# 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:** 30
**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, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/581 "2003-04-16T07:53:33Z")
Yes, I am certain that you feel that you have manuevered some masterpiece of rhetorical strategy. Tell me, how many times has some variation of the following appeared in this thread: [ul][li] **NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THE ONTOLOGICAL CONCLUSION OF EXISTENCE.** [/ul][/li]Hence, I can accept a premise in an argument. What I cannot do, if I have even the slightest comprehension of how an epistemological argument is founded, is accept a premise that requires my existence in order to prove my existence. It takes a **Begbert2** to be quite so oblivious. > [@](#): > > 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? No, just a new bit of idiocy on your part. I am certain that nobody else was confused by the reference, since the definition of “begging the question” has been posted so many times. You are the only poster in this thread who proved too clueless to read and understand the definition, but eventually it sunk in even for **Begbert2**. And, yes, it is a single premise that “begs the question”. The conclusion only needs to be examined to substantiate the charge. > [@](#): > > No, no witticism, and your post length wasn’t mentioned, hypersenitive boy. Learn to read. I said that you had complained about post length in the past. See, the English language has these things called tenses. You really can be blindingly ignorant when you think you have been clever. The simplest English sentences suddenly become mysteries beyond your comprehension. > [@](#): > > And when assessing the truth value if this guy, there is an obvious place to l:rolleyes:k for evidence. :rolleyes:BVIOUS? **Not if I am honestly attempting to doubt my own existence.** Of course, it requires a passing familiarity with both personal and intellectual honesty to appreciate that idea, which explains why you have managed to remain ignorant of it through 12 pages of people pointing it out to you. But, please, wallow in whatever smmugness you feel appropriate. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss. > [@](#): > > And trivial as in, “is derived by the application of logic,” (in this case modus ponens), right. See–in your very last post you admited that you knew formal structures of logic did not allow this type of self-referential smoke-and-mirrors. In fact, you even mentioned the need to think “outside the box” of formal logical structures and rely upon “metathought” (whatever you imagine that to be). And yet, here you are pretending that you have delivered a proof in logic. **You are a liar. Right.** > [@](#): > > I hear ya. No, you don’t. You make far too many stupid errors in reading for that statement to be believable. > [@](#): > > The request was, however, pretty transparent bait. And you obliged wonderfully. Right, because you are silly enough to imagine that anything I said in that structure had not been said many times in this thread before. I can’t begin to imagine the depth of delusion from which this particular flight of fantasy sprung. You clearly think that you have scored some type of rhetorical victory by getting me to admit that I can accept a premise. Is your reading ability so attrocious that you failed to understand the implication of: [ul][li]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? [/ul][/li]Wow, guess what. When I examine a proof, I can accept a premise. Amazing! Well, Gooooooooooooolllly, **Sargeant Begbert**. Why, if I had known all along that I could accept a premise then I wouldn’t have bothered doubting my existence at all! You sure are smart **Sargeant Begbert**. Shazam! Shazam! Shazam! ---
**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, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/582 "2003-04-16T13:43:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > Beautiful. Simply beautiful. Okay, so **S.M., while considering the argument, accepts premise P11.** 😃 (Here you go, **erislover**. Banish away!) I asked for people who didn’t admit to accepting premises. Someone accepting a premise is hardly a counterexample. ---
**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/583 "2003-04-16T16:03:51Z")
Come on, **erl** , you don’t think **Begbert2** bothers to actually read what you write before drafting his response. That might get in the way of his cheerful ignorance. ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/584 "2003-04-16T21:28:36Z")
**erislover** , your phrasing was ambiguous. It reads easily as “:: peers around:: Where?! Bring **premises can be accepted** before me so I may banish them from this place!” Especially considering that “premises can be accepted” was the last plural noun in the quote before your pronoun. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Yes, I am certain that you feel that you have manuevered some masterpiece of rhetorical strategy. Tell me, how many times has some variation of the following appeared in this thread: > [ul][li] **NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THE ONTOLOGICAL CONCLUSION OF EXISTENCE.** [/ul][/li]Hence, I can accept a premise in an argument. What I cannot do, if I have even the slightest comprehension of how an epistemological argument is founded, is accept a premise that requires my existence in order to prove my existence. > > It takes a **Begbert2** to be quite so oblivious. Actually, The masterpiece is that you made a liar of yourself. You accepted P11, then reject the premise that says that you accepted P11. What you cannot do, is either acknowledge the obvious or refute it in some kind of reasonable way. And autonomous unsupported declarations about what is “legal thought” are not a refutation. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > No, just a new bit of idiocy on your part. I am certain that nobody else was confused by the reference, since the definition of “begging the question” has been posted so many times. You are the only poster in this thread who proved too clueless to read and understand the definition, but eventually it sunk in even for **Begbert2**. > > And, yes, it is a single premise that “begs the question”. The conclusion only needs to be examined to substantiate the charge. The definition that has been officially accepted (which refers to arguments) doesn’t match your usage of the term, which seems to be “any thing with the word “I” in it is begging the question.” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Learn to read. I said that you had complained about post length in the past. See, the English language has these things called tenses. You really can be blindingly ignorant when you think you have been clever. The simplest English sentences suddenly become mysteries beyond your comprehension. The comment had nothing in it about the length of your posts. Yes, I have in the past commented on the length of your posts, but your leap to the conclusion that I was referring to these comments or the length of your posts was without any justification whatsoever. > [@](#): > > :rolleyes:BVIOUS? **Not if I am honestly attempting to doubt my own existence.** > > Of course, it requires a passing familiarity with both personal and intellectual honesty to appreciate that idea, which explains why you have managed to remain ignorant of it through 12 pages of people pointing it out to you. But, please, wallow in whatever smmugness you feel appropriate. Ignorance, as they say, is bliss. The premises says that that which is considering the argument accepted premise P11. You accepted premise P11 whilst perusing the argument. “Doubting my own existence” does not mean “refusing to hear evidence”, not on this page, or any of the 11 before it. I hope you never get jury duty. > [@](#): > > See–in your very last post you admited that you knew formal structures of logic did not allow this type of self-referential smoke-and-mirrors. In fact, you even mentioned the need to think “outside the box” of formal logical structures and rely upon “metathought” (whatever you imagine that to be). And yet, here you are pretending that you have delivered a proof in logic. > > **You are a liar. Right.** Actually, the reference to logic was referring to the use of modus ponens. **All** of your claims of triviality refer to the correct use of the logical argument. Hadn’t you noticed? Are you incapable of understanding this? Let me make it clear so you can fail to understand again. P11c, which follows from the acceptance of P11, does not do so in a manner describable by symbolic logic. C12, which follows from P11c and P11, does so via modus ponens. Which is what you were describing as trivial (which you use synonymously with “discernable via sound valid logic”). > [@](#): > > No, you don’t. > > You make far too many stupid errors in reading for that statement to be believable. It’s called sarcasm. Given how think I laid that on, you really _can’t_ read. > [@](#): > > Right, because you are silly enough to imagine that anything I said in that structure had not been said many times in this thread before. I can’t begin to imagine the depth of delusion from which this particular flight of fantasy sprung. You clearly think that you have scored some type of rhetorical victory by getting me to admit that I can accept a premise. Is your reading ability so attrocious that you failed to understand the implication of: [ul][li]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? [/ul][/li]Wow, guess what. When I examine a proof, I can accept a premise. Amazing! > > Well, Gooooooooooooolllly, **Sargeant Begbert**. Why, if I had known all along that I could accept a premise then I wouldn’t have bothered doubting my existence at all! You sure are smart **Sargeant Begbert**. > Shazam! > Shazam! > Shazam! No,you just have such a level of intellectual dishonesty that you refuse to accept a premise that you personally just admitted was true. Pathetic. And your grasp of “begging the question” still seems poor. It’s a question of **soundness**. And claiming that a premise in unproven is not a very good reason to declare that you can’t consider evidence that it is true, except perhaps in your personal world. And, based on your command of rhetoric, perhaps you should try the argument “I am a smartass, therefore I am.” It might sit with you better. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/585 "2003-04-16T21:39:22Z")
“nobody” was the subject of the quote, not “premise”. IOW, bring me those that will not accept premises so I may banish them. > [@](#): > > And claiming that a premise in unproven is not a very good reason to declare that you can’t consider evidence that it is true, except perhaps in your personal world. An assessment of truth, of course, requires a method of **epistemological evaluation** which will carry assumptions with it. You refuse to discuss what assumptions you bring to the table, though we all see what you’ve set out for us. It is a big meal, and I said I didn’t want fucking nuts and there they are in that chicken dish. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/586 "2003-04-16T22:51:14Z")
**Begbert2** I’m not going to bother hunting for it now, but I will bet you whatever hypothetical sum that you wish that I will be able to find a quote in this thread where you explicitely demand that the “I” that exists within the structure of an argument should not be conflated with the individual making or evaluating the arguement. Care to bet, **liar**? ---
**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 17, 2003, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/587 "2003-04-17T04:38:08Z")
S.M., I have no doubt that you can find something that you can creatively interpret to mean exactly what you are intending to find. And even if I have said exactly what you claim (I doubt it, but I don’t remember), your point is? It’s a big thread, S.M. In the attempt to explore various ideas and concepts, I have made a variety of statements, each presented within the context of the argument then at hand. The current argument under examination was started on 04-11-2003 11:00 AM, barely a page ago, a range that you will certainly have to depart to make your “point”. Your eagerness to take things out of context is merely additional proof of your unrelenting (and disgustingly hypocritical) intellectual dishonesty. He who is without guilt, cast the first stone; and your glass walls are fallen in pieces. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by erislover_ > IOW, bring me those that will not accept premises so I may banish them. Ask and ye shall recieve. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > **P11c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) accept premise P11.** Begs the question. As was explicitly stated in your definition of it, “begging the question” refers specifically to arguments, but if we make allowances for the misuse of the term, it is basically a way of saying that the argument is unsound due to the unacceptability of the premise. So, S.M. is declaring that this premise is unacceptible because this premise is unacceptable. Feel free to use whatever banishment method you like. > [@](#): > > An assessment of truth, of course, requires a method of epistemological evaluation which will carry assumptions with it. Please explain; I’d be happy to discuss it. (The only thing I’ve refused to discuss so far in this thread is the line-by-line entirety of S.M.'s invective posts.) At the moment, my assumptions are labeled P11 and P11c, taking into account the definition of “I” as presented for use in this argument, and the understood implications of existence. I also make the assumption that the acceptance of P11 as “fine”, this occurence being the subject of P11c, is fine grounds for accepting P11c as true. I assume that the acceptance of P11c is the bone of your contention. What assumptions do you believe that I am missing, that are required to accept P11c? Kindly don’t leave this for S.M. to “answer”. He’s so enraptured with the idea that I am a liar (I wonder why) that he would be unlikely to get through an explanation without resorting to creative, and worthless, digressions and accusations. I’ve had very little training in philosophy, so keep any explanation as clear and simple as possible, please. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/588 "2003-04-17T14:33:24Z")
I want to accept that premise as true. What is required for that premise to be true? That “I” exists. Why, then, do you find any demonstration that " ‘I’ exists" to be worth mentioning? It is tautologically trivial at best, equivocal at worst, and seems to go astray of an honest attempt at hyperbolic doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/589 "2003-04-17T17:10:45Z")
**begbert2** still thinks “i accept the premise” means something when “i” has no semantic content. “something that does not exist accepts the premise” is not a false statement, and it does not in any way rely on a premise you might add stating “nonexistent things do not accept premises” (which, by the way, is also a meaningless statement). it lacks meaning. consider for a minute to what you might be referring by saying “something that does not exist”, and perhaps you’ll understand the dilemma. ---
**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 17, 2003, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/590 "2003-04-17T20:30:16Z")
> [@](#): > > And even if I have said exactly what you claim (I doubt it, but I don’t remember), your point is? It’s a big thread, S.M. In the attempt to explore various ideas and concepts, I have made a variety of statements, each presented within the context of the argument then at hand. The point would be that at some point in your intellectual development you understood that it was neceesary when attempting an epistemolical proof of “I” to separate those things required for a prrof to undertaken (the validity of logical structures, the truth value of axioms, etc.) from the object of the proof: “I”. You appear to have forgotten that point somewhere along the way. Of course, since you now want to pretend that each litle subdiscussion of this thread is an entirely independent entity uninformed by any statements that might have been made prior . . . _shrug_ So be it. I, **Spiritus Mundi** , accept the premise (P11). I, **Spiritus Mundi** , do not accept the premise that “I”, the subject being doubted and the object of the proof, accepts premise (P11c). You may characterize such a position as intellectual dishonesty if you wish. It would certainly not be the first false statement that you have made in this thread, nor the first time that you have demonstrated that you fail to understand the concept of intellectual honesty. > [@](#): > > As was explicitly stated in your definition of it, “begging the question” refers specifically to arguments, but if we make allowances for the misuse of the term Try to follow this chain of hought: [ul][li]“Begging the question” can be a property of an argument.[/li][li]“Begging the question” is entirely a statement about the acceptability of one (or more) premise(s).[/li][li]Thus, if “begging the question” is a property of an argument, then that property is instantiated in one (or more) premise(s) of that argument.[/li][li]Thus, “begging the question” can be a property of one (or more) premise(s) of an argument.[/ul][/li]Really, you do go to the silliest lengths to try and catch me in an error. Your premise begs the question of your conclusion. This is not a difficult thing to understand ( **Begbert** company excepted, of course.) > [@](#): > > it is basically a way of saying that the argument is unsound due to the unacceptability of the premise. So, S.M. is declaring that **this** premise is unacceptible because **this** premise is unacceptable. Of course. What other reason could ever be given for rejecting an axiom? > [@](#): > > Feel free to use whatever banishment method you like. This is just stupidity on your part. See those bolded words in your last quote, the ones that look like **this**. Those are restrictive modifiers indicating that a particular premise is the subject of a clause. Not “all premises are unacceptable”, “ **this** premise is unacceptable”. Really. Who could have trouble understanding even a distinction as simple as that? That’s right: **begbert2**. How silly. > [@](#): > > And trivial as in, “is derived by the application of logic,” (in this case modus ponens), right. I did not understand that in this case you meant “application of loigic” to apply only after the premises had been accepted. Earlier, you have stressed repeatedly that an application of logic could be attacked on grounds of both soundness and validity. Of course, those statements of yours happened more than two pages ago, so oviously they have no bearing on your present argument. :rolleyes: Anyway, my bad. I withdraw the acusation that you lied in representing your argument as “derived from an application of logic”, since you meant only “has a valid logical structure once the assumptions, which are not aceptable in formal logic, are accepted.” That was not a lie. I apologize. To answer your original question, then: yes an application of modus ponens can result in a **trivial** argument. In fact, most arguments that are nothing but a single application of modus ponens are **trivial**. For instance: [ul][li]A person who tells lies is a liar.[/li][li] **Begbert2** is a person who tells lies.[/li][li]:. **begbert2** is a liar.[/ul][/li]Trivial. ---
**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 17, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/591 "2003-04-17T20:49:50Z")
> [@](#): > > So be it. I, Spiritus Mundi, accept the premise (P11). I, Spiritus Mundi, do not accept the premise that “I”, the subject being doubted and the object of the proof, accepts premise (P11c). That should be: [ul][li]I, **Spiritus Mundi** , accept the premise (P11). [/li][li]I, **Spiritus Mundi** , do not accept the premise that “I”, the subject being doubted and the object of the proof, accepts premise (P11). [/li]Therefore I, **Spiritus Mundi** , do not accept the premise (P11c)[/ul] ---
**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 18, 2003, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/592 "2003-04-18T01:54:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Of course. What other reason could ever be given for rejecting an axiom? Evidence. While it’s true that all premises are “taken axiomatically” from the perspective of a proof, it’s obvious that P11c is not meant to be an axiom in the sense that axioms are accepted without reason. (Nor is P11.) Surely you know this. [quote] _originally posted by S.M._ [ul][li]I, **Spiritus Mundi** , do not accept the premise that “I”, the subject being doubted and the object of the proof, accepts premise (P11).[/ul][/li][/quote] There aren’t two different "I"s in my argument. As is, hopefully, clear from the explicit phrasing. Are you disavowing self-reference as a concept? Merely because formal logic isn’t self-referential? > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Trivial. So, “trivial” = “logically valid”. I guess it complements “begs the question” = “unsound” pretty well. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Ramanujan_ > **begbert2** still thinks “i accept the premise” means something when “i” has no semantic content. **begbert2** thinks that he already provided a semantically meaningful definition of “i”. As in “I” = “that which is making/considering the argument”. On to the real objection (which very well, might be on verybody’s mind): > [@](#): > > _originally posted by S.M._ > Why, then, do you find any demonstration that " ‘I’ exists" to be worth mentioning? Actually, it’s an observation of the fact that P11 was accepted. The self-referential definion of “I” makes “I” applicable to all such actions within the argument, without adding additional meaning; it’s just a placeholder (like all pronouns). The main reason that I don’t use things like “P11sm) I, **Spiritus Mundi** , accept the premise P11” is to avoid implying extra meaning that might be attached to the name. Why shouldn’t the definitionally supported use of the term “I” be allowed? Because the conclusion follows directly from it by some extremely simple logic? That seems irrational. Is the following argument better, or does it have the same problem? [ul][li]Assumptions:[/li]P21) The act of making/considering an argument implies existence on the part of the arguer. [li]P21c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) am making/considering **this** argument.[/li] [li]Conclusion:[/li]C22) I (that which is making/considering the argument) exist. [by modus ponens on P21c and P21][/ul] The short of it is, if you can ask the question, then you know the answer. The critical observation is that the question _is_ being asked. ---
**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 18, 2003, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/593 "2003-04-18T05:15:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Evidence. While it’s true that all premises are “taken axiomatically” from the perspective of a proof, it’s obvious that P11c is not meant to be an axiom in the sense that axioms are accepted without reason. (Nor is P11.) Surely you know this. I know that you hate for me to dig up your past statements and show that they contradict your present ones, so I am going to do it again. This one is even within your arbitrarily defined domain of “this argument”, so you will have to find some other reason to whine about 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. Of course, even without such an admission I would only be able to evaluate the premises (P11) and (P11c) as axioms, since I am supposed to be considering this proof from a posture of extreme skepticism. **Surely begbert2 knows this.** > [@](#): > > There aren’t two different "I"s in my argument. Learn to read. I did not say that there were two different "I"s in your argument. I said that the one “I” in your argument should not be juxtaposed with the I that is evaluating the argument. > [@](#): > > Are you disavowing self-reference as a concept? I am disavowing the use of self-reference in a context in which I am supposed to be doubting my self. It is the intellectually honest thing to do. > [@](#): > > Merely because formal logic isn’t self-referential? No, though that is a fine reason, too. Formal logic was developed to escape teh paradoxes and ambiguities of natural language proofs. When your natural language proof violates a prime tenet of formal logic, it is usually a good sign that you have made a wrong turn. It’s part of that “whole logic thing”. **Surely begbert2 knows this.** > [@](#): > > So, “trivial” = “logically valid”. I said no such thing. Learn to read. > [@](#): > > I guess it complements “begs the question” = “unsound” pretty well. Learn to read. “begs the question” criticizes the soundness of a premise within an argument. The relationship between the two is not “=”. This, too, is part of that “whole logic thing”. **Surely begbert2 knows this.** > [@](#): > > Why shouldn’t the definitionally supported use of the term “I” be allowed? No reason. The meanings just have to be injected into the proof in a valid manner. You have failed to do so. Repeatedly. > [@](#): > > Because the conclusion follows directly from it by some extremely simple logic? Learn to read. You have been told why many (many, many, many) times. That the above is your best effort at understanding “why” speaks volumes. > [@](#): > > Is the following argument better, or does it have the same problem? It has the same problems. **Surely begbert2 knows this.** > [@](#): > > The short of it is, if you can ask the question, then you know the answer. Yep. > [@](#): > > The critical observation is that the question is being asked. The critical question is **"how can that observation be epistemologically validated?** Remember all those statements about the contents of perceptions that you swore up and down you were never relying upon? **Your critical observation is the content of a perception.** ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/594 "2003-04-18T13:47:26Z")
I remember. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2003, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/595 "2003-04-18T17:09:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > **begbert2** thinks that he already provided a semantically meaningful definition of “i”. As in “I” = “that which is making/considering the argument”. meaningful when you assume “i” exists. what does it mean 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 18, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/596 "2003-04-18T20:44:51Z")
S.M.: > [@](#): > > Your critical observation is the content of a perception. Not really. The premise “P21c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) am making/considering this argument” is proven correct by the fact that the premise can even be considered (and/or make up). There is no reasonable way to doubt this premise without doubting that argument is possible, at which point you might as well go get your banana and start picking fleas, because you’re done with reasoned argument altogether. And the difference between what I know and what you think I “surely know” is that I don’t “surely know” obviously false things. And there is another reason besides ‘inability to read’ that I might have for not taking your every word as gospel. That you can’t imagine it is telling. Okay, so there are two categories of protests: R) “I think”-type premises don’t mean anything since “I” _might_ not exist and E) “I think”-type premises cannot be granted credence because “I think” can’t be true if “I am” is false. As always, correct me it I’m reading you wrong. According to S.M., that’s almost inevitable. Unless I’m reading him wrong. In which case I’m not reading him wrong. Hmm. The R-type protest has been boiled down to the question: > [@](#): > > meaningful when you assume “i” exists. what does it mean when “i” doesn’t exist? Well, when “I” doesn’t exist, since it’s “that which is making/considering the argument”, the argument wasn’t ever considered. So, the premise was never proposed. So, the concept “I” was never typed, thought, or otherwise entered into any premise. So, in short, **Ramanujan** , there is no case where the thing called “I” both doesn’t exist _and_ where there is a premise using the term. So, since all cases where the term can be meaningless are impossible, “I” **cannot** be a meaningless term when found a premise of an argument, by my current definition. The E-type protest can only be addressed with an investigation of what it means to think logically. Logically speaking, “I think” and “I am” are both statements that are either true, or false. Cases where the truth of one depend on the truth of the other, if known, can be explicitly described. ““I think” can’t be true if “I am” is false.” is completely described by the implication “I think” -\> “I am”. That’s the logical description of the relationship. So, in short, **erislover** , the implication “I think -\> I am” entirely encapsulates the relationship between the truth of the two statements. If I were truly engaging in erroneous thinking, one could easily add the implication describing the overlooked details into the premise list and reach a contradiction. As that it (obviously) not possible, this truth relationship is not a reason to reject the premise, be it P11c, P21c, or “I think -\> I am”. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/597 "2003-04-19T06:44:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Not really. How is it possible that awareness that an argument is being made is not the content of a perception? > [@](#): > > “I think”-type premises don’t mean anything since “I” _might_ not exist The Merriam-Webster “I” might not exist, it is true that has been **mentioned** , but I don’t recall anyone seriously pushing this agenda against you, except inasmuch as you wanted the M-W “I” to be and failed to build the appropriate framework necessary to have it be **a perfectly certain element of knowledge inside a context of hyperbolic doubt**. Why is this hard to accept? Do you at least see the distinction there? The argument **isn’t good enough** to prove “I” exists if we are approaching the subject with extreme doubt. If we accept the premises anyway, we say the result is trivial and/or tautological. More specifically, the argument is no more persuasive than simply accepting the premise “ **I exist** ” in the first place, which is why we say the argument _begs the question_. IOW, we are attacking this argument from various fronts. We are not, for example, leveling a charge of triviality and equivocation _simultaneously._ **What is necessary for ‘I think’ to be an element of knowledge?** One of the things necessary is for ‘I’ to exist. If we disregard any meaning of ‘I’ and simply consider it as **an unbounded variable** the answer is trivial. Illustratively: I think -\> I Truth table for implication T -\> T, T T -\> F, F F -\> T, T F -\> F, T The only time a statement of so-called material implication is false is when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false… IOW, when **I think** but **I am not**. Fascinating result, I’m sure you’ll agree. The truth of the implication doesn’t depend on the truth of the antecedent, for it could be false. But we can go further. How? By noting something else. That for ‘I think’ to be true, ‘I’ must also be the case. Not as an implication, but as a requirement. An assumption at the very least. You say ‘I think’ is true. Very well. Then we can safely replace ‘I think’ with ‘I think’ && ‘I’ and find (‘I think’ && ‘I’) -\> ‘I’ Does it? Well, sure, but the result is trivial. In fact, we don’t even need to care what the term ‘I’ represents so long as it is consistently used and interpreted. If it is a very weak unbounded or nearly unbounded ‘I’ (a Humean bundle, say), then I agree with Stanford’s synopsis but find they still give it too much credit, because the appeal to the content of a perception is what holds this up—in this case, the perception being used is what we would commonly call “introspection” but that is a very loaded term when we are dealing with the subject matter in question. For consider: how do we restrict the term ‘I’? Answer: by appealing to the content of perception. Question: weren’t we doubting what the content of perceptions implied? Answer: yeah, er, wait, no!—errr… :rolleyes: Other charges come in as we start making bounds on the variable ‘I’. The more we restrict it, the more the charge becomes one of question begging, because the assumption ‘I think’, which carries the assumption ‘I am’, is as questionable as the conclusion—_when we are questioning it_. If the ‘I’ variable of ‘I think’ has a weaker or stronger use than the conclusion’s ‘I am’, then the charge becomes equivocation. Fairly cut and dry argument. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/598 "2003-04-19T17:57:10Z")
As ever, the point of contention remains: how do I know ‘I think’ is the case? ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/599 "2003-04-19T18:18:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by begbert2 \* > R) “I think”-type premises don’t mean anything since “I” _might_ not exist is that what you really think i’ve been saying? perhaps try: R’) “i think” - type premises only have meaning when “i” exists, so they implicitly make that assumption. > [@](#): > > Well, when “I” doesn’t exist, since it’s “that which is making/considering the argument”, the argument wasn’t ever considered. So, the premise was never proposed. So, the concept “I” was never typed, thought, or otherwise entered into any premise. “a non-existent object is making this argument” is NOT false. it is **nonsensical**. the statement cannot be semantically evaluated into any meaningful concept. _something_ is making the argument; that _something_ had better exist if the concept is to mean anything. > [@](#): > > So, in short, **Ramanujan** , there is no case where the thing called “I” both doesn’t exist _and_ where there is a premise using the term. i agree wholeheartedly. that’s because “i exist” is implicitly assumed. and since the premise alone is good enough for “i exist” to be derived (without an implication), you see how powerful my claim is. you also see that the result is trivial if we accept the premise containing the “i”. don’t even need an implication to acheive the desired result. > [@](#): > > So, since all cases where the term can be meaningless are impossible, “I” **cannot** be a meaningless term when found a premise of an argument, by my current definition. as i said before, your current definition adds an existing “i” to the argument. and also, to reiterate: “something that doesn’t exist is doing something” is nonsense, not false. ---
**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 19, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533/600 "2003-04-19T18:29:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Not really. The premise “P21c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) am making/considering this argument” is proven correct **by the fact that the premise can even be considered (and/or make up).** Which is, of course, the content of a perception. Why you blind yourself to this, I have no idea. Ask yourself “how do I know that an argument is being considered?” Maybe that will help. **Erl** pretty much said everything else that needed to be said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-think-therefore-i-am/157533.md?page=31)