From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr Tue Nov 24 10:51:45 EST 1992
Article 7615 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!silver.ucs.indiana.edu!lcarr
>From: lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (lincoln carr)
Subject: Re: definition of consciousness
Message-ID: <BxL64n.J2B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <tim.720580709@giaeb> <1992Nov2.195050.1296@wixer.cactus.org> <tim.721445310@giaeb>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 04:36:23 GMT
Lines: 34

In article <tim.721445310@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au (Tim Roberts) writes:
>
>What is consciousness ?  How do we know of it ?  I know of it because "I"
>exist.  Consciousness is, in fact, this "I".  How do I know "I" exist ?
>Descartes proved it.  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore I am.  This has
>been central to all western cultures now for a long period.
>
>I hold it to be false.  I maintain that is is possible - indeed probable -
>that there is NO clear distinction between what is "I" and what is not "I".
>

It doesn't matter at all to the proposition cogito ergo sum that
there is no distinction between what is "I" and what is not "I."  The
fact that one thinks, i.e., apperceives oneself, implies that
SOMETHING must be doing the thinking, whether that SOMETHING is a
single metaphysical entity or not.  Cogito ergo sum holds even if the
thinker is actually a collection of disparate elements and even if the
thinker is somehow deceived about everything else.  The peculiar
nature of the concept of existence still implies that to think one
must exist.  It is equivalent to the following:

1. That which thinks must exist.
2. I think.
3. Therefore, I exist.

As an aside, one can make a case that Descartes himself seemed to have
a notion of "I exist because I think" in mind, but this isn't nearly
as defensible as the above interpretation.

-- 
Lincoln R. Carr, Computer Scientist-Philosopher    lcarr@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"Treat all rational autonomous moral agents, whether in the form of yourself
or another, never as means solely, but always as ends in themselves."
                  Immanuel Kant, from "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals"


