"I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pahl Can nothing come out of nothing? What next? Should i prove that too?

Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm going to lay it out nice and simple, because you're just digging deeper and deeper, Lull: A proof is circular if one of the premises is justified with the conclusion. 1. I think. 2. I am, if I think. 3. I am. If you want to call it circular, you have to prove that premise #1 is dependent on the conclusion, #3, and not some independent source of evidence.

Kame, me and pahl have both explained why you actually do have to exist in order to think. If you can't understand, just say so. Dodging our arguments and repeating your nonsense doesn't do you any good.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer No, because you argue against nothing but straw men.

Then you very poorly word your arguments, because my responses are all pertinent.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

It was even a logical argument from pahl. He was noting that you're acting insane. :rolleyes:

[pahl]

Quote: Quote by: pahl Can nothing come out of nothing? What next? Should i prove that too? Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

It was still a vaild question. And how did you conclude that i was trying to mock you?

I was trying to ask you how long you where going to make me prove something. Cause that could go on forever.

Name one thing that does not require anything else to be true.

[Kamehameha34]

Kame, me and pahl have both explained why you actually do have to exist in order to think.

No, you simply restated it and employed the fallacy I cited earlier on this page.

Dodging our arguments and repeating your nonsense doesn't do you any good.

This is quite ironic, seeing as you didn't even fully comprehend what I posted, nor did you respond relevantly.

Here is the syllogism, once again sterilized for your convenience:

1. X is Y
2. All Y's are Z
3. X is Z

X = One (as in a person)
Y = Thinking
Z = Being

What I said above is not a circular syllogism. Infact it is very basic, and is the most common form of syllogism.

If you examine closely, the conclusion doesn't even reaffirm the first premise. It ends with all people (X's) exist (Z).

However, that doesn't mean that all people think. There could easily be other things that exist that don't think. Look at rocks, for example. They aren't proved to exist (Z) through that syllogism, but they still do.



I'll use the same model I used above, with different values:

1. Puppies are mammals.
2. All mammals give birth to live young.
3. Puppies give birth to live young.

This proves that puppies are mammals, but it puppies giving birth to live young does not directly indicate that they are mammals. The syllogism states that all mammals give birth to live young, not that all animals that give birth to live young are mammals.


There's really no way it can be interpretted as circular.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pahl It was still a vaild question. And how did you conclude that i was trying to mock you? I was trying to ask you how long you where going to make me prove something. Cause that could go on forever. Name one thing that does not require anything else to be true.

So because you can't prove it, you should be perfectly validated in using an abstract concept you don't fully understand in making a syllogism. Brilliant logic, there.

Anyway, drop it. It was but one hole I found in Lull's argument, and trying to exploit that particular one aroused far too much belligerence for my liking.

[Kamehameha34]

Ok, I'm not going to talk about thinking validating existence, any more. There are far easier ways to contradict you, that you have a hope of understanding.

If you want to try and refute an argument, respond to this post only:

"I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

[pahl]

So because you can't prove it, you should be perfectly validated in using an abstract concept you don't fully understand in making a syllogism. Brilliant logic, there. Anyway, drop it. It was but one hole I found in Lull's argument, and trying to exploit that particular one aroused far too much belligerence for my liking.

Oh, please. Im not trying to support lull's argument just to make you angry. I dont care if i support it or not.

And my logic was not that it should be valideted because nothing can be proven, but because something cannot come from nothing. And i do think you are being quite unreasonable for not wanting to admit that, and i think you are trying to use the fact that nothing can be absolutely proven to dodge that. There is a reason that the say "proven beyond reasonable doubt" when dealing with law-enforcement.

an abstract concept you don't fully understand

And that is quite condescending, it would be nice if you would refrain from such things when arguing.

[Kamehameha34]

And my logic was not that it should be valideted because nothing can be proven, but because something cannot come from nothing.

Which you did not prove.

We're talking about logic. Things are either proven, disproven, or unknown. I think you're quite unreasonable for trying to divorce the debate from logic.

And that is quite condescending, it would be nice if you would refrain from such things when arguing.

Stop taking things personally. I was referring to anyone attempting to make proof of evidence.

[ZNFYRH]

Lullaby

You being derogatory towards me is unnecessary.

"Cogito ergo sum" is not a logic statement.

It is not circular logic. It is a claim supported with evidence. That makes it more science than anything else.

One states that they exist. Someone asks them to prove it. The person replies that they are aware of their existence.

I understand this perfectly well. And as far as you thinking you are making any kind of response, you aren't. All you keep saying is, "No, it's circular logic."

Your lengthy quote is nothing but a quote. You would be better off explaining to me how the topic statement is circular.

I've already told you that it is not circular because it only goes one way.

And the second reason, which I'm telling you now, is because it is an affirmation, not an inference.

Do I need to be any clearer?

[Kamehameha34]

Technically, it's not even an affirmation.

1. All X's are Ys.
2. All Y's are Z's.
3. All X's are Z's.

The third premise doesn't reaffirm the first, and it's the same model that the saying uses.

[Jack]

I'm getting quite a kick out of reading all this dissension over a phrase not even specifically used by Descartes.

As the canonical formulation has it, I think therefore I am (Latin: cogito ergo sum; French: je pense, donc je suis)—a formulation which does not expressly arise in the Meditations.

Perhaps this thread should have been titled, "I think, therefor I am logically flawed".
You really need to examine the context of Descartes reasoning to understand what he was trying to say. Primarily, remember he was a Christian who accepted the concept of absolute truth.

Descartes is clarifying that the analysis of knowledge is neutral not about truth, but about absolute truth: he's conveying that the truth condition requisite to knowledge involves truth as coherence.

We also have to consider his philosophical biases;

One way to divide up theories of justification is in terms of the internalism-externalism distinction. Very roughly: a theory of justification is internalist insofar as it requires that the justifying factors are accessible to the knower's conscious awareness; it is externalist insofar as it does not impose this requirement. Descartes' internalism requires that all justifying factors take the form of ideas. For he holds that ideas are, strictly speaking, the only objects of perception, or conscious awareness. Independent of this theory of ideas, Descartes' methodical doubts underwrite an assumption with similar force: for almost the entirety of the Meditations, his meditator-spokesperson—hereafter referred to as the ‘meditator’—adopts the assumption that his every thought is occurring in a dream. This assumption is tantamount to requiring that justification come in the form of ideas. An important consequence of the account is that rigorous philosophical inquiry must proceed via an inside-to-out strategy—a strategy Descartes assiduously follows, and which endures as a hallmark of early modern epistemologies. Ultimately, all judgments are grounded in an inspection of the mind's ideas. Philosophical inquiry is, properly understood, an investigation of ideas. The methodical strategy of the Meditations is designed to force the reader to adopt this mode of inquiry... In characterizing knowledge as “incapable of being destroyed,” Descartes portrays knowledge as enduring. Our conviction must be, writes Descartes, “so strong that it can never be shaken”; “so firm that it is impossible for us ever to have any reason for doubting.” Descartes wants a brand of certainty/indubitability that is of the highest rank, both in terms of degree and durability. He wants knowledge that is utterly indefeasible. This indefeasibility requirement implies more than mere stability. A would-be knower could achieve stability simply by never reflecting on reasons for doubt. Referring to such a person, Descartes points out that although a reason for “doubt may not occur to him, it can still crop up if someone else raises the point or if he looks into the matter himself” (Replies 2, AT 7:141). Descartes is a contextualist in the sense that he allows that different standards of justification are appropriate to different contexts. This is not merely to say the obvious: that depending on the context of inquiry, knowledge-worthy justification will sometimes be needed, but other times not. It's to say something stronger: that depending on the context of inquiry, the standards of knowledge-worthy justification might vary. For example, a contextualist might accept that ‘knowledge’-talk is equally appropriate whether one is describing the best achievements of empirical science, or the best achievements of mathematics, while acknowledging that the former rest on weaker standards of proof than the latter. This example is potentially misleading, in that Descartes appears loath to count mere empirical evidence as knowledge-worthy justification. But upon ramping up the standard to what he finds minimally acceptable, the standard admits of context dependent variation. Descartes' minimum standard targets the level of certainty arising when the mind's perception is both clear and distinct. (For Descartes, clarity contrasts with obscurity, and distinctness contrasts with confusion.) He allows that judgments grounded in clear and distinct perception are defeasible (at least, for those who've not yet read the Meditations). But he regularly characterizes defeasible judgments at this level of certainty using terminology (e.g., ‘cognitio’ and its cognates) that translates well into the English ‘knowledge’ (and its cognates). In the context of inquiry at play in the Meditations, Descartes insists on indefeasibility. (Typically, he reserves the term ‘scientia’ for this brand of knowledge, though he uses ‘cognitio’ and its cognates for either context.) Descartes' aim is, once and for all, to lay a lasting foundation for knowledge. To achieve this, he contends that we “cannot possibly go too far in [our] distrustful attitude” (Med. 1, AT 7:22). Better to have a standard that excludes some truths, than one that justifies some falsehoods. An interesting thesis emerges—call it the ‘No Atheistic Knowledge Thesis’. Descartes maintains that though atheists are quite capable of impressive knowledge they are incapable of the indefeasible brand of knowledge he seeks: The fact that an atheist can be “clearly aware [clare cognoscere] that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles” is something I do not dispute. But I maintain that this awareness [cognitionem] of his is not true knowledge [scientiam], since no act of awareness [cognitio] that can be rendered doubtful seems fit to be called knowledge [scientia]. Now since we are supposing that this individual is an atheist, he cannot be certain that he is not being deceived on matters which seem to him to be very evident (as I fully explained). (Replies 2, AT 7:141) How is the would-be Knower to proceed in identifying candidates for Knowledge? Distinguish particularist and methodist responses to the question. The particularist is apt to trust our prima facie intuitions regarding particular knowledge claims. These intuitions may then be used to help identify more general epistemic principles. The methodist, in contrast, is apt to distrust our prima facie intuitions. The preference is to begin with general principles about proper method. The methodical principles may then be used to arrive at settled, reflective judgments concerning particular knowledge claims. Famously, Descartes is in the methodist camp. Those who haphazardly “direct their minds down untrodden paths” are sometimes “lucky enough in their wanderings to hit upon some truth,” but “it is far better,” writes Descartes, “never to contemplate investigating the truth about any matter than to do so without a method” (Rules 4, AT 10:371). Though it's prima facie palpable that the earth is unmoved, and that ordinary objects (as tables and chairs) are just as just as they seem, the newly emerging mechanist doctrines of the 17th century imply that such judgments are false. These kinds of cases underscore the unreliability of our prima facie intuitions and the need for a method by which to distinguish truth and falsity. Descartes' view is not that all our pre-reflective intuitions are mistaken. He concedes that “no sane person has ever seriously doubted” such particular claims as “that there really is a world, and that human beings have bodies” (Synopsis, AT 7:16). His view is that pre-reflective judgments are likely to be ill-grounded, even when true.

All quotes are from Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

His musing are based on a specific school of philosophy and reflect the age in which he wrote. Trying to make sense out a single phrase without the context that gave birth to it is doomed to produce confusion...like that I've been reading here.

Anyway, have fun.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm getting quite a kick out of reading all this dissension over a phrase not even specifically used by Descartes.

I don't really see why it would matter if he said it or not. We're not debating Descartes, we're debating "I think, therefore I am."

[ZNFYRH]

You're debating a statement that is a poor translation of the original statement.

Have fun and have at it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: ZNFYRH You're debating a statement that is a poor translation of the original statement. Have fun and have at it.

We are having fun. Thanks guys :] I really don't appreciate "Why are you even debating this" remarks. This statement is very popular, and even on Volconvo there is disagreement. So I imagine you can debate where there's disagreement, ya?

[pahl]

Which you did not prove. We're talking about logic. Things are either proven, disproven, or unknown. I think you're quite unreasonable for trying to divorce the debate from logic.

It is as proven as anything you ever claimed was true. Is that a fair statement? if not, the why? Because no matter the statement, it will never be proven to that standard.

I could put it in other words,

X is a set of elements such that

X = {} (an empty set)

for every element x in that set follows that any operation with another element of that set will always yield the result "Null".

Why is mathematics right? I dont know that it is. But your kind of proof is not something that is obtainable.

I think this is a reasonable proof, and will stop at this.

Stop taking things personally. I was referring to anyone attempting to make proof of evidence.

I guess i thought the "you" was directed at me. If it was not, then i am sorry.

[Zanzoken]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I have no problem with.. If I am thinking I must exist So, if I am doubting anything at all.. whether it be everything or one thing, then I exist. Quote by: Lullaby Chainer So you've already stated the conclusion. Why not just say, "I exist". Or. Giant elephants roam mars under my blanket, therefor, I exist. Both assume existence.. ANYTHING you say assumes existence. ANYTHING you say proves existence. The only thing I'm arguing is that "I think, therefore I am" is circular. Not whether it's an effective means of proving one's existence.

So you did the experiment?

Good.

Did you notice what happened when you tried to doubt everything?

First things, such as you senses are doubted.

Then, things like science.

Then doubt fundamental things, such as math.

Finally, doubt doubt itself.

Go ahead, try it.

" I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting! I AM NOT DOUBTING!!! "

WTF!?!?!?!? :eek:

I hope you noticed the problem.


Then you claimed...

Why not just say, "I exist". Or. Giant elephants roam mars under my blanket, therefor, I exist. Both assume existence.. ANYTHING you say assumes existence. ANYTHING you say proves existence.

After Descartes discovered the cogito, some people made some objections.

One of the objections was that why is thinking so special?

Why not just say, " I jump, therefore I am." ?

Or, "I breathe, therefore I am."

Or, "I annoy my brother, therefore I am."

Or, "I wipe my a**, therefore I am."

The reason these do not ACTUALLY work is because jumping, annoying one's brother, or wiping one's a**, can be doubted.

I believe and thus consider your statement, "Giant elephants roam mars under my blanket, therefor, I exist.", to be fallacious.

That too can be doubted.

The link I provided in my first post in this thread covered this objection.

'Tis found here.

Specifically...

Another common objection to the cogito asks why it is that only mental operations prove existence. Why, some people ask, can I not say "I jump, therefore I exist?" The reason is that the jumping itself can be doubted. We cannot, however, doubt that we are thinking, sensing, doubting etc. for obvious reasons. We may doubt that what we are sensing is real, or whether our thoughts are caused by an evil demon, but we cannot doubt that we have an awareness of these sensations or of these thoughts. This much, and only this much, is beyond all doubt.

Please note the bolded section.

Some demon, a dream, or both, can cause one to doubt anything that is felt and/or experienced.

But there is one thing that cannot be doubted, the fact you doubt.

So, since you doubt, which is a form of thinking, therefore, you are; I.E., you exist.

Please notice that the cogito cannot prove HOW you exist, nor can it prove the existence of other beings, entities, things, or people.

Those aforementioned things CAN be doubted.

As implied before, a demon and/or dream could potentially be deceiving you by causing you to think you are a human, but you are actually a brain in a vat., in the Matrix, or some other kind of simulated reality.

We feel human, and it is probably the best assumption, but that feeling does not prove it.

Finally, I think (therefore I am ) that you should notice that the cogito is not a syllogism, but just a self-evident truth.

From here

. The cogito is one of those rare philosophical joys: an argument that simply cannot be refuted, so long as it is correctly understood. Most of the objections to the cogito arise because of misguided attempts to reconstruct the argument as a syllogism: (1) Whatever thinks exists, (2) I think, (3) therefore, I exist. Obviously, the argument in this form is not beyond doubt, and there is no certain reason to believe the truth of the first claim. The key to understanding Descartes' brilliant argument is to see that it is not a syllogism at all. There are only two steps to the argument: (1)I think, (2) therefore, I exist. It is the very act of thinking, or doubting, or believing, or sensing, or anything else mental one can do, that proves one's existence. The awareness that you are doing one of these things, amounts to the awareness that you exist, because you cannot do these things without existing.

I hope this helps.

Sorry about the long post. :)

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Zanzoken So you did the experiment? Good. Did you notice what happened when you tried to doubt everything? First things, such as you senses are doubted. Then, things like science. Then doubt fundamental things, such as math. Finally, doubt doubt itself. Go ahead, try it. " I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting. I am not doubting! I AM NOT DOUBTING!!! " WTF!?!?!?!? :eek: I hope you noticed the problem.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the statement being circular, not if it's possible to deny your existence with validity.

Quote by: Zanzoken Then you claimed... After Descartes discovered the cogito, some people made some objections. One of the objections was that why is thinking so special? Why not just say, " I jump, therefore I am." ? Or, "I breathe, therefore I am." Or, "I annoy my brother, therefore I am." Or, "I wipe my a**, therefore I am." The reason these do not ACTUALLY work is because jumping, annoying one's brother, or wiping one's a**, can be doubted.

No, actually I was saying that if the statement is made, no matter what it is, the premise assumes "I exist" and thus any statement would conclude existence.

My two answers apply to the rest of your post.

[Jack]

We're not debating Descartes, we're debating "I think, therefore I am."

If you don't consider the source of the remark or its original context, any debate you're having is with a statement that can be taken a myriad of ways. If you like to debate the meaning of out-of-context quotes, how about:

Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53)

That one's fun to think about...I think. Hey, therefore I am, eh?