I didn't blog in a while, so I thought I'd publish an older text of mine for your edification and enlightenment. I wrote it in August 2007. Here it is:

When I was a child, somebody said to me

"I think, therefore I am."

I found this ridiculously stupid.

My immediate reply was "I think, therefore I think I think".

This wasn't meant to be a goofy reply. It was meant to be as philosophical as "I think, therefore I am" unsuccessfully tried to be to me.

My problem with "I think, therefore I am" was that I couldn't follow the idea of thinking and being as being two different things AND that one would imply the other AND that this is philosophically meaningful in any way.

To me it felt trivial. It felt like a non-sentence. Like saying nothing. Whereas "I think therefore I think I think" felt like telling the essence of thinking itself.

I think my problem was that I felt I knew what thinking was but that I didn't have a concept of what being could be. What is being?

What thinking is seemed crystal-clear to me: Signals from outside of the body like airwaves or changes of light and signals from inside of the body like, well whatever, signals anyway created by all kinds of sensors like eyes, ears and stuff are transported to the brain and transformed into signals within that organ (probably somehow electric or so). The brain then reacts to the patterns found in these signals, creating further signals as a result. This causes a chain of pattern interpretations in that some patterns could even repeat. With these loops inside this chain of reactions it all becomes like a dance of symbols that interpret themselves. Consciousness arises. Self-awareness.

But what is being? Being as in "being aware of myself"? But that's already contained in the term "thinking". Thinking isn't calculating. It isn't what happens when you look at the neurons. A look at the neurons of the brain shows a deterministic machine. A computer. A computer that reacts to the electric signals inside of it. But when you look at the patterns within these signals you see that the patterns in the chain and loops of reactions give each other meaning. They give meaning to themselves. That's thinking. That's 'me'. It's 'my' mind. 'I' am not the brain. 'I' am the patterns. 'I' am, because 'I' think 'I' think. So there is no implication from thinking to being. Thinking *is* being.

Or is that "am" in "I think therefore I am" meant as in "being physically existent"? As in that my self-awareness is a proof that something exists? That there is anything at all? Is that the philosophical essence of "I think therefore I am"? Like in "It can't be an illusion that there is anything at all, because if there weren't anything at all, 'I' wouldn't be 'there' to 'be' self-aware"?

It was a pointless thought to me. To me, as a child, it became clear that if this is meant to be philosophical, then I wouldn't ever study philosophy. And in fact so far I managed to never read or hear words like "Descartes" or "cogito ergo sum". I never wanted to know more. I still don't know more. But I might give it a second try in wanting to know more some day. Maybe I should ask Google or so. Google wasn't there when I was a child. If it had, I would probably have searched for a page containing both "I think, therefore I am" and "ridiculously stupid". Just to see whether I was alone or not in my not-understanding of what "being" could be.

I was never alone, of course, in my understanding what thinking is. Much later, in January 1986 (in the age of almost 22) I read "Gödel, Escher, Bach" (published in 1979, Pulitzer price for non-fiction and tremendously successful) and just recently in July 2007 (in the age of 43 -- oops how did that happen?) "I am a strange loop" from the same author. Both books describe it quite well (although with way to many words for my lazy taste, so I can't really recommend them lightheartedly). In fact, with the exception of religiously diseased folks who believe in dualistic souls and gods and other obvious nonsense, I never found anyone who has a significantly different view of what thinking is. Maybe no view at all, but never a different view. So nothing special about me there.

Why am I writing all this? Well, it's because on July, 30th, the German Magazine "Der Spiegel" had a cover story "Das Böse im Guten" (The Evil within the Good). It was about a group of scientists that claims to have localized morality inside the brain (at the neuron level!), and therefore promotes prophylactic medical brain therapy (changes of the brain at the neuron level!) to increase morality as a replacement for a punishing judgement system. Every person's brain in the society should be modified to reach a level of morality that prevents them from committing crimes.

Yeah, right!

No really, morality isn't even locatable at the neuron level! Morality is a capacity of the soul. And the soul is the traces the mind leaves. The effect the dance of the symbols "the thinking" has to the more burnt-in patterns. But to the patterns, not to the machine. If you look at the neurons, the mind appears free! These scientists say that it isn't. That we're all not responsible for what were doing. They are so wrong! They don't even understand the very concept of thinking! A pattern that appears free, *is* free. That's what patterns are about. It's not free as in free from direct causal determinism. But it's free from being *located* at the neuron level of the brain.

These scientists also say that morality is in part genetic, and therefore, too, a person couldn't be held accountable for morality. But of course it is in part genetic! So is the soul. The brain grows with a set of patterns build-in. It's called instinct. The 'higher' the being (like a human is in some sort of sense 'higher' than a dog, and a dog is in that sense 'higher' than an insect) the less genetic (= born-with) the patterns are, the more memetic (= learned) they become. But that's irrelevant. Of course there is a natural (= genetic) social behaviour and morality within humanity! As there is behaviour and morality that is learned. It's called culture. But behaviour is action. Actions are choices made after thinking. Thinking! How can it be relevant where those patterns, those dancing symbols came from? It's their dance that makes the decisions! So the moral being (or not so moral being = criminal) is always responsible! (Unless drugged or mentally ill and therefore restricted in the very ability to think. If thinking doesn't work, then from consciousness and self-reflection over free will to the soul itself, everything breaks down.)

Before mankind knew how thinking worked (the detachment of patterns from the machine through symbolic self-reference is the key to this) we had a notion of mind and soul that exist separate from the body. Depending on the culture or religion either children or slaves or women or animals or all of them together didn't have souls or minds or neither. But even then they were considered responsible. Now that we know that there is no mind and no soul separate from the body, and that the body is nothing but a deterministic computer, we still need to have a concept of responsibility in our society, and it still is perfectly adequate to what we know about thinking. We *are* responsible. The brain is a machine. But the person is not!

So this is why I was writing all this. This group of stupid scientists that want to improve society by brain surgery gave me the answer to my unsolved question from early childhood: What does "I think, therefore I am" mean? To me it now means

I think, therefore I am responsible.

originally published 2007-08-12 (presented here unmodified)

Books:

  • "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid", Douglas R. Hofstadter, 1979
  • "I Am a Strange Loop", Douglas R. Hofstadter, 2007