ResBaby requested a post from me. And it so happened that as I was washing the dishes a thought popped into my noggin. Indulge me, if you will.
Cogito Ergo Sum... my ass. This is Latin for that well-known phrase attributed to René Descartes, except for that my ass part, which I shall shortly expound upon. The phrase translates to I think, therefore I am. Here is why I appended my ass to it.
Most everything that exists does not, in fact, think. A chair exists, yet it does not think. Therefore, eh, well, that's just a stupid statement.
Self-awareness comes from the ability to be aware of things apart from the self, thus setting the self apart - an entity unto itself. If I was absolutely the only thing that existed, how could I know that I exist? What would there be to think about if nothing else existed?
This is consciousness, being aware of the existence of OTHER things. Only then can we be aware of ourselves. I'll not get into God's existence here except to say that He is the self-aware I AM. You know, being made in His image and all, that makes us self-aware, conscious beings, with free will. And being such, we are responsible for how we relate to other things. Unconscious things are not responsible for what they do. Volcanoes have killed a lot of people, but they are not going to be judged.
A conscientious person is highly aware of others. A self-conscious person is highly aware of themselves with respect to others. An unconscious person is not aware of anything, therefore not aware of himself. A rock is not aware of anything else, it is therefore not aware of itself. It is not conscious but it certainly does exist, although it can't realize this. A single-celled organism reacts to outside stimuli, but it is not aware of anything beyond that with which it can interact, as are most things in nature. There is no consciousness. An animal is aware of many things outside of itself, therefore it has set itself apart, therefore it is conscious.
Can I be aware of things outside myself and not be at all aware of myself? I don't think so. Although, I have lost myself in thought, many times. You know, I used to work in the chemistry lab at school, and everybody learned to make lots of noise as they approached me because I'd be so far gone into my little world that I'd literally jump and throw things if someone just walked up to me and started talking. When you're working with chemicals and breakable things that can be dangerous...
Ergo, Taylor says, "If am not that thing, then I am this thing, therefore I am some thing" or something like that. What the hell do I know. That'll teach you to ask for a post. I shall go away now.
Archived Comments
Jamie R ~
I shall go away now.
Back to the kitchen for you!
Jan 12, 2008 12:33
Taylor ~
Yes, the pots and pans still need to be washed. But I know they exist! Therefore, I am!
Jan 12, 2008 13:13
Jamie R ~
Woohoo!
Jan 12, 2008 13:19
farmer Tom ~
Taylor, good to see you post something, therefore I know you exist.
Can you tell me how to make a web address into a link, I tried to post one in my latest post, but I don't know how to make it a clickable link?
Jan 12, 2008 23:48
Taylor ~
Sure, farmer Tom.
1. This is location you want to link to: http://www.yahoo.com
2. You want to be able to click on this text: Go to Yahoo and go to that location.
3. Here is the code:
<a href="http://www.yahoo.com">Go to Yahoo</a>
Jan 13, 2008 00:40
Taylor ~
It will appear like as clickable text. Everything inside the angle brackets <>, including the angle brackets is not visible. It will look like this:
Go to Yahoo
Jan 13, 2008 00:43
EN ~
Uhhhh, takin' up smoking have we?
Jan 13, 2008 04:57
Taylor ~
As if I need any help to be stupid.
Jan 13, 2008 05:39
AJW308 ~
Glad you're alive and doing well. Hope that bodes well for the new year.
Thousands of people make careers out of studying philosophy(s) and you come along and deconstruct what seems to a cornerstone of modern philosophy.
Just because Descartes developed the Cartesian coordinate system, doesn't mean all his thoughts are equally valid.
Jan 14, 2008 19:06
Giraffe ~
Farmer Tom, there is also a button on the tool bar that does the same thing. You highlight a piece of text, hit that button, paste the link, and the highlighted piece of text becomes the link, though it stays whatever the original text was.
That makes as much sense as Taylor's post. :)
I didn't see where you expounded about your ass. I feel like we are missing out.
Jan 14, 2008 23:06
Taylor ~
AJW, I know nothing about philosophy, so I would not be surprised if my thoughts are not original. But, it did strike me as interesting to consider that even existence itself is relative.
I think Einstein had quite a concept there and it may be the basis of all things. Ultimately, all things are relative to the one constant and that is God.
I think there's a lot there to consider but my head won't easily allow me to really flesh out the concept. I have an abstract sense of it, but I can't hold trains of thought long enough to really put it down in black and white. And besides, I lose interest in things way too fast to bother...
Jan 15, 2008 01:15
Taylor ~
That makes as much sense as Taylor's post.
Hardly a surprise that you would think this as it appears you could not get past the ass part... :)
I feel like we are missing out.
Yes, you are...
Jan 15, 2008 01:25
Giraffe ~
Actually, I was reading about philosophy a couple months back, and the point of "I think therefore I am" means about the same as "If I was absolutely the only thing that existed, how could I know that I exist? What would there be to think about if nothing else existed?"
So actually you are in agreement with Mr. DeCartes, if I remember and understand what I read. My retention isn't what it used to be.
Yes, you are...
:):):)
Jan 15, 2008 02:03
Bane ~
So, Democrats do not exist, because they do not think? Or does that pesky hive mentality bring them into existence, like biting ants? If a chair does not exist, how do I sit on it? Do I think it into existence? If someone else does not believe in the chair while I am napping in it, do I get spilled out onto the floor? Do I cease to exist if enough people decide to disbelieve in Me? Is God, then, dead, as has been suggested?
I think, therefore I am, regardless of how others perceive me.
Jan 15, 2008 02:09
Taylor ~
If a chair does not exist, how do I sit on it?
I didn't say anything like that. A chair does indeed exist. A chair is not aware of its existence. That you are aware of it, means that you do exist. That is all.
Do I cease to exist if enough people decide to disbelieve in Me?
You have it backwards. You exist because you recognize that others exist.
Nobody can disbelieve you into nonexistence.
If that is really what you got out of this post, and I don't think you are stupid, then I wonder what I'm missing here.
Jan 15, 2008 02:18
Taylor ~
And God, who is aware of His creation, can never not exist, even if every single person stops believing in Him. This is the point. And even if He did not create anything, He is aware of Himself. This is the starting point of existence.
Jan 15, 2008 02:24
Taylor ~
It's the realization of existence, not existence itself that I'm talking about.
Jan 15, 2008 02:27
Taylor ~
And Bane, if you are in a coma and can't think, do you suddenly poof out of existence? You can no longer recognize that you exist, but you still exist.
Jan 15, 2008 02:31
Taylor ~
So actually you are in agreement with Mr. DeCartes
It could be. I don't read philosophy, so I probably haven't delved into it far enough to recognize this. My take was from what I understood that phrase to mean.
I don't think of myself as a philosopher. But it's fun sometimes to play in that sandbox.
Jan 15, 2008 02:47
thimscool ~
It's the realization of existence, not existence itself that I'm talking about.
The emphasis is on the "I", rather than the "am".
The chair does not think. That does not mean that there is no chair. It means that the chair does not have the ability to conceive of itself... to say: "I am."
Descartes believed that the elementary substance of consciousness is thought. I believe that it is a necessary, but insufficient condition.
Jan 15, 2008 03:25
Taylor ~
The chair does not think. That does not mean that there is no chair. It means that the chair does not have the ability to conceive of itself... to say: "I am."
This is exactly what I said.
Descartes believed that the elementary substance of consciousness is thought.
Then what is thought? Does a computer think? I'd say yes. Is a computer conscious? I'd say no. Why not? Because it can't conceive of other things, unless it has an interface to them and receiving input from them - like many other unconscious things in nature.
This is why I say that the realization of one's existence is first and foremost derived from the realization of those things that are not oneself.
Jan 15, 2008 03:50
thimscool ~
Thought is reason, which requires creativity as well as understanding.
I do not believe that digital computers are capable of creativity, regardless of processing power. I don't believe that creativity can be simulated.
Computers can be programmed to respond to external stimuli, and I think they can be said to have an 'understanding' within the limitations of the tasks that they are programed to perform.
But I believe that creativity comes from God, and that He uses our experiences and our vastly more powerful, non-digital computers (brains) as vessels. Why would He trifle with a glorified calculator when He could work with 100B well connected neurons?
Jan 15, 2008 05:12
thimscool ~
As for trees falling in the wilderness, comatose bloggers spontaneously disincorporating, or unnoticed chairs disappearing out from under asses...
God's consciousness (I AM) ensures that the world is physically consistent... before we got here, and after we are all disincorporated.
Jan 15, 2008 05:17
Taylor ~
Thought is reason, which requires creativity as well as understanding.
Reason is relative. What is reasonable to you, may not be reasonable to me. And there is no such thing as creativity. I cannot create, I can only arrange things or cause things to be arranged in a way that has not yet been done. This is not creation. Only God creates.
I think of creation as making something from nothing. It kind of goes along with the first law of thermodynamics. And when you consider that everything is ultimately energy, then you can see how creativity itself is not really the process of creating something.
I hardly think God is impressed with our "creations". This was Cains big problem.
And I do believe that computers will be sophisticated enough to become creative. They already reason within their capacity - like any human being.
So, what is so special about thought that makes us conscious beings?
Jan 15, 2008 05:39
Taylor ~
And when you consider that most people are hardly creative or not any more reasonable than a computer, yet they do think and are self-aware, I don't see how you can say that thought equates to reason and creativity which equates to consciousness.
Jan 15, 2008 05:44
thimscool ~
Reason is relative.
Modus Ponens is not relative.
~~~
Only God creates.
On some level, we agree here. I believe creativity comes from God.
At the same time, based on your next paragraph, I’m not sure if we see completely eye to eye on this issue. For example, I think that while God may rested on the seventh ‘day’, He continues to create the universe by direct interaction with it… which is not just making something from nothing.
When an author writes a book, are they just arranging words on the pages? Or are they creating? I’ll grant you that they should thank God for the strength as well as the inspiration (assuming that God is the source of their muse). I believe that any being with free will can create, according to my understanding of the word. God may not be impressed with our puny efforts, but He will take what He can use.
And finally, I cannot agree that computers can reason, lacking, as they are, this creativity. In the early 90’s they programmed a computer to derive logical laws, such as Modus Ponens, based on a set of axioms. The program was interesting in its conception, but the method was brute force: it simply searched the phase space of possible logical constructions. It proved many theorems not previously created (or if you prefer, discovered). But they were mostly the type of gibberish that successful mathematicians would ignore to avoid polluting their minds and wasting their time. It’s like the chess-playing computers. It isn’t reason; and outside of the efforts of clever programmers, there is nothing creative about digital computers.
~~~
So, what is so special about thought that makes us conscious beings?
Thought enables the creation to modify itself. Thought enables free will. Once the physics and the initial conditions are set, complex (yet ordered) systems can spontaneously arise without any further intervention on the part of a Creator. But such systems would only be pretty playthings for God. He set the bar higher, and arranged for thinking beings to confront moral dilemmas, in an effort to create a worthy object for His love.
But note that thought alone would paralyze us, and render us incapable of free will (consciousness). We also need emotions, which are quite a different matter.
~~~
And when you consider that most people are hardly creative or not any more reasonable than a computer, yet they do think and are self-aware, I don't see how you can say that thought equates to reason and creativity which equates to consciousness.
Actually I used thought and reason interchangeably, said that creativity is a subset of reason, and noted that reason alone is not sufficient to support consciousness.
If you really believe that most people reason like computers, then I assume that you never drive an automobile, because the best digital computer could not hope to negotiate the Walmart parking lot, much less a typical interstate. You might be able to dumb
Jan 15, 2008 06:32
thimscool ~
Oops, I hit the buffer... I was saying:
You might be able to dumb-down the interstate to make a system whereby computers could drive the vehicles… but try putting one of these in rush hour traffic: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/robotics/2169012.html
Jan 15, 2008 06:33
orlok ~
Taylor, you say you believe in "free will" how can this be? How do you reconcile this with that fact that everything in this world is the result of cause and effect (or causality if you will). How can we be truly free to make a choice free from cause ? Consider Pharoh, was he "free" to choose to free the hebrews? Was Peter free to not deny Christ ? Did not Pete say to Jesus "I will never deny you" -Gods will will never be thwarted by puny humans. Gods will causes all things to happen exactly like he wants it to.
Jan 15, 2008 15:50
Jamie R ~
Orlok, where are you posting from Cuba? We're not puny or have no say, that's something the Rebellion against the Throne would say, if this is a thread on Calvinism vs Open View we've had these debates at Vox's.
Gods will will never be thwarted by puny humans. Gods will causes all things to happen exactly like he wants it to.
God's will is refuted often. Every time someone goes to hell God's Will is thwarted who says it can't be thwarted in this world? God did not fly those planes into the buildings on 9/11 nor did he murder those children in the Oklahoma City Bombing, it was those opposed to His Will encouraged by he who wants God's Throne.
Jan 15, 2008 19:32
WaterBoy ~
Taylor said: "And there is no such thing as creativity. I cannot create, I can only arrange things or cause things to be arranged in a way that has not yet been done. This is not creation. Only God creates. I think of creation as making something from nothing. It kind of goes along with the first law of thermodynamics. And when you consider that everything is ultimately energy, then you can see how creativity itself is not really the process of creating something."
and she said: "And I do believe that computers will be sophisticated enough to become creative."
I just wanted to clarify your meaning in the second quotation -- are you using creative here in the same sense as you used it in the first quotation, meaning that computers could become God-like? Intuitively, I don't think that was your intention, but wanted to verify with you.
As I think you intended it, there would be two meanings of creativity: one, to bring forth something from nothing as God did with the Universe; and two, to rearrange matter and/or energy in meaningful ways.
And in this second regard, I believe you are correct about computers becoming creative, then. As toddlers who utilize crayons to produce random scribblings eventually learn to produce recognizable drawings, so can computers be taught the process by which they can "create" art, architecture, mechanical devices, etc.
Jan 15, 2008 20:57
WaterBoy ~
thimscool: "because the best digital computer could not hope to negotiate the Walmart parking lot..."
You say this, then link to an article which refutes the self-same assertion? A 132-mile journey across rugged wilderness, with numerous sharp turns and obstacles (including other competing vehicles) in which it was able to go up to ~40mph? I don't think a parking lot would be any more difficult, even with loads of moving people and cars.
And I submit that an interstate could possibly be even easier, given the static route and fewer immobile obstacles.
Jan 15, 2008 21:29
thimscool ~
Actually WB, they staggered the start times so the interaction between cars was minimal. And there weren't any poorly minded four-year-olds jumping out from between parked cars to grab the ball they dropped...
But, I see that the 2007 Urban Challenge was actually completed by multiple teams... hmmm. Point taken.
Now try to get any of those cars to be a fry chef once they finally make it from the garage to their place of work.
I dunno. I'm not dogmatic about it, but I just don't believe that the thinking machine is going to be here anytime soon. The best that can be achieved is brute-force domination of a specific task set, with no capability to abstract knowledge from that that experience.
Perhaps time will prove me wrong.
Jan 16, 2008 01:04
WaterBoy ~
thimscool: "Now try to get any of those cars to be a fry chef once they finally make it from the garage to their place of work."
You mean like a carbecue?
Seriously, though...
When you think about human thought development, we all basically start as idiots -- babies who primarily are driven by basic needs like hunger and discomfort, rather than reason and creativity. It's not until after much environmental input and assimilation that we start becoming beings (mostly) capable of reasoning and creativity.
If the difference, then, between baby and adult is primarily experiential*, then reasoning and creativity are learned; computers could eventually reach a similar state with enough CPU power, memory, requisite programming, and time to "learn". But I also think different hardware is going to be required before we can get there, perhaps something that better emulates human brain wiring.
* Latest studies have shown that neurogenesis continues into adulthood, so "hardware" may actually have a greater effect than "data".
Jan 16, 2008 05:35
orlok ~
jamie r - g-day mate. Well you see the issue involves the concept as hell as well. I can't see a loving father ( behaving worse than sadamn hussein and torturing people for all eternity as a matter a fact) asking us to LOVE our ENEMIES? How a greek myth of hell and the immortality of the soul continues in christendom is quite amazing other pagan religons that kept this going have long since withered away. God created Good and Evil (and everything else for that matter) for his Glory. God has used evil from the get go (garden) to demonstrate,illustrate,teach etc... This is a hard saying not safe for babes in Christ or keeping people paying in the hope they can buy their way out from a mythological hell. If you are refering to the lake of fire I submit that it is really only not for "eternity" only an eon -aon and that it is to Purify those other than the first fruits of God;the fearful the unbelieving,whoremongers,dogs,judas,satan,pharoh,hitler,death and the grave/hell,...the amount of time spent in "the lake of fire" will depend of the amount of judgment/chastisment necessary to produce the godly character necessary to be a son of God. Is any of this making sense or is a unforgiving God too appealing?
Jan 16, 2008 12:40
Jamie R ~
So... one gathers that there is no hell and we have no say in right and wrong which is one and the same cause it's from the highest source - they are tools to teach not our choices to make as humans independently. That is NOT God talking. It's either a Marxist or Satan. All truth is God's Truth, Natural Law suggests that liberty under the rule of law works here because it is a truism, freedom governed by a framework structure of laws, just as the Commandments and Mosaic Law under liberty work too, people have to be free to choose to try and obey them or not, many don't bother at all, some do. Calvinism and Communism go hand in hand as the Open View goes hand in hand with a Constitutional Republic. One can look at the world now and see a plan that works towards goodness and order, others choose to see disorder with some small areas of goodness and order at work, and that order stems from those small bands of people who still honour and glorify God, the others have chosen to side with Satan and will fall with him until God decides otherwise.
Jan 17, 2008 10:01
orlok ~
I don’t think I said there wasn’t a hell, only that its not the forever and ever variety. Marxism? I highly doubt it, Satan well he was always good at quoting scriptures but then I haven’t quoted any have I (I will remedy that now) ? ie;For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil.2:13)Nowhere in Scripture or in my comment will you find a statement that man does not make choices. Making a choice has absolutely nothing to do with the doctrine of "free moral agency" or what is commonly called, "free will."
We choose all day long. God asks us to choose. The human brain has the ability to weigh data and make a choice. That man has the ability to make "UNCAUSED" choices is the issue,for that is what "free" will is all about--UNCAUSED choices.
If something always MAKES OR CAUSES you to choose what you do, then you and your data-processing-brain are not "free" or out of the realm of "causality" to do anything BUT what a cause made you choose. You can say the cause, forced, made, or to soften it;influenced,inspired, but the end result is always the same: ALL OF OUR CHOICES ARE INFLUENCED, INSPIRED, OR CAUSED to happen by billions of circumstances beyond our knowledge or control.
King Nebuchadnezar was CAUSED to see that it is God and God alone who rules in the kingdoms of individual men and corporate men. God said that it was HE, GOD, who CAUSED [MADE] the king of Assyria do the warring and slaughter that the king thought he himself had the ability to do.
Jesus said He could no NOTHING except what the Father gave Him to do AND TO EVEN SAY, and Jesus said that without Him, we also, CAN DO NOTHING.
The Father commissioned Jesus to "BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD" (I John 4:14
Jesus Christ's successful atonement that WILL bring about complete and total salvation to all mankind. That Christ's sacrifice and atonement is only of value if the turns out to be mostly a failure for the billions whom Christendom teaches will be doomed forever because God lacks the ability to bring mankind to repentance and acceptance of His Son's Sacrifice. All mankind WILL repent and accept Jesus as their Lord and Master and Saviour (Phil. 2:9-11), and this is ONLY possible by the work of the HOLY SPIRIT (See I Cor. 12:3b).
Jan 17, 2008 15:53
Res Ipsa ~
Taylor,
You had me at your ass. You didn't need to get all philosophical on me too. :-)
Jan 23, 2008 00:10
Taylor ~
Yes, well, I did say it was a post written at your request, otherwise, I would have just left the ass part out of it entirely...
This is the best I can do, Res. I can't even respond to these good comments here. There is a real and serious problem with my brain now. When I try to think, everything goes blank. It's like I immediately blow a fuse and all the synapses just stop working.
Like I said, this post was written only because the thought popped in there. I wasn't trying to think of anything at the time.
Jan 23, 2008 06:04
orlok ~
Taylor - you have a rare writing gift of (having never met you) being able to convey that you are a cultured,freedom loving sexy,desirable women. ....Even with the mental hurdles your currently dealing with.
Jan 23, 2008 13:25
Roci ~
Hey Taylor.
First, If I have offended you in the comments on my blog, please forgive me. Tone in comments is difficult to interpret but I never intended to belittle your comments.
Second. Self awareness is no the gold standard of consciousness. to be conscious, you have to be recognised as such by others who also have already been recognized as such by you and others.
ergo. The chair may in fact be concious and self-aware, but obviously not in any state you recognize as such. It may think deep thoughts about the nature of the universe and have an intimate relationship with the creator (I AM not IKEA), yet because it is not communicative with you on a level you can discern, you deny its self-awareness.
So the term should be: I recognize my consciousness as others do, therefore I am.
But then wasn't Descartes simply subscribing to the oldest Herasy? Des wasn't caliming to "be", he was claiming to be God.
Jan 23, 2008 16:37
Roci ~
Did i get deleted?
Does that mean I no longer exist?
Jan 23, 2008 19:23
Roci ~
test
Jan 23, 2008 22:06
Res Ipsa ~
Taylor,
I'm glad to know you're still up and at it.
Jan 25, 2008 01:43
AJW308 ~
Taylor,
Hope you're feeling better and your thoughts flow coherently.
Feb 05, 2008 17:54
Wonder Woman ~
Back in the saddle again...
Feb 06, 2008 00:05
AJW308 ~
Taylor,
Do you wonder if it's something you should see a doctor about?
Feb 06, 2008 01:49
Taylor ~
Thanks all for coming by. I read your comments but nothing fires in my head, you know, response wise. There's just nothing happening up there.
I don't think it's organic, AJW. And I hate doctors. I'm pretty sure my problem is spiritual and I seem to be losing the battle.
Feb 06, 2008 07:14
AJW308 ~
Well then, we must pray for you, more than we regularly do.
Feb 06, 2008 19:00
Taylor ~
Thank you, AJW. You are very kind and it does me good to have contact with you good people. I feel honored to have come to know you even this little bit.
There can never be too many good people in this world. There can be too few, but never too many.
Feb 07, 2008 08:59
Bane ~
You quit?
Feb 24, 2008 23:18
Taylor ~
Hey, Baney.
Yes, I've been feeling guilty about not posting anything. I should probably just shut it down. You know that saying about getting off the pot...
My neglected blog did give me an idea. for an application. It would start putting up cobwebs on a blog. The longer the time since a new post, the more cobwebs you see...
Thanks for stopping by.
Feb 24, 2008 23:43
Billy D ~
E-mail me...
Feb 25, 2008 12:30
No comments :
Post a Comment