Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Cogito ergo sum

Page 3 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Mar 2010, 12:49 pm

NobelCynic wrote:
By "I", I assume you mean Awesomelyglorious, but who (or what) is Awesomelyglorious?

By "I", I just mean that within the conventional framework, this truth is best expressed using this kind of language. Our language is centered around selves, so even if one didn't accept a real self, it is hard to go without.

Quote:
Even if that were true, I fail to see the relevance.

It is incredibly relevant to our conceptions of consciousness and selfhood.



fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

24 Mar 2010, 4:18 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
PLA wrote:
I didn't say that the entity is homogenous or even coherent. :)
Good point, though.

Perhaps you didn't, but the mindset as if the agent was something like this is very very common. It is the basic intuition.


Was there a study on how many people share this way of thinking? I would be very interested on the actual statistic seeing as I have rarely thought like this. :) For as long as I can remember I have been comprised of many mes that don't actually like each other. I say "I" only out of it's convenience for communication.


_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Mar 2010, 5:12 pm

fidelis wrote:
Was there a study on how many people share this way of thinking? I would be very interested on the actual statistic seeing as I have rarely thought like this. :) For as long as I can remember I have been comprised of many mes that don't actually like each other. I say "I" only out of it's convenience for communication.

Dunno, but it is probably rare for a human to dislike "I". For most it is quite intuitive, and arguably with good reason. The issue is that it seems very problematic given all of the oddities and problems with psychological continuity.



Wombat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,051

25 Mar 2010, 6:10 am

Schrödinger's cat thinks thinks, but does it exist or not?
Is it alive or dead?

Ahh, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

25 Mar 2010, 6:43 am

Wombat wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Wombat wrote:
What is the Latin for "I think, therefore I get depressed and drunk"?


A translation of that is, "Cogito nimis, ergo saepe sum tritis et ebrius."


Thanks. Thats me.

But what about the original? Cognito ergo sum?

Think + thus + is

What a piss poor language that is that doesn't say "I" or "we" or whatever.

Did a roman man go up to a woman and say "love" + "you"?

Geez, that is worse than saying "Me Tarzan, you Jane."

No wonder the barbarians won.


Infinitive verb form, cogitare, "to think"

Imperative singular, cogita! "you, think!"
Imperative plural form, cogitate! "all of you, think!"

Indicative Active:

Cogito = I am thinking
Cogitas = you are thinking
Cogitat = he/she/it is thinking
Cogitamus = we are thinking
Cogitatis = ye are thinking
Cogitant = they are thinking
Cogitabam = I was thinking
Cogitabas = you were thinking
Cogitabat = he/she/it was thinking
Cogitabamus = we were thinking
Cogitabatis = ye were thinking
Cogitabant = they were thinking
Cogitabo = I will be thinking
Cogitabis = you will be thinking
Cogitabit = he/she/it will be thinking
Cogitabimus = we will be thinking
Cogitabitis = ye will be thinking
Cogitabunt = they will be thinking
Cogitavi = I have thought
Cogitavisti = you have thought
Cogitavit = he/she/it has thought
... et cetera



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Mar 2010, 10:00 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
NobelCynic wrote:
By "I", I assume you mean Awesomelyglorious, but who (or what) is Awesomelyglorious?

By "I", I just mean that within the conventional framework, this truth is best expressed using this kind of language. Our language is centered around selves, so even if one didn't accept a real self, it is hard to go without.


Of course, seeing as to how the "self" is a narrative centre of gravity. These serious of self nihilistic statements must centre around some theoretical fiction, for the love of a metaphorical god!

This may strike some as a word salad - I am getting very tired and tangetial.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

26 Mar 2010, 11:33 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Of course, seeing as to how the "self" is a narrative centre of gravity. These serious of self nihilistic statements must centre around some theoretical fiction, for the love of a metaphorical god!

This may strike some as a word salad - I am getting very tired and tangetial.

Ok, you had to reference the Dennett. But yeah, "convention" and "narrative center of gravity" don't conflict with each other as both are claims that something is reference for the utility of referencing it but that there is no real existence. If anything they go hand in hand.



Asmodeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520

27 Mar 2010, 7:25 am

If you reduce everything to only that of which you can be certain, you can only be certain that you are perceiving thoughts.

This came to mind :) :
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk[/youtube]



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Mar 2010, 7:42 am

Asmodeus wrote:
If you reduce everything to only that of which you can be certain, you can only be certain that you are perceiving thoughts.



Which necessarily implies the existence of something that produces the thoughts.

ruveyn



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

27 Mar 2010, 8:38 am

ruveyn wrote:
Asmodeus wrote:
If you reduce everything to only that of which you can be certain, you can only be certain that you are perceiving thoughts.


Which necessarily implies the existence of something that produces the thoughts.

More so the something that is perceiving them as the thoughts can be produced by our senses that are unreliable.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Mar 2010, 11:31 am

The fundamental problem with existentialism is that it continually gets caught up in the "Brain in a jar" or The Matrix problem.

Cogito ergo credo sit would be the weasel words to pull one out of this.

But the value of existentialism is not that it allows us to find a rational proof for our own existence, but rather that it allows us to put stimulus, experience, memory and belief into a framework, and recognize that just as we perceive the world in an entirely subjective fashion, so to does every other thinking entity.

Accordingly, there is no absolute objectivity, there is only objectivity within a defined frame of reference which each of us have agreed is consistent with our subjective view of the world. Now, these things develop hand-in-hand, most of the time. Our world view is almost non-existent at birth, and as it expands we learn about the common frame of reference, through language, through numeracy, and through experience.


_________________
--James


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Mar 2010, 6:53 pm

visagrunt wrote:
The fundamental problem with existentialism is that it continually gets caught up in the "Brain in a jar" or The Matrix problem.

Cogito ergo credo sit would be the weasel words to pull one out of this.

But the value of existentialism is not that it allows us to find a rational proof for our own existence, but rather that it allows us to put stimulus, experience, memory and belief into a framework, and recognize that just as we perceive the world in an entirely subjective fashion, so to does every other thinking entity.

Accordingly, there is no absolute objectivity, there is only objectivity within a defined frame of reference which each of us have agreed is consistent with our subjective view of the world. Now, these things develop hand-in-hand, most of the time. Our world view is almost non-existent at birth, and as it expands we learn about the common frame of reference, through language, through numeracy, and through experience.


In this language can be both an aid and a hazard since the same words can mean different things to different people although the patterns may seem the same.



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

29 Mar 2010, 9:23 am

Sand wrote:
In this language can be both an aid and a hazard since the same words can mean different things to different people although the patterns may seem the same.

This is true, but the problem is not insurmountable. With a little effort we could understand our differences about their meaning and find a way to deal with it.

The purpose of language is to communicate, but what is the purpose of communication? To some it is to explore the differences in our world views and perhaps modify them with new information; to others, it is simply to defend our own and dismiss all others. That is when it gets confusing.


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Mar 2010, 9:36 am

NobelCynic wrote:
Sand wrote:
In this language can be both an aid and a hazard since the same words can mean different things to different people although the patterns may seem the same.

This is true, but the problem is not insurmountable. With a little effort we could understand our differences about their meaning and find a way to deal with it.

The purpose of language is to communicate, but what is the purpose of communication? To some it is to explore the differences in our world views and perhaps modify them with new information; to others, it is simply to defend our own and dismiss all others. That is when it gets confusing.


England and America are two countries separated by the same language.
George Bernard Shaw



NobelCynic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 600
Location: New Jersey, U.S.A.

16 Apr 2010, 8:31 am

Sand wrote:
England and America are two countries separated by the same language.
George Bernard Shaw

I don't think that the differences between American English and Brittish English are a major problem here. Most of us understand that we have different words for the same thing and we can usually understand each other.

Is there a point to that I am missing? :scratch:


_________________
NobelCynic (on WP)
My given name is Kenneth


phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

16 Apr 2010, 11:00 am

If Mr.Shaw had had any sociolinguistic classes, he would know that there dialects within a language, so to say that they have the same language is a bit incorrect. There will however, always be a standard that is valorized and used for communication and other purposes, but even within the same language, most people need some time to get used to each other's dialectic differences, usually happens after a few days or hours.

In essence though, i can understand what he meant. <.<