# 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:** 27
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/521 "2003-04-09T15:13:29Z")
words devoid of semantic content render a sentence meaningless, no? ---
**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 9, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/522 "2003-04-09T15:47:40Z")
Oh, hi **erislover**! Long time no hear. Don’t sweat the Descartes; yes, I want to hear about what he said in response to his critics, but as you can see, I have enough on my plate to keep me busy. 🙂 [Begin complaint about intellectual dishonesty. Skip if desired.] As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is false (and as you noted, I explicitly called for attacks to be made directly on the assumptions). My big gripe there was, as I hope was clear, that an accusation of “begging the question” implies that the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise **as written** and conclusion **as written** are simple and obvious to anybody. How can anybody say that in _this_ argument, things are simple and obvious? The mere _meanings_ of words are continually on the chopping block! Sorry, but I can’t accept claims that I need to be more precise in my wordings _and_ “begging the question” accusations from the same person. The two positions are contradictory to one another; they **require** different levels of pickiness. Though, when I realized the clash in accusing the argument of both begging the question **and** triviality at once, that was a bit funny, I admit. 😛 It just rankles me that people can simultanously be holding contrary positions about the argument (seemingly just because both positions have negative implication) and then call _me_ intellectually dishonest. That’s like accusing someone of being “too pacifistic, you reckless warmonger!”. Come on, people. :roll eyes: [End complaint about intellectual dishonesty.] Okay, thanks for waiting. My biggest problem is not the requirement of mutually understood meanings, it’s the persistent failure of them to be “gotten”. It seems like a deliberate attempt to refuse to understand or agree, particularly in cases like when “existence” was challenged recently. Perhaps I’m being oversensitive. It’s actually _really hard_ to define these terms without referring to _anything_ else in the proof! A little cooperation here would be appreciated. (Like, give it a shot yourself, and see if I agree.) A lot of cooperation would be even more appreciated, so long as we take the time to make sure we’re understanding each other. (If I say, “Existence is proven” and you said, “Yuh-huh”, then that’s not so good. Not that there’s a chance in hell of that happening, but I wanted to clarify that I don’t _want_ it to happen. Just some more cooperation.) And as to POV. Actually, **erislover** , I recently provided a definition of it that makes no reference to the _content_ of a perception. (Whatever the heck “perception” means.) It was buried in a rather annoyed reply, but it was presented: > [@](#): > > How about “POV = the boundaries of awareness”, as in “my POV is defines what is in my view.” Looking back at that, it would have been a bit more meaningful if I knew how to type decently. Try: How about “POV = the boundaries of awareness”, as in “my POV is define **d a** s what is in my view.” That’s a bit better. Sorry about that. So, the notion of a POV is not the content of a perception, and the necessary requirement for using it correctly is to be aware of a set of "whatever"s, which may or may not be all the "whatever"s available. While, in theory, a POV might include nothing, such a POV would not be sufficient to prove anything from, since there is no evidence that awareness is going on. Any non-empty POV, however, encapsulates such proof. So, when I’m using POV, **AFTER** I have established that I am indeed unable to entirely eradicate my awareness of everything, I designate that the POV I’m referring to is non-empty by prefixing the trerm with the word “my”, which directs us to note that the POV in question refers to the aforenoted things of which I am aware, or more specifically to the awareness itself. (Why “my”? Well, where did I find the set of perceptions I’m talking about? Were they in _your_ awareness? Maybe S.M.'s? Who _is_ being aware of these things, anyway? And if it wasn’t me, then how did they get into my argument??) I’m sure that this opens up several 10-gallon barrels of worms, but how about you tell me your concerns now, rather than me guessing them. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/523 "2003-04-09T16:48:09Z")
> [@](#): > > As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is false… Cite? ---
**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 9, 2003, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/524 "2003-04-09T16:58:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _origninally posted by erislover_ > A begged question is an argument whose assumptions are as questionable as the conclusion reached. Pardon me, did you mean this to apply to arguments where the premises and conclusion are both **true**? I guess every sound argument begs the question then. Are you sure you like this position? ---
**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 9, 2003, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/525 "2003-04-09T17:03:25Z")
Although in retrospect, I suppose that there is the possibility of “uncertain”. I didn’t speak clearly; pardon me, I correct myself. I should have said, "As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is **not accepted as true** … Of course, since the same clarification of term is applicable to the claim of “trivial”, I still feel myself to be on safe ground in the overall sense. ---
**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 9, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/526 "2003-04-09T18:17:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Let it now be officially known that we’re both annoyed with the other. Speak for yourself. I never had any doubts that your faceade of civility would soon dissolve into your characteristic combination of careleseeness and misplaced anger. It is one reason why I never placed any value on your pretensions toward solicitous concern for my feelings. > [@](#): > > And then maybe we can take the time to figure out what the heck we mean by the words “perception” and “awareness”, and “POV”, :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It has also occured to me to wonder, is it intellectually honest to say an argument is both “begging the question” AND “trivial”? The two claims are similar in substance, complaining that the argument isn’t complicated enough, with one critical difference: the former accusation is only true if the premise under attack is FALSE, and the latter claim is only true when that same premise is TRUE. So which is it? Is “I am aware” true or false? Both? Neither? **Erl** has already reminded you what “begging the question” means. It is a description of an argument with an assumption that is as questionable as the conclusion. In this case, it perfectly describes the relationship between: **I am aware** and **I am**.[sup]1[/sup] Trivial is a value judgement on the importance of a logical argument. In this case, it exactly describes the value of concluding **“I am”** by asserting **“I am aware”** [sup]1[/sup] > [@](#): > > Those sorts of claims really bug me. They are petty attempts to ignore the argument, and not honest debate. You are wrong, but this is unsurprising since you have demonstrated absolutely no familiarity with honesty, in debate or otherwise. **Now, let’s go ahead and pick through that pile of garbage you used to avoid providing a definition for “awareness”.** > [@](#): > > It’s a very basic argument, and one of the premises, that that “caroling” implies singing, can be drawn from a definition, but that isn’t the same as begging the question. If you look _ **reeeeeeeaaaaly** _ carefully you will see that the problem is not with the second premise. The first premise asserts **“I sing . . .”**. That is used to conclude **“I sing”**. Please refer again to **Erl’s** definition of begging the question. > [@](#): > > It’s valid. And, if assumption X is demonstrable, sound. Yes, but the assumption X cannot be demonstrated without the conclusion being demonstrated. One cannot show that **“I sing carols”** without first showing that **“I sing”**. > [@](#): > > And, it doesn’t beg the question, either. Yes, it does. You seem confused by this, but “begging the question” is a criticism of the soundness of an argument. Specifically, it is the criticism that the premises being proposed are as difficult to accept as the conclusion being drawn, thus the logical structure provides no advantage over simply asserting the conclusion as a premise. > [@](#): > > Consider [the Socrates syllogism] > > If you don’t understand how this whole “logic thing” works, you might say that this begs the question, because P2 is an obvious tenant of knowledge and “It’s obvious that Socrates is mortal, because he’s human.” But I say no such thing. That much is clear to people who understand the whole “reading thing”. I say, **“it’s obvious that I sing because I sing carols.”** The definitional nature of “carols” is entirely irrelevant to this issue. My premise could just as easily be “I sing the body electric”. See if you can fit that idea into your understanding of “the whole logic thing”. [sub](actually, if one is a nominalist along the lines of John Staurt Mill, then the Socrates syllogism does beg the question, but that’s a whole different discussion.)[/sub] > [@](#): > > But “begging the question” is an accusation of debate, not logic. That is an ignorant statement. Begging the question is a classic logical fallacy that undermines the soundness of an argument. This is another concept that you should try fitting into your understanding of “the whole logic thing”. > [@](#): > > It’s a charge designed to prevent an argument from saying something we already know and claiming to have been brilliant. No. It has nothing to do with “saying things that we already know”, unless we already know the conclusion of teh argument. **Triviality** is the charge that addressess the context of a debate rather than the content of a logical argument. **Triviality** is the charge designed to prevent fools from claiming brilliance on insufficuent grounds. Now, when one accepts the premises of an argument that begs the question, it usually (as in this case) results in an argument that’s trivial. The two charges are distinct, thuogh both apply to your latest bit of nonense. > [@](#): > > By levying the charge of “begging the question”, you are implicitly claiming that this argument is at a high level, like debating wether we were right to charge into Iraq or not. Nonsense. You may take it for a given that I consider no exchange with you to be at a high level. > [@](#): > > Such an argument might include a few questions of definitions, but not every single damned word. Okay, I gues it’s time to address this issue. I asked you to define **“awareness”** (or “having awareness” or “to be aware”: pick a form, any form). You react like **Begbert2** , whining about all manner of nonsense and presenting my request as unreasonable. But let’s take a look at teh last post in which you were pretending that you cared about honest debate: > [@](#): > > My focus is on the awareness going on. > . > . > . > Perhaps part of the problem is this word, “perception”. I have been understanding it to be “The thing on the other end of an awareness” > . > . > . > my phrasing has been at best ambiguous, and before I started seriously considering the “awareness” angle, I referred to [perceptions as independent things] as well. > . > . > . > Whoa. “Perception of awareness” and “awareness” are two different things. (By any definition.) So, your argument hinges upon “awareness”, which is “the other end of a perception”, which is itself a term that you admit to having used ambiguously, **but somehow you think it is beyond the realm of honest debate for me to ask you how you define this term that is central to your argument.** :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Oh, wait, I forgot, you’re using a partial textual extraction from the premise to claim that it means the conclusion. I made no such claim. If you maintian that I have, please provide specific textual evidence. > [@](#): > > By which we can see that “I am nonexistent” proves “I exist”. That’s just brilliant. No. “I am nonexistent” is a meaningless sentence, under your definition for existence. If you knew how to read, you might have noticed that this subject was dealt with explicitly during your tengent with **ramanudjan**. What we **can see** , of course, is yet another example of your extreme sloppiness in parsing English text. > [@](#): > > There’s a reason we don’t do textual games in real logic; it’s because they’re bad logic. This is another ignorant statement. [ol][li]Parsing text for meaning is not a “textual game”. It is,in fact, the only manner in which meaning can be gained from text. [/li][li]Logic, in fact, requires very careful attention to semantic elements. That is why formal logic exists: it is an attempt to eliminate the possibility for confusion inherent in natural language semantics.[/ol][/li]Whatever it is that you think you are practicing, it bears little resemblance to “real logic”. > [@](#): > > Claims of circularity, if true are of course reason to dismiss an argument. (True as in, the conclusion appears as a premise. The entire conclusion is exactly one of the premises.) But the minute formal logic approaches, begging the question goes out the window. This thread could hardly provide more examples of why your statement is untrue. > [@](#): > > Begging the question isn’t a meaningful term in formal logic, or any form of “debate” where every baby step of logic must be considered. This from the man who cries and thrashes when asked to define a term that is central to his argument. What, is providing definitions too small a step for the baby known as **Begbert2**? Of course, your statement is simply incorrect anyway. _Petitio principii_ is indeed a meaningful term in formal logic. **Erl** has even provided you with one way of describing that meaning. > [@](#): > > Oh, and in logic, “trivial” is a good thing. Then stop whining when I note that your conclusions are trivial. > [@](#): > > I’d be thanking you for the compliment if I didnt know that you were in a continual state of believing that we were debating the morality of capital punishment or something. What **“Begbert2 knows”** bears very little resemblance to reality. > [@](#): > > As you can tell, I’m a little frustrated by this little “debate trick”. The “trick” of asking you to define terms that are central to your argument? Right. > [@](#): > > It’s petty, stupid, intellectually dishonset, and blatantly incorrect. [ul][li] **Petty?** You made the term cetral to your entire argument. What is petty about asking you to supply a definition. [/li][li] **Stupid?** Why? Because it would allow informed commentary on your argument? I can see why you would prefer to avoid that, since you have yet to produce an argument that can stand up to scrutiny, but why call it “stupid”? I suppose this is simply another example of ignorance spilling over. What a blissful soul you must have.[/li][li] **Dishonest?** Your expertise in this area apparently extends only to supply, not recognition. The inquiry was honest. Your response speaks for itself.[/li][li] **blatantly incorrect?** Right. Logic is much better serverd when import terms are not defined and no semantic element is ever questioned. At least, that’s how it works in **Begbert World** [sup]Tm[/sup] :rolleyes:[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > **Deny the certainty of one or more premises.** [Begging the Question](http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging) > [@](#): > > That’s all it takes True. But when one is dealing with a **Begbert** it must sometimes be repeated many, many, many, many times. And then explained. And then repeated some more. And then bolded and highlighted and surrounded with candy sprinkles. And then he still won’t understand. But at least teh candy sprinkles are yummy. > [@](#): > > you have done so, by denying understanding of most or all of the english language. **This is a lie.** > [@](#): > > Awareness means awareness. Standard definiton. Meaning as is generally understood. Simple. [ul][li][Dictionar.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=awareness)[/li]a·wareness n. Synonyms: aware, cognizant, conscious, sensible, awake, alert, watchful, vigilant These adjectives mean mindful or heedful: **Aware implies knowledge gained through one’s own perceptions or by means of information** [li][Your beloved Meriam Webster](http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)[/li]\*\*AWARE implies vigilance in observing or alertness in drawing inferences from what one experiences \*\* [li][For the etymologically minded](http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE572.html)[/li]ENTRY: wer DEFINITION: To perceive, watch out for. [/ul] Simple. But is it simple enough for **Begbert2**? > [@](#): > > Claiming that I have overextended a definition is possible. But basing the bulk of a post on the fact that I didn’t define an English word for you, **without even considering the usual > definition, is silly.** > > (Earlier: by **Spiritus Mundi** ) For myself, I see no way that you can be aware independent of perception. In fact, I generally consider an awareness to be a perception regarding an internal state. But I will wait to see how you define it (hopefully not as “the thing on the other end of a perception.” ) LEARN TO READ The “usual definition” makes you look like a moron. Pardon me for granting the slight possibility that you might have a more specialized meaning in mind, **especially since you are pretending that this “proof” begins from a context of extreme doubt.** > [@](#): > > No, that concept that you’re attributing to me is not what I meant. Specifically, the implication that I said or meant that “awareness is perfectly reliable”, which I certainly did not. Note that when I accidentally attributed to you a statement you did not mean, you called me a liar perpetually for a long time thereafter. Horrible sin. I’ll let it slide. > > (Earlier: by **Spiritus Mundi** ) Really? What happened to: simply aware of what I’m aware of. Are these apparent contradictions somehow resolved in your definition of awareness? I begin to suspect that you are not using a consistent definition of the term at all. In some places you seem to use “aware” to inject an epistemological verity. In others you seem to bind no epistemological content at all. “Shenanigans” > [@](#): > > Having allowed percpetions to exist without a perciever, there is no longer a 1:1 correlation. When did you allow perceptions to exist without a perceiver? Specifically, how do you reconcile that “allowance” with your statements: [ul][li]The perceptions seem to exist, meaning that I am aware of them, or something that seems to be them [/li][li]have been understanding [perception] to be “The thing on the other end of an awareness”.[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > How about “POV = the boundaries of awareness” Fine by me, so long as you don’t try to preend that by applying a single label to a set of perceptions you have meaningfully derived a unified POV in any sense other than as a description of a set of perceptions. [sup]1[/sup][sub]I have altered the current form of your conclusion “I exist” to the earlier form “I am” in hopes that it will make the truth obvious even to **Begbert2**. I do this in the understanding that “I am” is in a;; ways synonymous with “I exist”. If **Begbert2** would like to challenge that substitution, he may do so by providing distinct definitions for the two symbols.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/527 "2003-04-09T19:47:58Z")
> [@](#): > > As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is false As you yourself note a bit later, this is simply wrong. > [@](#): > > My big gripe there was, as I hope was clear, that an accusation of “begging the question” implies that the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise as written and conclusion as written are simple and obvious to anybody. This is also simply wrong. Dare we hope that you will some day read and understand the explanation that **erl** has offered for begging the question. > [@](#): > > Sorry, but I can’t accept claims that I need to be more precise in my wordings and “begging the question” accusations from the same person. I shall add this to your list of peronal failings. (note: **Begbert2** is unable to separate a criticism from the source of the criticism in evaluating his arguments.) Check. > [@](#): > > Though, when I realized the clash in accusing the argument of both begging the question and triviality at once, that was a bit funny, I admit. It will be even funnier should you ever come to understand that there is no contradiction between the two charges. One is a criticim of form. The other is a criticism of content that applies if the form is accepted. > [@](#): > > It just rankles me that people can simultanously be holding contrary positions about the argument (seemingly just because both positions have negative implication) and then call me intellectually dishonest. No contradiction: [ul][li]Your argument begs the question.[/li][li]If we set that aside and accept the validity of your assumption **“I am aware”** , then the argument is trivial.[/ul][/li] Both of those are separate from your personal lack of integrity, which has been displayed quite effectively. (Your most current complaints, though, seem to stem primarily from other personal failings.) > [@](#): > > My biggest problem is not the requirement of mutually understood meanings, it’s the persistent failure of them to be “gotten”. It seems like a deliberate attempt to refuse to understand or agree, particularly in cases like when “existence” was challenged recently. Please provide a cite that your definition of **existence** has ever been challenged in this thread? While you are looking, maybe you will pass over this bit of text from me: [ul][li]I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was offended that you had [defined] existence. I will chalk it up to yet another absurdly stupid misreading on your part. :rolleyes: indeed.[/ul][/li]Try to understand the words this time. Nobody has challenged your offered definition for existence. We have just noted that it does not allow propositions that describe characteristics of a non-existent thing to be meaningful. > [@](#): > > It’s actually really hard to define these terms without referring to anything else in the proof! They don’t have to be defined without reference to anything else in theproof. _ **BUT** _ to the extent that they are dependent upon elements already in the proof they cannot be used to inject new meaning into the proof. In other words: establish a definitions, keep that definition internally consistent, and don’t use equivocation to inject additional meaning into the terms. > [@](#): > > A little cooperation here would be appreciated. The evidence does not supoprt this claim. > [@](#): > > (Why “my”? Well, where did I find the set of perceptions I’m talking about? Were they in your awareness? Maybe S.M.'s? Who is being aware of these things, anyway? And if it wasn’t me, then how did they get into my argument??) Well, if you were being rigorous, “I” would not get into your argument as an implication from "where ‘I’ found ‘my’ perceptions. That implication requires you to rely upon your perception of self. > [@](#): > > Although in retrospect, I suppose that there is the possibility of “uncertain”. I didn’t speak clearly; pardon me, I correct myself. I should have said, "As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is **not accepted as true…** Halleluiah! But the problem was not that you didn’t speak clearly. The problem was that you did not understand. This phrasing is a transparent attempt to soothe your ego. I just thought I would point that out. > [@](#): > > Of course, since the same clarification of term is applicable to the claim of “trivial”, I still feel myself to be on safe ground in the overall sense. **Trivial** , as noted above, often applies to structures whoch have the form of “begging the question” _ **if** _ we accept the premises as true. Is that the “overall sense” of which you feel secure? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/528 "2003-04-09T19:49:38Z")
Again I really would like to apologize for what is becoming an excessive delay in posting D’s responses, but work requires me travelling and I don’t have guaranteed internet access on the road (_sob_). > [@](#): > > Specifically, it is the criticism that the premises being proposed are as difficult to accept as the conclusion being drawn, thus the logical structure provides no advantage over simply asserting the conclusion as a premise. Indeed, **Spiritus**. Well said. ---
**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 9, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/529 "2003-04-09T20:33:22Z")
S.M. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Erl has already reminded you what “begging the question” means. It is a description of an argument with an assumption that is as questionable as the conclusion. In this case, it perfectly describes the relationship between: I am aware and I am.1 Actually, last I checked we were smack in the middle of a discussion of when it applies. It **certainly** doesn’t apply simultaneously with the claim of triviality, unless you **do** like the position I perhaps incorrectly attributed to **erislover** (him having not (recently) claimed that the argument was trivial). To be trivial, the premise/conclusion **must** be true. No uncertainty. To be begging the question, either there must be uncertainty about the premise, or all sound arguments beg the question. To apply the two terms to the same argument in one short sentence, you either have no idea about when to apply the terms (which certainly seems possible given your above rant) or have a level of intellectual dishonesty that is matched in size by the brass balls it would take to underscore it by deliberately putting the contradiction into a single sentence and announcing it as true. And if you don’t call it a “partial textual extraction” then what do you call this? > [@](#): > > \*originally posted by S.M.\*Forget perception/awareness. Accepting any premise of the form “I am . . .” begs the question of whether “I exist”. "I am . . . " is a statement of existential identity. Yeah, when comparing sentences for equality, you only have to check the first two words! In your delusional world, maybe. And the statement that any sentence of the form "I am . . . " is a statement of existential identity is obviously false, as was demonstrated by the counterexample “I am nonexistent”. Even you noticed this, but managed to overlook the fact that **you** said that this sentence, and all others that share it’s first two words, are statements of existential identity! Total bull based on a misunderstanding (or deliberate misuse) of how to handle meaning in a **logical** argument (and probably most others). In real logic, different statements are different statements. “I am” and “I am aware” mean different things. The connection is explicitly made by another premise; these anti-logic leaps of yours that try to skip the steps required by logic (particularly when the steps are already provided by me) are absolutely nonsensical. Beyond all reason. As are your (many) attempts to defend that “begging the question” strawman. (Consider the first half of your last post responded to.) As for the divorcing of awareness and perception: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > By (3), the label “My” might thus be applied to either perceptions of which no awareness was available (example: a false memory) or not applied to perceptions that are available. (example: an unconscious perception.) If awareness is definitionally implied by perceptions, then in what way is this not complete crap? It stands in defiance of the definition you **claim** to accept. Oh, you probably accept it now. But with this in front of me, I’ve go less than no reason to accept that you knew it _then_. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > It’s petty, stupid, intellectually dishonset, and blatantly incorrect. And you do it again. What possible mental twist would indicate to you that this statement is referring to the act of applying definitions to words? It was at the tail of a rather long discussion about the “debate trick” referenced in the sentence before, that of crying “begging the question” without reasonable justification. This kind of moronic irrational leap underlines the irony of the frequent times you claim _I_ need to learn to read. Heh. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > This is a lie. He’s back in form!! No, dippy, it’s called an exaggeration, though only a slight one. I mean, if we assume that we’re talking about the _proofs_, like, say, “I think therefore I am,” or “my perceptions seem to exist,” **then we’ve hashed over the meaning of every English word in there but ‘to’**. Usually, more than once. (And we _have_ hasned over “to exist”.) Not quite a lie, then, eh? Not that I expect reality to effect you in more than a tangential way. You’ll keep beliveing whatever crosses your little mind, regardless of little things like evidence. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > “Shenanigans” Oh, this is what it’s called when I point out that you’re as fallible as I? Or perhaps the shenanigans were my failure to jump to the irrational conclusion that you were a liar merely because you couldn’t understand me again, and then repeat the unjustified claim a half a hundred times in my post thereafter? You call it “shenanigans”; I call it “not blowing massive holes in my own intellectual credibility via unjustified accusation”. To each their own, obviously. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Fine by me, so long as you don’t try to preend that by applying a single label to a set of perceptions you have meaningfully derived a unified POV in any sense other than as a description of a set of perceptions. I don’t have to “preend” anything. I already stated why I think it is **impossible** for the available POV to be ununified. Your brilliant refutataion was to ignore it utterly. I pointed out that I had presented such a concept. Your brilliance continues. Should I quote my argument for you, so that you can demonstrate that your brilliance is unending? Whoops! You almost slipped one by me. (Why did he feel compelled to quote something that I had already corrected, for the mere point of noting that I had corrected it? Does he think that the willingness to admit and correct mistakes is a weakness? _That_ would explain a few things.) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > My big gripe there was, as I hope was clear, that an accusation of “begging the question” implies that the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise as written and conclusion as written are simple and obvious to anybody. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > This is also simply wrong. Dare we hope that you will some day read and understand the explanation that erl has offered for begging the question. If this is “simply wrong”, then no amount of similarity is needed between premise and conclusion of arguments in order to be begging the question. Add this to your idea that the premises in question need not be doubtful, and you’ve just **unmade** the definition of Petitio principii that **erislover** provided! Look, it now applies to **all** arguments! :roll eyes: Pardon me while I stick with the definition. (Which most people would agree does _not_ apply to everything equally, and therefore means something.) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > One is a criticim of form. The other is a criticism of content that applies if the form is accepted. Really! Which one is a criticism of content? Ae we not allowed to talk about existence? If you think you mean that one is dependent on the verifiability of the premises, then which one **doesn’t** depend on the verifiability of the premises? Do you know what you’re talking about at all? [quote] _originally posted by S.M._ [ul][li]Your argument begs the question.[/li][li]If we set that aside and accept the validity of your assumption “I am aware”, then the argument is trivial.[/ul][/li][/quote] [ul][li]Says you, who don’t even bother to justify the bald assertion. At least **erislover** seemed willing to talk about it.Nice that you have to set aside your one assertion for the other to be considered. Calling this arugment trivial is like accusing the empire state building of being tall. So, it’s trivial. Then, why don’t you seem to understand it? Can you make up your mind wether it’s valid or not?[/ul][/li] > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Please provide a cite that your definition of existence has ever been challenged in this thread? > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Yes, under the model of existence that you yourself have proposed. “Does not think” is a characteristic, and you have asserted as axiom that things which do not exist cannot have characteristics. > > There are other possible ways to model existence, of course, but this is the one that you have argued for in establishing your proof. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > I did notice. I also noticed that you significantly failed to respond to this demonstration that “I think” and :I do not think" are equally meaningless under your proposed model of existence. > > Are you glad of that, too? (Maybe he thought I wouldn’t notice. ;)) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > The evidence does not supoprt this claim. Uhhhh… That wasn’t part of my argument. That was an assertion of personal preference… [back away slowly] > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Well, if you were being rigorous, “I” would not get into your argument as an implication from "where ‘I’ found ‘my’ perceptions. That implication requires you to rely upon your perception of self. You clearly still don’t understand English. “My” and “I” are inherently linked, by definition, if you don’t like “I”, target the assertion of “my”. These scattergun attacks indicate that you don’t know what is what in my proof. (Or Descartes’s, for that matter.) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > Although in retrospect, I suppose that there is the possibility of “uncertain”. I didn’t speak clearly; pardon me, I correct myself. I should have said, "As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the premise is not accepted as true… > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Halleluiah! > > But the problem was not that you didn’t speak clearly. The problem was that you did not understand. This phrasing is a transparent attempt to soothe your ego. I just thought I would point that out. No, I simply didn’t speak clearly when I made the statement **ewrislover** pointed out. What kind of delusional maniac are you that thinks that you can make autonomous declarations about what I think and feel and understand, without evidence, in direct contrast to what I say? Talk about ego. Well, your ability to read minds is as reliable as your “logic”. And, “that phrasing” was an admission of error. It was a transparent attempt to correct myself so as to retract an incorrect statement that I had made. It is obvious that you’re not familiar with the concept. > [@](#): > > Specifically, it is the criticism that the premises being proposed are as difficult to accept as the conclusion being drawn, thus the logical structure provides no advantage over simply asserting the conclusion as a premise. Oh, hi **erislover**. Take your time with D’s replies; no pressure. Oh, and doesn’t it strike you as a little presumptuous, by the definition, to go around declaring an argument as begging the question _while in the process of discussing the validity of the premises?_ Just a little? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/530 "2003-04-09T20:52:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > To be trivial, the premise/conclusion **must** be true. No uncertainty. actually, truth has nothing to do with it. for an argument to be trivial, the conclusion should not demonstrate any more than the assumptions. both the conclusion and the assumptions might still be false. do you think you’ll ever get around to responding to my issues with your position? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/531 "2003-04-09T21:05:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > And the statement that any sentence of the form "I am . . . " is a statement of existential identity is obviously false, as was demonstrated by the counterexample “I am nonexistent”. “i am nonexistent” is hardly a counterexample. it is semantically nonsensical. ask any linguist who has some concept of the meaning of “existence”. also, you might see **erislover** ’s link from about the 3rd page when he pointed out the problems with talking about existence as a first-order predicate. if by “i am nonexistent” you mean: "there is no thing in the world that one might reasonably give the name ‘i’ " then that hardly invalidates the point that a sentence with “i” for a subject has meaning when “i” doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/532 "2003-04-09T21:43:46Z")
Actually, I’m a little busy dealing with this annoying nonsense about begging the question. What was your concern again? ‘What does “my perspective” mean independently of “i”?’ or something? The perspective is noted in that it is definitionally consistent to apply the term POV to the set of perceptions that are available at the time of the argument. From it we know that a “single” entity is observing that POV, by the little paragraph that finds the opposite position to be flawed, about which S.M. is demonstrating his brilliance. It can be noted that if there is a distinctly knowable entity by whose POV the perceptions made it into **my** proof, then I can know that that entity is me by the fact that I have access to the entirety of this entity’s perceptions. But as to your “trivial” notion, you might have a point, except the term has always seemed to have been used around here as meaning “trivially _true_”. Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I am… …then, technically, it should be noted that a conclusion _never_ demonstrates more than the premises. Not if it’s a valid proof, anyway. In valid proofs, the conclusion follows from the premises (and definitions of the words in the language the proof is in) and nothing else. Wether or not a given individual can innately make the “leaps” that any valid proof explicitly makes is a personal problem, and therefore not germaine to general statements like “The proof is trivial.” So, then, if we’re not talking “trivailly true”, then _every_ argument is trivial, and the term is therefore meaningless. It goes well with the idea that an argument with true premises can still be begging the question, I quess. And I was making a counterexample to the absurd claim that any sentence that starts with “I am” implies existence. And come on, if you can’t consider the possibility that you might be non-existent, then how can you say you are doubting everything? “I am not existent” is a perfectly fine English sentence. Semantically correct and everything. And it takes those little “negative properties” referenced earlier and uses them to beat S.M.'s partial textual extraction comparison method to death. 😛 ---
**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 9, 2003, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/533 "2003-04-09T23:35:09Z")
\*\*What – no definition for awareness? I am shocked, I tell you, simply shocked.\*\* > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **Spiritus Mundi** > > Erl has already reminded you what “begging the question” means. It is a description of an argument with an assumption that is as questionable as the conclusion. In this case, it perfectly describes the relationship between: I am aware and I am. > > > > Trivial is a value judgement on the importance of a logical argument. In this case, it exactly describes the value of concluding “I am” by asserting “I am aware” > > > [@](#): > > > > **Spiritus Mundi** > > No contradiction: > > > > Your argument begs the question. > > > > If we set that aside and accept the validity of your assumption “I am aware”, then the argument is trivial. > > To be trivial, the premise/conclusion must be true. No uncertainty. To be begging the question, either there must be uncertainty about the premise, or all sound arguments beg the question. To apply the two terms to the same argument in one short entence, you either have no idea about when to apply the terms (which certainly seems possible given your above rant) or have a level of intellectual dishonesty that is matched in size by the brass balls > it would take to underscore it by deliberately putting the contradiction into a single sentence and announcing it as true. Learn to read. > [@](#): > > Yeah, when comparing sentences for equality, you only have to check the first two words! In your delusional world, maybe. . . In real logic, different statements are different statements. “I am” and “I am aware” mean different things. Of course they do. I never claimed otherwise. You are raging against your own incomprehensions. > [@](#): > > And the statement that any sentence of the form "I am . . . " is a statement of existential identity is obviously false, as was demonstrated by the counterexample “I am nonexistent”. Even you noticed this, but managed to overlook the fact that you said that this sentence, and all others that share it’s first two words, are statements of existential identity! Not at all. I did not think it necessary to clarify that the sentences are statements of existential identity **IF THEY HAVE ANY MEANING AT ALL.** My bad. I forgot that I was dealing with **Begbert2**. Please consider the statement to exclude meaningless sentences of the form “I am . . .”. A meaningless sentence is not a statement of anything. > [@](#): > > Consider the first half of your last post responded to. Lots of insults. Lots of misunderstanding. Little substantive content. Yep, that’s a **Begbert2** reply all right. > [@](#): > > As for the divorcing of awareness and perception: > > > [@](#): > > > > originally posted by S.M. > > By (3), the label “My” might thus be applied to either perceptions of which no awareness was available (example: a false memory) or not applied to perceptions that are available. (example: an unconscious perception.) > > If awareness is definitionally implied by perceptions, then in what way is this not complete crap? It stands in defiance of the definition you claim to accept. No, it doesn’t. My definition does not require the perception regarding an internal state to be accurate. It’s hard to tell what yours requires, since you refuse to offer a your own definition of awareness. (or are you really sticking with the dictionary definition that implies knowledge gained through perception.) > [@](#): > > Oh, you probably accept it now. But with this in front of me, I’ve go less than no reason to accept that you knew it then That all depends upon whether you ever learn to read with comprehension. > [@](#): > > And you do it again. What possible mental twist would indicate to you that this statement is referring to the act of applying definitions to words? By the mental twist of reading the sentence immediately preceding your stated frustration at “this little ‘debate trick’” . **"In an argument where every stinking word is important, nothing is trivial."** And by reading the sentences immediately following your “advice” on how I _should_ be attacking your argument: **That’s all it takes, and you have done so, by denying understanding of most or all of the english language. Awareness means awareness. Standard definiton. Meaning as is generally understood. Simple.** But it’s some twisted trick of mine to address the insult in between those passages as being concerned with requests for definitions. Right. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > This kind of moronic irrational leap underlines the irony of the frequent times you claim I need to learn to read. Heh. Right. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > He’s back in form!! No, dippy, it’s called an exaggeration, though only a slight one. The claim was: **you have done so, by denying understanding of most or all of the english language.** That claim has no foundation in fact, even as an exagerration. I have never denied understanding a word in the English language. You present this claim in an attempt to portray my request for a definition of “awareness” as some sort of unreasonable harrassment. That intent is deceptive. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > originally posted by S.M. > > “Shenanigans” > > Oh, this is what it’s called when I point out that you’re as fallible as I? No, shenanigans is what it’s called when you pretend that I made an unambiguous claim about your treatment of “awareness” when I had explicitly stated that I found your treatment of “awareness” to be ambiguous. So much so, in fact, that I asked you to define the concept as it was used in your proof. It is your irrational affront at being faced with such a request that accounts for much of the vile garbage that you have been spewing today. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to “preend” anything. I already stated why I think it is impossible for the available POV to be ununified. Your brilliant refutataion was to ignore it utterly. Yes. As I have mentioned more than once, it does littel good to delve into the implications of “awareness” until after that term has been defined. Your brilliant response has been to froth at the mouth and do almost everything but supply an unambiguous definition for “awareness”. How surprising. > [@](#): > > **Begbert2** My big gripe there was, as I hope was clear, that an accusation of “begging the question” implies that the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise as written and conclusion as written are simple and obvious to anybody. > > **Spiritus Mundi:** This is also simply wrong. Dare we hope that you will some day read and understand the explanation that erl has offered for begging the question. > > **Begbert2** If this is “simply wrong”, then no amount of similarity is needed between premise and conclusion of arguments in order to be begging the question. Utter nonsense. [ul][li]the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise as written and conclusion as written are simple and obvious [/li][li]similarity between premise and conclusion [/li][/ul] Would bright colors and large print help? Learn to read. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > originally posted by S.M. > > One is a criticim of form. The other is a criticism of content that applies if the form is accepted. > > Really! Which one is a criticism of content. Ae we not allowed to talk about existence? If you think you mean that one is dependent on the verifiability of the premises, then which one doesn’t depend on the verifiability of the premises? **Triviality** is a criticism of content. **Triviality** doesn’t depend on the verifiability of the premises, though it assumes that the premises have een accepted. > [@](#): > > Do you know what you’re talking about at all? Yes. > [@](#): > > **Begbert2** Says you, who don’t even bother to justify the bald assertion. At least erislover seemed willing to talk about it. > > **Spiritus Mundi** (earlier) Erl has already reminded you what “begging the question” means. It is a description of an argument with an assumption that is as questionable as the conclusion. In this case, it perfectly describes the relationship between: I am aware and I am. Learn to read > [@](#): > > Nice that you have to set aside your one assertion for the other to be considered. Your argument has an error in form. If we set that aside, then your argument is trivial. That you find something significant in one person making both of those observations is perfectly **Begbert2**. > [@](#): > > this arugment trivial is like accusing the empire state building of being tall. Another stupid analogy. It is not a flaw for buildings to be tall. I admit, though, that in magnitude the triviality of your proof is similar to the height of the Empire State Building. > [@](#): > > So, it’s trivial. Then, why don’t you seem to understand it? :rolleyes: I do understand it. That’s why I call it trivial. > [@](#): > > Can you make up your mind wether it’s valid or not? Valid? How many times must it be repeated to you that neither **petitio principii** nor **triviality** are charges that a logical structure is invalid. Learn to read. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _originally posted by S.M._ > > Please provide a cite that your definition of existence has ever been challenged in this thread? > > > > _originally posted by S.M._ > > Yes, under the model of existence that you yourself have proposed. “Does not think” is a characteristic, and you have asserted as axiom that things which do not exist cannot have characteristics. > > > > There are other possible ways to model existence, of course, but this is the one that you have argued for in establishing your proof. > > > > _originally posted by S.M._ > > I did notice. I also noticed that you significantly failed to respond to this demonstration that “I think” and :I do not think" are equally meaningless under your proposed model of existence. > > > > Are you glad of that, too? > > (Maybe he thought I wouldn’t notice. ) No, I thought that you would be able to tell the difference between a challenge to your definition of existence and an observation of some semantic concsequences of your definition of existence. Actually, that isn’t quite right. I was pretty certain that you would not be able to tell teh difference on your own, so I provided you a hint: **Try to understand the words this time. Nobody has challenged your offered definition for existence. We have just noted that it does not allow propositions that describe characteristics of a non-existent thing to be meaningful.** Learn to read. > [@](#): > > Uhhhh… That wasn’t part of my argument. That was an assertion of personal preference Yep, and the evidence does not suport your claim that a little cooperation will be appreciated. My request for an explicit definition of “awareness” was cooperation, since it was required to allow further analysis to be meaningful. I think it is safe to say that it was not appreciated. > [@](#): > > You clearly still don’t understand English. I understand both English and irony. > [@](#): > > “My” and “I” are inherently linked, by definition, if you don’t like “I”, target the assertion of “my”. These scattergun attacks indicate that you don’t know what is what in my proof. Do you pretned that I have not specifically addressed the assertion of “my” and how that label can be rigorously understood? Or do you just think that everybody suffers from your own personal failings in reading comprehension. Learn to read. > [@](#): > > What kind of delusional maniac are you that thinks that you can make autonomous declarations about what I think and feel and understand, without evidence, in direct contrast to what I say? The kind who actually looks at the textual evidence, since your capacity for honest reporting is dmonstrably lacking: [ul] [li]As you note, begging the question is only applicable when the[/li]premise is false [li]in retrospect, I suppose that there is the possibility of “uncertain”. [/li][li]I didn’t speak clearly[/li][/ul] This doesn’t indicate an error in phrasing. It indicates an error in comprehension. > [@](#): > > And, “that phrasing” was an admission of error. It was a transparent attempt to correct myself so as to retract an incorrect statement that I had made. Yes, it was. I neither said nor implied otherwise. > [@](#): > > It is obvious that you’re not familiar with the concept. Not true. I simply found it amusing that even over such a minor matter as this you somehow found it necessary to stop short of simply admitting that you had misread or misunderstood a passage. Your posts aren’t good for much, but they can still amuse. ---
**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 10, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/534 "2003-04-10T04:53:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > Unless otherwise stated, I’m using standard definitions. Learn to read. ---
**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 10, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/535 "2003-04-10T05:57:03Z")
And this: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > Awareness means awareness. Standard definiton. Meaning as is generally understood. Simple. Learn to read. To read your own posts, that is. You just quoted that. Good heavens. You’re amazing. :eek: About evidence not supporting: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by begbert2_ > And, “that phrasing” was an admission of error. It was a transparent attempt to correct myself so as to retract an incorrect statement that I had made. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Yes, it was. I neither said nor implied otherwise. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > This phrasing is a transparent attempt to soothe your ego. I just thought I would point that out. The pathetic things you choose to lie about. Perhaps if you concerned yourself with the business of reacting to the argument instead of reacting to me, then you wouldn’t make such obvious slips. About begging the question: Begging the question is, by definiton, a remark about the certainty of the premises. As we obviously haven’t even gotten past defining the terms yet, we certainly don’t know how certain the premises are. If we don’t know how certain the premises of the argument are, then you do not have sufficent information to declare the argument unsound (which is all that Petitio principii speaks about). So, amusingly, all claims to date that the argument begs the question… beg the question. About not understanding: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Try to understand the words this time. Nobody has challenged your offered definition for existence. We have just noted that it does not allow propositions that describe characteristics of a non-existent thing to be meaningful. My definition of existence is that “in the absence of existence, an object could have no observable attributes” is a true statement. **That’s my definiton.** My _definition_ is a description of the characteristics of non-existent things. Total cluelessness. Your posts aren’t good for much of anything, except for demonstrating that you’re more interested in spreading your fertilizer, and in trying to discredit me for some unknown reason, than in having a discussion. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/536 "2003-04-10T13:47:50Z")
And, incidentally, The notion that any sentence starting with “I am” proves existence is, of course, absurd. “I am not green” “I am not exhibiting the property of being green” “I am not exhibiting any properties” You will notice that the last statement is, whole not being equivalent to being non-existent, is by definition true of all non-existent objects. The second statement is true if the last is true, and the first has the same value as the second. So, _by definition_, none of those statements implies existence. Nor does any other “I am not” statement. The statement “I am nonexistent” is not meaningless, and never was. In fact, it would be the only reasonable conclusion were, say, Descartes’s metitation to go horribly wrong and were he to find a contradiction inherent in the assumption of my existence. Declaring it meaningless was a cute attempt to remove the set of counterexamples to S.M.'s declaration from consideration. However, to truly do that, he has to declare the statement “I am not a four-headed gerbil” meaningless. I wonder what he will do. Now, it is clearly obvious that “I am aware” is not an “I am not” statement. However, I was trying to underscore the blazing illogic and falsehood of declaring all statements starting with “I am” to be proof of “I am”. Think of it as shining a spotlight on another falsehood. Is it, or is it not the case that “trivial” means “I can do the argument in my head”? Accusations that my argument is trivial are ignoring the fact that my “argument” pretty much obviously includes the discussion necessary to accept the troublesome premise “I am aware”. Do you guys want to discuss this, or what? And suppose that a “trivial” argument starts with agreed-upon fact (such as that there is not a total lack of apparent phenomena) and from it, after some analysis and application of standard definitions, can conclude that my existence is a certainty? The “non-trivial” part may be in the understanding of the premises and wether they can be determined with certainty. The argument might be trivial, logically speaking. But the tacit assumption that argumentive triviality implies “trivial” triviality is false. S.M. would call the injection of english meaning into a word that was applied as specific logical terminology “equivocation”, and he’d be right. When you are all done trying to muddy the waters by prematurely claiming petitio principii and by equivocating about the meaning of the word “trivial”, we can resume discussing the argument. You might start with the lookinmg at the various sections of my posts about it that you (S.M.) have been “being brilliant about” in favor of attacking the argument by any means necessary. ---
**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 10, 2003, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/537 "2003-04-10T14:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Unless otherwise stated, I’m using standard definitions. Yes. I saw that. I even helpfully posted some references for awareness and highlighted areas in which the standard definitions of the word carried implications that are contrary to your usage. You remember, that was in one of those long sections of my reply that you failed to acknowledge. Hey, if oyu want to stick with that, I’m happy to demonstrate that the applied definition creates a contradiction in your argument. And, kudos to you, said argument has now become trivially false. > [@](#): > > About evidence not supporting: Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids. The eschange you selected occured well after I had responded to you in the spirit of “a little cooperation” and you had responded to that with a whiny rant about “begging the question” and “asking for definitions” that could hardly be described as “appreciation”. > [@](#): > > **Begbert2** And, “that phrasing” was an admission of error. > > **Me** Yes, it was. I neither said nor implied otherwise. > > **Me** This phrasing is a transparent attempt to soothe your ego. I just thought I would point that out. And? Do you imagine that an admission of error cannot be phrased in an attempt to soothe one’s ego? It happens all teh time. My favorite form is the ‘conditional apology’. You know, “I’m sorry if you somehow got the impression that my words were offensive . . .”, but another way to do it is to recognize an error but portray it as an intentless mistake rather than a failure in understanding. You know, like saying that you mis-typed something when you had really misunderstood it. An admission of error and an attmept to soothe ego. Check. > [@](#): > > The pathetic things you choose to lie about. Perhaps if you concerned yourself with the business of reacting to the argument instead of reacting to me, then you wouldn’t make such obvious slips. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Begging the question is, by definiton, a remark about the certainty of the premises. But I thought you said: [ul][li]“begging the question” implies that the “intermediary” steps used to bridge the gap from premise as written and conclusion as written are simple and obvious to anybody.[/ul][/li]And [ul][li]Begging the question isn’t a meaningful term in formal logic, or any form of “debate” where every baby step of logic must be considered.[/ul][/li]And [ul][li]But “begging the question” is an accusation of debate, not logic. [/li][/ul] And [ul][li]It’s a charge designed to prevent an argument from saying something we already know and claiming to have been brilliant. [/ul][/li]You remember. that was around the time you started talking about people who don’t understand how “this whole logic thing” works. Anyway, you are correct (finally, after Eris knows how many times of having the definition referenced). **Begging the question** is a charge about the certainty of teh premises. Which means, of course, that you were dead wrong every other time you whined about “begging the question”. I point this out becuse you lack the simple grace required to apologize for the garbage that you spewed based upon your failings of both reading comprehension and understanding of “the whole logic thing”. Well, and also for the simple amusement factor. > [@](#): > > As we obviously haven’t even gotten past defining the terms yet, we certainly don’t know how certain the premises are. The definition of “awareness” is pertinent to your penultimate attempt at proof. We had not finished evaluating that one when you offered “I am aware . . . therefore I am”. The definition of “awareness” need not be rigorously bound for that structure to beg the question. “I am aware” just needs to be a meningful sentence. Since it is a meaningful sentence, it is a statement of existential identity and thus cannot be acepted as a premise more easily than the most generic statment of existential identity, “I am”. Thus, you argument begs the question. Now, if you think you really have an iron-clad proof that “I am aware”, you shoudl be concentrating your efforts on that rather than raging against the description of your latest rephrasing. If you manage to convince us that “I am aware” can be rigorously demonstrated without first reuiring “I am”, then you will have rfuted the charge of begging the question in your second proof. As it stands, though, the premise cannot be accepted more easily than the conclusion. Thus, it begs the question. > [@](#): > > So, amusingly, all claims to date that the argument begs the question… beg the question. Wrong again. > [@](#): > > My definition of existence is that “in the absence of existence, an object could have no observable attributes” is a true statement. That’s my definiton. My definition is a description of the characteristics of non-existent things. Well, if you are telling me that your definition should be understood as a specific assignment of an attribute to non-existent things then, yes, your definition is meaningless and you will need to provide a new one. That is your attack, though, not mine. For my part, I understood your definition to set a boundary for the assignment of obserable attributes: **observable attributes can be asserted only of existing things.** This is not a specification of attributes to non-existing things and thus is not meaningless. Nevertheless, if you want to insist that your definition of “existence” is meaningless then feel free. Please consider all statements that I have made that referenced a meaningful defiitoin of existence on your part to be retracted. And please supply meaninsgful definition for existence before making further attempts at proving that “I exist”. > [@](#): > > Total cluelessness. Wicked irony. > [@](#): > > Your posts aren’t good for much of anything, except for demonstrating that you’re more interested in spreading your fertilizer, and in trying to discredit me for some unknown reason, than in having a discussion. Well, recently the only discussion you have wanted to have involved rants about begging the question and asking for definitions. In the absence of substantive context, I simply partake of teh amusements being offered. And I do not try to discredit you. I try to give you exactly the credit that your posts warrant. **Now follows an examination of Begbert2’s penultimate proof given the standard definition of "awareness"** (I’ll use Meriam Webster, because I know that’s your favorite.) [ul] [li] **definition** perception(n.): the thing on the other end of an awareness.[/li][li] **definition** awareness(n.): realization, perception, or knowledge; AWARE implies vigilance in observing or alertness in drawing inferences from what one experiences[/li][li] **definition** existence: (no meaningful definitoin offered) working definition: a state required to exhibit observable characteristics.[/li][li] **context** The existence of perceptins cannot be doubted, but no content of a perception is taken to be meaningful.[/li] Assumptions [li]**A) That it cannot be the case that a non-existent thing can be aware of anything. I derive this from the idea of what existence is.**_Accepted._[/li][li]**B) Considering things X, Y, and Z: if thing X is aware of thing Z, that does not imply that thing Y is aware of thing Z. So, if X is aware of N number of things, that does not imply that there are N different Y’s roaming around. Just the X.[/li]**_At least the X is accepted. There is no justification for assigning a single X to multiple perceptions._ [li]**C) My perceptions seem to exist.**_Accepted, but “my” is an arbitrary label that cannot be meaningully bound._[/li] Argument [li]**1) My perceptions seem to exist.**_Valid._[/li][li]**2) Regardless of how wrong those sneaky little buggers are, I’m still aware of them.** [sub]Note: Anything can call itself “I”. Particularly things that are mistakenly of the belief that they are aware of MY perceptions![/sub] _Valid, the label “I” like that of “my” is unbounded._[/li][li]**3) That would mean I exist.** _Valid. Since the label “I” is undounded, I find it less confuising to substitute an alternative label._[/li]:.Something(s) exists. [/ul] Of course, **Begbert2** will now attempt to argue that the meanings for “My” and “I” and “POV” are all bounded by **awareness**. But, by definition an awreness is a piece of information gained from an experience (i.e. the content of a perception). Thus, since the contents of perceptions are meaningless, the information of an awareness cannot be used to bind meaning. > [@](#): > > The “usual definition” makes you look like a moron. Pardon me for granting the slight possibility that you might have a more specialized meaning in mind, **especially since you are pretending that this “proof” begins from a context of extreme doubt.** Q.E.D. ---
**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 10, 2003, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/538 "2003-04-10T15:26:51Z")
> [@](#): > > And, incidentally, The notion that any sentence starting with “I am” proves existence is, of course, absurd. What part of: **Please consider the statement to exclude meaningless sentences of the form “I am . . .”. A meaningless sentence is not a statement of anything.** > [@](#): > > The statement “I am nonexistent” is not meaningless, and never was. Not true. It was meaningless under your offered definitoin of “existence”. Since you have now stated that that definition was itself meaningless, it’s a bit pointless to argue about it now. For the record, though, neither **ramanujan** nor I fabricated this view of meaning out of whole cloth. It is a common presentation of a classical issue of logical paradox in general and truth theory in specific. I will provide links upon request, though without any expectation that you will read and understand the material. > [@](#): > > In fact, it would be the only reasonable conclusion were, say, Descartes’s metitation to go horribly wrong and were he to find a contradiction inherent in the assumption of my existence. **THERE IS NO "I"** Consider “the only reasonable conclusion” to be refuted. > [@](#): > > Declaring it meaningless was a cute attempt to remove the set of counterexamples to S.M.'s declaration from consideration. Hardly. As referenced above it is a fairly standard treatment in philosophy. Of course, your ignorance of this fact does not prevent you from assuming that it must be some nefarious maneuver on my part. How utterly **Begbert2**. How you handle the fact that **ramanujan** has also referenced this judgment of meaninglessness (in fact, I believe he was the first to do so in this thread) I do not know. Maybe you suffer some paranoid delusion that he is also part of my plot. Maybe you just ignore that datum because it doesn’t mesh nicely with your little fantasy that mean old **Spiritus** is just out to get you and making up stuff and like, not being all fair in evaluating yur brilliant arguments. Or maybe you just don’t read well enough to realize that I am not the sole person who noticed that these types of sentences are semantically void. It doesn’t much matter, really. Whatever the explanation, the appropriate response remains: :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > However, to truly do that, he has to declare the statement “I am not a four-headed gerbil” meaningless. I wonder what he will do. I will point out that your statement is factually incorrect and betrays a complete lack of understanding. “I am not X” is a perfectly meaningful statement in the general case. It becomes meaningless only when “X” creates a paradox with the existential statement “I am”. “Not a four-headed gerbil” does not violate the meaning of “I am”. Thus, the statement is not meaningless. Thank you, though, for providing another stellar example that you have no idea what you’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Now, it is clearly obvious that “I am aware” is not an “I am not” statement. Indeed, which makes this little digrewwion of your even more silly. > [@](#): > > However, I was trying to underscore the blazing illogic and falsehood of declaring all statements starting with “I am” to be proof of “I am”. What I said was: “I am \_\_\_\_\_\_” is a stement of existential identity for all meaningful substitutions of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_. Specficially, “I am aware” is a statement of existential identity that cannot be more readily accepted as a premise thatn “I am”. Those statement remain true. > [@](#): > > Think of it as shining a spotlight on another falsehood. Or not, as the case may be. > [@](#): > > **Begbert2** : Accusations that my argument is trivial are ignoring the fact that my “argument” pretty much obviously includes the discussion necessary to accept the troublesome premise “I am aware”. > > **Spiritus Mundi:** If we set that aside and accept the validity of your assumption “I am aware”, then the argument is trivial. Maybe the umpteenth time will be the charm. LEARN TO READ > [@](#): > > The “non-trivial” part may be in the understanding of the premises and wether they can be determined with certainty. Yes! That is also accurately described as the **“begging the question”** part. > [@](#): > > But the tacit assumption that argumentive triviality implies “trivial” triviality is false. It also exists only in your fevered imagination. My charge explicitely relates to the value of your conclusion given your premies. **That argument is trivial.** No tacit assumptions required. No distinction necessary between “argumentative triviality” and “trivial triviality”. Apply each as desired. > [@](#): > > When you are all done trying to muddy the waters by prematurely claiming petitio principii and by equivocating about the meaning of the word “trivial”, we can resume discussing the argument. Right. I’m the one who wanted to waste copious amounts of space refuting your misconceptions about logical terms and misreadings of English text. I just asked for a definition and gave you the evaluation you asked for of an argument that conldudes **I am** by accepting the premise **I am aware**. Since that moment, the only arguments you have attemted to make have been angry whines about the question I asked and the evaluations I offered. If you don’t like the way the conversation has turned, then you should revise your own behavior. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_great_unwashed/32/4791_2.png) [@The\_Great\_Unwashed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Unwashed)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2003, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/539 "2003-04-10T17:35:55Z")
Gah! Won’t anybody please think of the pigs? Actually guys, this thread has got so long, and the postings so intertwined with multiple, labyrinthine embedded quotes, I think it may be useful (that is, _I’d_ find it useful) if you could summarise your positions so far without undue mutual reference. For instance, I think you both agreed that perceptions exist – I’m still undecided. ---
**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 10, 2003, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/540 "2003-04-10T17:44:50Z")
**TGU** My basic argument has not shifted from that presented [back on page 8](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165653&perpage=50&pagenumber=8#post3193748) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=28)