Then, at least a partial answer to your original question, "what can I know with 100% certainty," is "concepts." Generally, concepts can be known with 100% certainty?

Or, rather, you can be certain about "things" conceptually?

Or, is your answer revised, you cannot be certain about "100%" even conceptually?

Observation and thinking are totally different mental operations. — Corvus

So observing and thinking are different. I was talking about observing my own act of observing, like a self-reflection, which is like relfection, or thinking.

But I can work with that.

Granting observing and thinking are different “operations”, do you think “thinking” and “being” are different operations? Can you describe something that allows you to distinguish “thinking” from “being”? As in, “I think” distinct from “I am”?

What defines us as Real existing beings, is the [x]ing. — ENOAH

“x-ing”. Exactly.

That is Descartes whole point.

Thinking, doubting, knowing…always x-ing.

“I x; therefore I’m being.”

Wrong.

The earliest known translation as "I am thinking, therefore I am" is from 1872 by Charles Porterfield Krauth (The Penn Monthly, Volume 3) — Lionino

How do you know it was an accurate translation? Anyway, "I am thinking" is no much different from "I think" in terms of not able to link to "I am". And thinking has objects and content. What were the content and object of "Cogito"? Je ne sais pas.

Granting observing and thinking are different “operations”, do you think “thinking” and “being” are different operations? — Fire Ologist

Of course they are.

Can you describe something that allows you to distinguish “thinking” from “being”? As in, “I think” distinct from “I am”? — Fire Ologist

All being has unique properties. When you exist, you are in some location i.e. a physical space on the earth a city or town or up on a hill, and you have mass and weight and shape. Your being can be described with the properties.

Thinking is a private mental event. It has nothing to do with being in any shape or form. I think, therefore I am, tells nothing meaningful at all apart from you are alive and able to make a linguistic expression. And every statement of "I think, therefore I am." is a subjective statement, which means nothing to the other minds apart from you.

Thinking is a private mental event. It has nothing to do with being in any shape or form. — Corvus

Aside from forms like inebriated, feverish, anesthetized...

I agree that concepts can be known with100% certainty.

How do you know it was an accurate translation? — Corvus

That does not matter. You said «No publication on Descartes says "I am thinking, therefore I am." That sounds like your imagination.». I showed otherwise. You are wrong.

Anyway, "I am thinking" is no much different from "I think" in terms of not able to link to "I am" — Corvus

That is not the point at all. You are wrong, don't change subjects yet again to more nonsense.

And thinking has objects and content — Corvus

You yourself don't even know what you mean by these words.

What were the content and object of "Cogito"? — Corvus

It doesn't matter, Descartes' argument is about the very act of thinking, not about what the thought is about.

It doesn't matter, Descartes' argument is about the very act of thinking, not about what the thought is about. — Lionino

Logically, semantically, and metaphysically Cogito doesn't make sense at all. "I am thinking." loses its credibility and meaning, as soon as the utterer stopped thinking and the utterance "I think".  It is only valid when he is thinking.  When he ended the utterance, "therefore I am." has no ground or validity, because he is not thinking anymore. This is especially the case, if you accepted the nonsensical claim that "think" implies "existence".

"Thinking" also doesn't exclude the possibility of being wrong.  How many times have you thought something was the case, but found out it wasn't later on?

But in cogito, due to the absence of its content and object of cogito, it can be anything. It could have been "I think that I don't exist, therefore I am." or I think I doubt that I am, therefore I am, ...etc etc.  It doesn't rule out these nonsense contradictory possibilities of implications in the expression.

Hence it appears that your claim has no logical or theoretical ground for validity.  There is no compelling arguments in your claims at all apart from the empty blind declarations that my points are wrong.

Logically, semantically, and metaphysically Cogito doesn't make sense at all — Corvus

With every page you switch your argument to new nonsense. Once debunked, you go on to make up more nonsense.

"I am thinking." loses its credibility and meaning, as soon as the utterer stopped thinking and the utterance "I think".  It is only valid when he is thinking.  When he ended the utterance, "therefore I am." has no ground or validity, because he is not thinking anymore. — Corvus

More nonsense. He is of course thinking when he states "I am". The closest thing to a rebuttal to Descartes in your argument is Russell's objection which is basically a one-liner version of Cardano's argument critiquing the idea that the human subject is both subject and object of the enquiry at the same time.

This is especially the case, if you accepted the nonsensical claim that "think" implies "existence". — Corvus

Four different people, including me, have completely eroded this claim of yours from multiple angles.

"Thinking" also doesn't exclude the possibility of being wrong.  How many times have you thought something was the case, but found out it wasn't later on? — Corvus

You have never read Descartes and whatever you have read about him you have not understood.

It could have been "I think that I don't exist, therefore I am." or I think I doubt that I am, therefore I am, ...etc etc. — Corvus

This is not even related to your previous paragraph. I have said before, I will spell it out again: the argument is about the ACT of thinking, NOT about what the thought is about.

It doesn't rule out these nonsense contradictory possibilities of implications in the expression. — Corvus

What?

Hence it appears that your claim has no logical or theoretical ground for validity.  There is no compelling arguments in your claims at all apart from the empty blind declarations that my points are wrong. — Corvus

Apart from the fact you refuse to understand what material implication is, what "therefore" means, and that you have basically zero knowledge of Descartes.

Apart from the fact you refuse to understand what material implication is, what "therefore" means, and that you have basically zero knowledge of Descartes. — Lionino

Sorry mate. There is nothing making sense in your claim. You neither seem to know anything about Descartes nor logic or metaphysics. All I can advise you is to read my previous posts repeatedly, and meditate until you see some lights of wisdom.

All I can advise you is to read my previous posts repeatedly — Corvus

This line you keep repeating reall could use a good inspection. If you're right about whatever you think you're right about, then this maybe gives off some sense of righteous superiority, BUT if you're wrong (and there's a lot of indications you are, if you care to pay attention to them), then... this thing you've said muliple times now, in different ways, takes on a very different tone.

You're demanding other people read your words on repeat until they come to agree with you, while yourself showing a general unwillingness to try to read and understand the arguments presented to you. There's a very narcisstic quality to this approach. And hypocritical, of course.

What would you think about a person on this forum arguing for something unambiguously untrue, like that 1 * 1 = 2 (thanks Terrence Howard), and they steadfastly held to that, and when someone disagreed for enough posts in a row, Terrence Howard says "Read my posts repeatedly until you understand that 1*1=2". How would that look to you?

That's how you look to us.

NOT, for the record, because you disagree with the cogito. That's fine. I don't care about that. Because of your misunderstanding of what the word 'therefore' does in logic, and because of your insistence on the validity of denying the antecedent, mainly.

1*1=2, read my posts repeatedly until you agree with me. That's what you look like to the rest of us when you make those points and say those words.

You're demanding other people read your words on repeat until they come to agree with you, while yourself showing a general unwillingness to try to read and understand the arguments presented to you. There's a very narcisstic quality to this approach. And hypocritical, of course. — flannel jesus

You also seem to be not able to read English sentences properly. How could anyone discuss anything with you when you cannot read, but distort the others' writings to that degree? Please I would advise you to read it again. I wasn't demanding anything. I was advising. Please stop keep writing nonsense wasting your and others time. You don't seem to know difference between advising and demanding, or you cannot read words properly.

Your advice is not good, it's hypocritical. You shouldn't be saying it, you shouldn't even be saying it if you were right. It's so disgustingly self righteous and haughty.

People are providing arguments, giving links, and you ignore everything and say "read my posts until you agree with me", it's ridiculous. There's no way anybody could take that seriously.

I get to ignore you, but you have to read my words on repeat. No way dude.

Because of your tendency keep writing posts blindly without checking what the others have written, I stopped reading your posts seriously. Just for your info.

Keep publicly smelling your own farts. So far it's gotten you literally 0 people who agree with your reasoning, and you haven't begun to question why.

You are in my To Ignore list. So don't waste your time writing to me. Thanks.

Then I guess you'll be considering my points just as much as you were before I was on your ignore list. The only way to keep your beliefs in tact.

It is not good idea to converse with anyone who distorts the facts. That's all. It is just too cumbersome to keep correcting the continuing distortions. So it is OK. No one's going to lose sleep over this. You go and talk to whom you agree with. I will do the same.

You shouldn't be saying it, you shouldn't even be saying it if you were right. It's so disgustingly self righteous and haughty. — flannel jesus

People aren't narcissistic as a matter of free willed choice. So despite how natural it seems to do so, it doesn't really make sense to blame people for being narcissistic.

You have been distorting facts the whole time you goof. Remember when you said your Denying the Antecedent was in any logic textbook? Remember when you found out that wasn't the case but refused to acknowledge it or show any willingness to consider that that might be a sign you are wrong?

Remember when you insisted therefore can only be used one way, and you had mountains of reasons to change your mind thrown at you that you ignored?

These are your distortions that you can just give up on. You don't need to hold so tightly to your mistakes.

Some people, when they find out they've been behaving in a way that other people see as narcissistic, might choose to change their behaviour. They might self reflect. If they're brave.

I would drop this; the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, if you catch my drift. There are plenty of other places your posts might be appreciated while you let this cool off, such as in my thread in which I responded to you.

I would drop this; the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, if you catch my drift. There are plenty of other places your posts might be appreciated while you let this cool off, such as in my thread in which I responded to you. — ToothyMaw

Good advice TM. Yeah I left the thread while back, but they kept on writing to me with the distorted facts, hence I dropped back in briefly to clarify the biases and prejudices they were spreading.

I more or less had to keep repeating my points for the clarification. In the end, all I could do was, advising them to read my posts repeatedly until they get the points right. :)

1 * 1 = 2 — flannel jesus

Speaking of.

the nail that sticks out gets hammered down — ToothyMaw

Denying the antecent has nothing to do with social pressure, now :roll:

Math and little more. At least in respect to generally or widely accepted notions and definitions of numeric constants and operations. — Outlander

Let me suggest a different approach to the question “What can we be 100% sure of?”. It regards mathematics.

Suppose you put two coins to the table in front of you. After repeating the process, you count the result and the score is – five. Can we even imagine such an outcome and wouldn't we rather recount or suspect, we are under the influence of alcohol? Even if we concede, that mathematical proof is 100% certain, there remains the question: what does mathematics have to do with occurrences in nature? The interesting fact being, that all so-called laws of nature are expressed in the form of mathematical equations.

Can we be 100% certain that the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 or that two straight lines never intersect? Certainly not - considering Riemannian geometry. So the question boils down to: either we can never be certain about regularities in nature and the validity of natural science or we have to re-think our concept of material reality and its connection to a seemingly abstract endeavour like mathematics.

Denying the antecent has nothing to do with social pressure, now :roll: — Lionino

Notice that he has just complimented Corvus on his stubbornness, but not actually agreed with his reasoning about denying the Antecedent.

Sticking to your guns no matter what is the only virtue here. Not logic, not evidence, not considering the arguments of other people.

The shape p→q is invalid under a broad definition of invalid, yes. — Lionino

Thank you.

That is, and this is the point being made, "I think therefore I am", if parsed as "p⊃q", is not a tautology, is invalid, and need not, at least on that account, be accepted as 100% certain. It appears that this point is missed by some of our brethren, although not by you. The error to which I wish to draw attention was of supposing that the following argument is valid, therefore "I think ⊃ I exist" is true.

1. I think ⊃ I exist. (Cogito, assumption)
2. I think. (assumption)
3. ⊢ I exist. (1.2, MPP)

I will concede that is not Descartes' argument. — Lionino

Thank you.

Just to be clear then, this is an argument for one's existence, and not an argument for Cogito ergo sum; if it where considered an argument for Cogito ergo sum then it presumes its conclusion.

Descartes' argument itself is not an intuition, it is a full-fledged argument as I have shown and as can be verified in the books. — Lionino

The argument is often taken from here:

I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind — Second Meditation

Now what I have asked is for someone to present the structure of the argument. If you have indeed done so, then I've missed it.

For example, it might be tempting to pars the argument into a first-order logic, with "a exists" understood as ∃(x)(x=a); That might give "I think therefore I am" as

U(x)(Tx ⊃ ∃(y)(x=y))

Which is valid. But this just says that if some individual has a property, then there is an individual. It works not just for thinking but for being pink. For all x, if x is pink then there is something that is pink. This seems not to capture the quality of the Cogito.

Now I do not think there is any clear and distinct way (see what I did there?) to set out a logical structure for the argument given in the Second Meditation. In that regard, I do not see that it is an inference.

More can also be said concerning hyperbolic doubt. In On Certainty Wittgenstein shows that doubt is a language game, and so presupposes the features of language. To doubt some statement is to take other statements as undoubted. Here I will side with Gassendi, suggesting that Descartes has gone much further than he needed, and as a result concluded much less than he might have.

From the Second Meditation:

Thinking? At last I have discovered it—thought; this alone is inseparable from me. I am, I exist—that is certain. But for how long? For as long as I am thinking. For it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist.

Descartes might have had more sympathy for @Corvus' argument than folk hereabouts suppose.

For it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist.

That is because Descartes himself (or whoever is thinking about this) is a soul, a thinker, res cogitans. One of the modes of this substance res cogitans is thought. It could be that without thinking, a res cogitans does not exist, but that is because it could be that the existence of a res cogitans goes hand in hand with thought as an operation. That however does not apply to res extensa, whose attribute is being extended in space and modes are things such as colour, movement, and temperature. Res extensae do not cease to exist when they stop thinking because rocks don't think at all.
Even in the case of res cogitantes, it will depend on how broad your definition of "thought" is, as so that if there are other modes to the soul other than thought, which could be desire or memory, he would not cease to exist by just stopping to think. But when we pay attention to it, it feels as though our desires and memories are kind of thoughts themselves, which is why Descartes says that:

At last I have discovered it—thought; this alone is inseparable from me

In the same paragraph before he was talking about movement and physical feelings. Those things are separable from him, but not thought.
But that is not Corvus' argument, he did not bring substances, modes, or attributes a single time. His is the misunderstanding of the conjunction "therefore", which I cleared here.



I will reply to the preceding post later.