Dare I ask an actual philosophy question?

Well, those critters and plants lack self-awareness. That is, they would not be able to draw invisible lines between themselves and the rest of the universe. The difference between "me" and "that stuff out there" is, in my opinion, purely neurochemical. It may be a more or less completely artificial distinction, but in any case, it is an exceptionally important one. It's the basis of all human social structures, political thought, art, and other things that make humans so human.

I'm quite sure that Descartes, in his attempts to find a starting point for logical categorization of observable phenomenae, became frustrated as hell. First of all, how does ANYONE truly know what exists and what does not exist? The most basic tools with which we analyze the universe (five senses) are flawed and limited, and how have we discovered their flaws and limitations? Through use of the five senses! Back in the eighteenth century, scientists knew very little about the nervous system, even less than they do today -so the processes whereby humans are able to categorize the various disparate elements of their surroundings were subject to greater scrutiny and suspicion in that era.

For example, if Bob, John, and Jack agree that object X is a roll of wallpaper, how do they go about proving that it's not cellophane? How do they know whether the wallpaper -or, indeed, the entire world- is not some kind of elaborate collective hallucination? How does Bob know if his companions are actually there? He doesn't, but he can bet on his own existence quite safely (as in, "How am I asking myself all these brain-boggling questions if 'I' do not exist, in one state or another?").

To answer your question: I don't believe a carrot would be able to question the existence of the universe and then its own existence, only to arrive at the conclusion that it (the carrot) MUST exist in order for the question to be asked in the first place. However, carrots are tasty, and I think Descartes would have liked them in a salad.

Oh, yes . . . some philosophers now believe it is ridiculous to suggest that conscious thought is any indication of existence, which makes my poor little head hurt.

You dare to "axe" a philosophical question, and I shall dare to...

"Axer" it...

Yes...

Like all Descartes' "scopes," they definitely have their limitations...

My case in point...

The supposition "I think, therefore I am" can be proved using the following quasi-reversal "suppozation" (I just made up the word "suppozation...") which is practiced by quite a few of my own close personal friends...

"I DON'T think...

"Therefore, I'm religious..."

Organisms that don't express themselves verbally (like my girlfriend...she just throws things at me...) would be the ones to approach Descartes, not the other way around...

So you see how foolish it would have been for Descartes to use a brand name "mouthwash" during his philosophical tenure on this planet...

Please read my best-selling book...

"The Unlimited Scales of Descartes' Scopes" (now available in paperback at any "1/3 rd Priced Bookstores"

in your other-dimensional neighborhood...)

in case you utilize a trouble-free technique(intro to philosophy) and use some wit and attraction somebody or somebody will supply you the time of day. the affection of awareness isn't per a one sided desperate argument that others are no longer able to understand. maximum good philosophy is per tragedy, immediately. in case you supply human beings of venture you're able to be able to discover they understand extra effective than you assume. study some Nietzsche and finally end up in a worldwide of fragmentation. existence isn't immaculate conceptions commonly used its "factors and smart questioning".

Read my screen name

"I think therefore I think I am". Perhaps we only exist within our imaginations... our very imaginations are imaginary.

The truth is, how does your "apparent" self-awareness compare to actual sentience?

Can you imagine the alphabet? Can you really?

Recite the alphabet...

Okay, good, so recite it in reverse, from z to a.

If you truly imagined or "see" the alphabet then you could recite it forward and backward just the same... because all youd be doing is reading off of your minds eye. But the truth is, you dont actually see it... proven by the fact that you have to think extra hard to recite the alphabet in reverse.

So... how much of our own perceptions (even our self-awareness) is a product of the way our minds work?

Our very belief that we are conscious, sentient beings could simply be a product of our insistent determination to believe such a thing. We will justify it in our own minds until it makes sense to believe it.

===

Thanks for the down thumb, whichever jerk gave that to me... probably without even reading my work... or comprehending it....

===

Anyway... I think Rene believed animals didnt have souls... only humans did... all other "lesser" "objects" were just drones operating by instinct

But my point is, isnt that what we are as well?

Rene said "I think therefore I am"... but only because he actually believed he could think... he believed he was observing his own mind in operation. I have proven to you with that alphabet trick that what we believe of our own minds can easily be a fallacy. So... is "I think therefore I am" a valid statement?

I prefer "I think therefore I think that I am"... which is the only truly true statement I can possibly make... and what Rene should have said.

Rene never meant for anyone to assume that "all humans" could think or were real merely by his "cogito ergo sum" statement... he only said that it what -he- who could think and therefore -only he- who "was". All other humans and all other animals... their existence couldnt be verified by him.... only his perception of those things

think even the smallest micro-organism has a way of thinking and memory.

By the way, is Descartes' approach is the only approach to life? it has its own limitations as you mentioned.

Descartes would build upon his own existence.

from I am to this is.

there world sucks. if they can't think then they are just a part of our thinking. of our world. I think he means to set goals and you will achieve those goals. and your thoughts are just your view of the world and how you percieve it.