[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 13 KB, 236x300, macho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511368 No.10511368 [Reply] [Original]

>I think, therefore I am
What a bunch of bullshit. You can perfectly well be and not think

>> No.10511376

>>10511368
But you might not notice it

>> No.10511379

>>10511368
Learn2logic holy fuck

>> No.10511388

This thread will get WAY too many responses.
>>10511379
Yes, OP, actually learn what statements mean before you get autistic.

>> No.10511390

>>10511388
A rock doesn't think, yet it still exists. Check and mate

>> No.10511397

>>10511390
That doesn't disprove Descarte, retard.
Thinking=>Being but Being=>(Thinking or not Thinking)

>> No.10511401

>>10511397
What the fuck are you smoking, like seriously. A rock isn't an I, mate

>> No.10511406

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ORH1dXLUx0

>> No.10511407

>>10511390
Rock? What's that?

>> No.10511413

>>10511401
I didn't say they were, mega faggot

>> No.10511417
File: 32 KB, 317x335, 123456789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511417

>>10511390
Say this one more time.

>> No.10511418

>>10511368
I think -> I am

This doesn't say that if you don't think you don't exist.
Are you guys still in high school or what?

>> No.10511421

>>10511418
But it's possible to have

I don't think -> I am

So what the fuck is the point of Descartes premise? It's a cop-out at best

>> No.10511436

>>10511421
Whatever thinks, is; whatever does not think, might be, but also might not be.

>> No.10511440

>>10511436
What a fucking retarded statement

>> No.10511441

>>10511421
Turns out logical statements doesn't necessarily include their converse. What a wild revelation this must be for you.

>> No.10511446

>>10511368
>>10511397
>>10511418
what people don't realize is that descarte's famous "i think therefore i am" statement was used to try to prove god exists; Discourse on Method was an ontological proof for the existence of god.

also "I think therefore I am" is commonly criticized because it presupposes the "I" before proving it which is circular logic

>> No.10511448

>>10511441
Ok let me do the same then.

I stuck a flute up my ass, therefore my car is red

If Descartes claim makes sense so does mine

>> No.10511452
File: 25 KB, 400x333, 1553703200885.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511452

>>10511440
Well, that's what he meant. Maybe there is a descriptive application of this principle irl, idk.

>> No.10511454

>>10511368
>a > b
>wut but b can be without a

this is also not /sci/ but philshit

also, the claim is false. prove that you think. you cant. you can write some lines of code that make the computer print in the console "I think therefore I am" but clearly the computer does not think. you believe you think and you believe you are a separate entity and you believe you exist but that is not proof

>> No.10511460

>>10511448
>I stuck a flute up my ass, therefore my car is red
But that isn't a true statement?

>> No.10511461

>>10511368
>I mock what I'm intellectually incapable of understanding
That's pretty common, anon.

>> No.10511463

>>10511460
How do you know that

>> No.10511464

>>10511390
PROVE that a rock doesn't think.
You don't seem to know what "checkmate" means, dipshit.

>> No.10511467
File: 70 KB, 1024x773, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511467

>>10511464
>PROVE that a rock doesn't think.

>> No.10511469

>>10511454
What if I said: "I believe to be, therefore I am". Wouldn't that be valid statement?

>> No.10511472

>>10511464
Has a rock ever concluded: "Cogito ergo sum".?

>> No.10511476

>>10511469
reread my post
>I believe to be, therefore something is
FTFY

>> No.10511493

>>10511476
Do you argue, because I perceive things, I prove these things to be existent?

>> No.10511498

>>10511368
>solipsims 101

>> No.10511499

>>10511463
Because no physical processes would link a flute in your ass to a car being red. If you shoved a flute in your ass, your car would not magically change color.

>> No.10511503

>>10511472
I don't know.
And neither do you.

>> No.10511505

>>10511448
nonono, your ass is red

>> No.10511510

>>10511368
'a implies b' doesn't mean 'b implies a' holy fuck it's basic logic

>> No.10511515

>>10511499
>Because no physical processes would link a flute in your ass to a car being red.
What if my ass bled and sprayed some blood on my car?

Huh? Huh?

>> No.10511519

>>10511515
Then the converse still isn't necessarily true.

>> No.10511526

>>10511503
Since I've never heard of a rock, which has concluded this, I justifiably assume, that rocks are incapable of concluding this. I don't know it to be true, but I seems to be enough probable for this statement.

>> No.10511533

>>10511368
nigga too dumb to understand the most basic of basic philosophy lol

>> No.10511538

>>10511448
>I really have no idea how conditional statements in logic work.
Then let me educate you. A conditional statement is an if/then, as in the following: "If I shoot a person in the head with a 45 hollow-point, that person will die."

Suppose we both agree the above statement is true. Don't wander off into sophistry of misfiring guns and freak survival stories; you would be missing the point.

Now we have four related statements to evaluate: "If a person is dead, that person must have been shot in the head with a 45 holllow-point round." But this statement does not necessarily follow from the premise. There are other ways to end up dead.

"If a person was not shot in the head (blah-blah-blah) then they will not be dead." Again, this does not follow from the initially accepted statement because there are other ways to die.

"If a person is not dead, then they were not shot." Yes, this MUST be true if we accept the original premise because had they been shot, they would be dead.

So back to Descartes: Assume we agree that "I think; therefore I am." It necessarily follows that if I do not exist, that I do not think. It does not follow, however, that if you don't think, you don't exist, or that if you do exist, you think.

But most people would take it as axiomatic that what does not exist cannot think; therefore what does think must exist. To put it another way, I think; therefore I am.

QED

>> No.10511549
File: 551 KB, 655x529, WeneedadispenserandBLUisgonnapayforit.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511549

>>10511368
>>10511538
>I think, therefore I am a circular logic retard who thinks he can define himself
No
>>10511446
>I think therefore I can reify the existence of an omnipotent being unlike myself.
Even more "no".

>> No.10511555
File: 787 KB, 1240x1502, 1535196924303.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511555

>>10511538
>Descartes was making a logical and not an epistemological statement

Listen, I'm a fucking programmer. I know fucking logic. This isn't about fucking logic. For the love of fucks fucking fuck's sake. This is about philosophy and more narrowly about epistemology. It has nothing to do with logic.

>> No.10511561
File: 94 KB, 640x480, infinicartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511561

Ah, here come the tripcodes. Now it can't be too much longer until...

>> No.10511574
File: 1.00 MB, 1716x1710, 1549889112982.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511574

>>10511418
It's almost as if this place is infested with retards who can't into philosophy.

>> No.10511594

>>10511549
im >>10511446 and i just wanna say that this is the first based post youve ever made. i hate you and hope someone rolls you up into a carpet and throws you into a deep borehole (inb4 not an argument) BUT this post of yours was super based and i want you to know that

>> No.10511616

>>10511574
>still thinking descartes was making a logical statement
>describes himself as intelligent
Oh lord

>> No.10511646

>>10511368
>>10511390
>>10511401
>>10511421
>>10511454
>>10511555
>>10511549
>>10511594

Please be a troll.

Otherwise remove yourself from the gene-pool, it's OK to hate philosophy and being ignorant about elementary school logic but his garbage thread is too much.

Enjoy your +300 replies thread with 20 unique IP's faglord

>> No.10511659

>>10511441
>>10511418
/thread

>> No.10511665

>>10511646
>doesn't provide counterarguments
>just assumes he's the authority based on nothing
>calls everyone retard
You must be a philosophy major. Welcome to the thread, enjoy your stay

>> No.10511684

>>10511659
But it's fucking false, Descartes never meant any of that shit

>> No.10511716

OP successfully baited all of you
but genuinely "I think, therefore I am"
Is inherently circular

He uses "I" before he's determined that "I" exists

>> No.10511718

>>10511574
There is a lot going in that image.

One is tempted to say that the difference in perspectives is the difference between serious geniuses and pop scientists.
On the other hand, one could say that difference is due to changing attitudes towards religion between the early 20th century and the early 21st century.
Of course, you could say that the difference between the Anglo tradition and the continental tradition of philosophy.

What do you think /sci/?

>> No.10511742

>>10511716
Maybe when you go to high-school your philosophy professor teaches you that in order to do logic, we need a basic understanding of words over a finite alphabet. We cannot build a theory from less than that.

>Of course my proof contains its thesis within its assumptions. Each and every proof must be based on axioms, which are assumptions that are not to be proved. Thus each set of axioms implicitly contains all theses that can be proven from this set of axioms. As we know, each theorem in mathematics and logic is little more than a tautology: so is mine.

>> No.10511874

Computers think but they don't exist!

>> No.10511887

>>10511874
Computers don't think, wtf are you talking about

>> No.10511941

>>10511368
>>I think, therefore I am
>What a bunch of bullshit. You can perfectly well be and not think

Let's see. Let

A := "I think"
B := "I am"
P := A -> B

Assume P is true. Then is possible to have that A is false and B is true. P is still not falsified. So whats your point OP?

For fun we can also look at the contrapositive of P

(not B) -> (not A)

which is equivalent to P. Concretely "I am not, there I do not think", which also seems valid.

>> No.10511962

>>10511941
I think, THEREFORE I am

So thinking comes before being

So fuck you

>> No.10511990

>>10511962
> So thinking comes before being
Not necessarily. It means that the existense of thinking implies that there is a being to do that thinking. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

>> No.10511995
File: 40 KB, 640x628, 272d3f1985fbb13fd8701390fa2c8723.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10511995

>>10511368
You didn't read the meditations so please don't act like you know whhat logic he used to arrive at the conclusion

>> No.10512002

>>10511368
23 posters to 57 replies. Shit. I am a fucking fish.

>> No.10512009

>>10511990
I think THEREFORE ((( fucking THEREFORE ))) I fucking am

This implies that if I'm not thinking, then I am fucking not

What the fuck drugs is /sci/ smoking seriously you guys piss me off sometimes by being almost comedically stupid

>> No.10512013

>>10512009
bait

>> No.10512016

>>10511368
"A, therefore B" is not the same as "B, therefore A" you dumb fuck

>> No.10512018

>"I'm not thinking, but i still appear to be"

Someone gimme a place in the history books, dis be some royal straight flush thinking right here

>> No.10512021

>>10511368
>>I think, therefore I am
not science or math

>> No.10512074

>>10511421
OP I really hope you’re still in high school.

>> No.10512859 [DELETED] 

>>10511390
rocks dont exist.
things dont exist.
everything is one.
they are a dualistic abstraction of the mind.
i think therefore things are.

>> No.10512861

>>10511390
rocks dont exist.
things dont exist.
everything is one.
they are a dualistic abstraction of the mind.
cogito ergo res sunt.
i think therefore things are.