It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"I think, therefore I am" is NOT an absolute certainty, here's why, and here is a statement that

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 03:31 AM
Out of the statement 'I think therefore I am' comes the question 'To be or not to be'. Star me!!

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 09:53 AM
What came first?

To be or not to be or I think therefore I am?

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:03 AM
I glanced through the first couple of pages, so if this was mentioned already, my bad.

I believe that statement should be reversed to say, "I am, therefore I think."

That makes far more sense to me.

posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by arpgme

Originally posted by arpgme
Let's examine why this statement is NOT an absolute certainty.

"I think, therefore I am"

First, how do we know that it is "I" who thinks? Maybe, thinking does not exist. It could be that thoughts can be some type of signal coming into the brain from another location. Since this is a possibility and we can not prove it either way, it is not an absolute certainty; and even if it could be proven, this statement would still be rendered pointless as the whole purpose was to have a self evident statement of absolute certainty and years of scientific research is NOT self evidence.

You make no sense. You ask, "how do we know that it is 'I' who thinks?" Your question assumes that thinking exists (self evident), but what you are asking is how we know WHO (or what) is doing the thinking.

Then you suggest, "Maybe thinking does not exist". Now you've deviated from your original assumption (that thinking exists), but attempt to support this deviation with a subsequent proposal which is, "It could be that thoughts can be from some type of signal coming into the brain from another location". Now you've gone back to your original assumption that thinking (thoughts) exists. You're contradicting yourself.

You're not really challenging the existence of thinking. Your assumption is that thoughts exist, but you're questioning the certainty of the SOURCE of those thoughts, suggesting that it could be remote, rendering us not thinkers of thoughts, but receivers of thoughts. If this were true, it does not invalidate the original axiom ("I think therefore I am"), it simply twists it. But the twist is irrelevant, because there's no evidence of "some type of signal coming into the brain from another location".

So the self-evident, absolute certainty of one's existence remains. You can say "I think, therefore I exist"--or--you could say "I receive thoughts, therefore I exist". Either way, because thought exists, so do those who think (or receive) thoughts.
edit on 8-1-2013 by lunarasparagus because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in