User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 98

  1. #21
    F CK all I need is U ilikeitlikethat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    xNTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    That deaf dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I don't feel, yet I am.
    -Anonymous INTP

    I don't think, yet I am.
    -Anonymous ESFP
    INTP - The Thinker


    ESFP - The Fool


    The most philosophically wise and deep thinking type Vs. the most hedonistic and empty headed type! If the world was ruled by INTPs, the first thing they would do is kill all the ESFPs except Jar Jar because every type hates him and he would be dead before the world domination plan even comes to fruition!

  3. #23
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Rocks think, albeit very very slowly.

    I think, therefore I shouldn't belabor the point. I used to be deeper, but it wasn't getting me anywhere I wanted to go.

  4. #24
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,931

    Default

    I dug, dug, and dug.

    Not insightful, but quite deep.

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Yeah. Otherwise, I wouldn't be me.

    "I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.
    It is not quite. A->B does not equate with B->A. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if there a genuine disagreement here about converse error.
    http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfboy View Post
    personally, I think more "I believe therefore I am", but you being a Ti user and this being an Fi as hell thing to say, this probably makes absolutely no sense to you
    This works too. Having a belief is an experience, and that experience validates to the experiencer that (s)he exists.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  6. #26
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    It is not quite. A->B does not equate with B->A. I'm not sure if you are trolling me, or if there a genuine disagreement here about converse error.
    http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm



    This works too. Having a belief is an experience, and that experience validates to the experiencer that (s)he exists.
    I'm not trolling you. "I think" posits that "I" exist in the first place. Fireshield's statement is valid, it just doesn't arrive at the same conclusion.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I'm not trolling you. "I think" posits that "I" exist in the first place. Fireshield's statement is valid, it just doesn't arrive at the same conclusion.
    Just because one posits something, doesn't imply its true or exists. In fact, proof by contradiction works specifically by positing something that we end up proving to be false. We can do proof non-existence of things by contradiction too. Those sorts of proofs start off with "Suppose A exists."...and ends with "Therefore, A cannot exist."

    It seems we have two disagreements.

    One is methodological...that is in what we consider "valid", and what the process of "deduction" is. This is what I find more troubling than the actual content of the original disagreement. A single statement by itself may be true or false. But I find "valid" to be a strange characterization. Also, the statement that "I am, therefore I think" either follows from or leads to "I think therefore I am", is a basic error in deductive reasoning.

    The second is a simple matter of whether or not it is possible (for me, you, etc.) to exist without thinking. I believe it is possible. I tell you that I have had knowledge of my existence in the absence of thought. You can believe me or not. This is a more instinctual way of existing, and possible to achieve.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #28
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Just because one posits something, doesn't imply its true or exists. In fact, proof by contradiction works specifically by positing something that we end up proving to be false. We can do proof non-existence of things by contradiction too. Those sorts of proofs start off with "Suppose A exists."...and ends with "Therefore, A cannot exist."

    It seems we have two disagreements.

    One is methodological...that is in what we consider "valid", and what the process of "deduction" is. This is what I find more troubling than the actual content of the original disagreement. A single statement by itself may be true or false. But I find "valid" to be a strange characterization. Also, the statement that "I am, therefore I think" either follows from or leads to "I think therefore I am", is a basic error in deductive reasoning.

    The second is a simple matter of whether or not it is possible (for me, you, etc.) to exist without thinking. I believe it is possible. I tell you that I have had knowledge of my existence in the absence of thought. You can believe me or not. This is a more instinctual way of existing, and possible to achieve.
    I should have clarified. "I", in this case, is defined as a thinking entity. Knowledge of your existence in the absence of thought? How could you have knowledge of anything without a limited awareness?

    No, neither line of reasoning follows from the other. When did I say that? They're just different analysis of the same knowledge.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I should have clarified. "I", in this case, is defined as a thinking entity. Knowledge of your existence in the absence of thought? How could you have knowledge of anything without a limited awareness?
    The use of language, may require thinking, but defining "I" as a thinking entity is different from defining "I" as that entity that thinks. Awareness does not require thinking. No words or images are needed in order to be aware.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    No, neither line of reasoning follows from the other. When did I say that? They're just different analysis of the same knowledge.
    This sounded a lot like you were saying one is deduced from the other:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    "I think, therefore I am". It's a deduction from a simple statement that implicitly claims that "I am, therefore I think." The line of reasoning is inextricable from itself.
    EDIT: Maybe I should be more explicit, because I thought people took certain things for granted.
    Do you exist when you are asleep and not dreaming? Do you think in this state?

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  10. #30
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasofy View Post
    I dug, dug, and dug.

    Not insightful, but quite deep.
    Diggy diggy hole!!


Similar Threads

  1. Walking, Breathing, Thinking Contradiction - WTH am I?
    By Penniless Abe in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2017, 03:07 AM
  2. I think therefore I am....
    By ToniTheSlut in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2016, 10:11 PM
  3. What type do you think that I am?
    By AliceKettle in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-28-2014, 08:29 PM
  4. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM
  5. What Type Do You Think I Am?
    By Mondo in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 10:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO