"I think therefore I am"= an assumption= question remix...?

Question

"I think therefore I am"
Assumes that there must be a thinker for there to be thoughts.

Perhaps thoughts could exist independently of thinkers.

Maybe it comes from the way we speak:

If you say "It's raining"
Where is the 'It'.

The rain is not being performed by some 'It'.
There is no 'IT'.

The same with- 'I'm' Thinking.
It could just be a linguistic construct.

The existence of a being hasn't been proven.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What do you think?

Moorwood:
Yes, something exists.
At least 'consciousness' must exist, but can anything more than that be proven?

But to prove the existence of 'beings'? That is different.

Maybe dissembodied mind is all the universe is?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I mean, of course personally, I believe in the existence of beings.
But does the cogito really prove it?

So experiencing Must exist. But what is experienced? Is it real?
Do planets really exist?
Is there really gravity?
Rigourous analysis requires thinking, but does it require a thinker?
Personally I believe that trying to prove reality by 'thinking' makes no sense.
We can conjure up anything with thoughts. They are just objects in the mind. 'I' is also an object in the mind.
Concepts aren't reality. Is a direct experience of reality possible?
I think so, bu conceptual mind gets in the way of that.
I don't think deep analysis by it's nature can get past conceptual mind.

Answer 1

I'm pink. Therefore, I'm Spam.

Answer 2

This is a traditional criticism of Descartes, and there's some merit to it.
___On the other hand, the method that we call "proving" something is subject to a similar criticism. Proof is a linguistic function, in that it requires a hypothetical statement containing specifications whose grammatical relation sets a condition narrow enough so that one can hold another grammatically-structured specification-relation up against it too check for agreement. Presumably the latter will be one that compels belief, so that the comparison against the question will settle the matter.
___And our methods of rendering the world intelligible involve singling out "things" from a context integrated by, at least, gravitational attraction, which is a property of all material things. Further, once these "things" are singled out, they are observed to have properties that inhere in them: malleability, conductivity, etc. These "properties" do not stand on their own, but inhere in things. And similarly, events involve some sort of entities, and do not stand on their own.
___Our little scheme of singling out things and their properties has something of a cherry-picking approach to it. How can we take the inherencies of spatially-limited properties so seriously, while setting aside those that extend to infinity, such as gravity? Stipulating gravity as an "invisible force" is a bit of phenomenological sleight of hand, just to keep things distinctly quantifiable, allowing us to do the math.
___Now there are myriad other threads like this that can be explored. In some sort of bigger picture, one arrives at the notion that if one is going to to go to a deeper level of metaphysics to refute a relatively straightforward observation, one ought to ensure that the means of refutation can withstand the same journey to deeper levels.
___Some limits need to be observed regarding the tasks Descartes's "cogito ergo sum" is put, but most accept it as far as it goes. Besides, what sense can one make, in any rigorous analysis, of "thoughts without a thinker"?

Answer 3

Answering the last question first.

Of course it can!

"I think therefore I am." is very old school. "I am AWARE of thinking, therefore I am," is an accurate expression of being in this multi-dimensional field. Disembodied mind is still a personified projection and not useful. What is the necessity of "proving the existence of beings." Awareness of being is just a advancing biological evolution of the brain/thinking apparatus.

Concepts ARE reality. Even if we are embedded in an infinite field of information, awareness of being in said field is necessary to access it.

Re: "It's raining." "It" is reality - the field includes all aspects of the physical realm including our mind/body system.

Answer 4

Interesting question there - is the "I" that is thinking the same "I" that is claimed to exist? One could posit that the perceived universe is only a virtual construct of the mind of the "I" (not the brain which is another part of the physical world). Dying is moving from this virtual world to another like swapping from one game machine to another.

Then the question become are there many individuals whose constructed universes interact and overlap - or only one and "we" are all facets of that Person's construct.

After all "You" asked a question and "I" answered it so there must be at least one "Being" involved!! Linguistic construct or not, language supposed intelligence and purpose.

Answer 5

I think if you really look for the thinker, you'll find the thinker can't be found.

We are not our thoughts. It's raining and I'm thinking are really one and the same from the viewpoint of the Observer, are they not?

I like the 'idea' of thoughts floating around out there without a thinker.

Answer 6

There is no "I" in "Me"...

Zen meditation (an activity I practice from time to time) teaches us that there is no "I"...

Our body exists...but NOT our mind...

Our mind is an illusion created by the "mirror on mirror" effect between "sensation" (our body detecting the environment around us) and "perception" (our brain interpreting the data), and then our brain "senses" that "interpretation," and then "interprets" THAT "sensation," etc, etc, etc...Bada Bing!
Bada Boom!

Voila!

You get the "illusion" of "I"...

But it is a most singularly important "illusion," one in which we value highly (our personality)...so illusion or not...we "live" it, and hopfully strive to make it a "good" and "loving" one...

But only the body exists...so as a rock musician...

I sing the body electric...(so, no..."I" do not exist...but don't tell my ego that...he's a stubborn and conceited "illusion"...Shhh!)

Answer 7

When one says, "I'm thinking," it obviously means that he or she is thinking. "I" is that person.

In "It's raining," the "it" is referred to as the sky. The sky is raining.

There always is an "IT," since it must be a subject, it is an entity, and therefore exists: allowing there to be an "IT."

Answer 8

Symantecs mean nothing... Don't waste your time on them.

Cogito ergo sum... The statement indicates that because of thought there is an "I." Regardless of how you define "I," "I" does exist.

Answer 9

I am therefore I think is the answer you're looking for.

Answer 10

I think-very deeeep Q!