You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. Hence your saying your point has much backings, was inferred as the popular media backings.I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity. — Lionino
You walk therefore you move? "Move" and "Walk" are the same class of the terms, which are both motions. There relation is semantic, rather than logical or epistemic or ontological. "Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here.It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument. — Lionino
You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. — Corvus
"Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. — Corvus
Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here. — Corvus
Nothing obscure in there at all. :nerd: — Corvus
You are talking about totally something else. The point is how your point for getting lot of backings implied, the popular media backings rather than logical backings. Because you had not shown any.You have to look up what "logical necessity" is. — Lionino
Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." He obviously misunderstood something.Yeah, and one implies the other. As Descartes and the editors have already explained, you can't think without existing, one thing begets the other. — Lionino
Now I don't understand here. What do you mean?Just because you arbitrarily put two verbs into two boxes that are just adjectives, it does not mean anything. If it were obvious you would be able to explain yourself very easily, but there is no argument. — Lionino
At your misunderstandings :)You would be surprised. — Lionino
You are talking about totally something else. — Corvus
"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." — Corvus
Now I don't understand here. What do you mean? — Corvus
Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." — Corvus
you can't think without existing — Me
Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. — Corvus
He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse. — Corvus
Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything. — Corvus
Deepak is not serious either, but as in a serious person. — Lionino
I also have no clue what this means. — Lionino
↪Chet Hawkins Your worldview is esoteric and your evidence is not evidence but faith. — Truth Seeker
I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence?I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence.
— Chet Hawkins
Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD
I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model.offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.
— Chet Hawkins
Your self image is a rather impressive edifice — AmadeusD
Well, you do not say how or offer any specific. Why bother to respond at all?Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?
— Chet Hawkins
Oh, interesting. :) — AmadeusD
It does indeed, if one's model of the universe is correct.Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense.
— Corvus
No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino
It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars. It is strange for one to deny any knowledge on what one said, and got replied to.If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers. — Lionino
It is not a gibberish. It is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. There is no logical transition between the two. It is an irrational leap to say "Think", therefore "Exist".Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish. — Lionino
That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around. — Lionino
Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically.No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought. — Lionino
Perhaps your lack of sleep was making you feel everything hazy. Sleep well and sweet dreams. :nerd:Ok, time to sleep. — Lionino
That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No? — Corvus
No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think. — flannel jesus
Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not.Before thinking takes place, something must exist — Corvus
My worldview is evidence-based. If I become aware of incontrovertible evidence for the existence of souls and gods, I will stop being an agnostic atheist and become religious. I have researched the top twelve religions on Earth and none of them are evidence-based. This is why I am an agnostic atheist. I am open to new evidence e.g. if you show me incontrovertible evidence for the existence of fairies, I will stop being an agnostic afairyist. Do you understand my position better now? What is your worldview? What is the basis for your worldview? — Truth Seeker
Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not. — flannel jesus
The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think." — flannel jesus
The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist." — Corvus
Thank you for your advice. You didn't answer my questions about your worldview. Why is that? — Truth Seeker
The assumption is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic. — flannel jesus
If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing? — flannel jesus
I cannot roll my eyes hard enough at this non-answer. — flannel jesus
I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now a turn for the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid. — Corvus
Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender. — flannel jesus
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.