What is Digg?51 Comments
- hhOwArdrOarKk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Too bad thinking you can get laid doesn't get you laid.
- iching, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"I think therefore I am"
René Descartes
I guess that puts a new meaning on that quote. - iching, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Only later, sorry I'm correct on this one.
Descartes said "Je pense, donc je suis" - which translates exactly
into the familiar Latin and English phrases, I think therefore I am - in his "Discourse on
Method". The same principle is laid out more fully in his later
Meditations, which he wrote in Latin, but without using the exact
phrase "cogito, ergo sum".
"Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulois ainsi
penser que tout étoit faux, il falloit nécessairement que moi qui le
pensois fusse quelque chose; et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense,
donc je suis, étoit si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus
extravagantes suppositions des sceptiques n'étoient pas capables de
l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvais la recevoir sans scrupule pour le
premier principe de la philosophie que je cherchois."
http://abu.cnam.fr/cgi-bin/donner_html?methode3
"But immediately afterwards I noticed that, while I wished in this way
to think everything was false, it was necessary that I—who was doing
the thinking—had to be something. Noticing that this truth—I think,
therefore I am—was so firm and so sure that all the most extravagant
assumptions of the sceptics would not be able to weaken it, I judged
that I could accept it without scruple for the first principle of the
philosophy I was looking for."
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/descartes/descartes1.htm - dustko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Now if this only worked in other aspects of our lives..."
er... It does. When you really believe you can do something, you can. Not straight away of course, but you set yourself up for it. You know, the little train that could and all of that.
"You have to believe we are magic..." - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11confidence has nothing on cheese
- savingadvice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Now if this only worked in other aspects of our lives...
- archlich, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"I don't think, therefore..." *poof*
- lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Didn't RTFA, but academic achievement and changing your intelligence are not the same thing, at all.
Any idiot that believes they can (learn to) do something will usually have success. - kevxross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'll have to start telling my friends that have or are going for psych degrees to BELIEVE they can get a job.
- hartley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Reminds me of an episode of the sitcom News Radio.
The idiotic character Mathew (Andy Dick) takes a placebo which is supposed to make him smarter, since he was so dumb and truly believed it, he really did become smarter. (and called himself Smathew -- Smart Mathew) After he became smarter he realized it was an act of mind over matter. Once he made this realization, he in turn became dumb again. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9'and the real Descartes quote is "I am thinking, therefore I exist'
You realize that his work isn't originally in English right? There is no word for word in translation. Digg users never cease to amaze me. - Silencer7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Smart pills, eh? [gulp] ....Hey....these are just rabbit turds!"
"See? You're getting smarter already!"
"Oh wow! I'll take 2 more bottles." - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5actually, it does more than you may think. confidence in yourself helps a lot. thinking you can never get laid usually ends up being true.
- daofma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Sorry, it does.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is like that thing I was reading that 70% of people say they are above average intelligence.
- billgatez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem with this topic is defining what is considered "smart". One person with a low or average iq may be smarter at math or any topic than someone with a higher iq yet who lacks experience.
Probably some come out of the womb with more mental watt power than others but this can be changed by training the mind, because by for any normal (not handicapped) human it can be trained to think and learn anything. In my opinion most people deemed dumb are just mentally lazy more than anything. - WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@archlich
Let P = "I think"; Q = "I am".
Descartes says P->Q, "I think, therefore I am", "If I think, then I am".
The truth-preserving corollary is ¬Q->¬P, "If I am not, then I do not think".
> Assume the statement "I think therefore" be (P), and "I am" be (Q) and P->Q
> is logically true. Then these following statements are also true:
> P->¬Q "I think, therefore I am not."
> ¬P->¬Q "I do not think, therefore I am not"
Wrong. Let me refute this.
P: I am a cat
Q: I am a mammal
P->Q, "If I am a cat, then I am a mammal" - true
P->¬Q, "If I am a cat, then I am not a mammal" - false
¬P->¬Q, "If I am not a cat, then I am not a mammal" - false
¬Q->¬P, "If I am not a mammal, then I am not a cat" - true - archlich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Incoming ascii truth table!
P|Q|¬P|¬Q|P->Q|¬Q->¬P
T|T|F |F |T |T
T|F|F |T |F |F
F|T|T |F |T |T
F|F|T |T |T |T
Notice how the last two columns are exactly the same? This is a tautology.
Your statement,¬P->¬Q is T, don't worry, this is a common misconception. - maiku00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3In this case they arent teaching people that they are smart or smarter than they actually are. Instead, they are teaching them that their ability to increase their knowledge is not fixed, and that they have potential to learn and become smarter than they are.
- Slog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ encognito,
A decade ago? Buried as inaccurate as information is a decade old!
:-) - HijackedFlavor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy...not really a new concept in cognitive psych.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy - WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5> "I don't think, therefore..." *poof*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Descartes is still smarter than you. - unloud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I geek therefore I am.
- archlich, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5"Descartes is still smarter than you."
Not really, you cannot prove anything definitely, you can only refute.
Assume the statement "I think therefore" be (P), and "I am" be (Q) and P->Q is logically true. Then these following statements are also true:
P->¬Q "I think, therefore I am not."
¬P->¬Q "I do not think, therefore I am not"
The only case which is false is:
¬P->Q, ""I am not, therefore I am,"
So if I state "I do not think, therefore I am not" this is a true statement
Another facet of logic is, if P->Q, Then the contrapositive is also true ¬Q->¬P . "I am not, therefore I do not think" is also true.
This says that the following are true:
Q->¬P"I am, therefore I do not think"
Q->P "I am, therefore I think"
and the only case that is false:
¬Q->P "I am not, therefore I think"
So when one makes the statement "I think, therefore I am," one also says all these statements are logically valid as well. The only statement that refutes Descartes is to show ¬Q->P or P->¬Q. Neither of which is what I said.
In conclusion, my statement is valid; I'm smarter than Descartes; he is just blowing hot air.
For further reading on the philosophy of logic and proof check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism - WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@archlich
Your truth table only shows that I was right: the corollary to P->Q is ¬Q->¬P.
If P->Q is true, it does not entail that P->¬Q and ¬P->¬Q are true.
I recommend to you an introductory course in formal logic. - WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> You're thinking of a biconditional.
> ...
> which this statement is not, "I think therefore, I am." is simply a conditional
Biconditionals are irrelevant. You have not refuted Descartes by pointing out that ¬P->¬Q is false, as it does not follow from P->Q in the first place.
> For the record, I have a degree in mathematics.
From which university? - resplence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@berwiki
No, that was the 3rd best show ever. - kryptobs2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't see how this is conclusive at all. There are many other reasons this may have resulted as it did. Maybe just being told you could get smarter if you try simply gave people more motivation to try.
- archlich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=logiccs0.png
I was tired of writing ascii lol. Yes, I know my handwriting is horrible.
Anyway, you're right, I didn't "disprove" Descartes. I'd have to not be and think, or not think and be. Neither of which I can do. I just wanted to show that both of our statements are true, but it doesn't have to be a tautology. If you want to talk about this more, (instead of filling digg space) let me know, and i'll get back to you =) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3ah yes, the power of confidence.
- WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> Assume the statement "I think therefore" be (P), and "I am" be (Q) and P->Q
> is logically true. Then these following statements are also true:
> P->¬Q "I think, therefore I am not."
> ¬P->¬Q "I do not think, therefore I am not"
No. Look:
P|Q|¬P|¬Q|P->Q|P->¬Q|¬P->¬Q
T|T|F |F |T |F |T
T|F|F |T |F |T |T
F|T|T |F |T |T |F
F|F|T |T |T |T |T - colorjam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CanceledCzech obviously dosn't know the secret! :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Intelligence (completely unscientific and from 25 years of experience in thinking) has to be a 50/50 card, sure if you let yourself reason that you will never understand something then you /never/ will, if you have any doubt that you cannot understand then you /probably/ won't. If you /know/ you can understand something, it's very likely you will. You can never fully know the limits of your intelligence so limiting yourself as these people do is just harming themselves.
I'm sure I've seen some quote like what I mentioned above, but I usually am lacking in the knowledge dept... - CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hooorah! I didn't know they were making an off-shoot of "The Da Vinci Code". Gotta love that fiction.
- archlich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You're thinking of a biconditional.
p q | p ↔ q
----+--------
T T | T
T F | F
F T | F
F F | T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biconditional
which this statement is not, "I think therefore, I am." is simply a conditional
For the record, I have a degree in mathematics. - archlich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Edit: ¬P->Q, ""I am not, therefore I am," should read
¬P->Q, ""I do not think, therefore I am," Sorry! - JohnnyFive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This the "little engine that could" principle?
Well I believe I can fly. Tune in later to see how I fair. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Believe? I *AM* smarter!
- nybe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2awesome, glad to see the secret gettin out here.
- rjgutzeit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Boosting grades is not the same thing as boosting intelligence. This is the placebo effect for school tests, nothing more. This will be news when someone demonstrates that this works on tests of nerve conduction velocity, glucose metabolism rates in the brain, ECTs, or even on a respectable IQ test like Raven's Progressive Matrices.
Also, even if this does turn out to be valid, it has no bearing on the actual existence of innate genetic differences in intelligence. Think of how a fire drill works: It may be true that school children will exit a building in a more orderly fashion and thus save lives if they believe that their building isn't really on fire, but the fact that believing the building isn't on fire saves lives has no impact on the truth of the statement that the building is on fire. If a mentally handicapped child does better on tests when he's told that his scores are actually exceptionally high, it just means that delusions can raise test scores, not that the child's scores aren't below average.
It's possible for there to be innate differences in intelligence that contribute to test scores *as well as* factors such as motivation or mood. Reasonable people can disagree on the innateness of intelligence, but this isn't evidence one way or the other. - grayBot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I think the best way to become smarter is to figure out how to hook up a friggin' computer up to your friggin' brain.... with friggin' lasers of course
- mambonova, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not confidence that makes you successful. It's repetition and practice. Confidence comes along as an ingredient to keep you going. There is no predisposition to become anything. It is your belief that you can make it in life that gets you "making it." And it's not "get rich quick" either. It's the slow, repetitious "belief-do-reinforce success-belief again" cycle that moves you forward. Conversely, it's the "bad belief-don't do-reinforce loser" cycle that, well, makes us a "loser." Check out www.oneyearexitplan.com.
- WomunOfColour, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Not think and be" (e.g. a rock) does not disprove Descartes.
- milye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While it's true good grades does not equal intelligence, the study was about how once people realize they can change something that they thought they can not (or can't easily), they will have more confidence in their abilities. I guess you can think of it as two sports teams. One team with no coach... and perhaps only a booing crowd. The other team with a coach telling the team that they have the ability to win. The latter will most likely win (given that everything else is the same).
- encognito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ kevxross,
Funny thing, I have a psychology degree and I got not one but TWO jobs out of college over a decade ago. A full time position at a non-profit and a part time position at a library. And I am "black." Sounds like your friends need to get off their collective asses. - Socolco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I suppose believing yourself to be smarter before the results are achieved simply make you an idiot.
- fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2flaw: research was conducted to lessen * acheivement gap*, not to improve intelligence in general ( adding un-needed bias, etc...)
- semiotix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I refuse to believe this.
- berwiki, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1isnt that the show that sucked?
- mvnicosia, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1In other news, white students who were told they could have larger penises if they thought they could...still had small penises.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 