Prove you Exist.

[sandy whitelinger]

I hate that word fallacy.

Try any one of these then:
error, falsehood, falsity, illusion, misconception, myth, old wives' tale, untruth

 

[Willamena]

When Descartes said, "I think, therefore, I am," he assumed the existence of what he was trying to prove.

Not quite. He was the ultimate skeptic. If I understand correctly, using doubt, he threw out everything, including the idea of himself, and started from scratch with what he had left: nothing. Out of nothing arose the realization that there was something that had thrown out everything.

 

[Fluffy]

Deductive logical arguments have three stages:

1. premises
2. inference
3. conclusion

A deductive logical argument always requires a number of core assumptions called premises.
Once the premises have been agreed, the argument proceeds via a step-by-step process called inference.

In inference, you start with one or more propositions which have been accepted; you then use those propositions to arrive at a new proposition.

Hopefully you will arrive at a proposition which is the conclusion of the argument - the result you are trying to prove.

Do you accept the following Disamis syllogism as being a valid formal logical argument:
P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are moral
C Socrates is mortal

If so then keep reading:

The Cogito
P1 I am thinking
P2 Whatever has the property of thinking, exists
C I exist

If P1 were not the case then its contradiction "I am not thinking" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P1 is the case.

P2 is an instance of the instantiation principle. If the instantiation principle were not the case then its contradiction "Whatever has the property S, does not exist" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P2 is the case.

The argument is in Disamis syllogistic form:
P1 Some A are B
P2 All B are C
C Therefore some A are C

Therefore the inference from P1 and P2 to C is valid.
Additionally, P1 and P2 are the case.
Therefore, The Cogito is sound.
Therefore, C is the case.

 

[Somkid]

I gave you a format for a formal logical argument.

The problem is philosophy is logic and you are neglecting it which is illogical and against philosophy.

Philosophy of logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rojse]

Could someone please offer a sound logical argument that they, or anything for that matter, exists. I'm not looking for philosophy or reason just a well formulated logical argument.

I could punch you.

Not only does that relieve my frustration against philosophers, it also proves that you can receive stimuli outside of yourself.

However, such an argument is not very philosophical.

 

[Willamena]

Try any one of these then:
error, falsehood, falsity, illusion, misconception, myth, old wives' tale, untruth

"One of these things is not like the others..."

 

[doppelganger]

"One of these things is not like the others..."

Three of those things is not like the others.

 

[Willamena]

Three of those things is not like the others.

I spy with my little eye: Old Wive's Tale, illusion and myth?
(edited) There. I looked it up. haha

 

[doppelganger]

I spy with my little eye: error, illusion and myth?

Not sure what an Old Wive's Tale is.

I was thinking illusion, myth and "old wives' tale", none of which are necessarily false or erroneous.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I could punch you.

I could duck.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you accept the following Disamis syllogism as being a valid formal logical argument:
P1 Socrates is a man
P2 All men are moral
C Socrates is mortal

This could prove that Socrates was mortal. So would tha concept that he is dead. It in no way proves socrates existed except as maybe as an idea.

The Cogito
P1 I am thinking
P2 Whatever has the property of thinking, exists
C I exist

This is still a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent" which I have explained twice already.

P2 is an instance of the instantiation principle. If the instantiation principle were not the case then its contradiction "Whatever has the property S, does not exist" would be the case. However, this cannot be asserted coherently and so it cannot be the case. Therefore, P2 is the case.

The instantiation principle does not necessarily prove that something physically exists. It may only prove the idea that something exists.

The argument is in Disamis syllogistic form:
P1 Some A are B
P2 All B are C
C Therefore some A are C

I don't see this. Explain further please.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not quite. He was the ultimate skeptic. If I understand correctly, using doubt, he threw out everything, including the idea of himself, and started from scratch with what he had left: nothing. Out of nothing arose the realization that there was something that had thrown out everything.

He may have thought or believed those things but "I think, therefore I am" still has a logical fallacy.

 

[Willamena]

This could prove that Socrates was mortal. So would tha concept that he is dead. It in no way proves socrates existed except as maybe as an idea.

Well, d'uh, it's a proof that Socrates is mortal. But then, its stated intent is not to prove that Socrates exists or is mortal, but to demonstrate the type of proof that is called a syllogism.

This is still a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent" which I have explained twice already.

It doesn't look like it. An "Affirming the Consequent" example goes: 'if she is studying mathematics then she is not studying English' and 'she is not studying English' so 'she is studying mathematics'. There is a consequence stated in the first premise that is drawn into the conclusion. That is not the case in what Fluffy said.

The instantiation principle does not necessarily prove that something physically exists. It may only prove the idea that something exists.

That's not its intent, to provide the proof. It's intent is to support the truth of the statement made.

 

[doppelganger]

He may have thought or believed those things but "I think, therefore I am" still has a logical fallacy.

Nietzsche explains this in Will to Power:

"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true à priori" our belief in the concept of substance-- that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate--Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.

If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon--that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself. The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," the precondition for "substance" in general disappears.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It doesn't look like it. An "Affirming the Consequent" example goes: 'if she is studying mathematics then she is not studying English' and 'she is not studying English' so 'she is studying mathematics'. There is a consequence stated in the first premise that is drawn into the conclusion. That is not the case in what Fluffy said.

Let's try this another way:
Sherlock Holmes thinks therefore Sherlock Holmes exists.

 

[Red Pill]

Could someone please offer a sound logical argument that they, or anything for that matter, exists. I'm not looking for philosophy or reason just a well formulated logical argument.

I am not able to post links, but there is a paper addressing this issue available if you google ... It is a pdf file

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Logic and Existence[/FONT]
Steve Kuhn
Department of Philosophy​

Georgetown University

 

[Willamena]

Let's try this another way:
Sherlock Holmes thinks therefore Sherlock Holmes exists.

That's not the same as "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists." The statement defines "to exist" in terms of properties. Existence is not a consequence of being known by properties, it is "being, known by properties."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The Cogito
P1 I am thinking
P2 Whatever has the property of thinking, exists
C I exist

When you said "I am thinking," you assumed the existence of what you were trying to prove. The "I" of the conclusion, "I exist," was already included in the assertion "I am thinking."

 

[Willamena]

I am not able to post links, but there is a paper addressing this issue available if you google ... It is a pdf file

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Logic and Existence[/FONT]
Steve Kuhn
Department of Philosophy​

Georgetown University

You can post the URL, it just won't be parsed into a hyperlink (until you get 1 more post).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's not the same as "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists." The statement defines "to exist" in terms of properties. Existence is not a consequence of being known by properties, it is "being, known by properties."

that still doesn't prove physical existence