Could you forward your full explanation why it is?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
You obviously don't seem know what had been tried there for the proof. Do you even understand what logical proofing means?It's a rookie mistake you're making. — Janus
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
'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
I guess that's a possible explanation. But the meaning seems clear. To put it another way: — Janus
They look very much like arguments to me. — Banno
Are you suggesting that the arguments in the Second Meditation are metaphors? — Banno
t→eP = I think, therefore I exist — Corvus
¬t→¬eQ = I don't think, therefore I don't exist. — Corvus
(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)P - > Q — Corvus
¬(¬t→¬e)Not Q — Corvus
⊢~(t→e)therefore Not P (P is FALSE) — Corvus
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
P 1: If I am thinking then I must exist
P2: I am thinking
C: Therefore I exist.
That seems valid but it may not be sound I suppose, although it is hard to see what is wrong with it. — Janus
I think an equivalent of 'I think therefore I am' is 'If I am thinking, then I must exist". 'If I am not thinking then I must not exist' does not follow, but 'if I don't exist, then I must not be thinking' does follow, as far as I can tell. — Janus
your proof is treating (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) as a premise. — flannel jesus
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) — Corvus
(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is a premise. it's P->Q. — Banno
It's not easy to see what you're saying here. It looks like you're saying
(t→e)→(¬t→¬e)
Is equivalent to saying
(t→e) — flannel jesus
(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) is a premise. it's P->Q. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.