Have I just disproven The Cogito?

[Addy]

I think therefore I am does not work, and Descartes himself replaced it with I am, I exist in the Meditations. However, that does not work either (complex philosophy approaching!).

Ok, why does I think therefore I am not work? Because it is meant to be the ultimate proof of everything, doubting everything. Ie, we cannot exist without thinking, and recognising that you are thinking is proof that you are thinking therefore existing. However, you cannot assume logic is safe (doubt everything, as a hypothetical evil demon could exist who could distort anything, including logic, for all we know). The cogito in its first form is not a fundamental statement, but a logical argument. There are actually 2 fundamental statements contained within it, one explicit (I think) and one implicit (that which thinks exists). Logical arguments cannot be proven if logic can be doubted, which here it can. I believe that I am, I exist, is essentially the same, and I will prove this by rephrasing one as the other. There is one other fundamental point I must make before going any further. What we are dealing with is thought, and the equating of thought to existing. There are several types of thought. One of these is conception. Therefore "I conceive, therefore I am" essentially the same as "I think, therefore I am". This must be accepted because the former is the version I will arrive at.

According to the Evil Demon Hypothesis we could be misled about anything. However, there is one thing we cannot be misled about: that there is something there to be misled. Descartes doubts everything, but reasons that he must exist in order to have those doubts. I am, I exist. This, he claims, is necessarily true each time he conceives of something. I conceive, I am, I exist.This is now shaping up into a logical argument. Consider the following: I cannot be certain of anything. However, in order for something to be uncertain, or to possess doubts, it must exist [logic]. I am capable of conceiving of these doubts, thefore I must exist. I conceive, therefore I am. We have proven that the two statements are, for all practical purposes and intentions, identical.

Now, in order to complete my theory, let us ignore whether or not the statements are the same, and actually disprove them. This is not easy, since it seems *logical* for conceiving (read "thinking" to occur without a conceiver (thinker). The key point here is logic. The demon could make your logic not work. At first sight it appears that not even distorting logic could stop this proposition. However, A J Ayer has claimed in the past that thinking does not require a thinker, therefore proving that you are thinking is essentially irrelevant; by accepting that you cannot prove anything else you have done enough. This is similar to David Hume's rejection of Ockam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), when he disputed the Cause and Effect Hypothesis (ie, when something happened, it is caused by something else), suggesting that a ship travelling through a wake could be a cooincidence (i.e. we cannot prove that the ship itself caused the wake, something else could have caused it at exactly the same time for all we know). The other point here is that the demon could be using anti-logic. This is the antithesis to logic, and amounts to a complete reversal of the way the world works. To use a crude example from the Simpsons (cringe) in a world controlled by anti-logic hot snow would rise. Or, as here, thought would indeed require no thinker, conception no conceiver. One might even go as far as to suggest that thought could not happen with a thinker! This would also mean the demon would not need to exist to do all of this, for those of you thinking that might be the way out of this. Doubting everything, assuming nothing, there is no way of confirming that such a scenario is not the case.

Conclusions? The most I will ever accept is cogtatur, i.e. thinking is happening, but not necessarily with a thinker (even if a thinker does indeed exist, it could well be the demon itself). And given the potential for use of anti-logic (which I had not considered when I last posted this proof) I will not even accept that.


I apologise for all the tough philosophy, but that is my perspective on life: we can prove nothing about anything.

[Neil.]

Too much name dropping of philosphers and theories and not enough strong argument there, in my oppinion.

[poprock]

Your talk of a hypothetical 'demon' drops you squarely into the realm of faith rather than reason, I reckon. Falls down at that point, for me.

[Addy]

This was actually directly copied and pasted from another site, which was already in the middle of a discussion on this when I posted it. I realise I havent actually explained for example what the evil demon theory was or what I am disproving.

Descartes attempted to prove once and for all that knowledge exists. To do this, he abandoned forever faith in any knowledge he currently thought he had, and set about creating proof from scratch. The Evil Demon Hypothesis is his way of keeping himself on track. The theory is that we cannot know anything conclusively because for all we know an evil demon of some kind may be distorting everything we know (see Chapter 1 of the Meditations). Descartes did not think such a demon existed. I do not think such a demon exists. However, I also believe that the demon's existence cannot be disproven, thus we have no way of proving anything conclusively. For if the demon could theoretically exist, then it could theoretically distort anything we claim to be true. Including logic.

The Cogito was what Descartes found that did not fall foul of anything even such a demon could do; even if he is being utterly fooled, then something must exist to be fooled. I think, therefore I am. Actually, this was in an earlier book (the Discourse on Method), because it does not work. If all that can be proven is one's own existence, then arriving at that via a logical argument is fallacious, since the demon could change the laws of logic (again, not likely, but try proving otherwise). So he replaced this, in the Second Meditation, with I am, I exist. However, this is essentially the same since it is still based upon the premise I am capable of being decieved, therefore something must exist to be deceived. If we accept the first cogito fails (for Descartes' own reasons, if nothing else) then if we can rephrase the second cogito as the first without losing the meaning, then it also fails.

Faith is not my intention. I put nothing to faith in this argument. It is more of a "what if" situation. I posit that there is no proof of anything, and challenge the world to prove otherwise. The cogito is a damn good attempt, but it does not work. I remind you that I do not believe the demon exists, nor do I believe we do not exist. But disproving either theory is to me beyond the realm of human capacity, and until it is done my scepticism remains.

Regarding not enough logical argument. My premise is that logic is unstable. I can call it into question. I have circumstantial evidence of logic working only. There is no way of proving to me that every single time events will play out according to logic. There is no way of knowing if a ship passing through a wake is actually creating that wake (the logical explanation) or if some unknown force, perhaps deep beneath the ocean, is creating it (Hume's rejection of Ockam's Razor (the simplest explanation is probably the correct one) and Cause and Effect theory). Yes, I am name dropping philosophers and theories. But only to confirm that I know the arguments from both sides and am making a considered, objective epistimilogical argument with a real basis in existing philosophical theory. Ayer, for example, is quoted because his suppositions are crucial to my arguments; likewise Hume just there for my questioning the sense of blindly trusting logic. As a sceptic I call all things into question. Yes, there is not enough logical argument, but I cannot use logic if I am questioning its innate value.

I hope this clarifies something.

[Hammer]

The Cogito was flawed. It's already been disproven. In fact it was disproven 200 years ago.

[Addy]

I agree. When I studied philosophy at Higher The Meditations were studied and a large number of flaws raised. That is where I got Ayer's idea from. For the record, I do not actually agree with Ayer that thought can happen without a thinker, but there is no evidence for that so I will never go on record as claiming it as rubbish.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by addyboy

This is similar to David Hume's rejection of Ockam's Razor (which states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one), when he disputed the Cause and Effect Hypothesis (ie, when something happened, it is caused by something else), suggesting that a ship travelling through a wake could be a cooincidence (i.e. we cannot prove that the ship itself caused the wake, something else could have caused it at exactly the same time for all we know).

That does exist as a possibility, but surely the whole point of Ockham's Razor is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one? While there's no way of proving that a mischevious imp isn't taking everyone for a ride, the notion that an army of such imps exist and have nothing better to do is fundamentally less likely than the idea that water behaves according to set of rules A, based on list of physical properties B and external forces C, where B and C agree with everything else thus far that we at least think we know about how stuff works. Said imp hypothesis can therefore be thrown on the 'Clearly Bollocks' pile and people can get on with their lives. If it turns out that the imp posse does exist, then everyone can look a bit embarrassed and chalk it up to statistics.

[ScaredStar]

addyboy...i dont think name dropping a few philosophers and not really understanding logic qualifies as talking about "complex philosophy" . logic is an objective thing, all it means is one thing following from another thing, whereby no other conclusion could be drawn.

as for ayer...havent studied him since second year and i really didnt like him...but from what i can remember his theories on thought not requiring a thinker, were, as you said, questionable. its quite hard to prove, but i seem to remember him falling down on memory...cos memory is a lasting thing and therefore must last somewhere...thus the need for a thinker. or something like that. my memory must be going.

[Addy]

I do understand logic, which is the core of my argument. You say that logic is objective and that it means no other conclusions can be drawn. Precisely. I am questioning logic. I am suggesting alternatives to what is natural. Descartes tries to use logic to prove the cogito, and this is flawed as if you are not questioning logic then you can hardly be said to be "questioning everything"

[TragicHero]

your premise is flawed, The Cogito does not mean "I think therefor I am" as a constant, only in the instant when you're actually thinking it can you be sure you exist. "I am, I exist at the moment I think it"

your hypothesis is paradoxical because you say the demon could be using anti-logic... but on what? something that clearly exists!
You say it could be thought without a thinker? but the thought itself is something that exists!
"I am, I exist, at the moment I think it" ... this becomes a reference to the thought itself. Merely the thought being self-aware is ratification of The Cogito.

[Goat]

I bent my wookie

also my cats breath smells like cat food

[Addy]

Originally Posted by TragicHero

your premise is flawed, The Cogito does not mean "I think therefor I am" as a constant, only in the instant when you're actually thinking it can you be sure you exist. "I am, I exist at the moment I think it"

There is no difference to this being a constant or not to my argument. Nothing else matters regarding I think therefore I am since it (a) is not the fundamental premise Descartes said it was (any result of a standard logical procedure is not in itself fundamental) and (b) uses logic, which Descartes was meant to be questioning (since the demon could theoretically alter logic). My claim is that I can never be sure that I am thinking anything, and certainly that "I" has no meaning within the context of pure uncertainty (since even if you accept the cogito there is no way to go further than that and prove anything about the thinker)

Besides, you seem to be too willing to asign characteristics to yourself. When we think of a mind we think of certain capacities it holds, such as that to feel or remember. Given we cannot prove any such thing from the existence of thought alone, I am wary of calling whatever this is a "mind"

Even ignoring references to anti-logic, the most can be proven is Cogitatur - thinking is going on. Which is worthless given that nothing else can be proven regarding the thinker. If there is one.