"I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Is the classic statement "I think, therefor I am" logically flawed?

I think it's circular. To think, you must exist. The premise assumes to conclusion to prove the conclusion.

[Kamehameha34]

The "I think" bit is gathered with empirical evidence. Granted, evidence doesn't mesh with logic. One must have proof - nothing less.

[Klio]

Yebbut, EVERYTHING exists. And we have know way of knowing if anyone/anything "thinks" or not. For all we know, stars and planets "think."

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The "I think" bit is gathered with empirical evidence.

So it's at least redundant, right?

"I think"

and

"I am"

Are not being determined by logic at all. They're both equally determined by empirical evidence.

So it's redundant.

And it's still technically circular because the premise still assumes the conclusion in attempting to assure the conclusion is true. You HAVE to exist in order to think. Circular.

Why has this classic statement held such validity and respect?

Quote by: Klio Yebbut, EVERYTHING exists.

Prove that anything exists. Prove that you exist.

[Kamehameha34]

The claim that it is circular is dependant on the premises that

1. One must exist to think and
2. The phrase draw the conclusion "I think" from "I am"

If thinking is a property of only those who are, then it's not circular, because the conclusion is drawn from the premise. The premise can't necessarily be drawn from the conclusion, because there are things that are that don't think (assuming thinking is a property of only life).

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The claim that it is circular is dependant on the premises that 1. One must exist to think and 2. The phrase draw the conclusion "I think" from "I am" If thinking is a property of only those who are, then it's not circular, because the conclusion is drawn from the premise. The premise can't necessarily be drawn from the conclusion, because there are things that are that don't think (assuming thinking is a property of only life).

Yes, but the premise relies on the conclusion being true in order for it to "prove" the conclusion in the logical statement.

[Kamehameha34]

Why does it rely on the conclusion?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why does it rely on the conclusion?

Because if the conclusion wasn't true "I exist" then the premise isn't true "I think".

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Because if the conclusion wasn't true "I exist" then the premise isn't true "I think".

That's completely irrelevant.

Premise 1: For me to think, I have to be (i.e., exist).
Premise 2: I think
Conclusion: Therefore, I am.

Pretty straightforward. What you're saying is exactly what his premise 1 is.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Fangrim That's completely irrelevant. Premise 1: For me to think, I have to be (i.e., exist). Premise 2: I think Conclusion: Therefore, I am. Pretty straightforward. What you're saying is exactly what his premise 1 is.

Um.. did you like jump in late and forget to read the beginning of the thread or something?

[Zanzoken]

Cogito, ergo sum.

I think, therefore I am.

I too have pondered the circularity of this argument.

I wondered how this argument could work without being circular.

A very popular argument, the cogito is actually a very significant argument.

See here.

First of all, this argument was made with the intent to find something, namely a truth, that could not be denied.

The cogito was discovered by Descartes, after deciding that he could no longer trust his senses.

Descartes could either be dreaming everything...

From here The reason is that when we sleep we often have sensations indistinguishable from those that we have when we are awake. We admit that those dreaming sensations do not correspond to reality, so why are we any more certain of our waking sensations? How do we know that any particular sensation is not just a dream, a sensation stemming from causes unbeknownst to us? This second argument is popularly referred to as the "Dreamer Argument."

Thus the dreamer argument.

Or he could be deceived somehow (such as a demon,perhaps a simulated reality, such as the Matrix)...

From here Descartes next casts doubt onto our mathematical demonstrations and other self- evident truths. In order to do this, he first points out that people are sometimes known to make mistakes when it comes to these subjects. In addition, he claims, for all we know, God (or some lesser being) is manipulating our thoughts, causing things to seem certain when really they are not. This argument is commonly referred to as the "Evil Demon Argument".

Thus the evil demon argument/external deception argument.

Thus, he took upon one (perhaps both?) of these scenarios; he called this a meditation, I believe.

If one tried to doubt everything, which obviously includes mathematics, science, and other empirically known things, there would be one thing one that cannot be doubted; i.e., doubt itself.

Less formally, one could claim...

1. Math is BS; math is not true.
2. So is science; science is BS.
3. Doubt is not true; I am not doubting right now.

See the problem with 3?

According to the link,

From here 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.

I consider the cogito to be a self-evident thing.

I hope this helps.

[rez]

I think therefore I am

I see nothing wrong with the way that is said. If you think (consciousness) then you are conscious.

There are a lot of interpretations of this phrase. Maybe you disagree with one?

[Jack]

Excellent argument, Zanzoken. Context allows us to make sense of an otherwise perplexing statement. Considering there are several schools of philosophical thought, one should really read some of Descartes' works so one can determine where he's coming from, what premises he starts with and what he's trying to prove.
The following link may help understand more about the background of "cogito ergo sum";

Famously, Descartes puts forward a very simple candidate as the “first item of knowledge.” The candidate is suggested by methodic doubt—by the very effort at thinking all my thoughts might be mistaken. Early in the Second Meditation, Descartes has his meditator observe: I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25) 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.

Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[ZNFYRH]

It's all about self-awareness.

When you are aware of yourself, your actual "soul" so-to-speak, then you are aware of your existence.

It's the whole sci-fi scary thing about artificial intelligence.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Um.. did you like jump in late and forget to read the beginning of the thread or something?

It's not circular. Look at this example:

Premise 1: In order to get to the store, John has to drive his car.
Premise 2: John needs to get to the store.
Conclusion: John has to drive his car.

That's not circular. If you think so, I don't know what I'm supposed to do.

[sdbest]

FWIW, I was given an A+ on a paper I wrote for an undergraduate philosophy course in which I argued (effectively apparently) that while "I think, therefore I am" was demonstrably a fallacious circular argument, "I think, therefore I am, I think" was not.

Regards
S.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Fangrim It's not circular. Look at this example: Premise 1: In order to get to the store, John has to drive his car. Premise 2: John needs to get to the store. Conclusion: John has to drive his car. That's not circular. If you think so, I don't know what I'm supposed to do.

That's not an example of the statement.

THAT would be an example of "IF I think, I am."

An example of "I think, therefor I am" would look like this.

Assumption of Premise 1: I exist
Premise 1: I think
Conclusion: I exist

[ZNFYRH]

What I find interesting is that, "I think, therefore I am" is a translation and Zanzoken did a great job of explaining it through the original Latin and yet this is still a subject of argument.

The statement isn't flawed at all... it's the translation that's flawed.

In the attempt to sum it up nicely and in a way that is quick and clever, something was lost in the translation.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer That's not an example of the statement. THAT would be an example of "IF I think, I am." An example of "I think, therefor I am" would look like this. Assumption of Premise 1: I exist Premise 1: I think Conclusion: I exist

Who's to say that the proof for "I think" must be "I am"?

To mend Fang's example:

1. If Jim drives to the store, he will have a car.
2. If Jim has a car, he will drive to the store.
3. Jim has a car.
4. Jim will drive to the store.


That syllogism is only circular if you only look at the first premise, and assume it to be the fruition of the third premise and the conclusion.

Similarly:

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

That can't even be considered circular, because not all things that are are capable of thought. The "I think" is gathered empirically.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 1. If I am, then I think. 2. If I think, then I am. 3. I think. 4. I am. That can't even be considered circular, because not all things that are are capable of thought. The "I think" is gathered empirically.

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.