I Am, Therefore, I Think

René Descartes gave Western philosophy one of its most enduring ideas: Cogito, ergo sum—I think, therefore I am. In this formulation, thought precedes existence, consciousness precedes being, and the mind stands separate from and superior to the body.

But what if Descartes had it backward? What if the very act of existing—of being a body in the world with needs, desires, and challenges—is what generates thought? What if thinking is not the proof of existence but rather the consequence of it?

This reversal has significant implications, not just for human philosophy but for our understanding of all animal cognition. A crow exists in a time and place where food appears and disappears with the seasons. A human infant exists in a world of hunger contingent on functioning in overwhelmingly complex of social interaction.

In both cases, the organism is first—there is a body with needs, vulnerabilities, and capacities. Thinking emerges not as proof of that existence but as an element of it. The mind does not create the body; the body, situated in a demanding world, creates the need for mind.

When we recognize that existence precedes thought across the animal kingdom, we begin to see thinking not as a uniquely human, disembodied phenomenon but as an embodied response to the fundamental challenge of being alive. And this recognition should transform how we approach education, learning, and even our understanding of artificial intelligence.

Birds Are, Therefore They Think

Have you met the scrub jay, a bird no larger than a robin, living in the oak woodlands of California? This bird faces a problem that has nothing to do with abstract philosophy and everything to do with survival: acorns are abundant in autumn but scarce in spring.

The jay exists in a world of temporal mismatch between food availability and food need. It has a body that requires calories, but because it occupies a habitat with seasonal fluctuations, it must use its bird brain to survive.

The solution is remarkable. Scrub jays cache thousands of acorns each fall, hiding them in hundreds of locations across their territory. They remember not only where they hid food but what kind of food they hid and when they hid it.

They know that wax worms rot quickly while acorns last months, and they adjust their retrieval patterns accordingly. They even engage in deception: if a jay notices another bird watching while it caches food, it will return later when alone and move those caches to new locations. This is not simple instinct but flexible, socially aware thinking.

What drives this brainiac sophistication?

Not abstract contemplation but embodied existence. The jay’s brain—particularly its hippocampus, the region involved in spatial memory—is enlarged compared to non-caching birds.

This is not because the jay took lessons, practiced hard, and become smarter. It is because generations of jays existed in an environment where those individuals who could remember cache locations survived and reproduced. The thinking capacity emerged from the existential pressure of being a body that needs food in a world where food is unreliable.

Corvids—crows, ravens, and jays—demonstrate this principle across dozens of species. New Caledonian crows fashion hooks from twigs to extract insects from tree bark. They exist on islands where insects hide in crevices, so they think their way to the dinner table.

Rooks, which don’t typically use tools in the wild, can solve multi-step problems in captivity, dropping stones into tubes to raise water levels and access floating food. The capacity for this thinking was always present, latent in their neural architecture, but it manifests when the bird exists in a situation that demands it.

The bird brain reveals a fundamental truth: you don’t think yourself into existence; you exist yourself into thinking. The challenges of being a body in a particular ecological niche—finding food, avoiding predators, navigating social hierarchies—generate the capacities we recognize as intelligence. Birds are, and because they are, they must think.

Human Infants Are, Therefore They Think

If bird intelligence reveals how existence generates thought in the face of ecological challenges, human infant development shows how being a body in a social world generates the uniquely human capacity for language and abstract thinking. Humans have a strong existential drive for social solidarity from birth to match the jay’s drive for acorns.

A newborn infant is, first and foremost, a body with urgent needs and nothing immediately in view to satisfy them. It cannot feed itself, regulate its temperature, or move independently. It exists in a state of total dependence, and this very dependence becomes the engine of cognitive development.

The infant’s body knows how to suckle—this is present from birth. The rhythmic pattern of sucking and swallowing is embodied, automatic, essential. But even in this most basic bodily act, thinking begins to emerge. During nursing, the infant is not a passive recipient. Its body is pressed against another body, feeling warmth and heartbeat.

It hears a voice speaking words it does not yet recognize. Patterns are everywhere: the pattern of milk jetting down after certain sensations, the pattern of sounds that precede feeding, the pattern of the caregiver’s face appearing when the infant cries. The infant exists in a rich bath of statistical regularities, and its brain—embodied, embedded in this social context—begins to detect them. These patterns derived from physical sensations embedded in existential, material reality are inaccessible by AI.

Research in infant language acquisition has revealed something extraordinary: babies are statistical learning machines, primarily seeking patterns they encounter through embodied social interaction.

By six months, infants have already tuned their perception to the phonemes of their native language, losing the ability to distinguish sounds that don’t matter in their linguistic environment. Participation in language actually biases the infant brain for improved pattern seeking.

They achieve this not through explicit instruction but through existing in a world where certain sound patterns reliably co-occur with feeding, comforting, playing, and other embodied social experiences.

At eight months, infants show a remarkable sensitivity to the statistical patterns in speech. In groundbreaking experiments, researchers found that babies could detect when syllables reliably occurred together (like “pre-tty” or “ba-by”) versus when they crossed word boundaries. They learned through existential exposure, their brains tracking phonemic probabilities while their bodies engaged in the social interactions where language naturally occurs.

The infant doesn’t decide to learn language. The newcomer has no idea it is taking steps toward reading Shakespeare someday. It is, it interacts, and language is everywhere in the embodied social space of existence.

By the time a child reaches twelve months and speaks first words, something profound has happened. The body’s needs—for milk, for comfort, for social connection—have generated even wider thinking about patterns in the environment, taking advantage of sensory input from the eyes, the hands, the feet, the body as a resonator.

The word “milk” emerges not from disembodied contemplation of nourishment but from the repeated embodied experience of wanting milk, seeing the cup, sensing the blended unit of phonemes (m-i-l-k), and drinking.

Thinking about phonemic patterns for the infant is not about manipulating sound symbols, but about noticing implicit references from sounds to sensations, about storing meanings connected to sensations rather than definitions, as the new human being grows from the soil of bodily existence in a social world.

What’s crucial here is that the infant’s thinking emerges primarily from social participation and interaction, not from passive reception of information. Research has shown that when a caregiver responds to an infant’s gaze by labeling what the infant is looking at, learning accelerates dramatically compared to hearing the same words while looking at something else.

The infant is a volunteer, an active participant, a body directing attention, making choices, engaging socially. It is through being an embodied agent in a responsive social world that human thinking takes root.

The Educational Imperative: Learning as Embodied Engagement

If existence precedes and generates thought—if birds think because they must navigate their world and infants think because they are bodies in social interaction—what does this mean for education?

Contemporary schooling too often operates on the Cartesian model: students are treated as minds that should rightly think at full power disconnected from bodies that are more of a nuisance than an asset.

We ask students to contemplate abstract concepts, to read and write about ideas, to think critically—all while their bodies remain still, their thoughts unanchored by references to a sensory world, their social worlds controlled and constrained, their existence put on hold.

And then we wonder why they lack motivation, why they reach for AI to write essays they never wanted to write, why learning feels like a chore rather than a necessity. The problem is not that students won’t think unless adults demand it. The problem is that we have not created the conditions of existence that generate the need to think.

Imagine instead an educational model built on the principle of I am, therefore I think. I am means more than having a listing in a grade book or a class roster. I am students don’t sit in classrooms reading about ecosystems; they go to a local wetland, get their boots muddy, observe birds caching food, track water quality over time.

They are in the ecosystem, their bodies engaged with the physical and social reality of it. Only then do they have something to think about, something they are driven to understand because they have existed in relation to it.

The in-class field trip as a metaphor works to suggest the perspective teachers might consider as a design template for building existential knowledge during learning activities that can serve later as the grist for abstract, cerebral analysis, synthesis. and literacy work. Teacher preparation could focus on strategies for going on field trips without leaving the school grounds.

What does an in-class field trip look like in practice? It means bringing physical objects into the classroom—not just pictures of artifacts but actual rocks, fabrics, tools, instruments that students can handle, weigh, examine. It means transforming walls into galleries of rich visual materials—maps students can touch and annotate, timelines they construct themselves, student-created infographics that change weekly.

It means structured chaos: desks pushed aside for role-playing historical debates where students embody different perspectives, moving their bodies through space as they argue. It means student presentations that aren’t just talking heads with slides but demonstrations—showing how a pulley system works, teaching classmates a dance from another culture, demonstrating a chemical reaction.

The classroom becomes a studio, a lab, a stage. Students stand, move, gesture, manipulate, create. They work in groups where talk is necessary and natural. The teacher steps back from the center, circulating, observing, asking questions rather than delivering information.

Assessment happens through observation of engagement rather than silent individual testing. This is messier than rows of desks facing forward, but mess is the signature of existence—bodies in motion, minds engaged with material reality, learning happening because students are fully present, not just cognitively but physically and socially.

After existential, social participation, reading becomes purposeful. Learners need information to make sense of their embodied experience. Writing becomes necessary. They have observations to record, ideas to work through, arguments to make about what they experienced.

This is where artificial intelligence enters not as a replacement for thinking but as a tool for exploring thoughts that emerge from embodied existence. A student who has been to the wetland, who has seen something puzzling, who genuinely wants to understand, can use AI as an explorative tool:

“I noticed the water looked different colors in different areas. What causes that?” The AI can offer hypotheses, suggest readings, raise new questions. But the student’s thinking remains grounded in embodied experience, not replaced by machine generation, and the student returns to the embodied experience to validate the artificial encounter.

The crucial reversal is this: Not “I think and use AI, therefore I am a student,” but rather “I am a student who has experiences in the world, therefore I think and use AI to explore those thoughts.” The difference is between AI as a substitute for existence and AI as an amplifier of thinking that grows from existence.

When students write about their wetland experience, they are not producing an essay to satisfy an arbitrary requirement. When they read one another’s observations, they encounter different perspectives on a shared reality, generating further thinking about the complexity of what they experienced.

This model extends far beyond science field trips. History becomes embodied when students work together to imagine what travelers in Conestoga wagons might write in their diaries, when they interview elderly community members about their lived experiences, when they take virtual visits to historical sites or examine primary sources as physical objects. Students develop the foundation for symbolic and abstract thinking after they have “been” in contextual personal experiences.

Literature becomes embodied when students perform scenes from texts, experiencing the physical reality of stage positions and vocal dynamics before analyzing dramatic structure. They engage in writing workshops where drafts are shared aloud in community, where peer responses are immediate and social, where revision emerges from the felt gap between what they meant and what others understood.

They examine physical books as objects—the heft of a Victorian novel, the typography choices in a poem, the marginalia in a used textbook—understanding that texts have material existence before they have meaning. Mathematics becomes embodied when students optimize the design of a school garden bed to maximize yield within budget constraints, when they cook recipes that demand fraction conversions, when they collect and graph data about their own sleep patterns or screen time.

They build structures with limited materials, discovering through their hands why triangles provide stability and why rectangular frames collapse. The equations come later, naming and formalizing what their bodies already know from building, measuring, failing, and trying again

These examples barely do justice to what teachers can create. The principle remains constant: create conditions where students exist as active, embodied, social beings engaged with genuine challenges and questions first. Be. Thinking will emerge not because teachers command it but because existence demands it. And when students have thoughts worth exploring, AI becomes a powerful tool for that exploration rather than a temptation to bypass thinking altogether.

So What?

The Cartesian split between mind and body has haunted education for centuries, positioning the body as a distraction from the real work of the mind.

But corvids hoarding acorns and infants learning language teach us otherwise. We are not minds that happen to have bodies; we are bodies whose existence in challenging, social, meaningful contexts generates the thinking that makes us human.

If we want students to think deeply, to be motivated learners, to use AI wisely, we must first ensure they are fully present in the world, bodies engaged, socially connected, confronting real questions that emerge from genuine experience. I am, therefore I think.

Not the other way around.

Questions for Further Reflection

1. If thinking emerges from embodied existence, what happens to our thinking when our existence becomes increasingly mediated by screens and digital interfaces? As more of our daily lives move online—work, socializing, learning, entertainment—we spend less time in embodied interaction with physical and social environments. Does this shift fundamentally alter the quality or nature of the thinking that emerges? Are there forms of thought that can only arise from direct, embodied engagement with the world, and if so, what are we losing?

2. How might recognizing that “I am, therefore I think” change our assessment of intelligence across species—and across technologies? If cognitive capacities are understood as emerging from the specific existential challenges faced by embodied organisms in particular ecological niches, what does this mean for how we evaluate intelligence in octopuses, dolphins, or even plants? And more provocatively, can artificial intelligence ever truly “think” without being embodied—without having needs, vulnerabilities, and stakes in the world? Or is AI fundamentally limited to simulating thought patterns that arose from the embodied existence of humans without ever experiencing the generative source?

3. If schools embraced embodied learning at scale, what would we have to sacrifice, and would it be worth it? A truly embodied educational model requires time—time for field trips, for hands-on projects, for social interaction and reflection. It likely means covering less content, testing fewer discrete skills, and accepting more variability in what students learn. In a world that values measurable outcomes and standardized achievement, are we willing to trade breadth of coverage for depth of embodied engagement? What evidence would convince us that students who exist more fully learn more meaningfully, even if they know fewer facts?

References

Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9(4), 321-324.

Bluff, L. A., Troscianko, J., Weir, A. A., Kacelnik, A., & Rutz, C. (2010). Tool use by wild New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides at natural foraging sites. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1686), 1377-1385.

Clayton, N. S., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature, 395(6699), 272-274.

Clayton, N. S., & Dickinson, A. (1999). Scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) remember the relative time of caching as well as the location and content of their caches. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113(4), 403-416.

Clayton, N. S., Yu, K. S., & Dickinson, A. (2003). Interacting cache memories: Evidence for flexible memory use by Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29(1), 14-22.

Clayton, N. S., Dally, J. M., & Emery, N. J. (2007). Social cognition by food-caching corvids. The western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 507-522.

Dally, J. M., Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2006). Food-caching western scrub-jays keep track of who was watching when. Science, 312(5780), 1662-1665.

Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2001). Effects of experience and social context on prospective caching strategies by scrub jays. Nature, 414(6862), 443-446.

Hunt, G. R. (1996). Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows. Nature, 379(6562), 249-251.

Hunt, G. R., & Gray, R. D. (2004). Direct observations of pandanus-tool manufacture and use by a New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). Animal Cognition, 7(2), 114-120.

Kacelnik, A. (2009). Tools for thought or thoughts for tools? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(25), 10071-10072.

Kenward, B., Weir, A. A., Rutz, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2005). Tool manufacture by naive juvenile crows. Nature, 433(7022), 121.

Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8-month-old infants. Child Development, 80(3), 674-685.

Rutz, C., Bluff, L. A., Reed, N., Troscianko, J., Newton, J., Inger, R., Kacelnik, A., & Bearhop, S. (2010). The ecological significance of tool use in New Caledonian crows. Science, 329(5998), 1523-1526.

Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926-1928.

Saffran, J. R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2018). Infant statistical learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 181-203.

Saffran, J. R., & Wilson, D. P. (2003). From syllables to syntax: Multilevel statistical learning by 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 4(2), 273-284.

Thiessen, E. D., & Saffran, J. R. (2003). When cues collide: Use of stress and statistical cues to word boundaries by 7- to 9-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 706-716.

Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.

Wimpenny, J. H., Weir, A. A., Clayton, L., Rutz, C., & Kacelnik, A. (2009). Cognitive processes associated with sequential tool use in New Caledonian crows. PLOS ONE, 4(8), e6471.