I don't think that is "all you can say". I don't even think that's a worthwhile thing to say. The only worthwhile thing you can post at this point is the pictures from your textbooks.

You are biting off more than you can chew. The problem at hand is much simpler than proving or disproving cogito ergo sum - we can get to that later, we have a simpler problem at hand. The simpler problem is, "What does Modus Ponens actually say? Does it say what YOU think it says, OR am I, Wonderer, Lionino, Stanford and Oxford correct when we say that your presented argument is a fallacy?"

That's it. AFTER we deal with that simpler problem, we can look again at cogito ergo sum. Let's keep it simple.

You have some textbooks that prove your point, so let's see them.

You said 'no one can dig me out of this cave'. Now, bad mixed metaphore aside -- shouldn't it be hole? -- I have many pieces of support in this thread. Oxford university, Stanford university, Encyclopedia Britannica, Lionino and Wonderer. Meanwhile, you quite literally have 'no one'. The 'no one' applies to you, not me. Your only outside support, other than your own opinion, is so far unprovided in this thread. It's ficticious as far as anyone else knows.

So talk is cheap, from you. Talk is real cheap. Let's see the pictures of the textbooks. Until then, you're just running your mouth with 0 support, while I've provided quite a lot of support for my position, including an actual concrete example. You have no documentation, no other philosophers here agreeing with you, and no concrete example.

Talk is cheap. Don't run your mouth, get the pictures.

When you stopped thinking, you don't exist? -> FNot P .> Not Q  => F (jesus has admitted it is incorrect)
Therefore T F -> F
P -> Q = F
You think therefore you exist is FALSE. — Corvus

You're just rephrasing the same thing you already said. We'll see the photographs from your textbooks. I have alread presented documentation from Oxford and Stanford that you have rejected, so we'll see what you can find in your textbooks.

You think it's shocking that 3 of us have "the same confusion" - it will be a lot less shocking when you post the photographs from your textbook. Everything will be cleared up. Please post what your textbooks say about Modus Ponen, and optionally post the pages that talk about Denying the Antecedent, if you can find that.

No one seems to be able to dig yous out the cave. — Corvus

Except for Stanford University and Oxford University, for starters.

unfortunately he seems not to trust anything on the internet...

Which makes conversations on the internet about philosophy and truth kinda inherently problematic. I don't get it lmao.

I think managing is a skill itself, and like any skill it benefits from practice, and not everyone is good at it. If all of that is true, it's probably usually better to have some people be managers all the time, and other people managers almost never.

And I say that with no pretense that I'm in the "manager" group - I actually know pretty explicitly that I'm not a great manager. I have a lot of good organisational and planning skills, and a lot of expertise in my profession, but I'm not a manager. I perform better when I have a manager than as a manager.

But would the managers need to be an upper class over a lower worker class? — Vera Mont

That's a wonderful question, and I think the answer is not necessarily, but possibly in some sense or in some cases.

No doubt. I'm excitedly awaiting these textbook photographs.

If we rephrase this as managers and workers, then I think it probably is closer to optimal than not having managers and workers. Division of labour is a huge part of modern efficiency, and the managers/workers split is part of that division of labour.

I think that if someone were to devise an optimal company, or even an optimal society, it would still have that division, there would still be managers and workers.

I await a photograph of those pages.

Edit. Wondering what the odds are that the photographs of this textbook are going to be showing Modus Tollens instead of Modus Ponens.

P --> Q
¬Q
=====
¬P

Modus Tollens, above, is of course valid, and of course different from his argument.

If you've read what I said, then please reply directly to the second-to-last paragraph, where I asked questions. You said authentic interlocutors answer questions, so there are some questions there for you.

If it's basic logic, you should be able to provide me a single source that agrees with you, that denying the antecedent is not a fallacy but is a valid syllogistic argument. I've provided you many sources, can you show me one? You say it's in a textbook - if you have such a textbook, please give me a photograph of the page that says that you can do that in Modus Ponens. I would love to read it.

you didn't reply to anything i said. It feels like you didn't read it, or at least not seriously.

You presented this as if it's a valid form of logic

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

Now, I have countless sources online that call this a logical fallacy, Denying the antecedent. You, for some reason, don't want to look at any websites but just for thoroughness, I'll link a few.

https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/LogicalFallacies.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/denial-of-the-antecedent
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch3
https://philosophyalevel.com/posts/if-p-then-q-modus-ponens-modus-tollens/
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627?p=emailAMbd16BqHZ1a6&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59356/is-this-an-example-of-denying-the-antecedent

But you don't like online sources, so fine, I said I could disprove it with a simple example, so that's what I'm going to do:

All squares are rectangles - this should hopefully be an uncontroversial statement. Not all rectangles are squares - this should of course also be uncontroversial.

I have a bag full of paper shapes I've cut out. Some of them are squares. Some of them are non-square rectangular cutouts (like A4 pieces of paper). Some of them are triangles.

I pull out a piece of paper, and I tell you "I'm holding a square". Given that information (and this isn't a trick question, so you can assume I'm being truthful), can you conclude I'm holding a rectangle?

All squares are rectangles, so YES, you can conclude I'm holding a rectangle.

P is the statement "FJ is holding a square"
Q is the statement "FJ is holding a rectangle"
P --> Q

I hope all of the above is agreeable enough. FJ is holding a square implies FJ is holding a rectangle

I throw that piece of paper away, and I pull out another piece of paper. This time I tell you "I'm NOT holding a square."

¬P

Now, if your logic holds above, then

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

I'm not holding a square
====
I'm not holding a rectangle

But is that valid? Is it valid that, if you know I'm not holding a square, you also know that I'm not holding a rectangle?

If you don't think that's valid - if you understand that I could still be holding a rectangle, even when you know that I'm not holding a square - then you intuitively understand why denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy, and an invalid form of argument.

You've presented your argument. Can you listen to a counter argument?

"I don't agree with that" means I think that factually it is incorrect. You have the answer now. Are you ready to look at your argument and see why denying the antecedent is considered a fallacy by me, most other people on this forum, and the Stanford philosophy department?

Incorrect. That's what "I don't agree with that" means.

All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus. — wonderer1

Hell, I don't even want him to admit that. I just want him to not be a hypocrite. He's come in here and told me I'm wrong, and given an argument why I'm wrong - that's great! Now I have a counter argument to his argument, and he won't look.

He expects others to look at his arguments, but refuses to look at theirs. The hypocrisy is... just unbelievably frustrating.

I didn't refuse, I answered it:

Nope, I don't agree with that — flannel jesus

I answered your question. You are being too cowardly to look at my argument. You want to present arguments and have other people take them seriously, but you refuse to look at other people's arguments. You are not authentic. You are not brave. You are scared of being shown to be wrong.

Lose the fear. It won't make you wiser. Questioning yourself will make you wiser. You can turn it all around any moment, instead of doubling down into logical fallacies. You can choose bravery at any moment.

You presented your argument, now look at others.

Okay, so authentic interlocutors answer questions. I will meet you in the middle, and answer your question, and if you then don't engage with my argument, that will show who is inauthentic, right?

You don't think, therefore you don't exist? — Corvus

Nope, I don't agree with that. You derived that from "I think therefore I am" via a fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.

Now are you prepared to understand why denying the Antecedent is NOT something you can do with modus ponens? Are you prepared to learn why I, other people on this forum, and the Stanford philosophy department consider it a formal fallacy? Your authenticity is on the line.

You are literally changing the subject. Be brave. Modus ponens. You're incorrect about it, and I can prove it.

You are finding so many excuses not to investigate the validity of your own argument. Be brave. Don't come up with excuses. Look at it in the face.

You have a fallacious understanding of modus ponens. Are you brave enough to investigate if you might be wrong about it? Do you have the intellectual courage to look at it in the face?

No, you actually can't. You can't do that. That's a fallacy, it's called Denying the Antecedent, and what I'm telling you is much better than "read some huge text book", because I'm pointing you to the specific part of the textbook to read : read the part about denying the Antecedent. Here's a link for you: https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/LogicalFallacies.htm

Very simple examples can be used to prove your logic wrong. Do you have the courage to look at those examples seriously and consider the possibility that you're wrong?

here's your quote where you present your modus ponens argument. This is not Modus ponens. At all. You have misunderstood modus ponens and transformed it into a formal fallacy - the fallacy is called Denying the Antecedent.

You said

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

That's not Modus ponens. Modus ponens is

P --> Q
P
=====
Q

I can prove, easily with real examples, why your argument is a clear fallacy. Do you have the courage to question your own beliefs?

you're absolutely right, it is incredibly simple, which is why it's a wonder that you misunderstood it so drastically.

You have drastically misunderstood what modus ponens means. You have literally understood it in the exact wrong way. Feel free to find any source detailing what modus ponens does, and compare it to your own logic.

I'm happy to illustrate why for you, just give me a source that you like for modus ponens

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist." — Corvus

Once again, you've got it entirely backwards. "You think therefore you exist" implies if you don't exist, you don't think. The logic you've presented here, that I've quoted, is a logical fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

The correct, non fallacious way is to deny the consequent, detailed here by Oxford https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711647

arguing validly from a hypothetical proposition of the form If p then q that, because q is false, therefore p is false

Are you prepared to listen to find out why?

yeah, same. Like he thinks "x therefore y" means x has to come before y so that x can cause y, when... that's not what therefore means, and is in this case kinda the exact opposite of what therefore means

He thinks all the necessary thoughts to agree with "I think therefore I am", but stumbles at the last hurdle. I suspect it might be a language issue - maybe he's struggling with what "therefore" means or something like that.

He agrees that existing things need not think. He also agrees that all thinking things must exist. Tying that all together into "I think, therefore I am" is just a step too far for some reaosn.

There's a reason both of us think you've got it backwards here. You aren't being completely rational here. You DO have it backwards.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. It doesn't bear any obvious relationship to the "I think therefore I am" question.

There's a reason why "I think therefore I am" is a beloved mainstay of philosophical thought, and nobody at all is taking up "I am therefore I think". You're speaking a lot of nonsense here.

This side-conversation is not helping anyone understanding anything about "I think therefore I am" vs "I am therefore I think". It's a complete distraction, which is why it deserves the eye roll. It's adding nothing.

I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now a turn for the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid. — Corvus

Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender.

We're talking about if you can think without existing, "unknown existence" is just silly nonsense in this conversation. Get serious.

I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer.

If something has to exist before it thinks, then if you know it's thinking, you know it must have existed first.

I know I'm thinking.

Therefore, I know I had to exist.

If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing?

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist." — Corvus

The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic.

Seems like you get perfectly well what reversal I'm talking about.

The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think."

Before thinking takes place, something must exist — Corvus

Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not.

If I'm thinking, I must exist, because something must exist before thinking takes place like you said. I think, therefore I am.