One problem I note is that "I" is not well defined. Does "I" refer to some immaterial thing which interacts with the pineal gland?
Of course we all have some conception(s) associated with "I", but how accurate is that conception? — wonderer1
But this is not the argument Corvus presented in the quote. — Banno
no, he would get caught up on the word "then" as a time signifier. — flannel jesus
...where does that premise come from? — flannel jesus
The premise is invalid. But it is not a contradiction. That is, it seems possible. — Banno
that he is wrong does not imply that therefore the Cogito is valid. — Banno
I slightly misstated the argument. — flannel jesus
If (t→e)→(¬t→¬e) holds, as a general rule, then all (t→e) are actually (t↔e). — flannel jesus
is valid. If trivial.(t→e)→(¬t→¬e) isn't itself equivalent to (t↔e), it's equivalent to saying "if you have an implicaation (t→e), it's safe to say (t↔e) — flannel jesus
That doesn't mean much — flannel jesus
I don't think it's trivial — flannel jesus
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
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
Where's the logic ? — 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.