... So according to you 'thinking' means 'whatever it takes to make Descartes' statement valid'? Whatever it takes for you to realize the very simple idea that if you ...a simple pointing gesture. If you want a safe and simple fact along the lines of Descartes' cogito - an unprompted response which proves someone conceives of themselves as existing and as being separate ...

Wanker wrote: So according to you 'thinking' means 'whatever it takes to make Descartes' statement valid'? Whatever it takes for you to realize the very simple idea that if you can read this you obviously have something to think with, so you know that you exist. Well if I can know that I exist then it should be logically possible to know that I don't ...

... thinking with words you have a far too narrow definition. Replace the word thinking with brain activity. So according to you 'thinking' means 'whatever it takes to make Descartes' statement valid'? Whatever it takes for you to realize the very simple idea that if you can read this you obviously have something to think with, so you know that you exist. Well if I ...

... must mean thinking with words you have a far too narrow definition. Replace the word thinking with brain activity. So according to you 'thinking' means 'whatever it takes to make Descartes' statement valid'? Whatever it takes for you to realize the very simple idea that if you can read this you obviously have something to think with, so you know that you exist. That is an ...

... exist" The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is ... would also work according to descartes idea. That's why it ... assumptions. I'm not sure Descartes would have accepted "I'm ...thing that's unnecessary about Descartes' argument is the argument itself...all limbs intact than doubt. Descartes whole project is the project...their absence, don't we have a nice enema after all...

... If your definition of "thinking" does not include "feeling, wondering, agonising" you have to make your definition wider. If you think that thinking must mean thinking with words you have a far too narrow definition. Replace the word thinking with brain activity. So according to you 'thinking' means 'whatever it takes to make Descartes' statement valid'? -- Roger J.

...why whenever you see a statue or rendition of Descartes, he's still sitting there *lost* in thought.... I am. That's just repeating what Descartes was saying, only in a more complex, and ..., is not proven that it is required by descartes or anyone that I know of, and that ... the original query, imho. In the context of Descartes' quest for a first principle for philosophy, the ...

... therefore" is what was superfluous. That's why whenever you see a statue or rendition of Descartes, he's still sitting there *lost* in thought. <smile> I don't see it as...sufficient condition that I think, therefore I can know with certainty that I am. In the context of Descartes' quest for a first principle for philosophy, the 'I can know with certainty that' is redundant ...

...am thinking, therefore I exist" The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is that it needed to ... screwing therefore I exist would also work according to descartes idea. That's why it goes no where and ...you see a statue or rendition of Descartes, he's still sitting there *lost* in ...without rules and without their absence, don't we have a nice enema after all?

... The latin version runs "I am thinking, therefore I exist" The assumption that had Descartes in a catch 22 is that it needed to run "I Am,... was superfluous. That's why whenever you see a statue or rendition of Descartes, he's still sitting there *lost* in thought. <smile> ... to negation, without rules and without their absence, don't we have a nice enema after all?