Random Answers for Random Idiots with Random Questions

[Baneat]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

 

[scully745]

What is the best crisp ever?

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Who?
What?
When?
Where?
Why?

1) *sigh* probably me.
2) I have a tendency to be constantly blamed for things.
3) Pretty much all the time, really.
4) Earth and places on Titan.
5) Because I'm an easy target, being nearly incomprehensible.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

Nope, for though one may claim to think, and believe to think, because we have periods during which we don't think (at least, most people have those...y'know, sleep and kinetic concentration and things such as) we will never actually know that we think in the first place, and therefore may never actually...am....exist.

 

[Saelune]

If everyone in the world was sleeping at the same time, would the universe cease to exist?

That actually blew my mind....But thats probably due to my weird ideas on sleeping...

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

What is the best crisp ever?

Depends, do you mean crisp as in the American chip, or crisp as in the weird tiny cracker thing, or do you mean the level of crispiness in a food?

 

[scully745]

What is the best crisp ever?

Depends, do you mean crisp as in the American chip, or crisp as in the weird tiny cracker thing, or do you mean the level of crispiness in a food?

Not sure which, came from a friend of mine who constantly asks it. I think just go with American Chip

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

What is the best crisp ever?

Depends, do you mean crisp as in the American chip, or crisp as in the weird tiny cracker thing, or do you mean the level of crispiness in a food?

Not sure which, came from a friend of mine who constantly asks it. I think just go with American Chip

Then the answer is certain, Generic Chips from restaurants. Seriously, went to a Perkin's one time and was amazed at the generic brand-less chips they had.

 

[Baneat]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

Nope, for though one may claim to think, and believe to think, because we have periods during which we don't think (at least, most people have those...y'know, sleep and kinetic concentration and things such as) we will never actually know that we think in the first place, and therefore may never actually...am....exist.

Wrong, in this example the argument provides the guarantor to existence only in those periods of lucid thought, you're denying the antecedent.

I don't think it's sound, but for a different reason.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

Nope, for though one may claim to think, and believe to think, because we have periods during which we don't think (at least, most people have those...y'know, sleep and kinetic concentration and things such as) we will never actually know that we think in the first place, and therefore may never actually...am....exist.

Wrong, in this example the argument provides the guarantor to existence only in those periods of lucid thought, you're denying the antecedent.

I don't think it's sound, but for a different reason.

Ah, I see where I went wrong then, as a follow up answer, I also believe that the argument is still not sound.
This is for the simple reason that I am aware of my capacity to die, and were I to perceive (and therefore think about) myself dying, then I would be dead, for I would think it. With that, the entirety of the universe (as I know it, perception crap) ceases to exist, in that the only reason it may or may not have been existent, was because I was perceiving it.

Honestly, a world being built on perception sounds incomplete, because were something to happen, and I were to never find out, it wouldn't have happened from my standpoint in the world.

 

[Baneat]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

Nope, for though one may claim to think, and believe to think, because we have periods during which we don't think (at least, most people have those...y'know, sleep and kinetic concentration and things such as) we will never actually know that we think in the first place, and therefore may never actually...am....exist.

Wrong, in this example the argument provides the guarantor to existence only in those periods of lucid thought, you're denying the antecedent.

I don't think it's sound, but for a different reason.

Ah, I see where I went wrong then, as a follow up answer, I also believe that the argument is still not sound.
This is for the simple reason that I am aware of my capacity to die, and were I to perceive (and therefore think about) myself dying, then I would be dead, for I would think it. With that, the entirety of the universe (as I know it, perception crap) ceases to exist, in that the only reason it may or may not have been existent, was because I was perceiving it.

Honestly, a world being built on perception sounds incomplete, because were something to happen, and I were to never find out, it wouldn't have happened from my standpoint in the world.

Simply means you can't prove that it happened, you couldn't prove it if you were there either. Now the argument is falling foul of the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy.

Since I'm probably biting back too hard, and you've got other questions, here's a hand. It's actually a circular argument, the conclusion proves the premise.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Is Cogito Ergo Sum a sound argument?

Nope, for though one may claim to think, and believe to think, because we have periods during which we don't think (at least, most people have those...y'know, sleep and kinetic concentration and things such as) we will never actually know that we think in the first place, and therefore may never actually...am....exist.

Wrong, in this example the argument provides the guarantor to existence only in those periods of lucid thought, you're denying the antecedent.

I don't think it's sound, but for a different reason.

Ah, I see where I went wrong then, as a follow up answer, I also believe that the argument is still not sound.
This is for the simple reason that I am aware of my capacity to die, and were I to perceive (and therefore think about) myself dying, then I would be dead, for I would think it. With that, the entirety of the universe (as I know it, perception crap) ceases to exist, in that the only reason it may or may not have been existent, was because I was perceiving it.

Honestly, a world being built on perception sounds incomplete, because were something to happen, and I were to never find out, it wouldn't have happened from my standpoint in the world.

Simply means you can't prove that it happened, you couldn't prove it if you were there either. Now the argument is falling foul of the "Appeal to Consequences" fallacy.

Since I'm probably biting back too hard, and you've got other questions, here's a hand. It's actually a circular argument, the conclusion proves the premise.

No, no, it's fine, a nice discussion question that seems at least partially open-ended or that at least has the capacity to cause the many factions within my head to declare war (not with you, but me) is always welcome, plus, this thread is currently only kept alive by people like you who post such questions looking to generally confuse/annoy/get a straight answer from me......because it's mostly dead (now see Fate give me a middle finger by throwing out eight questions before I post this in a vain attempt to prove me wrong).

...Hmm let's see then.

Upon further reflection, I believe it to be unsound, not for any of my previous reasons, but because there is not any real argument that proves that that which thinks exists.
I could think that I think and still not exist, for there is no proof that that which thinks exists in the first place, would one not have to prove one's own existence in order to prove one's ability to think? Considering there is not any evidence nor any philosophical argument that proves coherent thought to link directly to existence. I must say that Descartes's statement is inherently false, having no ground to stand on.

Added to this, is there really even an I to begin with? Who is this "I", and why can I assume that "I" exist in the first place to think? A lot more holes than I originally thought there were....

Wow, I feel kind of depressed now, being suspicious of my own existence. This kind of backs up a far more pressing, and unarguably true statement: "Philosophy ruins children."

100% true, that one is. Cogito Ergo Sum, not so much.

ありがと

 

[Baneat]

There may be a little misunderstanding of the scope of the cogito

It's not "That which thinks is proven to exist"

It is merely "I" which is proven to exist, while "I" am thinking, "I" must exist as there must be an "I" producing said thoughts, which are at the basest level of existence.

You are indeed correct in that it doesn't stop the infinite regression of justification that he was hoping for, one can still doubt the nature of "I".

I'll be back with a newer, curvier throw.

 

[Ruuvan]

Having read all 11 pages of this thread, what has deteriorated more: My eyesight or my IQ?

And another one: If someone has the time to answer random questions three days on the trot, what job does that man have that he can sustain himself financially?

Oh, and: What are the Euromillions lottery numbers coming up on Saturday 21st May 2011?

 

[Dragonpit]

If Mary left her house at about 5:00 pm, and at a rate of 60mph traveled a distance of 100 km, who will be sleeping with her that night?

 

[Dragonpit]

There may be a little misunderstanding of the scope of the cogito

It's not "That which thinks is proven to exist"

It is merely "I" which is proven to exist, while "I" am thinking, "I" must exist as there must be an "I" producing said thoughts, which are at the basest level of existence.

You are indeed correct in that it doesn't stop the infinite regression of justification that he was hoping for, one can still doubt the nature of "I".

I'll be back with a newer, curvier throw.

So how do you prove a world exists then?

 

[Baneat]

There may be a little misunderstanding of the scope of the cogito

It's not "That which thinks is proven to exist"

It is merely "I" which is proven to exist, while "I" am thinking, "I" must exist as there must be an "I" producing said thoughts, which are at the basest level of existence.

You are indeed correct in that it doesn't stop the infinite regression of justification that he was hoping for, one can still doubt the nature of "I".

I'll be back with a newer, curvier throw.

So how do you prove a world exists then?

You tell me, no philosopher has successfully done it.

 

[Ruuvan]

I hope to see a reply when I get back from work tomorrow, so I'll leave you with another couple of questions, this time from Postal: If you were in a box, how would you think outside it? And what is the difference between a duck?

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

Having read all 11 pages of this thread, what has deteriorated more: My eyesight or my IQ?

And another one: If someone has the time to answer random questions three days on the trot, what job does that man have that he can sustain himself financially?

Oh, and: What are the Euromillions lottery numbers coming up on Saturday 21st May 2011?

1) Your IQ, it drops 0.000000000000000012% every second that you live without being asleep, while your eyesight's deterioration is quite variable.
2) Doing this, and being paid on bet money that I'm able to keep doing this without losing my sanity and/or hair. Quite seriously though, I'm a vagabond with a stolen computer, and I'm currently without much need for money.....what, that's not believable?
3) hmm, my best guess (having no idea how the Euromillions lottery works) would be...NOTHING BECAUSE MAY 21st IS THE DAY OF RAPTURE AND WE ARE ALL DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!
....in all seriousness, my guess is 12, 24,五十一, 14, and 7. Just a guess though.

If Mary left her house at about 5:00 pm, and at a rate of 60mph traveled a distance of 100 km, who will be sleeping with her that night?

Your mom.....'s drunken step-father?
That or a man wearing a giant duck as a hat.

 

[TiloXofXTanto]

I hope to see a reply when I get back from work tomorrow, so I'll leave you with another couple of questions, this time from Postal: If you were in a box, how would you think outside it? And what is the difference between a duck?

1) Astral Projection and/or a boxcutter I have in my pocket for the specific reason of opening all of these damn packages that people keep sending me. Freaking stalkers and their creepy gifts that make growling noises and ......

I'm getting off track.

2) The difference between a duck is around 6% because that is the relative average difference between side A of a duck and side B.