I think therefore I am – reduced
I think therefore I am.
Thinking is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is the fundamental activity and thinking being its result. So the sentence can be rephrased:
I am conscious therefore I am.
This is closer to the truth, but now the sentence highlights what was implicit and inconsistent in the original phrase –there are two identities where there can only be one.
I am conscious and therefore I am. It can be rephrased:
I am consciousness - the therefore I am, is superfluous - what I am is consciousness.
I like it. It now cannot be reduced any further, and it is closer to the truth of our being. I believe, at its base. I like the way it does away with false identity and equalizes and unifies everyone.
What do you think? Is it logical?
For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Dose it work for you?
The construction is a challenge to the notion of identity and its product the ego, so an exploration of this might lead to insights about human nature.
Thinking is a function of consciousness, where consciousness is the fundamental activity and thinking being its result. So the sentence can be rephrased:
I am conscious therefore I am.
This is closer to the truth, but now the sentence highlights what was implicit and inconsistent in the original phrase –there are two identities where there can only be one.
I am conscious and therefore I am. It can be rephrased:
I am consciousness - the therefore I am, is superfluous - what I am is consciousness.
I like it. It now cannot be reduced any further, and it is closer to the truth of our being. I believe, at its base. I like the way it does away with false identity and equalizes and unifies everyone.
What do you think? Is it logical?
For the statement to be meaningful, consciousness needs a definition. My definition of consciousness is: an evolving process of self organization. So, I am an evolving process of self organization - sounds about right to me, what do you think? Dose it work for you?
The construction is a challenge to the notion of identity and its product the ego, so an exploration of this might lead to insights about human nature.
Comments (65)
I think it works well. There is so much limitation through identifying with the ego. The whole idea of identity of consciousness can encompass all the levels of being, and it does not have to include or exclude clear boundaries of the conscious, subconscious or unconscious.
I can certainly think of my own identity in terms of consciousness.
It seems to me, consciousness assumes an identity, and the ego is a personal measure of how well it is succeeding in maintaining this identity. If we look at history and the many different identities humanity has assumed, it seems the range of human nature is endlessly variable and open ended. The consistent thing is that self organization occurs, but the form of self organization is infinitely variable, it seems.
If we apply Gödel's incompleteness theorem to an axiomatic consciousness, there is always something outside the system that elements within the system require for their justification. So this suggests that consciousness / self organization is infinite. It suggests that the form of self organization will continue to evolve in line with whatever the requirements are to survive. I think we have seen this in extreme moments of history, and how people have adapted, but the bright side is there is no limit to how this might manifest itself in the future.
That is interesting. In saying that the ego is limited I am probably thinking of Eastern perspective on consciousness as well.
As I am influenced in the healing journey with aspects of the subconscious, influenced by Jung and psychoanalysis, I probably have reorganised my own ego a fair amount anyway.
But I do like the your idea of the reorganisation of the ego as infinite.
That is not quite how I see it. Consciousness or self organization is the infinite element. It can assume many different identities, but that any of these identities are true is doubtful, as given different circumstances , or a different time in history, the identity would be different. What remains constant is that self organization occurs, but the identity over a lifetime, and in different times in history changes.
To clarify; If I am consciousness, and consciousness is infinite, what can be my identity?
I think that you are suggesting that identity is just a part of the picture and we have to see ourselves as like mere cells in this process. I am not sure that this is different from the Eastern mystical approach.
I wouldn't say mere cells. My understanding borrows heavily from eastern philosophy, but there is nothing mystical about it. I think it is entirely logical, If I am consciousness, and consciousness is infinite, then what is my identity?
Identity is normally something anthropocentric, and in reality I have one of those. :smile: But it is logically unsustainable, if the OP logic is correct, in my opinion.
Autopoiesis - systems theory as metaphysics. Makes sense to me.
Thanks for that - I wasn't aware, I'll check it out.
This can't be right. Consciousness is a property that certain objects have; namely the property of having experiences, or put differently, the property of first-person awareness. Individual subjects aren't properties. To say that "I am consciousness" seems to be similar to saying "I am materiality". While this might be sensibly understood in some metaphorical way, it cannot be literally true. Since individuals cannot literally be the property of being composed of matter
Quoting Pop
That doesn't seem right either. Since consciousness appears to require first-person awareness (indeed, consciousness seems to be nothing more than first-person awareness). But it would seem that there can be many evolving processes of self-organization which do not have any personal awareness at all.
In Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. The universe is in a process of self organization, and so all of its component parts are also in a process of self organization. Self organization creates life, and continues to evolve, eventually becoming self aware,
to some extent, in humanity. It is an evolving process which is endlessly variable and open ended. To what extent anybody is self aware is endlessly variable, and open ended, however every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. My claim can be disproven by providing an instance of consciousness which is not in some way self organization.
The statement relates to Descartes I think therefore I am - I am what?
I am saying I am consciousness ( self organization ), in my entirety - the self organization of information, energy, and matter.
I don't deny that consciousness can be deeply interrelated with self-organization. Indeed, there might not be a single instance of consciousness which is not in some way self-organization, but this does not mean that they are equivalent. In just the same way that you cannot find a single instance of an american citizen who is not a human, but this does not imply that all humans are american citizens. To put it more simply, all instances of consciousness might be instances of self-organization, but this does not imply that all instances of self-organization are instances of consciousness. This is why I said earlier that it would appear that there can be many evolving processes of self-organization which do not have any first-person awareness.
Quoting Pop
You are confusing 2 uses of the phrase "I am" here. You are taking Descartes to be using it in the predicative sense (i.e. when we say things like "I am green", "I am a man", etc.) But he is actually using it in the existential sense. More specifically, by saying "I am", he is just saying "I exist." Or in full form, "I think, therefore I exist."
I'm afraid they are, unless you can self organize unconsciously.
Quoting Alvin Capello
That is right. The role of consciousness is primarily to self organize.
Quoting Alvin Capello
I am exploring the phrase as completely as possible.
Notice how this relates to your definition of consciousness, viz:
Quoting Pop
If we take this non-standard definition of consciousness on board, then your earlier statement basically amounts to "I'm afraid they are, unless you can self-organize without self-organizing." Of course, this is tautologically true.
But if we use the every day understanding of consciousness, i.e. as first-person awareness or internal experience, then I can find many examples of unconscious self-organization. The most obvious examples are cells. Cells presumably don't have conscious experience, and yet they undergo self-organization.
Quoting Pop
This is completely irrelevant for understanding Descartes' claim, since he is only using "I am" in the existential sense. Bringing in other senses of the term can only lead to confusion, as your remarks on Descartes' claim above demonstrate.
As I've previously stated, in Panpsychism, consciousness ( self organization ) is a property everything possesses. Including cells.
Quoting Alvin Capello
I think it is entirely relevant to consider the phrase in its entirety, for the purpose of reducing it.
Here you've broached a subject on which I am woefully ignorant. I find panpsychism to be deeply interesting, but I can't comment on it, since I haven't read the strongest arguments for it. Sorry :sad:
Thanks for the interest.
Check out Fritjof Capra's A Systems View of Life to see the scope of the model's applications in hard science. I'd start with Ervin Laszlo's Introduction to Systems Philosophy if possible. It purports to be a "new paradigm" for viewing reality and, in my opinion, meets the burden of that goal. Enjoy.
Descartes uses the two "I"s in very different ways. "I" am something relentless that keeps showing up each day. "I" also think some things are closer to what is true than others.
That is why he considers his position a direct proof of God. He cannot be the ranch where these disparate events occur.
:up:
Here's the deal. The whole point of Descartes' cogito ergo sum is to prove the existence of a something that's conscious from consciousness. The problem, as far as I can tell, is if we approach the issue from a property point of view then Descartes' argument begs the question for the simple reason that if consciousness is a property then a something that's conscious is baked into this assertion (that consciousness is a property). A property can be either concrete (as an aspect of an individual object) or abstract (as an aspect common to a group of objects). In either case, objects that possess a given property must exist prior to the property itself.
The premise, in my humble opinion, that Descartes relies on to infer a something conscious from conscisouness is: a property ergo something that has that property. This premise can't be derived from the world because Descartes concedes that it could be an illusion - that makes any inferences drawn from the world unreliable. The only option Descartes has is his own personal and private experiences with his own mind but the only relevant experience contained therein is his own consciousness as a property and then to conclude a something that is conscious (an object that has the property of consciousness) is begging the question as that's exactly what needs proving. :chin:
" the process perspective, which refers to the cognitive dimension of living systems. Capra explains that the physical structure can be understood as the embodiment of it’s patterns of organization. Moreover, this embodiment doesn’t just happen once, but is a continual process of embodiment, and this process of self-organization and self-generation, which can be found in all living systems, is a cognitive process."
I think this really gets at the difficulty of defining consciousness, as a process dose not really possess fixed or concrete properties. Particularly not an evolving process. And if an evolving process is what is relied on for inferring I am, then what I am is also something evolving, it seems. That thinking enables the inference I am is without doubt, in my opinion, but this only works for a moment of consciousness, as in the long run thinking and thus what I am constantly change.
If we apply Capra's interpratation to I think therefore I am, we get I am the embodiment of my thought processes. :grin:
I think you would need to provide some proof / reason of what causes "I am".
I found it odd however that he himself is a dualist. I was not impressed by his understanding of consciousness. I think his understanding of consciousness relies on Tomasso's theory which leads him astray. He states that life is a process of self organization, and he also states that consciousness is self organization, but then states that consciousness arises upon self awareness, which is logically flawed in my opinion.
The way I see it, the process of self organization is innately self aware. It possesses a process-centric self awareness: the organization of information relative to the self is all that it is concerned with, nothing can be more self aware, if you can accept that a process can have a mission or agenda, its agenda is entirely the self. It is the fundamental element that enables everything and the singular process that everything is involved in. It is both fundamental, and ultimate, so in my understanding it is a god process.
At any given time the state of something is symbolic of the current state of its underlying process of self organization, whether it be a rock, or life, and in regard to human consciousness, well this is symbolic of our current state of self organization. It is not a fixed or maxed out state - who knows what it will develop into in years to come?
Thanks again for the referral, whilst i have issues with Capra's understanding of consciousness, most of the other stuff I found absolutely top notch. So thank you.
I agree
There just so happens to be a panpsychism thread pretty active right now. But what I would consider the best argument is that it is a simpler view. The "standard" view of consciousness goes like this:
1- I am conscious
2- That guy/gal over there is pretty similar to me so they are also probably conscious
3- That animal is somewhat similar to me so maybe it's conscious, but not necessarily in the same way
4- (and this is the problem) There is this arbitrary, hard to define point at which things just completely stop being consicous.
Panpsychism is simply not using that 4th unwarranted assumption. If we are willing to give that other people are consicous, that animals are conscious, etc etc, there is no need to assume a "stopping point". The standard view has so far failed to deal with this problem that is self-imposed and unnecessary of "what makes things conscious", so people are starting to just give up on the assumption that things stop being conscious.
As I ponder, I sometimes wonder about our wonder. I would go a step further on panpsychism. It is almost as if the universe desires to be sensed in all its wonder. Or, maybe it is a looser tie than that between an awareness and that of which it is aware. If you look at the progression of species on Earth, generally an improvement in species coincides with a fuller awareness of everything around it. Humans took it a step further than just awareness. Humanity is aware and it questions what is around it. That has caused all of our troubles - when we can't find satisfactory answers.
My apologies for not studying this board further before opening my mouth but, damn, intelligent conversation on the web? Will wonders never cease?
I'm glad you approve. Welcome to the forum. :smile:
When I first read this thread, I was interpreting it as "I think, therefore, I am reduced". The sad thing is a lot of people out there would concur with that interpretation.
Yes, its rusted in to the psychie. Its interesting that Descartes was one of the first people to consider self organization. I appropriated it from abiogenesis theory, and a few insights of my own. It works as a panpsychic definition of consciousness, but could stand a little more honing in regards to why it should occur. I have a theory of consciousness here, It is just a sketch, and incomplete, and even a few months after completion I can see blunders.
Quoting Whickwithy
I have a similar feeling. As an element of the universe I can guarantee it. :smile:
Quoting Whickwithy
From the Philosophical Zombie argument it is sentience / emotion, that creates consciousness, not computation. If consciousness = self organization, then self organization might be sentient ( emotional ) in some way.
You can direct your reply, by hovering the cursor next to the time indicator at the bottom of a thread, and clicking the reply arrow that pops up.
Hahahahaha! Yeah. I know the feeling.
Are you equating sentience and emotion? I equate sentience with heightened awareness. I think our normally jumbled emotions as a race of beings is predicated on the blur that is applied to our sentient awareness that we have yet to overcome. I was just mentioning paradigms and blurring of our sentience in another thread. This is running parallel. We've got so much nonsense stuffed in our heads from childhood that we can't see a true vista yet.
Thanks for the insight on replying.
Yes I was. It is a wider concept, but one enabled by feelings / emotions.
Quoting Whickwithy
Yes, it takes a long time to sift through all that baggage to arrive at an understanding one can have some confidence in, but the process never ends. Understanding is never complete. It seems whatever one focuses on, more information can be extracted and understanding can be improved.
Yeah, I'd just like humanity to get past all of the boulders of nonsense paradigms that are absorbed in our youth. What a train wreck it causes regarding everything.
I guess I've always thought of emotions as an extension of our heightened awareness.
I suspect emotions / feelings are the fundamental force that causes behavior , as per the Philosophical Zombie argument. I'm certain all life possesses them to some degree, what I wonder is if all life possesses them, why shouldn't everything else in the universe posses them? Of course I have no solid evidence for this - yet! :grin:
No interpretation is necessary. It is exactly as stated.
But why do you think, and what exactly are you? I bet you are a different person today then you were 5 years ago, or 10, 20, 30, etc....years ago.
Why do we think? That is a different question. Probably to create something new was opposed to not thinking and being absolutely stagnant - and bored.
We are an accumulation of all of our experiences, both at a micro and macro level. So yes, We think, therefore we are.
Exactly. We are an evolving process of self organization. We are not a static - I am. We think because we are conscious, there is no choice in the matter. We must evolve with the change we experience.
I follow you up until the last couple words. How about simply an "evolving process"? Which is to say: something which is constantly changing. I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. But if we're constantly changing, then isn't that saying we're temporal?
So: "I am constant change" or "I am temporal." But then the question is: what is this "I" and, more importantly, what is the "am" (the sum)?
Maybe instead it should be something like: "I am." The "I" implies a split, a separation between one "thing" and "thingness" in general. So yet another way to formulate it would be simply "existence" or "there-ness" or "am-ness." No need for an "I."
As far as consciousness goes -- true, we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable.
Why? Because, as you know, we're not conscious of 99.9999999999% of the world, including our own bodies and, in fact, our behavior -- which psychology has shown to largely be habitual and automatic.
So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative.
These aren't easy questions, but you're right to take up Descartes as a good starting point.
I like and agree with most of what you say. We are not that far apart. :smile:
Quoting Xtrix
The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe.
Quoting Xtrix
We have to start with consciousness. We have to start at the foundation and build from there. Of course there is so little we know, and so much to be learned, and so much change yet to be experienced. But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion.
Quoting Xtrix
I think therefore I am, is one of these habitual and rusted in tenets of western thought. It is synonymous with Cartesian dualism. It is not the deepest understanding of self that can be obtained, and I am interested in exploring other options, and better understandings. What exactly we are is not likely to be an object ( I am ), but an evolving process of self organization. We will change over time, in response to the change in circumstances we find ourselves in.
The bright side is that consciousness ( an evolving process of self organization ) is endlessly variable, but is completely open ended - it has no upper limit. :starstruck: So it is worth exploring, in my opinion.
OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means.
Quoting Pop
I once thought this way, and of course in some respects (as I mentioned) it HAS to be true -- how can we even talk about whether we're conscious or unconscious without being conscious? Etc. But what I was getting at is whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, in epistemological or "knowing" relations with the world -- particularly as a subject, with sensations and perceptions (representations) of some "outside" object, which the tradition has thought of us as being (since at least Descartes). I'm not questioning whether those relations exist, just whether they're primary or not. I think there're good (and "common sense") reasons to believe they're not.
Quoting Pop
I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out.
Quoting Pop
Very true -- but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? Or, better: what of the actions that we're awake and conscious for (in a way), but which we do without attention -- like driving? I can drive and hardly be conscious of what my foot is doing. Sometimes I arrive at a place while being completely lost in thought.
Martin Heidegger used to talk about turning the doorknob to get into the classroom. What about these kinds of actions? Perhaps starting there will tell us something about what we are, besides what we are conscious of, what we know, and what we think?
I can not say I understand the metaphysics of self organisation either. I'm only just beginning to understand it. I can say that it is a process that creates a self, and preserves a self in relation to the information surrounding and effecting the self - hence self organisation.
Quoting Xtrix
Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. This would not be the flexible self awareness that we enjoy, but likely an inflexible / totally dedicated to self organization - force like process, that maintains a consolidation of information, energy, and matter, that has differentiated itself from other similar consolidations surrounding the self. So first and foremost a self has to be created, then maintained. I cannot see how this is different to our own consciousness, in respect to its primary function.
Quoting Xtrix
He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. I deeply suspect his final construction was in part politically expedient, given the context of the times. Also very significantly, I think therefore I am, preserves the self, whilst I am consciousness, challenges the self and the Ego, and results in a very different understanding, as was the case in eastern philosophy.
Quoting Xtrix
This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry:
That's fine. Assuming we know what self-organization is, it could plausibly account for abiogenesis and the concept of the "self," and even consciousness generally. But we don't fully know what consciousness is, so describing a mechanism isn't yet telling us much. Furthermore, as I mentioned, it's arguable whether "consciousness" (in the sense of awareness of anything whatsoever) is really sufficient to define a human being, when so much of our lives are unconscious (looking strictly at what we typically do).
Quoting Pop
This is why I was referring:
[Quote=] "By the word 'thought', I understand all those things which occur in us while we are conscious, insofar as the consciousness of them is in us. And so not only understanding, willing, and imagining, but also sensing, are here the same as thinking. For if I say, I see, or I walk, therefore I am; and if I recognize this from seeing or from walking which is performed by the body; the conclusion is not absolutely certain: because (as often happens in dreams) I can think that I am seeing or walking, even though I may not open my eyes, and may not be moved from my place; and indeed, even though I may perhaps have no body. But if I deduce this from the action of my mind, or the very sensation or consciousness of seeing or of walking; the conclusion is completely certain, for it then refers to the mind which alone perceives or thinks that it is seeing or walking." - Principles of Philosophy, Part 1 section 9: "What thought is." [/quote]
Quoting Pop
Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields.
Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative.
So while Descartes doesn't necessarily take up Aristotle's zoon echon logon (rational animal), he will essentially say we're "conscious things" or the "res cogitans" (thinking/ conscious substance"; a.k.a., "minds"). Not long afterward, we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.
Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing.
Quoting Xtrix
It is unconscious activity, but highly self organized activity. I am a process of Self organization acknowledges what you have stated, whereas; " I think therefore I am " does not.
Quoting Xtrix
Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile:
I wouldn't go so far as to say all life has emotions (I'm thinking of amoeba, bacteria, etc here). But, certainly animals and such.
The way I understand it, self organization occurs when, enabled by intrinsic qualities, disparate materials integrate and start acting as a unit. They form a self that is biased to be - biased to continue existing in the newly integrated form, rather then to disintegrate to their former form - a bias is emotional information.
In more evolved life forms, such as Bacteria, Amoeba, etc, the bias to be, or the will to live is clearly evident. The bias to be most likely forms the basic code of DNA shared by all of life. "Neurotransmitters acetylcholine and biogenic amines dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine are present not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms." - Neurotransmitters In Plant Life, V.V. Roshchina.
A bacterium would likely possess the equivalent emotional experience of a single human cell, but a person experiences the collective emotional experience of ten trillion cells, in my opinion.
Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum.
Quoting Pop
Why not call it "being," then?
There are very few things we understand definitively. The chap in the video below has a much more advanced handle on it then I do. The first 10 mins is relevant to your question.
Quoting Pop
Emerson in Self Reliance says "Man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say 'I think,' 'I am,' but quotes some saint or sage."
If this is, as I believe (as does Stanley Cavell), a critique of Descartes, Emerson has taken out the "therefore"; our identity/existence is not contingent (on consciousness, on thought--on anything). But what is left is a standing up for ourselves. As it were in Emerson's example, I no longer speak from others mouths. I am saying this! I am claiming myself! "I am an evolving process of self organization!" Yes!, you be you. But this identifying is not ego, so much as a courageous carving out for ourselves (even if aligning with others, along party lines, against our mother, etc.). It is the opposite of "equalizing and unifying". A ramification of this active claiming is that: not everyone thinks, or is. If you want to be, if you want to be said to be thinking--something must be done! Being and thinking are not given, ever-present states of the human condition; sometimes we act like others without consideration, speak their opinions; some are even ghosts of themselves, lost to themselves. We are not ensured or given; there is only the possibility to think, to be.
Hi, thanks for engaging. The term "self organization" is universally accepted in abiogenesis theory as the cause of life. It is a notion that goes back a long way, even Descartes dabbled with it, but in the modern era , Chilean biologist and philosopher Humberto Maturana is widely cited as its originator, within the Santiago theory of cognition. He and his followers use the term autopoiesis, which really is just self organization as it pertains to biological systems. I came to understand the term, in its deepest sense, whilst trying to understand consciousness. Prof Neil Theise is the best commentator on the topic that i have found. He takes the Santiago theory of cognition, and marries it to panpsychism, and the result is a complete theory of life and consciousness, within a monistic panpsychist universe.
The way I understand it, and put very simply, the universe is in a state of self organization, and thus so too must be all of its component parts - including ourselves. That every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization was a difficult thing to get my head around, within the context of Cartesian / materialistic anthropocentrism. It took a long time to warm to the idea, to break free of prevalent thought, and to accept something logical that makes sense - that integrates and unifies the universe. Self organization is not something we can break free from, or step aside from, even in pure self aware reflection we are self organizing. This perspective has very broad consequences for understanding everything, but in terms of identity and I am, it puts those static notions in doubt, and replaces them with an evolving process of being, as a biological system, where self organization is always taking place -however it may manifest itself.
I understand this as an underlying, necessary occurrence, and maybe you are aligning this with Descartes' desire for something to connect us (to).** But the idea of something inseparable from us, however fundamental, does not replace our possibility to claim our existence, our responsibility to, even, or we may, in a sense, not exist at all. Emerson's method is to investigate the concepts in these words; bring them back from hovering alone in space with Descartes (like "exist"), e.g., say, that consciousness is not a condition of humanity, but a state of being that comes and goes, like sadness, or focus. This is to say that we may be speaking apples and oranges here, only that "thought" and "being" are also not constants, and so neither "static" nor "notions", but more akin to activities, and so saying an evolving biological system "replaces" them is more like ships passing in the night, e.g., are evolution and character in the same conceptual realm? That being said, your desire/claim that: "I am an evolving process of self organization" is legitimate (you could be making the point that you are like all of us, or that there is hope in being human, etc.). But to say that all of us are is a different claim (factual or general), without the moral force of one claiming their own identity--"I am the means of production!" I'm not saying our thought or identity cannot be forced on us, but, in that case, do I exist?
** Some say the trouble Descartes got into was he set his standards and terms first, and then started investigating his thoughts, but each word has its own criteria already (before us) and each sense its own conditions. Are we looking or insisting? That's only to say: is there a goal and/or desire for certain implications which may have created the form of the concept?
Quoting Pop
I can agree that "We are not a static - I am", but, in what sense are we agreeing? Factually, sure. But we can also disagree: "I am a static; I've always been a Bruins fan". And maybe if one part stands still, anyways, not all of us does. Sure, but that is to say.... what? Something is always happening? And who would disagree? (Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.)
We can be said to think unconsciously (say, without words, or attention--perhaps working on a Rubix cube), and we can say we choose to avoid thinking ("I'm too busy to think about the funeral arrangements", or "I'm going to clear my mind of any thought"), or even choose not to be conscious (unaware). If we desire to stretch these terms beyond their ordinary use, they loose traction to do anything for us but what we want. Maybe we want them to be given or our nature, but then maybe we overlook what makes them special and that can be lost.
Quoting Pop
Making uncertainty certain could be said to be the goal of every philosopher since before Plato; but it's like grasping harder, where everything falls through your fingers says Emerson (and Heidegger). Wittgenstein would say the desire for certainty creates a particular picture of our concepts (blocking the actual view) and that without any specific context there is nothing to grab onto at all, so we are back floating around with Descrartes, searching for the thing that will hold down the universe.
You raise excellent issues that I've been grappling with for a long time. Self organization is hard to dispute, but it is a challenge to a lot of established thought. I'm convinced it is the underlying process responsible for all creation so I have to explore it, but I cannot predict with absolute certainty what it will result in. I believe, that whilst we must self organize, we do so in a way that suits us best - that is most pleasant, so people will either integrate it, or they will otherwise ignore it. As you say, what is attractive about it is that it relates us all ( humanity ) in a singular process, but equally importantly it relates us to all of life - to the biosphere, the earth, solar system, etc. I think this is something worth promoting in these desperate climatic and ecological times. The notion that we are something separate from the ecology of the earth has been a very destructive force on this planet, in my opinion.
Quoting Antony Nickles
I am only beginning to understand the metaphysics of self organization. The thing that organization initially does is create a self. It then protects and preserves a self, in relation to the information, energy, and matter that is not self. So yes, you do exist as an amalgam of information, energy, and matter, as dose everything else - as I see it. But I understand your point. You do not dispute the premise so much as you are peeved off at having to deal with it. I admit, it is an identity and ego destroying conception, but then there are benefits in that you get the opportunity to identify with something much greater, in my opinion. On a related thread, it was found that if you identify with the universe you can never die! :smile:
What do you mean - then nothing is happening?
The teen years can be difficult, but 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, etc, are great.
Quoting Antony Nickles
That’s funny.
What do you mean - then nothing is happening?
Other than a joke, it is also a play on the idea that the words 'nothing' and 'always' and 'happening' have different senses depending on the context, your focus, your interests--to show that 'exists' changes too, as does 'identity'. Your vantage point is harmless to the extent it includes everything and connects everything, and I grant you that, but does it have to occlude everything else?--my interests, my vantage point, the myriad of other ways in which the world exists, in the sense that it comes alive only for me. I can understand though the wonder and awe and comfort and company and connectedness in having something in common with everything else. Cheers.
Well that's a relief! Yes, nothing is ultimately fixed and unchanging. In Descartes time this was not so obvious. Ship building was the high tech of the times and it had not changed for 200 years. Compare this to the rate of change today! In your lifetime the rate of change on so many fronts will continue to accelerate, so I think in future an understanding of self as an evolving process will be even more relevant. It is a shift in paradigm, but dose not entirely constrain / occlude the freedom a self can enjoy. We need to remember that we have always been a process of self organization subconsciously. As you understand, the main point / hope - is to create connection, to promote empathy and so responsibility for everything else within the concept of self.
Wishing you a happy birthday and a great life. :smile:
That is very nicely put, but I have one question for you - what is God?
All abiogenesis theory, from the perspective of physics, biology, chemistry, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology agree that self organization led to life. The only alternative proposed is God. But God the creator comes up against the question of who created God? The common answer given is that God created him / her self. So we are back at self creation / self organization as the origin of life.
What I'm wondering is could self organization be God? If God was self created / self organized, then self organization would be the creative force in the universe, more powerful then God. For God to be the most powerful force in the universe, God would have to be self organization.
Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. What Descartes was doing was self organizing. What you and he and I, and everybody describes in their thoughts is an evolving process of self organization. The thoughts are an expression of our consciousness.
Consciousness occurs as a result of biological or cellular self organization, which arises as a result of molecular self organization, which arises as a result of quantum self organization, which arises as a result of the self organization of whatever goes all the way down. But it dose not stop there. The universe arises as self organization, and is in an evolving process of self organization, as you can appreciate, then so too must all of its component parts be a process of self organization! And voila - every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization! Self organization is consciousness and it is an all pervasive concept - just like God. So I'm wondering, could it be God?
If self organization was God, it would be a unifying concept present in everybody and everything. Man would be made in Gods image as self organization? There would be universal agreement as to the origins of life via self organization as a Godly force?
I think therefore I am is simplicity redundancy
Simple, easy for everyone to understand, and a summation of the human philosophical condition.
Can't argue with it because it says nothing.
Is a thought a physical thing?
Is he saying I think therefore I am not physical?
This is the bare minimum required for a conditional statement! Antecedent - adverb - consequent. Otherwise, it could not be a conditional statement - just maybe a name for an idea or a thing.
( je pense, donc je suis )
"we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt."
Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes's intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am").
Historical accuracy is not important
Physical existence is as important as history
What is Latin for Reality
It is no coincidence that Descartes finds he knows nothing for certain except that I am thinking, and therefore I exist. His method of doubting everything is skeptical doubt - not rational doubt. He pictures an evil demon deceiving him, to believe that he has arms and legs, and eyes that see the world about him, and in this condition - possibly deceived, he established cogito ergo sum, but philosophically he had painted himself into a corner.
His conclusion applies to nothing; but not to worry, says Descartes "For the light of reason assures me that God cannot be a deceiver, for deceit proceeds from defect, and God is perfect" - and so it is God that saves Descartes and his idea of a disembodied consciousness from the solipsistic oblivion of its conception.
The Church was delighted with Descartes. Galileo was threatened with torture and held under house arrest for the rest of his life - while Descartes became the pet philosopher of Queen Christina of Sweden.