• charles ferraro
    369
    Descartes claims that the Cogito Sum is indubitably certain beyond all reasonable and hyperbolic doubt.

    Let us see, then, if there is a hyperbolic doubt which the purported truth of the Cogito Sum cannot overcome.

    Dreamed persons are products of the human imagination.

    Human beings pretend, or make believe, that dreamed persons can exist and think independently when, in fact, they cannot.

    No dreamed person can exist or engage in cognitive activity independent of the imagination of the dreamer. This also means that the origin of a dreamed person and the origin of what a dreamed person may be doing or thinking about cannot be attributed to the dreamed person, per se, but must, instead, be attributed to the imagination of the dreamer.

    Assume, further, that the dreamed person is performing the Cogito Sum in the first person, present tense mode, i.e., is performing the “When and while I am thinking, I must be existing.”

    What can I conclude about this performance?

    I can conclude, from the frame-of-reference of the dreamed person, that the truth of its Cogito Sum performance is indubitably certain because it is existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying.

    However, since the dreamed person is unaware that its thinking and existing originate in and depend upon the dreamer’s imagination, the truth of the dreamed person’s Cogito Sum performance must be false.

    Does this have any implications for the indubitable certainty of the truth of my own Cogito Sum performance?

    I, too, conclude that the truth of my Cogito Sum performance, whenever I execute it in the first person, present tense mode, is indubitably certain because it is existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying.

    But, like the dreamed person, it is possible that my thinking and existing may originate in the imagination of a dreamer of whom I am not aware. And since there is simply no way for me to prove definitively that this possibility is not the case, my Cogito Sum performance may be false, rather than indubitably certain.

    In other words, this hyperbolic possibility constitutes a hyperbolic doubt that cannot be overcome by my Cogito Sum performance despite its existential consistency and existential self-verification.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k


    Your example is about the nature of the subject, that’s not what cogito ergo some says anything about. It concludes only that there is a subject. A dreamer, a dreamer within a dream, a brain in a vat, a mind in the Matrix...none of those refute cogito ergo sum in any way because cogito ergo sum refers only to the undoubtable subject of ones own experience.
  • Mr Bee
    656
    However, since the dreamed person is unaware that its thinking and existing originate in and depend upon the dreamer’s imagination, the truth of the dreamed person’s Cogito Sum performance must be false.charles ferraro

    Why would the origins make the argument false? Most would say that our thinking depends on neurons firing in our brains in our physical bodies, but that doesn't change the fact that we are thinking and therefore we exist (at least as the argument goes).

    Alternatively you may be saying that the Cogito fails because we can consider a hypothetical nonexistent being that undergoes a Cogito Sum performance, thereby proving that it the argument doesn't entail existence, but in that case you would just be begging the question.
  • hypericin
    1.6k
    The dream person exists, but mistaken about its identity: it is in fact the dreamer.
  • Present awareness
    128
    Descartes concluded that because there is thought, something must exist to produce it.
  • charles ferraro
    369


    By definition, a dreamed person can neither think, nor exist independent of the dreamer. The dreamer simply makes believe the dreamed does both. We know better, don't we? You don't really think, you don't really exist dreamed person, it's just the dreamer imagining you do. Sorry, no real thinking, no real existing!

    By the way, you're wrong! Whether I agree with him or not, Descartes stated explicitly that he considered the subject to be a thing that thinks. Research it!
  • SimpleUser
    34
    By definition, a dreamed person can neither think, nor exist independent of the dreamer.charles ferraro
    Can you prove it reliably?
  • charles ferraro
    369


    Has anyone ever been able to converse with a dreamed person outside of the dream?
    Once I'm able to do this, I'll let you know.
  • SimpleUser
    34
    Once I'm able to do this, I'll let you know.charles ferraro
    Your experience is simply your experience.
    Let's say I dreamed of a neighbor with whom we talked in a dream. And I asked him a question.
    A few days later we met, and he answered me - in real life. Do you believe me?
  • charles ferraro
    369


    No!

    But let me clarify something I think I should have clarified previously in greater detail.

    By a dreamed person, I mean someone completely fictitious.

    Someone you never met, when awake, before dreaming about the person and someone you will never meet, when awake, after dreaming about the person.

    Someone fictitious whose dreamed existence and thinking depend completely upon your imagining activity while you are asleep.
  • baker
    5.7k
    Let us see, then, if there is a hyperbolic doubt which the purported truth of the Cogito Sum cannot overcome.charles ferraro

    "Am I something more or other than just (my) mind?"

    Descartes' certainty rests on taking for granted that a person's mind (their thoughts) are all there is to a person, or at least the only thing that is relevant for personhood. If this bit isn't taken for granted, it all collapses.
  • Apollodorus
    3.4k
    In other words, this hyperbolic possibility constitutes a hyperbolic doubt that cannot be overcome by my Cogito Sum performance despite its existential consistency and existential self-verification.charles ferraro

    Correct. Some religious or philosophical systems hold this to be the case, viz. that we exist within, and are a product of, a universal mind that holds all things and beings within itself. Even scientists have proposed something along those lines.
  • charles ferraro
    369


    Yes, I could claim to be something other than just my thinking (the Cogito).

    But then I would be obligated to specify precisely how I, and any other human being, could derive my personal existence (my Sum) from it with an indubitable certainty equal to, or greater than, that associated with my Cogito Sum performance.
  • baker
    5.7k
    Such obligation would follow only if your motivation for producing your argument would be to convince or defeat others, like Descartes' was.
  • charles ferraro
    369


    Perhaps one's motivation is to get at the truth.
  • baker
    5.7k
    But then why tailor one's quest after a religious proselytizer like Descartes?
  • charles ferraro
    369


    How, exactly, would you tailor your explanation? The question, as I see it, is simply whether, or not, the Cogito Sum argument has an inherent integrity, regardless of Descartes' motivations. Can the argument stand on its own two feet? If not, explain why. We're talking epistemology here, not religion.
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    As the statement appears in the Discourse Upon Method, the interest is in establishing a way to distinguish facts from whimsy. So, not an exploration of the self as a thinker but more about whether using the self to locate facts is a viable practice.

    Maybe the approach is flawed. But the results should be measured against what Descartes hoped for it, not against a speculation he displayed little interest in.
  • charles ferraro
    369
    I

    Descartes deliberately searched for and argued for something he considered to be indubitably certain, i.e., true beyond all reasonable and hyperbolic (unreasonable) doubt. Its truth had to survive any and all kinds of doubt. He considered the Cogito Sum performance, the performing of the "When and while I am thinking, I must be existing," in the first person, present tense mode, to be precisely this sort of indubitably certain truth.

    Descartes displayed great interest in creating different types of hyperbolic doubt against which he could test the strength of the truth of the Cogito Sum, and he fervently hoped, and believed, that the Cogito Sum performance, being existentially consistent and existentially self-validating, could survive all such tests. And he thought this indubitably certain truth could provide a firm basis upon which to build future knowledge.

    In line with his wishes, I have simply tried to formulate a new version or example of hyperbolic doubt which I have argued the purported truth of the Cogito Sum performance cannot survive.

    Incisive criticisms and basic transformations of theoretical paradigms long considered to be true have often occurred as a direct result of serious consideration having been given to a specific item of speculation that the authors of those theoretical paradigms were simply unaware of, or displayed little interest in, or fell outside the parameters of the paradigms.
  • baker
    5.7k
    How, exactly, would you tailor your explanation?charles ferraro
    First, I would need to feel a genuine need for it (which I don't).

    The question, as I see it, is simply whether, or not, the Cogito Sum argument has an inherent integrity, regardless of Descartes' motivations. Can the argument stand on its own two feet? If not, explain why. We're talking epistemology here, not religion.
    My assumption is that epistemology is done by persons, so no argument can somehow stand on its own two feet, regardless of the person making it.
  • charles ferraro
    369


    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So be it!
  • charles ferraro
    369


    The thinking and existing of the dreamed person have their originating source in the imagination of the person who is dreaming. The dreamed person is not the person who dreams. However, the dreamed person is unaware that the dreamer's imagination is the originating source upon which its thinking and existing depends.
  • Valentinus
    1.6k

    In line with his wishes, I have simply tried to formulate a new version or example of hyperbolic doubt which I have argued the purported truth of the Cogito Sum performance cannot survive.charles ferraro

    Taking, for the moment, that was his wish, what becomes of the investigations of the world he was principally interested in?
  • charles ferraro
    369


    Descartes was highly successful in the field of mathematics. He is considered the founder of analytical geometry.

    The investigations you refer to continued morphing over the years into the scientific research methodology used today. But the scientific method, especially in physics, incorporates both theory development and revision along with rigorous experimental testing of predictive hypotheses to approximate ever more comprehensive explanatory models of the world (universe). And largely due to Hume's thinking, the notion of the existence of an absolutely necessary and strictly universal empirical truth was largely discarded because it became clear that it was not really needed to do successful scientific research.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.