Post the pictures — Lionino

I cannot find the page relevant to this point in my logic books. I came home, sat down at the desk, and reviewed the whole point again. I still feel that Cogito Ergo Sum seems logically not sound.

P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.

P - > Q
Not Q (Q is FALSE)
therefore Not P (P is FALSE)

One's own existence is known by perception and sensation rather than just thought, no? Surely you must keep existing even when not thinking. Is this is the case, then I think therefore I am is not logically sound.

Holy shit. Obviously nobody said that. That doesn't even make sense. "I think therefore I am" is an inference. How can an inference be the only way for something to exist? — Lionino

Exactly :nerd: No wonder it didn't sound tightly logical necessity.

Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that — flannel jesus

I am trying to focus on the discussion with without getting interrupted by the unusual requests and irrelevant posts.

Please save this argument for after you post the pictures from your textbook. Your argument will hold more weight then - or it will disintegrate, depending on what's in the book. — flannel jesus

Sorry but I am discussing this point with . Will get back to you after our discussion, if there is any more point for us to discuss on this particular point. If I don't, then you know the answer.

No it doesn't prove that. Your next move is to say "Why not". Because burden of proof is not on me. — Lionino

I don't think you showed any arguments for it doesn't prove that, did you?

Obviously, because you can't recall what you said 1 page ago, you will say those two are different. But: — Lionino

Classic symbolic logic works by showing how the arguments transit from one to the other mainly using the variables. Sometimes you would introduce negations, AND, OR connectives in the process of proving. But in the process, if you noticed the critical point where it disproves the core points, then it will deduce the conclusion from the statement which is obviously true or false. This is the way the logical proving works. You seem to be totally ignorant of how the proving procedure works. It is like those folks who are into the habitual copying and pasting truth tables and some symbols in the internet, and insist that is the only way MP works what have you.

If you say, you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist, then when you are not thinking, you stop existing. That is what you mean logically. Don't you find that absurd?
Do you stop existing, when you are asleep, or watching movies or listening to the music with no thoughts?

How about the walls in your room. The wall don't think. Does it mean they don't exist?

Please also understand the core problem here was proving whether "I think therefore I am." is logically correct. All the rest was just introduced as a process for the proof.
Your insisting on requesting photographic evidence of the textbook ... etc, sounds very bizarre to me.

If you can't see the simplest logical proof shown to you with the explanation for the point, then that is fair enough. There is really nothing anyone can do about that to change your belief.

No, it is nothing to be sad about. People disagree in the real world, and you must learn to accept it.

We agree to disagree on the point, and that is fine by me. I really do hope to see you understanding the points though. But if not, so be it.

I have given you the full proof using both symbolic logic and ordinary language. If you can't see it, then that is fine. I don't feel there is a point for any more discussion here on this particular point.

I don't think it needs any more time wasting mate.

You have admitted that When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect.
We didn't even have to go into the symbolic logic.
Why is it so hard to see it?

All I can say is, if you are that bothered with something, please read my post again for proving why "Cogito ergo sum" is logically incorrect.

You obviously don't even understand what the core problem is. The core problem is proving "Cogito ergo sum" is correct or incorrect.

It shows you are also one of the copy-paste internet info brigade without even knowing what it is, but not even knowing what we are trying to prove here.

Except for Stanford University and Oxford University, for starters. — flannel jesus

Now it gives me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin:

You think therefore you exist? -> T (Assumption)
P -> Q = T (assumption)

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

Please note T F are truth values of the propositions.They are not  propositions themselves.
Well, this is the last time I am trying to make you understand.  If you still can't, then I don't think there is hope.   It is shocking that 3 of yous are all in the same cave of confusion.  No one seems to be able to dig yous out the cave.

I shall give a try as per time permits.

Please remember. The classic symbolic logic works on the forms only. No contents. I have several Logic books at home. And they all say the same thing. You must get any symbolic logic books, and have a look into them. It will all be there.

This is the simplest logic. There is nothing much to it. Why you cannot see my point is beyond common sense.

It gives me impression that if you were found that your point was wrong, then you seem to be reverting back to ad hominem, or you haven't read what I said replies. That is why I feel that you and your pal the wonderer are inauthentic.

OK we had enough discussions on it. I will leave you to it. Good luck.

In symbolic classic logic, the contents don't matter. It works purely on the format.
So if you say,
P-> Q
Not P
Then it must be Not Q

There is no way Not P, and it is still Q.

The proof process goes on with introducing negations, assertions and inferences. That's why it could have Not P for the negation introduction. If Not P, then it must be Not Q.

But Not Q doesn't make sense. You confirmed that it is incorrect. Hence P->Q is incorrect.

You think, but sometimes you stop thinking. But you still keep existing.
Not thinking doesn't make you non-existence. You think therefore you are. is logically incorrect.

I hope this helps.

Sure, present your argument against it, if you have any. I must go and do some work. I will read it later.

Well, if you say it is incorrect, then you proved yourself, you think therefore you exist is incorrect too. That is a simple logic.

No it is not. You don't agree with that, is psychological. It is incorrect is factual.

Is it correct or incorrect?

Why do you refuse to answer to a simple question?
You don't think, therefore you don't exist. ==> Is this correct?

Because you couldn't understand the most basic demo of logic, I had to ask you in ordinary language about the point. You change the subject, and refuse to answer.
So, the only conclusion I can have is that, you are not an authentic interlocutor. Please read some books on the topic before engaging in the discussions.

You still refuse to answer. You are not an authentic interlocutor.

Don't change the subject. Please answer me.
You don't think, therefore you don't exist?

Obviously you have not read a single Logic book, but are copying and pasting some internet info here. So I shall not try with logic. In simplest ordinary language, If you don't think, you don't exist? You don't think, therefore you are not?

You can use MP using negation too. Please read some introduction to Logic.

What is there to misunderstand? It is the simplest symbolic classic logic. Only thing is your trying to distort the truth even I have shown the clearest logical proof.
It seems that even the simplest logical demo is not getting through to you. Only thing I could ask you is keep reading my posts, and think clearly until you can understand it.

Are you prepared to listen to find out why? — flannel jesus

Sorry. I have already explained in most clear logical way with even the simplest symbolic logic Modus Ponens demo example. If you still cannot see it, then I can no longer do any further. I shall not waste any more of your time or mine with this point. Have a good weekend jesus.

You really should stop. — Lionino

Just been pointing out the problems. :nerd:

I am is necessary for I think. — Lionino

That is an irrational leap. It doesn't follow logically. If it is necessary you are for you think, then what is the point saying therefore you exist? It sounds redundant, circular statement, and doesn't prove anything.

By the way, it is necessary T in symbolic logic writes □T. Not ¬(¬T)

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. — flannel jesus

P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q

Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist."
A simplest symbolic logic based on Modus Ponens demonstrates you guys claims are a contradiction.

No, it is the same mistake over and over and over. The newborn does not think, but it exists, existence does not imply thought. You are confusing explanation with causation. — Lionino

The whole point is so simple, but you seem to be trying to make it complicated needlessly for some reason. The point is that you don't need to think to exist. Existence doesn't need thoughts. It exists, because it does.

Was SJ a stoic?

That's fascinating. Thank you. — Truth Seeker

:grin: :pray: :pray:

I think because I am, which is incorrect, as we know, because, unless you are a panpsychist, you think not because you are but because of many reasons, including that you are.
This is definitive proof that cogitō ergo sum is not inverted. Farewell, さらばだ. — Lionino

If you still insist that "You think therefore you are." is correct, then when you were just born, and was not able to think, does it mean that you didn't exist? What a contradiction.

Time to wake up from the slumber mate. :D

I didn't say for certain. For the fourth time, I said it not logically necessary that there is life in Mars. You need to research what logically necessary means. — Lionino

I have no idea what's your fascination with logical necessity, and keep repeating yourself with the term here. The point is that is not relevant to your statements that you know life doesn't exist in Mars, or Cogito.

No, because that is not what the word "therefore" means. You are thinking of "I can only come to think if I exist", which is exactly Descartes' point. The city is wet, therefore is rained. I am sneezing, therefore I have a virus. In X therefore Y, Y is the cause, X is the consequence.
You are simply getting confused with the meaning of words. — Lionino

This seems the real confusion and linguistic muddle.

Funny that you say Descartes got something wrong when we both know you have not read Descartes. — Lionino

I don't need to read the whole Descartes to know that his main theme in Philosophy is illogical. No one needs to.

A mere fact that you don't know something does not mean that something doesn't exist. It isn't too deep knowledge to understand. To someone with no senses, everything might sounds nonsense. Hope it is not the case with you.

There is nothing more to add apart from asking you to re-read my posts again.