Bigfoot!

http://www.ethansenglishcafe.com/wpblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/o_rly-ya-rly.jpg

Yep - really.

Sigmund Freud

I think, therefore I am. I scoop kitty litter, therefore I am. I do laundry, therefore I am. I shovel snow, therefore I am.

Want more?

Wondergirl: How do you know your cat exists? Because you see it (or smell it when changing litter) - you brain perceives the cat in front of you. Which means at the fundamental level you must prove your own existence before you can claim that you have the ability to perceive the cat. So how do you know you exist? Because you think. Thus sayeth Descartes.

Wondergirl: How do you know your cat exists? Because you see it (or smell it when changing litter) - you brain perceives the cat in front of you. Which means at the fundamental level you must prove your own existence before you can claim that you have the ability to perceive the cat. So how do you know you exist? Because you think. Thus sayeth Descartes.
When I scoop, the litter becomes clean. Etc. That's beyond my own senses, because the cats will use it (but won't if it's dirty).

(You're welcome to come on over to help scoop.)

You realize that according to Schrodinger your cat may actually be dead (sorry).

You realize that according to Schrodinger your cat may actually be dead (sorry).
I have five cats. If you were here at mealtime, you wouldn't say that.

I think its absolutely hilarious that you asked a paradoxical question on an ask search engine. That's like ordering pizza at a Chinese restaurant.

I think its absolutely hilarious that you asked a paradoxical question on an ask search engine. That's like ordering pizza at a Chinese restaurant.

You've never heard of Chinese pizza?

Chinese Pizza (http://chinesefood.about.com/b/2009/10/17/chinese-pizza.htm)

"I think therefore I am" is the logical starting point for Descartes theory of knowledge.

In the end, " I think therefore I am" is a tautology. It is a self-evident truth and as such it cannot be proven false. "I think therefore I am" is the same as saying, " I think therefore I think".

It was an interesting starting point because it set up the distinction between mind and body. Descartes claimed the mind is a thinking substance while the body is an extended or physical substance. This also marked the beginning of modern philosophy.

Other than this I don't see Descartes postulation as being of any real value.

Tut

This also marked the beginning of modern philosophy.


And also the beginning of modern science. The idea that nature is best understood by observing how it works was new and revolutionary - prior to that the workings of nature were explained by religion or the philosphical "systems" of the Greek philosophers. Descartes was the first to bring skepticism to ideas about nature - meaning don't believe something just because it's commonly thought to be true unless it can be observed or demonstrated.

Sounds nice really

Yes sounds nice really

I'm thinking that I'll get some of that Chinese pizza. Therefore, I am going to be at the Chinese pizza restaurant.

I'm really hoping that WG's cats won't be there, dead or alive.

Don't throw things. I had to say it. ;)

And also the beginning of modern science. The idea that nature is best understood by observing how it works was new and revolutionary - prior to that the workings of nature were explained by religion or the philosphical "systems" of the Greek philosophers. Descartes was the first to bring skepticism to ideas about nature - meaning don't believe something just because it's commonly thought to be true unless it can be observed or demonstrated.

Totally agree

Tut

The idea that nature is best understood by observing how it works was new and revolutionary

This part needs rephrasing. Modern science was revolutionary because of the need to discover the CAUSE to the effects that we have been observing for thousands of years.

This part needs rephrasing. Modern science was revolutionary because of the need to discover the CAUSE to the effects that we have been observing for thousands of years.


Not really. Take as an example the famous experiment that Galileo performed dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa. He observed that the object's weight has no effect on how long it takes to hit the ground, which was not at all in agreement with what everyone "knew" to be true. That was science - he observed a phenomenon, repeated his experiment, and reported the results. But he had absolutely no idea why objects behave this way. It wasn't until Newton came along much later that an explanation was offered for this effect. But even Newton's explanation of gravity and F=ma doesn't truly explain the "cause" of gravity or why objects have inertia.

Yes slightly abstact answer to the question, looking for the real question as it were, very interesting

Hi Peter,

There is no real answer to "I think therefore I am" .It is a tautology. It provides us with the same amount of knowledge as knowing that 'All green apples are green'.

As ebaines suggests it provided as starting point for the development of science.

Regards
Tut

This part needs rephrasing. Modern science was revolutionary because of the need to discover the CAUSE to the effects that we have been observing for thousands of years.


Hi Animus,

Aristotle believed that he had discovered the causes that explain how objects behave in the world. In fact he isolated four causes. Naturally enough he was not doing science.

It was when Hume pointed out that we can never discover the cause in any observation that we begin to understand how science actually works. In the end empirical science is based on something that has no logical necessity.

Regards

Tut

Could you clarifiy this more please ? No logical necessity ? To what ?

Sure no problem.

Empiricism as a theory emphasizes the role of sensory experience when it comes to obtaining knowledge about the physical world. In short, general statements we can come up with through the process of observation.

As far as science is concerned any hypothesis and theory need to be tested against observations. In short, how well do our theory/hypothesis conform to what we can observe.

If I drop a rock from a tower I will notice that it falls at an accelerated rate. If I run down to the bottom of the tower, pick up the rock and go back to the top to drop it again I will notice that it will do exactly the same thing. After I do this a couple of hundred times I begin to suspect that the event (A) dropping the rock and event (B) the rock falling are somehow linked. I might even begin to think that if I did this a trillion times exactly the same thing will happen each time. Therefore, I would be justified in saying that event (A) MUST ALWAYS be followed by event (B). To put this another way there must be some type of LOGICAL NECESSITY when it comes to causation... WELL, I WOULD BE WRONG.

According to Hume we are never justified in believing that event (A) will always be followed by event (B). It is quite conceivable that having dropped the rock a trillion and one times it will not fall to the ground. It is conceivable that it will fall halfway down the face of the tower and suspend itself in the air. It is conceivable that instead of falling it will fly up into outer space. It may even explode upon leaving my hand.

This is pretty much what I I am getting at. When it comes to causation there is no logical necessity involved.

I hope this helps

Regards

Tut

Not really. Take as an example the famous experiment that Galileo performed dropping objects from the Tower of Pisa. He observed that the object's weight has no effect on how long it takes to hit the ground, which was not at all in agreement with what everyone "knew" to be true. That was science - he observed a phenomenon, repeated his experiment, and reported the results. But he had absolutely no idea why objects behave this way. It wasn't until Newton came along much later that an explanation was offered for this effect. But even Newton's explanation of gravity and F=ma doesn't truly explain the "cause" of gravity or why objects have inertia.

Gravity IS the cause that Newton discovered he explains it perfectly. To ask a further "why?" to the origins of gravity and why this happens is impossible because there are no observable forces involved with gravity we only see the effects that it mysteriously causes.

Ok thanks so are you saying , to see if I understand you correctly, I think therefore I am is an observation though preception but with structure in the sense of quantum pyhsics

Hi Peter,

Interesting points you have put forward. What I am going to do is push "I think therefore I am" out the front door, yet I will end up leaving 'the quantum back door' slightly open for it to get back in.

"I think therefore I am" can be dismissed as having any relevance to the world of perception. The only reason it was of any value in the first place was because of a 'spin-off'. That spin-off being the realization by Descartes that if he is a thinking substance then there must also be physical substances. Later philosophers and scientists were not really interested in Descartes formulation of himself as a thinking substance. What they did find interesting was his idea of the world as an extended substance.

"I think therefore I am" is not based on any type of perception. That is, any knowledge gained through perception. The reason Descartes formulated his postulate in the first place was to know a minimal amount of knowledge. Descartes believed that, "I think therefore I am" will eventually prove the existence of objects in the physical world. Unfortunately he was wrong.

Fifty years ago most people would have been happy to push " I think therefore I am' out of the front door and lock it. That is until the development of quantum mechanics and string theory. Descartes' " I think therefore I am' out of the front door and lock it. That is until the development of quantum mechanics and string theory. Descartes' " is an axiom or postulate. It cannot be proven true. It is a starting point from which we can deduce knowledge. A bit like mathematical axioms.

Science, having consigned Descartes postulate to the rubbish bin, now pulls it out and give it a new look in the form of scientific realism. The basis behind scientific realism is the acceptance of non-observable phenomena. For example, we cannot actually observe a black hole and we cannot observe anything related to String Theory. Because these things are non-observable they are based completely on mathematics.

The mathematics of string theory is beyond me but I would assume that it had several different starting points (axioms) upon which each version of the theory was built up through a process of deduction.

Does this help?

Regards

Tut

The actual question was "I think therefore I am" REALLY ? The answer is above.