You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is difficult to back down when you make a mistake, even in the most friendly circumstances. — Banno

If that is how you see it, you are wrong. I am only interested in the philosophical discussions based on reasoning. Nothing else will interest me in this forum.

I don't care about some inauthentic time wasters throwing nonsensical abuse in the thread. I have decided to ignore them totally. I have not been battered by what appear to be nonsensical tantrums motivated by some of their psychological problems.

If I don't hose, and it doesn't rain, the ground will not be wet

But

If I hose, the ground will be wet.

All I did was remove "Hence". That's were you went astray. — Banno

Of course everyone knows that.
We are talking about the a logical progression started off from a specific premise in the argument.
It is about whether the conclusion is derived from the premises.

If you deny that and bring out some irrelevant argument, then there is nothing in the world which can be proven on the empirical issues.

If you hose your ground, so the ground will be wet.
But that is false, if the water gets dried out in few hours under the scorching sun.

I was under impression you would be good at logic and proofing, but taken back at your inability to understand even what simple logical proof process means. Bringing out some irrelevant premises into the argument to the conclusion drawn from the set premises and denying the validity of the proof is a sign of misunderstanding of the very basic foundational principle of the subject.

How is it tell you nothing?
— Corvus
Because (t→e) can be true and yet (¬t→¬e) either true or false. — Banno

(¬t→¬e) is definitely False in the Cogito case, which makes (t→e) False too.
No one with right mind would agree that, when he stops thinking, he ceases to exist.

(t→e) tells us nothing about (¬t→¬e). — Banno

How is it tell you nothing? It is a result from the principle of contradiction in proof process.

If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
Hence the ground is not wet.

How is it tell you nothing? They are the reasoning from contradiction.

If I think, then I exist.
If I don't think, then I don't exist. ???? False.
Hence If I think then I exist. Is False.

It’s not about the “I”. It’s not about the “therefore”. It’s about the “am” present in “think”. “Am thinking” says enough. — Fire Ologist

But if you cannot prove, or refuse to prove your claims of "Am thinking", it means nothing to anyone apart from to yourself. It would be like talking about your last night's dream.

There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think. — Banno

But here are we not talking about "I"? - "Cogito"? We are not talking about rocks and bricks here.

But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t→e)→(¬t→¬e). — Banno

Of course I deny its Truth. It is FALSE. That is one of the proofs (t→e) is FALSE. But there are so many other reasonings that can be applied which makes t->e is false.

If we agree to infer that Descartes Cogito's premise was I doubt everything. Then,

I doubt everything. (P1)
But I don't doubt Thinking. (P2)
Therefore I think, therefore I am (C)

Then Cogito becomes invalid.
Doubt is also type of thinking, which makes P2 false.

The core problem here is that, mental event Think cannot leap into 100% certainty of verified Truth of one's existence. They are different class in existence. Think is a mental event. Existence is a physical object.

I don't know what you are asking. Shouldn't that be (¬t→¬e) → F? Which is not valid, as shown by the countermodel. — Banno

If you don't think, you don't exist. Is this not False?
Even if you don' think, but you still do exist. No?

I gather (¬t→¬e) = F is to be understood as "(¬t→¬e) implies the false"?

No, it doesn't. Rocks don't think, but exist. — Banno

Therefore (¬t→¬e) = F ?

The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”? — Fire Ologist

Logical validity is only relevant, if Cogito had been deduced from some premises. But it hadn't.
The only premise of Cogito was Descartes has doubted everything (presumably).

The “validity?” Of the cogito text? An “analysis”?

The point of the cogito, once you get the point, is that no analysis is needed; by analyzing anything further, you just make the point again. — Fire Ologist

But you see that even a simple logical formalisation and reasoning of Cogito, proves it is false.

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)
(¬t→¬e) = F
hence (t→e) = F

Would you agree on that?
Ignore the MP nonsense. It is not relevant here.

It might be ahistorical of me, but I'm going to read someone who believes women's natures are "devotion" and "submission" as a sexist. Regardless of why K believes it. — fdrake

It sounds a contradiction. Another contradiction with K. is his emphasis on human relationship with God. From what I read about existentialism, the existentialist don't believe in God. Most of them seem to reject God. They would rather believe in Freedom of individuals, absurdity and isolation. If that is the major character of existentialism, then K. seem to had been an anti-existentialist or different type of existentialist.

Our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain our choices. Most people turn a blind eye to this and insist they and other people have free will when they actually don't. — Truth Seeker

But what could anyone do about the determinants and constraints?

I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at
I can prove it
— flannel jesus — Banno

Fair enough. I got email from the forum that you quoted me in your post, and I also read in your post you saying my logic is wrong in somewhere. So I was trying to clarify on that point.

There are so many ways to reason about the Cogito statement to prove. You apply several assertions and inferences to the statement to prove. Some will be valid and some invalid. But what we were trying to prove was not validity here. We were trying to prove the statement is true or false, sound or unsound.

You are back in my To-Ignore list. Bye~

I will speak to Banno when he comes back with his replies. But I don't speak to the folks who throws the out of context muck vulgarity in the discussions. All the best.

Just talk to Banno. I will leave you to it.

You are back to your old habit of throwing the muck vulgarity again here instead of seeing the point.

You seem to have read something about MP on the internet and been parroting about it here until cows come home. You don't seem to know how to apply logic in the real life situations.

Yes, you can explain 2+2 = 5 many many times and still be wrong. — flannel jesus

Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.

Can't wait until you're actually ready to start looking at logic. — flannel jesus

If you can recall, it had been explained repeatedly over and over again.

Where's the logic ? — flannel jesus

Well you insisted, Banno's post was addressed to you, so I will wait until Banno gets up from his sleep, and comes back with his explanations. Then after that I will tell him where he got wrong.

It was a metaphor. :) But it is far higher class than some of your nonsense insults even with vulgarity in the past.

he probably doesn't agree with your reasoning there because (p implies q) implies (not p implies not q) is not generally true - it's called Denying the Antecedent, and you can't just do that to any ol argument. — flannel jesus

But do you not understand the fact P -> Q has not TF value at the stage? You shouldn't be brining in some internet truth table here. This is tragic that it has to be explained again and again because you seem to be talking with a thick blanket on your face.

Let's see what he has to say about it.

My discussion to Banno is totally separate matter to yours, as I am only interested in clarifying Banno point in his logic at this particular stage.

But do you not see him saying my logic is wrong? I am trying to find out where he got the idea. It is good that he agrees 50% with me, but his logic has problems that he doesn't seem to see.

He quoted my ID in his post, so the Forum emailed me saying that Banno quoted me in his post, so I was replying to him. Well, he thinks my reasoning is wrong, so I was going to point out where he got wrong after hearing what he has to say about it.

I have read many definitions of free will but I don't agree with any of them. My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I don't mind if no one else agrees with my definition. I don't require anyone to agree with me about anything. — Truth Seeker

If you discuss a topic under different definitions of the key concept with the others, then you will not be able to reach the agreed conclusion.

But from my own view, things which were under determinant and constraints can never be freewill. You must accept something are determined for the humans, and they can never change or decide them.

Freewill is only valid when you had choices for different options for your decisions or actions.

Go on, then. Here is the premise:

P - > Q
— Corvus
or in my parsing

(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)
— Banno

Show how that is equivalent to A↔B. — Banno

Why do you want to prove (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B?

You too are missing the point here.
As you put, your conclusion Cogito is invalid is correct, but your logic seems to be missing the critical point in your reasoning.

You got explain in detail what you are exactly trying to do when you are asking (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B, and I will tell you where you got it wrong.

I guess that's a possible explanation. But the meaning seems clear. To put it another way: — Janus

Please note. In the Internet truth table, P and Q has the truth values, which were given as either T or F. Hence they can make axiomatic assumptions. It is still assumptions based on the truth values given to P and Q.

But here, we are not assuming any truth values at all to P and Q. Hence we can make most realistic assumptions and assertions against the original assumption based on the reasonable inference. I hope you see my point in the proof process.

You were citing something you saw on the internet truth table, and citing that as if all proof process must follow that, or it is wrong was your claim, which was really wrong and silly.

'If I am thinking I must exist'
It follows that
'If I don't exist I am not thinking'.
It doesn't follow that
'If I not thiing I don't exist' — Janus

You seem to be just citing what is on the internet or textbook for symbolic logic truth table.
For proof process, you must apply your own reasoning to the statement you want to prove or disprove.

Anyhow it was the last attempt to make the dualist understand the core problems. As Banno put it correctly, Cogito is not logically provable. It is an intuition. It is a subjective psychological solipsistic statement.

My hypothesis is that it's a language issue. Somewhere back in time he or she mentioned he or she was not a native speaker. — Bylaw

Your hypothesis make no sense. Do you reject the standard meaning of "therefore" from the dictionaries? Symbolic logic works for all the languages in the world.

You have this wrong. The logically entailed negation of 'I think, therefore I exist' is 'I don't exist, therefore I don't think' not 'I don't think therefore I don't exist'. — Janus

Could you forward your full explanation why it is?

It's a rookie mistake you're making. — Janus

You obviously don't seem know what had been tried there for the proof. Do you even understand what logical proofing means?

It sounds like the first priority is to define what freewill is. Then you could proceed for further clarifications and discussions.

I think you can speculate that he had resentment from romantic misfortune, with some evidence. But, at least in Sickness Unto Death, he finds women of a weaker spiritual constitution than men. He definitely was a kind of... advanced sexist... he had a theory for it. — fdrake

I read K. many years ago, but haven't come across anything on sexism at all at the time of my reading K.  He is known to have broken the marriage promise to his fiancee Regina for some reason.  I am not sure what the reason for breaking the promise was.

The other philosophers who are publicly known to have been sexists are Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.  For their reason for being sexists seem to be their personal experiences and situations with the opposite sex folks?  Just guessing.

It is interesting to note that both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were positing Will as the significant element in human values and the foundation of the mental operation and actions. Recall The World as Will and Representation and Will to Power?

Anyhow, I am not sure if the claim that K was sexist is an objective and fully accepted justified fact just from referring to some commentaries on his works or passages in his books.

From the existentialism's point of view, sexism would be the most inauthentic mode of thought, especially for a thinker like K.  He propounded the most meaningful status for a being is the lone being standing in front of God facing him directly one to one.  Discriminating or debasing the other races or sex in the system of thought of K doesn't seem to have a place in the K's system of ideas.

But your idea in the post sounds confident that K was. If so, how does sexism fit in the frame of existentialism? Can someone who are biased and prejudiced against the other people on the bases of sex or race be qualified as an existentialist? What would be the arguments on the point from the Ethics or Morality of Existentialism?

You are correct about his conclusion fitting the present. But this "I" which "is," is not the same "I" as the "I" which was nanoseconds ago thinking. The "I" is successive. Just as there isnt really a linear narrative, there are only successive nows. — ENOAH

Interesting point. I wouldn't describe Cogito as some insane moronic babble. But it is obvious that it has many rational incongruities to be classed as a logical statement. It is a subjective psychological expression at best, which reminds us to use method of doubt in all reasonings.

I meditate daily but I haven't experienced death yet. — Truth Seeker

Not even in your dreams?

Not every arrangement of matter is conscious. — Patterner

None of them are.

Do we scoff at the idea of electron shells because not every arrangement is solid? — Patterner

Not scoffing, but would like to hear the more elaborated arguments on the idea why electron shell arrangement is solid.

First of all, what do you mean by "solid"? You need to define the term intelligibly and objectively. Then you need to explain all about the electrons, electron shells and their arrangement before concluding they are solid under the definition of 'solid".

Then we can progress into further considerations and discussions, if there appear any to be compelling reasons worthwhile doing so.

why can’t the same be true of consciousness? My point is that we have observed other fundamental qualities “working together” to form a complex system, so it is not farfetched to conclude the same of consciousness.

Please let me know what you think! Any feedback / recommendations for further reading are greatly appreciated. — amber

The main problem with panpsychism is that all the non-living objects in the universe including the universe itself, refuse to respond in intelligible manner, when they were interrogated with the questions about them.

My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following: — Truth Seeker

Isn't free will only valid when you had choice? Most things you have listed as you have done, but don't want to do them seem nothing to do with freewill.

For example, did you have option not to be born?