Indisputable Proof That I Exist

[sandy whitelinger]

P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are moral
C Socrates is mortal

If so then keep reading:

The Cogito
P1 I am thinking
P2 Whatever has the property of thinking, exists
C I exist

If P1 were not the case then its contradiction "I am not thinking" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P1 is the case.

P2 is an instance of the instantiation principle. If the instantiation principle were not the case then its contradiction "Whatever has the property S, does not exist" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P2 is the case.

The argument is in Disamis syllogistic form:
P1 Some A are B
P2 All B are C
C Therefore some A are C

Therefore the inference from P1 and P2 to C is valid.
Additionally, P1 and P2 are the case.
Therefore, The Cogito is sound.
Therefore, C is the case.

 

[PolyHedral]

P2 is an instance of the instantiation principle. If the instantiation principle were not the case then its contradiction "Whatever has the property S, does not exist" would be the case.

This is not the correct inverse of P2. The inverse of "All thinking things exist" is "There is some thinking thing which does not exist," not, "All thinking things do not exist."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is not the correct inverse of P2. The inverse of "All thinking things exist" is "There is some thinking thing which does not exist," not, "All thinking things do not exist."

I "think" all of the arguments are here. I may not want to wrap my head around all of the permutaions again. Pay particular attention to Fluffy's arguments. She was the one who offered the only sound argument.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Congratulations on finally convincing yourself that you exist. Who knows what amazing feats you'll be able to accomplish now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

P1 I am thinking ...

If P1 were not the case then its contradiction "I am not thinking" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case.

That is not true.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Sandy, you remind me of a math-professor friend of mine.

He used to go around asking the question, "How do I know I exist/"

And according to him, the correct answer was, "Who wants to know?"



Bruce

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And yet programming a system to ask that question is trivially easy. Your friend should stick to discussing math.

 

[Koldo]

And yet programming a system to ask that question is trivially easy. Your friend should stick to discussing math.

Which would mean the program exists...

 

[PolyHedral]

Which would mean the program exists...

Programs are just numbers. Do numbers exist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sandy, you remind me of a math-professor friend of mine.
He used to go around asking the question, "How do I know I exist/"
And according to him, the correct answer was, "Who wants to know?"

And yet programming a system to ask that question is trivially easy. Your friend should stick to discussing math.

Which would mean the program exists...

But the program does not know this irrespective of how you answer the question.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This is not the correct inverse of P2. The inverse of "All thinking things exist" is "There is some thinking thing which does not exist," not, "All thinking things do not exist."

You just had to beat me to it? [grudgingly grants frubals]

 

[Koldo]

Programs are just numbers. Do numbers exist?

Yeah. :yes:

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Yeah. :yes:

Well I think a computer might be able to prove you wrong.

 

[Quagmire]

How do you know you're thinking? Maybe you just think you're thinking.

Wait, that would still mean that you were thinking.

Ok, you won that one. :yes:

 

[Koldo]

But the program does not know this irrespective of how you answer the question.

Whether that is true or not, or rather whether that could be false or not, is secondary to the argument, if i understood it correctly. The point is to estabilish that 'I exist'.

If i am a nothing but a program, then i am. I exist.

 

[Koldo]

Well I think a computer might be able to prove you wrong.

A computer might be able to do many things. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

I "think" all of the arguments are here. I may not want to wrap my head around all of the permutaions again. Pay particular attention to Fluffy's arguments. She was the one who offered the only sound argument.

I thought this the sound one.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1077926-post114.html

(And Fluffy is a "he".)

 

[Willamena]

Wait a minute! Did you just call Kilgore Trout a "narrow-minded biblist [sic!]? :biglaugh:

Nah, he was referring to Sandy.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Whether that is true or not, or rather whether that could be false or not, is secondary to the argument, if i understood it correctly. The point is to estabilish that 'I exist'.

No. Given ...

He used to go around asking the question, "How do I know I exist?"
And according to him, the correct answer was, "Who wants to know?"

... the point was to establish the knowledge of existence.

 

[fantome profane]

The arguments for the existence of "self", and the existence of "God" suffer from the same basic problem. Namely the lack of definition. Am "I" to be defined as that which thinks? Thoughts exist, but am I thought? If so them I am extremely ephemeral. By the time we have established that I exist, I don't.