# I think therefore i am..... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 26, 2003, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533 "2003-02-26T02:00:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/221 "2003-03-13T19:22:29Z")
I dislike being told, repeatedly, that I am failing to read for meaning but simply sift out “suspiciouis phrases”. I especially dislike it when the speaker has demonstrated very little capcity to read for comprehension in this thread. When that same poster, tough, continues to express such onconscious ironies as: **"Observation: There are thoughts. . . Taken together, these observation and assumptions can be combined into the sttement “There are thoughts (which are ‘mine’), which have a progenitor (which is ‘I’).” This is basically the entirety of Descartes’s argument. Maintianing the existence of the observer, which is not one of these assumptions, is also not necessary to the arguement."** Well, slapstick isn’t the highest form of humor but I will take my chickles where I find them. Feel free to reply with an impassioned defense of why thoughts imply a thinker but observations do not imply an observer. I will accord it all of the respect that it deserves. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/222 "2003-03-13T19:37:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Observation: There are thoughts. > Assumption 1: The existence of thoughts implies a thinker. you know, i already brought this up. you didn’t like it. you realized that it didn’t show what you wanted it to show. this in no way demonstrates that these thoughts are your own. in fact, there is no reason to believe that there are thoughts, unless you believe that they are observed, which requires the existence of an observer. > [@](#): > > Assumption 2: These thoughts are mine. > > This is more a matter of definition than anything else; the largest problem would be if you entertained the assumption that possession is exclusive to a single owner, which I do not. (Protests that all ‘my’ thoughts are actaully God’s afterthoughts don’t phase me.) This assumption merely labels the thoughts ‘mine’, and fromthat, labels the generator of those thought ‘I’. As this is nothing more than a label and implies nothing about the properties of the thinker but what is independently observed (that it thinks), I doubt anyone has the _right_ to dispute this. great, but this shows nothing. that there are thoughts and those thoughts imply a thinker are all fine and well, but that proof gives no hint as to the identity of the thinker. > [@](#): > > I can label things how I please, particularly if that labeling seems to fit observed (if doubted) evidence. unless, of course, you define yourself as the thinker. sorta seems like accepting “i am” as an axiom to me. i don’t know what it seems like to you. but who is it that observed the thoughts “independently” of the thinker? how do we know the first “observation” is even worth considering? > [@](#): > > Taken together, these observation and assumptions can be combined into the sttement “There are thoughts (which are ‘mine’), which have a progenitor (which is ‘I’).” This is basically the entirety of Descartes’s argument. but you defined ‘mine’ and ‘i’ completely independently of any being. there is no way to link the thoughts to **you**. this in now way shows that **you** are the thinker whose existence was proved. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/223 "2003-03-13T19:53:30Z")
**erislover** , you got smoke and fire mixed up. Generic argument: 1. The existence of [noun1] is undoubtable 2. The existence of [noun1] implies the existence of [noun2] :.) [noun2] exists. Specifics: 1. The existence of [(my) thoughts] is undoubtable 2. The existence of [(my) thoughts] implies the existence of [a thinker (me)] :.) [a thinker (me)] exists. 3. The existence of [(fire) smoke] is undoubtable 4. The existence of [(fire) smoke] implies the existence of [a smoke source (fire)] :.) [a smoke source (fire)] exists. The two arguments appear analogous. Please explain where they differ so that one could be ciruclar and the other not, or assign the same level of ‘circularity’ to the both of them. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2003, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/224 "2003-03-13T20:08:53Z")
Generic argument: no problem. Specific argument 1: why is the existence of thought undoubtable? Hint: it relies on the subjective subject’s assumed existence. Specific argument 2: neither smoke nor fire are attemting to prove their existence, the circle is broken (assuming it is a good argument, which isn’t worth arguing over). Further specific argument 2: note the causality yet? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/225 "2003-03-14T01:35:07Z")
\*\*Spiritus Mundi \*\* My, irritated, are we? I’ve always tested very well in readong comprehension, actually, at least when the material wasn’t internally inconsistent. I found Descartes quite easy to understand; and I think I’m qualified ot interpret **my own writing**. With two misses in a row I assumed there was a reason, but if you merely whiffed them then I apologise for my discourtesy. You’re new on the block, so refer to the bottom of the post for a shiny new version of the proof. **Ramanujan** I have extreme doubts that I actually doubted the implication from thought to thinker. Perhaps I was telling you that that didn’t mean “Thoughts **cause** thinkers”? Regardless, rather than picking apart every little detail of your reply, I refer you to the end of the post. If you don’ t get that, I’m sure you’ll let me know. :rolleyes: **erislover** You use a different type of reasoning than I learned. I’m pretty sure that “cirularity” isn’t a fallacy, and I know that this isn’t begging the question. And what are you harping about causality for? The causes are fire causes smoke, thinkiers cause thoughts, same direction, same thing. Whatever, just read on… **everybody** You all seem to be worked up, and seem to be missing the entire point. This is not as hard as it sounds. And the rules of reason here seem to vary from person to person. Look, try this on for size: Descartes for Dummies. For variety, I’ll do a proof by cases; perhaps somebody will actually understand it this time. Consider two cases: you exist or you don’t exist. Case 1: You exist. If you exist, then the answer to he question “Do I exist” when posed by you is true. Case 2: You don’t exist. If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you? So, in all cases, if you ask the question, you know the answer. Finis. Think about it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/226 "2003-03-14T02:14:56Z")
[http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging) For your reference, then. > [@](#): > > Petitio principii / Begging the question > This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form… Begging the question is similar to circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise. Circularity isn’t _per se_ a fallacy; we might consider all definitions to be circular (hence the phrase “true by definition”, but this is not used to express _implication_, rather to demonstrate _equivalency_). But neither does anyone prove definitions, and Descartes’s argument isn’t definitional. Not knowing whether **Spiritus** will reply any longer, I will at least reiterate my own point that no one is strictly arguing that Descartes’s argument was inconsistent, but that it was circular. **Spiritus** also brought up the point that Descartes stopped doubting when he could have kept going, and indeed where other philosophers have (hence my mention of Hume about three pages ago). ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/227 "2003-03-14T05:48:13Z")
> [@](#): > > This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Finally, we come back to the place where all discussions of logic should be: the validity of the assumptions. Forgive me my confusion, but comments like “No one disputes the claim that there is thought,” kept throwing me off. Before I go one inch further, are we agreed; is there any other problem here but the assumption of the claim “I am thinking”? This claim is of course a half-step away from being “I am,” and if unsubstantiable, would render the argument meaningless. If this claim is in fact substantiable, then there is no problem, correct? Anybody can apply. By the way, what did y’all think of my Descartes for Dummies proof? I’m curious to hear of any flaws in it. (I can’t fathom where they’d be, but I’m curious). ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/228 "2003-03-14T06:03:02Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve always tested very well in readong comprehension, actually, at least when the material wasn’t internally inconsistent. You should be retested. Or you should demonstrate an internal inconsistency in my posts to this thread. But you will probably just continue spouting triteness and unintentional irony while thinking yourself profound. > [@](#): > > I found Descartes quite easy to understand; and I think I’m qualified ot interpret my own writing. You have obviously found Descartes easy to **accept** , and you are certainly qualified to interpret your own writing. Perhaps if you apply yourself diligently to self-interpretation it will one day enable you to write English sentences which convey the meanings that you intend. Or you can keep writing **“Because the brain is . . . stated to exist”** and pretend that it does not assume the conclusion: **the brain exists**. It makes little difference to me. I enjoy a good rational debate, but absent that I can also smile at the clown slipping on his own banana peel. > [@](#): > > With two misses in a row I assumed there was a reason, but if you merely whiffed them then I apologise for my discourtesy. You may keep your apologies until they can be sincerely expressed. I have no use for such this one; it is neither gracious enough to be taken seriously nor subtle enough to be respected as an insult. > [@](#): > > You’re new on the block, so refer to the bottom of the post for a shiny new version of the proof. I am new only to your acquaintance, too my sincere regret. Fine work on the proof, though. It displays both the depth and breadth of your understanding quite stunningly. I anxiously await your next opus. Will it be **“why thoughts imply a thinker but observations do not imply an observer”** or **“on the nature of implication in a discontinuous instant”**? By the way, since against all expectation I have found a reason to spend my moments typing at you, I should note for completeness that I extended the parallelism further than necessary in writing **“I think therefore I am not”**. While that certainly would disprove _cogito ergo sum_, all that is strictly necessary is **“I think and I am not”**. I blame the extravagance on a youthful indulgence in Pythagorean poetry. I never could pass up parallel lines. Of course, since neither I nor anyone else in this thread is attempting to disprove Descartes, it’s very much a side issue. I mention it only so that you will not fear that I have failed to recognize your own offering to this hypothetical debate: **“The thing you’re trying to disprove is the claim “I think”, anyway.”** That would not, obviously, disprove _cogito ergo sum_, though it would make the proof demonstrably unsound for said hypothetical unthinking individual. But I’m sure you understood this. After all, you do test well in reading comprehension. > [@](#): > > My, irritated, are we? Not at all. The irritation was based upon an initial offering of respect. It has long since passed on to infantile amusement. I should probably aspire to more enlightened emotions, but these days I just welcome the small smiles and try not to dwell on the teeth hiding behind the lips. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/229 "2003-03-14T06:27:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Before I go one inch further, are we agreed; is there any other problem here but the assumption of the claim “I am thinking”? who is thinking? _who_ is thinking? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/230 "2003-03-14T06:30:16Z")
ya know, you’d think one would see the problem with trying to prove to _oneself_ the existence of _oneself_ with a proof that is only valid to _oneself_. i don’t think i have anything more to add. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/231 "2003-03-14T07:27:04Z")
Good god, **Spiritus Mundi** , you have a short temper. I am somewhat at a loss how to write to you. How do I respond, without driving you to another unproductive explosion! Your inital post was nice, though. Demonstrative of thought. Before you get too excited about “Because the brain is . . . stated to exist”, you might note that that was referring to the scenario in **your** first post. > [@](#): > > I might, for instance, hypothesize that what I perceive as mental processes are nothing more than deterministic results of neurochemicals and that both consciousness and cognition are illusions created after the fact by associative memory trails. In such a model thoughts, thinkers, et. al. have no more claim to existence than unicorns: they are a fiction **spun by the brain** to make the stories it tells more interesting. It was your scenario, and I was merely referring to your assumption. _(Imperfectly refraining from comment.)_ > [@](#): > > I anxiously await your next opus. Will it be “why thoughts imply a thinker but observations do not imply an observer” or “on the nature of implication in a discontinuous instant”? _(Imperfectly refraining from comment, an attempt made because I’m not interested in **your** opuses.)_ You’re quite the charmer, aren’t you? You might notice that Descartes starts off by assuming the existence of EVERYTHING. It’s called reality. If I thought you really wanted to discuss something, I might actually talk about the issue at hand here, but I wouldn’t want to start a precedent. …and when you consider a “discontinuous instant” (which is, of course, an oxymoron, but I know what you mean) you merely reduce your chronological frame of reference to 0. You take all the time in the world to think about and talk about a single unchanging instant. This is so hard, that most arguments do it by default. “I think and I am not”? Very good, you might know what an implication is. Apparently it is confusing to some. My old logic 101 class, particularly. (Where is the smilie for abject horror?) The thing is, I don’t think you’re going to find a head here who will entertain that notion. Most of them are telling me it’s **so** obvious that “I am” follows from “I think” that I shouldn’t even talk about it. Were you hoping to achieve something by mentioning it? > [@](#): > > With two misses in a row I assumed there was a reason, but if you merely whiffed them then I apologise for my discourtesy. I said if. And it looks like the total’s rising. Feel free to reply. I don’t derive any ‘infantile’ amusement from your posts; they simply seem… uh… interesting. You can start being worth list- uh, being polite any time now. Oh, and **Ramanujan** , I’ll take that as a "I don’t buy ‘I am thinking’ " :). I’m not the slightest bit surprised. I’ll work it over later; g’night. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/232 "2003-03-14T13:33:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Before I go one inch further, are we agreed; is there any other problem here but the assumption of the claim “I am thinking”? No problem with it at all; it swiftly brings both the self and conscious action into play with one assumption. Just don’t use it to prove “I am” and you’ll get no argument from me. There will be a million and one follow-up questions, but those are other threads 🙂 > [@](#): > > This claim is of course a half-step away from being “I am,” and if unsubstantiable, would render the argument meaningless. It would render the argument as a non-argument. There’s nothing to argue. > [@](#): > > If this claim is in fact substantiable, then there is no problem, correct? No problem so long as you don’t use it to prove “I am”. > [@](#): > > By the way, what did y’all think of my Descartes for Dummies proof? First part: assume “I am”. Thus, “I am” by axiom 1. No worries. But nothing was demonstrated, either. Second part: assume “I am” is false. But I am is true. So “I am”. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/233 "2003-03-14T16:43:54Z")
**erislover** , the mere fact that _you_ are assuming an axiom does not imply that an _argument_ is begging the question, unless _it_ assumes the axiom. This should be obvious; how many times have you engaged in a discussion with them, only to abandon it because they refused to even consider alternatives? (“Okay, suppose for a second that God doesn’t exist.” “But he does!”) It’s irritating, isn’t it, to have somebody ignorantly declare your argument false (or irrelevant) merely because **he** has a preconcieved idea that he can’t ignore for even an instant? Well, you’re behaving in an irritating manner regarding this argument. Have you ever heard the phrase “for the sake of argument”? Well, for the sake of argument stop inserting extra premises into the argument and consider what is actually being said. (And if you think that, in my DfD proof, Case 2’s “You don’t exist” and Case 1’s “You exist” are somehow contradictory, you need a refresher on [proof by cases](http://www.math.uncc.edu/~droyster/math3181/notes/hyprgeom/node22.html). I can write the proof in formal symbolic logic if you need me to. If you’re just jamming some spare “You exist” axiom into Case 2, then refer to previous paragraph.) > [@](#): > > _orignally posted by Ramanujan_ > ya know, you’d think one would see the problem with trying to prove to _oneself_ the existence of _oneself_ with a proof that is only valid to _oneself_. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and after some reflection, I’ve decided I _don’t_ see the problem. More accurately, I can’t tell which problem you are having. Possibility 1: That you cannot accept “I am thinking” as a premise, because you think that you have to exist to think and you think that begs the question. If this is your problem, then you misunderstood the structure of Descartes’ discussion. Descartes started by examining reality as we percieve it as an argument. That is, reality seems to imply certain things, and Descartes wondered wether, after doubting the assumptions that were already presented by reality, anything would be left. The thing is, in order to remove an axiom (such as “I have feet”), he had to add an axiom (“I doubt that I have feet”). Note that doubting something isn’t assuming the opposite; it merely means that you can no longer conclude things from the doubted premise. After he got done annihilating most of reality, he was left something like the following: “I exist” “I have doubts” and a big rack of doubts like “I doubt I have feet”, “I doubt I sense things”, “I doubt turnips”, etc. He then went one step further. “I doubt I exist” “I have doubts” and a big rack of doubts like “I doubt I have feet”, “I doubt I sense things”, “I doubt turnips”, etc. From there, he pointed out that “I have doubts” implies “I exist”, and stops. Not exactly good form. I think philosopers are fundamentally afraid to consider that they don’t think, because if it’s true, then there’s no reason to keep feeding them. Let’s finish what he started. “I doubt I exist” “I doubt I have doubts” and a big rack of doubts like “I doubt I have feet”, “I doubt I sense things”, “I doubt turnips”, etc. So now all we have is a big rack of doubts. If you like, we can doubt that, leaving us with: “I doubt I have a big rack of doubts.” Much cleaner. Problem is, we can’t get rid of it entirely. “I doubt I doubt I have a big rack of doubts.” “I doubt I doubt I doubt I have a big rack of doubts.” “I doubt I doubt I doubt I doubt I have a big rack of doubts.” The longer you try to convince yourself that you have no axioms, the more your final axiom shouts that you are doubting things. It is not possible to rationally convince yourself that you are doubting by doubting the fact. Thus, the assertion “I doubt” remains long after you have doubted the assertion that you exist. And from that last remaining undoubtable assertion, you can conclude “I exist.” By the definition provided by erislover, this argument isn’t circular, and arguments are only begging the question when the premise is as doubtful as the conclusion. Based on the additional reasoned fact that “I doubt” is undoubtable, we can conclude that Descartes’s argument is neither circular nor does it beg the question. Possibility 2: Okay then, how do I know that that thing that is doing the doubting is _me_? Well, for one, it sure _seems_ like I’m the one having the doubts, so I seem to be in the defending camp. I can say “I doubt that I’m the one having the doubts” all day until my text font turns blue, but I undo the doubt each time I make it. 🙂 That’s a semantic argument, you might protest, unamused. So what, I might reply; do you have a better definition of self than 'the one who is thinking my thoughts"? Remember, references to senses and memory are irrelevant by the time this becomes a problem. After you strip away all other identification, how else can you know yourself but as the owner of your thoughts? The ‘I’ isn’t the most important part of the argument anyway. After you prove that something exists, you’ve achieved your primary ontological goal. Possibility 3: Hey, who knows? If the above two possibilities don’t tickle your fancy, feel free to explain your problem. Maybe I’ll understand you this time. Also, does my “Descartes for Dummies” proof clarify anything? I haven’t heard your take on it. In case you didn’t noticed it, It’s rather more to the point than Descartes himself was; plus it’s probably the least misinterpretable thing I’ve said yet on this thread! If you have any problems with the cogito, they ought to apply to that argument too, and be easier to point out there. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/234 "2003-03-14T17:08:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > **erislover** , the mere fact that _you_ are assuming an axiom does not imply that an _argument_ is begging the question, unless _it_ assumes the axiom. Of course. And it does. _Case 2: You don’t exist. If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you?_ Case2: You don’t exist. But you do exist[, so you exist]. > [@](#): > > It’s irritating, isn’t it, to have somebody ignorantly declare your argument false (or irrelevant) merely because **he** has a preconcieved idea that he can’t ignore for even an instant? Very. Welcome to the world of **Spiritus Mundi** , **Ramanujan** , **Sentient Meat** , **erislover** , Bertrand Russell, and countless others in and out of this thread. 😛 > [@](#): > > Well, you’re behaving in an irritating manner regarding this argument. Have you ever heard the phrase “for the sake of argument”? Well, for the sake of argument stop inserting extra premises into the argument and consider what is actually being said. I am doing that, and “what is being said” is what is inserting “extra” premises. > [@](#): > > If you’re just jamming some spare “You exist” axiom into Case 2, then refer to previous paragraph. I’m not “jamming” anything in it, I am parsing it using what logic seems solipsistically appropriate, and when I do so I find an axiomatic assertion of existence hidden in what only seems like a demonstration of existence. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/235 "2003-03-14T17:19:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Case 2: You don’t exist. If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you? > > Case2: You don’t exist. But you do exist[, so you exist]. Creative. This is so creative, I can’t even _figure out_ how you got from my Case 2 to your Case2. What part of “If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you?” translates into “But you do exist”? It translates into “If you don’t exist, then it is not the case that you are asking the question ‘Do I exist?’.” I think I once asked somebody to stop rewriting my premises. I ask you, if you want to rewrite them, at least make some stab at retaining some of the meaning. The rest of your post either depends on you backing up your bizarre rewriting of my argument, so I’ll ignore it until you have a chance to explain yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/236 "2003-03-14T17:44:26Z")
[ol] [li]You should be retested.[/li][li]Or you should demonstrate an internal inconsistency in my posts to this thread.[/li][li]But you will probably just continue spouting triteness and unintentional irony while thinking yourself profound.[/li][/ol] It appears that **begbert2** has chosen door number 3. > [@](#): > > Before you get too excited about “Because the brain is . . . stated to exist”, you might note that that was referring to the scenario in your first post. Indeed it was. The impetus to use the assumption to draw a circle and declare it important, however, is entirely your own. I suspect you found it behind door number 3. > [@](#): > > You might notice that Descartes starts off by assuming the existence of EVERYTHING. It’s called reality. So, your deep comprehension of Descartes has led you to the conlusion that he assumes the true existence of everything and then procedes to meditate upon how he might doubt the truths that he has just accepted, and you use this understanding to pass off ontological assumptions as useful in the epistemological argument. Goodness, why do you think Descartes didn’t just write: **Everything is. It’s called reality.** Door number 3. > [@](#): > > If I thought you really wanted to discuss something, I might actually talk about the issue at hand here, but I wouldn’t want to start a precedent. Chicken . . . egg. Pot . . . kettle. Door . . . 3. > [@](#): > > when you consider a “discontinuous instant” (which is, of course, an oxymoron, but I know what you mean) you merely reduce your chronological frame of reference to 0. You take all the time in the world to think about and talk about a single unchanging instant. This is so hard, that most arguments do it by default. No, the discontinuous instant (yes, but you know what I mean) does not merely reduce the chronological reference frame to 0. It is not merely focusing on the “emerging now” exclusively. This might, though, explain why you mistakenly think implication has meaning in a discontinuous instant. That you think most arguments proceed from this scenario is yet another demonstration that door number 3 might not have been your best option. > [@](#): > > “I think and I am not”? Very good, you might know what an implication is. Apparently it is confusing to some. Obviously, including those who argue that **~A** disproves **A-\>B**. > [@](#): > > My old logic 101 class, particularly. Certainly those members sampled in this thread. > [@](#): > > The thing is, I don’t think you’re going to find a head here who will entertain that notion. > > > [@](#): > > > > _Spiritus Mundi_ > > I wouldn’t know, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone try to disprove it. > > > [@](#): > > > > _Spiritus Mundi_ > > I should note for completeness . . . Of course, since neither I nor anyone else in this thread is attempting to disprove Descartes, it’s very much a side issue. [ul][li]Door[/li][li]Number[/li][li]3[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > Were you hoping to achieve something by mentioning it? I was initially responding to your red herring: **“I suspect that virtually all ‘disproofs’ of ‘cogito ergo sum’ stem from giving it too much credit.”** That was back when I thought I would be engaging in a debate rather than watching a vaudeville. > [@](#): > > I said if. And it looks like the total’s rising. How sad. Your act showed so much promise, but now you are reduced to vague and unsupported insinuations that I am repeatedly misreading your words. Well, I suppose every show must have it’s talking dog sketch. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/237 "2003-03-14T18:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Creative. This is so creative, I can’t even _figure out_ how you got from my Case 2 to your Case2. What part of “If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you?” translates into “But you do exist”? It translates into “If you don’t exist, then it is not the case that you are asking the question ‘Do I exist?’.” Well, you like tautologies of several steps so I suppose I will lengthen it and see if we can come full circle still. _Case 2: If you don’t exist, then you wouldn’t be asking the question, now would you?_ Hidden assumption: **that ‘I’ am asking the question.** And if I am asking the question, then I exist. Allow me to remove the irrelevencies so you can see The Ring (don’t worry, it isn’t a sign of your impending death): If I am… then I exist. Well whoopie. > [@](#): > > I think I once asked somebody to stop rewriting my premises. I ask you, if you want to rewrite them, at least make some stab at retaining some of the meaning. It is all there, good sir. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/238 "2003-03-14T19:14:18Z")
On the subject of **Spiritus Mundi** (which it appears stands for “spirited moron”) Question: How does one respond to a post that’s 1) chock-full of shit, and 2) deliberately trying to elicit a hostile reaction? What am I supposed to do, call him a talking dog? I can just see it: a debate on Descartes is derailed with “I am rubber and you are glue”. :rolleyes: But, how can I leave it alone? Lest somebody give any of that inflammatory verbal vomit credence: 1. Supposedly, I stated “Because the brain is . . . stated to exist” as a premise to an argument. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > I might, for instance, hypothesize that what I perceive as mental processes are nothing more than deterministic results of neurochemicals and that both consciousness and cognition are illusions created after the fact by associative memory trails. In such a model thoughts, thinkers, et. al. have no more claim to existence than unicorns: they are a fiction spun by the brain to make the stories it tells more interesting. Note that he’s positing a scenario here, and in the scenario, he clearly is supposing that a brain exists. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > Because the brain is, in this scenario, stated as existing, it backs up the claim that the brain itself calcualtes deterministically: that some real source of thoughts exists. As you can see if you don’t chop the middle out, I’m pointing out that the result of the brain’s self-cognition matches the reality posited in the scenario. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ **YES!** Read that again: because the brain is stated as existing we can claim that it exists. S.M. doesn’t seem to understand what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > try reading it again; this is the bit where you the reader get to check the brains work. See that ‘brain itself calcualtes deterministically’ bit? That’s what the brain does. Unlike the brain, You were able to read the scenario, and can verify that the conclusion it came to is right. Read for meaning, people, not to sift out phrases that look suspicious. I try explaining it to him. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > begbert2, I have no desire to sift through your snide insinuation to locate the relevant points. Reasoned discourse at its finest. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > Or you can keep writing “Because the brain is . . . stated to exist” and pretend that it does not assume the conclusion: the brain exists. It makes little difference to me. I enjoy a good rational debate, but absent that I can also smile at the clown slipping on his own banana peel. And he still doesn’t get it. And has kicked into “I am an asshole” mode. An argument style to be proud of. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > You might notice that Descartes starts off by assuming the existence of EVERYTHING. It’s called reality. If I thought you really wanted to discuss something, I might actually talk about the issue at hand here, but I wouldn’t want to start a precedent. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > So, your deep comprehension of Descartes has led you to the conlusion that he assumes the true existence of everything and then procedes to meditate upon how he might doubt the truths that he has just accepted, and you use this understanding to pass off ontological assumptions as useful in the epistemological argument. Goodness, why do you think Descartes didn’t just write: Everything is. It’s called reality. Nice response. It seems he doesn’t really want to discuss anything, unless you consider Argumentum ad hominem discussion. S.M. has of course ignored the actual layout of Descartes’s argument, which has been recapped several times, in detail, at least one of which was after he entered the thread. Why didn’t he write “Everything is. It’s called reality.”? Because after _starting_ with the assumption, he started **thinking** , and progressed from there. Whiff. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > Chicken . . . egg. > Pot . . . kettle. > Door . . . 3. 😕 I leave this as an excercise to the reader. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > No, the discontinuous instant (yes, but you know what I mean) does not merely reduce the chronological reference frame to 0. It is not merely focusing on the “emerging now” exclusively. This might, though, explain why you mistakenly think implication has meaning in a discontinuous instant. > > That you think most arguments proceed from this scenario is yet another demonstration that door number 3 might not have been your best option. Or it might mean that I have some vague clue as to what an argument is. Every logical argument I have ever seen, heard, or read, in only 3 college courses that addressed the subject, was based on a set of axioms, and inferences, and conclusions, that are all assumed to truth or falsehood at a single time. There is no passage of time in a logical argument; it’s an excersise in symbol manipulation at its finest. And as to S.M.'s understanding of implications: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_Obviously, including those who argue that ~A disproves A-\>B. Which is exactly you, spirited moron. Take a course in basic logic. The truth table for implication is: A B A-\>B T T T T F F F T T F F T As anybody who knows **anything** about basic reasoning knows, a false premise tells you NOTHING about the conclusion. It may be true that “All men with no eyes are blind”, but if the man in question _has_ eyes, then you **can’t** conclude that he can see! For all you know, he’s brain-dead. It might be useful to know that the implication “A -\> B” is true EXACTLY when “~A or B” is true. The statements are equivalent. And tell me where “~A or B” implies either the passage of time OR alternatives? It is a statement about the way things are. Just like “A -\> B”. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > Certainly those members sampled in this thread. You really shouldn’t badmouth other people like that. I’d bet that if you asked around, either people would come up with the same truth table as me, or admit that it’s been a while since _they_ were in logic 101. Argumentum ad numerum works better when there actually _is_ popular support for your dipwad statements. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > > > [@](#): > > > > The thing is, I don’t think you’re going to find a head here who will entertain that notion. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Spiritus Mundi > > > I wouldn’t know, I don’t think I have ever seen anyone try to disprove it. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Spiritus Mundi > > > I should note for completeness . . . Of course, since neither I nor anyone else in this thread is attempting to disprove Descartes, it’s very much a side issue. > > Door > Number > 3 Apparently, S.M. is saying that agreeing with him is grounds for being called an idiot. For once, we can agree on something. (Keep in mind, he’s the one who keeps bringing this odd unentertainable notion up.) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > I was initially responding to your red herring: “I suspect that virtually all ‘disproofs’ of ‘cogito ergo sum’ stem from giving it too much credit.” That was back when I thought I would be engaging in a debate rather than watching a vaudeville. That would be another whiff. Try taking it in context. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > I said if. And it looks like the total’s rising. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > How sad. Your act showed so much promise, but now you are reduced to vague and unsupported insinuations that I am repeatedly misreading your words. I think we’re up to about five? At least four if you don’t count re-whiffs. And frankly it is sad; your first post was the first post in a while that suggested new and interesting ways to consider the problem. But, now you are reduced to specifically incorrect and abusive spoutings. Tell you what, why don’t you go start a pit thread about how stupid us evil guys are who like to use rules of logic in our arguments are. It’ll make you feel better; I won’t read it; the discussion here can continue uninterrupted by spurious ranting and the obligatory refutations; everybody’s happy. Oh, and **erislover**? When you ‘remove the irrelevencies’, your supposed to leave the relevent bits in. Like the “wouldn’t”. Try it again with “If you don’t exist, then it is **not** the case that you are asking the question ‘Do I exist?’.” There is no “hidden” assumption; it falls right out to the end of the arguement: “So, in all cases, if you ask the question, you know the answer.” What’s so hidden about that? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/239 "2003-03-14T20:20:27Z")
For purists, a very deliberate rendition of DfD. There are some things everyone should know about implications: 1. If you know that your premise is false, you can claim whatever you want and be telling the truth. For example, “If the moon is made of green cheese, then I’m a three-headed gerbil.” 2. If you know that your conclusion is true, you can claim whatever you want as the premise and be sure that you are telling the truth. For example, the claim “If lightning strikes me, then I’m a liar”, when made by a liar, is true wether or not lightning stikes him. So, if the premise is false, the implication is true, and if the conclusion is true, the implication is true, regardless of the other half of the implication. This is always true, regardless of subject matter. (Isn’t logic wonderful?" The argument: Assumption: If something doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t think, ask questions, or anything. Now, logically, either you exist or you don’t. Each case will list the assumption in question. Case 1: You exist. Because it is true that we exist, we can make any claim the first half of the implication. So, we can say with certainty: “If you ask “Do I exist”, then you exist.” It’s a sure bet. Case 2: You don’t exist. Well, if you don’t exist, then you certainly don’t ask questions. (This was stated in the assumption.) Since we know that you don’t ask questions, any implication that assumes that you DO ask questions is true. It could never be proved wrong. So, we can say with certainty: “If you ask “Do I exist”, then you exist.” Since the condition will never be met, the conclusion will never be tested, so it doesn’t matter what it is. Conclusion: So, in either case we can conclude: “If you ask “Do I exist”, then you exist.” That means, in short, if you accept the single premise, reason requires you to conclude: “If you ask “Do I exist”, then you exist.” If you want to tell me that _you_ don’t ask the question, I 1) won’t believe you, and 2) won’t care, as this doesn’t effect _my_ ability to use this argument to prove my own existence. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/240 "2003-03-14T21:09:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Oh, and **erislover**? When you ‘remove the irrelevencies’, your supposed to leave the relevent bits in. Like the “wouldn’t”. Try it again with “If you don’t exist, then it is **not** the case that you are asking the question ‘Do I exist?’.” Well, with that phrasing there is nothing wrong with Case 2. The circle is unbroken and no one exists. Well done. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=13)