• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cognito ergo sum

RAMOSS said:
This is another piece of evidence that the phrase 'I think therefore I understand' is incorrect, since thinking does not mean there is understanding.
Click to expand...
Thinking the right thoughts leads to understanding. If you don't think much, you won't get too far. Not thinking at all gets you nowhere.
That should be obvious, yes?
 
Manny said:
Thinking the right thoughts leads to understanding. If you don't think much, you won't get too far. Not thinking at all gets you nowhere.
That should be obvious, yes?
Click to expand...

As I said, to understand, you have to think, but thinking does not necessitate understanding.
 
RAMOSS said:
As I said, to understand, you have to think, but thinking does not necessitate understanding.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless it is through thinking that understanding comes. "I think therefore I understand". Is there another way to achieve understanding?
 
Manny said:
Nevertheless it is through thinking that understanding comes. "I think therefore I understand". Is there another way to achieve understanding?
Click to expand...


The statement is inaccurate. It would be more 'I think , therefore I attempt to understand.'
 
Riveroaks said:
Since we each think, therefore someone must be doing the thinking.

Since someone is doing the thinking, therefore he/she must exist.

She/he must therefore have a living soul.
Click to expand...
The homunculus ideal? :lol:

Sorry, nobody here but me - and I'm what is commonly called an animal, chordate/vertebrate, mammal, great ape.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The homunculus ideal? :lol:

Sorry, nobody here but me - and I'm what is commonly called an animal, chordate/vertebrate, mammal, great ape.
Click to expand...

According to Bertrand Russell in his book "History Of Philosophy," Descartes is the father of modern philosophy with his cogito ergo sum.

Everyone now starts with that proposition (at least as of Russell's day in 1945 when he published the book) to establish self.

Then each of the modern philosophers goes off in one direction or another whether romantic/religious philosophy, technical philosophy (the quest for truth), or pragmatic philosophy (professional ethics).
 
Riveroaks said:
According to Bertrand Russell in his book "History Of Philosophy," Descartes is the father of modern philosophy with his cogito ergo sum.

Everyone now starts with that proposition (at least as of Russell's day in 1945 when he published the book) to establish self.

Then each of the modern philosophers goes off in one direction or another whether romantic/religious philosophy, technical philosophy (the quest for truth), or pragmatic philosophy (professional ethics).
Click to expand...
Cogito ergo sum does not necessarily lead to a "living soul", which is essentially an homunculus - a separate thing driving the bus, so to speak. I have no problem acknowledging that I think and that I, therefore, exist. What I do have a problem with is the separation between body and mind. Sorry but my mind and body are one & the same in my book. I don't need to create a separate and unneeded concept like a soul or any other outmoded label you want to put on it. I'm a "thinking animal" and I exist as a thinking animal. This "bus" is intelligent and drives itself.


Now, if you want to get into neuroscience and start talking about conscience/unconscious, hard-wiring/programming (essentially nature/nurture), and many other subjects along those lines those are whole different topics. I even put free will discussions in with those nowadays because we have a lot of science to further the discussion. Even in 1975 (let alone 1945) we knew hardly anything about the physical aspects of thought but 40 years makes a lot of difference in today's world of science, especially in the neurosciences.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Cogito ergo sum does not necessarily lead to a "living soul", which is essentially an homunculus - a separate thing driving the bus, so to speak. I have no problem acknowledging that I think and that I, therefore, exist. What I do have a problem with is the separation between body and mind. Sorry but my mind and body are one & the same in my book. I don't need to create a separate and unneeded concept like a soul or any other outmoded label you want to put on it. I'm a "thinking animal" and I exist as a thinking animal. This "bus" is intelligent and drives itself.


Now, if you want to get into neuroscience and start talking about conscience/unconscious, hard-wiring/programming (essentially nature/nurture), and many other subjects along those lines those are whole different topics. I even put free will discussions in with those nowadays because we have a lot of science to further the discussion. Even in 1975 (let alone 1945) we knew hardly anything about the physical aspects of thought but 40 years makes a lot of difference in today's world of science, especially in the neurosciences.
Click to expand...

Pythagoras invented the notion of the living soul within the body, according to Bertrand Russell in his book "History Of Philosophy."

I was reading about this just last night.

I had finished my reading of what Russell calls all the modern philosophers which begins with Rene Descartes, and now I am re-reading for about the hundredth time the whole story of philosophy starting with the Greeks.

Russell's take on everything is unique in that he actively critiques each of the philosophers that he covers.

All histories of philosophy begin with Thales of Miletus, who though water comprised everything. He invented philosophical speculation. He visited Egypt and learned about geometry but did not develop it much from there, taking for granted the Egyptians' observed rules about geometry.

He is followed by others in the Milesian school, namely two, Anaximander and Anaximenes, then the city is destroyed by the Persians, and Samos takes over, starting with Pythagoras, who eventually moves to the Greek colonies of southern Italy after a visit to Egypt, where he first learns about geometry. Then he himself further develops geometry with "self-evident truths" called axioms and from there invents deductive reasoning or logic to derive further complex non-obvious theorems. The word theory is also invented by him.

It is thus Pythagoras who essentially invents the science of geometry and also who invents the notion of a living soul. He said:

"We are strangers in this world, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet we must not seek to escape by self-murder, for we are the chattels of God, who is our herdsman, and without his command we have no right to make our escape." These notions all later become very Greek, very Christian, and very Catholic.

He taught that the soul is an immortal thing.

I can see your point since having had 3 surgeries recently (gall bladder, appendix, and throat) that when the anesthesiologist administers the propofol, we immediately become unconscious, and until we wake again, nothing happens, no dreams, no thoughts, nothing.

So you could be right, and Pythagoras together with all the philosophers after him could be wrong.

Philosophy being in between religion and science, according to Russell, I am not sure what is the philosophical solution to this mystery.

Should one then lean towards science and say there is nothing after death? Or lean towards religion and say there is?

Leaning towards science is technical methodological philosophy. Leaning towards religion is romantic philosophy.

Ethics is pragmatic philosophy and is between the other two.

I, similar to Pythagoras, infer that there is a God or God(s) and that they shepherd us from a long distance off.

I further infer that these God(s) are in the business of creation.

That They have created other God(s) like themselves and at least one Goddess, thus the Holy Trinity and Holy Mary Mother Of Christ are spoken of in the Greek New Testament and in the Catholic catechisms.

That They have created us in the process of creating new God(s) -- this being all inductive reasoning from the stories out of the Greek New Testament compared with the One Lonely God of the Hebrew Old Testament.

But philosophy cannot deduct or prove much of anything other than that we ourselves obviously exists here and now, because we think, and that it is a very safe 100% probability that others exist just like us here on this planet who also think.

Where we go is only an inferred guess. It requires veering away from the middle of philosophy towards one of the other two extremes.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
He is followed by others in the Milesian school, namely two, Anaximander and Anaximenes, then the city is destroyed by the Persians, and Samos takes over, starting with Pythagoras, who eventually moves to the Greek colonies of southern Italy after a visit to Egypt, where he first learns about geometry. Then he himself further develops geometry with "self-evident truths" called axioms and from there invents deductive reasoning or logic to derive further complex non-obvious theorems. The word theory is also invented by him.
Click to expand...
At one time I was very good at - and really enjoyed working through - geometric proofs, which were all proving theorems using Euclid's axioms. Good times and the real beginning of my understanding of logic. :)


Riveroaks said:
I, similar to Pythagoras, infer that there is a God or God(s) and that they shepherd us from a long distance off.

I further infer that these God(s) are in the business of creation.

That They have created other God(s) like themselves and at least one Goddess, thus the Holy Trinity and Holy Mary Mother Of Christ are spoken of in the Greek New Testament and in the Catholic catechisms.

That They have created us in the process of creating new God(s) -- this being all inductive reasoning from the stories out of the Greek New Testament compared with the One Lonely God of the Hebrew Old Testament.

But philosophy cannot deduct or prove much of anything other than that we ourselves obviously exists here and now, because we think, and that it is a very safe 100% probability that others exist just like us here on this planet who also think.

Where we go is only an inferred guess. It requires veering away from the middle of philosophy towards one of the other two extremes.
Click to expand...
When I was younger people talked about the way rock musicians had taken some of Beethoven's work and "trashed" it. I was always of the opinion Beethoven would have been one of the first to jump on the bandwagon of electronic instruments and some of their wilder effects.


I'm not sure from whence your inferences come nor am I completely convinced of Pythagoras' conclusions other than to say he was a product of his times. Were he alive today I do not believe he would reach the same conclusions given the facts as we know them, now, and I think many of the "old" philosophers would have similar changes in their outlooks.

Do I actually die when I die? Yep! My body will decompose and it's chemicals will be recycled time and again in the "circle of life" to use an antiquated biologist's phrase. The things I've directly taught my daughter, grandsons and others throughout my years will live on and mutate to meet the times those ideas will live in. The actions I've taken have impacted many, many lives and no doubt some people have learned one thing or another from witnessing them. Those will also live on and mutate. Does this mean I'll live forever in some soul-filled afterlife? Of course not. But it doesn't mean my existence was "empty", either, which is - I believe - one of the reasons people invented and still believe in gods and the afterlife.
 
MoSurveyor said:
At one time I was very good at - and really enjoyed working through - geometric proofs, which were all proving theorems using Euclid's axioms. Good times and the real beginning of my understanding of logic. :)


When I was younger people talked about the way rock musicians had taken some of Beethoven's work and "trashed" it. I was always of the opinion Beethoven would have been one of the first to jump on the bandwagon of electronic instruments and some of their wilder effects.


I'm not sure from whence your inferences come nor am I completely convinced of Pythagoras' conclusions other than to say he was a product of his times. Were he alive today I do not believe he would reach the same conclusions given the facts as we know them, now, and I think many of the "old" philosophers would have similar changes in their outlooks.

Do I actually die when I die? Yep! My body will decompose and it's chemicals will be recycled time and again in the "circle of life" to use an antiquated biologist's phrase. The things I've directly taught my daughter, grandsons and others throughout my years will live on and mutate to meet the times those ideas will live in. The actions I've taken have impacted many, many lives and no doubt some people have learned one thing or another from witnessing them. Those will also live on and mutate. Does this mean I'll live forever in some soul-filled afterlife? Of course not. But it doesn't mean my existence was "empty", either, which is - I believe - one of the reasons people invented and still believe in gods and the afterlife.
Click to expand...

For $20 bucks I bought a Barron's Summary of Geometry and reviewed all the geometry postulates, theorems, and proofs.

To prove A2 + B2 = C2 you need to use algebra. With a few days review it all makes perfect sense to me again now.

Geometry represents deductive reasoning. However it starts with inductive assumptions called postulates. So there is nothing sacred about deductive logic other than it has minimized inductive Empiricism.

I know all about death. Flowers remind me of funerals and death. I have been to plenty of funerals in my life, first grandparents, then parents, then aunts and uncles, friends, friends' spouses and children, and also pets. Mortal mammalian bodies die sure. No question. We have all seen it happen over and over. Empiricism has shown us death and inductive logic tells us everyone will die eventually, although there is no proof of it for you or me until it actually happens to us, but nobody doubts it.

The consciousness which is cogito ergo sum however -- we don't know if that dies or just floats away and goes somewhere else.

That we do not know.

We know that it exists. But we don't know what happens to it next.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
For $20 bucks I bought a Barron's Summary of Geometry and reviewed all the geometry postulates, theorems, and proofs.

To prove A2 + B2 = C2 you need to use algebra. With a few days review it all makes perfect sense to me again now.

Geometry represents deductive reasoning. However it starts with inductive assumptions called postulates. So there is nothing sacred about deductive logic other than it has minimized inductive Empiricism.
Click to expand...
Good examples!


I know all about death. Flowers remind me of funerals and death. I have been to plenty of funerals in my life, first grandparents, then parents, then aunts and uncles, friends, friends' spouses and children, and also pets. Mortal mammalian bodies die sure. No question. We have all seen it happen over and over. Empiricism has shown us death and inductive logic tells us everyone will die eventually, although there is no proof of it for you or me until it actually happens to us, but nobody doubts it.

The consciousness which is cogito ergo sum however -- we don't know if that dies or just floats away and goes somewhere else.

That we do not know.

We know that it exists. But we don't know what happens to it next.
Click to expand...
"The consciousness" implies the homunculus. "Consciousness" (the word by itself) is all we really assume with cogito ergo sum. I'll buy (for the sake of argument) that I'm a thinking machine but unless you want to equate "the consciousness" with "the human animal" I can't buy adding "the".

As a side note, I do not assume that a thinking machine necessarily has free will - but that's for another discussion. I've had several of those over the past couple of years and don't want to broach it again for awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom