Think about it. If you can't be sure that what you heard/thought is your own thought, then of what can you be sure? If one would base an entire line of thinking of that, one would be led astray with possible hillarious or dangerous consequences. Suppose you walk trough a shopping mall and hear a voice all of a sudden when somebody passes you, saying "do you see the bunnies flying through the sky?" How many people would stop and ask the next person, "sorry but did you ask anything about bunnies?" And their reaction? They might look at you and think to themselves, "what a strange bloke, or girl." Or some would just walk by and think, "what a silly question." It would be ideal for an absurd comic sketch. Monty Python and stuff like that.
But if this could be done in a controlled situation where one can't see any evidence of the technology being used and is unaware of it, then the above scenario has further-reaching consequences. The technology is small enough and has a common enough appearance that people might not register it as anything new. It hasn't reached implant size yet to my knowledge, but may in the future, which raises other questions not only about how to find out, but also about ethics, and morals.
Suppose it is used on people who are in a controlled environment - during their sleep, in a prison, in a warcamp, etc. How would they try and figure out what is going on, and what are the ethical questions that this poses? I may pose them, but I do not provide answers on all of them at this time.
4. Consequences of this exception
Suppose that this is used on somebody without that persons knowledge or agreement and that he takes what he hears and accepts them to be his own thoughts. It indicates that one could base an entire line of thinking on thoughts/ideas that somebody else, using this device, let them hear.
Rather then building on solid rock, one then builds on air. If the technology is used in that way, one cannot be sure that what one hears are one's own thoughts. But without knowing, without finding a way of finding out, how can one be sure? How can we rule out its use, how do we find it out?
This may seem not very important, but lets give a hypothethical example - a future possibility. Suppose a person is lead astray using this technique and turned into a criminal, a murder, a terrorist kills somebody and when being interrogated says, the voices in my head made me do it. Many people would think that person to miss something or to be insane, yet he would perfectly sane. If he would be convicted of the act he committed - for example, killing someone - and then put away, then it is he who is in this case a victim and a murder would be seen as the proverbial black sheep. While the real person being responsible for it would just walk away and start anew.
Article comments
1 - ss
I don't think this really disproves Descartes' point.
Whatever the origin of the thought, if YOU have experienced the thought, YOU MUST exist.
The equally compelling question I believe your inspired example does raise, and this could be even more disorienting:
Are my thoughts really my own?
One of the ancient Greeks, I can't remember which one, believed in something he called the Aperion. All knowledge was contained within the Aperion, and the Aperion itself chose when to reveal this knowledge to each of us.
Case in point:
When someone asks you a question and you don't quite know the answer, it's on the tip of your tongue but you can't quite get it, will 'thinking harder' reveal the answer?
No. The answer reveals itself.
On the other hand, some answers, the ones that can't be taught, can only be found through active investigation. Examples of this abound in medicine, from the vaccine for small pox to the need for cures of todays' diseases, these answers didn't 'pop' into the researchrs heads, they had nothing to do with memory.
Still, these answers could not have been found without asking the right questions. Did the researchers just 'think harder', or did the right answer and the right question appear practically simultaneously, in a flash of inspiration? Where did the inspiration come from?
Can we leap from this question to THE question?
Is the source of inspiration God?
I would say if you can make the leap, you must. But please don't form an organized religion.
The search for God is an ancient and noble occupation, but once you believe you have found the answer, will you not try to reveal it to others? Will you not try to be their God? Has man ever been baser or more cruel to others than when he believes that he has become God?
2 - Floris Vermeir
As for thinking harder, it is indeed right. Often the harder one try's to think,the more the answer seems to eldue me.
I have learned that in case like that, its no point trying to find it. It'll come, but how exactley that happens is a bit of a mystery.
The exception here, indeed changes nothing to the fact that one still exists. The only thing it changes is, in the context that that sentence was in part the foundation for modern philosophy, is that if the thought is not yours, you still exist, but it poses questions on what one builds on it. That does not necessarly needs to be incorrect or untrue.
As for god, I'll leave that for every person to answer for him/herself. In the past, and hopefully not in the future, to many people have thought they were god, and could do what they wanted. That is probably in part a reason why our civil war (that would be in flanders) lasted 80 years in total. Especially that one general, who was called back from the battle field, because of his behavior. Thats centuries ago.
I'm not saying you don't exist, I think we all do. The sentence to be is to exist is rather clear on that. Witouht going into possible problems, it just clearly states, that if one be, if one is, then one exist. (I think the phrase comes from Umberto Eco).
One of the few things I belief in, is that I do not know all the answers, never have and never will. And there will always be things that elude, me or where people disagree on, which is there right.
The following sentence may explain it clearly:
We are all equal as we are all human, we are all unequal, as we are all unique.
Not one single person on this planet is a god, in different cultures different people may think or be though of as the represents of god, but the discovery of america, and the opression and desctruction of cultures shows what happens, when people think they have become god, and they are right and others wrong. Many people have died becuase of things like that.
We should learn form the past, not repeat it. As for religion many are already there, and I see no point in adding an other one. Jezus said intresting things, although we so often seem to forget that they exist, and so do the buddist, and others.
In my personal opinion, people should be free to choose what they want to believe in, as long as they don't harm others in that process, or belief in a religion that would propergate the killing of other people.
But belief and religion are two different things. A person can change his beleifs, but that does not mean that that person changed his religion.
I think that with all the talking about moslim terrorism, this is often forgotten. There are examples of terrorist, or would be terorrist who changed there beliefs and decided not to kill people, not to be a terrorist, yet they are still muslims. and they are not alone.
As for the three questions, the answers are the ones I find ok, but others don't and that is there free right. It is very well possible that in 20 ears form now, my answers have addapted or changed. But answering htem once and for all, for everyone, is not something I would consider to do, or think will ever happen. I posted them as I wanted to work them out, but wnated to know what others think first.
This goes for most of my posts, if people want to use something from it, fine, If they don't also fine. Its there life, they should decide, not me. Because if I did that, I would be acting like I was God, and I'm not or ever will be.
On top of that, I never like it when people try to force there opinion down my troath, so I try not to do that with others as well. I might not always succeed in that, but if I don't try, I never will.
3 - ss
I didn't mean to imply you were creating a religion, or forcing your views on anyone. I've just been reading "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and I started letting Nietzche do my thinking for me at the end of my comment.
Sorry 'bout that.
I think Descartes had a line of reasoning where he speculated his thoughts came from an 'evil genius trying to delude me' then he explained why this couldn't be. The phenomena your describing definetly puts the 'evil genius' problem back into play.
Though no one could really adequetly describe where thoughts and ideas come from in the first place...
Could another person actually place a random thought in your head that would compel you to act?
Whether your thoughts are your own or not is free will still your own?
Could the new Descartian formulation be:
'I choose to act an idea, or not, therefor I am'
shortened to
'I choose, therefor I am'
4 - Floris Vermeir
Nothing to worry about,
you're not alone in that.
I choose, think and/or feel, therefore I am would do, for some psychologists,
but the question then is, if choose and think and/or feel, is not one an the same thing. And/or is a choice.
I agree on : I choose, therefore I am.
One question that I can't answer is how many exceptions there would be. Initially I had written on my blog. an/the exception, because I wasn't sure there was more then one, I'm relatively sure that there is more then one exception. As with how to deal with and how to find out, those are not easily answered, and I don't have complete answers that will do.
"Could another person actually place a random thought in your head that would compel you to act?"
Supose we take the safe house example,
and a voice recording would be played in the suspects language,then it could be that he/she reacts in a visible way, but also that he/she reacts, but we can't see it directly. It might influence his/her motives and decision made afterwards. It could also startle them, for example if the voice would shout 'stop right know'. Most people would stop or react.
What really worry's me is that, although I have no information saying it is or has, is what would happen if such a device would be made smaller to implant scale, and then implanted at a young age without the people knowing ?
I would say that in 85-90-95 % of case, only for this exception, we can be relativley sure that it isn't been used. But its only a matter of time, before someone will use it for market purposes or other purposes.
The beam of sound is so focused that someone standing a meter away wouldn't hear or notice. It could even be less than that, but I'm relativley sure of the meter.
If you wouldn't cross that beam, or if it would not be directed into your path you might never know its there.
How to find out if the thought is your own or not, is a question that is easier to ask then to answer.
Is does Thus Spake Zarathustra a book from Nietsche ?
5 - Floris Vermeir
"Could another person actually place a random thought in your head that would compel you to act?
Whether your thoughts are your own or not is free will still your own?"
These are question I have posed myself also, slight differently worded, but answering is not easy. Free will is a difficult one, realted to this.
6 - Floris Vermeir
After some consideration I would go myself more for the phrase I chose, think and/or feel therefore I am.
That doesn't exclude anything, rather adds something, and therefore is the better choice. Otherwise we could make the same mistake as did Descartes, and others. Still I find him a great philisopher.
Now I'll try to find the other posts back I commented on on blogcritics.