but also that there is recursive self-awareness of thinking — Count Timothy von Icarus

In other words, the "I" is what experiences thoughts — definitionally as you said.

But about recursiveness, Cardano's criticism:

and the immediacy of this intuition is not consistent with the view expressed by other Renaissance figures who consider reflexive thinking, such as Cardano, who see a time interval elapsing between the thought and the realization that the thought is being thought (De libris propriis, ed. Ian Maclean (Milan, 2004), 328): ‘we do not know and know that we are knowing in the same moment, but a little before or after’ (‘eodem momento non intelligmus, et cognoscmus nos intelligere, sed paulo ante vel post’). — Discource on the Method, Ian Maclean translation, explanatory note 28

I was thinking of reading in my native language — dani

Definitely do that, but still settle for a good translation. In philosophy, I have seen that some translations have several unintelligible parts while others render the text perfectly understandable and easy to read, it makes a big difference.

I read this as about a specific group of women students in a specific situation. — Ludwig V

That the specific group in that specific situation were all women while there being plenty of men around seem to suggest that the specific situation is caused by a difference between men and women, otherwise, shouldn't we expect at least one man in the group too?

How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done? — Truth Seeker

I don't, that is what the whole debate around the topic.

However, just because the choice to donate is voluntary it does not mean that it is free from prior causes or divine predestination. — Truth Seeker

Thanks for granting that your definition has nothing to do with free will.

It was clear that we [the women students] were all more interested in understanding this deeply puzzling world than in putting each other down. — Midgley

But I thought that there was nothing fundamentally different between men and women? Strange.

I would like for this to be a bit of comedic self-awareness — AmadeusD

The kind of self-awareness where one admits the mistake but does not seem to care about committing the mistake always stroke me as, also, strange.

About Aging, Cicero — Lionino

Flows like honey.

Lelio, or Friendship, also by Cicero.

What do they mean when they say free will? — Truth Seeker

The ability to have done otherwise.

How do you know that is the correct meaning? — Truth Seeker

I know that yours is incorrect.

With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide

If morality involves the kinds of things that you do to yourself, which it should, no. Morality is generally the set of rules that we should upkeep in our demeanour. If we shouldn't do something, you can typically say that behaviour is immoral.

But I will say that, from a different perspective, 180 proof's answer is also quite agreeable.

Well, I don't think the "paradox" even makes sense here. If he manages to find a moment when the guillotine is going through his neck (different example), the light should shine green. And the two alternatives have really nothing to do with the situation. Besides, it is not a paradox.

Free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints is the most accurate definition for free will. — Truth Seeker

It would be accurate if that is how "free will" was used, but nobody means that when they say free will.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints — Truth Seeker

However that is not what free will means.

About Aging, Cicero

First time I see God being brought up when someone is asking to be taught about polysemy.

Who is morally culpable? — Truth Seeker

After long and deep meditation, I have concluded that I am.

Had she mastered the usage of punctuation, em dashes, and capitals, something above F would have been acceptable for the essay. But in the context of 8-10th grade, a C is very fair.

Descartes was saying given that I am thinking this presumes I am. I could not think if I did not exist. It is part and part with ANY COGNITIVE ACTIVITY at all or any action on my part. — Bylaw

There is not much helping people who don't want to understand. Descartes invited us in meditation by writing His. Some people don't want to meditate, but instead want to autistically analyse the text to find syllogistic flaws, not knowing that language does not exhaust thought and there is only so much logic can do for them — but perhaps they have "aphantasia".
There is criticism to be given to Descartes, but his philosophy does have a solid system.
The most common criticism to Descartes besides naïve realism from people who can't conceive hypotheticals, is extreme, unbounded skepticism (such as doubting that any action requires existence). Those who do that however, are not willing to face the consequences of their unbounded skepticism. Either they do so, or accept Descartes argument. But they want to have the cake and eat it.

No, but it is perhaps an instructive hour. — Leontiskos

There isn't much to instruct here. Not because there is no topic, but because there is no student. See the 100% certainty thread.

The editor rejected it as a “trivial, irrelevant intrusion of domestic matters into intellectual life. — The Raven

Good call from the editor. I don't know raven magazine. Maybe this is satire and it is off my radar, I hope so.

See?

What he is trying to say there is that for the biconditional to be true, the truth values of P and Q must always match. Of course if you just put the biconditional on a truth table and leave it there, nothing will follow.

Would you even believe them? Would you want to speak to them? Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

I was actually discussing this with @Truth Seeker the other day and this person actually exists, this person is me. Apparently, he does not believe me.

The issue with this "it sprinkles water, the lawn is wet" is that Corvus confuses material implication with physical causation. Me, flannel and Banno spent over some 20 pages discussing this, we are veterans.
A better example to use is
I am running → I am moving
Does «I am not running» → «I am not moving»? The answer is evidently no. So from P→Q we don't have ¬P→¬Q. ¬P→¬Q is in fact the same as Q→P, which obviously is different from P→Q.
P→Q – Everytime there is P, there is also Q
Q→P – Everytime there is Q, there is also P
¬P→¬Q Everytime there is not P, there is also not Q; which is the same as saying that everytime there is Q, there is also P.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see the thread was solved :-P

Intelligence tests are already achievement tests. — Joshs

Raven matrices are not influenced by educational or cultural background. That raven matrices scores and educational background are correlated is more than likely due to a common cause: genetically inherited intelligence.

I just invented a new term: bert1sm. Bert1sm is basically when you are making a milkshake and you put a LOT of milk in it, instead of the usual amount. Feel free to use the term whenever you are making a milky milkshake, no need to credit me.

give that the definition of the concept of IQ is itself fraught with contention — Joshs

As much contention as there might, g-factor is still highly related to academic achievement.

These do not indicate what you've claimed. They bring to the fore the flaws in the study for ascertaining anything between Twins specifically. — AmadeusD

No clue what you are trying to say. Feel free to make a concrete point.

Twin studies. Not sure how you're missing your own comments? — AmadeusD

Doubting that a method of simply gathering data is "discredited" is not what I would a call a "defence" of something. If anything, it is progressfocuses dot com that seems emotionally invested:

My suggestion is thus to not be to easily convinced when someone suggests to you that intelligence is largely determined by our genes "because this was proven by twins studies."

That IQ is significantly inheritable is a frequently reproduced finding of psychology — which is remarkable for a field that has so much trouble reproducing.

In fact, what I meant by second link is the third, by third is the fourth, I did not realise there were actually 4 of them... Now reading the second link, nevermind, it is basically a medium post by a "Future physician-scientist". Again an opinion piece by someone who does not hold qualifications. In any case, he brings up, like every link, the "equal environments assumption", and in the end, I am not sure you have missed, he shows the graph of a meta-analysis showing the correlation of some traits between twins. The meta-analysis says:

The meta-analyses of all traits yielded an average rMZ of 0.636 (s.e.m. = 0.002) and an average rDZ of 0.339 (s.e.m. = 0.003). The reported heritability (h2) across all traits was 0.488 (s.e.m. = 0.004), and the reported estimate of shared environmental effects (c2) was 0.174 (s.e.m. = 0.004)

Our results provide compelling evidence that all human traits are heritable: not one trait had a weighted heritability estimate of zero. The relative influences of genes and environment are not randomly distributed across all traits but cluster in functional domains.

This implies that, for the majority of complex traits, causal genetic variants can be detected using a simple additive genetic model. — Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies

We use 'know' in different contexts than we use 'believe', so by that simple fact knowledge is not just belief — whether those two actually exist and are not confusions of the mind is another topic. Though I am not a fan of threads where people are put on the spot without their consent.

I'd like to post the following sections from the jstor article, as I think they are relevant:

Am I? You linked what are basically blogposts that correctly point out that the studies have methodological limitations (like every social science study). That is far from Nyquist's claim that twin studies have been discredited, as if there is anything to discredit, those studies were simply gathering data and publishing it. The discovery that twins end up with very close IQs despite being raised in different environments is meaningful.

I'm of the opinion you are defending something no one really takes seriously — AmadeusD

What are you even saying? I have defended nothing in this thread.

Ryle — Banno

Never heard of.

that you cite folk who reject dualism, but apparently in its defence — Banno

I am not defending dualism, but only that it appears that physicalism will always be incomplete.

Is your claim that there are two substances, or that Descartes said there were two substances? — Banno

Latter. Even for Descartes I don't thik he would say prima facie it is sure that there are two substances. The existence of bodies, aka res extensa, is far from certain. If he did, and he likely would, he would do so by invoking God.

Is that roughly what you would argue? — Banno

I am not in line with everything in the post but the last line, yes, I am at least that which doubts.

But what sort of thing? I have just now said it, a thinking thing. But am I nothing besides?

And is dualism always the consequence here? — Banno

Yes, but we can't do much against that. The hard problem of consciousness is perhaps incontrovertible.
Many physicalist philosophers say:

Image from Dr. Bogardus

Lionino is that what you meant by an impression? — Metaphyzik

An immediate awareness, an experience. This is the experience that the philosophers above are talking about. That thinking presupposes existence is an intuition, a belief that does not come from inference or from experience but that we can't conceive otherwise.

The second link raises good points, but the information it contains belongs more to the fact that those studies do not contain circumstances that would maximise the difference that genes play (being raised in a different geographic area), but even then it does not mean the studies are not valuable. The last paragraph however is transparent cope.
The third is an opinion piece by a single researcher, instead of actual research, I did not read the full thing but it seems to generally say something along the same lines as the second link.
Far from the studies being discredited.

1. The cogito is not a logical preposition
2. It can be - like anything else - be translated into a logical preposition.
3. Then that logical proposition can be proofed.
4. Then any of those proofs can be translated back into an adjusted cogito statement.
5. The adjusted statement doesn’t always make any sense. What was - it green cows? — Metaphyzik

These are worthwhile considerations. I talked about it broadly on this post:

So, from the Principles and the Replies to the Objections, to put in this exact terms, if I understand what is meant by them, the fact through which we realise we exist is an impression¹. When we express the impression, it is an inference – an enthytema often—, this reference of course relies on intuitions².

1:
"But when we notice that we are thinking things, there is a certain first notion, which is concluded from no syllogism; nor even when someone says, I think, therefore I am, or I exist, he deduces existence from thought by a syllogism, but recognizes it as a thing known in itself by the simple observation of the mind, as is evident from the fact that, if he deduced it by a syllogism, he must first have known this greater , everything that thinks is or exists; but surely rather he learns himself, from what he experiences with himself, that it cannot be as he thinks unless he exists."
— Replies

2:
"I was not denying that we must first know what is meant by thought, existence, certainty; again, we must know such things as that it is impossible for that which is thinking to be non-existent; but I thought it needless to enumerate these notions, for they are of the greatest simplicity, and by themselves they can give us no knowledge that anything exists"
— Principles — Lionino

And to clarify, the post at the top of this page is ironic.

Telling the truth about the history of a nation — Vera Mont

This sort of disingenuity is typically part of the issue we are talking about. But I have never seen you people performing cultural self-criticism, even the partisans of progressivism present their self-flailing "we are so racist, we are historically sexist" as a humble brag every time. Sorry, but Spain and France were much more skillful at being opressive than England, you just rewrote the history books to pretend you invented the steam engine even though you never did. Like today you are rewriting history books to pretend minorities invented the traffick light even though they never did.

Dumb troll.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm
https://www.math.toronto.edu/preparing-for-calculus/3_logic/we_3_negation.html

At this point my preferred quote is

What is unusual is that Corvus has been around for so long without being banned. — Banno

B∨¬A ↔ ¬B→¬A = ¬A -> ¬B ? — Corvus

No.

I know what a black legend is, and I used the term correctly. — ToothyMaw

So what you are trying to say is that there is no black legend against Spaniards?

You need to supply some serious evidence for your claim that modern Catholics are the victims of such a thing. — ToothyMaw

I guess you are.

Okay, the concepts are technically invented by a mind, but people's feelings and difficulties are as real as anything else you can perceive with your senses. To say that the difficulties that someone raised in a violent Ghetto experience are just made up because the idea of generational trauma is an idea is really stupid — ToothyMaw

Perfect proof of what I have been saying. Poetic almost.

Speaking of, mister Biden just announced:


They are replacing Easter (Catholic) with a celebration of men who think they are women. Very representative of their values, as if the entire planet does not know at this point. Can't wait for China to take over.
@javi2541997 Who is going to say that I am not unintentionally prophetic?

On the topic that some users brought up, that self-reference paradoxes give oscillating truth-values in time, the quotes:

Since knowing the negation of a statement in intuitionism means that one can prove that the statement is not true, this implies that both A and ¬ A do not hold intuitionistically, at least not at this moment. The dependence of intuitionism on time is essential: statements can become provable in the course of time and therefore might become intuitionistically valid while not having been so before. — Intuitionism in the Philosophy of Mathematics

If we don't assume the Law of Excluded Middle is true, the Zermelo-Russell paradox still does not dissolve however, because it can be formulated in terms of the LNC.

Thus a single formal system have every order of logic giving every expression of language in this formal system its own Truth() predicate at the next higher order of logic. — PL Olcott

I don't understand this.