Why must the cogito (I think, therefore I am) be about cognitive ability?

Answer 1

Descartes was trying to find a basis other than simple acceptance of authority, but also rejected the evidence of the senses as potentially deceptive. Between those two decisions, there's not much space left to find any firm ground.

Observing that he had thoughts, including thoughts (and doubts) about this, did however lead to the conclusion that some entity had those thoughts, and that meant that entity (however deceived by its senses or misled by authority) must, in fact, exist.

Without sufficient cognition to (a) have identifiable thoughts, and (b) have further thoughts which are observations about one's thoughts, this argument could not be made. Even cognitive ability is not enough: I cannot, in fact, use this approach to argue that you exist, simply because the evidence (your question) might itself be an illusion of mine.

However, if I am suffering from a delusion that you exist, have thought of a question, and deserve an answer, that set of thoughts, however accurate or otherwise they may be, does offer evidence that I exist, as long as I have the cognitive ability to recognize that fact.

Answer 2

The best way to understand the Cogito is to understand that Descartes is trying to find something he knows for certain. He is trying to find something that he cannot doubt. After applying the scalpel of doubt to the entire world of experience, he announces that the only thing he cannot doubt, is that something (he) is doubting. I doubt therefore, at least, I must exist. You cannot doubt that you are in the process of doubting. He then builds on this certain knowledge.

Answer 3

This is more easily understandable if one considers the actual scale of the components of an atom. If one takes into account the fact that the neutrons, protons and electrons of an atom actually have huge spaces between them it becomes clear that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are made up of 99+ percent empty space.

This alone does not seem too important till you add the idea that the atoms that make up seemingly solid objects are more of a loose conglomeration that share a similar attraction but never really touch each other.

At first glance this does not really seem relevant, but closer analysis reveals that this adds a tremendous amount of empty space to solid objects that are already made up of atoms that are 99 percent space. When so-called solid objects are seen in this light it becomes apparent that they can in no way be the seemingly solid objects they appear to be.

We ourselves are not exceptions to this phenomenon.

These seemingly solid objects are more like ghostly images that we interpret as solid objects based on our perceptual conclusions.

From this we must conclude that Perception is some sort of a trick that helps us to take these ghostly images and turn them into a world we can associate and interact with. This clever device seems to be a creation of our intellect that enables us to interact with each other in what appears to be a three dimensional reality.

I hope that helps to answered your question.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 4

It so much about ability as it about the relationship of the subject to representation. It about what does not change or cannot change in a sea of illusions. I think is the only certainty that Descartes could establish.

Answer 5

Good point. I prefer, "I feel, therefore I am". Or, I paint or I saw wood or I anything - it's all the same thing, proof of life. I think the "I think" was just one guy's way of putting it. Was it DesCartes?

Answer 6

Cognoscenti are "objects of cognition."
Cognoscenti have form and shape.
The five senses detect form and shape.
Perception is "perception of" the detection of cognoscenti.
Perception is sometimes conscious, sometimes sub-conscious.
Consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms, therefore both consciousness and cognoscenti exist.
Consciousness belongs to animal life.
Humans belong to the "differentia" called Animalia; we are therefore animals.
Humans therefore have consciousness of cognoscenti, an impossibility if you did not exist.
"I think" is "cogito," using the same base word as "cognition" and "cognoscenti."
To "think" is to be conscious of form and shape.
To be conscious of form and shape is proof of one's existence, since consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction, where as consciousness "of something" is proof of the existence of cognition.

Answer 7

because the cogito *I think, therefore i am* relies on how and why and what you think,
cognitive ability by definition is how, why, and what you think and how it all processes.

what do you think, and who are you?