Consciousness Quadlemma!

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol I know I went overboard really... that was part of the joke

I like making fun of myself

I am glad it's okay

And thanks for calling me sharp . My squirrelly squirrel teeth are indeedy pointy-wointy and sharpy-wahrpy.

[Ben Davis]

Your sig translates to "I am therefore I am" but it is essentially saying "I am what I am" which is a tautology thereby making the "therefore" aspect redundant. Satisfied?

"I think therefore I am" means "My thinking presupposes my existence and I already know I am thinking therefore I must know that I am existing."... so it has a little more depth

But... it is true that "I think therefore I am" requires "I am what I am" but it also requires "I think what I think" and "being is being" and "thinking is thinking" so basically... the law of identity is even more fundamental than both cogito ergo sum and sum ergo sum.

Satisfied yet?

Nope. There's more depth than you think. 'I am therefore I am' explies that the facts of my existence are the evidence for my existence. More than a tautology based on the Law of Identity, it's the ultimate expression of material rationalism. Let's go from there

---

The law of identity or "A=A" can be described in English as "a thing is whatever that thing is".

Now let me just use Google translate to translate "a thing whatever that thing is" to Latin for ya--

--

"Quidquid sit aliquid"

There ya go... your new sig. That's genuinely Latin (according to Google translate) for "a thing is whatever that thing is".

Quidquid sit aliquid.

I think it's rather amusing because to us British folk a quid=£1. So surely "quidquid"= £1 + £1 or in other words... £2?

And "sit" is obviously... "sit". As in sitting down.

"aliquid"? Well surely that's a typo... it meant "a liquid".

So basically... the law of identity is having £2 in one hand while you sit on a chair with a glass of water in the other hand (I added in the chair, the glass and the fact the liquid was water purely for comic effect.... bah okay I call it "comic effect" but what I really mean is "fundamental silliness").

LOL joke I just find it amusing.

But seriously your new sig should be

"Quidquid sit aliquid" Which is... "A thing is whatever that thing is". Because that's the most fundamental truth in the universe... it's very truth is presupposed when we know that the most fundamentally known fact of the universe is our own consciousness... because even to know that we have to know that consciousness=consciousness. To experience it we don't have to know that... but to know we are experiencing it we have to know that.  Unless we deem the mere experiencing of something to be worthy of the term "knowledge". I wouldn't say so.

(But the fact I differentiate between the most certainly known fact in the universe and the most fundamental truth in the universe is only because I consider truths and facts to be a little different...... it's the whole analytic/synthetic truth dichotomy. The whole... truths of reasoning/truths of fact... dichotomy.... the whole a priori/a posteriori dichotomy ... ala Leibniz and Kant)

---

Satisfied now or have I gone overboard with my philosophical babble?

That's better

---

You went a lil overboard Hammie. Is okay though
You're sharp!

BEN DAVIS WHAT THE HELL MAN? WHERE ARE MY BISCUITS??????????????

Biscuits?



...or biscuits?

[Edwardo Piet]

Nope. There's more depth than you think. 'I am therefore I am' explies that the facts of my existence are the evidence for my existence. More than a tautology based on the Law of Identity, it's the ultimate expression of material rationalism. Let's go from there

Eh? Are you making fun of my philosophy-babble or are you being serious? I honestly can't tell!

How can "I am therefore I am" make sense? If "I am" is true then there is no "therefore" necessary

Isn't that like saying "2+2=4 THEREFORE 2+2=4"...? ...And isn't the "THEREFORE" and the repetition of the first premise redundant?

You say that the facts of your existence are the evidence of your existence...

..but what does that even mean, lol?

Facts about your existence are empirical truths about your existence... so wouldn't that mean specific evidence of the details of your existence rather than the evidence of your existence itself? Isn't your own existence self-evident to yourself via your own conscious access and self-evident to others when they perceive you provided that they presume #1 You exist as something external to themselves #2 They are not hallucinating you?

By the way I hope I'm not being a douche in this post.

Although it is, on occasion, an effective strategy within my favorite game of all time:

[Mystical]

Those biscuits (the first) look ... gross.
Do these count as biscuits?

---

Also I agree with Hammies very deep thinking post above.

To quote the fiery bush, "I am that I am."
---makes no fuckn sense unless you're stoned, and adds as much infornation to its credibility as "that blue ball is blue."

[Ben Davis]

Nope. There's more depth than you think. 'I am therefore I am' explies that the facts of my existence are the evidence for my existence. More than a tautology based on the Law of Identity, it's the ultimate expression of material rationalism. Let's go from there

Eh? Are you making fun of my philosophy-babble or are you being serious? I honestly can't tell!

Both
Fun: I'm playing with one of the most resolutely held existential philosophical positions by suggesting it's a deepity whilst simultaneously making puns.
Serious: It's not just as I described it, it's also an epistemological statement. How do we best identify that which is true? By identifying the facts. How am 'I' best defined? By identifying the facts.

How can "I am therefore I am" make sense? If "I am" is true then there is no "therefore" necessary

Fun: It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be true
Serious: The first 'I am' is the statement of factual evidence whereas the second is the claim of existence. As two different parts of the proposition, they're independent and one is predicated on the other, hence 'therefore' xx

You say that the facts of your existence are the evidence of your existence...

..but what does that even mean, lol?

Facts about your existence are empirical truths about your existence... so wouldn't that mean specific evidence of the details of your existence rather than the evidence of your existence itself? Isn't your own existence self-evident to yourself via your own conscious access and self-evident to others when they perceive you provided that they presume #1 You exist as something external to themselves #2 They are not hallucinating you?

No. Self-evidence cannot be assumed or else you have a circular argument. Instead the factual evidence regarding the claim of my existence and identity as an individual must be assessed to ascertain that I both exist and have an identity. Like all material rationalist positions, it cuts the crap and gets straight to the point.

By the way I hope I'm not being a douche in this post.

Not at all, just what the doctor ordered

Although it is, on occasion, an effective strategy within my favorite game of all time:

Lol, nice

[Mystical]

Ooh! Do me now!!

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah it's my turn to "do him", as it were, Luckie!

Both

Uhhh...

Fun: I'm playing with one of the most resolutely held existential philosophical positions by suggesting it's a deepity whilst simultaneously making puns.

Don't you mean it's deepness? Because a deepity is a statement that can be read on two levels: on the one hand trivally true and on the other hand completely false but it would be earth-shattering if it were true!

A deepity is a proposition that seems to be profound because it is actually logically ill-formed. It has (at least) two readings and balances precariously between them. On one reading it is true but trivial. And on another reading it is false, but would be earth-shattering if true.

I think that is the kind of statement you are making

It certainly fits the "logically ill-formed" part.

There is no logical sense that can be made of "X therefore X".

Serious: It's not just as I described it, it's also an epistemological statement. How do we best identify that which is true? By identifying the facts. How am 'I' best defined? By identifying the facts.

But facts about the nature of something and facts about the existence of something are two different things. Your existence is self-evident. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about the facts of your nature... your existence is still self-evident.

"I am therefore I am" is logically ill-formed because "X therefore  X" is logically ill-formed.

Any proposition that cannot be translated into a syllogism without being illogical isn't logical.

Fun: It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be true

It does have to make sense if you don't want your statement to be logically ill-formed

Serious: The first 'I am' is the statement of factual evidence whereas the second is the claim of existence. As two different parts of the proposition, they're independent and one is predicated on the other, hence 'therefore' xx

Then you shouldn't state it as "X therefore X" if both "X"'s mean two different things... because syllogistically that would just read as logical nonsense. And semantically it also reads as logical nonsense because no one can read your mind to see the two different definitions of the exact same word(s) that you are choosing to use.

Furthermore there is no sense of "I am" that refers to the nature of "I am"... if you merely say "I am" all you are asserting is that you exist (assuming that "I am" is for short for "I am existent" as it must be if we are talking about derivatives of "I think therefore I am" because "I think therefore I am" is indeed intended to mean "I think I am existent therefore I must be existent because I couldn't possibly think about existence, or indeed anything at all, if I didn't already exist as a living-thing capable of thought.")... you are not making any statement about what the nature of your existence is... so if you merely repeat that you are merely repeating the same thing.... and sticking "therefore" in between both repeats of "I am" is indeed akin to saying "X therefore X."... because "I am" is not very ambiguous at all. It is true that you may be either referring to yourself or your 'self' but in either case you are merely asserting that a "you" in at least one of those senses exists... you are in no case describing your nature and you do not need to know any facts about your existence in order to know that you exist... because the very fact that you are conscious is enough to know that. That's the meaning behind "I think therefore I am".

No. Self-evidence cannot be assumed or else you have a circular argument.

Evidence and argumentation are two completely different things.

"I am therefore I am"=logical nonsense.

"I must exist because if I didn't exist I wouldn't be conscious and I already know that I am conscious" is a logical argument (an informal one, of course, I haven't spelled it out in syllogistic form with explicit premises and a conclusion)... and it is indeed insufficient and circular if taken out of context (because it's informal) and if it were claiming to be completely sufficient... but the point is that the argument in itself is not the only thing being acknowledged here... the point is that the fact that you know you are conscious in at least some sense is already presupposed... so no argument needs to be made in the first place.

Our own consciousness is obviously self-evident to us because it's literally evident to our self all the time and it cannot not be without there no longer being no conscious self in the first place.

It's a tautology, not a circular argument. It's true by definition because you cannot possibly be conscious without being aware of it because if you're not aware of it you're not conscious

Instead the factual evidence regarding the claim of my existence and identity as an individual must be assessed to ascertain that I both exist and have an identity.

Well once again... you already know you exist via the logic of "I think therefore I am" which is based on the tautology of you can't be conscious without being aware of your consciousness.

And obviously you yourself must have an identity because a self is an identity.

And that's just using one definition of identity.

If you also think of The Law Of Identity... that A=A, that "a thing is whatever that thing is", then of course you must have an identity because everything must have an identity. You are you. A=A.

Like all material rationalist positions, it cuts the crap and gets straight to the point.

Actually I'd say that "I am therefore I am" sinks itself in crap and avoids avoiding any kind of logical point at all

The syloggistic equivalent of "X therefore X" is most definitely more on the crappy side than on the non-crappy side... logic-wise... and that's making a gigantic understatement

Because it's completely illogical. Because in logic either something is a non-sequitur  or a sequitur. "X therefore X" is most definitely the former

"X therefore X" is obviously illogical because that statement logically means "X exists therefore X exists"... so your conclusion is the same as your premise and the truth of the conclusion is already presupposed in the premise... i.e. you're making a circular argument but it's worse than that because it's not even an argument... it's not merely that the truth of your conclusion is already presupposed in your premise and you're at least trying to form some sort of statement in addition to that that could perhaps get you to the right conclusion but it fails to due to the circular element... but even worse than that the entirety of your conclusion is identical to the entirety of your premise both implicitly and explicitly... it's not just implicitly the same but it's also completely identical explicitly when translated into a logical syloggism (as I said... it's the logical equivalent of "X is true therefore X is true". A "therefore" couldn't make any less sense than when it is preceded and followed by the same "X".

Not at all, just what the doctor ordered

Cool! Well thankfully I cranked my logically-pedantic-pain-in-the-arseness up a gear.

Lol, nice

Age of Empires 2 is indeed an amazing game!

Gonna play it some more after lunch actually