i think therefore.......

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

i think therefore "I" exists.
Maybe that's what Rene meant but I doubt it.
"I" depends on our ability to categorize symbols (patterns/concepts)
This pattern manipulation requires thinking.
Thinking creates "I"

Chrysalid · July 2013

I think Descartes was just saying that for something to contemplate it's own existence it must therefore have an existence to contemplate, but he didn't define the nature of the thinker. I agree with you, mental processes create identity, not the other way around.

person · July 2013

As a concept that sounds true, but the "I" goes beyond that, its really about an instinctual sense of individuality. Animals seem to behave in ways that indicates a sense of self and the extent of most of their thinking isn't up to intellectual concepts.

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

"for something to contemplate it's own existence it must therefore have an existence to contemplate"
Consciousness contemplating consciousness.

Rene wanted to find the ground floor, something fixed and solid. The problem with his proposal is multi-faceted. The biggest problem is his assumption of "I" The other problem is that for existence, thinking is required. I think he was right, "I think therefore I am" in that thinking creates identity, but it's not what he meant. It's funny he ran into the subjective nature of his perceptions and grabbed onto "I" as a life preserver rather than going all in.

Chrysalid · July 2013

person said:
As a concept that sounds true, but the "I" goes beyond that, its really about an instinctual sense of individuality. Animals seem to behave in ways that indicates a sense of self and the extent of most of their thinking isn't up to intellectual concepts.

I agree that we all (human and higher animals) have an instinctual sense of self, but I also think that sense of self is a functional illusion cooked up by the brain to allow the body to better interact with it's surroundings.

I like to think of it like a computer and an operating system. A computer can run fine without an OS, you can use DOS, but it's laborious, each instruction and action has to be individually written and performed. With an OS things become for more user-friendly and faster. It's the same with animals, some like slugs, ants, sea cucumbers etc work fine with a simple DOS-like mind, simple instructions to the body yield simple results - crawl there, chew that. But imagine a dog or a bird or a human with the mind of a snail. Stick in a powerful OS-style mind complete with identity and personality and you have an organism capable of fast and complex interactions with it's environment.

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

"instinctual sense of individuality" Where does that stem from if not from your own thinking? Animals create symbols that become self-referential, my tail, my mouth my paw etc.,(I know a dog doesn't say or think "my" -however a dog references itself, the concept is analogous to what we do) their abilities to categorize patterns is certainly not as rich and to such a high degree as ours but it is there non-the-less and does not require it to intellectualize.

Chrysalid · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:
"for something to contemplate it's own existence it must therefore have an existence to contemplate"
Consciousness contemplating consciousness.
Rene wanted to find the ground floor, something fixed and solid. The problem with his proposal is multi-faceted. The biggest problem is his assumption of "I" The other problem is that for existence, thinking is required. I think he was right, "I think therefore I am" in that thinking creates identity, but it's not what he meant. It's funny he ran into the subjective nature of his perceptions and grabbed onto "I" as a life preserver rather than going all in.

I don't think his focus was on identity as such, rather the existence of the thinker being demonstrable by it's thinking.

person · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:
"instinctual sense of individuality" Where does that stem from if not from your own thinking? Animals create symbols that become self-referential, my tail, my mouth my paw etc.,(I know a dog doesn't say or think "my" -however a dog references itself, the concept is analogous to what we do) their abilities to categorize patterns is certainly not as rich and to such a high degree as ours but it is there non-the-less and does not require it to intellectualize.

Instinctual was my word, the word that is usually used is innate.

Only some animals have this type of self referentiality (as indicated by the mirror test), apes, dolphins, elephants, magpies and even octopi (sorry, dogs and cats aren't included.)

I guess I don't imagine that a water buffalo or an alligator thinks much about themselves but they act to feed or protect themselves as individuals

Maybe I'm understanding what you meant by thinking in your OP differently than you were.

Chrysalid · July 2013

person said:

Only some animals have this type of self referentiality (as indicated by the mirror test), apes, dolphins, elephants, magpies and even octopi (sorry, dogs and cats aren't included.)

I guess I don't imagine that a water buffalo or an alligator thinks much about themselves but they act to feed or protect themselves as individuals

Maybe I'm understanding what you meant by thinking in your OP differently than you were.

There are levels of self awareness. Chimps, dolphins, humans etc can recognise themselves in a mirror which dogs can't, but dogs and cats are aware of themselves as individuals in terms of differentiating between themselves bodily and other animals/their surroundings, awareness of differences between individuals etc.

person · July 2013

Let me ask what the OP means by thinking?

I guess I took it more like 2+2=4, or the sky is blue. What I'm hearing in response is defining thinking at a more basic level like being able to tell up from down or distinguishing one object from another.

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

@person Maybe to clear it up:
Consciousness/self-awareness depends on the categorization of symbols/concepts.
(The higher you go up the evolutionary chain the more deep and layered this becomes)
This categorization of symbols/concepts requires thinking, such as seen in sentient beings.
Thinking (such as pattern/symbol manipulation) results in if not consciousness (that one is hard to pin down) then at least in self-awareness or "I"
So the brain's ability to create, manipulate and make sense of symbols/concepts results in it forming the biggest concept "I" that then refers other concepts back onto itself in an endless loop.
"I" exists as it can conceptualize itself.
@Chrysalid said: In reference to Descartes "mental processes create identity" which I agree with and felt Descartes missed.

zenff · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:

...Thinking creates "I"

Yes. I think I agree. This “I“ is a concept. Or at least that is an important part of it. It is who I am “on the level of story”.
(Eckhart Tolle uses that expression and that’s where I picked it up.)

Another important part of my identity (imho) is the ability to experience qualia or my subjective conscious experience. It doesn’t require conceptual thinking. I suppose animals have it.
As far as I can try to understand, it has to do with my closed and unique nervous system. This brain which is connected to these nerves, is open to this unique or “my” conscious experience.
The Descartes of qualia could say many things. “I hit my thumb; therefore I am.” “I scratch my bottom, therefore I am”. But saying it doesn’t add much to the experience. By saying it Descartes enters the thinking part of what he thinks he is. He enters the “level of story” and adds a layer of concepts, producing an extra layer of identity, on top of the bare subjective experience.

sova · July 2013

There is thinking.

Just like there is seeing, there is hearing.

I have read that to help reduce attachment and in general have a more dispassionate view of affairs, one can say "there is shame" instead of " i am shameful" or "there is fear" instead of "i am scared" .. de-personalize afflictive emotion until it's just along for the ride, and of course it naturally dissolves.

"i think therefore i am" was originally "Cogito ergo sum" .. commonly rendered as the famous phrase;
but really:
"cogito" = thinks (1st person) ...
"ergo" = and thus ...
"sum" = status/being (often rendered as "I am" but I think "sum" by itself is something that needs no breaking down)

it seems like it could be interpreted as "what we think we become," when looking at the original letter. Something that brings, personally, great satisfaction

Descartes was making no claim, just giving a head's up

so perhaps maybe "thinking [thus], and thus ... the sum."

Some wonderful reading for interested scholars and cool people alike:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

Edit: upon some further research, the original phrase is french:
je pense, donc je suis

which is very clearly "i think therefore i am" ... so much for my wrenching the square peg into the round hole! Either way, hope you enjoyed the thought candy

zenmyste · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:
Thinking creates "I"

'Thinking' does create i (in a way)

But I also think the 'I' creates thinking... (In a way)

Florian · July 2013

"Sometime I think, sometimes I am." - Paul Valery.

footiam · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:
i think therefore "I" exists.
Maybe that's what Rene meant but I doubt it.
"I" depends on our ability to categorize symbols (patterns/concepts)
This pattern manipulation requires thinking.
Thinking creates "I"

Thinking does not necessary create 'I". It will depend on what you are thinking of. If you are thinking that " I" is an illusion and can think of reasons to support that thought, I suppose then that will annihilate instead of create.

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

What creates "I"? Our concepts come from our thinking. This "I" is a concept. Other than the fabrications of our minds where might this arise from? If this self can conceive that itself is a concept, this may very well undermine the very thing we hold dear and that which binds us.

pegembara · July 2013

I crave therefore I am.

"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming(existence), craving for non-becoming."

vinlyn · July 2013

You think, therefore you obsess about this concept. If there's actually an imponderable in Buddhism, this is it.

Tosh · July 2013

Isn't thinking is the thinker? Does there need to be an 'I'? If an 'I' is needed to think, what happens when we stop thinking? **Poof** gone?

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

vinlyn said:
You think, therefore you obsess about this concept. If there's actually an imponderable in Buddhism, this is it.

Is this imponderable? God and the afterlife are imponderables- because you simply cannot know these no matter how much you think about it. This concept is one we all hold and experience and it is certainly something we can scrutinize and and objectively attempt to fathom. Obsess? That is a loaded term.

vinlyn · July 2013

Theswingisyellow said:

vinlyn said:
You think, therefore you obsess about this concept. If there's actually an imponderable in Buddhism, this is it.
Is this imponderable? God and the afterlife are imponderables- because you simply cannot know these no matter how much you think about it. This concept is one we all hold and experience and it is certainly something we can scrutinize and and objectively attempt to fathom. Obsess? That is a loaded term.

I don't think there's anything in Buddhism that is imponderable in the sense that you should not ponder it. But I do think that there are topics in Buddhism that just go round and round and round and round and round...for decades...centuries. And this is one of those topics. There's not a Buddhist forum I've ever been on that doesn't debate this over and over and over...and never come to even the slightest consensus about it.

I'm using the term obsess in the sense that some people are preoccupied with it. Personally, I'd rather obsess (or be preoccupied) with aspects of Buddhism that are more practical (e.g., compassion) and figure-out-able. But that's just me. And I'm certainly not saying the concept shouldn't be discussed.

Jeffrey · July 2013

"I" is thinking but it isn't the only type of thinking. And it is a bit confused how we think of "I". We have great fear to lose "I". Death is certain yet we remain in fear and try to coral every single thing and make it tame as no threat to "I".

As far as descarte he started the sentence "I" and thus he is only proving his own axiom. In reality we can only say "thinking" and then analyze the thinking and see that the content of the thought is a belief in "I". We can then look for where that "I" is. Is it in the body? Is it in the will and formations? Is it in feeling good or bad? I think if a lot (most) of us our honest we do believe that I is in the feeling. At least I act that way.

And then in analyzing our thoughts we can establish what is real.

Anyhow that's my best try.

searching_samsara · July 2013

There's no fun and games until someone loses their "I"

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

For me this gets down to not-self. Form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness are not self because this self is an illusion (a useful concept non-the-less-as "I" must show up for work) we tie to everything in our lives, so what we are left with is what's in front of us: only form, feeling, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness.

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
For sure it's something I don't want to upset others with or cause endless debating on, but understanding what underpins our thinking and motivations may be worthwhile

Theswingisyellow · July 2013

searching_samsara said:
There's no fun and games until someone loses their "I"

:pirate:

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

i think therefore.......

Comments