Is it because we have observed that we seem to observer things? But wait, maybe we only seem to have observed that we seem to observe things? But that must be frankly true too, right, because we can observe ourselves seeming to have observed ourselves seeming to observe things . . .
You see, at some point you will have to simply assert that some level of our perceptions of “what we do/are” is accurate. And, at that point you have asserted “I” (unless you want to try to argue that at that point “we” do not percieve “ourselves”.)
Alternatively: Step one: Allow the possibility that our observations may not be accurate. Step two: Left as an exercise for the **Begbert[b/].
P1: Socrates is human.
P2: If Socrates is human, then Socrates is mortal.
C1: Socrates is mortal. (by p1 and p2)
This is THE introductory logical proof.
P1: A.
P2: if A, then B. (aka A -> B)
C1: B. (by p1 and p2)
This is a general form of the first argument. It’s also in most books as an explicit rule of symbolic logic, and is named modus ponens.
[ A ] = Socrates kicked a ball
[ B ] = Socrates existed
P1: Socrates kicked a ball.
P2: if Socrates kicked a ball, then Socrates existed.
C1: Socrates existed. (by p1 and p2)
The arguments have exactly the same structure. This is definitely a valid argument. “Circularity” is a question of soundness.
(Also, sad to say, there is not technically such a thing as an implied premise… You either choose to grant the premises validitiy, or you don’t.)
You must be very hard to prove things to. Do you realise, that by your methods, EVERY argument can be presented as circular? Let’s review:
What you’re saying here is, “Socrates kicked the ball” implies “socrates existed”. Where have we seen this before… Aha! That’s the second premise! Why, look! there are no unstated, hidden, or otherwise made-up-by-the-audience premises after all!
What you’re really saying (wether you know it or not) is that the argument form of modus ponens
P1) A
P2) A -> B
C3) B
is always either circular or unsound because, ‘suppose you tried to justify A, without admitting B. it seems plain to me (and everyone else arguing with you) that you can’t. therefore p1 gives the unstated assumption B. without considering the other premises, you ought to be able to justify p1. you can’t justify p1 without first assuming the conclusion. sorry.’ Sound familiar? This will happen in EVERY case where P2 is undeniably true, which is pretty helpful to consider the argument sound. You are declaring modus ponuns inherently fallacious!
You should have seen this coming; I did mention that this argument was your thought process explicitly stated. Basically,
P1) I think
P2) if I think, then I am
C1) I am
Is unacceptible to you because you don’t accept the premise “I think”, which renders the argument unsound. NOT because it’s cirucluar. Saying otherwise undermines your credibility.
So you can stop saying “circularity” as though it’s a magic word, and just say “unsound”. You don’t buy the premise. That’s a different issue, and unlike the first, not unintentionally misleading.
Incidentally, if you DO accept the premise “I think”, then I think we (two) are finished. If not:
[aside]This should incidentally satisfy that malevolent liar S.M., but it won’t, because he’s a malevolent liar. He can be known to all as a malevolent liar because, along with anything else he may or may not have done, he selects bits of quotes from totally separate posts and puts them together inside a quote, totally out of context, one right after the other, with the express intent of falsely manipulating facts with the intent to slander. Evidence:[qoute]
Spiritus How, at this stage of your argument, do you justify assigning a single cause to the varying phenomena that you are calling “My thoughts/perceptions”?
Begbert2 Simple: I don’t.
Begbert2 Try this: Something exists, which is labeled “I”.
[/quote]
This is no misunderstanding; S.M. is a LIAR, who has been operating with obvious malicious intent since his second post on this thread. All should take heed, and react as appropriate.[/aside]
“Exists”/“Existence” and “Not-exists”/“Nonexistence”
Existence is an intrinisc property which is hard to define. (The m-w definition is circular with “being”.) For the purpose of this argument, it shall be defined as follows: anything which demonstrates any measurable properties (see Variance) exists.
“I”: someone aware of possessing a personal individuality. (www.m-w.com) Nice and open. We’ll say that whatever is posessing/exhibiting that personality, is I.
“Variance”: the fact, quality, or state of being variable or variant:
“Variable”: able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes www.m-w.com, again. A bit circular, but it gets the point. If something is demonstrating variance, then it is demonstrating its ability to vary, by withinself displaying at least two values, and you have a standard of measure. Therefore, variance is definitionally contradictory with non-existence.
“Observes”: m-w is circular again. I’m happy with, “is directly aware of”, particularly since I don’t use it in my argument. (It makes the argument too easy.)
“Appearance”: www.m-w.com: a sense impression or aspect of a thing <the blue of distant hills is only an appearance> Note that this strongly implies that you might be wrong about what you are looking at. Note that it doesn’t say that non-existent objects have an appearance.
Hey, by definition, I can skip a step or two! (It helps that I pointed out the connection between Variance and Existence just after their definitions.)
Assertion 1: I am aware of my individual personality, which demonstrates variance.
That variance is demonstrative of existence, ergo I am aware of something which exists (which, since it is what is posessing/exhibiting my personality, is by definition I).
(That is, ‘I [have a personality], therefore I am.’)
Very easy. Too easy. Somebody’s about to say that they don’t think we should consider dictionaries reasonable sources of information about words.
Before all else, please demonstrate how these words were removed from context with “the express intent of falsely manipulating facts with the intent to slander.” Please. Anything else would be too pathetic for words.
It’s simple, really, if you do not like being called a liar stop telling lies. Soon. I really think you should stop telling lies soon.
Marvelous, McDuff! Nice quote; what was the source?
As long as I’m here, and there have been no further comments, I might as well feed S.M. a bit.
The “Simple: I don’t” came from post# 3160772, which was 12 posts ago. It was answering the comment given here above it, which was presented accurately. (Apparently S.M. hasn’t felt the need to manipulate his own words to make his “point”. At least, not here.) The uncut version of my reply was:
As can plainly be seen if the reply is not truncated to 8% of its length, I am specifically responding to the implied assumption of a single cause for the perceptions I appear to be seeing.
The “Try this: Something exists, which is labeled “I”.” came from post #3162048, which was 8 posts ago. It came from a response to S.M. deliberately misundertanding what I was saying (I have to assume it was deliberate, becuase I’m not supposed to call him a moron), after which he offered me a changed conclusion, and rewrote my proof too. In my next post I handed him his herring back and said,
(He was nice this time; he only chopped 60% of this one.) I think that repairing the cutting-with-intent-to-decieve in S.M.'s recent example of my “belly laugh”-worthy “contradiction” should make my point:
Wow, all we have to do is take out S.M.'s intentionally deceptive hacking up of my statements and not only are tehy not contradictory, they say exactly the same thing. Ony by the intentional distortion (via massive chopping from multiple posts) was S.M. able to “achieve” his malicious intent.
I repeat: This is no misunderstanding; S.M. is a LIAR, who has been operating with obvious malicious intent since his second post on this thread.
Oh. My. God. The irony. And S.M. accuses me of being ironic. (Note that this is his entire paragraph, not some ransom-note assembly.)
The charge, of course, was: **“the express intent of falsely manipulating facts with the intent to slander.” ** The prosecution’s case:
Yes. The quotes came from separate posts (about 4 hours apart). You see, that is why I separated each line into a separate block with the label Begbert2. If the lines had all come form the same post, I would have used an ellipses, as above.
It is a pretty standard message board format for presenting the text of an ongoing exchange, because it minimizes the dead space occupied by multiple sumultaneous quote tages. In no sense does it imply that your words all came from the same post, so your charge on that respect is false.
Yes, because we all know that the number of letters is the most important metric for deciding the importance of a passage. :rolleyes:
The text I omitted was: For all I know, you might have a brain, which is merely a set of component parts apparently acting in concert. What do you want, proof of an immutable, indivisible soul? Right forum, wrong thread. None of that text is relevant to your conclusion. How do I determine that?[ol]
[li]“For all I know” That introductory phrase does not indicate the result of a proof with all the force of formal logic, which is what you claim to have offered. Since I was addressing only the conclusions you claim to have reached, it was irrelevant to teh point I was addressing.[/li][li]My question asked nothing about immutable or indivisible souls, so we were both in agreement that that section had nothing to do with the issue that I was addressing.[/li][li]“Right forum, wrong thread” is an entirely tangential remark. How interesting that you chose to include it in your arbitrary “character count” method of significance. Why, one can almost imagine that you were more interested in generating an incrminating number than in presenting the truth of the situation.[/li][/ol]
YES!
And that is exactly the sense of the quote that I offered: "Simple: I don’t [assign a single cause to the varying phenomena that you are calling “My thoughts/perceptions”?]
So, thus far your complaint is that I presented a truncated version of your statement which accurately characterized the nature of your position. Um . . . that’s what a selective quote is suposed to do.
Your charges with respect to the first selection of my quote are clearly false.
So, your complaint now is that I did not include the context that your position was a reply to something that you had clearly stated was not the conclusion of your proof? But–wouldn’t that make the remarks to which you were responding irrelevant to the question of the conclusion that you were arguing? Yes, it would. Thus, I did not include it in my quote.
If it was a red herring, which you say, then it is not relevant to your position, which is why I did not include it.
But now you level charge me with malicious manipulation of the fact because I did not include facts which we both agree are irrelevant to your argument. How absurd. This charge also is without merit.
I decided to revisit this section separately, becauase it is entirely tangential to the substance (if we ever find any) of your charges. OPur exchange on this issue want:
[ul][li]Spiritus: I have ot leave open the possiility that the concluion of your presented argument is a label exists.[/li][li]Begbert2: My argument is “a label exists”? Talk about red herrings. [/li][li]Spiritus: Talk about poor reading comprehension! . . . For the record, I never stated that you made that argument. I simply lacknowledged that you might be making that argument and thus not guilty of equivocation in your response to erl. It is now clear that you were not, and thus you were. [/ul][/li]So, after this exchange you accuse me of something which I did not do, which has already been addressed, and which you know that I did not do.
So, yet again you are shown to be a liar.
The section I omitted was: This something may or may not be a collective of things that themselves exist. Again, that section is irrelevant to your conlusion. Thus, it is irrelevant to the issue of what you claim to conclude. In detail:
[ul][li]“may or may not” indicates that the following section is not part of the “proof to the standard of formal logic” that you claim to have offered.[/li][li]Something, which is the subject of your conclusion, is a singular noun. In English, that means it is used to indicate a single thing.[/li][li]“A collective” is, strangley enough, a colective noun in (American) English. Thus, when the collective is referred to as a whole it takes a singular verb, indicating a unity. Here, the clue to usage is threefold:[/li]
Implicit in your proof:
You use phrases such as "My thoughts/perceptions are actually presenting some variation of some existing object’s actual variance. " The “object” is the “I” of your conclusion and clearly singular in usage.
Indicated by the very section that I quoted: Something exists, which is labeled “I”. “Something exists” not “Some things exist”.
Supported by your later statements: "“I”: someone aware of possessing a personal individuality. (www.m-w.com) Nice and open. We’ll say that whatever is posessing/exhibiting that personality, is I/" Again, note the consistent use a singular pronouns and verbs.[/ul]
So, we have a preponderence of evidence that you did, in fact, present your conclusion as an “I” which is singular both in grammar and in treatment within your “proof”.
Once again, you have levied a charge without foundation.
Quite the contrary.
We see that in no case did my selection of words change the meaning of what was written.
We see that the quotes do not, in fact, say exactly the same thing. (Though that might, certainly, be the result of sloppy writing.)
And we see that your charge of intentional deception is wholly without merit.
An honest man would now retract the charge. A gracious man would apologize for having leveled it. I expect neither from you, of course.
Repeat it all you wish. The record does not support your attempt at libel.
(Somebody, come tell me to stop replying to S.M… He is so irrationally stuck on his little idea that I am a liar, he’s already torn his own credibility to shreds. Remind me that S.M. is a walking hijack, and I should get back on-topic (assuming there are any rational dissenters left).)
This has now degenerated into NOTHING but a did-not/did-so. When S.M. comes back screaming and whining that I libeled him by calling him a liar, and oh by the way I’m a liar, I will no longer stoop to replying by points. He is not worth the bandwidth. I am willing to dicuss the OP, however.
So, I’ll keep it short.
Posting sufficient information to GUARANTEE locating the posts is not an accusation of fault. Your bringing it up as one is either an attempt to whitewash and confuse, or a random response from a hair-trigger defense mechanism.
The (second)statement of mine that you took out of context (that is, chopped in half) was a restatement of the conclusion of the proof, which you had previously lied about and distorted in an attempt to make it appear that I had proved the existence of a label, which I had not. The fact that you had pooped your usual helping of falsehood out had nothing to do with the fact that you chopped my statement in half, since neither half referred to the false replacement proof you had recently tossed up as a smokescreen. That you have spouted some gibberish saying that the second half of my statement was invalidated by the smokescreen proof you wrote is another smokescreen.
This is cute:
So, you can present an irrelevant proof, and if it’s not the one I’m presenting, i’m presenting a false proof? Interesting use of a smokescreen. Completely ridiculous, but interesting.
You of course spent a large amount of space trying to justify hacking my statements to bits, since they pretty clearly demonstrate your decietful methods. Most of your protests were either “I decided that this wasn’t relevent, so I hacked it.” More accurately, “I didn’t get it.” So you try to justify your censoring with grammic puffle. The whole thing was written in english; why did you quote any of it? Oh, yes, you needed something sold-looking to hang your continually unfounded accusations of “liar” on. Your attempt to claim that my words weren’t meaningful because they were attempting to communicate by implication is a desperate attempt to cover the fact that you were caught out in a blatant distortion. (Because I’m not supposed to accuse you of consitently not understanding things, from your second post forward, which is the other obvious explanation.)
Yeah, right. Nice summation; continuous lies. Random semantic details don’t negate the meaning of a statement, particularly by parts, except maybe to persons who can’t read very good. Yes, in the next assertion you admit being unable to read my writing. You couldn’t understand Descartes either. I guess only you can write well, huh? And so you have totally failed to refute that you still stand accused. And you accusing other people of commiting libel is just astounding; ironic beyond humor: libeling me is about all you’ve done since you got here. You even kept doing it all through your pathetic attempt to “refute” the plain facts.
You are a liar becuase such continual misunderstanding and misrepresentation of my statements, and the childish random shouts of ‘liar’, could only come from a total moron or a rather poor liar himself. And I’ve been told not to call you a moron.
That’s right. The truth is always a defense, and the record supports me.
[qoute]originally posted by erislover
There never was much to say, that’s the problem.
[/quote]
Sounds like you’re trying to say you’re right without addressing one lick of the previous discussion. Smooth. If you’re going to say that, say it with a smiley.
For six pages the three of us (at least Ramanujan, SM, and I) have contributed, we’ve tried to get you to simply admit one rather small point:
Descartes’s argument assumed what it tried to prove.
That’s it. You’re all over the map, begbert, and trying to keep up with your dodges is becoming a full-time job. We opened the thread because we wanted to discuss Descartes’s cogito. We haven’t left it because we still do. But it is a very small point we wish to make, and it has nothing to do with demonstrating there are no thinkers, demonstrating there is no thought, etc etc etc… our opinions on subjective or objective ontology are hardly the basis of the discussion anymore (not that they ever were). Our opinions on the circularity of Descartes’s proof are all we wish to state. We have both done so repeatedly, done so for your posts repeatedly, and addressed your issues repeatedly. Spiritus has, IMNSHO, demonstrated your evasions quite clearly. If you have supporters here they are silent. But, you see, no one is here to specifically contribute to some “smear begbert” campaign though I am starting to get the feeling you think so. We are here to demonstrate the circularity of the “cogito ergo sum” argument, and that is all. Weaseling around our points, widening the circle in an attempt to hide the final link, and playing the part of the poor martyr who is misrepresented and attacked without justification is just icing on the cake.
If my opinion is at all unclear in the above, I will say it in one sentence: I am clearly on the side of Ramanujan and Spiritus Mundi, and while I am beginning to doubt your ability to reason with the ferocity of Descartes’s meditator, I hold out in hopes that I am sorely mistaken, or that if I am not you will admit that the proof is circular.
I, for one, am still unclear on several things in chasing you around your circle as it seems to be more of a Moebius strip than anything else.
Is or is not formal logic (first order predicate logic) appropriate in this case? —our answer: no, except by way of illustration; your answer: who the hell knows, you use it, then abandon it, then adopt it, then leave it aside again. I am willing to entertain your notions in an attempt to either find a way out of Descartes’s circle, or show you how you have been tracing it the whole time.
If FOPLogic is not appropriate in this case, in what manner can we justify utilizing implication, and is that manner the same as FOPL’s implication?
If we cannot motivate (accept as an axiom) or justify (demonstrate outright) the use of implication, by what right do we have to claim that “thoughts imply a thinker”?
“I” is not an arbitrary label in Descartes’s proof, though he would like to try and make it so (this is, you might note, a process of equivocation); it clearly means the subjective “self” in a way most of us like to consider it, he states as much in the introduction to his meditations. I would urge you to seek out his text directly to watch his equivocation unfold. It is not particularly subtle. I would refer you to the passage I already quoted except that I used excerpts and I would now be wary of being accused of taking things out of context by not including text which doesn’t directly illuminate or contribute to the point.
If “observations require an observer” by definition, and a statement like “I observed a thought” makes its way into a proof of “I am” by way of “thoughts imply a thinker”, you might suspect that you have made a circle. “I observed a thought” says two things:
------1) I exist; and,
------2) I observed something.
To then pull “I exist” out of your hat is a neat trick, but every magician knows the rabbit was there the whole time.
You don’t read very well. I simply noted that your attempt at libel was unsuccessful. I have also noted that you are a liar. The two elements are functionally independent, though they both reflect aspects of your character.
:rolleyes:
I challenge you to find any unintersted party upon this board who will read the second quoted passage and not see an accusation of fault. If you can, then I will agree with you that it was not a pertinent element of your charge.
Until then I will simply add this to your catalogue of lies.
Nothing new here: I addressed both the factual error of your charge and the dishonesty of your account in my previous response.
This one is simple. I challenge you to post exactly what words I used to make this “attempt to make it apper that [you] had proved the existence of a label.” If you cannot, then at least make up a new lie. This one is tired.
What gibberish! I said no such thing.
Here is what I did say: "If it was a red herring, which you say, then it is not relevant to your position, which is why I did not include it. I did not say the second half of your statemnet was invalidated by the red herring, I said that you cannot reasonably fault me for not including the red herring in my summary of your claim. Think about it!!
Yes, but the two do not have the causative relationship you seem to be upset about. Here, I’ll spell it out for the logically challenged.
[ol][li]You presented a proof.[/li][li]That proof introduced “I” as nothing more than an arbitrary label.[/li][li]That proof concluded the existence of “I”.[/li][li]At no time did that proof demonstrate a binding for the free variable “I” that was anything but the arbitrary label.[/li][li]This is not a flaw if the proof was designed to establish teh existence of the label[/li][li]This is equivocation if the proof was designed to prove anything else.[/ol][/li]
Not at all. I did so because your charges, if not their source, were serious. Thus, I presented a detailed response. That you have no adequate rebuttal for that response is plain from the nature of your most recent post. Unable to deal with the facts, you fall back on those tools you know best.
My responses are a matter of public record. It should be simple for you to demonstrate that some number of excised letters really were relevant to your asserted conclusions, if that truly is the case. Can you do so?
Grammar, I’m afraid, is the only tool we have to parse your ravings. Tell me, what other method would you suggest that someone use to understand your posted words?
If you find my grammatical analysis to be faulty, then demonstrate that fact. If you cannot, then I’m afraid you will simply have to come to terms with the fact that you do not use the English language very well.
While that is a shame, it hardly registers very high on your list of personal failings.
Yes, which makes your whine about my application of “grammar” particularly silly.
To make a point, obviously.
:rolleyes:
Your ability to read degrades with each passing moment. I did not use this particular instant of silliness on your part to call you a liar.
How absurd! How perfectly Begbert2. Here is what I said:
*Contradict much?
Or are you saying that the “something” that exists and is labeled “I” is not the source of “my thoughts/perceptions”?
If so, then how did that “I” get into your proof? (Yes, I know that the answer is through equivocation. Somehow I doubt that that is the answer you will provide.)*
[ul]
[li]Notice that at no time did I call you a liar based upon this selection of quotes? [/li][li]Notice that you have yet again demonstrated that your concern for accuracy in presenting the facts of our exchange is less than impressive.[/li][li]Notice that I express no surprise at this revelation.[/ul][/li]
I neither claimed nor attempted to claim any such thing.
Where do you get this stuff? Can it really be a coincidence that you so love to make this kind of charge without ever quoting specific words of mine to support your assertions?
At no time did I say your words were not maningful “because they werte attempting to communicate by implication.” This is either another case of poor reading comprehension on your part or another case of you simply making things up.
At this point, I don’t think it really matters which.
Random semantic details?
Oh my. So, if we cannot use grammar to parse your statements and cannot rely upon the English meanings of your semantic constructions, then what are we left with?
Oh . . . right . . . gibberish. Not that much of a difference, really.
I do? Where? Oh, wait, this is another little lie, isn’t it. What I said was: that might, certainly, be the result of sloppy writing.
What was that you said about people who can’t read very good."
That’s an interesting take on reality. I agree that I still stand accused. That says more about my accuser than the validity of my refutation.
I made no such accusation. I said that you attempted libel. You have indeed presented false claims in writing, and you certainly have intended to damage my reputation. But your claims are easily dismissed, and you lack any shred of the credibility necessary to accompliush your goal.
I, on the other hand, have had no trouble documenting the ever-increasing littany of lies and falsehoods with which you have decorated this thread. The fact that we each find the other dishonest does not imply that we are each equally correct.
These are the sections I see in my last response (characteristically unidentified/rebutted by yourself) which characteized you as less than honest:
[ol][li]“Right forum, wrong thread” is an entirely tangential remark. How interesting that you chose to include it in your arbitrary “character count” method of significance. Why, one can almost imagine that you were more interested in generating an incrminating number than in presenting the truth of the situation.[/li][li]So, after this exchange you accuse me of something which I did not do [stating that you had made the argument “a lbel exists”], which has already been addressed, and which you know that I did not do.[/li]
So, yet again you are shown to be a liar.
[li]An honest man would now retract the charge. A gracious man would apologize for having leveled it. I expect neither from you, of course.[/ol][/li]If you take exception to one of those statements, then demonstrate that it is in error.
Until then, get used to being recognized for a liar.
Your faulty grasp of logic is showing again.
First, of course, you have yet to demonstrate that I have ever misrepresented even one of your statemnets apart from the long since addressed usage of “disprove”.
Second, your list of possibilities again fails to completely induce the set. For instance, the continual shouts of “liar” could also come from a man to and about whom you have repeatedly lied. In fact, that is exactly the case we see here.
A perfect example of why one should not assume that one’s perceptions accurately reflect reality.
While I am here for that purpose, I am also here because I find the particular bundle of contradictions that is **Begbert2[/] to have passed from amusing to irritating some time ago. Thus, I have decided to highlight the most egregious of his character flaws whenever they inject themselves into the ongoing discussion.
I recognize the likely futility of this task, as Begbert2 presents all evidence of being impervious to both reason and shame, but I do take some small pleasure in pointing out some of the specific instances in which he betrays his lack of intellectual honesty.
It’s kind of like slapping a mosquito on a summer evening. You know another one is going to come along, but for a brief moment it just feels good to flick the bugger off of your palm.
psst: “Weaseling around our points, widening the circle in an attempt to hide the final link, and playing the part of the poor martyr who is misrepresented and attacked without justification is just icing on the cake.” Eat up! I hope it isn’t too sweet, I don’t like frosting that is too sweet…
As to Descartes:
The jerk put at least 1.5 proofs into his meditation. There is the “I exist because I was decieved,” which can be easily countered because it is based on a specific alternate explanation of sensory perception. (“You are only decieved if there is a deciever, and it cannot be held that accurate senses and a malignant deciever are the only possible cases,” for example.) Then there is the “cogito ergo sum”, which, by being more general, seems more supportable. Do you happen to have an english translation for his specfic support of the cogito? If not, I will continue to attempt to discover one which is most easily understood.
As to logic:
All formal logic is by way of demonstration. It is a system of semantic rules that, by definition, works. If you are purporting to think at all, the use of formal logic remains valid. The reason I only occasionally use it is because, as a real-life proof, the argument needs to be expressed in words at the fore and aft, and things appear to get lost in translation to symbols and back. I have never stopped applying the principles of formal logic, regardless of wether I’m writing symbols or words.
As to circularity:
You cannot assert that the argument is circular without denying the trustworthiness of the premises. At least, not by the definition of circular you gave earlier.
So, circularity, in this case, takes one of two forms:
“I think” is unverifiable
“I think” secretly implies “I am”, in disguised form.
Case 2 is a blatantly impossible. Take the following argument:
P1) “I think”
P2) if “I think” then “I am”
C1) “I am”
The claim: P1 implies C1 directly, secretly begging the question.
Rebuttal: Secretly nothing. “P1 implies C1” is explicitly in the proof, as P2.
If you’re saying that “I think” automatically implies “I am”, that’s fine, so am I. There is no secrecy, there is no trickery. All that you’re really saying is that you are convinced that P2 is undoubtable.
See? Because there is no structural circularity, it becomes a soundness issue. Is “I think” true or not? That is the question. Any statements that preach circularity without claiming that P1 is
doubtful are not using the term properly. Even if they are doubting P1, they should probably be simply saying so rather than falsely implying the argument has structural circularity that it simply does not have.
The observation argument is harder to break down to take out the strong “I” in it. The argument can be written without explicit reference to the observer; you simply talk about it in the theoretical case: (“Suppose for a second that there are undoubtably variances in what is (perhaps mistakenly) thought to be observed…”)
Regardless. It’s not circular in any meaningful sense. We can discuss the rest when you are prepared to drop the misleadingly overloaded term; besides, I have to get going…
Begbert2
Assumptions always imply the conclusion of a valid logical argument. That is what “valid logical argument” means. One does not escape petitio principii by making the implication explicit. Again, that is what every logical argument does.
The reason petitio principii is considered a logical fallacy is that it structures the premise in a manner that hides the implication of the conclusion, for instance by using the subject “I” in a premise when the conclusion is that “I” exist.
The argument is circular. It does not cease to become circular simply because the second premise that you identify makes the circularity explicit. Any recognition/acceptance that “I” think has already asserted that “I” exist. Again, nobody is arguing that htis logic is wrong. Circular arguments are never wrong. They are simply trivial
In your focus on the soundness of “I think” you again (still?) refuse to understand the difference between the epistemological argument and the ontological conclusion. The disagreement with Descartes is not founded upon “I don’t think” but on “I cannot assert ownership of thoughts befoer I assert my own existence”.
Of course, I have no expectation that seeing these simple ideas pointed yet one more time will have any effect upon your conviction that you alone can see the truth of Descartes’ argument. No doubt some profesor or another has told you that you’re a bright boy, and you have seen no need to seek a second opinion. So–I heartily suggest that you seek that professor out and obtain his assistance in publishing your penetrating analysis of Descartes in a journal of philosophy. Such an iron-clad demonstration of personal existence will no doubt be rapidly and warmly received.
Failing that, perhaps you should run immediately to the nearest tattoo parlor and have the text of your most recent proof that “I exist” stenciled prominently upon your chest. I think that it is quite likely the higest pinnacle that your intellect shall ever achieve, and I imagine that you will want to record it forever in all of its glory.
Don’t forget to add a footnote for Miriam-Webster, though. We wouldn’t want to have to add plagiarism to your already impressiev list of dishonesties.
Exactly. And without that ownership, “I” stands unjustified except in a trivial sense, and though one might appeal to Descartes’s text that says
You will not find any exposition, however, on how such ownership came about. You might recall, begbert, my question about causality which you strenuously objected to, though I don’t think you ever quite saw why I brought it up (it wasn’t because I didn’t understand what logical implication was). Hopefully this helps illustrate that point. Implication does not imply ownership, and yet ‘my thoughts’ does.
Methinks you are all instilling too much into the “I”. Giving it too much credit, so to speak.
What is the meaning of “I”?
As I quoted earlier, good ole’ m-w.com thinks it’s
With Descartes we use it to refer to ourselves; that is, I can call myself “I” if I am aware of my own “personal individuality”.
By this definition, the minute I say “think”, in reference to what seems to be my own personal thoughts, by definition it is more than reasonable to attribute them to “I”.
The definition of ‘I’ is so weak that it’s basically harmless; what would you rather me say, “There are thoughts, which have seemed to be spawned by my personal individuality?” That means the same thing as “I think”. Note that the “which have seemed to be spawned by my personal individuality” is a stated condition of the setup of the proof; , which only works on ‘my’ own thoughts.
Once the ‘I’ is in the proof, there is little point in trying to remove it. Attempts to do so are actually attempts to revise the definition of “I” (so far, without explicitly stating the altered definition). The definion speaks of the macro perspective; there is no comment as to the makeup of the being or thing that actually is I. If the thougts are proved to exist, and the thoughts were what composed my self definion, then I am proven to exist, as the product/producer of the thoughts. (Conventional wisdom indicates that we are generating the thoughts. However, any thought that is aware of itself can refer to itself as I. Heck, the word ‘I’ is merely a pronoun; it can refer to anything. In “I am a six word sentence.” it’s referring to dead text, yet we still accept that as a valid use of ‘I’.)
You can say that ‘I’ stands meaningless except in a trivial sense; I would say it has never meant anything except in a trivial sense, once you stop giving credence to the existence of things to compare it to. It’s a convenient and definitionally accurate handle, and little more. The point of the proof is to prove necessary existence; the ‘I’ is an accurate but uninformative notational artifact that adds little or nothing to the worth of the proof.
By the quote you provided, Descartes seems to have been using the above definition of “I”, or something even weaker, where the “I” is merely an identification tag on the thoughts he had found, to keep them from getting lost. Of course, once he had proven his necessary existence, he very well may have gone around attributing a lot of things to “I” that he couldn’t prove; I don’t know about that… but that doesn’t invalidate the base proof.
So, in conclusion, ‘my thoughts’ implies no more ownership than was granted by the place we went looking for the thoughts. It is little more than a label, and the use of it is supported by definition. I grant that people might see it as a claim about percieved personal attributes, but that is an error. It is not a reasonable point with which to attack this proof.
Thanks for the source, by the way, not that I thought you were making it up. You’re doing a decent job at providing the Descartian comments on any given point, though, so I think I shan’t order it, wait for it to ship…
I hope it isn’t too sweet, I don’t like frosting that is too sweet… 