In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > > In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on > > 07/19/2006 > > at 11:02 PM, email@example.com said: > > > > >Nothing whatsoever has to be assumed to state "I am". > > > > Nothing whatsoever has to be assumed to state "You are a fool." > > You have to assume that the term "you" refers to something. And you > have to make some kind of assumption about certain properties of that > thing that that word "you" presumably refers to. > > > >This is called "self-awareness". > > > > ITYM sophistry. There is a difference between stating something and > > showing it to be true. You are a fool. > > The statement "I am" is proven true the moment it is asserted, for it > could not possibly be asserted if it wasn't true. As it asserts nothing > less than the existence of whoever or whatever asserted.
In what sense is the claim of "I am" by a simple bot necessarily true?