3 ms·

It reminds me of Descarte's argument that even if we were just brains in vats coerced to believe in reality by some evil demon's manipulation, we still "know" s

It reminds me of Descarte's argument that even if we were just brains in vats coerced to believe in reality by some evil demon's manipulation, we still "know" something because "cogito ergo sum". A simple counter argument is that there's no reason the evil demon can't also coerce logic. For example, that we are in effect constantly entering into contradiction but are unable to see it by design. Same applies here.

svara 6y ago
That seems to be a rather strong interpretation of "cogito", i.e. that thinking needs to work according to rules and regularities such as logic. I'm certainly no expert on what Descartes meant precisely when he wrote that, but the broader point, that there is something that one can be sure of, certainly stands. What exactly that something is might be hard to define. More recently it's been called "qualia", the thing that it's like to experience something.
- usgroup 6y ago
  "I think" therefore "I'm not" is false because it is contradictory: thinking implies being. Unless it is just our logic coerced by the evil demon which makes it so.
  - fpoling 6y ago
    “Cogito ergo sum” can be also translated as I am thinking therefore I am. In which case “I am thinking therefore I am not” is not contradictory at all.
- thom 6y ago
  Bertrand Russel critiqued Descartes along these lines: "But some care is needed in using Descartes' argument. 'I think, therefore I am' says rather more than is strictly certain. It might seem as though we were quite sure of being the same person to-day as we were yesterday, and this is no doubt true in some sense. But the real Self is as hard to arrive at as the real table and does not seem to have that absolute, convincing certainty that belongs to particular experiences. When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour', but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'. So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the same as the something which has some different experience the next moment."
dragonwriter 6y ago
Cogito ergo sum is itself logic, but it doesn’t depend on logic for the “cogito” part. In more current, trendy terminology (with worse grammar) be rephrased as “qualia ergo sum” — the experience of qualia proves that there is something experiencing it.

svara 6y ago

That seems to be a rather strong interpretation of "cogito", i.e. that thinking needs to work according to rules and regularities such as logic. I'm certainly no expert on what Descartes meant precisely when he wrote that, but the broader point, that there is something that one can be sure of, certainly stands. What exactly that something is might be hard to define. More recently it's been called "qualia", the thing that it's like to experience something.

usgroup 6y ago
"I think" therefore "I'm not" is false because it is contradictory: thinking implies being. Unless it is just our logic coerced by the evil demon which makes it so.
- fpoling 6y ago
  “Cogito ergo sum” can be also translated as I am thinking therefore I am. In which case “I am thinking therefore I am not” is not contradictory at all.
thom 6y ago
Bertrand Russel critiqued Descartes along these lines: "But some care is needed in using Descartes' argument. 'I think, therefore I am' says rather more than is strictly certain. It might seem as though we were quite sure of being the same person to-day as we were yesterday, and this is no doubt true in some sense. But the real Self is as hard to arrive at as the real table and does not seem to have that absolute, convincing certainty that belongs to particular experiences. When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour', but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'. So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the same as the something which has some different experience the next moment."

dragonwriter 6y ago

Cogito ergo sum is itself logic, but it doesn’t depend on logic for the “cogito” part. In more current, trendy terminology (with worse grammar) be rephrased as “qualia ergo sum” — the experience of qualia proves that there is something experiencing it.