# 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:** 29
**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 14, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/561 "2003-04-14T05:53:07Z")
> [@](#): > > So your inference is strictly circular. It asserts that “I accept the premise P11” because “I accept the premise P11”. > > Yes, if one accepts as true that “I accept a premise” then one has accepted as true that “I exist”. This result is trivial. Descartes at least had the ambition to try and demonstrate something important. Trivial, based on only looking at the last half of the argument? If you ignore how it explicitly bootstraps itself up based on ones awareness of one’s own awareness? Oh, yeah, that’s trivial. And if that old “circular” claim were true, then acceptance of everything else, including P11, would be unnecessary for the acceptance of P11c. Which is obviously not my position. [quote] [ul][li]The only meaning you have bound to “I” is "that which is making/considering the argument.[/li][li]You have not provided a demonstration that the argument necessarily originates from a single unified consciousness[/li][li]You have not provided a demonstration that the acceptance necessarily originates from a single unified consiousness[/li][li]You have not, for that matter, demonstrated that consciousness is even required. Acceptance might be generated by a random decision-making algorithm.[/li][li]Thus, you have bound no meaning in the symbol “I” that would generally be associated with a personal subjective identity.[/li][li]Ergo, something(s) is a better term. It implies only what it clearly denotes, that no meaning beyond existence has been bound to the symbol in the proof. [/ul][/li][/quote] [ul][li]Yep. To bad you ignore this fact in the rest of your little bulleted list.[/li][li]Define “unified consciousness”. If it can’t make arguments, I’m not interested. And if it can act as a single entity (enough to make an argument, anyway) then it can be referred to as a single entity.[/li][li]Define “unified consciousness”. If it can’t accept statements, I’m not interested. And if it can act as a single entity (enough to accept a statement, anyway) then it can be referred to as a single entity.[/li][li]There is a reason I haven’t said consciousness is required: it isn’t. All “I” need be able to do is simulate self-awareness enough to concieve of the argument, and know that I am doing it. Your computer could carry out this argument, if it had some way of formulating it.[/li][li]Personal? Able to act as in individul entity. Subjective? Capable of articulating the argument and knowing it is doing so. Identity? Meaning what? Are you reading unjustified meaning into my terms, in spite of having just quoted my definition?[/li][li]Ergo, you’re blowing smoke. Collectives that make arguments are acting in the singular. Do you always refer to yourself in the plural because you’re composed of a plural collection of cells? No? I thought not.[/li][/ul]Keep touting your knowledge and my ignorance. Calling my argument “bullshit” is the most effective strategy you’ve got. > [@](#): > > HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I ACCEPT P11 AS TRUE Sorry, I didn’t bother to retain your big ole text effects. If you accept the premise, then you accept the premise. If you don’t, then you consider the argument unsound. Easy. So, _do_ you accept P11 as true? You seem relatively clever elsewhere on this message board; why are you persisting in this manner? (The rude, uncouth manner, that is.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/562 "2003-04-14T14:21:21Z")
Honesty is the best policy. I think your argument is bullshit, too. > [@](#): > > There is a reason I haven’t said consciousness is required: it isn’t. All “I” need be able to do is simulate self-awareness enough to concieve of the argument, and know that I am doing it. Your computer could carry out this argument, if it had some way of formulating it. I think you should stop using the word ‘I’. I will quote a passage of yours to end this post that supports that. > [@](#): > > Define “unified consciousness”. If it can’t make arguments, I’m not interested. Ask yourself: what assumptions come with **a thing** ’s ability **to make arguments**. Its fucking existence, perhaps? Hail Eris. > [@](#): > > There is a reason I haven’t said consciousness is required: it isn’t. All “I” need be able to do is simulate self-awareness enough to concieve of the argument, and know that I am doing it. **Something(s)** exists. Of course, the question still remains, **how do I know that I am doing it?** ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/563 "2003-04-14T16:13:40Z")
The only meaning I have bound to “I” is “that which is making/considering the argument.” If the argument -any argument- is occuring, then by this definition of “I” and P11 (the content of it, I mean, which is based on the meaning of “existence”), the occurence of the argument is proof that “I” (by this definition) exists. My argument merely tries to point this fact out in an unambiguous way. You no more have to be certain that you exist **before** you can notice that you are arguing, than you have to be sure you have eyes **before** you can look in the mirror and check. The act of noticing in each case is not circular, even if you are noticing that you are noticing. I am almost certainly not the first person who ever came up with this realization. > [@](#): > > _originally, uh, “posted” by Descartes_ > So that it must, in fine, be maintained, all things being maturely and carefully considered, that this proposition I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me, or conceived in my mind. ---
**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 14, 2003, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/564 "2003-04-14T16:35:13Z")
For the really, really willfully blind to the obvious among us, allow me to point out what is pathetically obvious to everyone with half a clue. > [@](#): > > If you accept the premise, then you accept the premise. [ul][li]If A, then A.[/li][li]A -\> A[/ul][/li]THIS IS A CIRCLE ---
**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 14, 2003, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/565 "2003-04-14T16:45:02Z")
> [@](#): > > You seem relatively clever elsewhere on this message board; why are you persisting in this manner? (The rude, uncouth manner, that is.) Because, as I have said before, I always strive to give a person’s posts exactly the respect that they desrve. Yours have been dishonest, evasive, insulting, and chock full of a sweet blend of ignorance and arrogance that is almost never found outside the boundaries of a college campus. You told lies. I called you on them. You made bad pronouncements about logic. I called you on them. You asserted a dizzying number of circular, question begging, or trivial variation upon Descartes’ argument. I called you on them. etc. etc. etc. If you want to be treated with reason, courtesy, and integrity then you should post with reason, courtesy, and integrity. If you fail in one of those areas (and you have failed in all three) then you lose your claim to courtesy. Reason and integrity are all you get. Deal with it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/566 "2003-04-14T17:50:37Z")
> [@](#): > > If you accept the premise, then you accept the premise. If you don’t, then you consider the argument unsound. Easy. So, do you accept P11 as true? There are two separate reasons why this should not be called “circular”: 1. As can be plainly seen, this is a statement divided by cases. These can be usually detected by the formulation “If A then [something]; if not A then [something].” In this case, the first something was “A”. Leaving out the sentence that you read as “If A then A” would result in an incomplete case list, which is incorrect usage of such. 2. And what part of this looks like a logical construction? In logic, “A -\> A” reduces to “true”, but in english, when not wrapped up in a formulation of cases, it reduces to :rolleyes:. Now, as it originally occured, it _was_ in a list of cases, and so no negative connotations were implied. Of course, now that you’ve pulled it out of context: :rolleyes: Here’s how I “deal with it”: You have a mental image of me as a horrible person. Check. You can and will percieve things in creative ways and with little regard for context, to sustain your mental image. (Like this above bit as being circular, when it wasn’t even from the text of my argument, and when its ‘circularity’ disappears in context.) Check. So, there is no point in trying to alter your perception of me. As such statements would not comply with your mental image of me, their meaning would likely be altered in the process of perception to match what you expect. So, you can buttress your mental image of me unopposed. Have fun. _Of course_ I have occasionally succumed to your provocation. Yet, using my occasional lapses to justify the unabated depths of incivility wherin you reside is, well, unreasonable. So, I appeal to the reason you offer, and at don’t expect for one second that such an appeal will have any good effect. Awaiting your next response. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/567 "2003-04-14T18:36:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > If the argument is not deemed unsound, then the observer accepts the truth of the premise; in this case, by acknowledging awareness of variation. Any debater that accepts P1 inserts himself into the proof by this method. so now you’re saying that i am aware of everything that varies? there was nothing about awareness in the premises. > [@](#): > > And (needless to repeat) i agree that we should all try and agree upon what “I” means. oops. that was supposed to be in a quote, i didn’t mean to repeat you. for my definition of “i”, i would suggest something along the lines of “something that has all the properties that **Ramanujan** has, and none of the properties that he doesn’t.” > [@](#): > > It’s fairly straightforward; causal relationships generate reversed implications. Awareness is ‘caused’ (or rather ‘allowed for’) by existence, and so a discovery of awareness implies existence. so the existence of something (that which is aware) implies the existence of something else. it seems as though you expect me to accept: Ex.(x varies). Ay.(y varies) -\> Ez.(z is aware of y). Ei.(i is aware of x). if this is what you mean, i take issue with the second premise. there is no way to know it. i am the only one who i know seems to be “aware”, and i know that i cannot know by what mechanisms i am aware. also, this is a very minimal proof. there is no reason to tie “my” perceptions to the one described in the proof without first asserting that i exist. or so it seems to me. if this isn’t what you meant, please clarify. i believe i misread that other part of yours. let’s have another crack at it. > [@](#): > > The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter. the statement “i accept the premise” has no meaning if “i” doesn’t exist. so saying “i accept the premise” implies “i exist” is consequently meaningless. ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/568 "2003-04-14T19:13:34Z")
> [@](#): > > so now you’re saying that i am aware of everything that varies? there was nothing about awareness in the premises. Old news. That was a _very_ unrefined argument, designed to get a general idea out. Terminology was left a bit slack. > [@](#): > > for my definition of “i”, i would suggest something along the lines of “something that has all the properties that Ramanujan has, and none of the properties that he doesn’t.” Well, that’s nice and all, but that’s does a poor job of matching the common definion of “I”. If you’re not rogorous about spatial location, then your clones are also “I”. If you are rigorous about temporal location, then “I” never existed in the past. What cause is there to distinguish in one measure, and not the other? “I” is commonly understood to be self-referential, rather than specifically referential. A definition might try to refer to that fact. > [@](#): > > so the existence of something (that which is aware) implies the existence of something else. Hold it; I didn’t say this. How did you extract this meaning from the quoted sentences? What I meant is “If only A causes B”, then “B -\> A”. I didn’t state the “only” because the statement was merely referring to the reversed direction of the resulting implication. Examples: If “(only) the onetime existence of dinosaurs cause dino footprints to exist” is true, then “dino footprints exist -\> at one time dinos did” is a true statement. If “(only) gravity causes things to fall” is true, then “things are falling -\> there is gravity” is a true statement. If “(only) an existent thing can cause perceptions to be noticed” is true, then “perceptions are being noticed -\> there is an existant thing” is a true statement. If “(only) an existent thing can cause the consider an argument” is true, then “an argument is being considered -\> there is an existant thing” is a true statement. I hope this is clearer. > [@](#): > > the statement “i accept the premise” has no meaning if “i” doesn’t exist. so saying “i accept the premise” implies “i exist” is consequently meaningless. I reject the claim that it has no meaning, but “i accept the premise” certainly isn’t true if “i” doesn’t exist. So, if we can accept that “i accept the premise” _is_ true, then it cannot be the case that “i” doesn’t exist. Perhaps it’s hard to see, but by the time the “I” enters the proof, it is justified by the form of the proof. And if you want to say that the “form of the proof” was caused by the existent thing referred to from within the proof as “I”, I’m with you all the way. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/569 "2003-04-14T19:27:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > I reject the claim that it has no meaning, but “i accept the premise” certainly isn’t true if “i” doesn’t exist. So, if we can accept that “i accept the premise” _is_ true, then it cannot be the case that “i” doesn’t exist. Oh we’re tantalizingly close! Now, Q: **What is necessary for “I accept the premise” to be true?** A: " ‘I’ exists." Q: So can we prove " ‘I’ exists" by accepting this premise? A: Obviously not. ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/570 "2003-04-14T19:27:34Z")
Please cite a reputable logical source that says something along the lines of “circular reasoning is a good thing as long as it appears in an examination of cases”. :rolleyes: Alternatively, please pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize that a circular inference adds nothing to a proof. It cannot, because its conclusion holds no new elements. > [@](#): > > And what part of this looks like a logical construction? In your hands, not much. You do like to pretend that you are doing logic, though, so I thought it might help to point out that the logic you are mimicking is crcular. > [@](#): > > In logic, “A -\> A” reduces to “true” Yes, circular arguments are always true. > [@](#): > > but in english, when not wrapped up in a formulation of cases, it reduces to :rolleyes: Wrapping bad logic in a formulation of cases does not magically transform it into good logic. Your inference remains strictly circular, which means that it adds no element to your proof. In english, you remain **begbert2**. You are corrct about one thing, though. One appropriate response to your “logic” has always been: :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Here’s how I “deal with it”: > You have a mental image of me as a horrible person. Check. Pathetic is a more accurate term. I think your ego is too fragile to admit that you have been stupid and dishonest in public. Of course, that is just conjecture on my part. The only thing that I know for certain is that you have posted lies, evasions, and silly constructions in “logic”. > [@](#): > > You can and will percieve things in creative ways and with little regard for context, to sustain your mental image. False, but don’t let the facts stop you. **In every case** that I have criticized your integrity in this thread I have provided specific citations and been quite willing ot discuss the implications of contextual material. You are the one who keeps breaking off any detailed examinations of your dishonesty. (The fact that you think circularity disapears in context is illuminating in and of itself. It has no bearing on your integrity, but does relate to your ignorance of logical fallacies. Circularity is quite immune to context, since a circular structure can be closed to external information without affecting the conclusion. **If A, then A.** In any context.) > [@](#): > > So, there is no point in trying to alter your perception of me. That’s a personal decision on your part. For my part, I am always open to new input. I have changed my image of many posters on this board over time, including some who have participated in this very thread. > [@](#): > > As such statements would not comply with your mental image of me, their meaning would likely be altered in the process of perception to match what you expect. Once more, **I always cite specific text to support my accusations.** Either the text supports my reading, or it does not. While textual interpretation is not an objective science, I defy you to find a single instance in which my readings have contradicted the semantic content of the text. You cannot, of course. Habitually, you have instead criticized me for daring to apply semantics to English language statements. Why you object to the meanings of the words you post is something about which I can only conjecture. > [@](#): > > So, you can buttress your mental image of me unopposed. Have fun. It has always been within your power to stop providing confirmation of the less savory aspects of your personality. It has never been fun for me to be subject to your lies and evasions and false charges. It has, however, been occassionally fun to draw public attention to some of those lies, evasions, and false charges. > [@](#): > > Of course I have occasionally succumed to your provocation. Right. Way to take responsibility for your actions. > [@](#): > > Yet, using my occasional lapses to justify the unabated depths of incivility wherin you reside is, well, unreasonable. Perhaps, but you should level that charge against someone who has attempted such a justification. If I recall correctly, the incivility between us began when you insinuated that I could not read and I took offense, which was about 2 posts into our association. That is not a justification, merely an observation. The “unabated depths of incivility” to which you refer would seem to clearly date from the moment that I called you a liar. That moment, of course, followed soon after the moment that you started telling lies. (I believe the exact wuote was: **“Which is exactly you, spirited moron.”** ) Indeed, your lack of integrity seemed to blossom under the light of exposure, as you demonstrated ever less concern with honesty and fact as you twisted about trying to escape my charges and levy your own. Again, these things are preserved in the text. Either the words posted support my readings, or they do not. As for justification, I do not appeal to any external facts for justification. You told lies. It was entirely my choice how I responded to them. To the extent that my behavior requires justification, it lies within my decision, not your demonstrated lack of integrity. > [@](#): > > So, I appeal to the reason you offer, and at don’t expect for one second that such an appeal will have any good effect. I have always responded to your posts with reason. You have quite often lost sight of the reason. I can understand that. It is never easy to have someone call out your faults in a public and disparaging manner. Nevertheless, the reason has always been present. You just seem to have a hard time recognizing it. > [@](#): > > Awaiting your next response. HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I ACCEPT (P11) AS TRUE ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/571 "2003-04-14T19:41:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Well, that’s nice and all, but that’s does a poor job of matching the common definion of “I”. If you’re not rogorous about spatial location, then your clones are also “I”. If you are rigorous about temporal location, then “I” never existed in the past. What cause is there to distinguish in one measure, and not the other? location is a property. “the past” doesn’t currently exist, in the regards you speak of. if we speak of space and time as a continuous space, “i” exists in the past, since the past is the same as a different spatial dimension. > [@](#): > > I reject the claim that it has no meaning, but “i accept the premise” certainly isn’t true if “i” doesn’t exist. So, if we can accept that “i accept the premise” _is_ true, then it cannot be the case that “i” doesn’t exist. we’ve been over it. “i don’t exist” is meaningless. you gave up trying to show me where i was wrong in that. i assumed it was because you saw the absurdity of your position. > [@](#): > > Perhaps it’s hard to see, but by the time the “I” enters the proof, it is justified by the form of the proof. And if you want to say that the “form of the proof” was caused by the existent thing referred to from within the proof as “I”, I’m with you all the way. it’s easy to see that the proof has no meaning if “i” isn’t already there. contrary to what you may think you see, “i” doesn’t enter into the proof in the statement “i accept the premise”. it’s already there, unstated. if “i accept the premise” has meaning when “i” doesn’t exist, what does it mean? ---
**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 14, 2003, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/572 "2003-04-14T19:42:33Z")
> [@](#): > > If “(only) an existent thing can cause perceptions to be noticed” is true, then “perceptions are being noticed -\> there is an existant thing” is a true statement. Correct. > [@](#): > > If “(only) an existent thing can cause the consider an argument” is true, then “an argument is being considered -\> there is an existant thing” is a true statement. Correct (assuming the wording intended was "cause an argument to be considered). > [@](#): > > Perhaps it’s hard to see, but by the time the “I” enters the proof, it is justified by the form of the proof. Incorrect. It has been injected through a circular inference. The point that is hard for you to see, but which is blindingly obvious to everybody else, is that the your “proof” demonstrates nothing that: **If I exist, then I exist.** does not also demonstrate. If you took the time to express your proof in formal notation, you would see that the English language assertion **“I accept premise (P11)”** does not follow from any previous premise. Go ahead, have the guts to put your proof to a test. Rephrase it in formal language and demonstrate where the truth of **“I accept premise (P11)”** is derived. In other words, answer the question: HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I ACCEPT (P11) AS TRUE. ---
**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 15, 2003, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/573 "2003-04-15T14:37:45Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ramanujan_ > Q: What is necessary for “I accept the premise” to be true? > A: " ‘I’ exists." > Q: So can we prove " ‘I’ exists" by accepting this premise? > A: Obviously not. Q: What is necessary for “I accept the premise” to be true? A: " ‘I’ exists." As is demonstrated by the implication “I accept the premise -\> I exists” Q: So can we prove " ‘I’ exists" by accepting this premise? A: Logically, yes. Obviously. Suppose at a murder trial, the bloody knife couldn’t have gotten into the defendant’s bedroom unless he had committed the crime. Should we have to withhold the evidence until he has been proven guilty? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ramanujan_ > location is a property. “the past” doesn’t currently exist, in the regards you speak of. if we speak of space and time as a continuous space, “i” exists in the past, since the past is the same as a different spatial dimension. At no point in the past have you ever been in the same location as you are now. (Planets moving and whatnot.) So, even theoretically, by your definition “I” has never existed in the past and will never exist again in the future. I still think that this isn’t quite what most people mean by the term. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ramanujan_ > we’ve been over it. “i don’t exist” is meaningless. you gave up trying to show me where i was wrong in that. i assumed it was because you saw the absurdity of your position. No, it’s because I see the absurdity of your position. Have you considered that, by your proposed definition of “I”, the phrase “I don’t exist” merely means that “Nothing exists that has all of the properties that are assocated with the term ‘begbert2’”? This is obviously not a meaningless statement, regardless of what is saying it; it merely brings into question the claiming of the label by the speaker. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Ramanujan_ > if “i accept the premise” has meaning when “i” doesn’t exist, what does it mean? Let’s see, by looking at definitions it means: “That which is making/considering the argument accepts the premise.” What you find magical about this is beyond me. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Go ahead, have the guts to put your proof to a test. Rephrase it in formal language and demonstrate where the truth of **“I accept premise (P11)”** is derived. > > In other words, answer the question: > HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I ACCEPT (P11) AS TRUE. Because the text is all big and blue! How could it _not_ be true? Tricky boy; formalized logical arguments have no way to refer to themselves or their elements. Next ask me to write the proof as an arithmetical expression, it’s even an even worse language for expressing the concepts involved. Still, If you want, I can do it. I think I’ll make the inference back into an axiom; I have been considering it for a while anyway.I only wrote it as an infrence in the hopes of pointing out the obvious to you people. Regardless, it would still take understanding of the argument _outside_ of formal symbology to find reason to accept the second “axiom”. That is, it becomes a question of soundness based on the reader’s ability to think outside the box. So, a symbolic approach can’t possibly force you to shake off that blindness of yours. Still here we go: E(x): x exists P(x, p): x accepts premise p I: that which is making/considering the argument Premises:[ul][li]P11: Ax,p.( P(x, p) -\> E(x) )[/li][li]P11c: P(I, P11)[/li][/ul] Conclusion:[ul][li]C12: E(I) [by m.p. on P11c and P11][/ul][/li] Persons observing will note that P11c introduces the symbols I and P11. Some people will (willfully) ignore the definiton of I and the meaning of the statement now as much as they have before, and claim that P11c cannot be accepted. This will be a result of his inherent integrity. Now remember, I warned you that formal logic doesn’t encapsualte relf-referential arguments. This argument was provided because I have the “guts” to respond to at least a few silly requests, even if it is obvious to all with an understading of the system under consideration that to comply with the request would clearly not be helpful in any way. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/574 "2003-04-15T15:22:46Z")
Ah, obviously? You mean, **because of its obvious circularity**? (that was me, not Ramanujan, who posted that.) “I can prove I exist.” “Oh, how’s that?” “Because I can accept premises, and for that to be true, I must exist.” “And ‘I can accept premises’ is assumed to be true?” “Yep. Neat, huh?” “Not really.” ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/575 "2003-04-15T15:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Q: What is necessary for “I accept the premise” to be true? > A: " ‘I’ exists." As is demonstrated by the implication “I accept the premise -\> I exists” > Q: So can we prove " ‘I’ exists" by accepting this premise? > A: Logically, yes. Obviously. that wasn’t my quote you were responding to. > [@](#): > > At no point in the past have you ever been in the same location as you are now. (Planets moving and whatnot.) So, even theoretically, by your definition “I” has never existed in the past and will never exist again in the future. I still think that this isn’t quite what most people mean by the term. if we do not differentiate between difference in time and difference in space, your problem doesn’t exist. if we aren’t, the past doesn’t exist, and there is no problem to have. > [@](#): > > No, it’s because I see the absurdity of your position. Have you considered that, by your proposed definition of “I”, the phrase “I don’t exist” merely means that “Nothing exists that has all of the properties that are assocated with the term ‘begbert2’”? This is obviously not a meaningless statement, regardless of what is saying it; it merely brings into question the claiming of the label by the speaker. that’s why i use that as my definition. to avoid such absurdities. it’s also russell’s way of avoiding the paradox and defining “existence”. it is still improper to say “the golden mountain doesn’t exist.” but sense can be made of “there is no mountain that is gold.” > [@](#): > > Let’s see, by looking at definitions it means: “That which is making/considering the argument accepts the premise.” What you find magical about this is beyond me. how you feel “something that does not exist accepts the premise” is meaningful is beyond me. “something that does not exist wonders whether or not it exists.” is not a false statement. it is semantically unresolvable. look it up. ---
**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 15, 2003, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/576 "2003-04-15T17:21:52Z")
> [@](#): > > This argument was provided because I have the “guts” to respond to at least a few silly requests, even if it is obvious to all with an understading of the system under consideration that to comply with the request would clearly not be helpful in any way. Not at all, it has been helpful in two ways: [ul][li]It has forced you to turn (P11c) into an axiom, as it should have been treated from the beginning.[/li][li]It has forced you to acknowledge that formal structures of logic do not allow conclusions to be drawn from teh type fo self-referential trick at teh heart of your argument.[/ul][/li] Now we can address the consequences of the **axiomatic acceptance of (P11c).** > [@](#): > > Some people will (willfully) ignore the definiton of I and the meaning of the statement now as much as they have before, and claim that P11c cannot be accepted. This will be a result of his inherent integrity. This is a noice quote. Anyone who does not accept your axioms must necessarily be ignoring tour definitions and lacking in integrity. Bullshit. **I do \_\_\_\_\_** is clearly a poor axiom to accept when pretending to doubt that **I exist.** The definition of “I” is irrelevant to this logical error. It would apply equally well to any consistent label whose existence was demonstrated by the axiomatic acceptance that it isntantiates a propery that requires existence. Again, we see that your argument **begs the question**. The axiom that it accepts **“I accept premise (P11)”** cannot be granted with greater certainty than the conclusion **"I exist"** At least you have finally answered the big blue question: “I” ACCEPT IT AXIOMATICALLY But I do not. ---
**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 16, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/577 "2003-04-16T01:34:09Z")
Sorry about mixing you two up, guys; there were several posts in a row and I was in a hurry. **Ramanujan** , your definition may more easily be spoken of in terms of existence as a first order property (which is a way of speaking that makes it next to impossible to logically discuss the existence of things). However, it doesn’t seem much like the common definition of “I”. For example, few people are going to accept that their memory of themself ten minutes ago is actually a memory of something that doesn’t fit the definition of “I”. Nor would most people be impressed by the idea that anything that resembled them similarly enough is, in fact, them. Hey, S.M.! > [@](#): > > It has forced you to turn (P11c) into an axiom, as it should have been treated from the beginning. It _was_ treated that way in the beginning (well, after it was explicitly introduced). I fiddled around a bit to see if it was more meaningful to make the explicit connection between it and P11 extra-explicit. It obviously hasn’t worked, but I blame that on… 😉 > [@](#): > > It has forced you to acknowledge that formal structures of logic do not allow conclusions to be drawn from teh type fo self-referential trick at teh heart of your argument. I never explicitly stated that formal logic wasn’t designed as a self-descriptive language because I figured everybody already knew it. I had never used the “formal structures” of logic on a self-refrential arguement until you requested me to. The argument was (rather obviously) in an organized form of common speech, wherein logical thought may be applied, but so can metathought. Think out of the box, buddy. I also note that you’ve stopped little listings like this: > [@](#): > > [ul]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] I miss these little lists so much. As I have complied with your request for an obfuscatingly formal rendition of my argument, would you please comply this request from me: kindly make an analysis of the following argument in the manner you have used above? It’s short so it should be easy. Thanks ever so much. Assumptions: P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter. P11c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) accept premise P11. Conclusion: C12) I (that which is making/considering the argument) exist. [by modus ponens on P11c and P11] > [@](#): > > “I can prove I exist.” > “Oh, how’s that?” > “Because I can accept premises, and for that to be true, I must exist.” > “And ‘I can accept premises’ is assumed to be true?”\* > “Yep. Neat, huh?” > “Not really.” Succinct and demonstrative. After 10+ pages of argument, logical or otherwise, wherein various assertions have been accepted by various parties, suddenly nobody wants to admit that premises can be accepted. :dubious: The refutations have devolved to the level of calling the argument “bullshit” and expressing ungrounded personal dissatisfaction of it (except for Ramanujan, who is still covering the definitions of things, which is perfectly fine). \*I, of course, am not saying this. P11c does not refer to itself. In P11c, _P11_ is spoken of as being true. P11b’s acceptance relies upon the acceptance of P11, but it is listed as a premise because the non-self-referential system of formal logic cannot encapsualte its blatant and obvious connection to P11. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/578 "2003-04-16T03:49:51Z")
> [@](#): > > After 10+ pages of argument, logical or otherwise, wherein various assertions have been accepted by various parties, suddenly nobody wants to admit that premises can be accepted. ::peers around:: Where?! Bring them before me so I may banish them from this place! ---
**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 16, 2003, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/579 "2003-04-16T04:09:22Z")
> [@](#): > > It was treated [as an axiom] in the beginning (well, after it was explicitly introduced). You are having trouble with the truth again. You always seem to get tripped up on the silliest issues of fact, often when trying to pretend that you really knew something all along. Here is how (P11c) was explicitely introduced > [@](#): > > The definition of existence is taken axiomatically; and from it we can directly infer P11. If you like, you can can accept P11 axiomatically. I wouldn’t because it’s acceptance is based on something else (the definition of existence). . . > [ul][li]P11c) I accept premise P11[/ul][/li]That’s also a perfectly fine statement, which follows directly from the acceptance of P11. So, not only is (P11c) not introduced as an axiom, it is presented as a premise that follows directly from the acceptance of (P11), which you also explicitely deny treating as an axiom. One would think by now you might understand that when I say **axiom** I actually mean **axiom**. I know that can be confusing, what with being a well-defined logical term and all. Let’s see how you treat it the very next time it shows up. > [@](#): > > Just as a refresher, here is the currently evolved state of the argument which I am currently defending (on reflection P11c shouldn’t really be called an axiom): _{Spiritus: it wasn’t called an axiom initially, it was listed as a premise that followed directly from another premise.}_ . . . > [ul][li]Inference:[/li]P11c) I accept premise P11. [by the acceptance of P11][/ul] > . . . An inference derives its truth upon the basis of the premise(s) and previous inferences that back it up. P11c is accepted conditionally based upon the acceptance of P11. That is, if the arguer accepts P11, they logically must also accept P11c. So, I stand by my statement that it was a good thing for you to be forced to acknowledge that (P11c) must be treated axiomatically for your logical structure to be valid. Your statement that it had initially been introduced as an axiom is factually incorrect. > [@](#): > > I never explicitly stated that formal logic wasn’t designed as a self-descriptive language because I figured everybody already knew it. I had never used the “formal structures” of logic on a self-refrential arguement until you requested me to. Formal logics were developed to remove the paradoxes and ambiguities of natural languages. Formal structures are explicitly designed to make it clear when an argument is valid. Four possibilities present themselves: [ol][li] **Begbert2** understands the integral aspect of formal structures in valid logical argument **and** understood that his “self-referential” method was invalid according to formal logic. :. **Begbert2** presented a claim that he knew rested on the ambiguities of natural language structures in an attempt to deceive people that it was formally valid.[/li][li] **Begbert2** understands the integral aspect of formal structures in valid logical argument **but** did not understand that his “self-referential” method was invalid according to formal logic. :. **Begbert2** is attempting to deceive now when he pretends that he did not address the formal weakness of his structure because he figured “everybody already knew it”.[/li][li] **Begbert2** does not understand the integral aspect of formal structures in valid logical argument **and** understood that his “self-referential” method was invalid according to formal logic. :. **Begbert2** knew his argument was formally invalid but just didn’t think it was important. :rolleyes:[/li][li] **Begbert2** does not understand the integral aspect of formal structures in valid logical argument, **and** did not understand that his “self-referential” method was invalid according to formal logic. :. **Begbert2** really needed to go to a better school. His current one has failed miserably to impart any understanding of logic.[/ol][/li] > [@](#): > > The argument was (rather obviously) in an organized form of common speech, wherein logical thought may be applied, but so can metathought. And so can sloppy thought, which is why formal languages were developed in the first place. Some people manage to internalize the rigor of formal structures and reason well in natural languages. **Begbert2** is not one of those people. > [@](#): > > Think out of the box, buddy. That box is called logic. Going outside of it to prove “I exist” makes about as much sense as going outside the alphabet to write one’s name. Were you by any chance a smal, purple-clad rock star in a previous delusion? > [@](#): > > I miss these little lists so much. Ah–you managed to disguise your fondness well while criticizing me because my posts contained more words than your own. Wait–this is your idea of a witicism, isn’t it. **Begbert2** humor. How droll. > [@](#): > > As I have complied with your request for an obfuscatingly formal rendition of my argument, “Obfuscating” is an interesting modifier to apply to a form that requires precision in expression. You have no objected both to English semantics and formal structures. Shall we take it as a given that you simply know that your arguments fare poorly under close examination? > [@](#): > > kindly make an analysis of the following argument in the manner you have used above? It’s short so it should be easy. [ul][li]**Assumptions:[/li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.** Fine. [li]**P11c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) accept premise P11.** Begs the question.[/li][li]**Conclusion:[/li]C12) I (that which is making/considering the argument) exist. [by modus ponens on P11c and P11]** Unsound, since (P11c) begs the question. Trivial if (P11c) is accepted.[/ul] > [@](#): > > Thanks ever so much. You’re welcome. There’s nothing I like better than repeating the obvious for the 86[sup]th[/sup] time. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > After 10+ pages of argument, logical or otherwise, wherein various assertions have been accepted by various parties, suddenly nobody wants to admit that premises can be accepted. Bullshit. How dense must one be to confuse a specific objection to one type of **axiom** (those that beg the question of the conclusion) with a refusal too accept any premise? As dense as **Begbert2** , apparently. Or is this simply another example of you saying something that you know is not true? ---
**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 16, 2003, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/580 "2003-04-16T05:57:25Z")
Oh, heavens, the joy. > [@](#): > > **Assumptions: > P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.** Fine. Beautiful. Simply beautiful. Okay, so **S.M., while considering the argument, accepts premise P11.** 😃 (Here you go, **erislover**. Banish away!) > [@](#): > > **P11c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) accept premise P11.** Begs the question. Really? **One line** of an argument begs the question? I thought whole arguments begged the question, by having premises as doubtful as conclusions! Or is this a new definition? Regardless of what you call this thing, axiom or premise or tuna fish, you **obviously** aren’t expected to accept it without evidence. And when assessing the truth value if this guy, there _is_ an obvious place to l:rolleyes:k for evidence. > [@](#): > > **Conclusion: > C12) I (that which is making/considering the argument) exist. [by modus ponens on P11c and P11]** Unsound, since (P11c) begs the question. Trivial if (P11c) is accepted. In this case, more like “S.M. exists.” 😃 Begging, right. And trivial as in, “is derived by the application of logic,” (in this case modus ponens), right. I hear ya. Real convincing. Yep. > [@](#): > > Ah–you managed to disguise your fondness well while criticizing me because my posts contained more words than your own. Wait–this is your idea of a witicism, isn’t it. > > Begbert2 humor. How droll. No, no witticism, and your post length wasn’t mentioned, hypersenitive boy. The request was, however, pretty transparent _bait_. And you obliged wonderfully. Too bad you used the word “fine” rather than “accepted” as in the example I quoted; still, close enough for government workers. Thank you again for your help! :D:D:D [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=30)