# I think therefore i am.....

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533>\
**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:** 21

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 31, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/401 "2003-03-31T20:21:52Z")

</div>

S.M.'s approach is to call me a fool, or more specifically, one for whom posting nonsense “could hardly make you appear more foolish than what you actually do post.” I hadn’t realized that this was creditable argument style.

> [@](#):
>
> ## quote:
> 
> ## Simply saying “There is an observation” disregards the fact that these observations are all of the set “my perceptions”
> 
> And what makes that a fact?

What makes it a fact that those observations are all in the set “my perceptions”? Well, it’s because, from the beginning of the argument on, ALL perceptions have been “my” perceptions. My perceptions of reality, my perceptions of the deciever’s illusions, my perceptions of my thoughts. There’s a reason why this argument only words egocentrically, you know.

The large axiom is phrased to point out that our awareness of the perception which cannot be doubted without replacing it with another percieved doubt, is demonstrative of a POV observing the whole process. Hacking bits out would alter the meaning. And there’s nothing wrong with having tremendously long statements in a proof. More meaning -\> bigger axioms.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/402 "2003-03-31T20:26:24Z")

</div>

No, I of course meant his lengthy and rigorous post laying out a rough (and I thought intuitive) symbol set and stating the relevant assumptions necessary to derive certain conclusions.

> [@](#):
>
> Well, it’s because, from the beginning of the argument on, ALL perceptions have been “my” perceptions. My perceptions of reality, my perceptions of the deciever’s illusions, my perceptions of my thoughts. There’s a reason why this argument only words egocentrically, you know.

You don’t say.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 31, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/403 "2003-03-31T20:53:46Z")

</div>

I meant “only wor **k** s egocentrically” of course. Y’know I have to get in at least one typo per post.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/404 "2003-03-31T21:06:01Z")

</div>

LOL, didn’t notice that typo.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/405 "2003-04-01T00:38:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, that’s the application of Axiom 2 to get to Conclusion 1.

No, that’s the application of your definition for “nothing” to the big axiom. Axiom 2 is not required.

> [@](#):
>
> Actually I used Axiom 3, which seems to resonate nicely with most people’s definiton of I. And yes, if you apply Axiom 3, you get Conclusion 2.

What you use is the same thing that you habitually use, the axiomatic acceptance that the content of your perceptions is meaningful. Without that, your conclusion 1 cannot be reached. With it, your axiom 3 is unnecessary.

As I noted last page, your big axiom reduces to **I exist** , given your definitions for “nothing/existence” and “I/my”. Neither axiom2 nor axiom 3 is required.

> [@](#):
>
> So nice to see you can follow my argument. If you feel inclined to actually dispute something, you might try claiming that some of the axioms, as presented, are unsubstantiable.

I’ll choose my own arguments, thanks, which should bother you not at all since you reliably neglect to rebut them.

> [@](#):
>
> What makes it a fact that those observations are all in the set “my perceptions”? Well, it’s because, from the beginning of the argument on, ALL perceptions have been “my” perceptions. My perceptions of reality, my perceptions of the deciever’s illusions, my perceptions of my thoughts.

That which denotes everything demarks nothing. “My POV” has no meaning, unti one accepts axiomatically that the contents of perception have meaning.

Your proofs continue to show only that **something(s) exist**, though you continue to pretend that one can call that thing(s) “I” and have the label be meaningful.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/406 "2003-04-01T01:53:47Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> No, that’s the application of your definition for “nothing” to the big axiom. Axiom 2 is not required.

Uh, well then maybe you hadn’t figured this out, but “my” definition of nothing is the reason why Axiom 2 is acceptible as axiomatic. I notice that later you admit that this **is** a reasonable premise, since you admit that I succed in proving that “something exists”. Are you fighting out of habit or what?

> [@](#):
>
> What you use is the same thing that you habitually use, the axiomatic acceptance that the content of your perceptions is meaningful. Without that, your conclusion 1 cannot be reached. With it, your axiom 3 is unnecessary.

No no no no no. Straw man, buddy. The content is irrelevant. The con_text_ is important. The “something(s)” that is proven (which, though it may be many, has exactly one discernable point of view by which it is known and defined) happens to match in behavior the definition of “I”. This proof carries itself out on the combined strength of stongly doubted observation and **definition**. Perhaps that’s why you fear definitions of "I’, mocking references to dictionaries and the like.

And if by mere definition my first premise reduces to my conclusion, and **if my first premise is not doubtable** , then my argument is proven all the faster. Begging the question (and cicrularity) are not applicable if the premise is confirmed. (Look it up.)

You seem to be essentially saying: “Your premise proves that ‘I exist’. Since it’s already proven, it can’t be proven.” Cute, but as you’re not bothering to dispute the premise, you’re essentially arguing that _I’m right._ Think about it.  
Yes, you can choose your own arguments, but when they haven’t a thing to do with my arguments, I see no reason not to ignore them. for the distractions that they apper to be. You wanna dispute a proof, go after its premises or the chain of logic. A dissertation on the different flavors of already-doubted perception and which axioms are needed for arguments I don’t make is about as relevant as a discussion of wether or not Ghengis Khan was an alien invader. But go on, keep right on making arguments that don’t relate to mine. Who gives a rip.

> [@](#):
>
> That which denotes everything demarks nothing. “My POV” has no meaning, unti one accepts axiomatically that the contents of perception have meaning.

Nope; if one has accepted that there is something being viewed under the perception (the contents of which have no relevancy) then they have accepted that there is a POV. All perceptions are mine, but the things within them are not all mine; making distinction early on is not meaningless. So, “My” has meaning. At the start of the meditation, there are assumed to be other things. Does that fact that halfway throught the doubting process we can debate only our own perceptions mean that suddenly there is no distinction between “my” and “not my” anymore? Not reasonably.

You can pretend I haven’t shown anything as long as you like. But derogatory invectives and unfounded denials weaken _your_ case, not mine.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/407 "2003-04-01T05:31:34Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Uh, well then maybe you hadn’t figured this out, but “my” definition of nothing is the reason why Axiom 2 is acceptible as axiomatic.

Uh, well then maybe you haven’t figured it out, but with your definition & your axiom 1 you do not need your axiom 2.

I know it might be hard for you to realize that, since I pointed it out once already. Maybe if you try real hard to understand the words it will help.

> [@](#):
>
> I notice that later you admit that this is a reasonable premise, since you admit that I succed in proving that “something exists”.

One does not imply the other. Most logic clowns would realize that.

> [@](#):
>
> Are you fighting out of habit or what?

Perhaps. Certainly you embrace your ignorance with a vehemence that makes my efforts unlikely to succeed.

> [@](#):
>
> No no no no no. Straw man, buddy. The content is irrelevant. The context is important.

No no no no no. Ignorance, buddy. What we know about the context is a perception, too.

> [@](#):
>
> The “something(s)” that is proven (which, though it may be many, has exactly one discernable point of view by which it is known and defined) happens to match in behavior the definition of “I”.
> 
> (earlier): my first step in my list IS [(existant) idea(s) without meaningful content] and my arguement chooses to take no further assumptions [than] that

“Exactly one viewpoint” and “matches in behavior the definition of ideas” are both meaningful contents, which you pretend that you do not allow in your proof.

[cue King Lear]

> [@](#):
>
> This proof carries itself out on the combined strength of stongly doubted observation and definition.

You neither doubt nor reason strongly, I’m afraid. For each assumption you show out the front door one sneaks in through the back.

> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps that’s why you fear definitions of "I’, mocking references to dictionaries and the like.

Ah, variation in your bag of rhetorical tricks. Points for effort, if not effect.

> [@](#):
>
> And if by mere definition my first premise reduces to my conclusion, and **if my first premise is not doubtable,** then my argument is proven all the faster.

But your first premise is doubtable. And your argument is a trivial tautology. If “I exist”; then “I exist.”

Bravo.

> [@](#):
>
> Begging the question (and cicrularity) are not applicable if the premise is confirmed. (Look it up.)

And how, exactly, do you imagine that your premise (as an epistemological proposition) is confirmed?

> [@](#):
>
> You seem to be essentially saying: “Your premise proves that ‘I exist’. Since it’s already proven, it can’t be proven.”

No.  
No.  
No.  
Do try to improve your reading comprehension. And your logical comprehension. I would never say such a silly thing. Premises do not prove things. Premises assume things.

One person in this exchange understands that. The other posts very silly things.

> [@](#):
>
> but as you’re not bothering to dispute the premise, you’re essentially arguing that I’m right. Think about it.

One of us **is** thinking about it. The other is posting very silly things.

I didn’t think that it was necessary, after pointin out that your first premise is essentially “I exist” to mention that I did not find it an acceptable axiom from which to prove “I exist.” Apparently even now I overestimate your ability to extrapolate from written text. My bad.

**I dispute your “big premise”.** There. I hope it was clear this time.

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, you can choose your own arguments, but when they haven’t a thing to do with my arguments, I see no reason not to ignore them.

Of course. I cannot help but notice, though, that you very frequently ignore them even when they quite directly respond to points that you have made or positions that you have asserted. If anyone else is still reading this tragicomedy of a thread, I imagine that it cannot have escaped their notice, either.

> [@](#):
>
> You wanna dispute a proof, go after its premises or the chain of logic.

You mean like showing that the structure begs the question and that the initial axiom makes the next 2 irrelevant and that the first conclusion (and/or third axiom) can only be reached by violating the standard of meaning which you claimed to be following?

Now why didn’t I think of that.

> [@](#):
>
> A dissertation on the different flavors of already-doubted perception and which axioms are needed for arguments I don’t make is about as relevant as a discussion of wether or not Ghengis Khan was an alien invader.

Sadly, I think that you believe this. Of course, you believe that you are doubting what you use to support your conclusions, too. Perhaps it would help if you stopped thinking that everything was about you and examined the structure that I proposed as an independent exercise in doubt.

I doubt it, but I have been surprised before.

> [@](#):
>
> But go on, keep right on making arguments that don’t relate to mine. Who gives a rip.

Does this mean that you will stop pretending that you care about the ramifications of Descartes’ argument? Or is it that you are now pretending that you only care about your own?

Foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of dishonest minds.

> [@](#):
>
> Nope; if one has accepted that there is something being viewed under the perception (the contents of which have no relevancy) then they have accepted that there is a POV.

POV is a perception, too.  
The idea that remembered perceptions occured in the same POV is the content of a thought.  
The idea that a consistent POV exists for all perceptions is the content of a perception.

All of the above are meaningless under the model that you pretend to follow.

> [@](#):
>
> All perceptions are mine, but the things within them are not all mine; making distinction early on is not meaningless.

No, it isn’t. Unless, of course, you have declared that you are doubting all meaning in the content of ideas. Rigorously, you should doubt all meaning in the content of perceptions, including the content that indicates a perception is a thought. Even by the loose doubt that you claim to hold, though, the distinction that you draw cannot be supported.

> [@](#):
>
> So, “My” has meaning.

Yes, but it is a meaning that you have pretended to exclude at the beginning of your proof, only to rely upon to reach your conclusion.

> [@](#):
>
> At the start of the meditation, there are assumed to be other things. Does that fact that halfway throught the doubting process we can debate only our own perceptions mean that suddenly there is no distinction between “my” and “not my” anymore?

It does if we are honestly doubting the self.

That you even have to ask that question astounds me. That, having asked, you think that the answer is “no” surprises me not at all.

> [@](#):
>
> You can pretend I haven’t shown anything as long as you like.

How many times will you trot out the same absurd misrepresentation? Nobody is claiming that your proof, or Descartes’, doesn’t show anything.

Really, can you not even fit that one simple idea into your preconceptions? Can you not even summon the integrity and reading comprehension necessary to figure out what people who disagree with you are saying? This thread is **nine pages long** , I defy you to find a single instance where I have claimed that either your argument or Descartes’ meditation “don’t show anything”.

What they do show is not very interesting, but a trivial result is still a result.

> [@](#):
>
> derogatory invectives and unfounded denials weaken your case, not mine.

The invectives neither weaken nor strenghten my case, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of logic should know.

If my denials were unfounded, then that would weaken my case. But you would have to actually refute my denials in order to show that they were unfounded, and that has yet to happen. For the most part, you appear more attracted to the “ignore the rebutals and maybe they will go away” school of debate.

How’s that working for you?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/408 "2003-04-01T07:32:38Z")

</div>

Ahh, you want an itemized response. The amazing things one can do with itemized responses.

> [@](#):
>
> Uh, well then maybe you haven’t figured it out, but with your definition & your axiom 1 you do not need your axiom 2.
> 
> I know it might be hard for you to realize that, since I pointed it out once already. Maybe if you try real hard to understand the words it will help.

At the moment you appear to be speaking pretty much coherently, so you can cut out your continual ad hominem attacks on that score. (And yes, the continual use of fallacious debate strategies, including that one, does erode your credibility. Though don’t take my word for it; maybe people really admire fallacious debate strategy.)

Axiom 2 is verifiable by the definition of existence, yes. It states things in a clear manner, focusing attention in the desired direction. The use of this may be totally flying over your head, but being able to direct the attention can actually be useful for people who are trying to put forth an idea.

> [@](#):
>
> One does not imply the other. Most logic clowns would realize that.

referring to the fact that you said I had successfully shown that “something(s) exist”, and the fact that you appear to be using the term “something(s)” to refer to the thing(s) doing the observing. Funny, if I had shown something, then one would clearly assume that I had shown something. For me to have shown that, some variant of “observation(s) -\> observer” is necessary to have been accepted, because without it, not even “something(s) exist” has been shown. This is all pretty clear; it would take a logic clown to make the statement you did.

> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps. Certainly you embrace your ignorance with a vehemence that makes my efforts unlikely to succeed.

A response to “Are you fighting out of habit or what?” Meaning, “yes, I am fighting out of habit. And by my included ad hominem attack underscores the fact that that’s all I’m doing it for.”

> [@](#):
>
> No no no no no. Ignorance, buddy. What we know about the context is a perception, too.

No no no no no. The proof is not being written in the doubted sphere. You cannot devise an argument if the first thing you doubt is your ability to devise an argument. The terminology is part of the argument, no the doubtable perceptions.

> [@](#):
>
> “Exactly one viewpoint” and “matches in behavior the definition of ideas” are both meaningful contents, which you pretend that you do not allow in your proof.

Again, if you are under the impression that the proof itself must be doubted, what are you still doing talking? You already doubted your ability to talk long ago. Of course all sorts of neat things are allowed in the _proof_. Which is what we obviously are talking about, because in the context _you’re_ talking about, **nothing is allowed.**

> [@](#):
>
> [cue King Lear]

> [@](#):
>
> LEAR: Ha!  
> Makest thou this shame thy pasttime?  
> act 2, scene 4, line 5

> [@](#):
>
> You neither doubt nor reason strongly, I’m afraid. For each assumption you show out the front door one sneaks in through the back.

> [@](#):
>
> Ah, variation in your bag of rhetorical tricks. Points for effort, if not effect.

Yep, he doth. And what the hell is this “rhetorical trick” thing you keep mentioning? Pointing out your desperate dodges and flaws in reasoning? Yeah to someone who believes his posts are shoveled full of truth, I guess that all such statements would _have_ to be tricks. :rolleyes:

> [@](#):
>
> But your first premise is doubtable. And your argument is a trivial tautology. If “I exist”; then “I exist.”

Wait, the fool might have a point… Except he only **claims** to have it and follows it with a lie. The only way he managed to “reduce” my first premise was by trotting right throught the structure of my proof; yeah, all proofs are trival tautologies if applying the argument gets to the conclusion. _Suuure._ Do you suppose wether he’ll actually pursue the doubtability of the first premise?

> [@](#):
>
> Bravo.

Yeah, hooray for you too, you’re a credit to your phylum.

> [@](#):
>
> And how, exactly, do you imagine that your premise (as an epistemological proposition) is confirmed?

Typical; he’s denying I’ve said anything to date so that he can deny that what I say is meaningful, it being the case that I’ve said it before, and it didn’t convince him them.

Here is is for you:  
At the start of doubting things, I notice that it is really REALLY easy to doubt that the content of my perceptions.

(At the high level of the proof, I notice that ALL of my perceptions are part of my point of view. This is very obvious, but it probably should be explicitly stated for the youth in the audience.)

I engage in an exersize that demonstrates that the actual presence of perceptions is more durable than their contents. More specifically, I cannot eradicate my set of percieved senses/thoughts.

(At the terminology level of the proof, these things are all still in one basket: my perceptions, the subjects of my POV)

That’s axiom 1. The resulty of another proof. Might as well finish:

So, as there are perceptions, then the POV is valid, and is associated with an observer. That’s the application of axiom 2.

And so, because this is the observer that is observing my POV (which has been associated with “my perceptions” from the beginning, at the level of the proof terminology), it is conformant to the standard definition of “I”. That’s axiom 3. So, this observer that exists is I. That’s it.

> [@](#):
>
> No.  
> No.  
> No.  
> Do try to improve your reading comprehension. And your logical comprehension. I would never say such a silly thing. Premises do not prove things. Premises assume things.

That premise was the conclusion of a subproof, doof. And you say silly things all the time. You just don’t like them being pointed out.

> [@](#):
>
> One person in this exchange understands that. The other posts very silly things.

Well, that’s one way to make a “true” statement! 😃

> [@](#):
>
> One of us **is** thinking about it. The other is posting very silly things.

Again with something I can agree with! You’re improving!

> [@](#):
>
> I didn’t think that it was necessary, after pointin out that your first premise is essentially “I exist” to mention that I did not find it an acceptable axiom from which to prove “I exist.” Apparently even now I overestimate your ability to extrapolate from written text. My bad.

Well, every time I extrapolate from your written text, you call me a liar. You’ve lost your right to imply things, bub: say it clear.

> [@](#):
>
> **I dispute your “big premise”.** There. I hope it was clear this time.

Yep, that was clear. Though, you don’t bother to give any reasons _why_. Is this supposed to be an argument from your own authority or something?

> [@](#):
>
> Of course. I cannot help but notice, though, that you very frequently ignore them even when they quite directly respond to points that you have made or positions that you have asserted. If anyone else is still reading this tragicomedy of a thread, I imagine that it cannot have escaped their notice, either.

Your ability to discern relevance of a topic to the subject at hand has yet to be proven. And as always, the audience will have the challenging task of telling the wise man from the fool when the wise man foolishly keeps responding to the fool. Perhaps they can base their assessment on the frequency of fallacious ad hominem attacks?

> [@](#):
>
> You mean like showing that the structure begs the question and that the initial axiom makes the next 2 irrelevant and that the first conclusion (and/or third axiom) can only be reached by violating the standard of meaning which you claimed to be following?
> 
> Now why didn’t I think of that.

Oh, are you referring to your attempt to reduce my argument by fallactiously applying hidden premises and then baselessly doubting my first premise so that after massive manipulation you can claim that I’m begging the question? No, this is called a straw man.

And this "violating the standard of meaning is completely out of the blue. Keep shooting from the hip, though; it looks cooler than aiming.

> [@](#):
>
> Sadly, I think that you believe this. Of course, you believe that you are doubting what you use to support your conclusions, too. Perhaps it would help if you stopped thinking that everything was about you and examined the structure that I proposed as an independent exercise in doubt.
> 
> I doubt it, but I have been surprised before.

You know, in spite of the mass irrelevancy of it all, I have at times tempted to go back and look at your independent excersize. But then you insult me again (it’s a short wait) and remind me that the hole that emits crap doesn’t often spout diamonds. If I have time, I’ll look at your little masterpiece. But you seem deluded into thinking that it will spout some kind of epiphany in my mind about something. Don’t flatter yourself.

> [@](#):
>
> Does this mean that you will stop pretending that you care about the ramifications of Descartes’ argument? Or is it that you are now pretending that you only care about your own?

No, it meant that you can post all kinds of deranged and irrelvant stuff here it you want. I’m not going to stop you. It’s a free country.

As to Descartes, **erislover** indicated that he had not clarified his thought processes on the subject, so in the meantime, I’m trying to caulk in the hole with an S.M.-proof proof. You’re the ultimate test standard. If a Descartian solution emerges, we can see how solid _his_ is. I have doubts, though. He seemed pretty aware of the inherent obviousness of it all, and might have just cruised on the assumption that everyone would just “get it”. He never met you, S.M.

> [@](#):
>
> Foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of dishonest minds.

Actually, not that I’ve been inconsistent lately, but inconsisitency is also symptomatic of a bad memory or the changing stance of someone who is learning and improving their position. …What’s your excuse? (For an example of foolish inconsistency, note that you in one post granted that I had proven further than Russel would have us go, and in the next denied that I had gained your acceptance of the requirements to do that. Tsk tsk.)

> [@](#):
>
> POV is a perception, too.  
> The idea that remembered perceptions occured in the same POV is the content of a thought.  
> The idea that a consistent POV exists for all perceptions is the content of a perception.

Nope, sorry, the ‘idea’ of a POV is an idea, but a POV is the method by which a set of perceptions is observed by an observer.

[quote]  
All of the above are meaningless under the model that you pretend to follow.

[quote]  
That’s funny, my model includes the argument being in a protective bubble where words and logical arguments _apply_. Your protests indicate nothing so much as a misunderstanding of what goes on in discussing a case where discussion is impossible.

> [@](#):
>
> No, it isn’t. Unless, of course, you have declared that you are doubting all meaning in the content of ideas. Rigorously, you should doubt all meaning in the content of perceptions, including the content that indicates a perception is a thought. Even by the loose doubt that you claim to hold, though, the distinction that you draw cannot be supported.

The term rides out the waves of the storm of doubt on the arc of the argument. The content is indeed meainingless by the middle/end of the argument, but the distinction is still not meaningless, or else you wouldn’t mind me slapping the term on at the end, now would you?

> [@](#):
>
> Yes, but it is a meaning that you have pretended to exclude at the beginning of your proof, only to rely upon to reach your conclusion.

No, the meaning becomes “These are what I consider to be the things I am perceiving, and if this point of view that I appear to have is indeed a real view of real things, then the thing really viewing by gum is me, by the meaning of the term.”

> [@](#):
>
> It does if we are honestly doubting the self.
> 
> That you even have to ask that question astounds me. That, having asked, you think that the answer is “no” surprises me not at all.

This is in response the question that, after something has been potentiall doubted, must we remove the terms relating to it from our argument lexicon. S.M. seems to think yes. I wonder, why hasn’t he just said “I’ve doubted the meaning of the word existence, and you CANNOT prove anything now!” Oh, wait, that’s obviously stupid. Well, perhaps he hasn’t thought about this yet then.

And that he tries yet another ad hominem attack, this time with somewhat backfiring results I’m afraid given that “no” seems to be obviously the correct answer, surprises me not at all.

> [@](#):
>
> How many times will you trot out the same absurd misrepresentation? Nobody is claiming that your proof, or Descartes’, doesn’t show anything.
> 
> Really, can you not even fit that one simple idea into your preconceptions? Can you not even summon the integrity and reading comprehension necessary to figure out what people who disagree with you are saying? This thread is **nine pages long** , I defy you to find a single instance where I have claimed that either your argument or Descartes’ meditation “don’t show anything”.
> 
> What they do show is not very interesting, but a trivial result is still a result.

Actually, every time you deny the premises and argument form of my proof, by the rules of logic, you’re denying that it says anything. And you do that rather frequently, particularly referring to specific posts.

The idea that “Because I already magically know that I exist, any proof to that notion shows something even if it is totally fallacious (such as being circular or begging the question)” is so totally stupid that I’m not going to attribute it to anybody. If you are gunning down the validity and/or soundness of an argument, you are attempting to negate its meaning, period. Regardless of whatever else you believe about it.

> [@](#):
>
> The invectives neither weaken nor strenghten my case, as anyone with even a cursory understanding of logic should know.
> 
> If my denials were unfounded, then that would weaken my case. But you would have to actually refute my denials in order to show that they were unfounded, and that has yet to happen. For the most part, you appear more attracted to the “ignore the rebutals and maybe they will go away” school of debate.

Funny, I would have thought that the one making himself the most offensive would be the one hoping to win the argument by drving the debaters away.

Argumentum ad hominem is a fallacy. Your continual reliance on personal attacks makes one wonder how much of your “argument” would be left without them. The idea that loading your posts with distracting and derogatory content might _not_ degrade the quality of your argument certainly says something about your argument style, and your awareness of how one might build personal credibility. Let me give you a clue: being an ass is not step one.

> [@](#):
>
> How’s that working for you?

It’s working like you don’t have a clue how to distingush the context of the argument from the doubted reality. Doesn’t bother me none, but you’ll be mighty pissed by the suggestion that there is again something that you didn’t get.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/409 "2003-04-01T11:20:17Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Axiom 2 is verifiable by the definition of existence, yes.

You are confused as to the nature of an axiom. Axioms are not verified by anything.

> [@](#):
>
> Funny, if I had shown something, then one would clearly assume that I had shown something. For me to have shown that, some variant of “observation(s) -\> observer” is necessary to have been accepted, because without it, not even “something(s) exist” has been shown.

That I comment on the result of your proof does not imply that I find nothing objectionable in your premise. Descartes proved “I exist” by assuming that “I exist”. That I comment on his result does not imply that I accept his premise as proper.

> [@](#):
>
> A response to “Are you fighting out of habit or what?” Meaning, “yes, I am fighting out of habit. And by my included ad hominem attack underscores the fact that that’s all I’m doing it for.”

A fair and honest reading if ever you have given one.

> [@](#):
>
> No no no no no. The proof is not being written in the doubted sphere. You cannot devise an argument if the first thing you doubt is your ability to devise an argument.

No no no no no. How can you possibly make this obvious a mistake? The context you argued for was that necessary to conclude: **The “something(s)” that is proven (which, though it may be many, has exactly one discernable point of view by which it is known and defined) happens to match in behavior the definition of “I”.** This has nothing to do with the ability to devise an argument and everything to do with the need to inject meaning into the argument to reach the conclusion you desire.

The proof is not being written from the doubted sphere, but _ **ALL** _ information necessary for the proof (the proof, not the ability to write the proof) must be available from within the doubted sphere. That’s what doubting means.

> [@](#):
>
> The terminology is part of the argument, no the doubtable perceptions.

Yes, but if the terminology is used to assert the content that is being claimed as meaningless, then you have a flawed structure. It is not valid to use definitions to introduce new axiomatic information, such as the existence of a unified point of view. Your terminology should reflect only those conclusions which your logic has already supplied.

> [@](#):
>
> Again, if you are under the impression that the proof itself must be doubted, what are you still doing talking?

I am under no such impression. You are again arguing with the figments of your preconceptions.

> [@](#):
>
> Yep, he doth. And what the hell is this “rhetorical trick” thing you keep mentioning?

In this case it was the inversion of reality in which you presented as fact the idea that I was afraid of definitions for “I”. A perusal of this thread makes it quite clear that I on many occassions requested simply that you choose a single definition and apply it consistently at all points in your various “proofs”.

This trick is a method of distorting the context of a discussion and trying to trick the other party into defending a position that they had not originally taken.

Do you think it worked?

> [@](#):
>
> Yeah to someone who believes his posts are shoveled full of truth, I guess that all such statements would have to be tricks. :rolleyes:

Unlike yourself, I have not resorted to dishonesty in this thread to make my points. Roll eyes as you will; that fact does not alter.

> [@](#):
>
> Wait, the fool might have a point… Except he only claims to have it and follows it with a lie.

**Ah – a palpable charge. Prove it.**

> [@](#):
>
> The only way he managed to “reduce” my first premise was by trotting right throught the structure of my proof; yeah, all proofs are trival tautologies if applying the argument gets to the conclusion.

This statement, of course, **is** a lie. I shal prove it with the following selection of quotes, all from my posts dealing with this matter:  
[ul][li]No, that’s the application of your definition for “nothing” to the big axiom. Axiom 2 is not required.[/li][li]What you use is the same thing that you habitually use, the axiomatic acceptance that the content of your perceptions is meaningful. Without that, your conclusion 1 cannot be reached. With it, your axiom 3 is unnecessary. [/li][li]with your definition & your axiom 1 you do not need your axiom 2.[/li][/ul]  
Clearly your statement that I “trotted right through the structure of your proof” to reduce your initial axiom is a gross misrepresentation. Did you post this falsehood with an intent to decieve? Well, it is difficult to credit that you overlooked all of those passages, since you have specifically replied to some of them. You certainly have motive to deceive, since you use this passage as a support for your just leveled charge that I am lying. So, yes, I am forced to conclude that **Begbert2 has returned to his lying ways.**

That didn’t take very long, did it?

> [@](#):
>
> **S.M.:** And how, exactly, do you imagine that your premise (as an epistemological proposition) is confirmed?
> 
> **Begbert2:** Typical; he’s denying I’ve said anything to date so that he can deny that what I say is meaningful, it being the case that I’ve said it before, and it didn’t convince him them.

I grow weary of repeating this, but **you need to learn to read with comprehension!** This passage does not deny anything. It asks you how you arrive at the confirmation of your premise that you state escapes the charge of begging the question.

**Y Kant Begbert Reed?**

> [@](#):
>
> At the start of doubting things, I notice that it is really REALLY easy to doubt that the content of my perceptions.
> 
> (At the high level of the proof, I notice that ALL of my perceptions are part of my point of view. This is very obvious, but it probably should be explicitly stated for the youth in the audience.)

Even the youth in the audience can see that the second proposition is a content of one of the perceptions that the first proposition pretends to doubt fully.

**Begberts** , unfortunately, are not so perceptive as youths.

> [@](#):
>
> I engage in an exersize that demonstrates that the actual presence of perceptions is more durable than their contents. More specifically, I cannot eradicate my set of percieved senses/thoughts.
> 
> (At the terminology level of the proof, these things are all still in one basket: my perceptions, the subjects of my POV)
> 
> That’s axiom 1. The resulty of another proof.

Axioms are not results of proofs.  
Terminology should not be used to insert axiomatic assertions into a proof without explicit specification.

Repeat the above until comprehension appears.

> [@](#):
>
> So, as there are perceptions, then the POV is valid, and is associated with an observer. That’s the application of axiom 2.
> 
> And so, because this is the observer that is observing my POV (which has been associated with “my perceptions” from the beginning, at the level of the proof terminology), it is conformant to the standard definition of “I”. That’s axiom 3. So, this observer that exists is I. That’s it.

So . . . when I ask you how you confirm the initial premise of your proof, you respond with your proof.

I am going to hazard a guess that you are unable to see the circularity of that, too.

> [@](#):
>
> That premise was the conclusion of a subproof, doof. And you say silly things all the time. You just don’t like them being pointed out.

Not at all. I just don’t like having someone falsify my statements in order to make them look silly. For instance–in this very quote.

The premise in question was your very first one. More precisely, it was my reduction of your “big premise”. Yet here you pretend that it was the conclusion of a subproof.

Is this another lie, or just another case of you being unable to read with comprehension?

> [@](#):
>
> Well, every time I extrapolate from your written text, you call me a liar. You’ve lost your right to imply things, bub: say it clear.

Again, you hide behind distortions of the record in order to escape the evident truth. I did clearly indicate that I found your initial premise wanting. You simply were not intelligent enough to recognize that fact. Nor were you intellignent enough to keep from posting something very silly about my expressed position.

Will you ever learn that trying to cover up these things with dishonesty is a losing tactic?

> [@](#):
>
> Yep, that was clear. Though, you don’t bother to give any reasons why. Is this supposed to be an argument from your own authority or something?

**Y Kant Begbert Reed???**

You just finished quoting a passage in which I supplied some reasons. More reasons had been given earlier by both myself and **erl**.

> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps they can base their assessment on the frequency of fallacious ad hominem attacks?

I have engaged in many ad hominem attacks, but none have been fallacious. Had I used them to imply that your arguments were false **because** you appear to equally unfamiliar with the rules of logic, the rules of English, and the principles of honesty . . . that would have been a fallacy. That isn’t what has happened, though. I have shown that your arguments were flawed by attacking your arguments. I have shown that you are a liar who neither reads nor reasons to an acceptable standard by letting you hang yourself with your own words.

> [@](#):
>
> Oh, are you referring to your attempt to reduce my argument by fallactiously applying hidden premises and then baselessly doubting my first premise so that after massive manipulation you can claim that I’m begging the question?

I applied 2 things: the definition that you use for “nothing/existence” and the same “context” that you yourself use to bring meaning to “I/me/my”. If it is a fallacy for me to apply these things, then it is a fallacy for you to apply them. It’s really quite simple:  
[ul][li]If these injections of meaning are kosher, then you can use them in your proof, and I can use them to show that the resulting proof begs the question.[/li][li]If these things are not kosher, then you cannot use them in your proof and you are unable to demonstrate the “I/me/my” that you claim to conclude.[/li][/ul]  
Simple.

> [@](#):
>
> And this "violating the standard of meaning is completely out of the blue.
> 
> **S.M. (earlier)** Is it really necesary to point out to you, again, that you move beyond your first axiom every time you make arguments (such as the assignment of the label “I”) that draw support from the meaningfulness of the content of your perceptions/ideas.
> 
> **S.M. (earlier still)** There is a disjunction between the axiom that you claim to accept: (existant) idea(s) without meaningful content, and the argument that you make, which is strangely crowded with presumptions and conlusions drawn from the content of ideas (setting aside, for the moment, the problems involved in the attribution of ideas to an “internal” world while arguing that internal and external are meaningless concepts.)

**Y Kant Begbert2 ReeD?**

> [@](#):
>
> You know, in spite of the mass irrelevancy of it all, I have at times tempted to go back and look at your independent excersize. But then you insult me again (it’s a short wait) and remind me that the hole that emits crap doesn’t often spout diamonds.

Hey – this is just like when you falsely accuse me of lying and then supply an actual lie yourself to provide contrast. Here, after falsely accusing me of engaging in **ad hominem fallacies** , you go on to post an actual **ad hominen fallacy**. Nicely done.

> [@](#):
>
> But you seem deluded into thinking that it will spout some kind of epiphany in my mind about something. Don’t flatter yourself.

Quite the contrary. I fully expect yo to be as ignorant at the end of the exercise as you are now. But I am quite willing to be surprised.

> [@](#):
>
> What’s your excuse? (For an example of foolish inconsistency, note that you in one post granted that I had proven further than Russel would have us go, and in the next denied that I had gained your acceptance of the requirements to do that. Tsk tsk.)

No inconsistency there, just another tortured reading on your part. I indicated that the conclusion you were reaching for went beyond what Russell would have allowed. I did not say that you had successfully proven it. And it has been you, not I, who keeps insisting against evidence that you are doubting all contents of perceptions.

> [@](#):
>
> Nope, sorry, the ‘idea’ of a POV is an idea, but a POV is the method by which a set of perceptions is observed by an observer.

It is an epistemological proof. What we know about POV is a perception. The clue to this was a paasage that you had quoted earlier, the one where I said: **What we know about the context is a perception, too.**

Further clues are the next to elements, which you strang;ey skipped in your response: **The idea that remembered perceptions occured in the same POV is the content of a thought.** and **The idea that a consistent POV exists for all perceptions is the content of a perception.**

> [@](#):
>
> The content is indeed meainingless by the middle/end of the argument, but the distinction is still not meaningless, or else you wouldn’t mind me slapping the term on at the end, now would you?

That migt be the stupidest argument that you have made in the since yesterday. (The bar is set pretty high.)

I object to your slapping it on at the end **specifically because you attempt to use the term as a meaningful restrictor at the end**. And I object to that **specifically because the term is meaningless earlier in the argument.**

Investing a key term with different meanings at different times in your argument is a fallacy known as **equivocation**. Perhaps you have heard that somewhere before.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **S.M.** It does if we are honestly doubting the self.
> > 
> > That you even have to ask that question astounds me. That, having asked, you think that the answer is “no” surprises me not at all.
> 
> **Begbert2** This is in response the question that, after something has been potentiall doubted, must we remove the terms relating to it from our argument lexicon. S.M. seems to think yes. I wonder, why hasn’t he just said “I’ve doubted the meaning of the word existence, and you CANNOT prove anything now!”

The passage is a direct response to the following: \*\*Does that fact that halfway throught the doubting process we can debate only our own perceptions mean that suddenly there is no distinction between “my” and “not my” anymore? \*\* That passage asks whether a meaningful distinction can be drawn between what is “mine” and what is “not mine” after we have doubted the existence of “I”.

The answer to that question is yes, becuase having doubted that “I” exist I have no way to descriminate perceptions between “mine” and “not mine”. The terms can still be used in an argument, but equivocation should not be used to inject a meaning into the argument that is not warranted.

The answer to why **Begbert2** posted such a misleading summary of the context of this exchange is left as an exercise for the honest reader.

> [@](#):
>
> Actually, every time you deny the premises and argument form of my proof, by the rules of logic, you’re denying that it says anything.

This statement is simply wrong.

A circular argument says something, it just isn’t anything very interesting. Denying a premise also does not deny that your argument says anything; it just says that what it says is unsound in the particular context.

Since this is the best that you could come up with, i’ll assume that in the nine pages of this thread **you could not find a single instance where I made the claim that you attributed to me.**

> [@](#):
>
> The idea that “Because I already magically know that I exist, any proof to that notion shows something even if it is totally fallacious (such as being circular or begging the question)” is so totally stupid that I’m not going to attribute it to anybody.

That’s good, because the first time this stupid idea has entered this thread is right there in your last post. I can only imagine what convolutoins of thought inspired you to bring it up only to dismiss it.

> [@](#):
>
> Funny, I would have thought that the one making himself the most offensive would be the one hoping to win the argument by drving the debaters away.

Is that how you think arguments are won? Well, that might explain your penchant for lying.

> [@](#):
>

You really should learn what an ad hominem fallacy is before you toss the term around much more. It is not an ad hominem fallacy to observe that **Begbert2 is a liar**. It would be an ad hominem fallacy to assert that **Bergert2’s proof is obviously false because he is a liar.**

Do you see the difference?

[ul][li]I have called you a liar.[/li][li]I have demonstrated that you are a liar.[/li][li]I have charged you with egregiously poor reading skills.[/li][li]I have demonstrated that you have egregiously poor reading skills.[/li][li]I have called your arguments variously circular, unsound, question begging, etc.[/li][li]I have demonstrated those positions with various tools of logic and semantics.[/ul][/li]But at no time have I claimed that your proofs were flawed simply becuase you are a liar. Thus, this is simply one more in the line of meritless charges that you have laid at my feet.

Will you ever learn?

> [@](#):
>
> The idea that loading your posts with distracting and derogatory content might not degrade the quality of your argument certainly says something about your argument style, and your awareness of how one might build personal credibility. Let me give you a clue: being an ass is not step one.

At the moment I favor, **step one: do not take advice on establishing credibility from a demonstrated liar, particularly not an inept liar.**

Thanks for the advice, though. I’m sure your heart was in the right place.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/410 "2003-04-01T15:34:09Z")

</div>

As stated: The amazing things one can do with itemized responses. The astute audience will note that S.M. has indeed made a massive post even more massive than in reply, which was how these posts got so big in the first place. Note that by being so verbose, it is tedious and difficult to sort out things that really could be said in one-screen proofs and statements…  
…had he anything to say.

(And I was right: he did get mighty pissed by the suggestion that there is again something that you didn’t get. See how he flails about with rage.)

> [@](#):
>
> I have engaged in many ad hominem attacks, but none have been fallacious. Had I used them to imply that your arguments were false because you appear to equally unfamiliar with the rules of logic, the rules of English, and the principles of honesty . . . that would have been a fallacy. That isn’t what has happened, though. I have shown that your arguments were flawed by attacking your arguments. I have shown that you are a liar who neither reads nor reasons to an acceptable standard by letting you hang yourself with your own words.

Uh, no, calling all my statments lies and then basing your arguments on the “fact” that my arguments are based on lies is a direct use of your ad hominem in a desperate attempt to defend your little postition. Like this:

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> * I have called you a liar.
> * I have demonstrated that you are a liar.
> * I have charged you with egregiously poor reading skills.
> * I have demonstrated that you have egregiously poor reading skills.
> * I have called your arguments variously circular, unsound, question begging, etc.
> * I have demonstrated those positions with various tools of logic and semantics.
> 
> ```

```
* Yes.
* Well, based on your failures to understand what I'm saying/false points in your "knowledge" of axiomatic proof.
* Yes.
* Based on the fact that S.M. could never be wrong, whenever I say so, I must be failing to understand.
* Yes.
* Based on incorrect reasoning.

```

Hey, skippy!

> [@](#):
>
> You are confused as to the nature of an axiom. Axioms are not verified by anything.  
> …  
> Axioms are not results of proofs.

Go take an elementary logic class. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

> [@](#):
>
> Terminology should not be used to insert axiomatic assertions into a proof without explicit specification.  
> …  
> \* No, that’s the application of your definition for “nothing” to the big axiom. Axiom 2 is not required.  
> \* What you use is the same thing that you habitually use, the axiomatic acceptance that the content of your perceptions is meaningful. Without that, your conclusion 1 cannot be reached. With it, your axiom 3 is unnecessary.  
> \* with your definition & your axiom 1 you do not need your axiom 2.

Well, let’s see, in the middle post he outright lies (or is blazingly unaware of what I’m talking about) in his claim that I am using the content of the perceptions as meaningful…  
…and in the first and last protest, he flagrantly admits he’s doing exactly what he says shouldn’t be done: using definitions in proofs without referring to axioms! You gotta be careful about making **accurate** statements about proving things logically; they contradict with your fallacious approaches! 😃

> [@](#):
>
> Unlike yourself, I have not resorted to dishonesty in this thread to make my points. Roll eyes as you will; that fact does not alter.

Well, a total and complete failure to understand both the process of making proofs _and_ (not or) the way words come together to form meaning when typed would also explain it.

But come on, chippy. You opened yourself up wide when you claimed that your posts were shoved full of truth. 'Cause that’s the way it is, isn’t it: your merest word is unvarnished truth, and any who notice the idiocy of your contradictory methods and flawed logic are heretics. That does explain your behavior. :rolleyes:

S.M., you might consider taking my advice, regardless of your altered perceptions of my honesty: being an ass is not step one.

I’m going to leave the rest of your self-contradiction and your demonstrations of clulessness about the operation, meaning, and use of logical proofs as an excersise to the observer, if for no other reason to shorten your hysterical reply of “I am so right, because you’r a liar, and dumb, and wrong too!” and waste less time of the reader.

S.M.'s pathetic attempts to say I didn’t say anything in my argument are, almost needless to say, incorrect. I personally like how he quoted the part AFTER I grounded my premise 1 in an earler proof (earlier as in, I thought that everyone understood it after about page 5), claiming that I was using the **rest** of my argument to prove my first premise, which had just been separately proven right above the section he quoted. S.M. is full of stuff like this. Just wait until you see his foaming-at-the-mouth reply to this post. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/411 "2003-04-01T17:19:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> And I was right: he did get mighty pissed by the suggestion that there is again something that you didn’t get. See how he flails about with rage.

No rage. Resigned disgust is closer to the emotion you inspire.

> [@](#):
>
> Uh, no, calling all my statments lies and then basing your arguments on the “fact” that my arguments are based on lies is a direct use of your ad hominem in a desperate attempt to defend your little postition.

I have done no such thing. You are now simply making up absurd charges.

**You are a liar** , but that is not the basis upon which I have attacked your arguments.

> [@](#):
>
> [I have demonstrated that you are a liar.]  
> Well, based on your failures to understand what I’m saying/false points in your “knowledge” of axiomatic proof.

The written record does not agree with you.

> [@](#):
>
> [I have demonstrated that you have egregiously poor reading skills.]  
> Based on the fact that S.M. could never be wrong, whenever I say so, I must be failing to understand.

No, based on the absurd number of instances in which you fail to read with anything approaching comprehension. Several of them were highlited in my last post. Interestingly, I see that you have not chosen to defend your reading on any of hose points.

How utterly in character.

> [@](#):
>
> (I have demonstrated those positions with various tools of logic and semantics.)  
> Based on incorrect reasoning.

I, at least, have the integrity to call out specifically the errors I see in your reasoning. Care to emulate that trait?

> [@](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > **Spiritus Mundi** You are confused as to the nature of an axiom. Axioms are not verified by anything . . . Axioms are not results of proofs.
> 
> Go take an elementary logic class. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Your ignorance is showing again. One of us is wrong. Why don’t we each supply some appropriate citations to suport our view?  
[ul]  
[li][Hyper dictionary shows](http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/axiom)[/li]**(From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary)** 1. (Logic & Math.) A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident as first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, `The whole is greater than a part;'' `A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.’’  
**(from Wordnet)** 2: (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident  
**(From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing )** \<logic\> A {well-formed formula} which is taken to be true without proof in the construction of a {theory}.  
[li][The Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy says](http://lgxserver.uniba.it/lei/foldop/foldoc.cgi?axiom)[/li]\<logic\> A wff that is taken to be true without proof in the construction of a theory or stipulated as unproved premise for the proof of other wffs inside a formal system  
[li][The philosophy pages offers](http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#axiom)[/li]axiom  
A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge.  
[/ul]  
Your turn. (Shall I expect Merriam Webster?)

> [@](#):
>
> Well, let’s see, in the middle post he outright lies (or is blazingly unaware of what I’m talking about) in his claim that I am using the content of the perceptions as meaningful…

Here you pretend that I have not made it clear that the context of information required for you to assign a single point of view is itself a perception. You make no attempt to answer that complaint, of course.

Your character is showing again.

> [@](#):
>
> and in the first and last protest, he flagrantly admits he’s doing exactly what he says shouldn’t be done: using definitions in proofs without referring to axioms!

**Y Kant Begbert2 ReeD?**

If **Begbert2** could read with comprehension, he might have noticed this passage:

> [@](#):
>
> **Spiritus mundi** I applied 2 things: the definition that you use for “nothing/existence” and the same “context” that you yourself use to bring meaning to “I/me/my”. If it is a fallacy for me to apply these things, then it is a fallacy for you to apply them. It’s really quite simple:  
> [ul][li]If these injections of meaning are kosher, then you can use them in your proof, and I can use them to show that the resulting proof begs the question.[/li][li]If these things are not kosher, then you cannot use them in your proof and you are unable to demonstrate the “I/me/my” that you claim to conclude.[/li][/ul]  
> Simple.

But not simple enough for **Begbert2** , obviously.

> [@](#):
>
> But come on, chippy. You opened yourself up wide when you claimed that your posts were shoved full of truth.

I have posted no lie. You have posted many. That is the truth. That you find it an uncomfortable truth is plain.

There is a simple answer to that, too. **Post honestly.**

> [@](#):
>
> S.M., you might consider taking my advice, regardless of your altered perceptions of my honesty: being an ass is not step one.

My perceptions are quite clear.  
[ul][li]You are a liar.[/li][li]You reason poorly.[/li][li]You read even more poorly than you reason.[/li][/ul]  
All of the abovce have been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, as have other character faults that I cannot call out within the rules of this forum.

I am certain that you feel I am being an ass for pointing out your dishonesty and apparent inadequacies in both intellect and education. I care not at all. You have been treated with every iota of the respect that you have earned.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m going to leave the rest of your self-contradiction and your demonstrations of clulessness about the operation, meaning, and use of logical proofs as an excersise to the observer

Yes, you do seem to prefer slinging unfounded accusations to actually dealing with substantive criticisms of your argument. In this, at least, you have been consistent.

> [@](#):
>
> S.M.'s pathetic attempts to say I didn’t say anything in my argument are, almost needless to say, incorrect.

[ul][li]I never made any atempt to say such a thing.[/li][li]I have told you more than once that I never made any such attempt.[/li][li]I have asked you to present evidence of such a claim from anywhere within this thread.[/li][li]You have provided none.[/li][li]You continue to misrepresent this point.[/li][li] **One mor lie for your list.** [/li][/ul]  
Why don’t you try dealing with what I do say, rather than what your wounded pride imagines that I am saying.

> [@](#):
>
> I personally like how he quoted the part AFTER I grounded my premise 1 in an earler proof (earlier as in, I thought that everyone understood it after about page 5)

Choices, choices, how to respond?  
[ol][li]Make up your mind, have you retracted everything before page 8 or not?[/li][li]Is it really your contention that everyone in this thread accepted a proof that a unified POV exists? Care to demonstrate that agreement from the text?[/li][li]I quoted the part where you used the conlusion of your proof to support your first axiom in an attemt to escape circularity. I did so because the question was “how do you confirm the initial premise of your proof”?[/li][li]:wally[/li][/ol]  
I think I will go with (4). It will offer you one more opportunity to prtend that the only maaner in which I have criticized your argument is by pointing out the deficiencies in your character.

> [@](#):
>
> claiming that I was using the rest of my argument to prove my first premise, which had just been separately proven right above the section he quoted

No, because the first premise of your argument requires both a reason to apply the label “‘my’ point of view” and a demonstration that the subjective perception of “ownership” of said POV is valid. To get there, you need the final conlusion “I exist”.

That you **repeatedly** pretend nobody has pointed this out to you does not make the point go away. You cannot confirm a premise that requires a subject without demonstrating that said subject exists.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\
**Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/412 "2003-04-01T17:26:40Z")

</div>

I can’t believe you two are still wasting bandwidth on this. The wise man walks away. Peace.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/413 "2003-04-01T18:06:35Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> You cannot confirm a premise that requires a subject without demonstrating that said subject exists.

Whoa! Page 3 flashbacks! Trippy, man…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/414 "2003-04-01T18:32:04Z")

</div>

Are you at least getting some enjoyment out of this, **erl**? I find myself hoping that somebody is.

Maybe I need to go find a showing of _Rivers and Tides_ to restore the purity of my artistic soul.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/415 "2003-04-01T18:38:38Z")

</div>

I’m loving it, no worries. You are a better typer than I am, excepting "teh"s and missing letters (I mean more articulate ;)). Of course they never affect the sense.

I must say that for as much as I love the depth and analysis of Standford’s site their response to Russell’s critique is quite lacking (compare their treament of modal logic which, IMO, is excellent). I’m half-tempted to send the author an email with a link to this thread. I would be interested to hear his/her/their input on the matter.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/416 "2003-04-01T20:21:54Z")

</div>

_whew_

That might be the first time I have ever been accused of being a better typer than someone. I suffered a moment of cognitive dissonance before I got to your parenthetical.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/417 "2003-04-01T21:37:43Z")

</div>

I just realized that _it would appear_ that, for example, a Moebius strip had two sides if we only glanced at a portion of it at a time. What other comparison is fit for such a twisted circle?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 1, 2003, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/418 "2003-04-01T22:43:13Z")

</div>

A klein bottle?

It seems somehow appropriate to have a model that cannot be realized in 3 dimensions.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/419 "2003-04-02T00:02:02Z")

</div>

A klein bottle. I was thinking of that but I liked the circle analogy. Of course, in a Klein bottle, inside is out and that could be said to be analogous to equivocation, so I suppose that works quite well too. And your point fits as well 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**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:** [April 2, 2003, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/420 "2003-04-02T05:35:24Z")

</div>

Well, this does clarify things for me. I admit being disappointed in you, **erislover** ; as you are obviously the better arguer than S.M… For one thing, you’re not an ass. If you weren’t stroking his ego, he would probably call you a liar for that remark of yours.

S.M., go take a damned **class**. Learn to think or something, if that is possible. The idea that you **have** to have absolutely unproven premises is pure stupidity, even in the most trivial sense. You’ll find this out if you, I don’t know, ever get within ten feet of a class that is actually about formal logic?

Most of your “arguments” are similar uneducated bullshit. When I had said that your last post was so grotesque that it was “almost needless to say” how invalid each and every “rebuttal” was, I meant it. Given that even in small pieces, your post was obviously the (prolonged) rant of a hypersensitive fool, I figured no rebuttal was necessary. For once there wasn’t even a pretense of correctness. Pure shit, obvious to all.

And now, **erislover** chooses this moment to applaud your argument style? God, erl, are you insane? I’ve been hanging around shooting ducks in a barrel waiting for you to come back and say something intelligent. If you think that’s beyond you, then I’m facing an uneducated, desperately insecure loudmouth, _plus_ someone who considers his argument style better than their own!

This is very sad. Your general civility painted you in too good a light; I had assumed that you had some _reason_ for disagreeing. (The fact that many of your posts number in the single digit word counts may have helped this illusion along.)

So, what you’re all telling me is, there’s nobody here to argue but me. Given that, I’m bowing out. There’s no point in arguing if there’s nobody to propose an even fractionally reasoned contesting postion. Seeya.

This does explain why you managed to hold that asinine “circularity” claim up so long in spite of your own quote dismantling it by definition, though. Gotta learn to see the signs…

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=20)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=22)