Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

Definition Amendments: I = the self, the being one identifies as that experiencesConsciousness = the state of identifying as something (specific or otherwise), awareness of oneself. 1. Circular Logic This is the silver-bullet argument against “cogitio ergo sum”. You could read nothing else except this argument and understand perfectly and completely why the argument “I think, therefore I am” fails to prove its conclusion. Simply put, the argument is circular. It assumes the very thing it's trying to prove [8]. By saying “I think”, you've already assumed there is an “I”, so concluding that the “I” exists from this point is trivial. You can't prove the "I" actually exists by assuming the "I" any more than you can prove unicorns exist by assuming unicorns exist. 1. II) Derivability vs Truth-Function The reason this argument looks true even though it isn't is because the argument's proponents equivocate between the argument's derivability and its truth-value. What's the difference? Simple. In sentential logic, derivability has to do with whether or not the conclusion logically follows from its premises [1] -- truth-value has to do with whether or not it's actually true (exists) in reality [2]. To instantiate the difference, let's look at this argument (cogito ergo sum) as a derivation: 1. T>E 2. T ----- 3. :. E In English, the argument reads, "1. If I think, then I exist", "2. I think", "3. Therefore, I exist". The conclusion is derivable from the argument by appealing to the conditional elimination rule of sentential logic [4], but only trivially so. Because we've assumed the very thing we're trying to prove, we can use this exact same reasoning to derive literally any conclusion we want: 1. B>U 2. B ----- 3. :. U In English, "1. If the sky is blue, then unicorns exist", "2. The sky is blue", "3. Therefore, unicorns exist". Believe it or not, this argument makes perfect logical sense. It's conclusion follows from its premises, however, once again, derivability does not entail truth-value. In this example, the premise 'B' happens to be true (the sky really is blue), but that has nothing at all to do with unicorns, because we know unicorns don't actually exist. This argument has the exact same form as "cogitio ergo sum", but we know the conclusion is false, therefore we know that this argument form does not prove its conclusion is actually true in reality. This is the problem with "I think, therefore I am" -- it doesn't actually matter whether you exist or not, because either way "I think" isn't enough to prove "I exist". You have to bring additional premises into the argument to prove the conclusion is true. 1. III) Why Con Can't Win This puts Con in a logical trap. His argument only takes him as far as derivability. As it happens, this argument form is truth-functionally indeterminate (there is at least one truth-value assignment where the conclusion is false, and at least one where the conclusion is true [3]). You can prove that this argument is truth-functionally indeterminate yourself by plugging the function "T>E / T | E" into this truth-table generator [7]. As such, he requires additional justifications in order to prove the "I" exists. After all, a conclusion is truth-functionally true if and only if the conclusion is true on every truth-value assignment [5]. The problem is, by introducing additional premises into his argument, he tacitly admits that his original argument ("I think") is insufficient to prove its conclusion ("I am") and therefore loses the debate. If he chooses not to incorporate any new evidence or reasoning into his argument, then he's limited to circular logic, which means he fails to show that "I think" proves the conclusion "I am" and therefore loses the debate. No matter what, my opponent cannot win for the simple fact that derivability cannot prove truth-value. Truth-value is a question of empiricism, not logic. So to prove something exists, you need empirical evidence. Logic doesn't cut it, because it's always possible for a premise to be false. 2. Counter-example The beautiful thing about deductive logic is that if you can find even one counter-example to a deductive argument, you've proven the argument false. Therefore, if I can find an example of something that thinks, but doesn't contain an "I" (defined as a being that identifies as itself that experiences), then I've proven that "I think" doesn't logically entail "I am". For the record, logical entailment means that whenever X is true, Y is also true. If you can find an example where X is true and Y is false, then X doesn't logically entail Y [6]. My chosen example is the computer. Computers can think (thinking being defined as the process of using rationality and/or logic to come to conclusions), but they do not experience awareness. As such, the sensation of existence is independent of thought. "I think" doesn't logically entail "I am". Therefore, the argument "I think, therefore I am" fails to prove its conclusion. It's simply insufficient. "But wait!" You say. "It might not prove computers are self-aware, but computers still actually do exist and they still actually do think!" This is true, but it's irrelevant. We know computers exist and think because of the available empirical evidence that computers exist and think (i.e. we can observe computers in a number of ways). Once again, this debate isn't about whether or not the conclusion is actually true, it's about whether or not the premises truth-functionally entail the conclusion. They do not. QED Conclusion: Firstly, "cogito ergo sum" relies on circular logic to prove its conclusion, and is therefore rooted in a logical fallacy. Secondly, the argument makes the fallacious jump that one can determine truth-value using sentential-logic alone. It takes more than that. Thirdly, we have an example of a thing that can think, yet is not self-aware. This leaves Con in a no-win scenario. He requires more than the the premise "I think" to prove the conclusion "I am", but if he appeals to anything else, he loses the debate. If he doesn't appeal to anything else, he loses the debate. The resolution is affirmed. VOTE PRO Sources: 1. http://www.shamik.net... 2. http://www.unc.edu... 3. http://www.unc.edu... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.unc.edu... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://programming.dojo.net.nz... 8. http://en.wikipedia.org...