I think, therefore I am.

True or False?

False.

It is not proof of life.

Don't know. I need to think about it.




There a lot of people out there who don't think at all but they do exist if only to make you mad.

Yes. Of course it's true.

For there to be a thought there has to be an I.

Establishment:
Of course you are, my bright little star...
I've miles and miles of files
Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
And now to suit our great computer
You're magnetic ink!

True, but nothing else can be derived from it.

from this book

The seventeenthcentury
philosopher Descartes, regarded as the
founder of modern philosophy, gave expression to this primary error with his
famous dictum (which he saw as primary truth): “I think, therefore I am.”
This was the answer he found to the question “Is there anything I can know
with absolute certainty?” He realized that the fact that he was always
thinking was beyond doubt, and so he equated thinking with Being, that is to
say, identity – I am – with thinking. Instead of the ultimate truth, he had
found the root of the ego, but he didn't know that.
It took almost three hundred years before another famous philosopher
saw something in that statement that Descartes, as well as everybody else,
had overlooked. His name was JeanPaul
Sartre. He looked at Descartes's
statement “I think, therefore I am” very deeply and suddenly realized, in his
own words, “The consciousness that says 'I am' is not the consciousness that
thinks.” What did he mean by that? When you are aware that you are
thinking, that awareness is not part of thinking. It is a different dimension of
consciousness. And it is that awareness that says “I am.” If there were
nothing but thought in you, you wouldn't even know you are thinking. You
would be like a dreamer who doesn't know he is dreaming. You would be as
identified with every thought as the dreamer is with every image in the
dream.

I do not have to be in a state of 'thinkingness' to know I exist.

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it hurts like hell. The fact that it hurts like hell tells you, you are quite alive and I bet there isn't any philosophical pondering over it either.

Yeah, but, you are thinking 'that effin hurts like hell!!!!'.

I just think the distinction between the thinker and the thoughts is interesting.

You gotta elaborate Jim - It seems pretty straightforward that for there to be a thought there must, therefore, be a thinker.

yes, but thought is not required for existence to be real.

So, while it is true that you must exist in order to think, the thought is not proof of existence. You can exist ...in fact you DO, separately from your thoughts. You can observe the fact that you are 'thinking'... and doing so is a thought in itself... but ....

Sometimes, I think of it like a book with words on the pages. You are the book and the pages. The thoughts are the words.

I don't smoke anymore, so .... ;)

laf

jimhelm;740163 wrote:

yes, but thought is not required for existence to be real.

No, but existence is required for thought.

So, while it is true that you must exist in order to think, the thought is not proof of existence.

Um, if you must exist in order to think, then thought IS proof of existence.

You can observe the fact that you are 'thinking'... and doing so is a thought in itself... but ....

That "thought in itself" is the one referred to by Descartes that proves existence.

"I think therefore I am" is true, but it cannot be used to derive any other truths. To use your analogy, if a book contains words then it exists, but you know absolutely nothing else about the book or the words.

(A book that doesn't contain words can also exist, but cogito, ergo sum has nothing to say on that subject.)

wut he sed ... I think

skysidhe;740151 wrote:

I do not have to be in a state of 'thinkingness' to know I exist.

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, it hurts like hell. The fact that it hurts like hell tells you, you are quite alive and I bet there isn't any philosophical pondering over it either.

You can dream or hallucinate hitting your thumb with a hammer. You might feel real, even though the action didn't "exist."

Happy Monkey;740172 wrote:

No, but existence is required for thought.
Um, if you must exist in order to think, then thought IS proof of existence.That

You're right, of course. I was trying to say that the thought is not the ONLY proof of existence.

I'd have better luck applying that logic to disproving "I am, therefore I think" I guess..

Spexxvet;740194 wrote:

You can dream or hallucinate hitting your thumb with a hammer. You might feel real, even though the action didn't "exist."

I'm not getting the connection between the philosophical statement and subconscious dreams and mental illnesses :confused:

Just color me stuuupid.

Curious Yellow is not an option on the poll. I am therefore not sure how to respond.

Union regulations prevent me from responding to this questions unless I am paid for it. :D

Wow, this thread reminds me of one of my earlier courses at uni. lol

We never really found an answer there either.

DanaC;740130 wrote:

For there to be a thought there has to be an I.

There's no 'i' in 'thought' ! ;)

I think the statement annoys me.

I am annoyed, therefore I must exist!

I chose not to think about why it annoys me. I have free will. I must exist!

I take a shower and someone turns the water on in another part of the house which leads to shrieking from either ice cold water or scalding hot water. I know I exist!

I wonder how bored a person must be to sit and ponder ones own existence, then to finally come to the conclusion that the fact they are thinking at all is proof of ones own existence. sheesh

[COLOR="White"]..[/COLOR]

haha! :) funny

skysidhe;740355 wrote:

I wonder how bored a person must be to sit and ponder ones own existence, then to finally come to the conclusion that the fact they are thinking at all is proof of ones own existence. sheesh

"Pondering one's own existence" isn't the point. The question Descartes was asking was whether he could know anything for certain, when one's senses are fallible. To build an absolutely correct philosophy, you have to start with something that you know to be absolutely true, and he was looking for something that could be known to be absolutely true.

Cogito, ergo sum was the answer to that question. Unfortunately, it didn't help with the larger issue, because no other knowledge can be derived from it.

skysidhe;740113 wrote:

False.

It is not proof of life.

I think thought is proof of life, it's just not proof of intelligence.;)

Gravdigr;740388 wrote:

I think thought is proof of life, it's just not proof of intelligence.;)

Just like posting.

Pico and ME;740152 wrote:

Yeah, but, you are thinking 'that effin hurts like hell!!!!'.

SCF!

Now I have a mess... THANKS A LOT!@!@

infinite monkey;740408 wrote:

Just like posting.

:lol2: You post a damn sight more than I do. :lol2:

According to Zen Buddhism, there are three conditions which must be met in order for something to 'exist':
1. The thing perceived
2. One who perceives
3. Consciousness

if any of the three is absent, nothing exists.

ymmv

jimhelm;740154 wrote:

I just think the distinction between the thinker and the thoughts is interesting.

From the Emmei Juku Kannon Gyo:
(Kannon or Kanzeon, also Quan Yin, the bodhisattva of compassion)

Kanzeon! Salutation and veneration to the Buddha!
We are one with the Buddha
In cause and effect related to all Buddhas
and to Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.

Our true nature is
Eternal, Joyous, Selfless and Pure.
Mornings, my thought is Kanzeon;
Evenings, my thought is Kanzeon.
Thought after thought arises in mind.
Thought after thought is not separate from mind.

It is more accurate to say I am therefore I think.

Maybe you just think you am. :lol:

I think that I think; therefore, I Am that I Am.

Wow, I've ascended to the next level!

So long, suckers.