Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Cogito ergo sum.


sort by: page size:

Cogito, ergo sum.

Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo est.

Or: Cogito, ergo sum. ;-)

#1 Ego cogito, ergo sum

Sum ergo cogito always made much more sense to me

“Cogito ergo sum” can be also translated as I am thinking therefore I am. In which case “I am thinking therefore I am not” is not contradictory at all.

This is an interesting antithesis to Descartes' cogito ergo sum: instead of the "I" reassuring itself on the thought of a thinking being, thought arises from the assurance of the "I".

Cogito ergo sum... I think more or less the only thing we can be sure of is that we think. However, I don't think we REALLY know what thinking means, and whether the way we think is categorically different from how an LLM thinks.

thanks, a quick glance brought "coquito" to my attention, and ponder why "cogito" is not in the suggestion list? a nod to French philosopher René Descartes

dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am")


Philosophical precedent:

"Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." That is, whatever the force of the cogito, Descartes draws too much from it; the existence of a thinking thing, the reference of the "I," is more than the cogito can justify. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the phrase in that it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is. He suggested a more appropriate phrase would be "it thinks." In other words the "I" in "I think" could be similar to the "It" in "It is raining." David Hume claims that the philosophers who argue for a self that can be found using reason are confusing "similarity" with "identity". This means that the similarity of our thoughts and the continuity of them in this similarity do not mean that we can identify ourselves as a self but that our thoughts are similar."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms


Just curious how you cogitate it?

> We compose simple operations into complex units all the time.

Through a process called thinking, too.


Think.

Think.

“It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments.”

- Alfred North Whitehead, An Introduction to Mathematics


"It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by all copy-books and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case. Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them. Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in a battle — they are strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must only be made at decisive moments." -- Alfred North Whitehead, An Introduction to Mathematics
next

Legal | privacy