All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

# Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
RyuuKyuzo
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Philosophy Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 3,436 times Debate No: 59798
Debate Rounds (4)

16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enji 2 years ago
Arguments: Con's argument against circularity is unconvincing; certainly the premise "I exist" must presuppose one's existence in order to be true regardless of the context, hence assuming the conclusion of the argument. But Pro's argument that circular logic demonstrates that the argument fails to prove its conclusion is similarly unconvincing. In arguing that the truth of the conclusion is assumed in its initial premise ("I think") he implicitly concedes that the implication is accurate*, hence he must prove that the initial premise is false to satisfy his burden of proof which he fails to do.

But Con fails to point out this problem in Pro's argument, and without doing so he fails to give a convincing reason why the premise "I think" must imply "I exist." Con's argument ends up off case; he fails to defend that "I think, therefore I am" successfully proves its conclusion ("I exist") and instead argues that in context the argument was never intended to prove existence. It's unclear how the context of the argument relates to its ability to prove its conclusion when he ends up arguing against his burden of proof.

Con's thought salad like "[Thinking is also an act of conscious], [and since computers do not think], [to say they do not think], [therefore 'I think'], [cannot follow], [is trivially true], [but irrelevant in almost all respects to what we are trying to prove]." is often incoherent; commas do not make an argument cogent. Pro's comment: "If you've read Con's argument and are left thinking 'what the heck is he talking about?'" perfectly sums up how I felt about large portions of Con's case.

I'm not awarding convincing arguments.

*(This is in contrast to his alternative example (1.II); while 'I think' does presuppose 'I exist' as Pro argues, 'Unicorns exist' does not in any discernible way presuppose 'the sky is blue' -- hence while this alternative is also logically valid it is NOT circular.)
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
We were talking past each other for the most part, check out the context and conclusion of the argument, the epistomology of 'to doubt's one's own existence', that may clarify things.
Posted by Enji 2 years ago
It seems the counterarguments to Ryuu's opening argument should be fairly trivial so why do I have to think so much to make sense of Con's argument? :(

I'll get back to this later.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
I wrote it in openoffice and ctrlc/v'd it, so maybe something happened there.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
maybe you accidentally double spaced
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
I don't know why the spacing between my paragraphs ended up so big. Hopefully that won't happen next round.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
dannyc is about to get pwned.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
Hmm... I wish you would've let me edit the definitions section of the debate before accepting, but w/e.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 2 years ago
I ask because, by consciousness, I mean "awareness" -- The "I" being the thing that experiences awareness. This seems to be fit in with what you're saying. You're proving you exist via thought to that which experiences these thoughts (i.e., yourself).

if I added in the definition of consciousness to mean "awareness of oneself", would that sufficiently fit in with your argument?

I = the self, the being one identifies as that experiences

Consciousness = the state of identifying as something (specific or otherwise), awareness of oneself.

For the record, I'm not planning on rooting my argument in what consciousness is and is not, but incase it does come up, it's better for us to have an agreed upon definition ahead of time.
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
I'm not, whatever I am, 'I am'. So, I could be a machine, I could be human, God, an alien, a brain in a vat. Doesn't matter, I simply 'am', and byond reasonable doubt of myself, I am.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.