I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 14:17 On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > I dont buy it. > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > Logic <=> Existence > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of mathematics or something ? Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that there would be no such thing as logic ? So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, because without life there can be no thought.
From: Frederick Williams on 13 Mar 2010 14:26 glird wrote: > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". But logic _isn't_ thinking. It maybe that when people do logic they need to think, but machines can "do" (at least some) logic also. -- I can't go on, I'll go on.
From: Tonico on 13 Mar 2010 14:31 On Mar 13, 9:17 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > I dont buy it. > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of > mathematics or something ? > > Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that > there would be no such thing as logic ? > > So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, > because without life there can be no thought.- Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that: if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything, and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey. Tonio
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 14:43 On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 9:17 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > > I dont buy it. > > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of > > mathematics or something ? > > > Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that > > there would be no such thing as logic ? > > > So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, > > because without life there can be no thought.- > > Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that: > if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything, > and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey. > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So then, before there was no life on Earth, there was no logic. And with no logic, why then would physics make any sense ? Why does the universe continue if there is no logic ? Are you saying that when all life has died, the we can have time travel, FTL communications, cold fusion and antigravity motorcycles ? If there were no life here to observe things....then 2 + 2 would equal 7 ???
From: Tonico on 13 Mar 2010 15:25
On Mar 13, 9:43 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, Tonico <Tonic...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 9:17 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 12:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > > > I dont buy it. > > > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > > > glird- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Logic "is" thinking ? Is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of > > > mathematics or something ? > > > > Are you implying that if there were no such thing as thought, that > > > there would be no such thing as logic ? > > > > So there must be life in order for there for there to be any logic, > > > because without life there can be no thought.- > > > Now you're beginning to think and to get it...good! Exactly as that: > > if there's no thought then we cannot asset anything about anything, > > and this was perhaps what Monsieur Descartes was trying to convey. > > > Tonio- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > So then, before there was no life on Earth, there was no logic. And > with no logic, why then would physics make any sense ? Why does the > universe continue if there is no logic ? > > Are you saying that when all life has died, the we can have time > travel, FTL communications, cold fusion and antigravity motorcycles ? > > If there were no life here to observe things....then 2 + 2 would equal > 7 ???- If there's no life at all then I claim 2 + 2 = 7 , FTL communications will exist between lifeless planets and JHS will be considered the greatest school janitor in mankind's history...you see? You can't contradict me, so my claim is safe. **wink!** Tonio |