This side-conversation is not helping anyone understanding anything about "I think therefore I am" vs "I am therefore I think". It's a complete distraction, which is why it deserves the eye roll. It's adding nothing.

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

There's a reason why "I think therefore I am" is a beloved mainstay of philosophical thought, and nobody at all is taking up "I am therefore I think". You're speaking a lot of nonsense here.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. It doesn't bear any obvious relationship to the "I think therefore I am" question.

That is ALSO to say, what is morality? — Chet Hawkins

This has no bearing on the conversation, so I stopped reading there. Other than that, that existence implies thought is an obviously incorrect statement unless you are a panpsychist. There are way too many things that exist and yet don't think. That should be a very simple point.

It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars — Corvus

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.

t is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. — Corvus

It is gibberish. Think is a psychological concept as much as it is an epistemological, ontological, linguistic concept. Existence is also all of those. Thinking and existence are fundamental concepts of our reason, you are putting them in little boxes like one can put "acid" in the box "chemistry". But it is pointless.

That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?

Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically. — Corvus

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.

Descartes got it wrong, and ↪Lionino is in deep confusion in this Cogito ergo sum muddle. — Corvus

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

I think he's trying to say that perceiving reality pre-supposed reality — AmadeusD

Which is just fine in line with Descartes' argument.

so the Cogito is a step ahead of establishing 'existence'. — AmadeusD

No problem with working retroactively. In fact, Descartes' metaphysics is that God is the cause of his (soul's) existence. He works backwards from the cogito to the thing that causes the soul/cogito, so the cogito is "a step ahead" of establishing God too — Cartesian epistemology and Cartesian metaphysics have different order. One can come up with many more example of retroactive arguments.

That's fascinating. Thank you.

I think thefore I am.
I think ∴ I am translates to
I think → I am meaning
I am is necessary for I think.
It does not mean I am is sufficient for I think, which would be
I am → I think or
I think ← I am, which translates to
I think ∵ I am, in English
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.

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.

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

That's fascinating. Thank you. — Truth Seeker

:grin: :pray: :pray:

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? — Chet Hawkins

Are you serious, my brethren?

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. — Chet Hawkins

Im now simply happy to say the size of your ego is impressive.

Why bother to respond at all? — Chet Hawkins

Responses to your posts, from my estimation, are largely signals to other posters.

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. — Corvus

To which I reply I don't understand your fascination with Mars having life, a topic you brought up.

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

It is not "the whole", you have not read a single page of it.

This seems the real confusion and linguistic muddle. — Corvus

Ok? So you realise you are misinterpreting what the "therefore" means? I guess not:

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? — Corvus

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.
Obviously you will still not understand that, and then there is clearly nothing I can do. I will simply tell you you are confused and leave you to it. All I can recommend is to read Descartes with a guide, I recommend Emanuela Scribano.

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.

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.

He thinks all the necessary thoughts to agree with "I think therefore I am", but stumbles at the last hurdle. I suspect it might be a language issue - maybe he's struggling with what "therefore" means or something like that.

He agrees that existing things need not think. He also agrees that all thinking things must exist. Tying that all together into "I think, therefore I am" is just a step too far for some reaosn.

↪Chet Hawkins I know trillions of things. So do others. Just because you claim that one cannot know anything it does not make it true. — Truth Seeker

It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. What would be the point of further trying?

This relationship rather PROVES the point, if you are paying attention. It is critically important that we do not have the capacity to know. It is likewise important and when I say this I mean to truth, that we realize this and remain curious, doubtful.

That is what is meant by Voltaire's quote and my various blathering(s) on the same subject.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.

I suspect it might be a language issue - maybe he's struggling with what "therefore" means or something like that. — flannel jesus

That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality.

If one claims to have an apple here, and then two apples, what is the limit for where the two are distinct?

It takes what to separate one from the other? Further, finer grained awareness is the right answer.

The tendency of order, of reason, of fear, is to take each and every short cut within a practical defined set of colloquially agreed upon short cuts. In this pool of fools there is then a top echelon that is academia or 'smart people'. These short cut takers think they can finally 'know' something. A God would be revolted by the notion. What mystery remains. None. End it.

This is also why fear in its panicked striving towards keeping its delusional worthiness, life, focuses on the short cut of mere survival, rather than really living. The result is instead the slow and cold progression of building one's own 'know' prison. That has another name: Death.

That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality. — wonderer1

One really must wonder. Oh, um, sorry!

I love the moniker. My normal one is Series0. After me, they broke the mold. Can't have Q running about causing trouble in the universe.

yeah, same. Like he thinks "x therefore y" means x has to come before y so that x can cause y, when... that's not what therefore means, and is in this case kinda the exact opposite of what therefore means

Because of all that x is, y seems implicit.

The seeming is desire. A wish.
What is is anger. Being in essence, trapped between what was and what will be.
The structure and rules, the objective nature of these relationships is pattern, thought, fear, order.

A fear based or ruled person has a leaning to order that is accompanied by delusional worthiness. That is because they think they know. And they think they know thinking. It's all only fear. And this lack of admission makes them also often say things like, 'Use logic, not emotion' But logic is only fear.

Fear is the limiting force in reality. It is exactly like its mathematical namesake. It extends to, but never reaches infinity (asymptote). Infinity in this case, is perfection. Knowing is an objectively aimed verb. It is therefore a limit, a representative of this emotion, fear. It is also a bad idea in every case. The superlative of 'every' is a more aware use of that stress than 'know' is. That is because that superlative reflects acceptance and awareness of both the high probability of fear based evidence and the NEVER FINALLY PERFECT limit of fear as an approach to truth.

So logic and fear and order itself are only high probability short cuts, possessed of delusional worthiness. The grace of perfection is more elusive than it seems to them. As time passes and the moral agency of choosers increases, dread admission of this truth is required to advance in wisdom beyond that plateau, that limit, the limit of fear itself.

Anger and desire are the only other tools to work with. Each stands to fear and adds value.

Logic chafes at the self-indulgent perversity of low probability desire. After all desire runs in any direction, every direction at once, amok and irreverently illogical. How could that be wise?

Logic chafes at the foolhardy nature of anger and the lazy repose of calm alike. Logic prefers patterns and prisons and excitement and to then be calmed by the familiar short cuts, the path of high probability cowards.

Fear and logic alone lead inexorably to cold stagnant death.
Chaos and desire alone lead inexorably to blazing disintegrating explosions.
Balance and anger alone is listless, calm, just there, peaceful, and deeply boring. The most massive dull lump!

That is what some of his posts imply. But others, such as the last one, seem unrelated. I feel like not even he knows what his objection is.

In any case, it is not like I am not learning anything here, so explaining the same thing over and over becomes a sort of charity — aka unpaid work for the benefit of others.

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.

I think thefore I am.
I think ∴ I am translates to
I think → I am meaning
I am is necessary for I think. — Lionino

¬E → ¬T
¬(¬T → ¬E)
It is all so tiresome.

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)

It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. — Chet Hawkins

You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance.

For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well.

After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. — Chet Hawkins

Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning.

But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing.

If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point. — Chet Hawkins

I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.)

Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't.

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

You really should stop.

You really should stop. — Lionino

Just been pointing out the problems. :nerd: