Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-04-2012, 09:52   #1
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,080


Cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am

Descartes most famous postulation. Perhaps the only valid argument pointing towards something more than what we can study, observe and measure in science and it rarely gets the attention it truly deserves (especially here in the RI forum of GT).

In an abstract metaphysical sense, I can not be sure of reality. I can't be sure that the world exists as I observe it. I can't be sure that the other people I interact with are real and not figments of my own imagination (although, I have no idea why I might subconsciously dream up Paul7 ).

I can't be sure that I am actually sitting at a desk, typing on a computer and posting on GT. I can't even be sure that I exist in the form that I perceive myself. It could all be an invention of my own mind. A world I have created for myself to keep me occupied. This, I can not rule out.

But I can be sure I exist, cogito ego sum proves that. I must exist in some form in order for me to be able to dream it all up (even if nothing else is real). It tells me nothing with certainty about what form that existence takes, but it must be. I am, this is all I can know for certain.

Which brings me to my core point for this thread. There is one more thing we can derive from this first principle. The human body (as I perceive it) is made up of a variety of chemical compounds reacting in a liquid medium (water). Its construction can be understood as a bio-mechanical machine controlled by an analog electrochemical computer (albeit a very advanced one). And no matter how advanced a computer gets, it should not be capable of the self-awareness that can be derived from this simple statement.

I should be a mindless automaton. There would be no discernible outward difference if this were true. We would still argue, bicker, build things and organize ourselves into societies and whatnot, but we would be thoughtless inside. Just machines working through their programming. So why is that not the case for me? There must be something more that gives me the ability to be self-aware.

Now, many theologies have labeled this element the "soul". Some have envisioned a cosmic battle between good and evil over the control of our "souls". Others believe that the "soul" is immortal and continually re-inhabits new corporal vessels using the mechanism of reincarnation.

None of the traditional explanations are particularly compelling to me. Mostly because they depart from the chain of logic of what can and can not be known and venture off into the realm of conjecture, speculation and even superstition. What I would like to know is if there are any others here that have pondered this chain of thought and were you able to get any further with it?

So, any amateur philosophers here that have any additional thoughts on this? I am most interested in hearing the take of other atheists. Theists are, of course, welcome to comment as well. It is an open forum after all. But understand that I do not see this elemental conclusion as supporting any particular belief system. Certainly not in any sense greater than a minor inductive point.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 03-04-2012 at 09:57..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 10:29   #2
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 15,188
Quote:
The human body (as I perceive it) is made up of a variety of chemical compounds reacting in a liquid medium (water). Its construction can be understood as a bio-mechanical machine controlled by an analog electrochemical computer (albeit a very advanced one). And no matter how advanced a computer gets, it should not be capable of the self-awareness that can be derived from this simple statement.
I sense a flaw in this premise.... Why not?

Animals have similar bio-mechanical machines controlled by analog electrochemical computers, some are self aware, some not. Seems the self awareness is not linked to the electrochemical/biological vs silicon/electronic nature of the computer, but to either its complexity or programming, or both, as they're rather interconnected.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 10:39   #3
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,080


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
I sense a flaw in this premise.... Why not?

Animals have similar bio-mechanical machines controlled by analog electrochemical computers, some are self aware, some not. Seems the self awareness is not linked to the electrochemical/biological vs silicon/electronic nature of the computer, but to either its complexity or programming, or both, as they're rather interconnected.

Randy
I would first point out that you can't actually know whether or not they are self-aware (or if they are even real and not constructs of your own mind). The whole point of cogito ergo sum is that you can only be certain of that for yourself. Even if they are (which I believe to probably be the case) then all that does is include them in the same question that I ask of us.

Complexity is an argument. Supposedly, if you arrange enough of these components together self-awareness occurs. I get that, but I find it uncompelling. I work with computers, I understand their design and how they function. I believe that one day we will make a computer advanced enough to create a convincing simulation of self-awareness. We might even fool ourselves into believing we have created artificial intelligent life, but knowing what I know about the operation of computers, I just can't seem to accept that argument. It doesn't matter how complex you make a machine. It is still just a machine. Why does this not seem to apply to us?

At any rate, I was hoping to tackle this problem from more of a philosphical first principles angle and see if we can derive any further truth out of Descartes initial statement. Taking a scientific tack has its merits, but can't really address my fundamental question.
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 03-04-2012 at 10:45..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 10:54   #4
Danny Reid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,086
This will be a great thread! I will be back when I get my thoughts together.
__________________
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out...Larry Holmes could figure this out.
Danny Reid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 11:22   #5
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,080


Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Reid View Post
This will be a great thread! I will be back when I get my thoughts together.
I look forward to it! Let me reiterate the basics as far as I have been able to take them thus far.

"I think therefore I am": I know this to be true for me and me alone. I can't really know if other people exist at all, let alone if they are self-aware.

Which leads to the proposition: "Everything that is real, exists." which is either true or false.

If it is false then reality is a construct of my own mind. This includes my perception of how my own body is constructed. Therefore I conclude, "I am more than the perceived sum of my parts".

If it is true then reality exists separate from me and is governed by the laws of physics. Other people and animals are real, but I still can't be sure that they are self-aware like I am. However, from what I know of physics, simple causality chains (electrochemical reactions) should not be able to support self-awareness no matter what level of complexity is demonstrated. Therefore, I conclude similarly, "I am more than the actual sum of my parts".

In either case, the questions arise: Where does that something more come from? What is it nature? How does it work? etc, etc...

(PS. I am going to be outside taking care of my imaginary lawn for awhile, but will revisit this thread this imaginary evening to read the imaginary responses. )
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 03-04-2012 at 11:43..
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 12:04   #6
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Which leads to the proposition: "Everything that is real, exists." which is either true or false.

If it is false then reality is a construct of my own mind. This includes my perception of how my own body is constructed. Therefore I conclude, "I am more than the perceived sum of my parts".

If it is true then reality exists separate from me and is governed by the laws of physics. Other people and animals are real, but I still can't be sure that they are self-aware like I am. However, from what I know of physics, simple causality chains (electrochemical reactions) should not be able to support self-awareness no matter what level of complexity is demonstrated. Therefore, I conclude similarly, "I am more than the actual sum of my parts".

In either case, the questions arise: Where does that something more come from? What is it nature? How does it work? etc, etc...

(PS. I am going to be outside taking care of my imaginary lawn for awhile, but will revisit this thread this imaginary evening to read the imaginary responses. )
Einstein had a problem with quantum mechanics for the same reason. He called it spooky. Quantum mechanics tend to indicate that space and time do not really exist as we perceive them. Perhaps we are nothing more than an idea in the mind of God.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 12:14   #7
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 15,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
I would first point out that you can't actually know whether or not they are self-aware (or if they are even real and not constructs of your own mind). The whole point of cogito ergo sum is that you can only be certain of that for yourself. Even if they are (which I believe to probably be the case) then all that does is include them in the same question that I ask of us.
I'm merely addressing the assumption that computers cannot be self aware. Sounds like you maybe should instead be arguing that we can't know whether computers really exist or are figments of our imagination, rather than what they are intrinsically incapable of doing.

Quote:

Complexity is an argument. Supposedly, if you arrange enough of these components together self-awareness occurs. I get that, but I find it uncompelling. I work with computers, I understand their design and how they function. I believe that one day we will make a computer advanced enough to create a convincing simulation of self-awareness. We might even fool ourselves into believing we have created artificial intelligent life, but knowing what I know about the operation of computers, I just can't seem to accept that argument. It doesn't matter how complex you make a machine. It is still just a machine. Why does this not seem to apply to us?
There are problems a Turing machine can't solve. Been too long since I had that class, but I don't think "self awareness" is the sort of thing that's included. Its as much an assumption that self awareness is so special that computers can't be designed to be self-aware as it is to assume the human brain is so special that it can't arise as a result of unguided evolution, it seems to me. Although that may be a side argument not really related to the meat and potatoes, should meat and potatoes actually exist outside of our minds...

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 03-04-2012 at 12:19..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 16:33   #8
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,080


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
I'm merely addressing the assumption that computers cannot be self aware. Sounds like you maybe should instead be arguing that we can't know whether computers really exist or are figments of our imagination, rather than what they are intrinsically incapable of doing.
Can't help it, I understand them to well. I realize drawing on one's own expertise is poor form in a debate, but for me, knowing what I know, I'm quite certain it can't happen, but maybe that's a confirmation bias on my part.

Quote:
Its as much an assumption that self awareness is so special that computers can't be designed to be self-aware as it is to assume the human brain is so special that it can't arise as a result of unguided evolution, it seems to me.
I guess I'm not making the distinction well. I have no difficulty in seeing how a digital or analog computer can become so sophisticated that it would be indistinguishable from self-aware beings. I can even see them sitting around on an internet discussion board carrying on a conversation about the significance of cogito ergo sum, but, for all of its convincing nature, it would still be just an empty simulation.

So, the question remains, why can I truly think as opposed to simply being a highly evolved machine?

Quote:
Although that may be a side argument not really related to the meat and potatoes, should meat and potatoes actually exist outside of our minds...
I'm more than happy to pick at the imaginary appetizer until somebody decides to take a bite at the imaginary meat and 'taters.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 18:49   #9
Japle
John, Viera, Fl
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 967
I often fly in my dreams. I used to take that for granted, but now when I find myself flying, I know it’s a dream. I can prove to myself it’s a dream, no matter how real it seems, by looking at my watch, noting the time, looking away and then looking again. The times never match. Usually, I can’t read the time at all. That tells me it’s a dream and I can do whatever I want and enjoy myself.

I fly, therefore I dream.
Japle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 19:04   #10
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,080


Quote:
Originally Posted by Japle View Post
I fly, therefore I dream.
Funny you should mention that to a pilot.

I fly, therefore I am broke...

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 19:11   #11
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Is it possible for a computer to be advanced enough to make the calculation that it must exist if it's making calculations? That may be you.

Also, if I were a figment of your imagination you'd know what kind of car I drive, how I take my coffee, what my girlfriend has tattooed where, etc. and you don't.

Do you?

Last edited by Gunhaver; 03-04-2012 at 19:23..
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 19:15   #12
Japle
John, Viera, Fl
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Viera, Florida
Posts: 967
Quote:
Is it possible for a computer to be advanced enough to make the calculation that it must exist if it's making calculations? That may be you.
It is me.

Keep away from that plug!!
Japle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2012, 19:15   #13
berniew
Liberty
 
berniew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MN
Posts: 10,374


With no editing or endorsement I'll dump my notes from a Philosophy class into the hopper - use or ignore them as you see fit

Mental state – a thought you might have, think of red, would not see red

Physical state – a chemical reaction in your brain

The mind is immaterial, the brain is physical

1st 4 are substance dualistic view

Interactionism – (Descartes) –interact in some way- the mind affects the body, the body affects the mind (pineal gland)

Parallelism - they do not cause each other; happen to occur at same time, they correspond

Pre-established harmony – (Liebnitz) – pre-ordained to correspond

Occasionalism – (Malenbanche) on the occasion of physical stimulation, God creates the ‘right’ mental state

Next 2 are Property dualistic

Epiphenominalism – the mind is a property of the brain (smoke is a property of fire)

Double-aspect Theory – Spinoza – all reality is ultimately one substance , the mind and body are both properties of the one substance, distinguishable but not separable

Next 2 are monistic views

Materialism – no mind

Idealism – no such thing as matter – “the metaphysical theory that all things, material and immaterial, are ultimately reduced to mind and ideas”

Objective idealism – ideas exist independent of the mind (Hegel)

Subjective idealism - ideas are dependent on being perceived by a mind to exist (Barkley)

Epistemological dualism (representative realism) – 2 factors in knowing: thing out there / idea

Primary qualities – don’t change

Secondary qualities – change

“Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived

Berkeley’s 5 arguments
1. Discontinuity of Dualism (it doesn’t work)
2. Meaninglessness of material substance
3. The unexperienced as unconceivable
4. The inseparability of primary and secondary qualities
5. The relativity of all qualities

Solipsism – the belief I am the only thing that really exists, everything else is a result of my thinking

Current causation

Materialism – everything is reducible to matter or physical states

Determinism – belief that everthing is determined ahead of time

Quantum mechanics
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle

Identity thesis- all mental states are equal to and identical to brain states

Co-extensionality – saying a is related to b is not te same as saying a=b

Behaviorism – all mental states are reducred to descriptions of actual or potential behavior patterns; the mind is merely the disposition and cpacity of our bodies to beave according to certain stimuli

Arguments against dualism
1. Simplicity (O.R.)
2. Explanatory impotence
3. Dependence
4. Evolutionary history (animals don’t have mind)

Mechanistic materialism – all things are reducible to matter and motion

Soft behaviorism – all I can observe is behavior

Hard behaviorism – all you are is behavior

Functionalism – mental states are reduced to a physical process (computer)

Eliminative materialism – all mental talk should be eliminted





The eight arguments for dualism
1. Materialism leads to dualism
2. The great difference between mental and physical properties
3. The private access of mental states
4. The incorrigibility of mental states
5. The experience of 1st person subjectivity
6. Secondary qualities argument
7. Intentionality – aware and think of others
8. Personal identity through time


Incorrigible – un able to be wrong

Intentionality - otherness

The indiscernability of the identicals - if any two things are said to be identical; whatever is true about one *must be true about the other
__________________
Be nice, be logical, be ready to define your terms...
berniew is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:17.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 914
229 Members
685 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31