Perhaps this is the problem. For some reaon you think that “doubting argument is possible” represents some horrid thing that must be avoided at all costs. Normally “I” would agree. But in this context I am supposed to be doubting that “I” exist. If “I” don’t exist, then “I” obviously don’t care whether argument is possible.
Interesting. And your unspoken implication is that some statement that I followd with “surely Begbert2 knows this.” is obviously false.
Of course, you lack the integrity (or is it courage) to actually cite such a passage and demonstrate that my statemnts are “obviously false”.
No, I merely lack the interest required to waste time bickering with you over my own intelligence, knowledge or integrity. I’ve already said that I think you’re delusional; it’s not worth wasting my time discussing anything with you but the argument itself. Still, when you repeatedly make claims that imply absolute uncontestability of your autonomous declarations, it’s worth about one sentence to point out the unsupportability thereof.
Enough time wasted.
Unsupportable. The sentence is syntactically correct in the language, and there is no confusion as to what it means. “A unicorn ate my homework” is not nonsensical, it is false. “This sentence was not written” is not nonsensical, it is false. And, “a non-existent object is making this argument” is not nonsensical, it is false. By my definition of existence.
Sorry, the implication, as implied by the definition of existence, is required to prove that the the statement cannot be meaningless as written. All claims that the implication can be ignored and the conclusion still follow from the premise are false. See:
“I am thinking” -> “I am green” does not follow from the fact that the first two words of the statements are the same or other such semantic or otherwise magically anti-logical method, any more than “I am thinking” -> “I am existant” does. The only reason wht the second implication is more acceptible than the first is because there is a relationship between existence and the positive application of properties. This relationship is properly expressed by an implication. Pretending that this relationship is not referenced in making the leap from “I think” to “I am” is ignorance, blindness, equivocation, or some other of the unkind words thown being thrown about around here to mean an incorrect position. It’s not reasonable, regardless.
Whoa. Why can you safely make this replacement? “I think” alone doesn’t do it. The only way to do it is via the process:
P1: I think
P2: I think -> I am
I3: I am [by m.p]
C4: I think && I am [by conjunction of P1 and I3]
Unless you have a better way to get C4 from P1? Logically? Without one, you can’t logically swap C4 into P1. Not without blowing up your argument, anyway. (You are aware that you can’t just swap things for each other at random in an argument, aren’t you?)
Stanford does rely on the content of perceptions though. They also don’t bother to define such an uncommon term as “I”, the mindless losers. That’s why I’m not them.
I’ve defined “I”, is that too much bounding? Again, to say that “I am” follows from “I think” without using some sort of argument to support that assertion is equivocation. So, I choose to define existence, and define I, and by those definions, support the argument that I have presented. No preservatin necessary.
Still on about the “content” of the perception? If you get aware enough of a perception to even look at its content, then you must exist because non-existent things can’t fallaciously rely on the content of perceptions, by definition. Whoops, you’ve proven necessary existence.
Aside from this, how do you know if an argument is being considered? Ignoring the humor generated when you’re wondering this while finding the notion in the premise list of an argument you’re considering? Well, either you’re considering the argument, or you’re not. You do have the banana alternative.
Ah yes, the “I could if I wanted to, but I don’t wanna” dodge. How utterly Begbert2. Your method of discourse seems to have been frozen forever at the 3[sup]rd[/sup] grade playground.
Here are the assertions that preceded “Surely Begbert2 knew that.”
[ul][li]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. [/li]
[li]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. [/li]
[li]“begs the question” criticizes the soundness of a premise within an argument. The relationship between the two is not “=”. [/li]
[li]It has the same problems. [As your earlier ofered proofs] [/ul][/li]The fact that you are a liar has nothing to do with any of those statements. They each address specific elements of logical analysis. You have implied that one or more of them are “obviously false”.
You have not, of course, offered any argument to that effect beyond your own "Begbert2 whine of authority[sup]Tm [/sup]" (patent pending). How very unsurprising.
:wally
No. But that was one of your previous arguments. You remember, it was the one you suddenly stopped talking about after I showed that the dictionary definitions (including your very beloved Meriam-Webster) for “awareness” included the implication that awareness was formed from the content of a perception.
BTW, I love how you feel free to reference past version of your argument when you think that they help your case (even though they rarely do), but you scream and pout whenever I reference a past version of your arguments. Dishonest? Hypocritical? Careless? Clownish? Who can tell. They all blend and blur in that little bundle of stimulus response actuators that is Begbert2.
Humor? THat’s an interesting way to describe the very heart of the epistimological issue under investigation.
Then again, it is exactly the kind of evaluation one might expect from a clown.
The doesn’t answer the question. It merely list a possile solution set.
What this all shows, of course, is that bgert2 simply lacks either the imagination the rigor or the intellectual capacity to actually frame an argument from a context of hyperbolic doubt.
Really, there is little else to say. Your “proofs” will forever remain trivial because you begin from a context in which “I” is not doubted. In a dozen variations over a dozen pages you have managed nothing more profound than:
[ul][li]I must exist because I am aware that I am doing something.[/ul][/li]Your logic teacher must be very proud.
Pshaw, this is nothing captainQwark. Some day you may stumble upon the thread: Things that we can’t “know” directly. AFAIK the only philosophy-related thread to make threadspotting, unless that “how long after you start chewing a piece of pizza is it no longer a piece of pizza” thread made it which I don’t remember.
One observes thoughts so they not “you”. It is a jump in logic to reason that thoughts can only derive from “being”.
IMHO.
And Spiritus Mundis brings up what I believe is a classical argument against the statement: that it presupposes an “I” (no where near a philosophy major so I may be way off)
Well, let’s look at this. “I” means, “That which is making/considering the argument”. This is of course only meaningful from within the argument, so for the moment it’s just a pronoun referring to some thing. “think” is a verb, an action. So, “I think” is a claim that this thing “I” is engaging in the act of thinking. This seems consistent, since the definition of “I” states explicitly that it is right now engaging in the act of considering the arguement, that seems like thinking to me. The statement is comprehensible and internally consistent.
What if “I” doesn’t exist? Well, the definition of existence is, basically, “AxP.( not (exists(x)) -> not (P(x))”. Since it’s pretty clear that “thinks” is a property, then this premise can be instantiated as “not (exists(I)) -> not (thinks(I))”. If we assume “not (exists(I))” then, then logic indicates that “not (thinks(I))” is therefore true, and therefore “thinks(I)” is false.
This is not to say that logic somehow messed with the already established meaning of the phrase “I think”; it merely applied a system of consistent conversions to determine something about the truth of the still-meaningful statement.
More accurately, of the three following statements:
[ul][li]“I think”[/li][li]“I don’t exist”[/li][li]“I think -> I exist”[/li][/ul]at least one is false. This is required by logic, since the three taken together can be used to deduce a contradiction.
For the demonstration above, “I don’t think” was assumed to be true, but as yet there is no real reason to accept this statement as true. Quite the contrary, Descartes seemed to be of the opinion that withen not engaging in doubt, “I think” must be accepted as true due to available evidence, and while engaging in doubt, then since thinking up doubts was requred to not to accept the obvious thoughts, no amount of doubt could really eliminate all the doubting thoughts. So “I think” must be accepted as true in all cases. This just leaves “I don’t exist” to be false, logically speaking.
Well, seeing as nobody else has responded yet, I might as well give S.M. something to ignore. (On preview: erislover, I answered you at the end. Feel free to skip to the it; I’m just tossing S.M. some of his trash back. I don’t need it; he’s already given me plenty.)
[quote] originally posted by S.M.
[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li][/quote]
This was the part when S.M. was saying that he was going to consider things I was calling “Inferences” as axioms regardless of how I put them. Nice. Not because the inference was highly informal and not valid in formalized logic, but because “a posture of extreme skepticism” required it. Coming soon: my conclusion must be taken as an axiom or extreme scepticism will be violated. :rolleyes:
[quote] originally posted by S.M.
[ul][li]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.[/ul][/li][/quote]
This was in reference to the use of a consistent definition of “I”. Which is not a violation of formal logic. Self-referentiality is also not a violation of formal logic, it is entirely unmentioned in formal logic. This “prime tenant” thing is coming completely out of the air, unless using a slightly loaded term in the labeling of my argument is a “violation”.
[quote] originally posted by S.M.
[ul][li]“begs the question” criticizes the soundness of a premise within an argument. The relationship between the two is not “=”.[/ul][/li][/quote]
The equals sign was equating “begs the question” with “unsound”. I guess that S.M. is denying similarity between “unsound” and “criticizes the soundness”. Berhaps he’s criticizing my phrasing?
The bit of his text that S.M. quietly ommitted from his quote, which directly preceded his claim as to my knowledge, was “This, too, is part of that “whole logic thing”.” Which is of course completely bogus; the term “begging the question” has nothing to do with formal symbolic logic. It is a term of debate, traditionally meaning that the conclusion is quietly implied by a premise. S.M. might not no the difference, but his attempt to foist off his ignorance on me is deplorable.
[quote] originally posted by S.M.
[ul][li]It has the same problems. [As your earlier ofered proofs][/ul][/li][/quote]
Trying to get me to admit that your little deluded “begbert2 has always been wrong” worldview is true? And claim the knowledge as an obvious fact I already know? Nice. Go flush yourself, you twit. The main problem that all my argument have shared is inexpert support, which is not in our favorite debating fallacies list, is it? Strike four.
On preview:
That thing is defined only by its status as the entity considering the argument. And there is nothing eyebrow raising about keeping things in the context by which they are defined.
I don’t understand your use of the word “predicating”. I start with definitions, which accompany words, and have not been largely contested. I make use of the only self-referentiality that seems to be available (and self-awareness is an integral part of any common definition of “I”). From there I reach for my conclusion. I see no flaw, enlighten me as to your perspecitive.
let’s see if we have this correct. your definition of “i” is self-referential.
personally, i have a hard time believing your definition is meaningful when considering a lack of “i”'s existence. but let’s play it your way, here.
“i” is aware of “i” by definition. if “i” doesn’t exist, then there is a false premise that is directly part of your definition (again, this is not a view endorsed by me, but what your view appears to be). how is that not trivial?
also, let me take a moment to hopefully make clear the difference between syntax and semantics. “i don’t exist” is a syntactically valid statement. each part of it evaluates to something that works with the other word-types in the phrase. but consider it semantically. how does “i do not exist” evaluate when you consider the content? what does it mean? the real answer, linguistically, is that it has no meaning. when the subject of a phrase refers to nothing, the phrase is meaningless. it can’t be fully evaluated. i invite you again to look it up.
No, I am not. I even offer the banana out, though that’s mostly in the hope that S.M. will go climb a tree or something.
The thing is, the starting condition is the perception of reality. It takes some pretty aware thinking to deny the senses. So, you have a choice: sensing, or doubting. The argument has to be occuring to get you past the “I can poke myself with a stick, therefore I am” stage. And it isn’t good enough for the doubts or senses to exist like rocks scattered by a river; they managed to get themselves into the argument. Therefore there is an agent of collection that is the perciever/creator of the the senses and doubts tht are what is being referred to in the meditation. That which is percieveing/aware of these things, is.
The definition is not meaningless. It is referring to a specific thing that is inferrable from the consideration of the argument. The fact that it, while being consided, speaks of the thinker in teh first person instead of the third is necessary to discuss the point; it just does it from a blatantly supported position. If the sentence is read, there is a reader. If the argument is considered, there is a considerer. (By the definition of existence.) My recent arguments merely make this detail explicit.
The real answer, linguistically, is that “I do not exist” is in fact meaningful. I did not exist 1000 years ago, and I can understand what it would mean if I weren’t here now. In my computer game I was playing a few hours ago I came across a body and a message including something like this: “If you are reading this, then I am now dead.” I didn’t have a lick of trouble understanding it.
I have no need to look it up. I already understand the sentence; I don’t need to read some treatiese telling me I don’t. That position is obviously false. No matter what authority you argue from.
When I speak of “I think”, I’m referring to the specific case of thought or considering the argument at hand. “P21c) I (that which is making/considering the argument) am making/considering this argument,” is the premise you’re probably speaking of. “Considering the argument” is meant to encapsulate that whole awareness/perception thing from earlier, which even S.M. granted proved the existence of “something(s)”, without assuming predicable entities. The current argument is merely structured to avoid discarding the relationship between the thoughts of which we are aware, and the I that is considering the argument.
