Ergo Sum
Today has been one of reflection. While on a journey it is important to realize what, besides the destination, exists within that journey. As I was considering my next task for my intelligence analysis study (translate this to waiting on my book to arrive) I drifted from thoughts of indicators of compromise (IOCs) and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) to foundational knowledge of cyber security. What is it I think I know about malware, security, and threat actors? These and other atomic pieces of knowledge comprise the body of knowledge that I have relied on during my career. Further, I decided to examine what I knew of technology and computer systems below user and software layers to the basics of software/hardware interactions. A few thought trains later I arrived at the doorstep of one of my favorite philosophers, Rene Descartes. I assure you, it was the only logical place to arrive.
For those of you who don’t know who Descartes was he was a famous French mathematician, scientific thinker, and metaphysician. For those of you who do know Descartes you probably fall into one of two camps. First, the person who has the pseudointellectual or “armchair philosopher” friend who often speaks in overly complex sentence structures and ends up saying little more than a fortune cookie(this is usually me when I haven’t thought on an issue long enough to be cogent). Second, those who encountered Descartes through a valuable teacher, mentor, or peer. Given enough time most people will hear about Descartes from one quote. One of his most famous body of works known as Discourse on the Method features prominently in most peoples understanding of what philosophy and metaphysics is wherein we find the Latin phrase “Cogito, ergo sum” (or for the French audience “ je pense, donc je suis”) most commonly translated “I think, therefore I am”. It is this phrase that Descartes uses to restructure his reality after destroying it. It is also the phrase that I have the most difficulty listening to someone quote. “Why?” you might ask. The reasons are two-fold. First is the common translation of the phrase to “I think, therefore I am”. This translation lacks the understanding of the entire body of the Discourse on the Method and is just a word-for-word translation. I much prefer the translation “I am thinking, therefore I am”. Second is the idea that Descartes philosophy from which this quote stemmed was a distrust or disbelief of everything. Rather this quote is the fundamental building block that Descartes rebuilt his reality upon. Let us take a closer look at where this comes from.
Descartes and Discourse of the Method
In the Discourse of the Method, Descartes sets about on a six part journey to understand what he can truly know about the nature of reality. Using a scene that is familiar to him he abstracts his senses from what he is able to “know”. This journey begins with a simple question for Descartes, how can he know what is real. Put another way, what is it that establishes reality. If we consider, as Descartes did, our waking world. As I sit at my computer typing these words the icons on my desktop, the sound of the case fans, the feel of the mechanical keys on my keyboard, the taste of desert still fresh and sweet on my tongue, and the smell of a fresh cup of coffee that I shouldn’t drink at this hour are a scene I am all too familiar with. My fingers know the course, my ears know the the approximate temperature of my CPU from the speed of the fans whirring, and my nose drives the cup of coffee ever closer to my lips. If I close my eyes I know precisely where every item should be and have typed most of this listening to the cadence of keystrokes rather than observing the words as they appear on my screen. For Descartes it was his favorite chair in front of his fireplace in his evening attire with his writing tools. This is where his journey began. Descartes used a demon as his tool of disbelief, I will use a simulation and will begin with the same source as Descartes — a dream.
The Dream
Have you ever been awakened from a dream and in the stillness of the moment been unable to decipher what was dream and what was reality? It has been the case in my experience that these briefly unsettling times make the realization that “it was just a dream” all the more comforting. In my dreams I have experienced normal events and conversations that, to my sleeping mind, were every bit as real as the conversation I had with my friend over the phone. These moments in sleep and dream are sometimes even as real as the memories I hold from my childhood or important moments of my life. If I can be so deceived by what I “know” to be a dream can I then be so deceived by what I “know” to be reality? Descartes answer was a resounding “yes”. Let us pursue this thought and see where an updated scenario finds us.
Get CyINTist’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The Simulation
Suppose that you are asked to prove reality. “A simple enough task” you might say as you reach for your cup of coffee and hold in your hand the very proof you seek. But then it occurs to you, the senses are not foolproof and therefore cannot offer concrete proof of reality. Imagine that our world is a computer simulation, for fans of The Matrix feel free to imagine yourself as Neo or Trinity. For those who haven’t watched The Matrix pause here and go watch, it will make this easier. … … … Are you back? Ok let’s move on. Anything we could use within the simulation to prove that it is reality would be a part of the simulation. If I were to hinge my reality on the fact that I smell the coffee in the mug that I can see clearly steaming from its perch upon my desk I would have to consider that my sight, my sense of smell, even touch may be programmatic input simulate these experiential data points. The more I try to rely on my senses the more I can only prove that they function within the bounds of the system they are a part of. In some respects a self-licking ice-cream cone or what is referred to as circular logic. If we can only define reality by our senses then whatever system or simulation our senses exist in are subject to that system and can only prove itself based on that system. We would need, to prove our reality, something that exists outside of that reality or something that exists in spite of it. For The Matrix the disproving of reality was made possible by those existing outside of the simulation and a path to extract oneself from the simulation; Morpheus. For Descartes it was the existence of something inside reality that persisted despite his disbelief of everything else; himself or in his words “Cogito, ergo sum”.
So, why does this matter again?
When we consider Descartes and reality he was able to destroy his reality and rebuild it all with one thought, “I am thinking, therefore I am”. What is it that makes up the core of what is true of my chosen profession? I cannot define my understanding of cybersecurity and intelligence analysis on any atomic piece of information as those are all defined by the system. If the system changes, so to must what I understand to be my career if dependent only on systems and technologies. Does that mean that intelligence analysis is fake or that it is insubstantial as a simulation? Certainly not merely that we must define the practice in terms that exist in spite of the system. And this is where my study of philosophy and intelligence analysis overlap. In searching for the reality of intelligence analysis it is clear that the fundamental precepts and prescriptions exist in spite of the system they are applied to.
In intelligence analysis we encounter all sources of intelligence; SIGINT, GEOINT, SOCMINT, OSINT, HUMINT, et al. It is not enough to define the intelligence analysis cycle by any one system. All systems and all sources adhere to the same underling concept. Critical thinking. It is not enough to merely ingest data or to produce reports. Rather it is only intelligence analysis when thought is invested in the data and an outcome derived after the journey of disbelief. We see this played out in the ideas of Sherman Kent when we look at his 9 underlying doctrine or when we examine Richards J. Heuer’s analysis of competing hypotheses. Only in rigorous thought can we derive a reality of intelligence analysis that is actionable, applicable to the concerns of our consumers, and exist inside and outside of any system of knowledge. If one were to borrow a bit more from Descartes we might say Cogito, ergo nibh. This bears more thought and more thorough study to fully endorse but it is where my mind has led me today. If I’ve learned anything from philosophy it’s that I can write something now that I fully believe only to return to it in some years and completely disagree with heated argument between my older and younger self and be all the better for it (I’m looking at you Ludwig Wittgenstein).
Thank you once again for stopping by. Be sure to check back if you liked any of this or stop back by if you don’t believe anything I have said. Encountering dissenting thought is the only way to grow, myself included. Feel free to comment. This is my journey and I welcome all encounters.
I reserve the right to condemn the thoughts of my younger self as being an idiot and not understanding the reality of the world. After all, even after I finished this piece I have grown and must now reconsider it in its entirety.
