Any refutations of "I think therefore I am" or is it completely sound?

Any refutations of "I think therefore I am" or is it completely sound?

Other urls found in this thread:

iep.utm.edu/descmind/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's wrong

I think it's sound. You exist because you are a thinking being. You can't be certain of others' existence, or even the world around you, but you can be certain that you are a thinking being that thinks, therefore, your mind that thinks, at the very least, has to exist.

Care to explain why?

It's logically sound.
>inb4 faggots with autistic definitions off existing.
>oh no you like, are there, but you don't reeeeeeeealy exist.
Fuck off.

no

...

Even an illusion exists as an illusion, user.

...

You can't prove me wrong, therefore I am right

>I think therefor I am
>Illusion thinks therefore it is
you aren't refuting the point

If it can produce a reaction out of you, it needs to exist relatively to you, no?
And if you think, thus exist, then it also needs to exist in some form or another, no?
Otherwise you'd have a "nothing" capable off affecting the "existing", which is an obvious contradiction.

This is not the point of "I think therefore I am". It only confirms YOUR existence, not the existence of "illusions".

Well, if Deadpool believes he thinks does he really?

...

Something must understand and interpret the illusion of "I think therefore I am". That's the "I" referred to by Descartes

In addition, this is completely ignoring the fact that people suffer from delusions. Are those delusions real, because they prompt a reaction?

what do you mean by this?
If the character deadpool is actually thinking then he 'is' in the sense Descartes intends.

Descartes whole thing was we don't know whether we are trapped in an illusion of a devil but that we 'are.' As in exist SOMEHOW.

being and event - alain baidou.

i think. i didnt really understand it.

No, but they do exist as delusions, or am I wrong?

They exist as delusions, but they do not exist in actual reality. "I think therefore I am" is stating that in REALITY, you are a thinking thing that thinks, therefore YOUR existence can be verified by YOU. Decartes was responding to skeptics who questioned their own existence.

What about AI that exist in virtual frameworks?

What about them?

if you have not by now encountered refutations, you need to broaden your literary palette.

>refutations
What are you referring to?

iep.utm.edu/descmind/
Tfw you're not sure who's shitposting who anymore
Honestly just fuck off.

If an AI exists within a virtual framework and is able to reason that it exists, doesn't that confirm the virtual framework (ie the external world) as well as the AI itself?

We can confirm the virtual framework exists, because we exist outside of the virtual framework. If we were the AI, to take your example, then no, we wouldn't be able to confirm the existence of the virtual framework.

So the virtual framework is noumenal to the AI like the external world is to man? How does that work?

>iep.utm.edu/descmind/
Is there something in that link that you want to point out?

>Veeky Forums always post about philosophy
>doesn't even understand cogito ergo sum
>refuting things descartes himself already talked about.

jesus

You need a writing class. This statement doesn't make any sense.

>They exist as delusions, but they do not exist in actual reality.
>MIND.BODY.DUALISM.

It's honestly not that complicated of a concept, and this is basic philosophy that we're talking about. "I think therefore I am" is stating that you know that you exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because you are a thinking thing that exists. It makes NO CLAIMS about the external world. How many times do I need to repeat this?

This is not a fucking argument, retard.

thinking thing that thinks*

Buddhist doctrine refutes "I think therefore I am." Not directly of course.

>oh no you like, are there, but you don't reeeeeeeealy exist

This ^ is you,

what the fuck are you on about?

Seems to me to be an extrapolation of the third man argument, that's all.

If an AI was able to reason it's own existence, surely that's a confirmation of the framework too.

Ie. If an intelligent entity was created in a videogame, it would know that it's surroundings were fake and yet real at the same time.

The entire point of cogito ergo sum is that by thinking you affirm for yourself some form of existence.

Your correction was either unnecessary or if you are trying to refute it/a part of it you offered no explanation for what you mean.

My point was that you do exist, you illterate moron.
>third man argument
No idea what that is, nor do I particularly care.
>If an AI was able to reason it's own existence, surely that's a confirmation of the framework too.
No. It isn't. Confirmation of one's own existence is not confirmation of the world in which they exist.

I corrected it because I mistyped the original post, dipshit. Can you not make fucking idiotic assumptions, please?

Your change is like Descartes changing his quote to "I think therefore I think."
I don't understand why you did that.

THERE
ARE
THOUGHTS

You must be autistic.

The edit was because I was originally stating, " you know that you exist, beyond a shadow of a doubt, because you are a thinking thing that exists"

This is a circular argument. Hence the correction, that you are a "thinking thing that thinks".

This is basic logic.

So, to put it in big FUCK ME letters for you,

YOU KNOW THAT YOU, A THINKING THING, EXISTS BECAUSE YOU ARE A THINKING THING THAT THINKS

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms


Time to leave this shithole. Newfags have taken over!

Goodbye, Veeky Forums.

Don't bother replying

Well at that point he doesn't know anything about himself except that he thinks and he doesn't know that anything exists except his thoughts, so really just means "thought, therefore thought"

is it that clear and distinct to you? you are a miserly dualist cunt.
what of the duality of the mind itself? or the mind and the world?
leaving that aside, with regards to mind/body dualism, do you have a solution to the problem of causal interaction?
have you even considered the implications of what descartes is saying when he states "I am thinking, therefore I am?
Not likely I imagine.

@8855235
Okay user

Nietzsche did one.
The point was, rather, that the "I am" remains quite vague.

What I said, and the content of this thread don't have anything to do with dualism, despite the fact that Decartes is a dualist. I am not a dualist. You are a fucking dunce.

Descartes' reasoning is "I think, therefore something must exist at all."

But in order for that statement to work, logic needs to exist.

Does logic come before anything? Does existence precede logic? If so then there are serious flaws with this kind of reasoning.

Logic is a-priori.

Take away the Universe and everything that exists. Does logic still exist? Does it still work in the same way?

>fallor ergo sum
both criticism and correction

Why don't you think about it yourself? People just want an answer, a peer reviewed and approved philosophy, such is a thing is beyond intellectually bankrupt. If Descartes is right, and you are so divorced from thought, you may as well not exist faggot.

He assumes there is already an "I" doing the thinking. Circular reasoning.

If it's apriori, then yes. Logic would exist without the framework of a universe.

Do you even think about things before you type them on your keyboard? Do you understand that you're asking me about a hypothetical in which the universe doesn't exist, and asking me if logic is still around? Like as if someone has independently verified that? This is an absurd question.

Self-perception is itself an illusion.
There is no real "you" or "me".

Nice appeal to ignorance kiddo

How can he be sure he is doing the thinking? Makes you think.

Some things are more real than others. Dreams can seem real, and you may even perceive yourself in a dream, but the whole thing isn't necessarily grounded in truth. I once dreamed I was fucking this one girl I like, but in reality I was in bed with a boner and night sweats.

A character in a movie or book can seem real and may occupy a sense of "reality" to them in our minds. Jesus Christ is more real to us than a stranger we may walk right next to in a crowded street.

The real that self-perceives can never hand this self-perception on to others and have any evidence that he/she self-perceives and therefore is real. Any major head injury and you'll forget your own name and identity.
Get the head injury a bit stronger and you'll be a brain-dead body sustained only by machines. If the body does not think, does it exist? Do trees, rocks,and water exist?

Existence shouldn't be egocentric. We must destroy the ego when understanding Being.

There is thought, thinking is being conducted by neural tissue. A large number of independent semi-autonomous actors are active inside your skull. They communicate with each other. For purposes of improving your chances of survival they provide your body with an illusion of personality, so you struggle harder to live in the face of an uncaring and difficult world. There is no "I", there is just an adaptation that allows high intelligence to persist without immediately self destructing.

Not an argument.

No, since all the supposed refutations already admit the truth of the thinking and of the self, as they reference them; but for obscure ideological reasons merely wish to refer to them as being something other than "being".

Does it really? How am I sure it's me who is doing the thinking? Really makes something think...

I'm personally fond of the "Hamlet" criticism. I forget which modern philosopher brought it up, but it goes like this:

Suppose Shakespeare had Hamlet say the lines "I think therefore I am." Does it we should believe Hamlet is real? Does it mean hamlet believes he's real?

This

"The Bible is proof of the Bible".

"I think therefore I am" is only true insofar as the imaginary characters in a book can be said to believe in their imagined existences. Outside of the constructed universe of the text, when you pull yourself out of the imagined imaginations of fictional characters, you'd realize it's all a huge set of Russian dolls, with the smallest ones in a state of fading. It's like trying to find patterns from television static.

We are imaginary, God is the Real which imagines us.

>Suppose Shakespeare had Hamlet say the lines "I think therefore I am." Does it we should believe Hamlet is real?

No. This is stupid. It's stupid because Hamlet is a character in a play - there is not a functioning mind behind Hamlet. An actor plays as him, but Hamlet himself is a fictional being.

"I think therefore I am" is not a mantra where you just say the words and you exist. It is a summation of an idea in which a thinking thing, having a sentient mind, can verify its own existence.

Because Hamlet is a character, and not a real thinking thing, Hamlet can not be said to exist even if he states, "I think therefore I am." Those are not his words/thoughts, they are given to him by the writer, in this case Shakespeare.

Augustine put it best, "If I am wrong, I exist."

>We are imaginary, God is the Real which imagines us.

Boy, Veeky Forums sure does love to make completely unqualified statements and try to pass them off as truth, huh?

the conclusion to draw is therefore that logic's being a priori is absurd.

Uhh no it isn't.

there is no reason to believe that the one doing the thinking is the you you are experiencing yourself to be, i.e., that the thoughts you experience as your own are products of your subjectivity and not, for instance, products of your phenomenal ego in relation to which you are a hapless, trapped observer. imagine that: everything i am doing, even typing this post, is basically a perfect autopilot, one of the perfectly executed functions of which is to convince the pilot he is the one steering the plane.

sorry, but it is.

>to convince the pilot he is the one steering the plane

You just admitted that there is a pilot. Therefore you just admitted that there is a mind that exists, who is called the pilot. Spoiler alert: you just demonstrated cogito ergo sum.

That's not how arguments work, buddy.

not exactly. i may have demonstrated the existence of the subject, but that is less than what the cogito itself seeks to demonstrate. it wants to identify that subject with the enunciator of the statement, and that cannot be allowed by a principle of absolute doubt such as descartes'

No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates the existence of the subject. The subject, in this case, is "I', or the mind doing the thinking. To use your analogy - the pilot.

neither is this, faggot: plus i got dubs so fuck off.

Yeah, you literally started the conversation by simply saying "the conclusion is that logic being a priori is absurd" without qualifying that statement AT ALL. That's not an argument, and you are a pseudointellectual.

it demonstrates the existence of the subject on the basis of its capacity to think and enunciate. neither of these, i claim, can be guaranteed, even if, i further claim, the subject is.

Well, you can claim that. But your claim is not a refutation of cogito ergo sum.

you haven't argued that logic is a priori, either, you just stated it. so fuck off, bitch pseud boy.

Excellent fucking posts here in Veeky Forums, good work ya shitposter.

These threads really demonstrate just how completely fucking retarded a good majority of the people who roam this board are. You get dipshits like that scour threads just to contribute nothing but a shitpost and general stupidity.

yes, it does, because all one has to do is posit a plurality of entities potentially responsible for the "thinking" of which the cogito claims to be the report in order to show that it is possible that the entity who has thus enunciated is not in fact the subject the statement alleges to be the enunciation of. one is compelled, on a principle of absolute doubt, to allow the possibility that the cogito lies, that the being calling itself "I" is not the "I" to which the cogito refers.

tackling the problem from another perspective, suppose descartes evil genius has really mastered his deception of "you." would he not also be able to deceive you into believing you have demonstrated your own existence? ok, now remove "yourself" from the equation—you must doubt even that you are the subject of deception. cogito thus posits a free-floating enunciation, a universe of discourse.

Giver her the dick.

This is absolute horseshit, in pure text form. You could certainly convince people who have no idea what they are talking about that you are right, but unfortunately for you, I don't fall in that camp. You honestly deserve a reward for writing one of the most rambling, incoherent responses I have ever read in my entire life.

and before you say it, at this point the fact that I still must refer to "you" in relation to doubt is a symptom of the language in which the argument is constructed.

but you couldn't even manage that. goodbye, angry pseud. read some continentals lol.

stay fucking retarded and literally trying to argue that you, as a thinking, rational mind, doesn't exist. Put a bullet in your brain as well, while you're at it, do the world a favor.

haha, you're so mad that you can't even defend your existence to some user on Veeky Forums. but i'm going to continue to play ball with you.

look, it's common to argue that descartes provides no reason for asserting that thought guarantees existence of some other entity—that is to say, he never makes it clear that the existence of a thought implies the existence of a thinker. it's a simple assertion. this is from wikipedia btw, the first "criticism" under the header of that name. all i am doing is radicalizing that argument: it is not only that thought does not guarantee a single thinker, but that it could also presuppose any number of other thinkers.

Yeah, nah, I'm not gonna engage with you anymore because you literally reduced yourself to pseud-babble, which became increasingly more pseud-ish when I called you out on your argument being fucking retarded. You have *not* demonstrated any refutation, whatsoever, of cogito ergo sum. Literally none. You have stated that, "well, you don't *really* know if those thoughts are your own" but that is not a PROOF of anything, you retard. Hence, you DO NOT have a refutation, and you are a goddamn pseudointellectual who likes to convince people he's intelligent by just throwing random words and phrases without any coherent thought connecting them.

Oh, but good job reading fucking WIKIPEDIA to come up with your nonsense pseudo-babble. Hope you don't write like you do on any papers if you're in school.

>he never makes it clear that the existence of a thought implies the existence of a thinker.

Read Decartes, not wikipedia. He ABSOLUTELY makes this clear.

when a statement claims that one singular case is always the case, and you show that other cases are possible, you have refuted that statement. sorry kiddo. keep trying to defend descartes tho. idk why. he can't even explain how res cognitans acts upon res existenza.

show me where?

ALL HAIL KING OF THE PSEUDS!