I think, therefore I am! A stone doesn't think, therefore it isn't?! ???

Answer 1

Logic fallacy.
If A implies B,
then not-A does not necessarily imply not-B.

Answer 2

No. Actually, I think, therefore I can conclude that I exist. I cannot know with absolute certainty that the stone exists or not, nor whether it things or not. It is not necessary to think in order to exist. It is necessary to think to appreciate your own existence. That's what DesCartes is trying to say. He cannot prove with absolute certainty anything else, except that he, himself, thinks and exists. He is unable to prove to someone else that he thinks or exists. He knows nothing of stones or even his own body since all could be a deception of one type or another.

If we are going the DesCartes route, then I have no way of knowing whether the stone exists, or thinks, or anything. That's why we must consider knowledge based on reproducibility of observations, (tracking back to Aristotle) as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. All knowledge (except that I exist and I think) must be based on postulates like, the things I see most commonly are real external things. If I don't accept that then I can't have science, or even a regard for other humans (that is, of course, if they exist.) d:c)

So all proofs or knowledge, (again except that I think and that I am) is dependent on some postulates like
What is observed can provide us with information.
My reason is serving me well and helps me learn.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Well you get the point.

Even something as simple, basic, and ideal as Euclidean geometry requires many postulates.

Answer 3

The existence thoughts the reference is made is in the intellectual level not in the material one, so therefore the stone obviously doesn't exist in this perspective because it lacks the capacity of thinking...You can find this exact question in a novel written by romanian author, Marin Preda.

Answer 4

Cartesian doubt is used as a premise for self-consciousness. We cannot prove our existence in any other way because there is no other observer except ourselves.

The case of a stone is different. It exists whether it can think or not because we, humans, as independent observers can verify its existence.

Answer 5

You think, therefore you are aware of your existence. The stone doesn't know it exists. Awareness

Answer 6

Well... Descartes knew that he was (that he existed) because he could think and therefore reason that he existed. A stone cannot think, so even though it may exist, it does not know that it exists....

Answer 7

correct
we belive we see ourselves therefore we are somehting
to us a stone is a non living thing
there fore it doesn't think
therefore it isn't anything but a stone

Answer 8

Yes, this is a partly true statement. Life is actually a manifestation.It is like a dream. What ever you see or percept in in a dream is actually relevant while you are dreaming, when you wake up the dream is gone and also your perception.Your thoughts are nothing but your perceptions .Your existence is because of your perception and not because of your thoughts

Answer 9

such a conumdrum basically specifies a valid statement. whether it applies upon inanimate objects is the conclusive observation of one. if one thinks it is a stone, then it is a stone. if he thinks it is a fish... then it is a fish. if he thinks it is a tree, then it is a tree. if he thinks he is alive, then he is alive.... those are but few realizations that in existence, the perception of one abhores those surrounding him as alive as well... else, death would only be his fate.

Answer 10

Not quite. The stone doesn't exist outside the mind that perceives it.

Answer 11

Actually it is said the stone doesn't exist but the truth is that we doesn't know if it thinks or not. so u can't say.