# 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:** 23
**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 2, 2003, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/441 "2003-04-02T18:12:11Z")
**Begbert2** The phrase of my sentence that you seem to be passing over without comprehension is: **he does little else than spout personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges, and logical fallacies.**. Your last several posts match my description quite accurately. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it fascinating that, when he’s mad, he makes his every response two or three times longer than the post he’s kicking against? You should stop projecting emotions onto my posts. I am not mad. It would require a shred of respect for either your intellect, your character, or your arguments for me to get angry over your lies and misrepresentations. As to length, yes it does often take more words to combat ignorance than to declare it. What possible convolution of reasoning are you trying to make in order to use “length of post” as a criticism? > [@](#): > > And as to swappig out “premise” for “axiom”: remember this: > > [exchange in which he uses the word premise and I match his usage] > > Let’s see, you understood that we were talking about premises. I leave it as an excersize to the audience to be amused at how thoroughly this reverses S.M.'s accusation that my trying to call the “axioms” premises is a strawman. Well, if you recall that passage was part of an exchange in which you were arguing that your initial axiom was “confirmed” by something. Now, if you had been correct, then your first premise would not have been an axiom, it would have been a confirmed result. Thus, when you used the word “premise” to describe it in that echange I matched your usage. So, let’s review: [ul][li]You introduced the statements as axioms.[/li][li]You introduced those axioms in a rephrasing of your earlier attempted proof, not as a consequence of same.[/li][li]You **never** provided a proof whose conclusion matched either the terminology or sense of your “big axiom”.[/li][li]You **never** provided a proof whose conclusion matched either the terminology or sense of your second axiom?: **observation -\> observer** [/li][li]The usage of “premise” was introduced only when you were trying to escape the charge of begging the question by claiming that your axioms were “confirmed”.[/li][li]Your “confirmation” for axiom 2 was: **definition**.[/li][li]Your confirmation for 1 **begged the question**.[/li][li]I made comments about the nature of axioms.[/li][li]You called my comments stupid.[/li][li]I provided supports for my comments.[/li][li]You called my comments stupid and pretended that they had been made about premises instead of axioms.[/li][li]I pointed out your dirty trick[/li][li]I then pointed out that you had introduced the axioms as axioms, without reference to a prior proof.[/li][li]You sieze upon one exchange in which we had both referenced “premise” (ognoring the many other cases in which we both referenced axioms).[/li][li]I point out that the context of that exchange was a special claim on your part that you were escaping circularity by having external confirmation of your “premises”.[/li][li]I had already pointed out that the “confirmation” you grasped for required the conlusion “I exist”. Thus there was (and is) no justification for what your characterization of them as “premise”.[/li][li]Which is really beside the point, since I was quite clear in using the word **“axiom”** in the statements with which you took issue.[/li][li]Which makes sense, because both statements in question are, in fact, axioms.[/ul][/li]I will now anxiously await your next insult and misrepresentation. > [@](#): > > I’m only here to throw darts at S.M. now; I freely admit it As I said: \*One person in this thread has allowed his behavior to degenerate to the point where he does little else than spout personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges, and logical fallacies. That person is you, **Begbert2.** \* You have now freely admitted the obvious. > [@](#): > > **Begbert2** Oh, and **erislover?** This particular “dispute” emerged when S.M. **ignored** the explicit statment of a subproof as the basis behind the premise “axiom 1”. > > **Spiritus Munid (many posts ago)** 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”. You are still a **liar**. And you are still not very good at it. ---
**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 2, 2003, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/442 "2003-04-02T18:25:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Come on folks, we have two parties that each are saying the other’s logic is flawed. Not just their proof, but their use of logic as a reasoning device. Has it occured to you that this is a parallel situation as to when two people are each calling the other liar? I don’t believe that that parallel has escaped anyone. > [@](#): > > One of the sides is wrong, but whichever one it is by nature cannot admit their own fault. That argument follows only in cases of deficient character. I am not surprised to see that you think it is universal. > [@](#): > > In the case of faulty logiuc, they cannot detect their own fault. That follows only in cases where the individual is unable or unwilling to learn. I am not surprised that you think it is universal. > [@](#): > > I had thought that there was an objective observer that might be capable of detecting the correct party, but I was wrong. No, in that you were right. You mistake the fact that no person has supported you for the inability of all parties to detect the truth. > [@](#): > > S.M. appears to be fighting because if I’m right, my claim that he misreads things is right, and thus his ego would be bent. I believe I shall simply let the written record be my response to this one. ---
**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, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/443 "2003-04-02T18:36:22Z")
> [@](#): > > I will now anxiously await your next insult and misrepresentation. Anxiously? Well, I’d hate to make you anxious. Um. Insult _and_ misinterpretation. I’m not used to _intentionally_ misinterpreting things. I guess I’d better just go the S.M. route and quote a chunk of his argument without context. Hmm. I still don’t see an argument. Oh, I give up. > [@](#): > > ave now freely admitted the obvi Misinterpret… uh… “This complete statement clearly is lacking the word “admitted”, and so is made of green cheese”. Oh, nearly forgot. S.M. is a **BIPED!** \<- See, it’s in bold. Hope that relieves his anxiety. ---
**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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/444 "2003-04-02T18:52:52Z")
Actually, following in an S.M. mode, the “insult” should be demonstrably false. S.M., you **TRIPED!!** You are the **TRIPEDIAST TRIPED** that ever **TRIPED**! **!**! **!**! That’s more like it. I’m left with nothing much else to say. You’re speaking a unique language with uniquer rules of logic, and your memory is the uniquest thing yet. You my not understand this, but it’s demonstrably pointless to waste time on you, other than to observe the fascinating phenomena that is you. (I loved your little rendition of how the “axioms” came up;, by the way it actually denied the existence of the argument where the term “Axiom 1” first came up… 😃 It was an(other) interesting look into your psyche.) ---
**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 2, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/445 "2003-04-02T19:13:59Z")
And I thought you had reached your low point when you started telling me about all the college courses that you had taken. Let me guess, you’re a sophmore aren’t you? ---
**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, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/446 "2003-04-02T20:10:01Z")
Not that I am, but would that be a bad thing? I’ve only taken two Philosophy courses, including logic. In the logic course I was shocked and horrified by the low level of comprehension amongst my classmates; it was very surreal. (I aced the course; most computer programmers do, it seems.) I’ve also had 200 and 400 level math courses that dealt with symbolic logic; in the latter one (in which half the course was spent on symbolic logic, and the rest on a symbolic construction of the natural numbers) I was told that I should consider a career as a symbolic logician. I don’t see why this is relevant, as these facts are not going to change your opinion of my logical skills one bit. I have gone through this all assuming that you have a doctorate in some irrelevant field and are God’s own consultant on whatever it is you do. If you were used to being wrong, or dealing with equals, you would not have the appalling conversation style which you do. ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/447 "2003-04-02T20:22:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Hey, I can’t teach cogito ergo sum to a two-by-four either. It doesn’t matter how right I am if the audience is arbitrarily unconvincable. I only want to point out that I don’t see how you’ve even comparably demonstrated an ability to “teach” us the issue. You’ve failed to respond both in kind and in substance to our posts. I do not personally think it can be done, because I think I/we are right. Participants in this thread, however, are not above listening to well-thought responses. You have given _some_ but took further debate as an indication that we simply “didn’t understand” you. That is not the tactic of an honest or well-read individual. I, too, have known plenty-a-person who took several philosophy classes and was well-convinced of many things. Why, one of them even posted here once on _this very topic_. If you would like, search for the username **delinquince** and you will find her two posts. A personal friend of mine. She felt quite sure that her education in the matter was sufficient. I do not agree. Whether I did then, I don’t recall, but I don’t _now_ because the naysayers have been entirely more thorough and persuasive in their reasoning. > [@](#): > > This is a separate problem from the audience being arbitrarily abrasive (to say the least) but there might be a correlation. Yes, **Spiritus** has a characterstic acerbic style of posting. I can only attempt to reassure you of his intelligence and genuinely good character which I am quite sure you will find if you stick around. However, he litters almost all of his posts with useful comments germane to the discussion. You choose only to respond to the character assault. :shrug: I can’t fault you for that. I can fault you for being unwilling or unable to respond in kind. I can fault you for being unwilling or unable to even tell what that kind is. Unfortunately, I do not quite yet feel comfortable enough to do so. > [@](#): > > A person can **always** avoid accepting the conclusion of an argument by refusing to accept the premises. This is the last time I will say it. **No one is denying the motherfucking conclusion.** Truly, after your boondoggle with the truth table for implication I thought we cleared that up. Would it help to increase the font size? What do we have to do to make sure you don’t fuck this up again? Please, I’m open to suggestion. > [@](#): > > But it didn’t get that far; the number of times people have said, “I don’t buy that there are perceptions”… Cite? Please include the entire paragraph and underline, bold, or italicize the relevant portion. This will be sure we get the context. And since there are a number of them I will pick a number. 3. > [@](#): > > One of the sides is wrong, but whichever one it is by nature cannot admit their own fault. In the case of faulty logiuc, they cannot **detect** their own fault. This would be true if human knowledge and awareness was static. I do not believe it to be so. > [@](#): > > I had thought that there was an objective observer that might be capable of detecting the correct party, but I was wrong. This is a very suspicious remark.[list=1][li]You have had nine pages to demonstrate your correctness. **D-** [/li][li]You have had ample opportunity to address the claims of you being a liar in kind, or retract the statements. **F** [/li][li]You feel you are right and accuse us of being “arbitrarily unconvincable”. **I** [ncomplete][/list=1][/li] > [@](#): > > So, there’s no more point in debating the quality of logic than in the wether S.M. is a liar. If you could merely demonstrate your claimed abilities there would be no need for debate. **I** > [@](#): > > S.M. appears to be fighting because if I’m right, my claim that he misreads things is right, and thus his ego would be bent. As with the very content of this thread I make an appropriate remark: just because something seems to be a certain way doesn’t make it so. I assure you his ego will not be bruised by making an error. If only someone were around who could make that claim _and_ substantiate it? **F** > [@](#): > > So, why are _you_ here, **erislover**? To argue my position that Descartes’s proof was circular, equivocated, or just generally question-begging. Isn’t that clear yet? **F** > [@](#): > > If you wish to say that you’re fighting because you believe that S.M.'s logic is right and mine is wrong, that’s an answer. **Spiritus** chooses his own battles. I am here because I think _I_ am right. However, I realize the practicality in not attempting to make points others have demonstrated as well as or better than I could. ---
**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 2, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/448 "2003-04-02T21:01:30Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t see why this is relevant It isn’t. That’s why I said I thought telling me about the college courses you have taken represented the low point of your argument (as opposed to your character). Then you sunk lower. Then you told me about your college courses in more detail, including seeing the need to repeat the carreer advice of a particular instructor who patter you on the head and said you were a bright boy. I would ask why, but I am really not interested in further revelations about your character. > [@](#): > > These facts are not going to change your opinion of my logical skills one bit. Of course not. If they did, then I would be guilty of accepting an argument from authority. It does appear that my standards are higher than those of your professor. > [@](#): > > I have gone through this all assuming that you have a doctorate in some irrelevant field and are God’s own consultant on whatever it is you do. Nope. > [@](#): > > If you were used to being wrong, or dealing with equals, you would not have the appalling conversation style which you do. I am wrong frequently, though not as often as I am right. I am quite used to dealing with equals, you just dont’ happen to be one with regards to personal integrity, reading comprehension, or philosophical reasoning. I will happily address any complaints about my posting style that have not already been addressed. Those are: [ul][li]You called me a liar! _(I did. You are.)_[/li][li]You never post substantive arguments! _(I have posted many. You tend to ignore them so you can concentrate on the insulting stuff.)_[/li][li]You just say every statement I make is a lie! _(No, only the ones that are lies.)_[/li][li]Your responses are longer than my posts! _(Yes, unlike yourself I think it is important to provide substantiation for my assertions, especially when those assertions are unfattering to someone else.)_[/ul][/li] Got anything new? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/449 "2003-04-02T21:15:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > I have gone through this all assuming that you have a doctorate in some irrelevant field and are God’s own consultant on whatever it is you do. I am almost appalled by this remark. Is this the level of person you feel you should be dealing with? I have read philosophy every single day for three years now. I could give you that resume if you would like. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the motivation to go to school again to get a degree in something I would not care to use except for recreational purposes. I think my understanding of the issues is either clear enough or open to responsible criticism; in that you deny the former and fail to provide the latter. You are not the first poster on these boards who simply appeals to “take a class”. Why, I’ve even heard “I’m one class away from a bachelor’s in philosophy.” What, is that supposed to scare me? Maybe if I feared being wrong. Alas, I don’t mind being wrong at all. You seem unwilling or unable to demonstrate that I am, however. Worse yet, I’m easier to convince than **Spiritus** in most matters of this nature. > [@](#): > > If you were used to being wrong, or dealing with equals, you would not have the appalling conversation style which you do. I love his conversational style, to tell the truth. Accurate, precise, witty, bold, and acerbic. What that has to do with how often one is wrong I don’t know, but I trust you won’t be supplying any chain of evidence and or reasoning there, either. ---
**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 2, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/450 "2003-04-02T21:44:58Z")
> [@](#): > > I love his conversational style, to tell the truth. Accurate, precise, witty, bold, and acerbic. 😃 I can be somewhat of an acquired taste, though. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/451 "2003-04-02T21:51:33Z")
To return to the original debate: I agree with **erislover**. Descartes’ argument has a hidden assumption: an invisible axiom that states “only things that are can think”. As a result, his reasoning is necessarily flawed. So he had a psychological blind spot. Who among us doesn’t? He was a brilliant and creative mind, even if he was wrong. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/452 "2003-04-02T21:51:46Z")
What do you mean? We’ve never argued about _anything_! Why, I wouldn’t dream of taking you to the Pit over a semantic quibble about the word “absolute”. Tsk tsk, **Spiritus**. ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/453 "2003-04-02T21:56:05Z")
that was in response to SM’s last post… (damn you Aide, sneaking one in there! :p) ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/454 "2003-04-02T22:07:25Z")
😃 ---
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/455 "2003-04-02T22:12:36Z")
“only things that are can think”… I think he thought this was obvious. Obvious = axiom. If you don’t agree, then you have no need to be convinced by him. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/456 "2003-04-02T22:16:37Z")
Obvious != axiom ---
**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 2, 2003, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/457 "2003-04-02T22:19:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Why, I wouldn’t dream of taking you to the Pit over a semantic quibble about the word “absolute”. Ouch. I was probably trying to apply semantics to English sentences again, wasn’t I? Apparently that’s a bad thing. ---
**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 2, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/458 "2003-04-02T22:22:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Descartes’ argument has a hidden assumption: an invisible axiom that states “only things that are can think”. As a result, his reasoning is necessarily flawed. Actually, his hidden assumptions lie elsewhere. That assumption he makes fairly explicit in phrasing his implication. The hidden assumptions have to do with how one can know that one is thinking. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/459 "2003-04-02T22:25:59Z")
Really? Perhaps I should read Descartes again… That pesky self-reference problem again, eh? The brilliance of Godel’s Theorem, in my mind, is that it’s so obvious. It’s clear to any rationally-thinking person that self-reference is potentially dangerous, and clear that in many cases systems are necessarily incomplete. Godel’s genius was to recognize and demonstrate that those limitations apply to everything. The part of us that monitors the other parts – that segment of the mind that perceives the other segments – cannot perceive itself, necessarily. As a result, we must always be a mystery to ourselves. The illusion of self always remains. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/460 "2003-04-02T22:33:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Ouch. I was probably trying to apply semantics to English sentences again, wasn’t I? Yes! Bastard. > [@](#): > > Apparently that’s a bad thing. Indeed. How else am I supposed to be right if you don’t let me change the meaning of words all the time? ::shakes fist:: [aside]I dug up that thread, by the way, about two weeks ago. Quite hilarious. What’s worse is I almost convinced myself that I was right by rereading my own arguments (the things I talk myself into :rolleyes:\*\*). The battle is never over, LOL [/aside] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=24)