the theists here wonder why people with thoughts like these (perhaps I should call them 'logic apologists', certainly 'logic' IS owed an apology for them ) don't believe in God. According to this post, he can't even be sure he, himself, exists.

(DISCLAIMER: To be crystal clear to LJ and others who seem a little slow sometimes, I'm not responding to ...[text shortened]... tting the 'define what the word 'exists' means, please' crowd off at the pass. 🙂 )

There may be a misunderstanding by these theists about these two forms of certainty, concerning which, LJ referred to the second.

quote:

Psychological certainty

The first is the one we typically mean in normal language. It’s called psychological certainty. It’s a feeling of certainty; A confidence in something. This is the one we’re talking about when we say things like “Are you 100% sure?”. It is possible that someone is 100% psychologically certain that something is true and that the something is actually false. Psychological certainty comes in degrees. Good examples of psychological certainty and false beliefs are found in religious people and various sport fans.

Epistemic certainty

The second is epistemic certainty. This is the one that philosophers usually talk about. It’s the inability to be wrong type of certainty. If one is epistemically certain, then one cannot be wrong in some sense. This type of certainty is also called cartesian (after Descartes) certainty, infallible certainty and absolute certainty. This type of certainty does not come in degrees; Either one is epistemically certain or one is not.

from http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?tag=epistemic-certainty