Let's get personal (only not)

[cerebovssquire]

none of you are real

cogito ergo sum

This is not a satisfactory statement since it begs the question: who or what am I?

I think "I exist" as opposed to "I don't exist" is rather satisfying, since it makes my existence an absolute truth, which doesn't go for other possible existing entities. I have no idea if you even exist, so I won't bother speculating what or who you are.

[Confidence Interval]

I think "I exist" as opposed to "I don't exist" is rather satisfying

Both statements presume the existence of an "I" who is making the statement, and since the point of the statement is to prove that "I" exists, the logic is circular.

[cerebovssquire]

To show that denying your own existence is intrinsically inconsistent is the purpose of 'cogito ergo sum'. The great thing about it is that it is absolutely true using only the concept of existence and some basic rules of logic, so, in other words, without assuming any weird premises. I mean, the statement was made when someone tried to doubt as much as he could and, in the end, was incapable of denying a certain truth, namely 'cogito ergo sum'.

[Confidence Interval]

His conclusion ought not to have been "I think therefore I am" but "something things therefore something is". It is the question of the "I" that is problematic.

[cerebovssquire]

His conclusion ought not to have been "I think therefore I am" but "something things therefore something is". It is the question of the "I" that is problematic.

The existence we have proven was proven using the awareness of something. The existence proven is that awareness, not what it senses. It seems fine with the normal usage of I to call this awareness I.
Example for what I mean (sort of? this is a ten-second example probably not worth much): if we were identical in absolutely every regard (number of atoms, etc.), there would, from my point of view, still be a difference between the two of us: my perspective/awareness being in one of the two bodies.

[Confidence Interval]

It seems fine with the normal usage of I to call this awareness I.

This is then taken out of context by others to assume that their thinking proves their own existence, based on a slightly different usage of "I" to mean "me, this identity" whereas all that the initial statement implies is that something exists, and that we might reasonably refer to that something as "I".

[cerebovssquire]

It seems fine with the normal usage of I to call this awareness I.

This is then taken out of context by others to assume that their thinking proves their own existence, based on a slightly different usage of "I" to mean "me, this identity" whereas all that the initial statement implies is that something exists, and that we might reasonably refer to that something as "I".

Obviously I exist because I am aware of something, regardless if that something I perceive fits any kind of objective reality. You might exist, but because I lack your awareness, all you are to me is an impression (in this case, text) and that might be an optical illusion of some kind, someone fooling me into perceiving something non-existent, etc.

Your thinking definitely proves your own existence, my thinking definitely proves my existence. However, I'm not sure that you are actually thinking, so I'm not sure if you exist.

"Cogito ergo sum" definitely implies "All that thinks exists'. The catch is that all thinking I can be sure of is my own, and that therefore I can't be sure of any other existence.
What I'm saying is that "cogito ergo sum" does imply a different kind of confirmation of existence for every separate thinking entity, if there is more than one. 5 thinking entities, every one perceiving the 4 others, would all exist according to "cogito ergo sum", but it would be irrational of any one of them to say "We 5 definitely exist", and rational for any one of them to say "I exist, but I'm not sure if any of the 4 others do". The former would be a lucky guess.

[Confidence Interval]

What if you only think you think?

[cerebovssquire]

What if you only think you think?

How is that not thinking?

[Confidence Interval]

What if you only think you think?

How is that not thinking?

That was a joke.

[cerebovssquire]

What if you only think you think?

How is that not thinking?

That was a joke.

Komedy Kops!

[Grimm]

cogito ogre sum

[Confidence Interval]

cogito ogre yum!

[cerebovssquire]

that weird moment when you realise that tavern is faster than IRC

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

Weird? Somebody was not organizing Tavern topics on browser online game forums. Twenty posts in one minute is not impossible.

[mageykun]

Something I imagine when reading Mageykun's posts.

I don't know what I did to trigger my own awesome background music in your head, but I approve.

[Confidence Interval]

I don't know what I did to trigger my own awesome background music in your head

I think it means he thinks of you as (nothing more than) a character in a computer game.

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

Ahem. =) You points are off the facts, Confint. Who said that game music cannot rock?

[Grimm]

I did.

[Confidence Interval]

There's certainly game music I like but the only time I have known it rock was when it was non-game music presented within the game: I'm thinking of the radio stations in the GTA games. Otherwise, I would agree with the big G and say it does not rock.

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

The best one is in GTA 2.

[Confidence Interval]

I am young and have played only since version 3, I regret to say.

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjGgHlbQ ... ure=relmfu

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

And here is what I imagine when I see Confint and Grimm yuifing.

[Confidence Interval]

This is what plays in my mind when I read MyOtheHedgeFox's posts.

[VargrVeum]

none of you are real

cogito ergo sum

This is not a satisfactory statement since it begs the question: who or what am I?

Descartes only offers the most basic defence against nihilistic existentialism - a way of preserving a sense of identity in the face of the realisation that all stimulus are internal representations of the external. It only implies consciousness, but without the context of objective reality - is almost meaningless. In my opinion. Whatever my opinion is worth. Which is nothing.




















AND EVERYTHING.

[Confidence Interval]

AND EVERYTHING.

A solipsist, huh?

[VargrVeum]

[quote="Confidence Interval"]His conclusion ought not to have been "I think therefore I am" but "something things therefore something is"quote]

not quite as catchy in latin though

[VargrVeum]

AND EVERYTHING.

A solipsist, huh?

absolutely, just an affable and kind hearted one.

[Confidence Interval]

True, though I always imagined he was going for irrefutable truth rather than thinking about how well it would come over as a soundbite.

[VargrVeum]

True, though I always imagined he was going for irrefutable truth rather than thinking about how well it would come over as a soundbite.

perhaps, but if he was already dipping his toes in the murky waters of ontological doubt to the extent that he's broken the philosophy of being into its most basic components, chances are he knew irrefutable truth to be out of reach - and noone says "therefor" unless they aim to be quoted.

[Confidence Interval]

and noone says "therefor" unless they aim to be quoted.

I suspect this is not the case.

[VargrVeum]

and noone says "therefor" unless they aim to be quoted.

I suspect this is not the case.

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor and was not quoted?

[Confidence Interval]

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor and was not quoted?

Does it have to be "therefor" or does it still count if they used the more conventional spelling?

[VargrVeum]

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor and was not quoted?

Does it have to be "therefor" or does it still count if they used the more conventional spelling?

conventional spelling is for the weak, neologism offers the freedom of thought

[MyOtheHedgeFox]

This is what plays in my mind when I read MyOtheHedgeFox's posts.

Nash Sovetskiy Soyuz pokaraet
Ves' mir ot Evropy k Neve na vosto-ok
Nad zemleoy vezde budut pet':
Stolica, vodka, Sovetskiy medved' nash!

Nash Sovetskiy Soyuz pokaraet
Ves' mir ot Evropy k Neve na vosto-ok
Nad zemleoy vezde budut pet':
Stolica, vodka, Sovetskiy medved' nash!

Vse narody zdes' stoyat togo,
Chto my vse voplotili na svet,
Blagodarnyy nizkiy poklon
Ot sa-moy mo-gu-sches-tvennoy v mire!

Vse narody zdes' stoyat togo,
Chto my vse voplotili na svet,
Blagodarnyy nizkiy poklon
Ot sa-moy mo-gu-sches-tvennoy v mire!

Aaaaa, aAAaa!

Nash Sovetskiy Soyuz pokaraet
Ves' mir ot Evropy k Neve na vosto-ok
Nad zemleoy vezde budut pet':
Stolica, vodka, Sovetskiy medved' nash!

Nash Sovetskiy Soyuz pokaraet
Ves' mir ot Evropy k Neve na vosto-ok
Nad zemleoy vezde budut pet':
Stolica, vodka, Sovetskiy medved' nash!

Aaaaa, aAAaaaaa!

[Jabberwocky]

That might provoke another ridiculous russian spam post thread.

[PerverseSuffering]

the freedom of thought

[VargrVeum]

the freedom of thought

This made me chuckle heartily

[Grimm]

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor [sic] and was not quoted?

How could anyone possibly do this. If they cited it it would become quoted.

[Confidence Interval]

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor [sic] and was not quoted?

How could anyone possibly do this. If they cited it it would become quoted.

Grimm, I think you have spotted a clever trap - and only just in time!

But I don't think it's a very good one. You can refer to something without quoting it.

[Grimm]

Grimm, I think you have spotted a clever trap - and only just in time!

Egads - to the landau, and quickly boys!

But I don't think it's a very good one. You can refer to something without quoting it.

Okay then I just used the word "therefor" in my mind without intending to be quoted. And to prove it I won't tell anyone what the context was. Q.E. mothafuggin D.

[VargrVeum]

I am young and have played only since version 3, I regret to say.

Oh Xom, just how young are you CI?

[VargrVeum]

evidence? can you name a single case where someone said therefor [sic] and was not quoted?

How could anyone possibly do this. If they cited it it would become quoted.

Grimm, I think you have spotted a clever trap - and only just in time!

But I don't think it's a very good one. You can refer to something without quoting it.

Curses, my devious machinations foiled again.

[Pteriforever]

Curses, my devious machinations foiled again.

I think you're part of a crazy cult who works for Dr. Wily.

*is cutest*

[Confidence Interval]

I am young and have played only since version 3, I regret to say.

Oh Xom, just how young are you CI?

I am twelve.

[pratamawirya]

I am young and have played only since version 3, I regret to say.

Oh Xom, just how young are you CI?

I am twelve.

But you said you had sex several ti... oh God.

[Confidence Interval]

I am twelve.

But you said you had sex several ti... oh God.

Different cultures, different norms. Let's not be harsh with our judgements here.

[Grimm]

Twelve? Pshaw. You're thirteen and a half if you're a day.

[ldierk]

I am young and have played only since version 3, I regret to say.

Being young is no excuse. Get your fix here: http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/