I was at work and was discussing randomly with a friend Descartes Philosophical argument of Cogito Ergo Sum(I am thinking, therefore I exist) and one of my other work colleagues brought up the argument that we cannot take ownership of thoughts and cannot prove they are our own, I did some research and I believe this statement must come from the school of Skepticism, I cannot find the philosopher who developed this theory but it seems like a valid argument, What if my thoughts are shared? What if I am the result of higher beings thought? How can I absolutely know that these thoughts are mine and mine alone?... The answer is cannot know but can assume.
I cannot with all accuracy prove that the thoughts that I am thinking are truly my own but I can assume they are, at the moment of the proposed argument I was a but tripped out, it seemed completely valid, I could think of no counter argument, however, based on perception although logically not fully accurate (not accurate based on the Cogito Ergo Sum theory) I was able to think of a possible argument against the theory, although also based on assumption because it includes variables such as awareness and perception it appears to be more logical and make more sense, it also lacks the element of imagination or speculation.
Here is a copy of the email I just sent to my colleague(who is currently not at work):
Now although you cannot prove that the thoughts that I think are mine you also cannot prove that they are not, the following logic seems to make sense from my view:
The only thoughts that I am aware of are my own, I cannot prove that another being is thinking I only assume that other sentient beings on the same level think because they have similar actions to my own, because the only thoughts that I can be *aware* of are the ones I am thinking them, it must then be assumed they are my thoughts, now because the ability to perceive a higher beings existence is based on assumption from almost no evidence other than my own creativity then again, I must assume that the thoughts I am thinking are my own.
The thoughts that I think can be assumed my own because only I am certain that I am thinking. A 3rd person can be assumed to be thinking because they may behave similar to myself, I am human they are human therefore I assume they think. A higher being cannot be assumed to be thinking because I do not have any logical proof that it exists except by creativity.. it cannot be literally perceived and interpreted, therefore it is not known whether it is thinking or not.
Another point to go further to take ownership of my own thoughts is as follows:
At a moment of experience alone or amongst a group the feelings are dependent on my situation therefore the thought that arises from my perception from my maybe inaccurate senses is still by assumption my own because I assume only I can be in exactly the same situation at that one time, so the variables time, surroundings, feeling, and perception combined together to create situational thought can only be known logically to occur once, the only other way to counter that statement that I can see is that there maybe parallel universes and that my overall thought is subject to a collective of individuals some how linked to me that create the overall thoughts that I have, but again I cannot literally have perception of these alternate beings therefore it cannot be known whether they are thinking.
Now although the theory that my thoughts are not mine and that I cannot take ownership of them because I cannot know that only I am thinking them still stands, from logic and evidence I cannot with reason prove that any other sentient being actual thinks because there is only an assumption of thinking, therefore it comes back to the thoughts that I am thinking are imagining another beings existence.
Thought can be known but cannot be perceived only assumed, therefore only I know that I am thinking, I cannot know that another being is thinking/imagining my existence or having the same thoughts I am simply because I cannot prove the existence of thoughts other than those of my own conscious mind.
Most things are assumed or imagined, the things that can be assumed based on what we define as literal perception appear to have more validity.
Therefore the validity of Cogito Ergo Sum should still be valid based on the above argument.
Now I am sure there are some elements of my theory that could be argued but its pretty much the only argument I could think of, If anyone thinks it lacks critical components or even knows the philosopher who made the theory my colleague brought up post a comment!
