Descartes’ argument is valid. Those are only counterexamples if you confuse yourself about the meaning of existence. In every case, the possible thinking beings (and their thoughts) either exist or they don’t, and the argument remains valid.
Depending on how the terms are resolved and which additional premises the definition makes necessary the argument resolves to somewhere between tautological and circular. It is vaguely helpful to counter a particular kind of insanity but not much more.
Those are only counterexamples if you confuse yourself about the meaning of existence. In every case, the possible thinking beings (and their thoughts) either exist or they don’t, and the argument remains valid.
They aren’t presented as counterexamples. Merely cases where the line of reasoning and the baggage that comes with it is more likely to detrimental than useful.
As wedrifid appeared to intone in the original reply, the actually discovered “there is cognitive activity present” from the given link is the key knowledge of pertinence to open the exploration of what is self.
Thanks for the further context.
I was originally impressed (and continue to be) by diegocaleiro’s open self presentation (awesome!) and hoped to merely provide, in its greatest hope, a possible sense of dependable enough structure for accelerated progression beyond pitfalls that I had previously slowed within.
While the analytical ideation is pleasant, relevant, and useful, the emotive or experiential consequences seem relevant and vital as catalyst that can either grow or inhibit the evolution we are attempting to partake in for the artifact of sentience. We can chose our preferential modes or aspects but it does not deny that our persons are more broad or that each has strengths to provide and weaknesses to avoid.
Descartes’ argument is valid. Those are only counterexamples if you confuse yourself about the meaning of existence. In every case, the possible thinking beings (and their thoughts) either exist or they don’t, and the argument remains valid.
Depending on how the terms are resolved and which additional premises the definition makes necessary the argument resolves to somewhere between tautological and circular. It is vaguely helpful to counter a particular kind of insanity but not much more.
They aren’t presented as counterexamples. Merely cases where the line of reasoning and the baggage that comes with it is more likely to detrimental than useful.
As wedrifid appeared to intone in the original reply, the actually discovered “there is cognitive activity present” from the given link is the key knowledge of pertinence to open the exploration of what is self.
Thanks for the further context.
I was originally impressed (and continue to be) by diegocaleiro’s open self presentation (awesome!) and hoped to merely provide, in its greatest hope, a possible sense of dependable enough structure for accelerated progression beyond pitfalls that I had previously slowed within.
While the analytical ideation is pleasant, relevant, and useful, the emotive or experiential consequences seem relevant and vital as catalyst that can either grow or inhibit the evolution we are attempting to partake in for the artifact of sentience. We can chose our preferential modes or aspects but it does not deny that our persons are more broad or that each has strengths to provide and weaknesses to avoid.