I think, therefore, I am

[Turtle]

...Regardless of what you "think" of what I just wrote, the awareness who read it is your sense of "I."

mik

 

that's the ticket! now, freezie's virus question in the op is about where do we draw the line on who and/or what we, "we" being all us "I,s", accord as possessing said sense of "I". virus, no? oui? bunny, oui? no? doggy? fly? :fly:

 

...Doug no talkin' 'bout Desc'us. Not in that passage at least, he doesn't appear tobe discussing cogito ergo sum and ego don't see where he's touching on the recursion....

 

the passage you refer to is from i am a strange loop. several more considerations come to mind on this book. :naughty:

 

first, i won't court an infraction from you for quoting too many words from a copyright source. hofstadter's quote i'm giving below puts me at the allowable limit.

 

second, dear readers all, i'm simply saying here's water horsey(s) and you are free to choose whether you read i am a strange loop or not, but if not then you are in no position to discuss what it says or does not say, either explicitly or implicitly.

 

thirdstdidly, i am a strange loop is a meta statement, as if doug would write something otherwise, and popping out little parts of the whole is akin to thinking you know a forest after examining a couple trees.

 

[quote name=I Am A Strange Loop

by Douglas R. Hofstadter

Chapter 4

Loops, Goals, and Loopholes

Intellectuals Who Dread Feedback Loops

pg. 63]

 

...What remained with me, however, was the realization that some highly educated and otherwise sensible people are irrationally allergic to the idea of self-reference, or of structures or systems that fold back on themselves.

 

I suspect that such people's allergy stems, in the final analysis, from a deep-seated fear of paradox or of the universe exploding (metaphorically), something like the panic that the television sales clerk evinced when I threatened to point the video camera at the TV screen. The contrast between my lifelong savoring of such loops and the allergic recoiling from them on the part of such people as Bertrand Russell, B. F. Skinner, this education professor, and the TV salesperson taught me a lifelong lesson in the "theory of types"--namely, that there are indeed "two types" of people in the world. ...

[modest]

The link supplied by Modest, on account of which he said he agrees with you and Mik.

 

Yes, I'm sorry I haven't had time to clarify. The language of the Cogito is logically trivial. Turtle first pointed this out in post 6 where he quotes:

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...

The phrase Cogito ergo sum is not used in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy, but the term "the cogito" is (often confusingly) used to refer to an argument from it. Descartes felt that this phrase, which he had used in his earlier Discourse, had been misleading in its implication that he was appealing to an inference, so he avoided the word ergo and wrote "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (Meditation II.)

 

At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt — his argument from the existence of a deceiving god — Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?

 

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17) ...

 

There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. ...

The phrase "I think therefore I am" is no more logically true than "He thinks therefore he is". But, the first is, as I think Q said, an experimental certainty where the second is not. I was not meaning to criticize Descartes' conclusion, but rather the popularized expression.

 

~modest

[Rade]

The proper interpretation of the term " I think, therefore I am" was, imo, given by Kierkegaard:

 

(from Wiki).....as Kierkegaard argues, the proper logical flow of argument (of Descartes) is that existence is already assumed or pre-supposed in order for thinking to occur, not that existence is concluded from that thinking.....

 

In other words, what Kierkegaard is saying is that philosophy begins with the following axiom:

 

(1) Existence exists

 

then you move forward in your thinking about specifics.

[modest]

I think so too, Rade, but that kind of analysis does miss the real point of the Cogito. The point which others have elaborated in this thread much better than I'm about to would be that it is impossible to doubt the existence of thoughts with thoughts. It is impossible to deny the ego with the ego. As Descy clarified: "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." That seems to me infinitely more clear and profound than "I think therefore I am" which I agree is susceptible to Kierkegaard's criticism.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

As Descy clarified: "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." That seems to me infinitely more clear and profound than "I think therefore I am" which I agree is susceptible to Kierkegaard's criticism.

However, cogito ergo sum is simply the concise way in which philosophers refer to what he actually wrote, a tag, let's call it. Like many tags, some folks will always judge it without getting to the bottom of it, in lack of more detailed explanation, while others are able to construe the whole argument even just seeing the concise form.

[modest]

...I would simply say that my conclusion differs: the best predicate is one for which we lack an actual verb, to mean "be aware of (oneself)" instead of the cogito...

 

How about "introspect"? I introspect therefore I am. :shrug:

 

(I see we are all such good buds here that you are all comfortable using diminutive forms of my name, so FYI, "mik" is my personal favorite.)

 

I didn't mean for "Mickey" to be diminutive. Earlier in the thread I referred to Buckminster Fuller as "Bucky" (buckyballs are named after him and the nick continues from 15913). Following the theme Descartes has been going by "Descy" and I think I saw Turtle call Mr. Hofstadter "Dougy"... so, calling you Mickey was in similar vein and meant no disrespect.

 

i didn't mention or have in mind kierkegaard in any thing i have said, so i don't understand your comments. :hyper: but taking your modus ponens and going back to turtles and hofstadter, which i have introduced, there is the matter of the tortoise & achilles & caroll & russell & lions & tigers & bears oh my.

 

What the Tortoise Said to Achilles - encyclopedia article about What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.

 

the circularity of "I" that i am after now is hofstadter's recursion and i'd like to hear you Q, and you-all not-Q's, address that directly. on that note, it seems pertinent to ask if you, and/or you-all, have read GEB, because if you have not then my invoking it may well fall on ignorance. certainly i can't expect you to discuss what you don't know as that is illogical. :(

 

I haven't read GEB and I'm not quite getting how Carrol's infinite regress would be applied to (or, perhaps a criticism of?) the Cogito.... Perhaps...

 

1) "I"

2) "think"

3) 1 & 2 ⇒ Z

4) 1 & 2 & 3 ⇒ Z

5) 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 ⇒ Z

... therefore Z) "I exist"

 

That type of thing?

 

However, cogito ergo sum is simply the concise way in which philosophers refer to what he actually wrote, a tag, let's call it. Like many tags, some folks will always judge it without getting to the bottom of it, in lack of more detailed explanation, while others are able to construe the whole argument even just seeing the concise form.

 

Absolutely

 

~modest

[Turtle]

...

I haven't read GEB and I'm not quite getting how Carrol's infinite regress would be applied to (or, perhaps a criticism of?) the Cogito.... Perhaps...

 

1) "I"

2) "think"

3) 1 & 2 ⇒ Z

4) 1 & 2 & 3 ⇒ Z

5) 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 ⇒ Z

... therefore Z) "I exist"

 

~modest

 

i'm not quite remembering how i meant to apply it myself. not sure doug applied it specifically in geb, or if he did that i knew it. :hyper: maybe i never knew what i meant. maybe i never even said it. :shrug: in rereading here though, q mentioned modus ponens as some sure thing in the debate, i mentioned caroll's paradox, then q dismissed caroll saying

...carol's [sic] jocular infinite regress, it simply shows a tricky aspect of modus ponens. ...

 

i think it is no such simple thing about it, as the article i linked to what the tortoise said to achilles discusses.

as best i can get from all of it here, q says A, i say not-A because of B, q says Ω and that's supposed to be that.

 

we think, so we argue, so we tire, so we drink, then we barbecue. :(

[Turtle]

 

I haven't read GEB ...

~modest

 

thought i'd come back to this for some elaboration and asides. i recommend by all means read it now. i don't have a copy anymore, having gone on a minimalist bent & ridding myself of most of my books in recent years. more asidier, that i purchased hofstadter's latest book is a bete´ noire´ to that minimalist bent and so has me bent, or somewhat beside myself if you prefer, for falling back, if you will. :eek_big: :hyper: i am happy to discuss it at any length should you read it. . . . .

 

i don't recall if the field/ground business of douggie's that i brought up is in geb or his earlier metamagical themas, which i also recommend reading, or even if when he discussed the topic field/ground he applied it explicitly to "i". but that i thought it applied, and then consequently found doug saying in his new book that most readers of geb didn't get that it was all , i. e. in a contextualist sense, about "i", i think/thunk that i must be/have been on a right, if not interesting, track.

 

in a short & sweet summary summation, doug favors caroll and disdains russell.

[modest]

AFter reading the wikipedia entry on GEB I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't heard of it. It looks right up my alley. There are no copies available at my local library so I put it on hold but there are copies of I am a strange loop. When I get either / both if it looks interesting I'd certainly be up for starting a thread :eek_big:

 

~modest

[Turtle]

After reading the wikipedia entry on GEB I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't heard of it. It looks right up my alley. There are no copies available at my local library so I put it on hold but there are copies of I am a strange loop. When I get either / both if it looks interesting I'd certainly be up for starting a thread :hyper:

 

~modest

 

:eek_big: i first "met" dougy (he writes "douggie") through his column in scientific american in the early 80's. we're old friends then, except he is my old friend but i am not his old friend. :D

[Rade]

....The point which others have elaborated in this thread much better than I'm about to would be that it is impossible to doubt the existence of thoughts with thoughts. It is impossible to deny the ego with the ego.

Yes, I agree. As to the main issue, I think Kierkegaard would say ...it is impossible to doubt existence using some thing that exists...

[HydrogenBond]

Objects, like virus, exist even without thoughts. It is a physical thing. Thoughts about the virus, begin out of touch with it reality, and gradually came into focus with respect its reality. The first person who saw a virus didn't really know what it was, even though the virus was doing the same thing it has always done and continues to do. Through investigation, thoughts became clear, until finally it was able to overlap reality.

 

I think therefore I am, means even the reality of who you are, may not align initially with what you think you are. When you first discover yourself, it is something new and needs further characterization to overlap reality. At any place within your evolving perception, of what you think you are, you will consciously define yourself. Thinking defines the real time perception of what you think you are, which in turns defines your own reality, apart from the final reality, with the process moving toward this final reality.

[Qfwfq]

How about "introspect"? I introspect therefore I am.

Myself.

 

Great verb you suggest, but it's the reflexivity that is fundamental: I introspect myself, therefore I am.

 

I haven't read GEB and I'm not quite getting how Carrol's infinite regress would be applied to (or, perhaps a criticism of?) the Cogito....

Oh don't worry about that.

 

i think it is no such simple thing about it, as the article i linked to what the tortoise said to achilles discusses.

as best i can get from all of it here, q says A, i say not-A because of B, q says Ω and that's supposed to be that.

I meant not the word simply in that sense! :hihi:

 

I hadn't read on to the discussion in that link, read it. I would say there's an excellent analogy in defeating/handling both things, but they are not the same infinite regress. How that of Kierk's objection to Descartes is defeated from the start is trivial, how to defeat that of Carrol is sticky and IMHO touches upon Curry's paradox, how Tarski would defeat his own is much stickier. Concerning self-referentiality ego'm certainly more on Doug's side than on Tarski's. :)

 

:hihi: i first "met" dougy (he writes "douggie") through his column in scientific american in the early 80's. we're old friends then, except he is my old friend but i am not his old friend. :( :D

Similar here, except I saw him too, in the later '80s when he delivered a talk at the math dep't in Padova. He came in with a rather student-style backpack and quite informal dress and a huge, wide grin, as he nodded at the enthusiastic audience and shook hands with the organizers. He then proceeded to give the talk... in fluent and good Italian. I read once that he wrote The Mind's I in Italian and the English translation was accomplished by one of his Italian pals. Just one of his many mischievous little deeds.

 

Yes, I agree. As to the main issue, I think Kierkegaard would say ...it is impossible to doubt existence using some thing that exists...

There too is the very reflexivity which is the crux of the matter, the transition from axiom to experiential (no matter what the hell ego am) but you should consider that it is exactly what defeats Kierkegaard's objection, so ego'm not so sure it could be what he would say...:eek2:

[freeztar]

That's an interesting point, Q. Reflexivity.

 

So I'm starting to think that maybe the semantics are off. Is cogito ergo sum reflexive?

 

From studying Spanish language, I know that reflexive verbs are fairly common and do not make sense without their accompanying self reference. (te gusta)

 

I think=I am

 

It's reflexive in a sense. Especially when one considers the lexicon of "exist" and "think".

 

Pienso, luego soy.

[Turtle]

I meant not the word simply in that sense! :)

 

I hadn't read on to the discussion in that link, read it. I would say there's an excellent analogy in defeating/handling both things, ...

 

:( you're a caution q. :hihi: i recall a few years back we chatted on tit-for-tat and you got to Ω by saying "not everything is a zero sum game turtle". i didn't contest that, but then it was true because we were talking about zero-sum games.

 

i am/is not a zero sum game. :hihi: :eek2:

[modest]

Myself.

 

Great verb you suggest, but it's the reflexivity that is fundamental: I introspect myself, therefore I am.

 

Thank you. I agree it is the reflexivity that's important, but I'd point out that in English you don't have to use reflexive pronouns to conjugate a reflexive verb. "I introspect" is surely reflexive just as much as "I wash" or "I shave". I realize it's different in the romance languages as Freezy says. (i.e. mi rado / me afeito) even to the point of using a definite article after the verb (Mi rado la barba / Me afeito la barba) but in English "I shave myself the beard" or "I introspect myself the thoughts" is not quite right.

 

But, given the definition of introspection:

Introspection is the self-observation and reporting of conscious inner thoughts, desires and sensations. It is a conscious mental and usually purposive process relying on thinking, reasoning, and examining one's own thoughts, feelings, and, in more spiritual cases, one's soul.

Introspection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would appreciate a cogito written as follows as well:

My introspection assures me my existence

:hihi:

 

But, I guess this is all semantics :D general semantics :D

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

:hihi: you're a caution q. :D i recall a few years back we chatted on tit-for-tat and you got to Ω by saying "not everything is a zero sum game turtle". i didn't contest that, but then it was true because we were talking about zero-sum games.

I can't remember that.

 

Is cogito ergo sum reflexive?

No, cogito is not reflexive and that's the very reason Modest improved on the deal. Thinking implies experiencing oneself, which is of course reflexive; the verb think doesn't make it so explicit.

 

I realize it's different in the romance languages as Freezy says. (i.e. mi rado / me afeito) even to the point of using a definite article after the verb (Mi rado la barba / Me afeito la barba) but in English "I shave myself the beard" or "I introspect myself the thoughts" is not quite right.

I'm aware of the linguistic differences! I've given linguistic consultance the odd time. ;)

 

But in English "I shave myself" and "I introspect myself" are syntactically alright even though you would more likely say "my beard" or head, legs, whatever, perhaps someone could do an all-inclusive job, and of course the myself is somewhat implicit in the semantics of introspect but it can still be underlined by adding the pronoun. Apparently introspection is meant the same way in Italian cultural circles, it's just that I've never been that much into these loony topics. :D