# 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:** 13
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/241 "2003-03-14T21:28:33Z")
**got back, saw that I should have previewed, fixed formatting.** So, I’ll indulge in synecdoche. > [@](#): > > 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. A = “I think” B = “I am” So, what might one substitute for ~A? > [@](#): > > **begbert2** > It starts with an observation, “I think”, which is then used to conclude “I am”. . . The thing you’re trying to disprove is the claim “I think”, anyway. If you can prove “I don’t think”, then you might have a shot at it. Ah, ~A = “I don’t think”. Now, who was it who argued that to disprove Descartes one should argue ~A? You should have gone to a better school. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/242 "2003-03-14T21:59:14Z")
BTW, since everyone else has already wasted their time pointing this out to you, I thought I would blindly join the herd.[sup]1[/sup] The point, as a matter of epistemological foundation, is **how do I know that I ask the question "do I exist?"** [sup]1[/sup][sub]Yes, I realize that I had already joined this herd by implication when I asked **begbert2** why thoughts imply a thinker but observations do not imply an observer, but it’s best to make these things excrutiatingly obvious when dealing with a man that falsely attributes his position to me and then uses this lie to call me a moron.[/sub] ---
**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, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/243 "2003-03-14T22:14:03Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **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 would be another whiff. Try taking it in context. Here is the entire paragrah in question: [ul][li]‘cogito ergo sum’ doesn’t prove reality, perception, reason, temporality, volition, cognition, or anything else but some kind of existence, in some kind of sense. I suspect that virtually all ‘disproofs’ of ‘cogito ergo sum’ stem from giving it too much credit. [/ul][/li] Two options: [ol][li]Specifically address which elements of this context make it clea that you did not intend to raise the issue of logically disproving Descartes’ implication.[/li][li]Add another sad lie to your resume.[/ol][/li] Really, I understand that you are not very skilled at your dissemblings, but in the future you might consider not stringing together quite so many statements whose untruth can be demonstrated without even leaving the current page of a thread. _sigh_ This does begin to get monotonous, but after I get the babe put down tonight I’ll try to address the other inanities, lies, and evasions in the last post you addressed to me. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/244 "2003-03-14T22:45:14Z")
Howdy **Spiritus Mundi**. Nice to see that you’ve managed to reign in your random acts of rudeness. Your credibility rises. First, as to the A/~A question: To ‘disprove’ descartes, you have to cast doubt upon his argument. The traditional way of phrasing cogito ergo sum is, well, cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. This breaks down into an obvious argument: Premise 1: I think Premise 2: If I think, then I am. All that it takes to ‘disprove’ the argument is to cast doubt upon any of the premises. Also, that’s the _only_ way to disprove it, given that the structure is obviously correct. Premise 2 follows directly from the definition and assumed properties of nothingness, as is demonstrated by my DfD proof. The only real hope of disproving Descartes is to cast suppicient doubt on the premise “I think”. Of course, even if you prove “I do not think” (~A), that certainly doesn’t prove “If I think then I am” (A -\> B) false. In fact, it proves it true! Welcome to logic. Fortunately disproving Descartes does not require you to cast doubt on _both_ premises. > [@](#): > > The point, as a matter of epistemological foundation, is how do I know that I ask the question “do I exist?” Finally, an intelligent question! Others have asked it before, yes. So, to keep things even, I will quote a previous explanation. > [@](#): > > 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. Uh, **erislover**? > [@](#): > > Well, with that phrasing there is nothing wrong with Case 2. The circle is unbroken and **no one** exists. Well done. :eek: Either: 1. That was just a typo. 2. You’re insane. 3. You’ve gotten so used to disagreeing with me, it’s a reflex. 😉 4. You have a brilliant reason why that statement wasn’t nuts, which you’re just waiting for the chance to share. I’m going to assume 1 and await 4. Thank you for the lively and interesting debate; hope to chat you again, on the same side of the debate next time, I hope. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/245 "2003-03-15T00:34:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > On the subject of **Spiritus Mundi** (which it appears stands for “spirited moron”) **Begbert2** , please don’t call people “morons” in Great Debates. That said, **Spiritus Mundi** , you might want to tone it down a notch or two as well, eh? ---
**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 15, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/246 "2003-03-15T01:39:29Z")
Yessir. Though I plead provoked. Okay, **Spiritus Mundi** , not that it has anything to do with Descartes or the the Cogito or the subject at hand, but I will try to alleviate the burning torment in your soul by making clear what I meant by: > [@](#): > > Noone would claim that this book is alive, has volition, or even cognition. However, the instant of mind printed in the book is correct; ‘cogito ergo sum’ still applies to it! What is proven is the existence of the book. For, if the book didn’t exist, then the contents wouldn’t be there, and there would be no image of mind in the process of ‘having’ this ‘thought’. > > ‘cogito ergo sum’ doesn’t prove reality, perception, reason, temporality, volition, cognition, or anything else but some kind of existence, in some kind of sense. I suspect that virtually all ‘disproofs’ of ‘cogito ergo sum’ stem from giving it too much credit. Not the clearest thing in the world, I admit. No wonder **erislover** used it as the butt of some gentle humor. One line of gentle humor. As you can see from the sample of text, I was responding to the questions of discontinuous temporality and simulated thought. Though I’m a dangerous man when I get a few paragraphs in me, I hope I wasn’t _too_ obtuse; the general meaning was that a _coherent_ thought is not required, nor a clever one, nor a series of them, merely some symptom of behavior more than would be expected of nothing. And, that what is not proven is you, yourself, as a cognizant bipedal human with memories and a recognizable personality and beliefs. Individuals who give cogito ergo sum too much credit, ex-pecting their sentience or humanity to be proved, or supported, can easily contrive scenatios which ‘disprove’ the cogito. All that it can reliably support is the most minor proof of the barest existence, which is generating _something_ which can be mistaken by a thought by a deluded excuse for a mind. That’s my explanation, and I’m sticking to it. All that fuss over seventeen words! You know, even if I said, “Descartes was dead wrong and his proof is wrong,” It wouldn’t mean anything unless I backed it up at least as much as my positive proofs. Even if I don’t speak clearly (and I don’t always, of course), my linguistic skills aren’t the issue. ---
**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 15, 2003, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/247 "2003-03-15T02:26:21Z")
I would like to catch up, but you spout your rhetoric at such a prodigious rate it is nearly impossible for me to match. Let’s just examine your latest: > [@](#): > > Nice to see that you’ve managed to reign in your random acts of rudeness. Your credibility rises. While yours sinks ever lower. Let’s recap (again) the absurd tangent to which we keep returning. > [@](#): > > _Note: this box does not contain actual quotes. The reading impaired are advised to lick their lolipops three times before biting._ > > \*\*begbert2: \*\*You people trying to dosprove ‘cogito ergo sum’ are giving it too much credit. > > \*\*SM: \*\*I don’t know anyone trying to disprove ‘cogito ergo sum’. ‘Cogito ergo non sum’ doesn’t seem very interesting. > > \*\*begbert2: \*\*The thing your trying to disprove is “I think”. > > \*\*SM: \*\*I shouldn’t have let parellelism make me overstate the case. ‘Cogito et non sum’ is all that is required to disprove ‘cogito ergo sum’. ‘Non cogito’ does not disprove ‘cogito ergo sum’, though it does make it unsound for the non-cogitating. > > \*\*begbert2: \*\*‘Cogito et non sum’! Very good. You might not be as stupid as so many folks I deign to grace with my wisdom, like those dolts in my logic 101 class. > > \*\*SM: \*\*You mean like folks who think **~A** disproves **A -\> B**? > > \*\*begbert2: \*\*Which is exactly you, spirited moron . . . As anybody who knows anything about basic reasoning knows, a false premise tells you NOTHING about the conclusion. [sup]1[/sup] > > \*\*SM: \*\*_points to the top of the page_ > You were the one arguing for ‘non cogito’. > You are now calling me a moron based upon a blatant lie. > You aren’t even a very good liar, since one needn’t even leave this page to see who really said what. > > \*\*begbert2: \*\*Quite right. ‘Non cogito’ is the proper way to go. > > \*\*SM: \*\*:wally > > [sup]1[/sup] [sub]Okay, this art is actually a quote. No paraphrase of mine could do it justice.[/sub] Out of deference to **ME** , I shall not give your posts the characterization they deserve. I shall simply make the following observations: [ol] [li]Descartes conclusion is ‘sum’[/li][li]Disproving Descartes requires negating that conclusion.[/li][li]‘Non cogito’ does not negate ‘sum’[/li][li]‘Non cogito’ does, as I noted many posts ago, make ‘sum’ an unsound conclusion for the individual who doesn’t think[/li][li]Unfortunately, you have not vanished in a puff of logic upon reaching this conclusion[/li][li]Ironically enough, nobody but **begbert2** is concerned with disproving Descartes. The rest of us argue that his result is trivial and uninteresting, not that it is untrue.[/li][li]Which makes it almost tragic (in a Willy Loman kind of way, not a Captain Ahab way) that **begbert2** found it necessary to lie publicly about an issue nobody else gave much weight.[/li][li]Of course, to me **begbert2** will always be more of a comic figure than tragic. Then again, I’ve never been a huge Arthur Miller fan.[/li][/ol] ---
**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 15, 2003, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/248 "2003-03-15T02:55:10Z")
> [@](#): > > Individuals who give cogito ergo sum too much credit, ex-pecting their sentience or humanity to be proved, or supported, can easily contrive scenatios which ‘disprove’ the cogito. All that it can reliably support is the most minor proof of the barest existence, which is generating something which can be mistaken by a thought by a deluded excuse for a mind. Is that all you meant. See, if you had said that in the first place we could have avoided all of that unpleasant lying and name calling (to the latter of which , I admit my complicity). Then, I could have just called your attention to the very beginnings of our unfortunate acquantance. Remember that? When you said > [@](#): > > We have already covered why the observation of one’s own cogntion is not doubtable. And I said > [@](#): > > BTW, the observation of one’s own cognition is quite clearly doubtable, unless one has already made assumptions about both cognition and self. I was not trying to demonstrate ‘non cogito’. I was simply pointing out **\<\>‘non cogito’** (Are you familiar with the symbols of deontic logic? \<\> means “it is possible”) Of course, this all seems to be just another symptom of your rigid fascination with the ontological result when the rest of us have been trying to tell you that our concern is with the epistemoligical process. This is also clear in the relatively benign exchange: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _Spiritus Mundi_ > > The point, as a matter of epistemological foundation, is how do I know that I ask the question “do I exist?” > > Finally, an intelligent question! Others have asked it before, yes. So, to keep things even, I will quote a previous explanation. > > [Long excerpt which does not in any way address the matter of epistemological foundation] The question is: (1) How do **I** know that **I** ask the question “do I exist?” The next question, of course, will be: How do the assumptions necessary to answer (1) impact our eventual conclusion “ **I** exist”? ---
**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 15, 2003, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/249 "2003-03-15T04:30:21Z")
Ah, the return of S.M. He seems to want to get this thread closed. Not that it’s not getting a little long in the tooth, but the sad thing is, I’m betting that he/she/it would consider that “winning the fight”. Hmm. fascinating stuff. Complete garbage of course, but who’s reading this stuff anyway? Here’s a nicely representative sample: > [@](#): > > 1 Descartes conclusion is ‘sum’ > 2 Disproving Descartes requires negating that conclusion. > 3 ‘Non cogito’ does not negate ‘sum’ > 4 ‘Non cogito’ does, as I noted many posts ago, make ‘sum’ an unsound conclusion for the individual who doesn’t think > 5 Unfortunately, you have not vanished in a puff of logic upon reaching this conclusion > 6 Ironically enough, nobody but begbert2 is concerned with disproving Descartes. The rest of us argue that his result is trivial and uninteresting, not that it is untrue. > 7 Which makes it almost tragic (in a Willy Loman kind of way, not a Captain Ahab way) that begbert2 found it necessary to lie publicly about an issue nobody else gave much weight. > 8 Of course, to me begbert2 will always be more of a comic figure than tragic. Then again, I’ve never been a huge Arthur Miller fan. 1 true 2 false 3 true 4 false, but it sounds almost true until you read it closely. 5 true (but with a juvinile lashing out that is neither here nor there) 6 false. And learn the meaning of ‘disprove’. Of course, after it is claimed that the argument doesn’t say anything, it’s meaningless. 7 false, cheese puff. Go flail madly somewhere else. 8 Why don’t you take your sorry self to the pit and stroke your ego there? In the unlikely event that anybody else is still listening, note the progression. Start with facts. Most aren’t true, but hey, not everybody’s accurate all the time. Shift not-so-slowly over to the opinions. Start the personal attacks. Call the other guy a liar first, before he can get around to it. End the thing on something that doesn’t even resemble ‘argument’, but rather ‘schoolyard fight’. Okay, are there any adults _left_ reading this thread? If so, I have a hearty recomendation. Before reading any of the stuff S.M. has posted (besides his first post, which was so promising!) go out and get yourself a nice education in logical reasoning and argument. Then come back. Decide for yourself. S.M., you’ll never be amusing. You’re too venemous. If you actually want a clue what cogito ergo sum is all about, reread everything on this page until it makes sense. Especially the stuff that seems very repetitive in a short amount of space: those are english formulations of ‘formal arguments’. Read. Enjoy. Post when you can take it down a notch or two. And if I’ve lied, back it up. Keep it simple. Cite. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/250 "2003-03-15T05:01:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Uh, **erislover**? > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by erislover_ > > Well, with that phrasing there is nothing wrong with Case 2. The circle is unbroken and no one exists. Well done. > > :eek: Either: > > 1. That was just a typo. > 2. You’re insane. > 3. You’ve gotten so used to disagreeing with me, it’s a reflex. 😉 > 4. You have a brilliant reason why that statement wasn’t nuts, which you’re just waiting for the chance to share. I’m not sure what you are aiming at, but perhaps I shall try a different tactic. I have a couple of questions I’d like you to answer, and then let’s go from there. What is a circular argument? In Descartes’s argument, a thought is “observed” (it is this observation, in fact, which cannot be denied—it is said). The argument hinges upon the note that a thought implies a thinker, and since a thought is observed, there must be a thinker (witness the truth table of implication for _an analogy_). But does an observation require an observer? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/251 "2003-03-15T05:17:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > **SM** : 1 Descartes conclusion is ‘sum’ > 2 Disproving Descartes requires negating that conclusion. > > **b2** :1 true > 2 false Well, be careful not to hang yourself there. You wanted to bring the truth-table of implication into play, and now that it is here you want to deny it? The _only_ time implication is false is when the consequent is false (specifically, when the consequent is false and the antecedent is true, given the construction of “I think” -\> “I am”). So if we _are_ using implication, then indeed the only way to _disprove_ Descartes is to _demonstrate_ that “I am” is false. > [@](#): > > 6 false. And learn the meaning of ‘disprove’. Of course, after it is claimed that the argument doesn’t say anything, it’s meaningless. No one is thinking the argument says nothing. > [@](#): > > If you actually want a clue what cogito ergo sum is all about, reread everything on this page until it makes sense. You see, the problem isn’t that Descartes didn’t make sense. Still. No one, AFAIK, is arguing with him that “cogito ergo sum” is false. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/252 "2003-03-15T05:17:58Z")
sigh. you broke rule #1 so long ago, i don’t know why i keep coming back. but here it is, one last try. like **erislover** , i’d like to try and keep it simple here. please do not quote previous passages (i’ve read them all), and please do not uncork your rhetoric fountain. keep the answers simple and specific. start with nothing. add to this nothing _exactly_ what it is that enables you to claim “ **i think** ”. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/253 "2003-03-15T05:37:17Z")
:: raises hand and waves it around wildly:: I know, **Ramanujan** , I know! Pick me, pick meeeeee! 😃 😃 ---
**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 15, 2003, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/254 "2003-03-15T06:10:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Ah, the return of S.M. He seems to want to get this thread closed. Not that it’s not getting a little long in the tooth, but the sad thing is, I’m betting that he/she/it would consider that “winning the fight”. You would lose, but I doubt that such an experience would be new to you. **disprove: To prove to be false, invalid, or in error; refute.** A logical argument is shown to be invalid only by demonstrating that the chain of reasoning is faulty. In this case, the chain of reasoning forms the implication “I think” -\> “I am”. A logical argument is shown to be unsound when the assumptions are not acceptable for the context in question. That would be the case, for instance, if one denied the assumption “I think”. You disagree with this point, though you characteristically avoid providing any substantiation for your position. **The rest of your complaints seem to be:** 6) You think others in this thread are trying to disprove Descartes and/or disprove “I think”. Well, it should be trivial for you to provide evidence of that, eh? Provide a quote. Or not. At this point more evidence of your nature is hardly required. 1. You don’t like (a) having your lies pointed out in public and/or (b) being compared to Willy Loman. Tough. 2. You don’t like my amusement at your performance in this thread. See (7). > [@](#): > > And if I’ve lied, back it up. Keep it simple. Cite. I have already done so. Unlike yourself, I do not post vague insinuations or charges without demonstration. Perhaps I express my profound shock that your well-tested reading comprehension was unable to pick it out. Then again, I did disguise it by artfully presenting the remarks in the context of our discussion rather than highlighting for the reading impaired. Allow me to rectify that. > [@](#): > > _begbert2_ > “The thing you’re trying to disprove is the claim “I think”, anyway.” > > _Spiritus Mundi_ > all that is strictly necessary [to disprove ‘cogito ergo sum’] is “I think and I am not”. > > _begbert2_ > Very good, you might know what an implication is. Apparently it is confusing to some. > > _Spiritus Mundi_ > Obviously, including those who argue that ~A disproves A-\>B. > > _begbert2_ > Which is exactly you, spirited moron. Take a course in basic logic. Once again, only one person in this thread has argued that ~A “I don’t think” disproves A -\> B “I think -\> I am”, and it was not “exactly [me], spiritid moron.” [ul][li]I did not argue that ~A disproves A-\>B. [/li][li]In fact, I have at no time argued ~A (“non cogito”) at all.[/li][li]In fact, I have maintained consistently that ~A is the wrong place in which to focus when finding flaws in Descartes’ tautology.[/ul][/li]Therefore [ul][li]You are a liar[/li][li]But not in a tragic flaw kind of way. [/li]It’s more of a Jon Lovitz thing.[/ul] ---
**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 15, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/255 "2003-03-15T06:34:11Z")
> [@](#): > > note the progression. Start with facts. Most aren’t true, but hey, not everybody’s accurate all the time. Shift not-so-slowly over to the opinions. Start the personal attacks. Call the other guy a liar first, before he can get around to it. End the thing on something that doesn’t even resemble ‘argument’, but rather ‘schoolyard fight’. > . > . > . > S.M., you’ll never be amusing. You’re too venemous. If you actually want a clue what cogito ergo sum is all about, reread everything on this page until it makes sense. Especially the stuff that seems very repetitive in a short amount of space: those are english formulations of ‘formal arguments’. Read. Enjoy. **Post when you can take it down a notch or two.** Have I mentioned your unintentional irony recently? I love that about your posts. Cracks me up. Usually I imagine you delivering them in a Stephen Wright monotone, but this one has Sam Kinnison written all over it. Thanks for the grin. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2003, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/256 "2003-03-15T07:25:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Usually I imagine you delivering them in a Stephen Wright monotone, but this one has Sam Kinnison written all over it. mmmmmm steven wright… “you can’t have everything. where would you put it?” ---
**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 15, 2003, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/257 "2003-03-15T07:45:27Z")
Sigh. S.M. I was responding to your post line by line. You wrote > [@](#): > > Obviously, including those who argue that ~A disproves A-\>B. It was all by itself. It sure LOOKED like you were saying it. In part because you’re the first person here who has put that particular obviously false idea into print. _I_ certainly never said that “I do not think” would ‘disprove’ “If I think, then I am”. As far as I can tell, “If I think, then I am” is not up for debate. It is derived directly from the definition of existence. What you could disprove is ‘cogito ergo sum’. That is, “I think, therefore I am.” This is based on the premises “If I think, then I am”, which is pretty sturdy, and “I think”, which erislover and Ramanujan are currently claiming is unprovable. They’re not doing this because they like the way it looks in print. They’re doing it because without “I think”, cogito ergo sum hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Note that, as you define “invalid” arguments, and “unsound” arguments, but you don’t seem to define “disproved” anywhere. As far as I can tell, it means that an arguement is either invalid _or_ unsound, and have been using the term as such. Because the structure of the later half of Descartes’s proof can indeed be written as a valid, if textbook basic, argument, when I read “disprove” I translate it as, “To prove the argument unsound.” In short, I freely admit that the premise is required for the conclusion, but the notion that A is required for _the mere implication_ A -\> B to be used in the argument has never been claimed by me. As you have indicated so, you have been incorrect. You would call that “lying”. (I would call it being incorrect. In my book, lying requires malice.) So, no lies yet. Was that the only one you had? And, again, trying to disparage my character is a fallacious approach to discussion. ---
**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 15, 2003, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/258 "2003-03-15T07:56:03Z")
**erislover** , you confused me, largely because your post made no sense. I didn’t read carefully enough to see any subtle irony (still don’t), and you’d have to be nuts to think that proving the **validity** of the _implication_ **disproved** the entire Descartian argument. So, listed it as an option, assumed you had a massive brain fart as you were writing your farewell post, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. Regardless. **erislover** , **Ramanujan** , you want it without quotes? Fine, I’ll paraphrase myself. Have we finally all got to the point where the ONLY thing left to discuss is the reasoning behind the belief “I think”\*? I don’t want random digressions confusing the issue. Suppose, on the long theoretical shot, that I **did** prove it, beyond doubt, then are we done? \*Keeping in mind that I’m going to define what this entails based on the DfD proof of the implication that it’s supposed to feed into. ---
**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 15, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/259 "2003-03-15T15:47:16Z")
> [@](#): > > S.M. I was responding to your post line by line. You wrote > > > [@](#): > > > > Obviously, including those who argue that ~A disproves A-\>B. > > It was all by itself. It sure LOOKED like you were saying it. [ol][li]It immediately followed your statement: **Apparently [what an implication is] is confusing to some.** which I had emphasized by quote brackets.[/li][li]Customarily, a statement immediately following a marked quotation by another poster on these boards is taken as responding to the content of said quotation[/li][li]I mention (2), because it obviously was not covered in your reading comprehension tests.[/li][li]For that matter, you might consider how rare it is for an English speaker to refer to himself as “those” in a stand alone sentence[/li][li]But that might weaken either your case for (a) excellent reading comprehension of (b)thinking that I was asserting the position A -\> B[/li][li]Which you have neither retracted nor apologized for, actually[/li][li]So you are still a liar[/li][li]And still not a very good one.[/ol][/li] > [@](#): > > What you could disprove is ‘cogito ergo sum’. That is, “I think, therefore I am.” This is based on the premises “If I think, then I am”, which is pretty sturdy, and “I think”, which erislover and Ramanujan are currently claiming is unprovable. They’re not doing this because they like the way it looks in print. They’re doing it because without “I think”, cogito ergo sum hasn’t got a leg to stand on. “If I think then I am” is ‘sturdy’, as has been pointed out, because it is circular. And, as you state properly in this passage but have shown little comprehension of in 6 pages, the related element of concern for your premise (1) is how “I think” is substantiated epistemologically. **~A** (non cogito) is not something that anybody is trying to, or needs to, prove in order to cast doubts upon Descartes’ result. > [@](#): > > Note that, as you define “invalid” arguments, and “unsound” arguments, but you don’t seem to define “disproved” anywhere. **disprove: To prove to be false, invalid, or in error; refute.** [ul][li]it was difficult to see, what with being bolded and all.[/li][li]It really is time to retake that reading comprehension test. Maybe you should let someone else grade it this time.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, it means that an arguement is either invalid or unsound, and have been using the term as such. I disagree, but so far as I know the term has no rigid usage in formal logic. If you post some cites of “disprove” being used to indicate an unsound argument, then I will consider changing my usage. Examples of what I mean would be this cite, which clearly equates proof/disproof with valid/invalid structures. [This means that we can write computer programs which are guaranteed to find a proof for a valid formula eventually, even though they might not be able to disprove an invalid formula.](http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~stump/ar.html) Or this one: [The hard technical part involves showing that notions such as “well formed formula” and “valid proof” can be expressed using only concepts from arithmetic](http://www.math.yorku.ca/Who/Faculty/Steprans/Courses/3500/GodelsTheorem/lecture.shtml) Or this one: [Any mathematical system which limited its statements to those which could be proved or disproved was limited. There would be some valid statements whose validity could not be formally established.](http://es.udmercy.edu/~dwyerjm/LOGIC.HTM) > [@](#): > > In short, I freely admit that the premise is required for the conclusion, but the notion that A is required for the mere implication A -\> B to be used in the argument has never been claimed by me. As you have indicated so, you have been incorrect. I have indicated no such thing. [ol][li]Another lie.[/li][li]Another failure of reading comprehension.[/ol][/li]Enquiring minds want to know. Or, in your words, cite? > [@](#): > > You would call that “lying”. (I would call it being incorrect. In my book, lying requires malice.) In mine, lying requires an intent to decieve. You have made many incorrect statements in this thread, which I have not called lies. When you place words in my mouth and then call me a moron for writing them, and when you neither withdraw nor apologize for either the misattribution or the insult even after the falsity of your claim has been unequivocally demonstrated . . . well, I believe we have met the standard for both of our definitions. Of course, you are welcome to keep hanging your hat on **“I thought you meant yourself when writing ‘those who . . .’”** then you can argue about intent. I don’t think you have a leg to stand on regarding malice. > [@](#): > > So, no lies yet. I disagree. ---
**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 15, 2003, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/260 "2003-03-15T17:22:48Z")
Sorry about not sifting through your deliberately provocative post well enough to completely grok your intent, S.M. (If there was any beyond trying to piss me off.) I can see that you think that somebody would have to be a complete ass to not devote precious time to deeply reading and understanding the details of a post that they had percieved as provocative. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > begbert2, I have no desire to sift through your snide insinuation to locate the relevant points. I also am not inspired to draft the separate response which you deserve. Good bye. Good bye indeed. As to that whole “liar, liar, pants on fire” thing, does this make you feel better?: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Spiritus Mundi_ > > > [@](#): > > > > “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. “It was all by itself, having no obvious connection with the passage quoted above it, which was agreeing that A & ~B is the only case where A-\>B is false. As to ~A being the case where A-\>B is false, it sure LOOKED like you were saying it, because nobody else did. You’re the first person here who has put that particular obviously false idea into print.” So what you’re saying is, you weren’t claiming that ~A disproved A-\>B? You’re saying that you were falsely making the claim that _I_ had made the statement at hand? Oh, that’s much better. What was that inanity you wrote? pot … kettle? As to definitions of words: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: dis·prove > Pronunciation: (")dis-'prüv > Function: transitive verb > Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French desprover, from des- dis- + prover to prove > Date: 14th century > : to prove to be false or wrong : REFUTE > > - dis·prov·able /-'prü-v&-b&l/ adjective That’s [www.m-w.com](http://www.m-w.com). Check for yourself. _Both_ invalidity _and_ unsoundness are ways that a proof can be demonstrated not to ‘prove’ anything, rendering the claim it _does_ demonstrate something false, wrong, and disproven. By the way, all of your venomous spoutings are one collossal hijack. This thread is about “I think therefore I am,” not, “Poor little Spiritus Mundi got his ego bruised when, after trying to discredit begbert2 by taking meanings out of texts which did not have the meanings claimed, begbert2 pointed this out.” **Again** , if you want to spew in all directions about how I’m a liar, a doodyhead, and how my mother dresses me funny, we have a place for that. It’s right [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=5) Post a link to your new pit thread if you want. But would you stop cluttering _this thread_ with your rantings? I didn’t even contrive this argument, you know. If you are serious about trying to 'prove" something by discrediting the author, go call Descartes names or something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=14)