How does your OP then? Is it not attempting to facilitate the functions of an absolute proof?

Since my criticism is pretty much: even logical necessities can't be trusted completely since it's impossible to prove that we have understood them correctly... If we assume that logic and our analysis of it works, logical necessities are true including "I think, therefore I am". All I can say that it is an assumption and in our history humans have thought many untrue things as absolute proofs even thought they were meaningless nonsense. I think the problem is that whenever we describe anything formally, these proofs work... the problem is that we haven't proved that formally describing things itself works... and I have no idea how to prove something absolutely without describing it formally.

other way to demonstrate this problem is the infinite regression you end up with, when you try to prove that you have understood your proofs correctly and then having to demonstrate that you have understood your proofs about your understanding of the previous proofs correctly etc...

What the Tortoise Said to Achilles
by Lewis Carroll (1895)

A classic paradox, but not necessarily a true paradox since it assumes that distance can be divided into infinite number of distances which modern quantum mechanics disproves... it also assumes that time can't go through an infinitely complex system of distances in a finite time... these are assumptions... not proofs... although even if this was a true paradox it would not really apply to this subject very much.

Correct my proofs here, if I misunderstood them... I am in a hurry and therefore not that confident about this post.

for example: if a defined time represented a defined group of distances, there would not be a problem with this paradox. although... time would have to be quantumized as well... which it is according to our current empirical testing... this paradox might be the reason for it... paradoxes can't exist... hopefully :P

This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly. — Qmeri

I think it is not so much a proof but rather the result of some reasoning steps.

ps. I trust logic and science very much, but I'm just criticizing the idea of an absolute proof — Qmeri

Since the "I think, therefore I am" is neither scientific nor merely logical, it is a philosophical realization or insight, which one either accepts or not with good reasons. Nietzsche, as is well known, criticized that the experience of thinking, which was also indubitable for him, does not necessarily have to presuppose a subject.

Since the "I think, therefore I am" is neither scientific nor merely logical, it is a philosophical realization or insight, which one either accepts or not with good reasons. Nietzsche, as is well known, criticized that the experience of thinking, which was also indubitable for him, does not necessarily have to presuppose a subject. — spirit-salamander

"I think, therefore I am" Is a formal logical necessity and if Nietzsche disagreed with that, he was wrong... My argument is about the capability of anything to prove that it did not make a mistake with absolute certainty.

ps. even if you don't define a function to need a subject... you will still have the function existing, which still demonstrates the main point of descartes

It's apparent you didn't read the text. Oh, well.

"I think, therefore I am" Is a formal logical necessity — Qmeri

This is controversial in the philosophy debate. Descartes himself did not consider the "Therefore I am" as a logical conclusion.

sorry... i am in a hurry... I read it very fast and it seemed like the zeno's paradox... was it about something else?

I do agree that it does not demonstrate that it formally proves anything except "my thinking" existing... I haven't really read Descartes, so I thought he meant that and "I" was just a word to use... my mistake probably

The way I would say the descartes-thing would be: "I experience, therefore my experience exists for me."

probably a more foolproof way of trying to prove some existence as logically necessarily true.

You're not completely wrong, since, as I said, it's philosophically controversial. So, your point is certainly worth discussing.

You might like this:

Schlegel’s critique of first-principle philosophy is rooted (like Novalis’) in a sense of the ungraspability of the absolute or unconditioned. (As Novalis puts it in the first of his “Pollen” fragments: “Everywhere we seek the unconditioned [das Unbedingte], but find only things [Dinge].”) More specifically, Schlegel holds, against Reinhold and Fichte, that “there are no first principles that are universally suitable [zweckmässig] companions and guides to truth” (KA XVIII.518, #13): even “self-evident” propositions can be doubted and so require demonstration (thus opening up an infinite regress), and any proposition can be proved in an “infinite” number of ways. For Schlegel “every proof is infinitely perfectible” (KA XVIII, 518, #9), and the task of philosophy is not one of searching to find an unconditioned first principle but rather one of engaging in an (essentially coherentist) process of infinite progression and approximation.
...
The Schlegelian philosophy that results from this engagement with idealism is non-foundationalist, holistic and historical (see Beiser 2003, 123–26). Schlegel himself describes his philosophical approach as resembling both a circle and epic poetry because it must forever “begin in the middle”: “Philosophy must have at its basis not only an alternating proof [Wechselbeweis] but also an alternating concept [Wechselbegriff]. In the case of every concept, as in the case of every proof, one can in turn ask for a concept and a proof of the same. For this reason, philosophy, like an epic poem, must start in the middle, and it is impossible to pursue philosophy piece by piece starting from a first piece which is grounded and explained completely in and through itself. It is a whole, and thus the path to recognizing it is no straight line but a circle” (KA XVIII, 518). — link

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schlegel/

Therefore nothing will ever be "an absolute proof" aka something that can't be wrong or a mistake. — Qmeri

Descarte's "I think therefore I am" is seen as the one thing we can be sure of.

However, you are right. We can't be sure we are applying logic correctly or even that it is possible for our species on this speck of dust to know how to use logic (e.g. we might not have the processing power).

I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake. — Qmeri

Sure. And?

The idea that we do not have access to absolute truth or certainty is common enough: fallibilism.

But anyone can say D may have made a mistake - the trick is to identify the mistake. Can you?

What he is actually saying is 'consciousness, therefore me.' A common critique is the presupposition there is a me or I involved.

Descartes’ proof took the form of truth insofar as its negation is impossible. Technically, he attained apodeictic certainty under very strict conditions, which is sufficient for proof for the validity of those conditions.

Generally speaking....correct, not a proof, for it lacks necessity while obtaining sufficiency. But a proof for the manifold of all instances of congruent conditions? Why not?

Against Descartes:
""I think, therefore I am" presupposes logic without any proof of it.

Side note: You can´t prove logic logically. If you try, it is petitio principii (begging the question).
And conclusion from that and plus some extra thinking what I made is:
My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition. The deductive and inductive reasoning. Disagree, prove me wrong!


If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true.
But: empirical fact could be, that a being will think in some part of her/his brain, and make conclusion "therefore I am", even when the first thinking part of the brain has died, and the other part is alive. So, there´s somebody, who thinks and therefore exists, but this conclusion is wrong, because the first thinking part doesn´t exist anymore. That part, where "therefore, I am" is denoting.
So, statement may technically be right, but not for the right reasons.


(Augustine think way similar than Descartes over thousands years before)

This was more of stream of consciousness. I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.

I remember when I was ten, when Descartes was introduced to me.
I thought he was wrong. I made conclusion that only sure thing is that things are certain or uncertain. I didn´t understood those "things" have to exists, although I was implicitly assuming them to be, to exist.

At those times, little bit later, I was in a car with my family me speaking about certainness and uncertainness, my grandmother asked me: Is it that true, at least, that we are in a car?
I was astonished and replied: That definitely is not sure!

Sure. Absolute proof when it comes to belief is not possible for us. Only probabilities, likelihoods and reasons can give us better or worse reason to belief in something. But there's a reason why Descartes thought experiment is still captivating, it highlights several problems concerning the mind and the external world. To that extent, it's still worth considering.

Existence comes before thought, therefore the correct way of putting it is “I am, therefore, I think I am”

"I think, therefore I am" — Qmeri

I've always considered this nonsense. But his mathematical ideas had great merit. :cool:

"I think, therefore I am"

This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly. — Qmeri

Sorry but I think that is nonsense.
You don't require understanding to know you exist.
The very fact that you can 'think and do' means you exist. Understanding only explains why. That is not necessary to the basic premise.

1. I think [premise]
2. If I think then, I am (I exist) [suppressed premise]
Therefore,
3. I am (I exist)

Time to send an invitation to Agrippa of Agrippa's trilemma fame aka Münchhausen trilemma and ask him to take a look at Descartes' supposedly airtight argument.

What's the proof for premise 1? seems to be the best route to bring Agrippa's trilemma to bear down, quite heavily I'm afraid, on Descartes' admirable attempt. The proof, if it even deserves that label, is as follows:

1. I think
So,
1. I think

Hopelessly and devastatingly circular. No proposition can justify itself or, more accurately, should be allowed to execute that maneuver. Would you believe me if I e.g. told you, "God exists" and justified that with "God exists"?

That said, all is not lost, there's still a glimmer of hope for Descartes if one is of the opinion that there are such things as virtuous circularities. Indeed, if I think then, surely and indubitably, I think.

Intriguingly, the very process of trying to come up with a proof for premise 1. I think, is itself, thinking. This might be one of those rare occasions where the attempt to prove something, here 1. I think, is itself sufficient the proof of that thing. I'm sure many would give their eye teeth for a deal like that. Even more interesting is the other side of this coin - trying to disprove premise 1. I think, itself being thinking, has the opposite effect i.e. it proves premise 1. I think.

I was hoping Agrippa's trilemma to seriously damage the credibility of premise 1. I think. It doesn't look like that's possible.

However, premise 2. If I think then, I am (I exist) is a sitting duck for Agrippa's trilemma. It lacks the self-justifying feature of premise 1. I think. That being so, Agrippa's trilemma applies in full to it and there no prizes for guessing what happens next.

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition. — Antinatalist

....which rejects a priori judgements.

If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true. — Antinatalist

...which is necessarily an a priori judgement.
——————-

I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself. — Antinatalist

People do think of it that way. But here, in the sections following the section in which ”Cogito... is posited, is found “the first and most certain...”, which is congruent with your “analytically true”. So Descartes himself didn’t logically prove anything, per se; he merely espoused something as impossible for him to not know immediately, without any intervening arbitration.

“....I have often noticed that philosophers make the mistake of trying to explain things that were already very simple and self-evident, by producing logical definitions that make things worse! When I said that the proposition I am thinking, therefore I exist is ‘the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way’, I wasn’t meaning to deny that one must first know what thought, existence and certainty are, and know that it’s impossible for something to think while it doesn’t exist, and the like....”
(Principles of Philosophy, I.10., 1644, in Cottingham, Cambridge, 1985)

Even so, the serious argument....assuming there is one..... revolves around exactly what existence, and thereby what kind of existence, Descartes was so sure of. All he said about “....I am”, is “...we can’t suppose that we, who are having such thoughts, are nothing....” (ibid, Sec 7). He is saying what I am not, but doesn’t say what I am, only that I am.

My interpretations only, of course.

I guess the simplest way of saying this is: One can't prove that he didn't make a mistake. — Qmeri

Good Question! It would also seem a better question if it was asked: Is there a paradox - or do I believe there is one?

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition.
— Antinatalist

....which rejects a priori judgements. — Mww

Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think).

If we assume classic logic in general to be true "I think, therefore I am" is analytically true.
— Antinatalist

...which is necessarily an a priori judgement. — Mww

Yes, it is. At same time, it seems to be true. The judgment of this is intuitive, I argue.


I don´t think that there´s any serious arguments against Descartes, I certainly think that he proved logically his existence for himself.
— Antinatalist

People do think of it that way. But here, in the sections following the section in which ”Cogito... is posited, is found “the first and most certain...”, which is congruent with your “analytically true”. So Descartes himself didn’t logically prove anything, per se; he merely espoused something as impossible for him to not know immediately, without any intervening arbitration. — Mww

I agree. If you mean, that he didn´t found any new logical truths.

“....I have often noticed that philosophers make the mistake of trying to explain things that were already very simple and self-evident, by producing logical definitions that make things worse! When I said that the proposition I am thinking, therefore I exist is ‘the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way’, I wasn’t meaning to deny that one must first know what thought, existence and certainty are, and know that it’s impossible for something to think while it doesn’t exist, and the like....”
(Principles of Philosophy, I.10., 1644, in Cottingham, Cambridge, 1985)

Even so, the serious argument....assuming there is one..... revolves around exactly what existence, and thereby what kind of existence, Descartes was so sure of. All he said about “....I am”, is “...we can’t suppose that we, who are having such thoughts, are nothing....” (ibid, Sec 7). He is saying what I am not, but doesn’t say what I am, only that I am.

My interpretations only, of course. — Mww

I agree. It is mystery what this "I" is.

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition.
— Antinatalist
....which rejects a priori judgements.
— Mww

Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think). — Antinatalist

What I think:

All empirical judgements are intuitive, hence contingent; all a priori judgements are discursive, hence necessary. Knowledge from intuitive judgements is experience; knowledge from discursive judgements is reason.
———-

......without any intervening arbitration.
— Mww
I agree. If you mean, that he didn´t found any new logical truths. — Antinatalist

Yep, that’s what I mean.
—————

It is mystery what this "I" is. — Antinatalist

Not for the hard sciences, for the most part finding no empirical reason to acknowledge the validity of it. Brain states, recyclable neurotransmitters, variable ion potentials and all that jazz, doncha know. And not for speculative epistemology, which grants that the “I” represents the unity of the manifold constituency of consciousness. But then, metaphysics is a mystery in itself, so....there is that.

My hard statement is that all knowledge is based on intuition.
— Antinatalist
....which rejects a priori judgements.
— Mww

Perhaps so, but what is the relation between a priori judgments and knowledge? Just asking (what you think).
— Antinatalist

What I think:

All empirical judgements are intuitive, hence contingent; all a priori judgements are discursive, hence necessary. Knowledge from intuitive judgements is experience; knowledge from discursive judgements is reason. — Mww

So you think all a priori judgments are reasonable and discursive, but there is no intuition at any level.

Not for the hard sciences, for the most part finding no empirical reason to acknowledge the validity of it. Brain states, recyclable neurotransmitters, variable ion potentials and all that jazz, doncha know. And not for speculative epistemology, which grants that the “I” represents the unity of the manifold constituency of consciousness. But then, metaphysics is a mystery in itself, so....there is that. — Mww

I agree. But then again, if you radically doubt everything, you doubt also science etc.
And I don´t think such a doubt is a rational way to view life.