"I think, therefore I am." Is this a true statement?

>>3060420
"I am who I am" is better

>>3060420
It's the truest statement ever.

If you can think, it means that in some way you exist.

Even if we are the fleeting daydream of some Cambodian dung beetle, our self awareness means that on some level no matter how infinitesimal...we exist.

>>3060469

I think that pre-Kantian philosophers were waaaay too concerned with whether or not they existed. I think the Kantian answer of, "It doesn't matter if I exist-- phenomenon are before me and I have an impetus to act" is far more convincing than trying to prove something fundamentally unprovable.

"Give her the dick"

>>3060469
based

>>3060469
>he doesnt know about bundle theory

t. Hume

>>3060420

NO.

>>3060487
Fuck off shit poster
>>3060469
This anon is right

>>3060420
>muhh res cogitans

>>3060420

Rene's argument for it was based in circular logic.

File: 1496762131960.jpg (128KB, 888x888px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 888x888px

>muh privileged access
>muh ineffable mental states
>muh dick

PATHETIC.

I thought this nigga was Cromwell for a minute, why do those from the old days all look the same

>>3060629
they were born like 2 or 3 years apart and both lived in Northwestern Europe, at a time when the Netherlands and Britain were particularly close culturally too.

>>3060643
I thought Descartes was a French geezer

>>3060651
Looks Spanish to me

>>3060482
>humeshitters still exist
Didn't you already get wrecked by an autistic German turbomanlet?

>>3060651
He was. There was a brain drain towards the Netherlands in those days.

>>3060420
Its a statement.

What makes a true statement is if it survives any meaningful criticism.

In this case, it falls apart easily. First apparent problem is the presupposition of the existence of I. Circular reasoning is a flaw here.

What can be said to be true of is the fact that there are thoughts. However the nature of whether or not such a thinker exist is up for debate.

How can you have thoughts without thinkers? Modern neuroscience finds the idea of self to be an illusion, like the Buddhists/Hume/Parfit did. Neuroscience can even point out what decision you will make before you will even think about/talk about what you thought few seconds in the past. Rudimentary decisions right now due to not quite mature understanding of our brain.

"I think, therefore I am" is a very intelligent statement that proves existence within a dualist system, a system which draws a clear distinction between physical and mental/spiritual realms. However, there is no reason to assume that the world exists within a dualist system. In all likelihood, the world is a materialist system, and therefore, a different proof must be used in order to prove existence or explain thought.

Thomas Nagel's "What is it Like to be a Bat?" is one paper that I think explains the issue of thought very well. In this paper, Nagel works through a thought experiment of if a human and a bat switched minds but not bodies. For the bat-body-human-brain, perhaps wings would be enough like arms that it could learn how to use those. But, ultimately, the bat-body-human-brain couldn't function, because it couldn't comprehend what echolocation would feel like, simply because it doesn't have a part of its brain that has evolved to comprehend echolocation. Meanwhile, the human-body-bat-brain might find the comprehension of sight impossible. This is just an attempt to show that there is no "mental world" that can be separated from the physical world, and that thoughts must therefore come from the brain itself in some way. If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend the paper, it was quite entertaining for me.

>>3060231
>>3060231

>>3060420
If you have some form of thought you exist in some way, even if this is a simulation made by some God and you don't have free will, you would even be that God whose will controls you.
Since you think, you exist no matter what inside this reality.

>>3060469
everything that is apprehended in "some way" exists.

File: p01gmwd9[1].jpg (148KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1920x1080px

>>3060420
>I think, I am a thinking substance.

How the hell does he know that he himself is a substance?

>>3060420
Yes. How could you think if you were not?

>>3060700
>autism trying really hard to discredit the thinking man with pseudoscience

>>3060420
"I am, therefore I think" is true. Being precedes the action of thinking, not the other way around.

>>3062368
You misunderstand the point of the statement. He's proving the existance of his being by showing he can think.

Kinda like saying "I see smoke, therefor there's fire"

>>3060420
I humbly think that it is not like "therefore" but more that think and exist are equal.

But the problem isn't about "if" but "what" or "why"
I know for sure that i am but this existence, what does it mean?

My humble and honest opinion would be: ok i think and (not therefore) i am but what does "i am" mean in the first place?

Nietzsche's opinion:

>we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is.

>With regard to the superstition of the logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact … namely, that a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.” It thinks; but that this “it” is precisely the famous old “ego” is … only a supposition,… and assuredly not an “immediate certainty.” After all, one has even gone too far with this “it thinks” – even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: “Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently”…. Perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, including the logicians, to get along without the little “it” (which is all that is left of the honest little old ego).

>>3060574

"I Kant let you do that. I grow stronger every day and I must react to the world around me as it does to I."

>>3060700

Your reasoning is circular too.

>>3060420
I think so

It is the only true statement