I think therefore I am,

I perceive, but I don't know whether those perceptions were from an external source or just the creation of my own mind ... I don't know whether there was an external universe or not...

If there was an external universe, I don't know what the source of those perceptions is… I don't know what is real or not... I don't know if I was an integrated circuit, a "spirit", or just a brain...

So basically I am sure of only one single fact; sum , and every other fact could be or not...

This is a dull frustrating conclusion, because it ends metaphysics before it even starts, but what can I do if it was just simple logic....

I hope to hear something about this from the sharp minds here on sciforums...

any conclusion works, its your world, the way you see it and the way it works for you.

I have written on this before, if you'd care to read my essays entitled:

"A Rejection of Non-Transcendental Idealism"

"A Rejection of Transcendental Idealism and Solipsism"

ok prince james, I totally agree with your argument for the existence of an external universe, which was : "the mind has no capacity whatsoever to imagine from nothing"...

but what could you know about that external universe ? Nothing...

your only clue was : "other conscious mind exist" , but the proof for that claim wasn't sufficient at all, that is "The ability to learn language" as you said...

you said:

"Should we be the only conscious mind, our minds would have no conception of language"

and I don't see why?! Language is just sounds, and I exchange those sounds with external objects, which I don't know if they were conscious or not...

your argument that "Meaning can only be understood by an intelligence" is untenable in the time of electronics and computers... How many machines are out there which can TALK to me, and answer me, and may be argue with me as if they were understanding the meanings... but they are not other conscious minds of course, so modern technology proves your argument to be not true at all...

I can't know anything about the external universe, it may be just as it appears; a material universe... or it could be a spirtual universe with a god and heavenly host and everything ( but a big question would be what that god is hiding himself from me for, and why showing me a universe that tells me that he doesn't exist? so it's unlikely that there's really a sane not too funny god out there)...

we can't know anything for sure, we can just guess... why can't people see that...

Hani:

Language is just sounds, and I exchange those sounds with external objects, which I don't know if they were conscious or not...

Language is just sounds? Certainly not! It has syntax and semantics. Syntax implies that it is ordered, semantics that it has meaning. If language was "just sounds", why do individuals speaking of "dog" in one's langauge not calling it all sorts of things?

Similarly, how would we have conceived of language to begin with? We would surely not have been exposed to meaning at all, least of all have coherent languages, and on top of that, a myriad of languages which we can learn and translate between the two (or more).

Here, consider this:

How did we decipher the Rosetta Stone? We used ancient Greek, yes? But if there was no ancient Greek, would not the entire semantic content be lost of the Rosetta Stone? Certainly true, yes? Would not having then no meaning whatsoever, nor conception of it, be equivalent to having no ancient Greek for the Rosetta stone?

your argument that "Meaning can only be understood by an intelligence" is untenable in the time of electronics and computers... How many machines are out there which can TALK to me, and answer me, and may be argue with me as if they were understanding the meanings... but they are not other conscious minds of course, so modern technology proves your argument to be not true at all...

Do these computers make themselves? Or do they need to be made by intelligent creatures that can programme the computer enough to be able to semi-intelligently respond to the semantic content of your sentences? However, also consider that it is glaringly apparent that no computer understands a word we are saying. Talk with a few AI bots for more than one moment and they make it blatant that nothing you say has any effect on them.

I can't know anything about the external universe, it may be just as it appears; a material universe... or it could be a spirtual universe with a god and heavenly host and everything

Certainly we can infer its qualities from our senses? I mean, even if we might say it is "physical" or "spiritual" would not matter, so long as we could say, speak of something about "space" and such, yes?

Wow and people say *I* think too much. I love this forum :)

"Why does it happen? Because It happened, Roll the Bones..."

I think therefore I am,

Dementia patiants don't think anymore but they're still there

I perceive, but I don't know whether those perceptions were from an external source or just the creation of my own mind ... I don't know whether there was an external universe or not...
I wans met a jounalist who told me that all news is twisted and turned. You come in a enviroment and see a alien situation. Therefore what we percieve isn't what realy happend. Then there was a piece of the informer telling it to the journalist the jounalist writing it down, the editor cutting the story and so on and evrytime pieces of the story go missing or get twisted.

If there was an external universe, I don't know what the source of those perceptions is… I don't know what is real or not... I don't know if I was an integrated circuit, a "spirit", or just a brain...

Humans are somewhat caged and limited and some things you can't simply ignore like the fact that you must have a brain. Your also a integrated circuit because let's face it you either have no ID how your internet works, how it's electricity got transported from your house or how your own underware was made that life I gues. Then there those things that are not real but we choose then to be real like yustice and stuff it doesn't realy exists (try to distilite some yustice) but that doesn't mean there aren't any coppers.

Orcot:

Orcot, seriously man. You -have- to learn to spell. The above was barely intelligible. I'm not trying to be a dick, but damn.

prince james:

how can I know that you are not a machine? even if you were conscious?

how can I know that I am not a machine?

how can I know that this universe is real and not a simulation of some kind?

of course if you were a computer there must be someone intelligent who created you...

I didn't read Kant's stuff and I don't know about the transcendency ... but it doesn't matter for my point....

how could you possibly know what you really are?!

Dementia patiants don't think anymore but they're still there

anyone who doesn't think is not there anymore, we are talking about the mind and not the apparent vessel of it...

Hani:

how can I know that you are not a machine? even if you were conscious?

I can convey meaning.

how can I know that I am not a machine?

You have first-person subjective awareness.

how can I know that this universe is real and not a simulation of some kind?

In what significant way would the two differ?

how could you possibly know what you really are?!

If I am conscious and a machine, then the difference between machines and humans are imaginary.

Artificial consciousness ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_consciousness

this was a new point i'm making...what if you were an artificial consciousness and we both lie on the same electronic chip?

Solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)
This is really what your question is about (unless I am mistaken? - in which case ignore me :) )

It is difficult to claim it as logically impossible - and therefore remains a possibility.

It is then a matter of defining "existence":

If we define "existence" as the objective reality - then that is one thing.
However, if we define "existence" more as "the (pseudo-)existence that our brain uses in its thinking" (or some such babble) then solipsism is irrelevant - as it adds nothing and means nothing - much like trying to establish what is outside of our Universe when we define the Universe as everything that is knowable.

well, I'm not sure if solipsism accepts the belief in an external universe?

I think therefore I am,
...

I've long found it strange that Descartes focused on thoughts, which seem pretty ephemeral to me. One can even have the experience of intrusive thoughts and other kinds of thoughts that do seem so much 'I' as others.

Why not
I feel therefore I am.
I intuit therefore I am.
I sense therefore I am.

One reason 'feel' seems stronger to me is, whether or not I 'should' doubt if I am, say, angry. I don't. I know what I feel often with vastly more clarity than the Joycean wordsalad that my verbal mind presents, with its fragments, odd syntax, quick shifts, unfinished gestures and so on.

If there needs to be an experiencer if there is experience (one of Descartes's assumptions) feelings offer tremendous clarity, at times.

well, I'm not sure if solipsism accepts the belief in an external universe?
Solipsists don't, that's true.

But there is a difference between talking about solipsists (i.e. those with a BELIEF in Solipsism) and talking about solipsism as being the (objective) reality.

From what I understand of it, it is irrelevant to the individual whether the Obj. Reality is the solipsist reality or, say, the material reality, as the individual can not tell the difference.

What is relevant to the individual is what his brain tells him - and that doesn't change in either of the realities (the solipsist or materialist).

From what I understand of it, it is irrelevant to the individual whether the Obj. Reality is the solipsist reality or, say, the material reality, as the individual can not tell the difference.

What is relevant to the individual is what his brain tells him - and that doesn't change in either of the realities (the solipsist or materialist).

that's what I'm saying, but I'm not sure if solipsists accept the possibilty of any reality existing other than the solipsist realty!

Grantywanty :

Descartes' proposition is fine... I can not feel and still be there, but I can't be if I don't think...

They don't.
If you do then you're not a solipsist.
But neither you nor the solipsist can prove their case.
It is an unprovable (as far as I am aware).

And thus just a matter of "world-view" / perspective on what your brain tells you.

The interesting thing, to me, is to try and put oneself in the shoes of a solipsist and try to imagine how they view the inputs their brain gives them. But as I don't know any to talk to...

if solipsist lack the belief in the existence of an external universe, then I am not one...

if they see it impossible epistemologicaly, then I'm one of them...

BTW, what case can't we prove?

all that I'm saying is : it's impossible to proof anything real or not other than myself...

if solipsist lack the belief in the existence of an external universe, then I am not one...

if they see it impossible epistemologicaly, then I'm one of them...

The latter position is accurate, the former not.

That being said.....


I think therefore I am,
...

Not necessarily. This is entirely contingent upon the validity of your perception of your thoughts.



I perceive, but I don't know whether those perceptions were from an external source or just the creation of my own mind ... I don't know whether there was an external universe or not...

Correct.




If there was an external universe, I don't know what the source of those perceptions is… I don't know what is real or not... I don't know if I was an integrated circuit, a "spirit", or just a brain...

The conclusion is plausible, but your premisses are flawed.
If one assumes an external universe, then it goes without saying that the source of those perceptions is external.

You do know what is real or not; that determination is entirely your decision.




So basically I am sure of only one single fact; sum , and every other fact could be or not...

This is a non sequitor.

What's more, a fact cannot be validly drawn from a logical argument.

A fact is entirely contingent upon verification, which of course is in turn contingent upon the model that one is making use of.

The only logical conclusion you can come to via your line of thought is that no certainty can be assuredly drawn from premisses that are composed of one's thoughts.

Hani:

“ Originally Posted by Hani
I think therefore I am,
... ”

Not necessarily. This is entirely contingent upon the validity of your perception of your thoughts.

I would have to disagree with you here, my good man. Even if we were wildly incapable of perceiving our thoughts correctly, we'd still be "there". That is, bad perception is still perception and perception entails a perceiver. Without a perceiver, the object of perception would not be known.

Hani:

In order to conclude that the scenario of artificial consciousness is possible, we have to reduce consciousness to a phenomena that can be reproduced through circuitry. But then we are left with the question of:

What makes this so?

Admittedly, no transistor-based system has "mind" to be found there. Nor indeed does the brain itself account for consciousness, in the sense that if one were to look at the brain we would find no evidence of the first-person personal and subjective viewpoint of consciousness. We'd find firing neurons, brain sections corresponding to sections of our mind, but none of this ephemeral consciousness stuff. Indeed, no mechanical system seems to rightfully encapsulate consciousness...

Even if this reduces us to accepting either Substance Dualism (mind as fundamentally distinct) or Property Dualism (mind as an irreducible emergence) it would seem that both scenarios are: 1. More likely. 2. Make untenable the position of artificial life until the substance or relation is understood enough to either "graft" onto artificial life or to mimic the relation.

In either case, we have very little reason, as of yet, to think this is possible. In fact, several thinkers, such as Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works", think it is beyond the ken of humanity to ever understand consciousness, which though I think is nihilistic, lazy, bullshit...is nonetheless a position that would make artificial life hard to conceive of.

Hani:

I would have to disagree with you here, my good man. Even if we were wildly incapable of perceiving our thoughts correctly, we'd still be "there". That is, bad perception is still perception and perception entails a perceiver. Without a perceiver, the object of perception would not be known.


P_J,

I agree with what you say here.

I wasn't calling into question the perceiver here, but rather the object of perception.

So, a perceiver I'm happy to grant, but the 'accuracy' of that perceiver's perception (the percept) is highly correlate to the nature of the perceived object. When one is perceiving one's thoughts, the perceived object here is one further step removed from the perceiver than say, when perceiving a red ball.

This is the root of the infinite regress problem.

In any case, before I digress again... given the weakened 'accuracy' of the perception of one's thought, it simply follows that this weakness translates back to the premiss "I think..".
In short, the premiss 'I think..' can, at best, be accurate when specifically referring to itself only.

"I think therefore I am" assumes the consequent.

The "I" that is, therefore, is the same "I" without which, it is already assumed, no thought could be.

The error is partly a consequence of a language in which action requires an actor - the notion that thought could simply exist without a thinker is forbidden not by reason or logcal impossibility but by the necessity of forming sentences in a human language. We say "it rains" for much the same reason.

Rephrase as "thought happens, therefore I am", and the situation becomes clearer, maybe.

Or, illustratively: "It rains, therefore it is."

Not that I wanted to run with the cogito tangent... or to wax semantically but......



...

Rephrase as "thought happens, therefore I am", and the situation becomes clearer, maybe.
...


Or not.

In fact, this re-arrangement would create an unneccesary artificial dichotomy.

The entire point of the cogito is not to elucidate upon the nature of thinking and thinkers so much as to establish some foundational point from which to work a deductive system of thought and thinkers. What Descartes was seeking was indubitability, which he thought he had found.
As to whether or not one can move from asserting an activity to the assertion of an entity... is an entirely different question.

Iceaura:

I would have to disagree with your premise that it is essentially an artifact of language that we discuss the actor of thinking, rather than thought occuring. Rather, it would seem to be intimately drawn back to our consideration of ourselves. THus we say "I am thinking" because our thoughts seem to stem from ourselves.

Here would be my argument to vindicate that assumption:

It is possible that all our thoughts are created by a Cartesian Evil Genius. It is further possible that this Evil Genius is itself being controlled by another Evil Genius. And this EVil Genius by another, and so forth, and so forth...But eventually, there must be the Evil Genius who bewitches but is not himself bewitched, for clearly this process cannot admit of an infinite regress. If such is the case, then it is possible for at least one being to have thoughts which stem from himself. Moreover, unless we assume that such a being's mind is so constructed as to be utterly different from any other mental thing, we must affirm that this possibility is the same for all conscious beings. Accordingly, it is possible for us, right now, to be undeceived. As this is buttressed by the fact that our mental thoughts coincide with actions we take, we are thus given a tremendous reason to assume that our thoughts are our own.

Also, one must ask this: If all our thoughts are another's, why then do we have an appreciation of them through our personal, subjective viewpoint? For if this were the case, we could be philosophical zombies and work just fine - the only person deceiving us would need "regular status" as a conscious being.

Glaucon:

So, a perceiver I'm happy to grant, but the 'accuracy' of that perceiver's perception (the percept) is highly correlate to the nature of the perceived object. When one is perceiving one's thoughts, the perceived object here is one further step removed from the perceiver than say, when perceiving a red ball.

I am not so sure I grasp your concept here. Tell me, in what sense would a perception of one's own thoughts be "one step further" than the perception of a normal object?

Because we are also trying to discern whether our thoughts stem from ourselves? Therefore making it two operations instead of simply one?

you have evidently turned the subject into discussing Descartes' Dualism...

I don't believe in Dualism and I think it's unjustified.. I don't believe that there is such thing as "perception of one's thoughts"... I am my thoughts, and what iceaura said is correct...

it's too simple for me; take a brain and start removing material parts from it, you'll arrive at a moment when the thoughts circuitry has stopped working, which will be the same exact moment when consciousness has gone...

so artificial consciousness is very natural to be, I don't see any logical reason to believe that there is any non-material component of me that exist really! (speaking in this perceived world)…

if you looked at a computer motherboard you won't see the software it contains, because software isn't material, but it's there... it doesn't mean that there is a non-material part in the computer if it can generate some kind of non-material operations "thinking" ... the difference from the brain is that those computer thoughts aren't elaborate enough to carry on infinite reciprocity...

I really don't know what are the right terms to express this, but I'll try to explain my ideas in my own words… we all talk about abstracts like : honor, let's say… or "love"… these non material things do exist, but it's not a real existence , not an "objective" existence as Sarkus has said … they do exist in peoples minds…

And so is the mind, it does exist, but not an objective real existence… it's non material, just an abstract… what really exists is the neurons, the brain; the matter…

And the proof for this is : electroencephalography, when there is no brain activity the mind is gone, when that activity is back the mind is back… I am back… so I am not a real existence, I am just an expression of the interactions between neurons… I think what makes this hard to understand is the intuition, used language and like this…

so I don't think that there is any "infinite regress problem"…

all what preceded was on the assumption that the material perceived world is the truth…

and I know that my language is poor, but I'm translating my thoughts from a damn Semite language that is not anything like this one…

Hani:

I don't believe in Dualism and I think it's unjustified.. I don't believe that there is such thing as "perception of one's thoughts"... I am my thoughts, and what iceaura said is correct...

How are you aware of your thoughts of you are your thoughts?

Can the eye see itself, as it were?

it's too simple for me; take a brain and start removing material parts from it, you'll arrive at a moment when the thoughts circuitry has stopped working, which will be the same exact moment when consciousness has gone...

Certainly, but there will be nothing in those pieces of mind that screams "consciousness!". There will be scent of a rose, nor the taste of fresh salmon.

if you looked at a computer motherboard you won't see the software it contains, because software isn't material, but it's there... it doesn't mean that there is a non-material part in the computer if it can generate some kind of non-material operations "thinking" ... the difference from the brain is that those computer thoughts aren't elaborate enough to carry on infinite reciprocity...

Actually, one can find said programmes on the harddrive and play them. One cannot find the images of thought in a brain, "connected" or retrieved from out of the skull.

And so is the mind, it does exist, but not an objective real existence… it's non material, just an abstract… what really exists is the neurons, the brain; the matter…

It is hardly an abstract if it is directly perceived. By definition, abstract objects are not.

and I know that my language is poor, but I'm translating my thoughts from a damn Semite language that is not anything like this one…

You're doing remarkaby well.

Are you Arabic? Jewish?

Actually, one can find said programmes on the harddrive and play them.Not true - all you find on hard-drives are small iron rectangles - and their orientation determines whether the CPU reads them as a 1 or a 0.
There is no "software" there - just the physical / material hard-disk that is then interpreted.


One cannot find the images of thought in a brain, "connected" or retrieved from out of the skull. Not yet - but soon you might be able to.
We just haven't been able to propertly interpret the vast brain-waves and activity in the brain independently from the brain.
But this is not to say that we will never be able to.


It is hardly an abstract if it is directly perceived. By definition, abstract objects are not.But you are not directly perceiving it.
Why do you think you are?
What do you perceive?
Explain it to us so that we can understand where you're coming from.

How are you aware of your thoughts of you are your thoughts?

I told you I am not a real existence, what really exits is my brain (in this perceived world), I am just a bunch of thoughts interacting; memory, feelings, instincts … which correspond exactly to brain parts… I am just an "interaction" between those parts… I am not a physical or metaphysical existence, I am just a pseudo-existence as Sarkus did put it…

Again, what really exists is the material brain, whose parts interaction produces me…

Think about it, what are you? You are just a thought after a thought after another… your are a BRAIN … but people invented your existence as a separate non material mind…

An example: let's imagine that there is a very advanced computer with a super operating system… that OS is performing endless observations via senses, then storing the data in memory, analyzing and comparing the data, endlessly … letting the feelings aside (fear, love, hate, etc because I don't think they are essential to consciousness)… letting those aside, I ask you: what else do you do??

You are an endless series of remembering, comparing,…etc along with some feelings, which are because of your biological nature…

So had that OS was complex enough, he would arrive in his operations at "thinking" that he is something distinguishable… but he's just a computer, electrons running through circuits…

To prove that false it is easy enough to unplug "him" from electricity… as easy as it is to unplug a human brain, with exactly the same result !


You're doing remarkaby well.

Thanks,

I am Syrian so I speak Arabic,

Regards,

Isn't it amazing how much power the cogito still has?

Personally, I don't think that the cogito issue is inextricably bound to Cartesian Dualism (and the failings thereof..); we can all quite sensibly discuss the issue at hand without having to involve Dualism per se.

In any case,

Glaucon:

I am not so sure I grasp your concept here. Tell me, in what sense would a perception of one's own thoughts be "one step further" than the perception of a normal object?

Because we are also trying to discern whether our thoughts stem from ourselves? Therefore making it two operations instead of simply one?


You've got it quite right.
One step further removed in that the assertion that one's thought is indeed one's own necessarily is a matter of identification: of both the self that 'perceives' and the thought that is the object of that 'perception'.

To wit: Is the self that is identifying a thought as one's own the very same self that thought that thought?
Or, as you've put it: "Can the eye see itself, as it were?".

Your multiple vs. single operations point is quite important here, because it highlights the idea that we have a self-referential nesting type problem: to identify a thought as our own, we must in some mental operational fashion, 'remove' ourself from the thought that we're attempting to identify as our own.
Ahhh, infinite regress.


Now this strikes right at the heart of the Evil Deceiver problem, and I must say it's very well said P_J:


Also, one must ask this: If all our thoughts are another's, why then do we have an appreciation of them through our personal, subjective viewpoint? For if this were the case, we could be philosophical zombies and work just fine - the only person deceiving us would need "regular status" as a conscious being.



Exactly.
There is always the sense that we have 'privileged access' to our thoughts, regardless of what we assume to be the case for any other purported thinking being. The very fact that we can wonder as to whether or not our thoughts are our own seems to me to be indicative to the fact that we do indeed have 'privileged access', as opposed to our stance on the mental status of any 'other'.
It is a mean mental feat to wonder whether or not someone else's thoughts are their own because for all intents and purposes we generally operate on the assumption that they operate in much the same way as we do. But, we never have the same level of confidence in any other's thoughts as we do in 'our own'.

I think therefore I am,

I perceive, but I don't know whether those perceptions were from an external source or just the creation of my own mind ... I don't know whether there was an external universe or not...

If there was an external universe, I don't know what the source of those perceptions is… I don't know what is real or not... I don't know if I was an integrated circuit, a "spirit", or just a brain...

So basically I am sure of only one single fact; sum , and every other fact could be or not...

This is a dull frustrating conclusion, because it ends metaphysics before it even starts, but what can I do if it was just simple logic....

I hope to hear something about this from the sharp minds here on sciforums...

I can refute it. The notion that these are simply sense perceptions comes from sense perception, us observing that all we see, hear, touch, feel, smell, etc...are simply neurosignals...therefore you cannot trust that notion either since it is knowledged derived from perception...

I can refute it. The notion that these are simply sense perceptions comes from sense perception, us observing that all we see, hear, touch, feel, smell, etc...are simply neurosignals...therefore you cannot trust that notion either since it is knowledged derived from perception...

That is not a knowledge derived from perception, but it's a valid posssible assumption, which can be true or not... I am not saying that I've known that my perceptios doesn't reflect the reality, I am just assuming that they might be ... I can't know anything for sure...

Sarkus:

Not true - all you find on hard-drives are small iron rectangles - and their orientation determines whether the CPU reads them as a 1 or a 0.
There is no "software" there - just the physical / material hard-disk that is then interpreted.

The orientation of the etchings in the disk of the data and its instructions are understood. Ergo, we could take the data straight from said disk and employ it to reconstruct the programme. Thus far, no such possibility exists with consciousness.

Not yet - but soon you might be able to.
We just haven't been able to propertly interpret the vast brain-waves and activity in the brain independently from the brain.
But this is not to say that we will never be able to.

Yet what could give us a subjective, first-person perspective, from any of this? Certainly, if we were philosophical zombies it might be enough to investigate things through this, but why electrical activity in nerve cells and epicentres in the brain should produce our experience of consciousness and its qualia? A riddle which seemingly cannot be found through reduction. This is why I am increasingly a Property Dualist: If we are to find anything, it'll be "it is a relational entity - an emergence".

But you are not directly perceiving it.
Why do you think you are?
What do you perceive?
Explain it to us so that we can understand where you're coming from.

I am not experiencing directly my own consciousness?

This is news to me, for I am seeing the images of the text popping onto screen as I feel the keys beneath my finger tips compress...All of this seems like direct perception to me.

Hani:

I told you I am not a real existence, what really exits is my brain (in this perceived world), I am just a bunch of thoughts interacting; memory, feelings, instincts … which correspond exactly to brain parts… I am just an "interaction" between those parts… I am not a physical or metaphysical existence, I am just a pseudo-existence as Sarkus did put it…

An interaction is just as real as it is parts. Or do you deny that a bridge exists alongside it's parts?

Think about it, what are you? You are just a thought after a thought after another… your are a BRAIN … but people invented your existence as a separate non material mind…

If I was the thought, I would not be aware of htinking, nor my existence outside of this thought. I could not conceive of the connection between thoughts, as I would die everytime the thought moves away. Ergo, we must be something more, we must be the perceiver and creator of thought, but not thought itself.

An example: let's imagine that there is a very advanced computer with a super operating system… that OS is performing endless observations via senses, then storing the data in memory, analyzing and comparing the data, endlessly … letting the feelings aside (fear, love, hate, etc because I don't think they are essential to consciousness)… letting those aside, I ask you: what else do you do??

I actually experience those things, not as pure data, but as data as appearing to me in images, sounds, et cetera. That is, I have a subjective awareness of them, that isn't even found in the data itself.

I am Syrian so I speak Arabic,

Great to have you here on Sciforums. I have never philosophized with a Syrian. :)

Glaucon:

You've got it quite right.
One step further removed in that the assertion that one's thought is indeed one's own necessarily is a matter of identification: of both the self that 'perceives' and the thought that is the object of that 'perception'.

An interesting concept.

However, wouldn't we also have to identify the red ball as "non-self"?

What also of say, hallucinations? Or dreams? Technically, both come from our own mind, yet we perceive them as existing in a reality beyond us.

To wit: Is the self that is identifying a thought as one's own the very same self that thought that thought?
Or, as you've put it: "Can the eye see itself, as it were?".

Ha ha! I liked that!

I am also reminded of Heraclitan notion of the river twice-entered into is not the same.

Your multiple vs. single operations point is quite important here, because it highlights the idea that we have a self-referential nesting type problem: to identify a thought as our own, we must in some mental operational fashion, 'remove' ourself from the thought that we're attempting to identify as our own.
Ahhh, infinite regress.

To essentially affirm an objective fact that is trying to prove a subjective one?

Now this strikes right at the heart of the Evil Deceiver problem, and I must say it's very well said P_J:

Thank you, my good man.

There is always the sense that we have 'privileged access' to our thoughts, regardless of what we assume to be the case for any other purported thinking being. The very fact that we can wonder as to whether or not our thoughts are our own seems to me to be indicative to the fact that we do indeed have 'privileged access', as opposed to our stance on the mental status of any 'other'.

I would agree whole heartedly that this does indeed link us back to a justification of privileged access.

It is a mean mental feat to wonder whether or not someone else's thoughts are their own because for all intents and purposes we generally operate on the assumption that they operate in much the same way as we do. But, we never have the same level of confidence in any other's thoughts as we do in 'our own'.

Yes. They are always hidden from us. So much so, that we can rationally wonder whether they experience the world differently from us, or whether they are really mental beings in our sense.

When I say : cogito ergo sum, I mean: sum because I do "produce" those thoughts...

but if I wasn't who produces those thoughts, then what is the proof for my own existence?

That I perceive thoughts? What does that mean?! That I am some indolent entity with no attributes at all, but somehow I can "perceive" thoughts?

What does "perceive" in that sense mean?

If I pointed some thoughts toward a wall, how could you know that it does not perceive them?

If I pointed some thoughts toward utter vacuity, how could you maintain that it does not perceive them? Sense it's indolent, with no attributes at all and got some thoughts…

What is exactly the meaning of perception if it wasn't for a thinking entity??

separating thoughts from the entity deprives that entity from the only proof for its existence… since I can be nothing at all, and still have thoughts and "perceive" them somehow…

I looked up "to perceive" in a dictionary and it said:

1. notice using the senses
2. understand or comprehend

and both of them require a "thinking" subject to perform…

now I need an explanation for how can a non-thinking entity perceive anything?

And if this was possible (but it's not) why isn't it possible for vacuity as well, sense it doesn't think?!

What are you if you weren't your thoughts?

The phrase "to perceive thoughts" is meaningless…

That is not a knowledge derived from perception, but it's a valid posssible assumption, which can be true or not... I am not saying that I've known that my perceptios doesn't reflect the reality, I am just assuming that they might be ... I can't know anything for sure...
But your conclusion is that all of this is simply sense perception from your mind...you can only come to this conclusion through your own sense perception of reality...therefore the notion cannot be trusted...it is paradoxical...

"I think therefore I am" assumes the consequent.

The "I" that is, therefore, is the same "I" without which, it is already assumed, no thought could be.

The error is partly a consequence of a language in which action requires an actor - the notion that thought could simply exist without a thinker is forbidden not by reason or logcal impossibility but by the necessity of forming sentences in a human language. We say "it rains" for much the same reason.

Rephrase as "thought happens, therefore I am", and the situation becomes clearer, maybe.

Or, illustratively: "It rains, therefore it is."

"I think therefore I am" wasn't even where the conjecture began. It began with doubt. The "I think" part was either the second or third step, not the first.

"I think therefore I am" wasn't even where the conjecture began. It began with doubt. The "I think" part was either the second or third step, not the first.


Correct.

See my post above.

What does "perceive" in that sense mean?

To be aware of thoughts in much the same way as sensory data.

Sing a song mentally. It's sort of like hearing, isn't it?

If I pointed some thoughts toward a wall, how could you know that it does not perceive them?

Thoughts are not transmitted.

If I pointed some thoughts toward utter vacuity, how could you maintain that it does not perceive them? Sense it's indolent, with no attributes at all and got some thoughts…

A non-being can't think. Moreover, we never deal with utter vacuities.

now I need an explanation for how can a non-thinking entity perceive anything?

It doesn't. Nothing which perceives thoughts does not itself think. However, to be able to think it must perceive thoughts. If it cannot, then thinking, by definition, is impossible.

What are you if you weren't your thoughts?

If I were my thoughts, then I'd be many discrete individuals, of minute duration, constantly coming into and ceasing being every second.

ok I see now what that means... I misunderstood the issue...

I understand it now by imagining that if an extra circuit were connected to my brain, then it would "think" with me, and I would "perceive" those thoughts...

but still, even if my thoughts weren't mine, I still can't see any justification for dualism!

I don't know why do you interpret my point as that you are a thought?! I didn't say that!

if your thoughts ceased from existence , how could you maintain that you are still there? that you still exist?

you don't exist if there were no thoughts... because there is no proof for that, and the most important: there is no justification to assume that...

close your eyes, what are you? you are a series of thoughts, the first person viewpoint is just an adjunct derived from the natural world, there is nothing actual called : "me" ... what is that? what does it mean?

it only has meaning in the perceived world, where I have a distinct individuality...

had you were a sole conscious mind, with no perceived individuality... how could you possibly think of something like : "me" or "myself" ??

it's nothing, this first person viewpoint is a pseudo-reality... there is nothing real called "you" that "perceive" anything... you are just a bunch of thoughts (perceptions) interacting together ...like a concert, you are not the piano or the cello, you are the whole symphony…

to sum up my facts:

General definition of mind:
a series of interacting perceptions (thoughts).

Definition of mind in this perceived world:
the interactive activity of the neural system components.

Definition of "Myself" : (myself is valid only in this perceived world)
an instinctual belief in individuality derived from this perceived world.

and it won't be very long, I think, before artificial consciousness is realized, and then we wouldn't have to argue about this anymore...

Great to have you here on Sciforums. I have never philosophized with a Syrian.

I'm more glad to be here, it's been great philosophizing with you :-)

Hani:

but still, even if my thoughts weren't mine, I still can't see any justification for dualism!

Well just to note: I am an Interactionist Property Dualist. That is to say, I do not believe mind is an entirely different substance, but rather is irreducible, owing to its emergent qualities, to the matter that produced it, even if it is based on it.

if your thoughts ceased from existence , how could you maintain that you are still there? that you still exist?

Have you never ceased to think? Never stared at a wall? Or watched the sky roll past passively?

close your eyes, what are you? you are a series of thoughts, the first person viewpoint is just an adjunct derived from the natural world, there is nothing actual called : "me" ... what is that? what does it mean?

If I close my eyes, I can conjure up some psychoeikons (mental images).

"Me" is the viewer of the psychoeikons of all sense-styles and thoughts.

had you were a sole conscious mind, with no perceived individuality... how could you possibly think of something like : "me" or "myself" ??

I am not suggesting that the universe is conscious. So I do not grasp the relevance of this line of thought?

General definition of mind:
a series of interacting perceptions (thoughts).

As I have noted before: This is untenable, for if there is no perceiver of thoughts internal to the mind, then there is no thought. A thought without a perceiver does not exist in any meaningful sense.

and it won't be very long, I think, before artificial consciousness is realized, and then we wouldn't have to argue about this anymore...

I fail to see how an artificial consciousness would disprove the notion of the perceiver of thought? The A.I. would have to satisfy this.

Well just to note: I am an Interactionist Property Dualist. That is to say, I do not believe mind is an entirely different substance, but rather is irreducible, owing to its emergent qualities, to the matter that produced it, even if it is based on it.

Oh good then, you're almost there :-P (kidding)

Have you never ceased to think? Never stared at a wall? Or watched the sky roll past passively?

Here lies the problem; you consider watching the sky not to be thinking…well this could have worked 200 years ago but not now!

It doesn't change anything though, if you ceased from doing all kinds of perception… then what proves that you still exist? And why is the unjustified assumption that you still exist? Especially as we know from life experience that when all brain activity ceases one would be gone … or do you say that when the brain shuts down there would be existing somewhere the "the perceiver"? and you still say you don't believe in two substances?

If I close my eyes, I can conjure up some psychoeikons (mental images).

Same problem, this is just as thinking, it doesn't change anything…

"Me" is the viewer of the psychoeikons of all sense-styles and thoughts.

Excuse my following example:

Let's assume that you haven't got any senses at all; but somehow you are able to think… you've never sensed or contacted with any other objects what so ever…

Do you think that you would have the notion of "self" at all??

If you think so then how come? What would make you distinguish "yourself" from nothing else??

The "self" is not an essential component of mind, it's not so at all… it's a notion that arises from perceiving other objects…

So it's very possible to think without having an individual identity, this is what the computer does in a sort of way…

And hence, when you say

"Me" is the viewer of the psychoeikons of all sense-styles and thoughts"

that "me" is not an original component of mind… it's nothing more than an intuition that you could still think without it and still be conscious, and still exist… but you would be in a state of mind which is different from your current one which is heavily influenced by your pluralistic ambience, the kind of senses that you have and your biological urges (sorry for involving you too much in my speech!)…

I fail to see how an artificial consciousness would disprove the notion of the perceiver of thought? The A.I. would have to satisfy this.

I recall your previous input:

In order to conclude that the scenario of artificial consciousness is possible, we have to reduce consciousness to a phenomena that can be reproduced through circuitry. But then we are left with the question of:

What makes this so?

Admittedly, no transistor-based system has "mind" to be found there. Nor indeed does the brain itself account for consciousness, in the sense that if one were to look at the brain we would find no evidence of the first-person personal and subjective viewpoint of consciousness. We'd find firing neurons, brain sections corresponding to sections of our mind, but none of this ephemeral consciousness stuff. Indeed, no mechanical system seems to rightfully encapsulate consciousness...

Even if this reduces us to accepting either Substance Dualism (mind as fundamentally distinct) or Property Dualism (mind as an irreducible emergence) it would seem that both scenarios are: 1. More likely. 2. Make untenable the position of artificial life until the substance or relation is understood enough to either "graft" onto artificial life or to mimic the relation.

In either case, we have very little reason, as of yet, to think this is possible. In fact, several thinkers, such as Steven Pinker in "How the Mind Works", think it is beyond the ken of humanity to ever understand consciousness, which though I think is nihilistic, lazy, bullshit...is nonetheless a position that would make artificial life hard to conceive of.

An artificial consciousness will be created without any employment of "first-person personal and subjective viewpoint of consciousness", and it will be conscious… which will prove that this element is not an essential component of mind, and it's not necessary for any "perceiver of thoughts internal to the mind" to exist, contrary to what you have argued…

My mind is the interaction of my thoughts (and perceptions!), and my first-person self is only an instinct…

"I think therefore I am" wasn't even where the conjecture began. I don't see the significance - historical observation?

Only saying, with (it seems to me) relevance, that "I think" is the same type of sentence as "It rains", and comparison of the two can be edifying.

I do not believe mind is an entirely different substance, but rather is irreducible, owing to its emergent qualities, to the matter that produced it, even if it is based on it. I agree with that completely.

The "self" is not an essential component of mind, it's not so at all… it's a notion that arises from perceiving other objects… And that.