Re: Cogito Ergo Sum"

[Judith Rosen <***>]

I was under the impression that Decartes was trying to prove that "reality"
exists, using that argument, not just that he, himself, existed. It was part
of a larger effort, which formed the basis for the scientific method. The
question in science was, "How do we know if something we perceive is REAL?"
and in order to even approach the answer to that, he had to answer the
question; "How do we know reality exists?". In other words; "How do we know
that WE really exist, such that we can trust our perceptions (that what we
perceive is somehow reflecting something that truly exists outside of our
perceiving of it)?" I think the first "Matrix" movie would have driven
Descartes stark, raving mad.

My father had an unusual take on the whole "Cogito ergo sum" issue, by the
way. He viewed that whole thought-pretzle as rather silly. His position was;
"Either we do (exist in reality) or we don't. If we don't then it doesn't
really matter. So we might as well proceed under the first possibility."

Judith
PS: Jamie, your treatise on TIME would be an intriguing addition to the
subject on BioTheory...
----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Physics and Metaphysics - imminent causality


> from: 'FIRE WITHOUT, FIRE WITHIN.'
>
>
> ["Cogito ergo sum" :: "I think, therefore I am"
>
>                                  Rene Descartes
>
> Pretty words.  An effort to distill the essence of Being
> into the fewest simplest clearest words possible:
>
>     I perceive my presence in the universe ...
>                confirming and affirming my existence.
>
>
> But, "what" I am - whatever qualities and essences may or may not
> be expressed - requires that I "Be", before I can act out the
> characteristics of "what-ness", of "Being". And, what is "thought"
> and "thinking" and how much thought is necessary to qualify and
> admit to this thing we recognize as "am-ness"? Is one flicker of
> perception sufficient? Are several moments of self-consciousness
> necessary? Or thousands? Can one singular moment of recognition
> in the vast ocean of temporal oblivion be satisfactory? And even
> then, "am" in comparison to what else? To Think and to Be requires
> not just my own (or any extant's) presence, but an environment of
> continuous consistent interaction. An environment that sends back
> information, that confirms and reinforces co-existence. If all of
> that ceases, "I" cease. And it makes no difference if "I" disappear,
> or the environment does ... the result is identical; existence
> truly being what the theologian Martin Buber called: the "I-Thou".
> Each "self" is nothing without an "other"... force or sentience.
> Self-consciousness alone is not sufficient to confirm "existence".]
>
>
> from:   'Charting a Path through the Maze.'
>
> [The ultimate point of all my writings is that we must push ourselves
> to look at all possible environments and relationships as we try to
> formulate an "ultimate gestalt". This approach will eventually guide
> us to understanding Time as a plural-dimensional phenomena. That is,
> Time as a richer phenomenon than is currently appreciated or used.
> It has aspects and impacts that we can newly discern, if we proceed
> carefully and openly. Time is not some enigma. It is not a bland
> monolithic one-dimensional featureless continuum. It factors in
> intimately with every functional event and relationship in the
> universe in ways at once more subtle and more dynamic then conceived
> of in existing schemas, and its aspects of self-reflexive multiple-
> dimensionality cannot be dismissed, even when we focus of such things
> as "forces, relationships, parameters, derivatives, or ffunctions at
> an "instant" .... when the "no-time" temporal point-instant defines
> a situation when "customary non-usage" allows us to ignore the very
> presence of Temporal continuums. Most important, elucidation of
> relational situations that are co-relevant with Time, can take us
> farther than ever before in understanding the universe we exist in
> and are part of. A Universe of Information.]
>
>
> 1. <http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm>   04
> 2. <http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm>   05