One can find all sorts of other stuff that one cannot coherently deny - like that you are reading this post. So if that is our standard, the Cogito is hardly special. — Banno
I can coherently deny any sense data, like reading “this post”. — Fire Ologist
But here are we not talking about "I"? - "Cogito"? We are not talking about rocks and bricks here.There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think. — Banno
Of course I deny its Truth. It is FALSE. That is one of the proofs (t→e) is FALSE. But there are so many other reasonings that can be applied which makes t->e is false.But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t→e)→(¬t→¬e). — Banno
I have not said that the cogito is meaningless. — Banno
It’s not about the “I”. It’s not about the “therefore”. It’s about the “am” present in “think”. “Am thinking” says enough. — Fire Ologist
(t→e) tells us nothing about (¬t→¬e). — Banno
If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
Hence the ground is not wet. — Corvus
That whole conversation is an exercise in missing the point... — Fire Ologist
He thinks implication is equivalence, it seems — Banno
In Corvus world, there's only one way for the ground to get wet. — flannel jesus
No, it doesn't....which makes (t→e) False too. — Corvus
If that is how you see it, you are wrong. I am only interested in the philosophical discussions based on reasoning. Nothing else will interest me in this forum.You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is difficult to back down when you make a mistake, even in the most friendly circumstances. — Banno
Of course everyone knows that.If I don't hose, and it doesn't rain, the ground will not be wet
But
If I hose, the ground will be wet.
All I did was remove "Hence". That's were you went astray. — Banno
And from "If it rains, the ground will be wet" it does not follow that "If it does not rain, the ground will not be wet". I can hose the ground, and rocks exist without thinking. — Banno
It is not about follow, it is about introducing assertion and inference. — Corvus
No, Corvus. That is your confusion. I have never claimed that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist. What I have said, quite explicitly, is that if Descartes' argument is that if you are thinking, you exist, then that this does not, as you have claimed, imply that if you stop thinking you cease to exist.Are you still claiming that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist is true? — Corvus
No, because if you are able to get through to Corvus, observing how you did so might provide me with insight that I don't have at present. — wonderer1
Are we now playing "posts last wins"? — 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.