I think therefore i am.....

[erislover]

So, what you’re all telling me is, there’s nobody here to argue but me.

It shouldn’t have told you that, but why make the same arguments (minus the lying charges) as he is?

This does explain why you managed to hold that asinine “circularity” claim up so long in spite of your own quote dismantling it by definition, though.

Which quote was that? The Stanford quote?

On behalf of Descartes, it seems that such objections fail to consider fully the subjective character of experience. [emphasis original]

The subject of experience is the fucking conclusion.
Or how about this one,

Of course, for all Descartes’ meditator Knows (at this early stage of the inquiry), the “I” might well turn out to be indicative of nothing more than a Humean bundle, or perhaps even a committee of substantial selves. But whatever the eventual outcome, vis-à-vis the ontological status of the self, the “I” can be read as a placeholder for what is a primary datum of experience.

Yes. “Thought exists.”

Taking the “I” in this minimalist, subjective sense, introspection reveals (as Descartes writes) that the various modes of thinking all seem to have “one and the same ‘I’,” as their subject (Med. 2, AT 7:28). [all my emphasis]

So why not “I seem to exist”? Well, because we aren’t considering the minimal subjective point of view. :rolleyes:

S.M., go take a damned class.

Unnecessary ad hominem. Spiritus has cited “industry” sources for arguments he has made when requested. Furthermore, he went to great lengths to construct a post which made the assumptions explicit and seperated several stages of development in order to reach a conclusion of the existence of a subject. Such a demonstration, however, did not seem to agree with the notion of standing firm in the face of hyperbolic doubt. You claimed an inability to intuitively follow the symbology, so perhaps that is simply unfortunate.

as you are obviously the better arguer than S.M…

Buddy the threads I could link you to.

God, erl, are you insane?

No. There are several chains of debates in this thread.

1. “I think therefore I am” is the result of circular reasoning, equivocation, or says much less than the standard interpretation by English speakers would imply.
2. You lied.
3. A self exists.

(1) is the main source of frustration. (2), while not self evident, has at least been substantiated without significant rebuttal. (3) is irrelevant to the underlying epistemological nature of (1), but somehow keeps coming up anyway.

I am quite sure there are several places to go that would also attempt to motivate and/or agree with Descartes if you don’t feel up to the task.

[Here](http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm#Meditation 2) is a different take on the matter.

Much of the philosophical debate about Descartes’ famous move revolves around how it is appropriate to analyse Descartes’ argument, and even whether it is an ‘argument’ as such at all. For example, we might think that Descartes move is a miniature argument, which would go from ‘I think’ to ‘I exist’. But that assumes a missing premise, namely, that ‘Thinking things exist’. Descartes himself helps clarify this in his reply to the second Objections to his Meditations. In these Objections, the critic contends that all demonstrative knowledge depends on God, which isn’t proven until Meditation 3; but, Descartes deduces his existence in Meditation two. Descartes replies that the cogito is not deduced, but is recognized, in any particular case, by a simple and immediate act of mental intuition. The intuition exhibits perfect clarity and distinctness.

[begbert2]

Not that this matters much, but:

Which quote was that? The Stanford quote?

No, it was this one .

Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:

"The Bible is the word of God. The word of God cannot be doubted, and the Bible states that the Bible is true. Therefore the Bible must be true.

Begging the question is similar to circulus in demonstrando, where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premise.

The keyword here was “implicitly”. Like I said, I shoulda noticed this a long time ago. The fact I didn’t is clear proof that, while your logic may be doubtful, your speech is of a highly appropriate caliber. May you never admire S.M. enough to emulate him so far.

[erislover]

Yes, by restricting our considerations to the subjective nature of experience as demonstration of a subject, we can be said to hide the premise in a disguised form (that is, implicitly). Depending on how the argument is actually constructed, it could be (nearly) perfectly circular (I think therefore I am), it could equivocate stated and accepted uses of a term (I), or it could simply use assumptions that are just as disputable as the conclusion (the most general form of question begging). I have seen versions of the arument in question in all forms here and have attempted to point that out.

And, I don’t emulate him (I mean, come on, he lives in Florida for Eris’s sake! ). I respect him.

[begbert2]

I don’t. I haven’t encoundered him elsewhere on the net when he had his morals on (and I certainly haven’t met him in real life, Florida, etc) and even though you’re a person who respects him, I’d be surpised if you thought I should.

You can be of the opinion that Descartes proved or didn’t prove whatever you want. It’s a free country, they tell me.

Oh, and S.M.? for your edification:
I notice you looked up “axiom”. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the correct term to look up was “premise”, but you also wouldn’t have brought up such a silly point.

Why did I call them axioms then? Well, I assumed that persons who were going to fling around words like “ontological” and “epistomological” were at least as educated as I am in the philosophies, of which, at my college, logic is PHIL 201 (the next thing after 101, in this case). And everyone with a lick of education on the subject knows that within the body of a proof premises are taken axiomatically, and then the validity thereof is discussed afterward.

I apologise for assuming that you knew what in the hell you were talking about; I won’t make the same mistake again. No, don’t bother to protest; it doesn’t take rocket science to see things labeled “axioms” and “conclusions” in a proof and simply know that the “axioms” are premises, and act accordingly. It’s a question of applying context, which may or may not be something else you have a problem with.

I hope that, when we next virtually meet, we do not have such a crappy worthless interaction.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by begbert2 *
You can be of the opinion that Descartes proved or didn’t prove whatever you want. It’s a free country, they tell me.

We’re free to believe what we like, but whether Descartes proved his thesis is not a matter of opinion. Either his argument meets the standards for a proof, given his assumptions, or it doesn’t; his assumptions either accurately describe the world, or they don’t.

Erislover has demonstrated a much greater grasp of the nuances of language and logic than you have, begbert2. Unlike yourself, he’s genuinely interested in discussing and thinking about logical arguments; if I were you, I’d be more careful in choosing targets to vent your frustration on.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

S.M., go take a damned class. Learn to think or something, if that is possible. The idea that you have to have absolutely unproven premises is pure stupidity, even in the most trivial sense. You’ll find this out if you, I don’t know, ever get within ten feet of a class that is actually about formal logic?

[ul][li]Premise[/li][li]Axiom[/ul][/li]Do you imagine that everyone on this board reads as poorly as yourself?

Do you imagine that having made a clear statement about the nature of axioms I would now think that the subject of this particular conflict was premises?

Do you imagine that having been told I had no clue what I was talking about I would somehow forget that what I was talking about is axioms?

Do you imagine that having posted several definitions of axioms to support my statements, and asking you to provide similar support, I would somehow miss your attempt at a strawman substitution?

Do you imagine that such a pathetic dodge will actually disguise the fact that once again you have demonstrated that you are incapable of providing any substantiation for your wild charges?

You are wrong.

Most of your “arguments” are similar uneducated bullshit.

Argumentum ad hominem

When I had said that your last post was so grotesque that it was “almost needless to say” how invalid each and every “rebuttal” was, I meant it.

Argumentum ad hominem
Dicto simpliciter

Given that even in small pieces, your post was obviously the (prolonged) rant of a hypersensitive fool, I figured no rebuttal was necessary.

Argumentum ad hominem
Begging the question

For once there wasn’t even a pretense of correctness.

This one is simply a lie.

Pure shit, obvious to all.

Argumentum ad numerum
Hasty generalization

So, what you’re all telling me is, there’s nobody here to argue but me.

As usual, your comprehension of events is diametrically opposed to the evidence. One person in this thread has allowed his behavior to degenerate to the point where he does little else than spout personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges, and logical fallacies.

That person is you, Begbert2.

[erislover]

Colleges ain’t what they used to be, I s’pose.

[TVAA]

If you’re interested, check out the “souls” discussion. While arguably I failed to present my position well, begbert2 demonstrated a surprising level of ignorance about the nature of logic, computation, and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

We already have the category of “troll” for individuals who post pointless or inflammatory messages merely to get attention. What category should we have for people who repeatedly assert that their misconceptions of arguments in order to inflate their egos?

I vote for “cow”, myself.

[erislover]

Holy crap I missed that gem.

S.M., go take a damned class. Learn to think or something, if that is possible. The idea that you have to have absolutely unproven premises is pure stupidity, even in the most trivial sense. You’ll find this out if you, I don’t know, ever get within ten feet of a class that is actually about formal logic?

I would love to hear any support for this position whatsoever, LOL. My word.

If you use premises to justify proofs, what term do you young whipper-snapper S-M-R-T college students use for “that which is used to justify a premise”? And what then supports those?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Oh, and S.M.? for your edification:
I notice you looked up “axiom”. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the correct term to look up was “premise”, but you also wouldn’t have brought up such a silly point.

This isn’t even a nice rhetorical trick – it’s a bit too late in the game.

Why did I call them axioms then? Well, I assumed that persons who were going to fling around words like “ontological” and “epistomological” were at least as educated as I am in the philosophies, of which, at my college, logic is PHIL 201 (the next thing after 101, in this case). And everyone with a lick of education on the subject knows that within the body of a proof premises are taken axiomatically, and then the validity thereof is discussed afterward.

Really? So you now contend that your “big axiom” should really have been understood as teh result of your earlier proof and thus not an axiom at all? Shall we take a look at what you said Waaaaaaaaay back on page 8?

Now, I had originally stated that “If there is an observer of “my doubt”, that observer shall be called ‘I’.” However, as I reflected about it, I realised that that didn’t sound quite right. I must thank S.M. for giving me occasion to review my argument so that I could find the flaws in it myself . . . The argument, in its effort to pare out unused concepts, needs to be restored somewhat to apply my shiny new definition of “I”:

**Axiom 1: A point of view, which can be reasonably called “my” point of view based on pre-doubt labeling, is currently observing that (“my doubt”) exists.

Then you said

The axiom is big because simplifying it is a process of discarding detail. Simply saying “There is an observation” disregards the fact that these observations are all of the set “my perceptions”, which pending proof of existence is merely a label to remind us not to include extra stuff. I have to put it verbosely because if I had just said:

A1) My perceptions exist
A2) If my perceptions exist, then I exist
C1) ergo, I exist

then all I would get is this the thing quoted back at me with the "My"s and "I"s bolded.

Then you said (on this very page, now)

The large axiom is phrased to point out that our awareness of the perception which cannot be doubted without replacing it with another percieved doubt, is demonstrative of a POV observing the whole process.

I’ve said this before, and I will say it again: you should have gone to a better school.
I’ve said this before, too: you are an inept liar. Most liars understand that at some point they must try to keep their lies consistent lest they lose all appearance of credibility.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

I hope that, when we next virtually meet, we do not have such a crappy worthless interaction.

I think that is a reasonable expectation. I imagine that the volume of dishonesty, fallacy, and sillines that you have posted in this thread would be difficult to maintain over an extended period.

[begbert2]

Isn’t it fascinating that, when he’s mad, he makes his every response two or three times longer than the post he’s kicking against?

And isn’t it interesting that this

One person in this thread has allowed his behavior to degenerate to the point where he does little else than spout personal attacks, unsubstantiated charges, and logical fallacies.

comes from the same guy who typed:

I have engaged in many ad hominem attacks, but…

I don’t claim that S.M. can’t read, or that he is the only person here who’s made personal attacks on this thread, because these are both obviously false statements, regardless of which of us makes them. I leave it to the audience to decide if someone who makes obviously false statements is a liar.

And as to swappig out “premise” for “axiom”: remember this:

originally posted by S.M.

claiming that I was using the rest of my argument to prove my first premise, which had just been separately proven right above the section he quoted

No, because the first premise of your argument requires both a reason to apply the label “‘my’ point of view” and a demonstration that the subjective perception of “ownership” of said POV is valid. To get there, you need the final conlusion “I exist”.

That you repeatedly pretend nobody has pointed this out to you does not make the point go away. You cannot confirm a premise that requires a subject without demonstrating that said subject exists.

Let’s see, you understood that we were talking about premises. I leave it as an excersize to the audience to be amused at how thoroughly this reverses S.M.'s accusation that my trying to call the “axioms” premises is a strawman.

I’m only here to throw darts at S.M. now; I freely admit it. Or rather, to be highly amused at how, when his little ego has been bruised and he has no rational way to recover it, he throws darts at himself.

Oh, and erislover? This particular “dispute” emerged when S.M. ignored the explicit statment of a subproof as the basis behind the premise “axiom 1”. Even when I listed the thing right before the proof (he quoted the stuff AFTER it and claimed I hadn’t supported the axiom :rolleyes: ). Actually we call 'em lemmas if they only appear within the proofs, subproofs if they are meant as a complete idea but printed with the proof, and proofs if they came before. And what supports the subproofs? More subproofs, if necessary; you keep going back until you have something you can accept axiomatically. This is like watching children claiming that planes must be lighter than air, because otherwise they’d fall.

Oh, hi, TVAA. I was wondering where you wandered off to. Read your sources yet? This is starting to be something of a party!

[TVAA]

begbert2: You can’t even use the terminiology of formal logic correctly.

I really don’t think you should go about accusing others of being irrational.

As for the remainder of your arguments: Mooooooo.

[begbert2]

Yeah, TVAA like it would be incorrect to say that things in orbit don’t fall. Sure, things in orbit fall, but if you understand what’s going on you don’t have conniption fits over terminology that is context-dependent. (Such as premises being axiomatic.)

(I still love it that S.M. demonstrated understanding of what I meant, but when he started running out of ammo for his little vendetta…)

And I never accused you of being irrational, only wrong. Can you handle that?

Silly though, I’ll hand you if you want. I’m not the one mooing…

[erislover]

And what supports the subproofs? More subproofs, if necessary; you keep going back until you have something you can accept axiomatically.

And when you manage to do that you let us know. I think Spiritus has done the best that can be expected in an impromptu situation on an internet message board. You have not even come close to approach his level of thoroughness.

If you are as right as you tell us you are, I would expect you could game set and match that. Why you haven’t in 9 pages leads me to conclusions about your character that I will only imply by not mentioning their content.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by begbert2 *
Yeah, TVAA like it would be incorrect to say that things in orbit don’t fall. Sure, things in orbit fall, but if you understand what’s going on you don’t have conniption fits over terminology that is context-dependent. (Such as premises being axiomatic.)

No. Your problem is that you’re unable to use language (and specifically formal terminology) correctly. As a result, you fail to understand the objections of others and the problems with your own arguments.

**And I never accused you of being irrational, only wrong. Can you handle that?

** I may be bad at presenting positions, but I am neither irrational nor wrong.

I’m not the one mooing…

You’ve done absolutely nothing but since you arrived.

[begbert2]

erislover
Hey, I can’t teach cogito ergo sum to a two-by-four either. It doesn’t matter how right I am if the audience is arbitrarily unconvincable. This is a separate problem from the audience being arbitrarily abrasive (to say the least) but there might be a correlation.

A person can always avoid accepting the conclusion of an argument by refusing to accept the premises. But it didn’t get that far; the number of times people have said, “I don’t buy that there are perceptions” is rather outnumbered by the times they’ve made increasingly random attacks. (“They” pretty much being S.M., of course.)

Come on folks, we have two parties that each are saying the other’s logic is flawed. Not just their proof, but their use of logic as a reasoning device. Has it occured to you that this is a parallel situation as to when two people are each calling the other liar? One of the sides is wrong, but whichever one it is by nature cannot admit their own fault. In the case of faulty logiuc, they cannot detect their own fault. I had thought that there was an objective observer that might be capable of detecting the correct party, but I was wrong. So, there’s no more point in debating the quality of logic than in the wether S.M. is a liar.

Note TVAA’s response. I wasn’t even the first person who told him to check his own sources, (though I may have been the first that qouted one of them invalidating his position). But, suddenly, every word I’ve said was, um (looking up this ‘cow’ nonsense) “assert my misconceptions of arguments in order to inflate their egos.” Every word. :rolleyes:

S.M. appears to be fighting because if I’m right, my claim that he misreads things is right, and thus his ego would be bent. God forbid. TVAA is merely pissed off that I pointed out that his position on G’sIT was incorrect, using his own sources. If I’m right, then he not only is wrong, but looks like a fool for having provided the tools of his own undoing.

So, why are you here, erislover? I had assumed you were either interested in debate or slumming; as you say, the length of the thread should have informed me otherwise. if you wish to say that you’re fighting because you believe that S.M.'s logic is right and mine is wrong, that’s an answer. Within the S.M. logic system, it’s an extremely good answer.

Like I said, I’m just here to watch S.M. explode on cue. TVAA’s gunning for sideshow position, but he has a ways to go before catching up to the master.

[begbert2]

Bah, I misbolded. Must be proof that I’m unable to use computers (and specifically, text formatting) correctly. As a result, you fail to understand the objections of others and the problems with your own arguments. :rolleyes:

[begbert2]

Look! I forgot to clip the end of the phrase I quoted! I MUST BE UNABLE TO DELETE TEXT!!!

(This is fun! ;))

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by begbert2 *
Note TVAA’s response. I wasn’t even the first person who told him to check his own sources, (though I may have been the first that qouted one of them invalidating his position). But, suddenly, every word I’ve said was, um (looking up this ‘cow’ nonsense) “assert my misconceptions of arguments in order to inflate their egos.” Every word. :rolleyes:
TVAA is merely pissed off that I pointed out that his position on G’sIT was incorrect, using his own sources. If I’m right, then he not only is wrong, but looks like a fool for having provided the tools of his own undoing.

That source clearly states that the Theorem applies only to formal systems. You don’t seem to understand that information-processing systems (whether they’re computers, souls, or just collections of fundamental particles) can all be accurately represented by physical systems.

I’m thrilled when people here point out an actual error I’ve made. Everyone benefits. It really annoys me when someone claims I’ve misinterpreted a source when they don’t understand the source themselves.