"I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

Are you aware that it isn't circular and just pointing out that Kam can't correctly prove it, or are you looking for an argument for the non-circular side that makes better sense? I'll provide one if that is what you are looking for.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby Are you aware that it isn't circular and just pointing out that Kam can't correctly prove it, or are you looking for an argument for the non-circular side that makes better sense? I'll provide one if that is what you are looking for.

Go ahead.

[ZNFYRH]

"cogito" is frequently said to mean, "I think."

The more accurate translation is, "I am cognizant" or "I am self-aware"

"sum" is frequently said to mean, "I am."

The more accurate translations is, "I exist."

It addresses the same philosophical principles as the tree falling in the woods. If you are not aware of something, does it exist.

As such, "cogito ergo sum" is an affirmation of that principle. You are aware of yourself, so therefore you must exist.

It is not circular logic.

It would be more accurate to write:

Premise 1: If someone is aware of me, I exist.
Premise 2: I am aware of me.
Conclusion: I exist.

Philosophically speaking, it is possible for something to exist without our awareness. Awareness affirms existence.

You cannot be aware of something that doesn't exist.

In that sense, "awareness" isn't just saying you're aware of it. It implies that your senses register that awareness.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You are aware of yourself, so therefore you must exist. It is not circular logic.

Yes, it is. "You are aware of yourself" is only true IF you exist, which happens to be the conclusion. That's called circular logic.

[rez]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Yes, it is. "You are aware of yourself" is only true IF you exist, which happens to be the conclusion. That's called circular logic.

When one is aware of oneself, then one has consciousness. If one is not aware of oneself, then one does not have consciousness.

[ZNFYRH]

You're not getting it.

It's an affirmation of existence through logic.

Circular logic is more commonly known as Catch-22.

"You can't get a job without more experience."
"You can't get experience without a job."

That's circular.

In the case of "cogito ergo sum", it is not circular because it doesn't go back the other way. "Sum ergo cogito" is not possible. Existing doesn't automatically mean you are aware of yourself. Babies fall into this category. If you've ever blacked out or have gaps in your memory, you fall into that category as well.

Just because you existed during that time doesn't mean you were aware of your existence.

The problem is that if you read Zanzoken's post it is clear that the statement is not a logic proof, it's simply an affirmation.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That is COMPLETELY circular. The premise is still assuming the conclusion. You must assume you exist to say your thinking. That's called circular reasoning. Circular logic.

The first premise isn't necessary. It's just there for my point.

Also, you must exist to think, but you needn't think to exist. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: rez When one is aware of oneself, then one has consciousness. If one is not aware of oneself, then one does not have consciousness.

If one does not have consciousness, then one is not aware of oneself. Circular.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You're not getting it. It's an affirmation of existence through logic. Circular logic is more commonly known as Catch-22. "You can't get a job without more experience." "You can't get experience without a job." That's circular. In the case of "cogito ergo sum", it is not circular because it doesn't go back the other way.

Yes it does. You MUST exist to be able to think. The conclusion MUST FIRST be true to make the premise. Circular.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The first premise isn't necessary. It's just there for my point. Also, you must exist to think, but you needn't think to exist. The two aren't mutually inclusive.

That's true. But in this case, as you now admit, the conclusion is assumed to make the premise. That's the definition of circular logic.

[5010]

It's just a categorical syllogism.

Major Premise: All thinking objects exist
Minor Premise: I think
Conclusion: I exist

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: 5010 It's just a categorical syllogism. Major Premise: All thinking objects exist Minor Premise: I think Conclusion: I exist

The problem is.. it's stating a PREMISE that requires existence.. in order to prove existence.

Your minor premise is dependent on your conclusion. The conclusion is not dependent on your minor premise.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

You don't get it.

"Circular" logic means the following:

If you are self-aware then you must exist... AND
If you exist then you must be self-aware.

But that is not the case. You can exist and not be aware. I gave you a couple solid examples for times you may have existed but were not self-aware.

That means that it is not circular.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That's true. But in this case, as you now admit, the conclusion is assumed to make the premise. That's the definition of circular logic.

No, I've said that empirical evidence is assumed to make the premise.

Here is the saying, broken down into a syllogism:

1. If I think, then I am.
2. I think.
3. I am.

Sterilized, it is as follows:

1. If X is true, then Y is true.
2. X is true.
3. Y is true.

Premise number two isn't necessarily derived from the conclusion.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Sterilized, it is as follows: 1. If X is true, then Y is true. 2. X is true. 3. Y is true. Premise number two isn't necessarily derived from the conclusion.

That's because it isn't an example.

Y must first be true for X to be true.

The conclusion must first be true to make the premise that attempts to prove the conclusion.

[Kamehameha34]

When does the saying attempt to verify thinking with being?

Broken down into syllogism format, it makes sense. You're adding the extra premise "Those who are, think", which isn't in the original saying.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Lullaby You don't get it. "Circular" logic means the following: If you are self-aware then you must exist... AND If you exist then you must be self-aware.

That's not what circular logic means.

Circular logic is when a premise assumes the conclusion.

Quote by: ZNFYRH But that is not the case. You can exist and not be aware. I gave you a couple solid examples for times you may have existed but were not self-aware. That means that it is not circular.

You're thinking about it backwards.

It doesn't matter if the conclusion depends on the premise. That would be logically correct. It's a problem when the premise depends on the conclusion.

Here, I'm thinking you're unaware of what circular reasoning is.. This is the very first Google search result for "example of circular reasoning" and coincidently gives "I think, therefore I am" as an example of fallacious circular logic.

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning What's the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy? In the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not be as obvious as you might expect. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. This difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. Consider the following exchanges: Deductive Reasoning (Valid) Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world? Sports Fan #2: Because it is the fastest and highest scoring form of football, and whatever is the fastest and highest scoring form of football must be the most exciting sport in the world. Circular Reasoning (Fallacious) Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world? Sports Fan #2: Because it is. In both examples, the conclusion has been assumed in the premises. But the first argument follows a valid pattern: If P (fastest and highest scoring), then Q (most exciting). Aussie Rules Football is P (fastest and highest scoring), therefore Aussie Rules Football is Q (most exciting). But in the second example, the one for circular reasoning, the conclusion has been assumed entirely (or almost entirely) in a single premise. As a result, the conclusion of a circular argument can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, "A is B, therefore A is B." Often, however, circular reasoning is more subtle than this: it depends on an assumption not stated but assumed. Consider the famous argument of the French philosopher, René Descartes: "I think, therefore I am." Descartes has begged the question here, because when he said "I think," he'd already implied "I am" (or how else could he think?). Yet his fallacy continues to persuade people, over three hundred years later.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 When does the saying attempt to verify thinking with being? Broken down into syllogism format, it makes sense. You're adding the extra premise "Those who are, think", which isn't in the original saying.

"I exist" IS a premise. It is an assumption, else, the argument would have a false premise.

I think
therefore I exist.

Well how do you know you're thinking? Existence is required to think. NO ONE IS SAYING THINKING IS REQUIRED TO EXIST, KAME.

So the premise assumes: I exist.


Here, another example for you.

1. God is the greatest possible being. (visible assumption,assumes the conclusion)
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist. (premise)
3. God exists.
<>
1. I think.
2. I exist.
<> To think, you MUST exist.
1. I exist. (hidden assumption, assumes the conclusion)
2. I think. (premise)
3. I exist.

The premise (1.) assumes that the conclusion (3.) is true. Else, the premise (1.) would be impossible and false. This isn't to same, KAME, as the premise (1.) being a requirement of the conclusion (3.). I never once said that, and you're just trying to make another straw man argument 'cause apparently you don't have a real answer.

If you don't think the above is fallacious, then you've now admitted that anything can be proven.. such as zombies.

1. Zombies are the greatest possible being.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Zombies exists.

[Kamehameha34]

"I exist" IS a premise. It is an assumption, else, the argument would have a false premise.

It's not a premise. You assume it to be a premise, and for "I think" not to be supported by some other evidence.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

Yeah, you're basically not understanding the problem with what you are saying.

I don't have the time to try to explain it better. And I'm apparently not the only one who thinks it, I'm just the only one with better things to do.