Christian sends this in: “I often find philosophical debate/discussion to be tedious. Consuming philosophical subject matter humorously/satirically in the SMBC way is tolerable… but I don’t think I entirely understand the main comic…. but I think I understand the votey comic better… which only kinda-sorta helps explain the main one…”
Comics I Don't Understand 
Descartes famously said (more or less) “I think, therefore I am.” That is, being able to recognize that one is conscious is prima facie evidence of actually being conscious.
The comic posits the Reverse Descartes. Despite the observation that human senses and cognition are not perfect, the person in the comic is positing that plainly ridiculous observations and conclusions made by those flawed humans could nonetheless be true.
What we would expect the Reverse Descartes to be phrased as is “I am, therefore I think.” (In formal logic it would actually be called the Converse Descartes; the Inverse Descartes would be “I don’t think, therefore I’m not;” and the Contrapositive Descartes would be “I am not, therefore I do not think.”.)
“I am, therefore I think,” can be interpreted as “I exist, therefore my conclusions and observations must be considered as potentially real.” Or, “plainly ridiculous observations and conclusions made by flawed humans could nonetheless be true.”
LikeLike
Powers, I think you’re on the right track. Descartes proposed the invisible demon thought experiment, where he tried to prove what he could (mostly about identity) under the assumption that everything he believed to be reality was the work of a demon tricking him.
Here, the character posits a demon feeding us truth despite our flawed senses. Personally I think that’s putting Descartes before the horse.
LikeLike
Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum cogito.
I think I think, therefore I think I am . . . I think.
LikeLike
Here, the character posits a demon feeding us truth despite our flawed senses
There is another traditional philosophical problem going on in the comic. Andrew, take another look at what it says: the demon could be feeding us justified true beliefs — it doesn’t say truths or knowledge of facts. So this is trying to look at the issue of defining knowledge, and specifically the attempted definition of knowledge as justified true belief.
For more on a classic set of counterexamples, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
LikeLike
@Max Of course you are my bright little star,
I’ve miles
And miles
Of files
Pretty files of your forefather’s fruit
and now to suit our
great computer,
You’re magnetic ink.
LikeLiked by 1 person