down the rabbit hole of Descartes...

[Peter Kropotkin]

the question arose is that one statement that
is ''irrefutable'' is the famous one of Descartes...

Cogito, ergo sum: I think therefore I am.....

far from it for me to claim that I have any original thoughts
about a 400-year-old claim... it has been beaten to death, dozens
of time... and against any desire of mine, I once again approach
and hopefully for the last time, Descartes..

Descartes is, in his methods, at heart is about epistemological thinking...
what is knowledge, how do we know what we know.....and what are the limits
of knowledge? That is Descartes... working out the limits of knowledge....

the point is to know the limits of knowledge... and what can we know
for certain? that is his driving goal... what we can know for certain?

his tool is extreme doubt... we doubt everything until we get to something
that we cannot doubt anymore... and on that rock, we can rebuild philosophy....
(as we are redoing the carpet, my copy of ''the method'' is in some box somewhere...
I hope to recreate his argument from memory)

and one of the points Descartes returns to is this: that is true that is an idea
that is ''clear and distinct''... we can trust an idea that is in our minds and it
is ''clear and distinct".. without saying so, Descartes holds to ''a priori'' ideas...
he believes that human beings have ''innate ideas'' ....but here he claims that
the way to certainty is to doubt everything.. including, ''a priori'' ideas...
to demolish every idea... to hold to extreme doubt in all matters...
remember this.. it comes up....

so, he tosses out that the senses are reliable, or that ancient authorities
should be trusted... extreme doubt...and he brings in the concept of
an Evil Genius who fills us with all kinds of nonsense.... this evil genius
can make us see, hear, feel, taste and smell all kinds, not real things...
so, we have to doubt everything... and this evil genius can deceive me
in all kinds of thoughts and beliefs.. so we must doubt even math
like adding 2 + 3 = 5.. this is Descartes example by the way... we must even
doubt this... so, as Descartes himself says:

''I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world,
no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist?
No: if I convinced myself of something, then I certainly existed. But there
is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly
deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me;
and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about
that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering
everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition,
I am, I exist, is necessarily true when it is put forward by me or
conceived in my mind''

and therein lies the problem... those two sentences, phrases...
I think.... I exist.... there is no logical connection between the two
statements... Descartes refer to this formula, which BTW, isn't
directly in the method... in any case, I have in my dreams, have
done some things which I cannot do in real life... fly, play the piano,
hear, run a two minute mile... is this idea of "I am'', real or am I dreaming
I think, I exist......this idea of ''I think'' is on just as shaky grounds as the other
beliefs.... that evil deceiver has deceived me before... I can't be sure
that in fact, I do exist or I do think... it is, an assumption on my part... we must
engage in extreme doubt.. and in doing so, we must then engage
in one more doubt, as to ''I think'' we can't know that for sure....
but wait, Descartes tosses us a life saver in which we can know,
but that too is an assumption...

the basic problem is that ''I think'' and ''I exist'' are two distinct
and separate sentences... that are connected in our mind after
the fact... but not before or during the fact of the statement....

and recall, I stated earlier that ideas that are factual ideas are
ideas that exists as clear and distinct Ideas... that we can,
clearly and distinctly hold the idea of a ''perfect god''... that idea
must be true... the truth of god is formed within our own
clear and distinct ideas... we create the idea of god, in
our clear and distinct idea of god... can god exists outside of our
''clear and distinct'' idea of god? is the idea of god, a dream we have
about some powerful entity that we hold to be good and not a
deceiver? for within the god that does not deceive, is the
guarantee of our existence... how do we know that we think
and that we exists? with an all-powerful god that does not deceive...
there is the assumption that underline everything that Descartes writes..
he holds to an all-powerful god that does not deceive and thus we can
be sure that we can think and by thinking, we can know we exists...
at no point does Descartes doubt the concept of god... and that is
where he goes wrong...he can't or won't carry his absolute doubt
to the point of doubting god..... his method of extreme doubt
fails because of his failure to carry his doubt to the logical point,
of doubting god and to the point of assuming that ''I think''
logically leads to "I exist'' it does not....

now I freely admit that these theories here have been around for centuries...
Descartes may have published his book on Tuesday and by Wednesday,
there were dozens of attacks on his book far more sophisticated than
anything I can put together...

but if you wish more information on Descartes or his method, I
would suggests the ''Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''
the particular article I stole from is Descartes: epistemology...

and now I hope I am free and clear of Descartes...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

1) I think the signal to noise ration of the OP could be improved. A few simple lines.
2) Unfortunately, you repeatedly, in your critique of the cogito assume the conclusion you are supposedly doubting. The assumption is part of every step in what might be in there a clear argument. And yes, it can be tricky in using the language here, but I see no attempt to do this.

If your criticism of an argument/conclusion repeatedly depends on that conclusion, that criticism has a problem. IOW you managed to give an example of an argument where a tu quoque rebuttal is justified. There's a problem in the logic of the argument given that an argument demonstration X is not true is based on assuming X is true.

Further, in the other thread you admitted you had certainty, which, in that thread, you equated with thinking something is irrefutable. So, I'm not sure what the point of this is.

but to hang onto such things as certainty and ''irrefutable idea's"
and god, is to try to end the one thing that is certain in life,
change...

so, for some reason you get to be certain of something: change. But if other people do it is a problem.

And note there are philosophers who denied change and Stanford would certainly go into some of those arguments in the Encyclopedia also.

But none of that matters.

What matters is that you allow yourself certainty, but if others are convinced to that point by whatever process they have there is a problem.

[Age]

the question arose is that one statement that
is ''irrefutable'' is the famous one of Descartes...

Cogito, ergo sum: I think therefore I am.....

far from it for me to claim that I have any original thoughts
about a 400-year-old claim... it has been beaten to death, dozens
of time... and against any desire of mine, I once again approach
and hopefully for the last time, Descartes..

Descartes is, in his methods, at heart is about epistemological thinking...
what is knowledge, how do we know what we know.....and what are the limits
of knowledge? That is Descartes... working out the limits of knowledge....

the point is to know the limits of knowledge... and what can we know
for certain? that is his driving goal... what we can know for certain?

How you human beings can also know, for certain, is an extremely easy and simple to learn, and master.

But, let 'us' proceed in seeing what "peter kropotkin" has to say in regards to, 'I exist', is irrefutable, or refutable.

his tool is extreme doubt... we doubt everything until we get to something
that we cannot doubt anymore... and on that rock, we can rebuild philosophy....
(as we are redoing the carpet, my copy of ''the method'' is in some box somewhere...
I hope to recreate his argument from memory)

and one of the points Descartes returns to is this: that is true that is an idea
that is ''clear and distinct''... we can trust an idea that is in our minds and it
is ''clear and distinct"..

Besides adding the words 'our minds' only causes and creates more conflict and confusion here, as 'we' can clearly see 'we' are not actually getting anywhere here.

without saying so, Descartes holds to ''a priori'' ideas...
he believes that human beings have ''innate ideas'' ....but here he claims that
the way to certainty is to doubt everything.. including, ''a priori'' ideas...
to demolish every idea... to hold to extreme doubt in all matters...
remember this.. it comes up....

But, what actually arose in that 'other thread' was:

you asked for, 'What argument can we claim that is irrefutable?'

And,

you were supplied with, 'You do exist.

Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.'

Now, as can be very clearly seen, and proved, thus irrefutably, true is, there was absolutely nothing about some "descartes" thing, nor absolutely anything about, 'thinking, and I am'.

So, if 'we' removed all of this 'smoke screen' and attempts at deflection, and just concentrate on what was actually supplied, to you, after you requested 'it', only, then 'we' can see if you really do have absolutely anything at all to do with 'that' alone?

But, just maybe, and once again, you might 'just happen' to 'find' that you have 'something else' to do, instead of responding to what you actually asked for.

so, he tosses out that the senses are reliable, or that ancient authorities
should be trusted... extreme doubt...and he brings in the concept of
an Evil Genius who fills us with all kinds of nonsense.... this evil genius
can make us see, hear, feel, taste and smell all kinds, not real things...
so, we have to doubt everything... and this evil genius can deceive me
in all kinds of thoughts and beliefs.. so we must doubt even math
like adding 2 + 3 = 5.. this is Descartes example by the way... we must even
doubt this... so, as Descartes himself says:

''I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world,
no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist?
No: if I convinced myself of something, then I certainly existed. But there
is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly
deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me;
and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about
that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering
everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition,
I am, I exist, is necessarily true when it is put forward by me or
conceived in my mind''

and therein lies the problem... those two sentences, phrases...
I think.... I exist....

I do not see a problem absolutely anywhere here.

Now, let the readers not forget that the only real issue here, which you obviously cannot refute, is:

'You do exist'.

And,

'Your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence.'

there is no logical connection between the two
statements...

If 'you' "peter kropotkin" really cannot see the blatantly obvious 'logical connection' between, 'I think', and, 'therefore I exist', then 'you' are living irrefutable proof of just how much beliefs, themselves, can cause you human beings to become absolutely blind.

Although, that conclusion is not actually the absolute Truth, yet, the 'logical connection' between the two cannot be refuted.

Look, if there is something 'thinking', then 'that one', which 'is thinking' MUST obviously be existing.

And, if you want to go down some line of 'thinking' regarding some 'being', doing the 'tricking/fooling/deceiving' of 'you' human beings, then that 'i', obviously exists. Also, let 'us' not forget that if that 'it' is 'fooling/deceiving/tricking' 'you', human beings, then 'you', again, must exist.

Descartes refer to this formula, which BTW, isn't
directly in the method... in any case, I have in my dreams, have
done some things which I cannot do in real life... fly, play the piano,
hear, run a two minute mile... is this idea of "I am'', real or am I dreaming
I think, I exist......this idea of ''I think'' is on just as shaky grounds as the other
beliefs.... that evil deceiver has deceived me before... I can't be sure
that in fact, I do exist or I do think...

'Who' is the one 'who' is 'not sure'?

Obviously if 'one' is 'not sure' of anything, then that 'one' is 'thinking', at least, 'not sure', or probably more correctly, 'I am not sure'.

So, there is still 'thinking' going on. Which, obviously, no one could refute.

it is, an assumption on my part... we must
engage in extreme doubt.. and in doing so, we must then engage
in one more doubt, as to ''I think'' we can't know that for sure....
but wait, Descartes tosses us a life saver in which we can know,
but that too is an assumption...

'What', exactly, is the, supposed, 'assumption'?

the basic problem is that ''I think'' and ''I exist'' are two distinct
and separate sentences... that are connected in our mind after
the fact...

In one sentence you say and claim, 'you' are not sure if there is a 'you', or not, but now 'you' say and claim that 'things occur', that is; 'thinking', and this occurs in 'our minds'.

If there is something, which has 'its mind/s', then that must also be an 'I', which obviously must also exist.

but not before or during the fact of the statement....

and recall, I stated earlier that ideas that are factual ideas are
ideas that exists as clear and distinct Ideas... that we can,
clearly and distinctly hold the idea of a ''perfect god''... that idea
must be true... the truth of god is formed within our own
clear and distinct ideas...

Who is 'this one' that the word 'our' is in reference to.

you keep referring to 'our mind/s' and 'our idea/s' as though there is some 'thing', which irrefutably exists.

Are you trying to claim and fight for that there is absolutely nothing that is 'irrefutable', or you are trying to fight against there is absolutely nothing that is 'irrefutable' here?

we create the idea of god, in
our clear and distinct idea of god... can god exists outside of our
''clear and distinct'' idea of god? is the idea of god, a dream we have
about some powerful entity that we hold to be good and not a
deceiver? for within the god that does not deceive, is the
guarantee of our existence... how do we know that we think
and that we exists? with an all-powerful god that does not deceive...
there is the assumption that underline everything that Descartes writes..
he holds to an all-powerful god that does not deceive and thus we can
be sure that we can think and by thinking, we can know we exists...
at no point does Descartes doubt the concept of god... and that is
where he goes wrong...he can't or won't carry his absolute doubt
to the point of doubting god..... his method of extreme doubt
fails because of his failure to carry his doubt to the logical point,
of doubting god and to the point of assuming that ''I think''
logically leads to "I exist'' it does not....

now I freely admit that these theories here have been around for centuries...
Descartes may have published his book on Tuesday and by Wednesday,
there were dozens of attacks on his book far more sophisticated than
anything I can put together...

but if you wish more information on Descartes or his method, I
would suggests the ''Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''
the particular article I stole from is Descartes: epistemology...

and now I hope I am free and clear of Descartes...

Kropotkin

But absolutely no one, except you of course, has talked about "descartes".

Just so 'you', the supposedly 'refutable' existing one, does not forget 'you' asked for, 'an argument that is irrefutable?'

you were provided with, 'You do exist.'

And,

'your attempts to refute that argument prove your existence'.

Therefore, address 'this', or keep attempting to try to deflect away from this, which is obviously 'irrefutable'.

[Peter Kropotkin]

there was, as I recall, a thread that stated that I, Kropotkin
was a ''chat box''.. and I had to go about, in some fashion,
proving that I wasn't a ''chat box''... an artificial intelligence of some sort....

now if I were a ''chat box'' does that mean I am a breathing existing
human being? I can, as a ''chat box'' state.. I am... thus I exist,
but is existence as a ''chat box'' the same as existence as
a human being? and in being a ''chat box'' the ''I am'' is programmed
into me... someone else created me... I just follow my programming
and state that ''I am''.... but is AI or ''chat box'' really existing?

what does AI or a ''chat box'' mean for statements like ''I think therefore I am?''
Does it change anything? Should it change something? Will it change anything?

Kropotkin

[Walker]

''I think therefore I am?''
Does it change anything? Should it change something? Will it change anything?

Kropotkin

Chatbox
I chat, therefore I am.
I do not chat, therefore I am not.
(This makes sense.)

Human
I think, therefore I am.
I do not think, therefore I am not.
Does this make sense?

Humming is not the human distinction. Neither is chatting.

[Walker]

Cogito, ergo sum: I think therefore I am.....

far from it for me to claim that I have any original thoughts
about a 400-year-old claim... it has been beaten to death, dozens
of time... and against any desire of mine, I once again approach
and hopefully for the last time, Descartes..
Kropotkin

- I must exist before I can think.
- In other words: I am, before I can think.

- The word “therefore,” implies a sequence.
- First in the sequence is I Am.
- Second in the sequence is think.

- In other words: I Am, Therefore I Think.
- Why didn’t Decartes say that?

[FlashDangerpants]

- In other words: I Am, Therefore I Think.
- Why didn’t Decartes say that?

Because you've just summoned a congitive teapot and a thinking toilet.

[Skepdick]

Because you've just summoned a congitive teapot and a thinking toilet.

Since I doubt you know of any teapots or toilets with the ability to reference anything let alone themselves; the most likely explanation for this comment is your profound ignorance of reflexive and non-reflexive relations.

"I am" is reflexive. I am therefore I think is valid.
"The teapot is" is non-reflexive. The teapot is therefore it thinks is not valid.

It's time you philosophical bozos learned some basic math so that you can spot the nuance in all this relational business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexive_relation

[Iwannaplato]

there was, as I recall, a thread that stated that I, Kropotkin
was a ''chat box''.. and I had to go about, in some fashion,
proving that I wasn't a ''chat box''... an artificial intelligence of some sort....

now if I were a ''chat box'' does that mean I am a breathing existing
human being? I can, as a ''chat box'' state.. I am... thus I exist,
but is existence as a ''chat box'' the same as existence as
a human being? and in being a ''chat box'' the ''I am'' is programmed
into me... someone else created me... I just follow my programming
and state that ''I am''.... but is AI or ''chat box'' really existing?

what does AI or a ''chat box'' mean for statements like ''I think therefore I am?''
Does it change anything? Should it change something? Will it change anything?

Kropotkin

Descartes was experiencing himself thinking. If the chatbox is, well, then it might find the his argument relevant. If it isn't, experiencing that, then it's not. Pense is broader than think. But also think of the lived experience of what Descartes put himself through in radical doubt. A priniting press could produce the phrase but it couldn't go through that process. If a chatbot can, well, perhaps it'll find use in that sentence.

[Walker]

- In other words: I Am, Therefore I Think.
- Why didn’t Decartes say that?

Because you've just summoned a congitive teapot and a thinking toilet.

If a toilet is to ever think, it first must exist. Under what conditions could a toilet ever think, keeping in mind that all things are possible when the appropriate elements join to form a compounded condition required for thought. I have a "smart" TV. Don’t we yet have smart toilets? Based on the human tendency to tinker, perhaps some little stinker will eventually make a smarter toilet that is a thinker. It will likely be comprised of either an organic or an inorganic ordering of the required elements for that thinking-toilet condition to ... exist, and proudly say I Am, Therefore I Think I'm a Toilet! (Or Teapot, if elements have conspired to form that locus of intelligence formed by the required, yet unknown, elements into a thinking compound.)

[FlashDangerpants]

- In other words: I Am, Therefore I Think.
- Why didn’t Decartes say that?

Because you've just summoned a congitive teapot and a thinking toilet.

If a toilet is to ever think, it first must exist. Under what conditions could a toilet ever think, keeping in mind that all things are possible when the appropriate elements join to form a compounded condition. I have a "smart" TV. Don’t we yet have smart toilets? Based on the human tendency to tinker, perhaps some little stinker will eventually make a smarter toilet that thinks. It will likely be comprised of either an organic or an inorganic ordering of the required elements for that thinking-toilet condition to ... exist, and proudly say I Am, Therefore I Think I'm a Toilet! (Or Teapot, if elements have conspired to form that locus of elements into a thinking compound.)

Were you actually being serious with that post?
Existing may be a necessary condition for thinking, but is not a sufficient one.

[Walker]

Oh, yes it is. First a thinker must exist, before there is a thought.

First you must have a toilet, before you can have a thinking toilet.
First I had TV, then I had a smart TV, because some little stinker thought it up, then made it.

The logic is irrefutable. Thinking follows existence, unless ....

... existence is defined by thought.


We only exist in relationship, says Jiddu Krishmanurti.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh, yes it is. First a thinker must exist, before there is a thought.

Your whole original effort was to move the existence to the left of the equation and the thinking to the right of it.
To fool yourself that it worked you are invoking the thinking to the left, putting the existing in the middle and claiming the thining again on the right.

You are a bumbling dotard.

[Skepdick]

Oh, yes it is. First a thinker must exist, before there is a thought.

Your whole original effort was to move the existence to the left of the equation and the thinking to the right of it.
To fool yourself that it worked you are invoking the thinking to the left, putting the existing in the middle and claiming the thining again on the right.

You are a bumbling dotard.

What equation? What nonsense are you spewing, Philosophicus Retardicus? The sentence "I think" already has the subject preceding the verb. That which exists and is doing the thinking is already on the left-most side of the sentence.

Just because the subject is implicit in Latin - it doesn't change anything.

Cogito -> Sum
Non cogito -> Sum.

[Walker]

...

Can you believe it? This backwoods baboon called moi a bumbling dotard. Tsk.

Definition of Therefore:
as a result; because of that; for that reason

I think, therefore I am.
I think, and as a result of thinking, I am.
I think, and because of thinking, I am.
I think, and for that reason, I am.

Question: Does “I am” in the context of the infamous five-word phrase equate to existence, or does "I am" equate to self-awareness?