TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

i think, therefore we exist.

I think, therefore we exist
Descartes said “I think, therefore I exist”.
Brief summary. If everything turn out to be illusion, e.g. the whole world is like dream or omnipotent is tricking you or that you in matrix…. There is one think you can false back to and prove that you exist.
1) I can’t doubt that I’m doubting
2) I can’t be decieved about whether I’m thinking.

 If I am doubting, I must exist
 I think, therefore I exist.
He was first western to prove and support dualism. Using indiscernibility of identical it possible to prove Mind & body as separate.

However I believe he is not correct. The problem with his agrument is where is he getting the ‘I’. How can he separate the ‘I’ e.g from the illusion or omnipotent or matrix … If he know the ‘I’ he does not even need prove that ‘I must exist’. He simply say ‘I know myself, therefore do not need prove even I exist.’ He or not anyone know ‘I’ only ‘we’, so what is we is dream we is you and dream, in omnipotent tricking you, we is omnipotnet and you, in a matrix we is the matrix system and you. Etc..
1) I can’t separate myself fully from the we.

->we think, therefore we exist

To agrue against 1) I can’t separate myself fully from the we. You say that the part that is doubting is me and other part that is not doubing is other entities. It only prove that you are doubter, not best describation of you.
1) Do you 100% doubt ? very unlikely. Plus
AND
2) While other entites 0% doubt. Very unlikely. (because matrix or omnipotent know what it doing to you, you are one in confusion)
3) If you can know what I is, you are not in doubt. You don’t need prove it.
Without doubt we can only best prove. We (or I) think, therefore we exist.
Therefore it is not possible to separate the body and mind as totally different planes. You need a better prove to prove dualism.
Good thing in case of mind & body, I (the mind or brain) think, therefore we (mind & body) exist. It is hard separate both.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 5 2013: "However, I think Descartes really struck home with "I think, therefore I am". "

    I think Descartes missed the point with "I think, therefore I am". It should be "I think, because I AM."


    "An idea cannot stand alone; you need a device to hold it, to nurture it, in this case a human brain."

    In order for a thought, idea or concept to have power, it needs your attention and emotional attachment/involvement.
    • Oct 5 2013: "An idea cannot stand alone; you need a device to hold it, to nurture it, in this case a human brain."

      How can you separate you idea from other entity idea, when you are being control by omnipotent being ? How can you say you exist when you in matrix system. you can best say you also exist, but it will hard define or separate yourself from the matrix or omnipotent. best you can say we exist, not I exist.

      you can say I and matrix system exist. but it would be hard for you to say you alone exist. how separate yourself from others, desecrate said the part that think. however you do not 100% use your brain when you think. most part of the brain is seeing, hearing, etc.. so if define yourself as part that think, it is not complete picture of yourself. also the matrix or software that interface with you can think with you and run, so you will have difficultly separating yourself from it. so best you can say is we exist.
    • Oct 5 2013: Most people pre-assume I exist and consider there is thing as an I and try to prove that I exist. you have to prove what 'I' is precisely. Descartes, 'I' is part that think, is not complete. 'I' is part that thought, idea or concept, emotion, etc. is bigger definition of 'I', however it is not complete as well.

      then you prove that your definition is true. that is very hard. logically prove it.

      in case of common sense, I exist already pee-assumed and not need to be proven.
      • Oct 7 2013: A question I would ask is, are you your thoughts or do you have thoughts? We have come to identify with the mind that that is who we are ( I think therefore I am). Instead of our minds serving us, we serve the mind with our thoughts, To be clear though, the mind is not the enemy, it's there to serve the self, society has it reversed.

        To experience the self(I), one cannot get there by thinking or using logic, it has to be experienced. Like learning to ride a bicycle. We can think about balance and talk about balance but, the only way to know what balance is, is through direct experience. Same with experiencing the self. "I" is not a thing, even though the mind really wants to make it into a thing.

        Trying to use mental concepts like the "matrix system" or "software" just confuses the matter, I would recommend not using them if possible.
        • Oct 7 2013: I guess most of you are correct, it is not possible to prove 'I' logically. least we have not got enough information on mind and 'I' or is that we know some to know that it is not possible logically. Plus we do not thing logically, most of the time. we need something other than logic. I guess we have to experience 'I' to know. (which everyone is capable of, if you human).
          whichever way Descartes fail to prove logically 'I exist'. only to suggest 'I exist' normally, using common example, (which is not logical). however what 'I' is explain by many people before and after, most different from him using common example.

          I guess, in the end it is up to us to choose the common example, close to our experience to explain 'I' and mind. some are better than other.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.