Because of your tendency keep writing posts blindly without checking what the others have written, I stopped reading your posts seriously. Just for your info.

You're demanding other people read your words on repeat until they come to agree with you, while yourself showing a general unwillingness to try to read and understand the arguments presented to you. There's a very narcisstic quality to this approach. And hypocritical, of course. — flannel jesus

You also seem to be not able to read English sentences properly. How could anyone discuss anything with you when you cannot read, but distort the others' writings to that degree? Please I would advise you to read it again. I wasn't demanding anything. I was advising. Please stop keep writing nonsense wasting your and others time. You don't seem to know difference between advising and demanding, or you cannot read words properly.

Apart from the fact you refuse to understand what material implication is, what "therefore" means, and that you have basically zero knowledge of Descartes. — Lionino

Sorry mate. There is nothing making sense in your claim. You neither seem to know anything about Descartes nor logic or metaphysics. All I can advise you is to read my previous posts repeatedly, and meditate until you see some lights of wisdom.

As such, I argue that, given certain premises in this post, we should expect an afterlife that plays closer to our ideals than the aforementioned bottomless pit of fire - or an arbitrary eternity in heaven. — ToothyMaw

Problem with Afterlife is that it is a term which cannot be perceived or verified both empirically and analytically.

Empirically, no one has seen the existence of Afterlife or anyone who is living in their Afterlife in reality.

Analytically, Afterlife is a concept to mean a life via resurrection in different heavenly world after present life in this world. 

Nothing wrong with that.  But again there is no way to check its existence visually or physically in any possible way.  It is just a word that some people talk about. Analytic deduction cannot verify existence. Only sensory perceptions and observations could verify existence. Again, no real life data for any type of verification or validation is available for the concept in anywhere in the world and the history of mankind.

Hence Afterlife should belong to the noumena as a thing-in-itself in Kantian terms?  One can only make sensible discussions on it if one accepts the possible existence of thing-in-itself and noumena in the domain of faith and religious beliefs? 

It doesn't matter, Descartes' argument is about the very act of thinking, not about what the thought is about. — Lionino

Logically, semantically, and metaphysically Cogito doesn't make sense at all. "I am thinking." loses its credibility and meaning, as soon as the utterer stopped thinking and the utterance "I think".  It is only valid when he is thinking.  When he ended the utterance, "therefore I am." has no ground or validity, because he is not thinking anymore. This is especially the case, if you accepted the nonsensical claim that "think" implies "existence".

"Thinking" also doesn't exclude the possibility of being wrong.  How many times have you thought something was the case, but found out it wasn't later on?

But in cogito, due to the absence of its content and object of cogito, it can be anything. It could have been "I think that I don't exist, therefore I am." or I think I doubt that I am, therefore I am, ...etc etc.  It doesn't rule out these nonsense contradictory possibilities of implications in the expression.

Hence it appears that your claim has no logical or theoretical ground for validity.  There is no compelling arguments in your claims at all apart from the empty blind declarations that my points are wrong.

A wonderful topic, but I suspect that there is too much here for a single thread — Banno

I agree. Logicism itself could be a huge thread itself on its own. I have 2 books by Dummett on Frege, and they are over 1000 pages. I have about 10 different books on Hilbert space only.

Granting observing and thinking are different “operations”, do you think “thinking” and “being” are different operations? — Fire Ologist

Of course they are.

Can you describe something that allows you to distinguish “thinking” from “being”? As in, “I think” distinct from “I am”? — Fire Ologist

All being has unique properties. When you exist, you are in some location i.e. a physical space on the earth a city or town or up on a hill, and you have mass and weight and shape. Your being can be described with the properties.

Thinking is a private mental event. It has nothing to do with being in any shape or form. I think, therefore I am, tells nothing meaningful at all apart from you are alive and able to make a linguistic expression. And every statement of "I think, therefore I am." is a subjective statement, which means nothing to the other minds apart from you.

Wrong.

The earliest known translation as "I am thinking, therefore I am" is from 1872 by Charles Porterfield Krauth (The Penn Monthly, Volume 3) — Lionino

How do you know it was an accurate translation? Anyway, "I am thinking" is no much different from "I think" in terms of not able to link to "I am". And thinking has objects and content. What were the content and object of "Cogito"? Je ne sais pas.

I had my dinner, therefore I was hungry. :roll:

You're absolutely right, but they does not mean the fact of the conclusion literally temporarily happened in time before the facts of the premises. Just because you write the premises first does not mean they happened first — flannel jesus

Good point. Do you have some example arguments for that?

This is the same statement as “I am thinking, therefore I am.” — Fire Ologist

No publication on Descartes says "I am thinking, therefore I am." That sounds like your imagination.
It clearly says "I think, therefore I am."
Here "think" doesn't imply anything else than "think". You claimed also in your previous posts that "think" implies "exist". That is another nonsense. If think implied existence, then Descartes didn't have to say "I exist."

He could just have said "I think.". Saying anything more than that would be superfluous babble.
But Descartes weren't that daft. He said "I think, therefore I am." which means that he thinks that "think" doesn't imply "existence".

Therefore it can be concluded that "I think, therefore I am." is logically unsound, if not false statement.

You could say it is a valid statement. But false statements can be valid, if you marry them up with the matching premises.

You see then it marks conclusion. From the fact that I think I can conclude that I am. — Lionino

Conclusion is always consequent of the premises. You never conclude something, then list premises afterwards. Or like ByLaw suggested, you can never conclude something at the same time telling the premises. It is a temporal logical impossibility.

You keep missing the point, which is an observation of something existing, namely the observer in the act of observing, or simply “observing” is. — Fire Ologist

Observation and thinking are totally different mental operations. You are mixing the two, and it seems the source of your confusion.

No one is saying “I am, therefore I think.” — Fire Ologist

I do. I am saying it. I think it is a more meaningful statement than "I think, therefore I am."

Saying "I think, therefore I am." is like saying "I am tipsy, therefore I drank." or "I died, therefore I am living."

I am therefore I think, is just saying, I exist, therefore I think. Without me existing, I cannot think.

You use therefore to introduce a logical result or conclusion.

So the question is, can you derive a logical result or conclusion, where the *thing you're concluding* preceded, in time, the premises you used to get to that logical result or conclusion? — flannel jesus

You have agreed that Therefore is to mean "result of", "consequence of" here. Result and consequence is clearly chronological and cause-effect nature. Result cannot precede Start. Consequence cannot precede cause.

And if you claim that some point or idea is wrong, then you must be prepared to provide full answer based on your own factual reasonings and logic for the claim. You cannot just claim some idea or point of someone is wrong, and then say it is wrong because the other folks don't agree with it or some authorities says so. That would make you look like a psychological biased man with emotional problems.

Okay, so please link it. — flannel jesus

Please google Therefore for its meaning. It is everywhere. No need for link.
I swim therefore I am wet is correct. I am wet, therefore I swim, is not correct.
I drank therefore I am tipsy is correct. I am tipsy, therefore I drank, is not.

My definition for Therefore is standard definition from any dictionaries on internet. It is nothing special, and nothing obscure.

Therefore is to mean, as a result of, consequence of.

I don't control what he posts. — flannel jesus

Yeah, no blaming you. It is a bit irritating to see him popping up with most smarmy useless comments with nothing useful or helpful contributions to the discussions when we are trying to clarify the issues in haze.

I am saying to you that my definition of "Therefore" is from the dictionaries, not invention of mine.

You have your peeping wonder pal popped up there with usual smarmy comments.

Sorry I am not sure what you are even talking about. Now you are talking about some apples suddenly. I thought we were talking about your reasons and explanations for your claims.

I don't know why you're asking that question. — flannel jesus

Do you not recall you suddenly out of blue, clashing into my post with your saying "the other folks don't agree with you. so you are wrong"?

I was then, asking you for your ground for the claims, and your own reasonings and explanations, why my points were wrong.

So... you're referencing an outside "official" source? So it IS okay to do that for this conversation then? Please clarify that for me - are outside sources relevant? — flannel jesus

For checking out definitions, sure it is a must. But for saying "the other folks don't agree with you." Or UOC said otherwise, and basing that for your judgement for right or wrong, I would say, is not really making sense.

What makes you think my definitions were my own invention?

Disagreemnts about how words are defined and used CAN'T be settled withohut reference to outside sources. Words are socially constructed - if everyone tomorrow decided that they're going to use the word "watermelon" to refer to headphones, then... that's what it refers to, from that point on. — flannel jesus

Words are lost at your groundless babbles. Do you realise my post were written after carefully checking the official sources for the definition?

Yes, I am not sure on your point of your claim that my post was wrong. I think you said, the other folks don't agree, and UOC says differently.

I am asking you your reasons for your opposition.

Were you opposing the point without knowing what you were opposing against?

References to institutions are there to make it clear that the things I'm saying aren't just invented in my own head. If you had a reference to an institution for denying the Antecedent, for example, that would signal to me that you didn't invent it in your own head, but that a slew of respectable thinkers share your view. — flannel jesus

What is your reasoning that my point is not correct? Please tell us. Don't lean on the others' shoulders or hide behind their shadows.

I have given out the explanations based on the reasonings. But you just say, well the other folks don't agree with you, and University California says otherwise.

If you don't agree with something, come with your reasonings why it is not true, rather than simply saying, the other folks don't agree with you, and such and such institutions say otherwise.

I will not try argue with you. Whatever I say, I know you will come back with some irrational oppositions with no content. No logical arguments and rational explanations work, so what is the point? :)

I swim, therefore I am wet.

If you define swimming as propulsion through water, then being wet is contained in, or comes along with, or is a consequence of, swimming. — Fire Ologist

"I am wet, therefore I swim." doesn't make sense, as "I think, therefore I am." doesn't make sense.
"Think" doesn't warrant for anything. "Think" means "think".

I am isn’t a conclusion. It’s as much the premise as the conclusion. It’s just a premise that self-certifies it’s fact as a premise. — Fire Ologist

In a proposition, it is. You are trying best to make the point. I can see that. But we are talking within the syntactic and semantic realm with no additives. If you beg for the possible assumptions and allowances into all the expressions, then there would be other folks keep coming back with some other possible assumptions in the expressions and sentences under analysis. It shouldn't be allowed.

Where Kierkegaard intersects with existentialist themes is about man's relationship to God rather than about God. — fdrake

How is the relationship God possible, if God is unknown? Does K defines what God is?

when K. writes man he definitely means men rather unfortunately. — fdrake

Why "unfortunately"?

It indicates a process of thought not a proces of causation or chronology. The detective's thought process, not the scientists proclamation of causation and order in time.

So, again, I think you misunderstand 'therefore' and are confusing word order with a diagram of events in time. — Bylaw

I did bow out from this thread, but you have directed your post with your poorly reasoned writings to me, misleading my points. Hence I am briefly back for pointing out the problems in your post.

You totally distorted the meaning of the word "Therefore" in your claims. Therefore means  by the result of, for that reason, consequently.  Therefore it has implications of chronology and cause and effect transformation for the antecedent being the past, or cause, and the descendant to imply the result, consequence and effect.

If you deny that standard meaning, then you are denying the general principle of linguistic semantics.  And that is what you have done to mislead the argument and further present the nonsense.

Have a good think about these example sentences.

I drank, therefore I got tipsy.    You are claiming that Therefore has no implication of chronology or cause-effect consequence. Therefore you are claiming that  "you got tipsy therefore you drank." is the same meaning as the previous example. This is nonsense.

It rained therefore the ground got wet.  You are saying it is OK to say, The ground is wet, therefore it rained. No. They are not the same meaning, and the latter clearly doesn't make sense.

"Therefore" has the meaning of consequence, resulting from the antecedent.  Therefore, I think therefore I am saying that because you think, as a consequence you are, you exist.Your denial and distortion in that case by totally misleading the meaning of the word just sounded nonsense babble.

You are therefore you think just means that because you exist, you can think.  If you didn't exist, then you cannot think.  Nothing more to it apart from the logical illustration, your mental activities are only possible because you exist. Nothing wrong with that statement logically and ontologically, is it?

I have presented in my previous messages the formal logic how the Cogito is false, and if you examined the logical proof steps, you would know that it only makes sense because there are consequential, cause-effect links between the two events on both sides of Therefore.

I do not blame you at all. I would have bowed out much sooner! You lasted for pages without agreement from anyone but didn't give in. I am really impressed! — Beverley

Thanks :) I am not an expert in Logic myself, but it can be an interesting subject at times. I think I will reread my Logic book again to refresh the memories. But really key points here folks don't seem know are these.

1. Validity does't mean Truth. Validity of arguments means that the conclusion was derived from the premises. A conclusion can be valid, but it still can be FALSE.

2. We are not trying to find validity of the main issue here. Our aim is trying to find truth or falsity values. They seem to betting whole their lives for validity of the assumptions for some reason, and accuse for logical leap.

3. When conclusion was based on the premises and true , the argument is classed as sound. When it is not based on the premises, but true, it is an unsound argument.

4. Here we didn't need to worry about the assumptions being invalid or valid. They are still not the conclusion yet. They were still assumptions. The point was finding truth or falsity of Cogito, not validity.

5. Truth of conclusion is always checked by the external real world events, facts and the state of objects. But here "Think" being a subjective operation of an individual, it is impossible to check the truth or false value from it. But we know about the existence of humans. It exists no matter what. Once a person is born, he/she exists until death.

6. When checking a statement in Logic, introduce contradictions based on the law of identity principles, eliminate some predicates by introducing AND OR connectives with the known axioms until the main statement's truth or falsity values emerges.

I have tried present my arguments based on above points, but not many folks seem to see the points. It was frustrating at times. But you were able to see and understood them, and I am impressed too. :D Have a great day.

I think I said enough on what I had to say. Much of them were just the repeating the ideas and points, which you seem cannot accept. I am bowing out from this thread. I have the other topics I would like to read and discuss. Thanks & all the best.

You are back! Yay! You are not collapsed in an exhausted heap trying to explain over and over why the cogito is not valid ... since page 14! Considering we are now on page 28, I'd say you have a whole lot of stamina! — Beverley

Yes, I am bowing out from this thread after this message. I was going to do that about 10 pages ago. But I was getting frustrated to see the continuing confusions and groundless claims. It seems it better not to waste any more time, if the confusions going to continue, then let them get on with it. I don't see their views ever changing with no matter what rational explanations were given judging by their continuous circulatory posts.

Will get on with some other topics and readings. Thanks for your input on the point. :pray: :up:

So would you mind trying to establish with me if its generally true to say "if P-> Q, then Not P -> Not Q must hold."? I would love to have this basic logic established, as it has so far been a fundamental part of Corvus reasoning to this point. — flannel jesus

I have explained on the point in my previous post clearly enough.

This is why the logic is not working. You cannot doubt everything and then suddenly, magically be certain of something. That is not too hard to understand, in my view. It is impossible to beat the skeptics at their own game. The only way to 'beat' them is to NOT PLAY THE GAME. — Beverley

Agreed. Thinking (Psychology) ===> Existence (Ontology, Epistemology). This is a leap. It is not even a logical leap. It is a psychological or paranormal leap.