View Full Version : I think, therefore, I am.
This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.
Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:
And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".
What is your opinion?
quantumcarl
Mar20-03, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.
Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:
And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".
What is your opinion?
You know my opinion on this one Mentat... so far its holding at 33.3 percent of the vote!
I don't think thinking has anything to do with proving that I exist. Thinking does not involve the exterior world... only the interior. If we were to rely on our interior thoughts as proof of existence... then we would believe that the "Demon" who approached the man exists as well. We would believe pretty well anything our brain could come up with and as has been pointed out in other threads... the mind can be wrong, a lot of the time
That's why I enjoy the idea of changing, slightly, the wording of good ol' Des Cartes statement to read as follows:
I drink, therefore I am.
Now, right off you think I'm talking about drinking alchohol when I say this... and even I get that drift... hmmm...
But... realistically... I am talking about "drinking" of experience.
I see the use of our senses and our logic as a kind of drinking... a way to meld with the experiences exterior to our mind and the experiences inside our mind.
This to me becomes a pathway to understanding that I exist... using the interaction of the exterior and the interior experiences to come to the conclusion that... yes... I exist, not only in my head... but out there... in this universe.
That's my opinion, for the moment.
EDIT: let me put it this way.
If I didn't drink (water for example) I would not exist.
Les Sleeth
Mar20-03, 05:57 PM
I like Carl's answer so much I hate to post after him but . . .
After reading Descartes you can see his point is how one knows one exists, and his conclusion is that he can know "so long as it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind."
Yet, my experience has been that the more still my mind is, the more I become aware of my existence, which seems just the opposite of Descartes' statement.
But after thinking about it, I've concluded that he might have meant thinking rationally (i.e., reason, not just a wandering mind) takes place in front of another part of consciousness that witnesses that thinking. So when one reasons, one is made more aware of the inner witness and consequently of one's existence.
Nevertheless, attentive stillness of the mind can also accentuate the inner witness, as does deeply feeling (attentively). So I believe it is more the attentiveness to one's being that makes one most aware of existence rather than thinking.
However, second to that I'd chose to drink.
(BTW Mentat, how did you get your "Radio Wave" status? Are we doing that here or is that your addition to your handle?)
Iacchus32
Mar20-03, 06:47 PM
I think therefore I am ... I think?
Even though the idea of "thinking" (being caught up in one's thoughts) is subjective, which is to say he may not "know" he exists, doesn't change the fact that he exists. Even an inanimate object such as a tree, which doesn't "think," still exists ...
RageSk8
Mar20-03, 07:11 PM
I like "I think therefore I know"
-Stolen from Nagel in his characterization of Davidson.
Iacchus32
Mar20-03, 07:22 PM
I'm not thinking at the moment I'm aware. I just see ...
wuliheron
Mar20-03, 08:06 PM
And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".
Descartes was evidently an optimist, and a pretty self-assured one at that in light of this argument. Note that this is literally true from historical accounts of the man as well as from an analysis of this argument. However, he was also a rather sarcastic argumentative cuss as well. Perhaps that is where the ego thing of
"I think, therefore I am" comes from.
An Optimist is someone who believes this is the best of all possible worlds, and a pessimist is someone who's afraid they are right. In light of his extremes in attitude, for all I know he had a bit of both in him when he made this argument and was being sarcastic yet again. Certainly his sarcasm was more characteristic of his writing. Who can say? :0)
RuroumiKenshin
Mar20-03, 11:44 PM
I agree with Sensei and QuantumCarl. They've basically said what I was going to say.
Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.
I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.
Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):
I can think about not existing, thus, I exist
In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.
RuroumiKenshin
Mar21-03, 07:17 PM
I like your argument, Mentat. But how about inanimate objects? It doesn't apply to inanimate objects.
quantumcarl
Mar22-03, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.
I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.
Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):
I can think about not existing, thus, I exist
In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.
Mentat. I can switch sides in a second if you like. That's what philosphy is all about!
I can say... yes, I do agree, the statement holds true in one frame of mind and one way of seeing.
The mind is our only qualifying factor when it comes to the existence of anything and everything.
I can say the "sun" exists because I feel its warmth and I notice when its not there. The only way I can feel its warmth is by way fo receptors in my skin sending signals to my brain which then interprets the temperature change as being warmer. This information becomes a thought about how warm the sun is... or how the sun has just been hidden by the horizon.
Therefore, it is only by way of thinking that I can verify the existence of the sun... or of myself... or of you.
Therefore, again... Des Cartes was on to something... in a myopic way. His view was myopic in that it considers the mind to be the total authority when it comes to existence. And I strongly disagree with that.
I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.
Mind you... it is always the pioneers of any science that end up making mistakes or miscalulations about a new frontier. These were the people willing to make mistakes in the name of truth. They were often willing to stake their lives on such claims as those made by Des Cartes.
(2039 characters)
eleutheria
Mar22-03, 09:48 AM
I think therefore I am.
It must be read in its context. And the Meditatins suggest that what Descartes is talking about is not the thinking process, but the intuition of the "I", which is what one cannot doubt about. Therefore, one can conclude that he exists. Remember that the way we use the verb "to think" is different from the use Descartes made of it.
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Mentat. I can switch sides in a second if you like. That's what philosphy is all about!
I can say... yes, I do agree, the statement holds true in one frame of mind and one way of seeing.
The mind is our only qualifying factor when it comes to the existence of anything and everything.
I can say the "sun" exists because I feel its warmth and I notice when its not there. The only way I can feel its warmth is by way fo receptors in my skin sending signals to my brain which then interprets the temperature change as being warmer. This information becomes a thought about how warm the sun is... or how the sun has just been hidden by the horizon.
Therefore, it is only by way of thinking that I can verify the existence of the sun... or of myself... or of you.
Therefore, again... Des Cartes was on to something... in a myopic way. His view was myopic in that it considers the mind to be the total authority when it comes to existence. And I strongly disagree with that.
I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.
Mind you... it is always the pioneers of any science that end up making mistakes or miscalulations about a new frontier. These were the people willing to make mistakes in the name of truth. They were often willing to stake their lives on such claims as those made by Des Cartes.
(2039 characters)
Well, I don't want you to play Devil's Advocate in this particular occasion. I would prefer an argument for your side.
I think you may have come closer to the point of Descartes' Philosophy, and then missed it again. I mean no offense by this, I just think that the phrase "I think, therefore I am" detracts from the actual philosophy, and confused many of those who responded/voted. That's why I tried to break it down, in my last post. You see, Descartes was not saying that the qualifying factor for being alive was thinking, he was saying that the fact that he could think about not existing proved that he existed.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
I like your argument, Mentat. But how about inanimate objects? It doesn't apply to inanimate objects.
And it doesn't have to, because you wouldn't try to convince an inanimate object that it didn't exist. Descartes' point was not that the qualifying factor for existing is thinking; his point was that the fact that he could think proved to him that he existed - and that the Evil Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (and thus cause him to contemplate non-existence) proves that he does exist.
Iacchus32
Mar22-03, 12:46 PM
I say this: "when a tree falls in the forest... if no one hears it... there is still the physical existence of a sound. Qualified, quantified or not.
Or the physical evidence of the tree laying on the ground when you happen to stumble upon it when hiking in the woods.
Don't mind me. This is related to an argument I had a long time ago, when someone tried explaining to me that it actually didn't happen.
wuliheron
Mar22-03, 12:52 PM
I think therefore I am.
It must be read in its context. And the Meditatins suggest that what Descartes is talking about is not the thinking process, but the intuition of the "I", which is what one cannot doubt about. Therefore, one can conclude that he exists. Remember that the way we use the verb "to think" is different from the use Descartes made of it.
Don't forget the personal context, not just the abstract. Descartes was using this abstract argument to fight the Church in an effort to promote experimental science and reason. Thus, from both the personal and the abstract it is more clearly a tautological assertion and affirmation of ego and reason.
eleutheria
Mar22-03, 06:44 PM
When coming to the personal context, things get a bit...uncertain. Descartes had an insane relation with the church, expecially with the jesuits. So while elaborating a scientific method on Galilei's line, at the same time he always searched the jesuits approval as his intellectual counterpart, as it is clear from the premises of his books.
I don't think his "cogito" was a tautological assertion, no more than it is tautological the identity of Esperus with Phosphorus. It is always Venus, but there was a time when it was regarded as two different celestial bodies, one of the morning, the other one of the evening.
If you're looking for a foundation, the I is a very good one. (What Descartes began to deduce from this foundation, is a totally different story). After hundreds of years of kantian "copernican revolution" and successive idealism, it looks like a banality, but it is not.
wuliheron
Mar22-03, 09:31 PM
A mad man's mind is always hard to distinguish from that of a genuis, hence the name.
I don't think his "cogito" was a tautological assertion, no more than it is tautological the identity of Esperus with Phosphorus. It is always Venus, but there was a time when it was regarded as two different celestial bodies, one of the morning, the other one of the evening.
Ohhhhh, sounds good. I admire good poetry. If it doesn't touch the ego, it speaks to the soul. Tell me the plot, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
If you're looking for a foundation, the I is a very good one. (What Descartes began to deduce from this foundation, is a totally different story). After hundreds of years of kantian "copernican revolution" and successive idealism, it looks like a banality, but it is not.
Sounds good. It sounds very pantheistic to me and denies the mystical if you want. Hence it speaks to the heart of the matter without actually necessarilly touching the situation. What remains unadressed is the inexplicable and, of course, ineffable.
steppenwolf
Mar23-03, 12:42 AM
i don't agree with descartes because i don't consider the thinking process a voluntary and premeditated one. if you think of an action like waving your arm around then you can definately say 'i wave my arm around' as there is a hierarchy involved in this decision, your brain can decide, plan and eventually carry out this task, thinking is however different, there is no higher brain that controls your doing (ie thinking) brain, therefore you don't think, thinking just happens.
when i realised this (although it might be wrong, counter-arguments are very welcome) it really annoyed me as i was trapped by this seemingly foreign thinking process, the ideas just happen and even though i feel they are 'mine' i didn't chose for them to happen as i chose to wave my arm around. the problem is you can't 'think' your way out of this conundrum as the thinking process is the very thing you can't control.
argh! [g)]
I voted yes, because while it is possible that none of what we percive or think really exsist (ie. we are a part of someone elses dream, ect.) it is so highly improbable that it is reasonable to asume that it is impossible.
If something is doing an action, then it must exsist. Laws of physics. Thinking is an action. However this also applies to drinking, kicking, sleeping, ect.) The problem lies in what people asume comes after the word "am" in that statement. People apply the idea "thinking being" after it. The statement is made as just proof that one exsist. Either we are alive or not, this statement does not inquire this. It simply asks if you exsist. Which if you think or do any action, you do.
Also, Stepenwolf, remember that thinking require the firing of neurons in your brain and thus is just a s physical a thing as moving your arm. Agreed there is no mystical thinking. It is a chemical and electrical response that moves us to thinking. Plus I do not think that the "I" in that statement was supposed to the the soul, but the person as a whole. I could be wrong in which case I would just disagree with descartes.
eleutheria
Mar23-03, 09:44 AM
Ohhhhh, sounds good. I admire good poetry. If it doesn't touch the ego, it speaks to the soul. Tell me the plot, I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
Once upon a time....people knew of a morning star, the brightest, and they called it Phosphorus, the light bringer. There was another star that appeared in the evening, which was called Esperus. It came out, I don't know exactly when, maybe in the seventh century B.C., that the two stars were the same one, the planet which is called Venus. Later on it became a classic example in philosophy of language of how the same denoted can be conveyed in two different senses. I think Frege used this example firstly in Uber Sinn und Bedeutung.
wuliheron
Mar23-03, 10:11 AM
So, are you then proclaiming the rational is the paradoxical and vice versa as Parmenides and Hegel did?
eleutheria
Mar23-03, 10:29 AM
The example were meant to state that, being the cogito informative, it is not a mere tautology. But what you say is true, for individual identity is what reveals existence as an evidence, at the same time rational as an identity can be, and ineffable as existence can be.
Originally posted by steppenwolf
i don't agree with descartes because i don't consider the thinking process a voluntary and premeditated one. if you think of an action like waving your arm around then you can definately say 'i wave my arm around' as there is a hierarchy involved in this decision, your brain can decide, plan and eventually carry out this task, thinking is however different, there is no higher brain that controls your doing (ie thinking) brain, therefore you don't think, thinking just happens.
when i realised this (although it might be wrong, counter-arguments are very welcome) it really annoyed me as i was trapped by this seemingly foreign thinking process, the ideas just happen and even though i feel they are 'mine' i didn't chose for them to happen as i chose to wave my arm around. the problem is you can't 'think' your way out of this conundrum as the thinking process is the very thing you can't control.
argh! [g)]
With all due respect, I believe you missed the point of Descartes' philosophy (as have quite a few people on this thread). May I suggest that you read my previous posts on this thread?
steppenwolf
Mar24-03, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Ishop
Also, Stepenwolf, remember that thinking require the firing of neurons in your brain and thus is just a s physical a thing as moving your arm. Agreed there is no mystical thinking. It is a chemical and electrical response that moves us to thinking. Plus I do not think that the "I" in that statement was supposed to the the soul, but the person as a whole. I could be wrong in which case I would just disagree with descartes.
that's fair enough then, i always considered the 'i' in descarte's philosophy to be a something more then the body, well i have made a right fool of myself and shall retreat with what scrap of dignity mentat will allow me [;)]
subjectively i can't see why you can't convince someone they don't exist as you yourself have no real evidence of their thinking procss (oh sure they try to tell you they exist and will kick up quite a fuss but it's all a front). just cos something doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't engage in the 'convincing' process, i once had to convince someone in a dream that they weren't real (gotta love those lucid dreams), the person in my dream could (apparenty) consider their own non-existence but that didn't mean they actually existed.
Originally posted by steppenwolf
that's fair enough then, i always considered the 'i' in descarte's philosophy to be a something more then the body, well i have made a right fool of myself and shall retreat with what scrap of dignity mentat will allow me [;)]
subjectively i can't see why you can't convince someone they don't exist as you yourself have no real evidence of their thinking procss (oh sure they try to tell you they exist and will kick up quite a fuss but it's all a front). just cos something doesn't exist doesn't mean you can't engage in the 'convincing' process, i once had to convince someone in a dream that they weren't real (gotta love those lucid dreams), the person in my dream could (apparenty) consider their own non-existence but that didn't mean they actually existed.
Well, to apparently consider something, and to actually consider something are two different things. And that is part of the point of Descartes' philosophy.
Steppenwolf, I would only think badly of you if you were wrong, and refused to admit the obvious. I admire that you can just state that you were wrong, upon realizing it.
I agree with Mentat in taking Descartes to mean that even if the evil demon is controlling all our sensory experiences and twisting our thoughts, we are certain of our own existence.
To put it into perspective: in the 1st meditation, Descartes questions everything and tries to find a firm foundation for the rest of his knowledge. What if everything he thought he knew was wrong? He then looks at how we can gain knowledge. By sensory experiences? But what if one is just dreaming? (Considering that inside a dream, a person usually doesn't know that he/she is dreaming!) How about rational thought? Surely when I think '2+2=4', I would be right whether I am thinking it awake or thinking it inside a dream. But what if there's some evil demon playing around with your mind and deceiving you, so that you are never thinking straight? So it seems that we can't be sure of ANYTHING at all. . .
Until Descartes thought about how one's self-awareness of existence can never be wrong. If I am being deceived, then I must exist. It all comes down to the self-referential nature of the word 'I'.
When I say 'I am seeing a horse', I may be wrong (because I may be dreaming, hallucinating, blind etc.) But I can never be wrong when I honestly say that 'I seem to be seeing a horse'. The fact 'that my sensory experiences and thoughts exist' is never in doubt, even if the content of such experiences is doubtful. Since 'I' am certain that thoughts and experiences exist, and that there can't be thoughts and experiences without someone/something doing the thinking, something must exist! And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'.
The sentence 'I am here now', when uttered by a subject directly, is always right, no? [;)]
I think Descartes is pretty much correct in the first 2 meditations.
Zimbo love your little.....marshmellow? cheering thing lol. I agree as well, I think you explained better exactly what I was trying to say. However I like Steppenwolf's dream. Just because the person in his dream said "I" doesn't make them real. I do not think you are saying this either, but thought it was good to point out that you weren't. The truth is that the man in your dream while you may hear him say "I" is not really thinking it, you are. And what proof do we have that "real" people are not the same....we do not. THe only thing we know is that we are real because we think "I" when we say it. And we know we think. The only reason why we should continue to believe other people are real is so that they will think we are real, for we only have the right to expect from others what we give. If we accept they are real, then they should accept that we are. And thus we accept everything.
MacTech
Mar26-03, 02:17 AM
he is right, but i would or rather say... this question should go first...
"The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do." --B. F. Skinner, Contingencies of Reinforcement (1969)
hehe, do people really think, i mean many of our actions are quite sheepish...
Originally posted by zimbo
I agree with Mentat in taking Descartes to mean that even if the evil demon is controlling all our sensory experiences and twisting our thoughts, we are certain of our own existence.
To put it into perspective: in the 1st meditation, Descartes questions everything and tries to find a firm foundation for the rest of his knowledge. What if everything he thought he knew was wrong? He then looks at how we can gain knowledge. By sensory experiences? But what if one is just dreaming? (Considering that inside a dream, a person usually doesn't know that he/she is dreaming!) How about rational thought? Surely when I think '2+2=4', I would be right whether I am thinking it awake or thinking it inside a dream. But what if there's some evil demon playing around with your mind and deceiving you, so that you are never thinking straight? So it seems that we can't be sure of ANYTHING at all. . .
Until Descartes thought about how one's self-awareness of existence can never be wrong. If I am being deceived, then I must exist. It all comes down to the self-referential nature of the word 'I'.
When I say 'I am seeing a horse', I may be wrong (because I may be dreaming, hallucinating, blind etc.) But I can never be wrong when I honestly say that 'I seem to be seeing a horse'. The fact 'that my sensory experiences and thoughts exist' is never in doubt, even if the content of such experiences is doubtful. Since 'I' am certain that thoughts and experiences exist, and that there can't be thoughts and experiences without someone/something doing the thinking, something must exist! And let's just call this something that thinks 'I'.
The sentence 'I am here now', when uttered by a subject directly, is always right, no? [;)]
I think Descartes is pretty much correct in the first 2 meditations.
Very good summary, Zimbo.
So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?
chosenone
Mar28-03, 01:54 PM
I think we are aware yes,but if god is evergy thing and created us,the gods life in his universe is to do something to pass the time,so he created us in the begining,and has waited 15 billion years to get the universe to this point,so all we are is what god decided for us,so all are thoughts now and forever are what god already decided they where going to be,so we don't think for ourselfs god does,so to say we are not just gods imagination being acted out by god,as we percieve the real world is an illusion,may be more truer that not.so i say he was wrong!
Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?
RuroumiKenshin
Apr5-03, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
So, who still disagrees with Descartes' on this matter? Who has had a change of heart (whether for or against)?
So, "I think therefore I am" only applies to a conscious being, right? So the statement is limited.
Originally posted by MajinVegeta
So, "I think therefore I am" only applies to a conscious being, right? So the statement is limited.
Not just conscious things, but rather, it is restricted to *thinking* things. However, it is useful, especially in debates about whether we (humans) do or don't exist.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr10-03, 03:50 AM
Hi there,
1. For Mentat:
Well, I'm here. Please explain that post (the one I quoted) in details and also show that my proof posted on "Knowledge?" is problematic.
Alright, Manuel. I didn't see any proofs presented on the "Knowledge" thread, but I'll try to explain this...
I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.
Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):
I can think about not existing, thus, I exist
In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.
Come to think of it, that's a pretty sound explanation, what is it that you don't understand?
GlamGein
Apr10-03, 02:08 PM
To exist, one must be conscious of existence.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr10-03, 02:26 PM
Hi,
1. For Mentat:
The proof I'm referring to is on "Knowledge?" page 4 (and is one of the things I guess you ignored). It is enclosed in a pair of dash-sequences.
Your post needs explanation because of the following ambiguities:
If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.
You say one can't be convinced of something unless one exists. You say you have to exist to be convinced. Where does that come from? As far as I know the first thing to be proven is existence. Being the prime primary it has to be proven without a single assumption. All assumptions can be made after proving that one exits. If one's still in hesitation about one's existence how can one assume that "I should exist to be convinced?"
Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):
I can think about not existing, thus, I exist
Being able to think doesn't necessarily mean the existence of the thinker. That that one has to be before one is able to think is an "existence-based" assumption. Hence is doesn't qualify for proving existence.
Then, you say "his axiom." If it's an axiom it needn't be defended for or talked about. There's no problem with axioms. They're worthless for they're pre-assumed (means, they're not proven). Give a dime, have a dozen hot ready-made axioms for an hour's pleasure.
The point with Descartes' speech is that he insists that "je pons donc je suis" is a firm ground to base your entire life and philosophy on. Matter of fact (this is not the fact you called "fact" [:D]) it isn't that way.
I have no problem with this sentence as long as it isn't seen as a victory for human logic in proving/showing/ensuring existence. Human logic and all other human things in the world give no guarantee, they aren't firm enough to ensure one of the slightest truth/reality/righteousness/[beep] in the smallest piece of human knowledge/information/wisdom/[beep].
This sentence "may" give one the bravery to go on, the strength to endure or the stubbornness not to give up but it isn't a "proof."
For 101th time I repeat, I'm not posing against my/your/her/his/their/[beep] existence. Thus I needn't prove non-existence. I'm just posing against that you take someone's existence for granted.
Originally posted by GlamGein
To exist, one must be conscious of existence.
That's actually backwards. To be conscious of existence, one must exist. That's the point of Descartes' philosophy.
BTW, the reason it doesn't work the way you wrote it is that rocks exist, and are not conscious of their existence. But, when flipped around, as it were, your statement is in perfect agreement with Descartes'.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,
1. For [b]Mentat:
The proof I'm referring to is on "Knowledge?" page 4 (and is one of the things I guess you ignored). It is enclosed in a pair of dash-sequences.
I don't see any proof against this statement. I see supposed proof against the statement, "I am talking to you", but not against Descartes' statement.
Your post needs explanation because of the following ambiguities:
You say one can't be convinced of something unless one exists. You say you have to exist to be convinced. Where does that come from? As far as I know the first thing to be proven is existence. Being the prime primary it has to be proven without a single assumption. All assumptions can be made after proving that one exits. If one's still in hesitation about one's existence how can one assume that "I should exist to be convinced?"
How about flipping that reasoning around? You are saying that you can convince something. This requires that there be something for you to convince, and thus you cannot convince me that I don't exist. Please remember, I'm not saying that you - personally - are trying to convince me of anything. I'm just saying that you couldn't, if you tried - which gives me certain amount of certainty that I do exist, because it can't be disproven [:)].
Being able to think doesn't necessarily mean the existence of the thinker. That that one has to be before one is able to think is an "existence-based" assumption. Hence is doesn't qualify for proving existence.
Say what? The proposition that something can think necessitates the existence of the "something" that is thinking.
The point with Descartes' speech is that he insists that "je pons donc je suis" is a firm ground to base your entire life and philosophy on. Matter of fact (this is not the fact you called "fact" [:D]) it isn't that way.
What does "je pons donc je suis" mean?
This sentence "may" give one the bravery to go on, the strength to endure or the stubbornness not to give up but it isn't a "proof."
No, it's an assertion. An assertion that you can't prove wrong, because you'd be attempting to prove it wrong to someone (even if just yourself), and that someone would have to exist, in order for you to prove something to them.
greeneagle3000
Apr13-03, 10:09 PM
if what you think you are, you will be what you are. your mind make this real and therefore, everything will be in the way your mind percieves things. that's why they have to make a system of orders and the orientation to percieve what they want us to see.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr14-03, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by GlamGein
To exist, one must be conscious of existence.
and thus think. Thinking and the act of consciousness is the same thing.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr14-03, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by greeneagle3000
if what you think you are, you will be what you are. your mind make this real and therefore, everything will be in the way your mind percieves things. that's why they have to make a system of orders and the orientation to percieve what they want us to see.
You are very right! Shaolin philosophy emphasizes this. When you are in pain, if you concentrate on being relaxed, and without pain, you will at least be releaved from pain. Also Reiki practices this sort of mind-body training. This is called autogenic meditation. And the central basis is thought.
greeneagle3000
Apr14-03, 03:44 AM
wow! and i thought that you would disagree like most people do!
Another God
Apr14-03, 10:21 AM
It is a pragmatic necessary truth.
If I am able to say that I exist, or that I am thinking, then of course I exist.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr14-03, 11:40 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I don't see any proof against this statement...
No. Read it again, please. It's a "supposed" (we've this word in comon) proof against any statement of the form "I therefore I exist." You needn't go there again, it's here:
-------Copy-Pasted from "Knowledge?", Page 4-------------------------
Every statement of the sort "I [beep] therefore I am" is erroneous when viewed with linear logic (I mean, no self-contradiction and/or loops allowed). Here's my proof:
Consider having said "I [beep]", you have to choose one of the two following statements:
P([beep]) : There need be an "I" to "[beep]."
P'([beep]) : There needn't be an "I" to "[beep]."
Since the above statements are contrary, only one of them may be yours (for we're using Aristotelian logic where a statement can be either true or false and nothing else and there's no escape from having chosen one of them).
If you choose 1, you've clearly pre-assumed that there need be an "I" to "[beep]" and you haven't done much in mentioning the consequence that "therefore I am." This is a self-referential statement giving no more information than what was known before.
If you choose 2, you've made another mistake. How could you say it isn't necessary to be an "I" to "[beep]" and then conclude that "therefore I (necessarily) am?" This is paradoxical for the statement is made up of two parts which are contradictory.
(This proof may be wrong. If so, please show my mistake(s))
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hint: I asked one of forum members to please take a look at this. She/he suggested it wasn't of much creditability and I agree with her/him. However, as long as "you" haven't shown its absurdity you have to take it.
... This requires that there be something for you to convince, and thus you cannot convince me that I don't exist...
I'm not convincing you that you don't exist, I repeat for 102th time. I'm showing how meaningless it may be to take any statement (even this well-shaped one) for granted.
You say it "requires" that so and so, where does this "requirement" come from? You think there's a "requirement", you think a specific entity must be prior to another one, how did you come to think so? I've learnt that you, like Descartes, are insisting that "I think therefore I am" is a firm ground. If everything is going to built upon this statement, the statement itself must be "proven" independently. No assumptions, no beliefs, no pre-suppositions are allowed.
Hint: the above paragraph suffers internal inconsistency, see if you can find the point of weakness.
Say what? The proposition that something can think necessitates the existence of the "something" that is thinking.
No, it's an assertion. An assertion that you can't prove wrong, because you'd be attempting to prove it wrong to someone (even if just yourself), and that someone would have to exist, in order for you to prove something to them.
There are no "necessities" at this level. See, Descartes had gone a long way when he came to "I think therefore I am." He'd put away his religious and scientific suppositions along with the common sense. This is the purifying of the mind. He purified his mind to see beyond what he was usually supposed to see.
He, however, slipped once, only once. He saw it necessary for the thinker to exist prior to thinking. He shouldn't have made this mistake but he was feeling the pain of groundlessness and that explains well why he made it. He was a great mathematician, he was a great thinker, he needed a firm ground to put all this upon. The efforts of his life, like the efforts of all human beings, would be lost if this firm ground wasn't found.
Unfortunately, you know, our deepest feelings have noway into the magnificent palace of logic. It's made of cold dull grey marble.
If he'd continued purifying his mind (perhaps he did but didn't find it suiting his favor) he would have seen that all "necessities", even the most basic ones, are assumptions unless that firm ground is found.
This level, this brink, this verge at which we're standing is the terminus. No assumptions, no suppositions, no beliefs, no obligations, no preferences, no prejudices, no discrimination, no significance, absolutely none is permitted.
Eventually, only few things are left: uncertainty, self-reference and paradox. These remain for they're as basic as the most basic.
Uncertainty is the principle of doubting everything, even uncertainty.
Paradox is the principle of the collocation of the opposites.
Self-reference is the principle by which everything may claim its status quo for its pointing at itself.
And these three penetrate both our feelings and our logic, they're the junction point.
These three are perhaps the facets of one entity. Since they're all self-sufficient perhaps the inner core facets of which they are may not be revealed. If one's going to assume something, "I think therefore I am" is too big an assumption compared to these three.
Proving one's existence is not an event happening everyday, it's the final quest to see if there's anything we can hold on to (Whitney Houston sang: "Oh! What I can hold on to?" Did she mean that? [;)]).
What does "je pons donc je suis" mean?
It's "I think therefore I am", "Cogito ergo sum", "je pons donc je suis." I thought Descartes' word would seem better in his native language.
There is a book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig. I've a translation of it into my native language. It's from the 1976 print published by Corgi Books. The book is available now and, simply put, is great. I suggest you read it. It may show you many things I'm unable to show.
2. For [b]Another God:
It is a pragmatic necessary truth.
If I am able to say that I exist, or that I am thinking, then of course I exist.
Being is a pragmatically superior supposition but it's nothing more than a supposition.
Being there or not being there won't affect our thoughts/lives. We live as we live. It's the way it is. We do it as we do it.
Nothing is prior to existence. If you say "If I'm able to [beep] then of course I exist" then you have to prove you're "able to [beep]." This is noway easier than proving you exist.
wuliheron
Apr14-03, 12:28 PM
You are very right! Shaolin philosophy emphasizes this. When you are in pain, if you concentrate on being relaxed, and without pain, you will at least be releaved from pain. Also Reiki practices this sort of mind-body training. This is called autogenic meditation. And the central basis is thought.
Another way of looking at this issue is that pain, anger, unhappiness, etc. are not necessarilly synonymous with suffering. By meditating and clearing our minds of preconceptions and expectations it is possible to allow these natural feelings to pass through our bodies and minds and be transformed into other things.
For example, if I touch a hot stove without thinking about it I may just automatically pull my hand back and think little of it. If I expect to get hurt and to suffer, then I very well might. The automatic spontaneous act of pulling my hand back from the stove was triggered by pain, not suffering, and thus the pain was transformed into action. If instead I dwell on expectations and preconceptions, its even possible to cause physical injury to myself.
Psychologists sometimes refer to such things as hysterical reactions. Occationally such hysterical reactions can lead to perminent changes in our very biochemistry on even a cellular level. Therefore suffering can be considered distinct from pain in that it is intimately related to preconceptions and expectations.
I'm reminded of my own children and others I've dealt with. As very small babies and toddlers they of course would occationally fall down or in some other way hurt themselves or become upset, such as when mamma leaves the room. The younger they are the easier it is to just distract them from their own self-impossed suffering. Suddenly shouting Googragilfraglesnort! and waving my hands in the air or somesuch nonsense usually suffices. :0)
Originally posted by greeneagle3000
if what you think you are, you will be what you are. your mind make this real and therefore, everything will be in the way your mind percieves things. that's why they have to make a system of orders and the orientation to percieve what they want us to see.
So you think there is no actual objective reality, and that our minds make up our reality for us?
If so, you should perhaps see the first posts of the thread, entitled "The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis". It is fashioned in such a way as to combat ideas set out by lifegazer, in his "Mind" hypothesis, but it appears relevant to your post, as well.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
-------Copy-Pasted from "Knowledge?", Page 4-------------------------
Every statement of the sort "I [beep] therefore I am" is erroneous when viewed with linear logic (I mean, no self-contradiction and/or loops allowed). Here's my proof:
Consider having said "I [beep]", you have to choose one of the two following statements:
P([beep]) : There need be an "I" to "[beep]."
P'([beep]) : There needn't be an "I" to "[beep]."
Since the above statements are contrary, only one of them may be yours (for we're using Aristotelian logic where a statement can be either true or false and nothing else and there's no escape from having chosen one of them).
If you choose 1, you've clearly pre-assumed that there need be an "I" to "[beep]" and you haven't done much in mentioning the consequence that "therefore I am." This is a self-referential statement giving no more information than what was known before.
If you choose 2, you've made another mistake. How could you say it isn't necessary to be an "I" to "[beep]" and then conclude that "therefore I (necessarily) am?" This is paradoxical for the statement is made up of two parts which are contradictory.
(This proof may be wrong. If so, please show my mistake(s))
This reasoning doesn't seem right to me. You said that I had to pre-suppose that there is an "I", in order for "I" to "". Well, [b]DUH. How can I say that "I" , unless there is an "I"?
Hint: I asked one of forum members to please take a look at this. She/he suggested it wasn't of much creditability and I agree with her/him. However, as long as "you" haven't shown its absurdity you have to take it.
Well, I'm not sure what the other member saw, but it didn't seem to have much credibility to me either.
I'm not convincing you that you don't exist, I repeat for 102th time. I'm showing how meaningless it may be to take any statement (even this well-shaped one) for granted.
Did you miss this, in my previous post...
Originally Posted By Me
Please remember, I'm not saying that you - personally - are trying to convince me of anything. I'm just saying that you couldn't, if you tried - which gives me certain amount of certainty that I do exist, because it can't be disproven .
Or did you ignore this?
Originally Posted By Manuel_Silvio
You say it "requires" that so and so, where does this "requirement" come from? You think there's a "requirement", you think a specific entity must be prior to another one, how did you come to think so? I've learnt that you, like Descartes, are insisting that "I think therefore I am" is a firm ground. If everything is going to built upon this statement, the statement itself must be "proven" independently. No assumptions, no beliefs, no pre-suppositions are allowed.
Because to say that someone does something, is to imply "someone's" existence. You, yourself, have stated that when I say "I [bleep]" it implies an I. This is proof of my (and Descartes') stance.
Hint: the above paragraph suffers internal inconsistency
No kidding (no offense).
He, however, slipped once, only once. He saw it necessary for the thinker to exist prior to thinking.
He saw it necessary that the thinker exist, before the thinker thought? I ask you again: [b]How can the thinker think, if the thinker doesn't exist?. You are contradicting yourself.
If he'd continued purifying his mind (perhaps he did but didn't find it suiting his favor) he would have seen that all "necessities", even the most basic ones, are assumptions unless that firm ground is found.
Have you ever read his "Rules on the Direction of the Mind"? You fall under the category of what was to be avoided, according to Rule #2.
Uncertainty is the principle of doubting everything, even uncertainty.
The uncertainty is the death of all progressive knowledge. Again I reference you to the second Rule of Descartes. (BTW, if you'd like, I can quote the Second Rule for you).
It's "I think therefore I am", "Cogito ergo sum", "je pons donc je suis." I thought Descartes' word would seem better in his native language.
Well it certainly sounds cooler [a)][;)]
There is a book, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig. I've a translation of it into my native language. It's from the 1976 print published by Corgi Books. The book is available now and, simply put, is great. I suggest you read it. It may show you many things I'm unable to show.
I'll try and find that. (Why the weird sounding name? I would have mistaken it for a book on actual Motorcycle Maintenance, and dismissed it.)
Directed at Another God
Being there or not being there won't affect our thoughts/lives. We live as we live. It's the way it is. We do it as we do it.
Are you sure you don't want to retract this, for fear of being mocked mercilessly? Seriously, "Being there...won't affect our thoughts/lives"? Come on!
Nothing is prior to existence. If you say "If I'm able to [beep] then of course I exist" then you have to prove you're "able to [beep]." This is noway easier than proving you exist.
That's a different matter. You see, the fact that the Evil Demon (or you, in this case [<:)][;)]) was able to try and convince someone that they didn't exist (not saying that that's what you are doing, you "could" though, and that's the point), proves that both people (the one convincing and the one being convinced) exist.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr15-03, 03:26 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... You said that I had to pre-suppose that there is an "I", in order for "I" to "[bleep]". Well, DUH. How can I say that "I" [bleep], unless there is an "I"?
There are two things here. First, that my proof relies on linear logic's vulnerability to an uncertain statement. On the first step I ask you to define the state of truth for the two contrary statments, P([beep]) and P'([beep]). Since we're viewing it using linear logic, you've no escape from giving the statements their respective truth values. You'll either have (P([beep]) = T, P'([beep] = F)) or (P([beep]) = F, P'([beep] = T)). I've shown that either of your possible choices in the framework linear logic lead to situations that are out of context, again for linear logic.
This is the nature of dilemma (only if you read that book). You have two choices both of which lead to disaster. There's no escape from that unless a third state is assumed. If a third choice is assumed then a new logic is born. The birth of a new logic means that linear (aristotelian) logic isn't unique. The very implication of its not unique gives birth to countless other systems of logical deduction with their very own rules of deduction and their very own truth values.
Second, that you ask how could you "[beep]" unless there's an "I"? May I ask in counteraction how have you come to believe that there should be an "I" to "[beep]?"
By asking this question you give a hint that it's impossible to act if one doesn't exist. I'm questioning this belief of yours. Since the proof of existence must come first of all, you can't believe in anything before you've proven your being. Since you can't believe in anything, you can't believe that "if there's a deed there's an doer."
We, in our lives, have always connected an effect with a cause, a deed with a doer. This connection isn't necessary. We just haven't observed any contradiction of this rule but this doesn't mean that this rule is never to be contradicted.
The scientific examples are the principles of conservation. Some of them were believed to be unbreakable but they were broken as their corresponding symmetries were violated; the one and only conservation principle whose breakage has never been observed is the conservation of energy. Yet this doesn't make it an unbreakable rule. Physicists are exploring every corner of the Universe to find a contradiction. Principles of conservation can't be proven. They're found empirically so their rightness can always be doubted.
Or did you ignore this?
Well, everyone makes mistakes... even me and... [:D]
Because to say that someone does something, is to imply "someone's" existence. You, yourself, have stated that when I say "I [bleep]" it implies an I. This is proof of my (and Descartes') stance.
No, I haven't said that. In my proof I offered you a statement, P([beep]), and asked you to determine its truth value. Whatever truth value you've chosen, it doesn't relate to me. I only have to show that for every truth value something obscene happens.
It's your belief you're thinking I'm implying. That you talk this over and over tells me you have a deep affection for the relation of the cause and the effect, the deed and the doer.
No kidding (no offense).
I can't get this. I wasn't kidding and really meant the hint. The paragraph I'd written above that hint really suffers internal inconsistency. I meant is as an excercise to find out if you can find where I've slipped. The hint is still there. See if you can find the weak point in that paragraph.
He saw it necessary that the thinker exist, before the thinker thought? I ask you again: How can the thinker think, if the thinker doesn't exist?. You are contradicting yourself.
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your idea. Causality is the bond that connects the doer and the deed. It isn't a necessity. It needn't be there. The deed can be there without a doer if we ignore causality. This won't be a bad ignorance for causality is an empirical pattern; it isn't a logical obligation.
Have you ever read his "Rules on the Direction of the Mind"? You fall under the category of what was to be avoided, according to Rule #2.
No, I haven't ever read the book or caught a glimpse of it. I'd be thankful if you quote the part you're referring to.
And those rules were to direct Descartes' mind, not my mind. My mind goes where it sees suitable to go. I'm certainly someone to be avoided but I don't fall under a category. I'll go there if I'm politely asked [;)].
The uncertainty is the death of all progressive knowledge...Uncertainty is the death of many other things. That's what I really enjoy about it. Uncertainty is the death of confidence, righteousness, significance, preference, prudence, supremacy, ... If they're dying perhaps they don't deserve living on.
See, I'm living here with uncertainty. I'm not sure of anything but that's no problem. I've taken many steps after uncertainty and I, the precious I, haven't yet perished.
I really don't care much what Descartes has said before coming to "cogito ergo sum." Everything else is dependent on this critical point and I'll say Descartes has missed it. Anyway, I'd be thankful if you teach me these rules of mind direction.
I'll try and find that. (Why the weird sounding name? I would have mistaken it for a book on actual Motorcycle Maintenance, and dismissed it.)
It's a book on actual Motorcycle Maintenance. Only the motorcycle is a bit bigger, a bit more complex, a bit stranger, a bit different, just a bit. For me, it ranks among the very best among the books I've read.
Are you sure you don't want to retract this, for fear of being mocked mercilessly? Seriously, "Being there...won't affect our thoughts/lives"? Come on!
Remember what you said before, "uncertainty won't affect our lives." I'm not going to take this back.
Let's suppose someone comes and really convinces you (by magical means) that you don't exist but you go on living like before. You'll preceive everything just like before. If everything is just like before except for that you know you don't exist, would there be a problem? There's absolutely no problem. Nothing will be changed in your world if you're convinced of your non-existence unless you have a certain discomfort that leads to a suicide when you're convinced you are not.
That's a different matter. You see, the fact that the Evil Demon (or you, in this case [<:)]) was able to try and convince someone that they didn't exist (not saying that that's what you are doing, you "could" though, and that's the point), proves that both people (the one convincing and the one being convinced) exist.
First, you must know the Evil Demon scenario is a very basic one. Many other much more elaborate scenarios can be made. I'm one of those scenarios.
Second, you're still beholding the bonds of causality. Causality isn't a necessity. Causality isn't even the superior supposition. Causality isn't even the most useful supposition... There neend't be a Demon if a Demon is tricking you, you'd ask then what's tricking you? I'd say a Demon of a race of non-existent Demons. They may play hard tricks.
Do you know what the EPR experiment is? And then do you know what is Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For [b]Mentat:
There are two things here. First, that my proof relies on linear logic's vulnerability to an uncertain statement. On the first step I ask you to define the state of truth for the two contrary statments, P([beep]) and P'([beep]). Since we're viewing it using linear logic, you've no escape from giving the statements their respective truth values. You'll either have (P([beep]) = T, P'([beep] = F)) or (P([beep]) = F, P'([beep] = T)). I've shown that either of your possible choices in the framework linear logic lead to situations that are out of context, again for linear logic.
You really lost me. From what I understand, your reasoning doesn't apply to something like the "I think therefore I am" philosophy. I say this because "I think therefore I am" is made up of the following propositions:
1) I exist (because I refer to myself as an entity).
2) I think.
3) Number 1 implies number 2.
This is the nature of dilemma (only if you read that book). You have two choices both of which lead to disaster. There's no escape from that unless a third state is assumed. If a third choice is assumed then a new logic is born.
Now this I understand - I've seen it applied to Euclidean Geometry before, too, and it makes sense. However, if you think that I don't have to exist in order for me to do something, you'd need a much stronger argument to convince me.
Second, that you ask how could you "[beep]" unless there's an "I"? May I ask in counteraction how have you come to believe that there should be an "I" to "[beep]?"
I come to believe this because the [bleep] on this particular occasion is substituted by "I think" - not just "think". There must be an "I" in order to [bleep], because "I" is part of the [bleep] itself.
By asking this question you give a hint that it's impossible to act if one doesn't exist. I'm questioning this belief of yours. Since the proof of existence must come first of all, you can't believe in anything before you've proven your being. Since you can't believe in anything, you can't believe that "if there's a deed there's an doer."
What do you mean "since you can't believe anything"? I can believe something, that's what proves that I exist. I rise to your challenge - because it is my opinion that there must be an "I", before "I" can do something. I hold this opinion, currently, because ther statement "I [bleep]" has an "I" in it (to put it basically).
We, in our lives, have always connected an effect with a cause, a deed with a doer.
That's because a "deed", by definition, is that which is done. And that which is done, is done by something. Also, "effect", is defined as something that is caused, otherwise it wouldn't be an "effect".
No, I haven't said that. In my proof I offered you a statement, P([beep]), and asked you to determine its truth value. Whatever truth value you've chosen, it doesn't relate to me. I only have to show that for every truth value something obscene happens.
I don't understand the relevance of this reasoning, to the topic at hand. Please explain it to me.
It's your belief you're thinking I'm implying. That you talk this over and over tells me you have a deep affection for the relation of the cause and the effect, the deed and the doer.
Well, one should have affection for that which one discusses. I have to go now, I will complete my response tomorrow...
greeneagle3000
Apr16-03, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
So you think there is no actual objective reality, and that our minds make up our reality for us?
If so, you should perhaps see the first posts of the thread, entitled "The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis". It is fashioned in such a way as to combat ideas set out by lifegazer, in his "Mind" hypothesis, but it appears relevant to your post, as well.
yes. i don't know about that guys post. i'll check it out when i'm free.
our minds make everything up for us. like when you see, smell, touch something, our minds tells us that it is there. therefore, thats what many people define, reality.
there is no such thing as reality.
RuroumiKenshin
Apr16-03, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
So you think there is no actual objective reality, and that our minds make up our reality for us?
In a sense, you're right! But we may never know....
If so, you should perhaps see the first posts of the thread, entitled "The Hurdles to the Mind hypothesis". It is fashioned in such a way as to combat ideas set out by lifegazer, in his "Mind" hypothesis, but it appears relevant to your post, as well.
first off, see wuliheron's post.
secondly, I would like to expand on what wuliheron said. If you think that you will not, under any circumstances feel pain for example, you will feel little (as you can't stop the sensation altogether). Thoughts create our emotions, so to speak. this is yoga, reiki, zen....and other classifications. Is there like one word I could use!!?? [g)]
re: what am i?
well, you are who you are (oh, so very vague...and cool). IOW, I believe the question has two answers: one can be simply given through a taxonomical analysis, and another on a spiritual level. I'm sure wuliheron would be most pleased to explain this. as for me, i must go to bed.[:((]
greeneagle3000
Apr16-03, 02:42 AM
you are your soul.
Alright, I'm back. I'll finish my response now...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I can't get this. I wasn't kidding and really meant the hint. The paragraph I'd written above that hint really suffers internal inconsistency. I meant is as an excercise to find out if you can find where I've slipped. The hint is still there. See if you can find the weak point in that paragraph.
Well, I don't see any internal inconsistency. I'll keep looking, but maybe you should just tell me.
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your idea. Causality is the bond that connects the doer and the deed. It isn't a necessity. It needn't be there. The deed can be there without a doer if we ignore causality. This won't be a bad ignorance for causality is an empirical pattern; it isn't a logical obligation.
Yes it is a logical obligation that all effects have causes. It would not be an "effect" otherwise.
Uncertainty is the death of many other things. That's what I really enjoy about it. Uncertainty is the death of confidence, righteousness, significance, preference, prudence, supremacy, ... If they're dying perhaps they don't deserve living on.
You see how many things uncertainty kills? And yet, kill uncertainty, and you get all the things that make human existence meaningful (IMO).
See, I'm living here with uncertainty. I'm not sure of anything but that's no problem. I've taken many steps after uncertainty and I, the precious I, haven't yet perished.
If you say that you aren't certain about anything, and don't allow for yourself to be certain of anything, then you are certain that you are not certain of anything. This is a self-contradictory statement.
I really don't care much what Descartes has said before coming to "cogito ergo sum." Everything else is dependent on this critical point and I'll say Descartes has missed it.
Wrong. The statement was dependent on the argument that he set out before, not the other way around - as you imply.
It's a book on actual Motorcycle Maintenance. Only the motorcycle is a bit bigger, a bit more complex, a bit stranger, a bit different, just a bit. For me, it ranks among the very best among the books I've read.
Well, I've reserved it from the library, and hope to read it soon.
Remember what you said before, "uncertainty won't affect our lives." I'm not going to take this back.
So you wont take back this statement...
Being there or not being there won't affect our thoughts/lives. We live as we live. It's the way it is. We do it as we do it.
? Well, that's up to you, but it is obviously wrong, because of it's self-contradictory nature. You say that being there wont affect our lives. How can you even be alive, if your not "there" - IOW, if you don't exist - ?
Let's suppose someone comes and really convinces you (by magical means) that you don't exist but you go on living like before. You'll preceive everything just like before. If everything is just like before except for that you know you don't exist, would there be a problem? There's absolutely no problem. Nothing will be changed in your world if you're convinced of your non-existence unless you have a certain discomfort that leads to a suicide when you're convinced you are not.
No, nothing changes if I'm convinced that I don't exist. However, I cannot be convinced that I don't exist, until someone shows me the flaw in Descartes' reasoning.
First, you must know the Evil Demon scenario is a very basic one. Many other much more elaborate scenarios can be made. I'm one of those scenarios.
And I've already shown you that your attempt to concvince me (please note my reference to myself) of something (even if it be my own existence) proves that I exist. Otherwise, there would be no one for you to convince.
Second, you're still beholding the bonds of causality. Causality isn't a necessity. Causality isn't even the superior supposition. Causality isn't even the most useful supposition... There neend't be a Demon if a Demon is tricking you, you'd ask then what's tricking you? I'd say a Demon of a race of non-existent Demons. They may play hard tricks.
"There needn't be a Demon, if a Demon is tricking you..."? This is embarrisingly self-contradictory. I don't think I really need to comment on the inconsistency of saying that there is a demon tricking me (which is made up of the propositions: 1) There is a demon; 2) It is trying to trick me), and then saying that there is no demon.
Also, there cannot be a "Demon of a race of non-existent Demons". If the Demons are truly non-existent, then there is no demon.
Do you know what the EPR experiment is? And then do you know what is Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony?
No, I don't.
BTW, I will quote the Rules of Direction for you later, I don't have them on-hand right now, and don't really have the time to get them right now. I apologize for not being better prepared.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr16-03, 04:09 PM
1. For Mentat:
You really lost me...
Aha! I'll take you back [;)]. Let me re-structure my proof into a storyline:
00. You say: "Ahoy! I'm gonna tell you I think therefore I am."
01. I say: "Behold! You can't say that!"
02. "Why not?"
03. "Wait a moment! Since you're the linear-logic-o-phile I may ask you anytime I wish if a statement is true or not, na?"
04. "Yep."
05. "So please tell me if P([beep]) is true or its contrary P'([beep]), P([beep]) being that there need be an I to [beep]."
06. You either say:
----a. "P([beep]) = T and P'([beep]) = F"
----b. "P([beep]) = F and P'([beep]) = T"
07. If you say (a) then I'd say: "You said there need be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement so you've pre-assumed Descartes' statement truth. Since you're informing of something you'd pre-assumed, you aren't doing much, you aren't proving. You're trapped in a loop, pre-assuming something and then debating about its truth."
08. If you say (b) then I'd say: "You said there needn't be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement. If it's so how could you say Descartes' statement is true? You'd said there's no necessary-sufficient relation between the I and the [beep] so you can no more say there's such relation."
The way out would be that you assume a third state for P([beep]), say the "suspension" state then you could say P([beep]) had to be suspended before talking about Descartes' statement.
... if you think that I don't have to exist in order for me to do something, you'd need a much stronger argument to convince me.
I needn't convince you. I'm not posing for or against, I'm posing neutral. I'm not saying you have to exist to [beep] neither do I say you have not to exist to [beep]. I say there needn't be an ontologic bond between you and [beep]. It would seem sensible to you if I said: "your being there isn't an indication of an action being done." The same way, I could say and I've said: "the action's being there isn't an indication of your being there." These two statements are complementary. That you accept the first easily but reject the second with so much effort means that you're still under Aristotle's spell.
Uncertainty doesn't need an argument. The Bill of Rights says one is innocent until proven otherwise. I say any statement is uncertain until proven otherwise. Uncertainty is the primordial state of every statement.
Well, I don't see any internal inconsistency. I'll keep looking, but maybe you should just tell me.
I'll tell you later.
Yes it is a logical obligation that all effects have causes. It would not be an "effect" otherwise.
No, it isn't. It isn't a "logical" obligation, it's an empirical pattern. For it isn't proven, it is observed. Do you consider Columb law of electric force between point charges an empirical pattern or a logical obligation?
I'll tell you of two instances where cause-effect bond isn't as important as you may think:
a. The EPR Experiment: EPR stands for Einstein-Pudolsky-Rosen. There are four important principles of conservation: conservation of energy, of spin, of charge and of momentum. EPR experiment deals with the conservation of spin. There are ways to tie a pair of particles so that they're obliged to follow the conservation of spin (eg, in an atomic orbital a pair of electrons live who're obliged to a have total spin of zero, (+1/2) + (-1/2) = 0), this procedure is called "quantum entanglement." Consider a pair of entangled particles, and then suppose we take the two far apart. Now what will happen if we change the spin of one of the particles? The other one changs its spin in order to preserve the total spin. How long will it take for this to happen? Absolute zero. That's very strange. Waves (of all sorts) are the messengers of this Universe and the fastest messengers are em-waves who travel at c. If the second particle is informed of a spin change far away, what could have informed it? No wave could have carried the message in zero time. The EPR experiment caused a divide in the Physicist community, one group was lead by the Coppenhagen school giants (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al) and the other by Einstein. The details of their ideas aren't meant here. The main point here is zero time. You know, a very strict aspect of ontologic causality is the delay between the being of the cause and the being of the effect. Cause must be chronologically prior to effect. The basis for distinguishing cause and effect is this delay; the one that comes first is the cause and the pursuer is the effect. If the spin change in both particles happens at the same time then which of the events has been the cause and which has been the effect?
b. Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz was a founder of Calculus. He was specially in love with the concept of "infinitely small" (the differential element). This concept appeared both in his mathematics and his philosophy. In philosophy he proposed that the Universe was made of infinitely small units called "monads." Monads are independent and aren't interacting. One may ask: "then what happens when a telephone rings and I hear it?" The answer is Pre-established Harmony. The monads of the telephone and those of the individual hearing it ringing are independent but they were synchronized (at the dawn of time, creation, or something like that) to act mutually at a certain moment. This scenario is a substitute to the cause-effect scenario and is of equal creditability.
Considering (a) and (b), these points are clear:
00. Scientific rationale has come to a point where cause-effect pair fails even though scientific methodology has never been deviated from.
01. There are many substitutes to the cause-effect theory.
02. One such substitute is that of Leibniz.
03. Cause-effect pair has been common for many years perhaps because of its practicality. Nothing more.
You see how many things uncertainty kills? And yet, kill uncertainty, and you get all the things that make human existence meaningful (IMO).
I won't kill the result of my quest in exchange for a cold comfort. Uncertainty is the essence of dynamism and change. If I was certain I'll go to hell someday I would never move a finger for escaping the hell and winning the heavens.
If you say that you aren't certain about anything, and don't allow for yourself to be certain of anything, then you are certain that you are not certain of anything. This is a self-contradictory statement.
"There needn't be a Demon, if a Demon is tricking you..."? This is embarrisingly self-contradictory. I don't think I really need to comment on the inconsistency of saying that there is a demon tricking me (which is made up of the propositions: 1) There is a demon; 2) It is trying to trick me), and then saying that there is no demon.
Also, there cannot be a "Demon of a race of non-existent Demons". If the Demons are truly non-existent, then there is no demon.
Yes! You got it. That's the heart of this debate. I'm stating self-contradictory statements but am not embarrassed. Paradox is inevitable. You see my statements like lunacy but they're there just to make you think about it. I'm giving you self-contradictory statements to show the implications of uncertainty.
There's a deed, "a Demon tricking you," and a doer, "a Demon." What relates them in your mind is causality. For me, causality isn't more creditable than anything else so I can understand "a Demon tricking" without a need for "a Demon."
Wrong. The statement was dependent on the argument that he set out before, not the other way around - as you imply.
"Cogito ergo sum" was there to prove Descartes' existence. If he hadn't yet proven his existene how could have he proven his means of proving his existence?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1. For Mentat:
Aha! I'll take you back [;)]. Let me re-structure my proof into a storyline:
00. You say: "Ahoy! I'm gonna tell you I think therefore I am."
01. I say: "Behold! You can't say that!"
02. "Why not?"
03. "Wait a moment! Since you're the linear-logic-o-phile I may ask you anytime I wish if a statement is true or not, na?"
04. "Yep."
05. "So please tell me if P([beep]) is true or its contrary P'([beep]), P([beep]) being that there need be an I to [beep]."
06. You either say:
----a. "P([beep]) = T and P'([beep]) = F"
----b. "P([beep]) = F and P'([beep]) = T"
07. If you say (a) then I'd say: "You said there need be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement so you've pre-assumed Descartes' statement truth. Since you're informing of something you'd pre-assumed, you aren't doing much, you aren't proving. You're trapped in a loop, pre-assuming something and then debating about its truth."
08. If you say (b) then I'd say: "You said there needn't be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement. If it's so how could you say Descartes' statement is true? You'd said there's no necessary-sufficient relation between the I and the [beep] so you can no more say there's such relation."
Is this reasoning really applicable to Descartes' reasoning? If the proposition is "I think", then - if this proposition is true - both parts (sub-propositions, as I mentioned before) of it must be true.
I needn't convince you. I'm not posing for or against, I'm posing neutral. I'm not saying you have to exist to [beep] neither do I say you have not to exist to [beep].
Are you sure about that? You did say this:
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your idea. Causality is the bond that connects the doer and the deed. It isn't a necessity. It needn't be there. The deed can be there without a doer if we ignore causality. This won't be a bad ignorance for causality is an empirical pattern; it isn't a logical obligation
Besides, it doesn't matter whether you are trying to convince me of whether I exist or not, all that matters is whether Descartes' reasoning allows you to do so at all.
I say there needn't be an ontologic bond between you and [beep]. It would seem sensible to you if I said: "your being there isn't an indication of an action being done." The same way, I could say and I've said: "the action's being there isn't an indication of your being there."
Don't you see that the proposition is not "thinking is occuring"? The proposition is "I think". If this proposition holds true (as it must, in order for me to even contemplate (or [b]think about) not existing) then I must exist.
Uncertainty doesn't need an argument. The Bill of Rights says one is innocent until proven otherwise. I say any statement is uncertain until proven otherwise. Uncertainty is the primordial state of every statement.
Even of the statement, "uncertainty is the primordial state of every statement."? If so, then your statement, itself, is also uncertain, and there is; but cannot be, because it is that very reasoning that I'm using to justify calling it uncertain; and thus, your statement - and the reasoning behind it - is paradoxical/self-contradictory.
I'll tell you later.
Oh, you will tell me later? Doesn't that statement also imply the existence of you and me? [;)]
No, it isn't. It isn't a "logical" obligation, it's an empirical pattern. For it isn't proven, it is observed. Do you consider Columb law of electric force between point charges an empirical pattern or a logical obligation?
How is that relevant? I am talking about the logical obligation of "that which was caused" having "been caused". This is a rather obvious connection, IMO - especially considering the words I've used.
I'll tell you of two instances where cause-effect bond isn't as important as you may think:
a. The EPR Experiment: EPR stands for Einstein-Pudolsky-Rosen. There are four important principles of conservation: conservation of energy, of spin, of charge and of momentum. EPR experiment deals with the conservation of spin. There are ways to tie a pair of particles so that they're obliged to follow the conservation of spin (eg, in an atomic orbital a pair of electrons live who're obliged to a have total spin of zero, (+1/2) + (-1/2) = 0), this procedure is called "quantum entanglement." Consider a pair of entangled particles, and then suppose we take the two far apart. Now what will happen if we change the spin of one of the particles? The other one changs its spin in order to preserve the total spin. How long will it take for this to happen? Absolute zero. That's very strange. Waves (of all sorts) are the messengers of this Universe and the fastest messengers are em-waves who travel at c. If the second particle is informed of a spin change far away, what could have informed it? No wave could have carried the message in zero time. The EPR experiment caused a divide in the Physicist community, one group was lead by the Coppenhagen school giants (Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al) and the other by Einstein. The details of their ideas aren't meant here. The main point here is zero time. You know, a very strict aspect of ontologic causality is the delay between the being of the cause and the being of the effect. Cause must be chronologically prior to effect. The basis for distinguishing cause and effect is this delay; the one that comes first is the cause and the pursuer is the effect. If the spin change in both particles happens at the same time then which of the events has been the cause and which has been the effect?
Don't you see that they are both the affect? They are both the same particle, for all practical purposes. Besides, I don't think this is very relevant to the simple reasoning that I must exist in order for a propostion, which requires me to exist, to be true.
b. Leibniz's Pre-established Harmony: Leibniz was a founder of Calculus. He was specially in love with the concept of "infinitely small" (the differential element). This concept appeared both in his mathematics and his philosophy. In philosophy he proposed that the Universe was made of infinitely small units called "monads." Monads are independent and aren't interacting. One may ask: "then what happens when a telephone rings and I hear it?" The answer is Pre-established Harmony. The monads of the telephone and those of the individual hearing it ringing are independent but they were synchronized (at the dawn of time, creation, or something like that) to act mutually at a certain moment. This scenario is a substitute to the cause-effect scenario and is of equal creditability.
How is that equally credible?
Considering (a) and (b), these points are clear:
00. Scientific rationale has come to a point where cause-effect pair fails even though scientific methodology has never been deviated from.
01. There are many substitutes to the cause-effect theory.
02. One such substitute is that of Leibniz.
03. Cause-effect pair has been common for many years perhaps because of its practicality. Nothing more.
The fact that it's so practical is evidence (IMO) that it may be true. Besides, Leibniz's idea cannot be proven. I can, however, show you that when I push something, it moves (for example). This is cause-and-effect, even if it is because of "monads". My action produced another action.
Yes! You got it. That's the heart of this debate. I'm stating self-contradictory statements but am not embarrassed. Paradox is inevitable. You see my statements like lunacy but they're there just to make you think about it. I'm giving you self-contradictory statements to show the implications of uncertainty.
Paradox is only inevitable if you choose to stick to your belief of uncertainty. It does not, however, help you to learn anything, to keep this uncertain attitude - and, since I devote myself to learning, I don't stick to irrationality (which leads to paradox, which is the death of all learning and progressive knowledge).
There's a deed, "a Demon tricking you," and a doer, "a Demon." What relates them in your mind is causality. For me, causality isn't more creditable than anything else so I can understand "a Demon tricking" without a need for "a Demon."
No you can't. Not if you fully understand the statement, "a Demon tricking", and the propositions required for such a statment to be true.
"Cogito ergo sum" was there to prove Descartes' existence. If he hadn't yet proven his existene how could have he proven his means of proving his existence?
They fulfill each other. He prove that he exists, by the fact that he can think about existing. It is obvious that he really was thinking about this, otherwise we would have nothing to discuss.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr18-03, 02:03 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Is this reasoning really applicable to Descartes' reasoning?...
Don't ask me. Show where the logical fault is. I described a step-by-step procedure whose steps are logical. Nothing wrong happens during the transition from one step to the other. Consequently, this can be considered a logical proof.
This reasoning is applicable to Descartes' statement for it's concerned with showing this statement's state. It shows that, with regard to an independent statement named P([beep]), the procedure of determining Descartes' statement's state leads to a dilemma.
For an understanding of this, you must be aware that P([beep]) has nothing to do with Descartes' statement. It's only an engineered statement that will, in association with Descartes' statement, cause this dilemma.
Are you sure about that? You did say this:
Yes, I said that. I said that about Causality. Causality has no relation to your existence. Anyway, I didn't pose pro/contra Causality. I only said "it needn't be there." Saying it "needn't" be there doesn't mean it "mustn't" be there, means it's not necessary if one's going to talk Philosophy.
Again, I'm not posing against "Causality." I'm posing against an unjustified claim, "causality is indeed there." Posing against "Causality" is a claim while posing against an unjustified claim is the regulation of dialog.
Don't you see that the proposition is not "thinking is occurring"? ...
May I ask if "thinking" is "not occurring" when you "think?" The implication of Descartes' statement is that a certain action, "thinking," when performed by the mind is a ground for the mind's existence.
Saying "I think" is equal to saying "I execute the task of thinking" which is equal to "thinking is occurring and it's occurring in my mind."
Even of the statement, "uncertainty is the primordial state of every statement."? ... your statement - and the reasoning behind it - is paradoxical/self-contradictory.
It's indeed paradoxical/self-contradictory but not at first glance.
My way of approaching the uncertainty is a step-by-step one. You take steps along a way that little by little exhausts your pre-judices and pre-suppositions. This will go on until you no more have any pre-suppositions and then comes the uncertainty. At first glance it seems like the uncertainty is a universal principle. You'll delight so much with having found a universal principle. After a while, however, you see how uncertainty plagues itself and now you learn something that's even more important than uncertainty. You learn there's a problem, a very basic problem, in human knowledge and in human ways of knowing/understanding. Where's the problem? No one knows. You won't go far with this single assumption, "there's a problem somewhere" but it gives you hints other manners of approaching the problem won't give you.
Now that you know "there's a problem somewhere," you'll be cautious, precise, clear, unbiased and always warned against whatever comes your way. For every forthcoming statement may be exactly where the problem lies and if you take the statement for granted or show bias towards it, you've fallen into the abyss, that very basic problem.
Moreover, you'll always try to look beyond and look through. Looking beyond and looking through, someday you may find that fatal crack in the Great Wall of Knowledge.
Even more, the self-contradicting principle of uncertainty doesn't prevent you from assuming whatever statement you please. You can assume the methodology of science for observing the Universe and take your chance that way. Uncertainty has only one use, that's to keep warned. When you come to say "when a ball hits a wall, the momentum will remain constant," you'll know deep inside that you may be dead wrong. Again, when you come to say "[beep] is superior to [beep]" you have your choice to assume this but you won't be imposing it on others for you know for all purposes superiority is an uncertain matter. This knowledge won't do you harm, it won't change your mind, it won't change your attitude but it will increase your acceptance for whatever thought or attitude you're offered.
Uncertainty is safeguard against supposition, prejudice and discrimination. An individual who's uncertain of her/his manners won't be imposing or preaching them. She/he also won't condemn others' attitude and beliefs, no matter how harsh it may seem to her/his common sense.
How is that relevant? I am talking about the logical obligation of "that which was caused" having "been caused". This is a rather obvious connection, IMO - especially considering the words I've used.
Don't play around with definitions, you'll get burnt! You should've known how I indulge in loops [:D]
You just made a loop. You said, "that which was caused" has "been caused." What have you said? Nothing special. Let's assume someone defined causality as the bond between the following two:
a. That causes.
b. That has been caused.
Do you think it is a subtle definition? I don't think so; (a) and (b) make a logical loop in which the meaning of causation is lost. Even if this loss is compensated (although it can't be), you won't gain much from this definition.
This definition points nowhere while Aristotle's Causality (which has been practiced for 2000 years) points at natural phenomena. It points outwards, to the Universe. Causality is a well-defined term and can't be simply played with.
Circular definitions (which are important to me) are like axioms. They can be made readily. They can be made for free and without any effort.
Let me make one such definition: temperature is that which is measured with a thermometer and thermometer is that by which temperature is measured. Do you think this definition will inform anyone of what temperature and thermometer are?
Don't you see that they are both the affect? They are both the same particle, for all practical purposes...
I don't think that's a decent way of talking about EPR Experiment. This experiment has consumed years of physicists' lives and is still a hot topic. Is that you with few lines of argument have shown how much it should be credited?
They're similar particles and if one loses track of them will no more be able to distinguish them. This, however, doesn't mean they're one entity. They may have different linear momentums and loci. They're only entangled in spin, nothing more. These two are distinct entities. When something happens between them, one "must" be the cause and the other "must" be the effect.
I don't know what you mean with "all practical purposes" and I don't want to know but it's an annoying phrase to see over and over again. For all practical purposes, you've wasted the precious heart of the EPR experiment.
It was meant to show that Causality may be a simplified form of a higher degree interconnection or may be a (hopefully) recurring pattern. If this concept is understood then it's clear that the bond between the doer and the deed (which are an exemplary cause-effect pair) is not as strong as it was assumed to be. Consequently, a deed is no more an indication of a doer, ie the thinking is no more an indication of the thinker.
The fact that it's so practical is evidence (IMO) that it may be true. Besides, Leibniz's idea cannot be proven. I can, however, show you that when I push something, it moves (for example)...I thought I was the stubborn one. For the zillionth time, Leibniz's idea and yours can't be proven. That's why they're equally creditable. Both are uncertain like any other idea one may think of.
Who says that an object moves when you push it? Where did you come to believe this? You can't point at an object, push it, show me that it moves and then say "causality is a logical obligation." It's an empirical pattern shared by you and me.
I'm wondering if you know the difference between "a logical obligation" and "an empirical pattern." Do you know the difference?
Causality's being practical is noway an evidence. I told you of internal consistency and its implications on a post in "Knowledge?" thread. Being practical, handy, good, easy, simple, whatever is a characteristic of a system of thoughts when it's viewed from inside, ie the viewers is committed to those thoughts.
... It does not, however, help you to learn anything, to keep this uncertain attitude - and, since I devote myself to learning, I don't stick to irrationality (which leads to paradox, which is the death of all learning and progressive knowledge).
Irrationality? Who said it was irrationality? And who said rationality is the only way of learning? And who said uncertainty hasn't helped me learn more? And who said progressive knowledge was worth throwing away the inevitable? And who said I'm stuck to uncertainty? And who said the death of progressive knowledge means that it can't be used anymore?
The same principle of uncertainty lets me be uncertain of what I know and seek more knowledge. For all human history, uncertainty has been the motive to gain certainty. And for all human history, after a certain amount of knowledge was gathered uncertainty was forgotten although it still prevailed. We're living the certainty era, everyone's certain of one's life, everyone's certain of one's political/social/philosophical/[beep] stance, and that leads to blindness. Uncertainty will only motivate further thought while certainty will relieve and soothe the minds until they're too lazy and inert to move even the least bit.
In case of progressive knowledge, what dies is the blind belief in its success. For a long time now, human beings have thought they know much and they will know more with any further step. Lame! They're wrapped in the encompassing Unknown and suppose their knowledge is/will become encompassing.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Apr18-03, 02:49 AM
... continued from the previous post
Progressive knowledge can be seen more clearly in the light of uncertainty. It will become richer if it's accompanied by knowledge of its being temporal and its being uncertain.
No you can't. Not if you fully understand the statement, "a Demon tricking", and the propositions required for such a statement to be true.
It's not you who determines if I can. I can think of "a Demon tricking" without "a Demon being there" because I'm not under Aristotle's spell, or at least I'm aware of the rune that's been cast here.
P: A Demon playing nasty tricks.
Q: A Demon is there.
(P => Q) truth table for all Boolean P and Q values:
P---Q---(P => Q)
T---T---T
T---F---F
F---T---T
F---F---T
You say that if P = T then Q should be T in order for (P => Q) to be true. You're right only if you're bound to Boolean logic. Multi-value logic has been around for many decades now, and fuzzy logic is readily used in CD-ROM Drive manufacturing. Add to all these Gödel’s theorem and all the meta-mathematics stuff (don't ask me what it really is, I don't know). Now you can have countless states for a statement, eg the Demon can be 13.666 (accurate to 3 decimal places) existent or it may assume "null" state. Simply put, for every statement you can assume a logical structure in which it assumes any arbitrarily chosen state. And these are only the rationalized and/or scientific parts of this realm, the realm of uncertainty.
The philosophical parts of this realm are even more interesting. The Demon may assume states that transcend our understanding of "existence." We declare a thing either "existent" or "non-existent" and then say it to "be" existent or non-existent while it "may" (only "may" not "must," "ought to" or "should") "be" in a wholly different state, a state which "may" even transcend our understanding of a state where "being there" may be meant in some unknown implementation which may transcend our understanding of "being."
Anecdote: "Don't impose the burden of your limits unto this unknown Universe, please!"
They fulfill each other. He proves that he exists, by the fact that he can think about existing. It is obvious that he really was thinking about this, otherwise we would have nothing to discuss.
Before proving he existed he had to assume he didn't exist until he could prove his existence. Then if he didn't exist how could he believe he was thinking? He had to know and be sure that he was thinking but he couldn't be thinking if he didn't exist so his statement turns into: "I am therefore I am." What a miracle! He is therefore he is. That's why he no more "is" [:))]
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Don't ask me. Show where the logical fault is. I described a step-by-step procedure whose steps are logical. Nothing wrong happens during the transition from one step to the other. Consequently, this can be considered a logical proof.
Hey, did you ignore the rest of what I said?
Originally posted by Me
Is this reasoning really applicable to Descartes' reasoning? If the proposition is "I think", then - if this proposition is true - both parts (sub-propositions, as I mentioned before) of it must be true.
You only quoted and responded to the first sentence.
Posted By Manuel
This reasoning is applicable to Descartes' statement for it's concerned with showing this statement's state. It shows that, with regard to an independent statement named P(), the procedure of determining Descartes' statement's state leads to a dilemma.
No, it's not applicable. It doesn't satisfy the fact that the statement, "I think", requires two premises to be true.
May I ask if "thinking" is "not occurring" when you "think?" The implication of Descartes' statement is that a certain action, "thinking," when performed by the mind is a ground for the mind's existence.
Please tell me that you are just feigning ignorance. No offense, but how is it possible that you missed the fact that [b]two premises are required for the statement "I think"? It is not anything like "P[bleep]". Descartes is saying that if P is [bleep]ing then P exists. (I've asked this before, but...) isn't that obvious? You cannot truthfully say that P does something, unless P exists.
Saying "I think" is equal to saying "I execute the task of thinking" which is equal to "thinking is occurring and it's occurring in my mind."
Yes, and the first statement requires that I exist (because "I" am executing the task of thinking). The second statement requires that both "I" exists, and "my mind" exists.
[quote]
My way of approaching the uncertainty is a step-by-step one. You take steps along a way that little by little exhausts your pre-judices and pre-suppositions. This will go on until you no more have any pre-suppositions and then comes the uncertainty. At first glance it seems like the uncertainty is a universal principle. You'll delight so much with having found a universal principle. After a while, however, you see how uncertainty plagues itself and now you learn something that's even more important than uncertainty. You learn there's a problem, a very basic problem, in human knowledge and in human ways of knowing/understanding. Where's the problem? No one knows. You won't go far with this single assumption, "there's a problem somewhere" but it gives you hints other manners of approaching the problem won't give you.
There is no point in my following such a path, as it destroys all need of learning/science.
Now that you know "there's a problem somewhere," you'll be cautious, precise, clear, unbiased and always warned against whatever comes your way. For every forthcoming statement may be exactly where the problem lies and if you take the statement for granted or show bias towards it, you've fallen into the abyss, that very basic problem.
I don't have time (or typing space) to discuss why uncertainty is only good, if not taken to extremes. Perhaps you should start a thread on that.
Don't play around with definitions, you'll get burnt! You should've known how I indulge in loops [:D]
Have you ever noticed how a path that loops infinitely, doesn't get you anywhere but where you started. Philosophically, scientificall, and logically this is not a good path to follow.
You just made a loop. You said, "that which was caused" has "been caused." What have you said? Nothing special. Let's assume someone defined causality as the bond between the following two:
No, it's not anything special, and yet you seem to have missed entirely when you said "and effect doesn't require a cause".
Do you think it is a subtle definition? I don't think so
Then why was it so easy for you to miss it?
Circular definitions (which are important to me) are like axioms. They can be made readily. They can be made for free and without any effort.
My definition is not circular. I was saying that that which has been caused has been caused. It is obvious, and seems unnecessary to actually say, but you were the one who said that an "effect" doesn't always require a "cause".
I don't think that's a decent way of talking about EPR Experiment. This experiment has consumed years of physicists' lives and is still a hot topic. Is that you with few lines of argument have shown how much it should be credited?
Well, I'm sorry, if I offended you or anyone else in my indifference to what seemed to me to be obviously wrong.
They're similar particles and if one loses track of them will no more be able to distinguish them. This, however, doesn't mean they're one entity. They may have different linear momentums and loci. They're only entangled in spin, nothing more. These two are distinct entities. When something happens between them, one "must" be the cause and the other "must" be the effect.
If they are Quantum Mechanically bound, they are one entity.
I don't know what you mean with "all practical purposes" and I don't want to know but it's an annoying phrase to see over and over again. For all practical purposes, you've wasted the precious heart of the EPR experiment.
[:(]
Please forgive my sarcasm, but it really doesn't matter to me that I have defied that which you held sacred, because it doesn't appear right that you should hold it so, in the first place.
It was meant to show that Causality may be a simplified form of a higher degree interconnection or may be a (hopefully) recurring pattern. If this concept is understood then it's clear that the bond between the doer and the deed (which are an exemplary cause-effect pair) is not as strong as it was assumed to be. Consequently, a deed is no more an indication of a doer, ie the thinking is no more an indication of the thinker.
It has no such application. If I connect the fact that both of the particles changed in spin, to a cause (the physicist which made the "observation") then I still have a simple cause-and-effect relationship.
I thought I was the stubborn one. For the zillionth time, Leibniz's idea and yours can't be proven. That's why they're equally creditable. Both are uncertain like any other idea one may think of.
Leibniz's idea is also one of cause-and-effect. Just because he describes what is happening differently than I do, doesn't change the fact that he acknowledges there being a person who caused the effect.
Who says that an object moves when you push it? Where did you come to believe this? You can't point at an object, push it, show me that it moves and then say "causality is a logical obligation." It's an empirical pattern shared by you and me.
Well, I could show you this, if you were physically in my presence. But I can't now, if that's what you mean.
I'm wondering if you know the difference between "a logical obligation" and "an empirical pattern." Do you know the difference?
Not really. A logical obligation should be readily demonstrable, as should an empirical pattern. However, if you think that it is relevant to the thread, please explain the difference between the two.
Irrationality? Who said it was irrationality? And who said rationality is the only way of learning? And who said uncertainty hasn't helped me learn more? And who said progressive knowledge was worth throwing away the inevitable? And who said I'm stuck to uncertainty? And who said the death of progressive knowledge means that it can't be used anymore?
You are talking in stupified and irrational contradictions. I see no point in replying to the above.
continued on the next post...
As is my reply...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
It's not you who determines if I can. I can think of "a Demon tricking" without "a Demon being there" because I'm not under Aristotle's spell, or at least I'm aware of the rune that's been cast here.
The statement "a Demon tricking" has two premises (at least). One is that there is a Demon. That is why I said that you cannot believe in one without the other.
P: A Demon playing nasty tricks.
Q: A Demon is there.
(P => Q) truth table for all Boolean P and Q values:
P---Q---(P => Q)
T---T---T
T---F---F
F---T---T
F---F---T
You say that if P = T then Q should be T in order for (P => Q) to be true. You're right only if you're bound to Boolean logic. Multi-value logic has been around for many decades now, and fuzzy logic is readily used in CD-ROM Drive manufacturing. Add to all these Gödel’s theorem and all the meta-mathematics stuff (don't ask me what it really is, I don't know). Now you can have countless states for a statement, eg the Demon can be 13.666 (accurate to 3 decimal places) existent or it may assume "null" state. Simply put, for every statement you can assume a logical structure in which it assumes any arbitrarily chosen state. And these are only the rationalized and/or scientific parts of this realm, the realm of uncertainty.
I don't see how any of this applies. Please explain it to me. As far as I can tell, this only applies to a set of seperate propositions, that are bound to each other, possibly by the cause-and-effect reasoning. However, I was not talking about two different propositions. I was talking about one proposition - "A Demon tricking" - which has a sub-proposition (or a proposition that helps make it up) - "there is a Demon".
The philosophical parts of this realm are even more interesting. The Demon may assume states that transcend our understanding of "existence." We declare a thing either "existent" or "non-existent" and then say it to "be" existent or non-existent while it "may" (only "may" not "must," "ought to" or "should") "be" in a wholly different state, a state which "may" even transcend our understanding of a state where "being there" may be meant in some unknown implementation which may transcend our understanding of "being."
May I ask that you stick to that which we currently understand as logically obligatory, instead of wandering of into dreams of uncertainty?
Before proving he existed he had to assume he didn't exist until he could prove his existence.
Not true. In fact, before proving that he existed, he had to exist.
Then if he didn't exist how could he believe he was thinking?
Exactly. That's why Descartes would never assume that he didn't exist, and the Evil Demon could never convince him.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr19-03, 10:55 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Hey, did you ignore the rest of what I said?...
I didn't. You only repeated what you'd written many times before, so I wrote nothing in response. I asked you to show me the logical fault in my proof. If there isn't a logical fault in my proof and it leads to a dilemma while studying Descartes' statement then the statement must be erroneous. This is simple; if a logical procedure leads to an illogical result, there should have been problems in either the procedure or its subject of study.
No, it's not applicable. It doesn't satisfy the fact that the statement, "I think", requires two premises to be true.
The proof has nothing to do directly with "I think." That P([beep]) statement in the proof is not (how many times have I said this?) related to Descartes' statement. It's a statement I made and asked you (in the course of that storyline) to determine its value as you liked. Since we're talking in a framework of Aristotelian logic you had to choose either T or F as the value for the P([beep]) I offered. P([beep]) can assume no states other than T and F, and you had to choose one. Then I showed that (whatever your choice has been) Descartes' statement, with regard to your choice about P([beep)'s value, leads to a dilemma.
This proof has absolutely nothing to do with the premises for "I think" for it isn't directly touching this phrase. You say for "I think" to be true one has to "exist," so for a statement like "I think therefore I am" the critique must satisfy the premise for "I think" and that is "existence." This is right but is irrelevant to this proof. This proof isn't studying "I think," it doesn't even care if it is "I think" or "I eat" that have obviously different premises. That's why I use [beep] in place of "think" or any other word, [beep] means any word that makes sense in that place, it can be "think," "eat," "drink," "walk," "fly," "understand," whatever. You see, the proof is independent of whatever specific word is replaced by [beep]. Its flow is simply so general that every literally sensible word can be in place of [beep].
... how is it possible that you missed the fact that two premises are required for the statement "I think"? It is not anything like "P[bleep]". Descartes is saying that if P is [bleep]ing then P exists. (I've asked this before, but...) isn't that obvious?...
The "fact?" Do you mean "fact" as you defined it? That sort of fact has no place in Philosophy. What I'm struggling over with you for such a long time is this "fact." You say it is necessary, it is a "fact," that one exists in order for one to think. I asked it over and over how you can be sure of this necessity. You said it was simple Causality (or so I understood) and I'm showing how trivial Causality is.
Your way of talking my proof shows you haven't understood it. Read it over and over until you understand it. How many times have I repeated that P([beep]) is not Descartes' statement but an engineered statement by me? Once again, P([beep]) is not Descartes' statement but a statement that leads to dilemma along with Descartes' statement. It's the core to this proof and its misunderstanding (like in your case) means that the entire proof is lost.
If you show a fault in that proof, I'll accept and take a chance with my other ways of talking this over. Until now you haven't stated anything worth noting other than your initial stance.
There is no point in my following such a path, as it destroys all need of learning/science.
Please forgive my sarcasm, but it really doesn't matter to me that I have defied that which you held sacred, because it doesn't appear right that you should hold it so, in the first place.
I don't hold the EPR Experiment sacred but I think it's very interesting, nor do I hold sacred its results. I would have a hard time with uncertainty if I wanted to hold something sacred. What I don't like so much is ignorance and careless conclusions.
It seems you're the one who holds something sacred. You say you won't follow that way for it will destroy all need of learning/science. Let's suppose this really happens. If the way you follow has merit (for you, at least) you won't have lost much.
I think I described how uncertainty is a motive for learning and for gathering knowledge, including science. I told you how uncertainty is a drive towards certainty (hence, a drive towards more knowledge if not absolute knowledge) while certainty is a narcotic for the minds. Your worries about losing interest in science/knowledge/[beep] because of uncertainty are out of place. What you should worry for is the Mare Constans of certainty. Uncertainty is a manifestation of change and dynamism while certainty is the last station. Why should you take the next step if you're sure of whatever you know, whatever you want, whatever you have to do and whatever you are?
By the way, learning and science aren't synonyms, what you can learn is not always science and science is not the only thing you can learn.
Have you ever noticed how a path that loops infinitely, doesn't get you anywhere but where you started. Philosophically, scientificall, and logically this is not a good path to follow.
It isn't that I've chosen a path that loops infinitely; it is that all known human paths are infinite loops. Loops are all you can see. Our knowledge is self-referenced. It doesn't include what "is" (if "being" in the sense we understand is sensible to the Universe) but what "is represented." There's a chasm of Unknown between what "is" and what "is represented."
No, it's not anything special, and yet you seem to have missed entirely when you said "and effect doesn't require a cause".
Did I write this sentence? Or this is what you understood of what I wrote? There's a big difference between these two.
I never said "effect doesn't require a cause" (I'm not sure but I couldn't find such sentence). For cause and effect by their definition are bound to Causality and saying that would be a big mistake. I said this definition may be non-informative, irrelevant and even misleading. First you make a definition, say Causality, then you map it into the Universe by saying "the telephone" is an instance of a cause and "the individual hearing the ring" is an instance of an effect. What I've been denying is this process of mapping. You're free to make as many definitions, circular and non-circular, as you like but aren't free to map them into the Universe and expect compliance. I told you of another definition, the Pre-established Harmony, which worked and was compliant just like Causality. You relate a pair of phenomena with Causality while this bond needn't be "out" there. It's "in" here. It's an optimization method become prominent (too prominent, in fact).
My definition is not circular. I was saying that that which has been caused has been caused. It is obvious, and seems unnecessary to actually say, but you were the one who said that an "effect" doesn't always require a "cause".
It is circular. "That has been caused has been caused" lacks the meaning of causation. You say "that has been caused," so you're expected to say "what causation is" independent of "that has been caused." Then you say "has been caused" implying that "causation" is the event happening to "that has been caused." The first part "that has been caused" promises to define "causation" in its following part while the following part points back at the firs part.
This is a circular definition for it makes perfect sense while it's absolute nonsense. This is the indication of loops. A circular definition somehow (sometimes subtly) points at itself; hence, the main task of a definition (that is, defining) remains undone while the definition makes sense for it's confirmed by itself.
If they are Quantum Mechanically bound, they are one entity.I'm not a Physicist but I'm wondering what you're thinking of Quantum Mechanics. It isn't sorcery, it's science. Being "quantum mechanically" bound doesn't means anything more than being bound. Protons and Neutrons in an atom nucleus are "quantum mechanically" bound to each other by strong nuclear force. They aren't one entity; they're one group of distinct entities. The same way, a pair of entangled particles isn’t one entity; they're simply a pair gathered into one group under a certain rule of conduct.
One entity, here, refers to a single particle of fermion family (which have odd half-integral spin like 1/2 or 3/2) as designated by being made up of either 2 (in mesons) or 3 (in baryons) quarks and anti-quarks (together hadrons) or being a lepton. I don't know if bosons are also subject to EPR experiment.
If you name every group of more than one members "one" entity and refrain from analyzing its members then the entire Universe is one entity and it shouldn't be divided in order to be analyzed. Do you agree with that?
It has no such application. If I connect the fact that both of the particles changed in spin, to a cause (the physicist which made the "observation") then I still have a simple cause-and-effect relationship.
How could the Physicist (the cause) cover the delay between two far-off events? A Physicist is usually located at one place and can affect (act as the cause to) things in a radius of a few meters and there's always a delay between what she/he does (as the cause) and what happens (as the effect). In this case you can consider the Physicist the cause to the spin change but then how can you explain absolute zero delay between her/his action and the spin change in the remote particle? Nothing changes here, whatever the cause may be, the zero delay can't be explained with a Causality bond that takes the chronological order as a basis to the distinction of the cause and the effect.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Apr19-03, 12:45 PM
... continued from the previous post
Leibniz's idea is also one of cause-and-effect. Just because he describes what is happening differently than I do, doesn't change the fact that he acknowledges there being a person who caused the effect.
Don't use this word, "fact," this much. As long as we're debating uncertainty and existence, fact is out of context and using it is premature for if uncertainty is shown to prevail, no such thing as fact can be called for. You can't talk of some "fact" as a certain piece of knowledge before you've shown certainty has any chance here.
Leibniz's idea was exactly meant as a rival to Causality. Pre-established Harmony hasn't been caused by a person/thing. Saying that something hasn't been "caused" is clearly insane viewed from a view point committed to Causality. However, it is equally creditable when viewed from an unbiased point of view. It maps a certain mental pattern to the flow of events in the Universe (an empirical pattern), so does Causality. For such mental pattern to be creditable, its characteristics must be shown to be compliant to those of the empirical pattern it corresponds to. Causality, a mental pattern imposed on an empirical pattern, is creditable for it describes and predicts the flow of events in the Universe, so does Pre-established Harmony. In order to make use of Causality one studies those things considered the cause to certain events and tries to invoke the cause to achieve the effect. In order to make use of Pre-established Harmony one studies the harmony of phenomena in order to act to the beat of that harmony and achieve the desirable target (some fugue, perhaps [:D]).
Well, I could show you this, if you were physically in my presence. But I can't now, if that's what you mean.
Even if I was in your physical presence you couldn't point at something. We talked about this before on "Knowledge?" thread where I described that before being certain of your existence, your audience's existence, your qualia, your audience's qualia and a big bunch of other things, you can't "point at" or "show" something. We're discussing certainty and uncertainty so we ought not to be bound to either point of view and/or use their suppositions/obligations.
You didn't disagree with me, also didn't agree with me, you posted nothing about that. Now it's up for discussion.
Not really. A logical obligation should be readily demonstrable, as should an empirical pattern. However, if you think that it is relevant to the thread, please explain the difference between the two.
A logical obligation is the outcome of deduction from the axioms of a logical system. As long as the participants of the dialog are bound to that logical system, these logical obligations must be held inviolate. Let's see this example in Boolean algebra:
Boolean algebra truth table for "AND" operator:
^ : AND operator
A-----B-----A ^ B
T-----T-----T
T-----F-----F
F-----T-----F
F-----F-----F
The above truth table is a premise for Boolean logic so it should never be violated. So if we have A = T and B = F, a logical obligation of Boolean logic is that A ^ B should be evaluated as F.
An empirical pattern, on the other hand, is the outcome of observation. It isn't necessary to be true in any logical system. Science has used Boolean logic for so many years while the outcome of its observation has been always changing in those years. Causality is an empirical pattern (better said, a mental pattern imposed on an empirical pattern) for it's been observed.
Suppose you throw a stone and you watch it break some glass, if you do this many times and observe the repeated pattern of the glass being broken you'll make a mental pattern that is imposed on that empirical pattern. This mental pattern says "a rightly directed stone thrown at glass will break it" and is meant as an optimization so that you won't be re-observing a thrown stone every time you want to see if it breaks the glass. This mental pattern is the bond of Causality between two phenomena.
Two things must always be kept in mind about a mental pattern. First, it isn't an obligation for the corresponding empirical pattern may change and the mental pattern may become invalid. Second, the mental pattern may impose itself on some phenomenon so that the phenomenon is re-shaped to correspond to that mental pattern. Examples of such false imposition are optical illusions. Human visual system wants to impose a certain mental pattern that corresponds to a continuously-observed empirical pattern on a new empirical pattern, hence, the empirical pattern is perceived other than what its representation would be if that mental pattern didn't exist. And optical illusions are only low-level examples of mental patterns. These patterns appear at all levels of abstraction. They sometimes show up as prejudice, eg you're scared at the sight of a tame and shy dog because you have a mental pattern saying "all dogs bite and do harm" which was formed as a result of your unlucky encounters with dogs.
Descartes first noticed optical illusions and based his manner of doubting on them, but he didn't extend this concept to higher levels of abstraction. Causality, which seems to be necessary for your version of Descartes' statement, is a mental pattern at a not-so-high level of abstraction.
Every mental pattern may and has been shown to be possibly invalid. At lower levels of abstraction mental patterns can be broken easily and new ones can be made to avoid mistakes, like what happens with optical illusions, eg after a while you adapt to the illusion and figure out much about its shape. At higher abstraction levels, mental patterns become exceedingly difficult to break; like that you seem never to accept that Causality may simply be a long-enduring mental pattern which has many substitutes to be replaced with.
You are talking in stupified and irrational contradictions. I see no point in replying to the above.
I only asked a few questions. You could show me if there was a problem with them. Don't you think avoiding the answers to possibly "stupefied and irrational" questions is even more "stupefied and irrational?"
The statement "a Demon tricking" has two premises (at least). One is that there is a Demon. That is why I said that you cannot believe in one without the other.
Isn't that there are those certain premises to this statement, another premise? Where does this premise of yours take it validity from?
... As far as I can tell, this only applies to a set of separate propositions, that are bound to each other, possibly by the cause-and-effect reasoning. However, I was not talking about two different propositions. I was talking about one proposition - "A Demon tricking" - which has a sub-proposition (or a proposition that helps make it up) - "there is a Demon".
You told me the Demon may be either "existent" or "non-existent" and that this statement, "a Demon tricking," implies that a Demon exists. What I wrote in response was that the Demon may assume many states other than "existent" and "non-existent." And that for your deduction (a Demon must be there if a Demon is playing tricks) to be creditable it was necessary that we're bound to Boolean logic, where the statement "a Demon is there" (one of your sub-propositions) may only be either T or F.
Your claim here is made of two parts, "a Demon is playing tricks" and "so the Demon exists." These two parts are related to each other in a conditional statement: "if a Demon is playing tricks then there is a Demon." I wrote and shown that even if this statement is considered true (Causality bond is taken serious), your deduction on the truth values for the necessary condition, "a Demon is playing tricks," and the sufficient condition, "there is a Demon," is limited to Boolean logic which is rivaled by many other equally creditable logical systems in which your deduction becomes invalid (sometimes even senseless).
May I ask that you stick to that which we currently understand as logically obligatory, instead of wandering of into dreams of uncertainty?
I wasn't wandering in dreams of uncertainty (although it's much fun to do); I was showing you the vista of uncertainty and the vast realm beyond Aristotle.
Not true. In fact, before proving that he existed, he had to exist.
Exactly. That's why Descartes would never assume that he didn't exist, and the Evil Demon could never convince him.
Let's go the other way. If Descartes "had" to exist in order to think then why do you bother "proving" his "cogito ergo sum?"
Proving means to show a statement's truth using other statements that have been shown or assumed to be true along with the rules of deduction. If "thinking" is the corollary of "being" then why should you prove "I think therefore I am?"
Saying that "thinking" is the corollary of "being" you've already admitted that "I think therefore I am" is a self-referenced statement. With your assumption (one "has" to be if one thinks), "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with "I am therefore I am." This statement, "sum ergo sum," is clearly self-referenced for it assumes its own truth. Aside from being self-referenced, it is non-informative for if you knew "I am" why should you deduce "I am?"
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I didn't. You only repeated what you'd written many times before, so I wrote nothing in response. I asked you to show me the logical fault in my proof. If there isn't a logical fault in my proof and it leads to a dilemma while studying Descartes' statement then the statement must be erroneous. This is simple; if a logical procedure leads to an illogical result, there should have been problems in either the procedure or its subject of study.
I repeated what I said before, because you don't seem to get it. I am telling you that your reasoning does not apply, when there is only a proposition and it's sub-proposition being considered.
The proof has nothing to do directly with "I think." That P([beep]) statement in the proof is not (how many times have I said this?) related to Descartes' statement. It's a statement I made and asked you (in the course of that storyline) to determine its value as you liked. Since we're talking in a framework of Aristotelian logic you had to choose either T or F as the value for the P([beep]) I offered. P([beep]) can assume no states other than T and F, and you had to choose one. Then I showed that (whatever your choice has been) Descartes' statement, with regard to your choice about P([beep)'s value, leads to a dilemma.
I did choose. I said that you must believe that "I think" is true, because - in the illustration - the Evil Demon has tried to convince me that I don't. And, since I contemplated existence/non-existence, I am thinking. Now, my whole reasoning is (how many times have I said this?) that in order for it to be said that P does in fact [bleep], there must exist an entity "P".
This proof has absolutely nothing to do with the premises for "I think" for it isn't directly touching this phrase. You say for "I think" to be true one has to "exist," so for a statement like "I think therefore I am" the critique must satisfy the premise for "I think" and that is "existence." This is right but is irrelevant to this proof. This proof isn't studying "I think," it doesn't even care if it is "I think" or "I eat" that have obviously different premises. That's why I use [beep] in place of "think" or any other word, [beep] means any word that makes sense in that place, it can be "think," "eat," "drink," "walk," "fly," "understand," whatever. You see, the proof is independent of whatever specific word is replaced by [beep]. Its flow is simply so general that every literally sensible word can be in place of [beep].
No, this is my point. It doesn't matter what you substitute [bleep] with, one of the premises will be that there is an entity "P".
The "fact?" Do you mean "fact" as you defined it? That sort of fact has no place in Philosophy. What I'm struggling over with you for such a long time is this "fact." You say it is necessary, it is a "fact," that one exists in order for one to think. I asked it over and over how you can be sure of this necessity. You said it was simple Causality (or so I understood) and I'm showing how trivial Causality is.
You haven't showed that yet. You may be intending to, but your examples coincide with my reasoning.
Your way of talking my proof shows you haven't understood it. Read it over and over until you understand it. How many times have I repeated that P([beep]) is not Descartes' statement but an engineered statement by me? Once again, P([beep]) is not Descartes' statement but a statement that leads to dilemma along with Descartes' statement. It's the core to this proof and its misunderstanding (like in your case) means that the entire proof is lost.
Well, this is something that I tried to tell you long ago: the subject is Descartes' philosophy. The subject is not the proof of any other statement, of the form P[bleep] or any other form.
If you show a fault in that proof, I'll accept and take a chance with my other ways of talking this over. Until now you haven't stated anything worth noting other than your initial stance.
Which you haven't countered satisfactorily yet.
I don't hold the EPR Experiment sacred but I think it's very interesting, nor do I hold sacred its results. I would have a hard time with uncertainty if I wanted to hold something sacred. What I don't like so much is ignorance and careless conclusions.
You do, however, seem to hold uncertainty itself as the only certainty (which is a sickening paradox, as we've already talked about, and I don't want to talk about on this thread).
It seems you're the one who holds something sacred. You say you won't follow that way for it will destroy all need of learning/science. Let's suppose this really happens. If the way you follow has merit (for you, at least) you won't have lost much.
Science, learning, progressive knowledge... these things have merit for me. Thus, that which attempts to kill them has very little merit. It reduces what would have been rational human beings, to babbling/speculating fools (I don't include you in that, because you haven't abandoned science, you just entertain this uncertainty because you don't mix it with your progressive learning).
I think I described how uncertainty is a motive for learning and for gathering knowledge, including science. I told you how uncertainty is a drive towards certainty (hence, a drive towards more knowledge if not absolute knowledge) while certainty is a narcotic for the minds.
Uncertainty doesn't progress towards certainties. This is utterly wrong. Uncertainty doesn't even allow for any certainties.
Your worries about losing interest in science/knowledge/[beep] because of uncertainty are out of place. What you should worry for is the Mare Constans of certainty. Uncertainty is a manifestation of change and dynamism while certainty is the last station. Why should you take the next step if you're sure of whatever you know, whatever you want, whatever you have to do and whatever you are?
I told you, a certain amount of uncertainty is required (and so I partially take back what I said above), however the kind of uncertainty you are talking about doesn't allow for any progress, and is thus unhealthy to progressive knowledge.
By the way, learning and science aren't synonyms, what you can learn is not always science and science is not the only thing you can learn.
I know that. I mentioned that in your "Knowledge" thread.
It isn't that I've chosen a path that loops infinitely; it is that all known human paths are infinite loops. Loops are all you can see. Our knowledge is self-referenced. It doesn't include what "is" (if "being" in the sense we understand is sensible to the Universe) but what "is represented." There's a chasm of Unknown between what "is" and what "is represented."
And that chasm cannot be crossed by turning around and doubting the few things that do have an amount of certainty to them.
I never said "effect doesn't require a cause" (I'm not sure but I couldn't find such sentence). For cause and effect by their definition are bound to Causality and saying that would be a big mistake. I said this definition may be non-informative, irrelevant and even misleading. First you make a definition, say Causality, then you map it into the Universe by saying "the telephone" is an instance of a cause and "the individual hearing the ring" is an instance of an effect. What I've been denying is this process of mapping. You're free to make as many definitions, circular and non-circular, as you like but aren't free to map them into the Universe and expect compliance. I told you of another definition, the Pre-established Harmony, which worked and was compliant just like Causality. You relate a pair of phenomena with Causality while this bond needn't be "out" there. It's "in" here. It's an optimization method become prominent (too prominent, in fact).
And yet there was a cause to this percieved effect, wasn't there? If so, Causality appears to only be validated in the Pre-established Harmony idea.
How could the Physicist (the cause) cover the delay between two far-off events? A Physicist is usually located at one place and can affect (act as the cause to) things in a radius of a few meters and there's always a delay between what she/he does (as the cause) and what happens (as the effect). In this case you can consider the Physicist the cause to the spin change but then how can you explain absolute zero delay between her/his action and the spin change in the remote particle? Nothing changes here, whatever the cause may be, the zero delay can't be explained with a Causality bond that takes the chronological order as a basis to the distinction of the cause and the effect.
Ah, then you've missed the point of a "neighborhood" universe. You say that the physicist is "here" or "there", and this is true. But the two particles are bound such that they are not far apart from each other at all, in spite of appearing to be so.
Please, Manuel, let's drop the discussion of Causality and Uncertainty, in this thread, unless you can make all of the arguments directly relevant to Descartes' philosophy. We can discuss those other things in other threads.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I only asked a few questions. You could show me if there was a problem with them. Don't you think avoiding the answers to possibly "stupefied and irrational" questions is even more "stupefied and irrational?"
Please forgive the hostility in the afore-quoted post. I just don't like how you keep asking such baiting questions. I wouldn't mind them, if they were in a thread dedicated to such reasoning, but this thread is solely about Descartes' philosophy.
Isn't that there are those certain premises to this statement, another premise? Where does this premise of yours take it validity from?
Observation. Besides, while it can be considered it's own proposition, if you were to actually take this proposition (a demon tricking) apart, you would find the same two propositions that I speak of.
You told me the Demon may be either "existent" or "non-existent" and that this statement, "a Demon tricking," implies that a Demon exists. What I wrote in response was that the Demon may assume many states other than "existent" and "non-existent." And that for your deduction (a Demon must be there if a Demon is playing tricks) to be creditable it was necessary that we're bound to Boolean logic, where the statement "a Demon is there" (one of your sub-propositions) may only be either T or F.
But if the sub-proposition is false, then the actual proposition must also be false, musn't it?
Your claim here is made of two parts, "a Demon is playing tricks" and "so the Demon exists." These two parts are related to each other in a conditional statement: "if a Demon is playing tricks then there is a Demon." I wrote and shown that even if this statement is considered true (Causality bond is taken serious), your deduction on the truth values for the necessary condition, "a Demon is playing tricks," and the sufficient condition, "there is a Demon," is limited to Boolean logic which is rivaled by many other equally creditable logical systems in which your deduction becomes invalid (sometimes even senseless).
Well, if Boolean Logic has been used by Science and philosophy for so long (as you mentioned earlier) then I like it.
I wasn't wandering in dreams of uncertainty (although it's much fun to do); I was showing you the vista of uncertainty and the vast realm beyond Aristotle.
I don't know any of Aristotle's philosophy. I may agree with some of what he postulated, but not on purpose [;)].
Let's go the other way. If Descartes "had" to exist in order to think then why do you bother "proving" his "cogito ergo sum?"
I'm not proving it, I'm saying you can't disprove it. It is the proof, within itself, as I've shown.
Saying that "thinking" is the corollary of "being" you've already admitted that "I think therefore I am" is a self-referenced statement. With your assumption (one "has" to be if one thinks), "I think therefore I am" can be replaced with "I am therefore I am." This statement, "sum ergo sum," is clearly self-referenced for it assumes its own truth. Aside from being self-referenced, it is non-informative for if you knew "I am" why should you deduce "I am?"
You are almost right. The difference between "I think therefore I am" and "I am therefore I am" is (obviously) that there is a different verb involved (and the verb is "thinking", which is required when something tries to prove that I don't exist). Does that make sense?
Manuel_Silvio
Apr22-03, 02:51 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
First of all, there's one thing I'd like to draw your attention to: I put my words in the place I seem suitable for them so the way my words are is an expression of my opinion, I'm not humming dial tone I'm talking so please don't ignore the words.
... I am telling you that your reasoning does not apply, when there is only a proposition and it's sub-proposition being considered.
... Now, my whole reasoning is (how many times have I said this?) that in order for it to be said that P does in fact [bleep], there must exist an entity "P" ...
No, this is my point. It doesn't matter what you substitute [bleep] with, one of the premises will be that there is an entity "P".
And I'm telling you it does apply. The problem here is your misunderstanding of the notation I used.
See, you do understand the concept of function f(x), don't you? Like you've learnt in Mathematics, the function f(x) takes x from its domain and maps it into f(x) value from its range. Now consider P(), P is a function that takes the action [beep] as the input and outputs a statement "there need be an I to [beep]." Function P works like a juicer, it takes apples (the action [beep], where you can place any action in place of [beep]) then it gives back apple juice (it gives you a statement, "there need be an I to [beep]").
This notation, P([beep]), doesn't mean "P [beep]s therefore P is." P doesn't substitute the entity being studied, it is the notation of a function. P is used only as a generalization. P is only a word substitution function; it maps words (anything like [beep]) from its domain (all sensible words for [beep]) into its range (all possible sentences of the form "there need be an I to [beep]").
Now, if you understand what I'm talking about, it will be clear that P([beep]) isn't Descartes' statement, it is a "helper" device for this proof. P([beep]) is independent from and irrelevant to Descartes' statement. In the course of the proof you're asked to determine its state (T or F). It's your choice and is irrelevant to that you're defending Descartes' statement. For P([beep]) is just another statement, see, "another" statement.
Please read that storyline again. I guess you're way far from having understood the proof, and you can't criticize what you haven't understood yet.
Well, this is something that I tried to tell you long ago: the subject is Descartes' philosophy. The subject is not the proof of any other statement, of the form P[bleep] or any other form.This thread is named "I think therefore I am" and I'm trying to show this statements and all statements of the form "I [beep] therefore I am" lead to undesirable situations when viewed from the viewpoint of Boolean logic. I came to this thread because we had a debate on another thread where I claimed the Uncertainty applies to all human knowledge and you opposed saying there are certain parts of human knowledge one can be sure of.
My job here is to show this certain piece of knowledge, existence of the self, is absurd enough to be counted along with other uncertain things.
P([beep]) is a word substitution function, like I said above. It's used as a generalization and a helper device in a specific proof that shows Descartes' statement, "cogito ergo sum," will result in confusion if it's viewed from the viewpoint of Boolean logic, which is the sort of logic used in these discussions.
Which you haven't countered satisfactorily yet.
It'd be helpful to know that your stance could be modified to comply with Uncertainty. I'm opposing you because you see Descartes' statement as a proof of existence. I think this statement can't be held as a proof but as a between-the-lines hint. This between-the-lines hint doesn't prove or guarantee but it intrigues.
The intonation and strength by which you say "I think therefore I am" is vital to the distinction made between a statement and a hint. You seem to like to shout it loud like there's something important, there's a victory. If you whispered it, like having found some tiny thing you liked then I wouldn't have opposed. For I would've understood that you hold "I think therefore I am" for your pleasure. Your tendency to shout the thing out makes this hint absurd and displays your stance as an aggressive attempt for certainty. Such attempt is, well, only heading for the wall. I suggest there would be a hit then, but then do you think this would happen if you quietly went around the wall?
You do, however, seem to hold uncertainty itself as the only certainty (which is a sickening paradox, as we've already talked about, and I don't want to talk about on this thread).I don't hold the Uncertainty sacred. For me, it's just a between-the-lines hint, nothing more. And yes, we've talked about the paradox but we haven't reached a compromise.
Like I told you (and you ignored), I approach Uncertainty in steps whose order makes sense out of nonsense. The first step is the discovery of Uncertainty. The next step is to see how Uncertainty plagues itself. Having passed these stages in order, Uncertainty is washed along with itself as the last of all universal principles (for Uncertainty is the most general universal principle) but there remains a residue. That residue is an understanding that can't be found if Uncertainty is either ignored or held sacred. Ignoring Uncertainty is ignoring the common point of all human knowledge. Holding Uncertainty sacred, as that wouldn't contradict itself and remain a universal principle that doesn't apply to itself, will deprive one from that residual understanding. I won't attempt to describe what and how this understanding is but I'll say it's the only thing that remains after having doubted everything and anything; it's the last residue of philosophical thought. I guess you don't oppose the principle of skepticism in the face of what one knows (and what one doesn't know) for that's the foundation of Philosophy. You must ask "why?" in the face of what is seen as apparent by others and what seems apparent to yourself.
Science, learning, progressive knowledge... these things have merit for me. Thus, that which attempts to kill them has very little merit. It reduces what would have been rational human beings, to babbling/speculating fools (I don't include you in that, because you haven't abandoned science, you just entertain this uncertainty because you don't mix it with your progressive learning).After having understood what Uncertainty is, how it works, what its results are and how it is inevitable and paradoxical, you're left on your own to choose what has merit for you. That's why I emphasize Uncertainty this much. No certainty can bring those degrees of freedom, even though there're still boundaries, that Uncertainty brings. Uncertainty is the most general point of view for it simply allows everything.
You're committed to Science and that's your choice. Uncertainty won't lower, honor or change that but it gives you the freedom to see countless other options. I, too, have to some extents chosen my way of life, for now. Uncertainty gives me the freedom to see how worthless may be all that I hold dear. I, too, am interested in Science (you see, I'm a student of Physics) and will learn whatever comes my way. This, however, doesn't prevent me from seeing how trivial all Science may be, and what complexities may be beyond what I see, and that I may be dead wrong with all this.
Anecdote (derived from a Kundera quote): [b]"Things are more complex than what you think." (it'd be great if you read his "Testaments Betrayed").
It isn't easy to call irrational human beings "babbling/speculating fools." You aren't the one who determines what is babbling and who are fools. No human being can see what is right/wrong, what good/evil is, what is wise/foolish and what is better/worse. Your opinion is meaningful only in your own domain. You, passionate for Science, see irrationality as absolute mishmash. Matter of fact irrationality has very often its own rationale. That you can't see the complexity beyond what you understand doesn't mean it won't someday strike you hard from ambush.
Uncertainty doesn't progress towards certainties. This is utterly wrong. Uncertainty doesn't even allow for any certainties.Uncertainty needn't allow certainties but again it's a drive towards them. A Physicist is uncertain of her/his findings so she/he will try to gather more about her/his subject of study. This is the Uncertainty drive although it's aimed at certainty. And then why do you like certainty this much? You like to be certain that you are, that you are the way you see yourself in the mirror, that the Universe be the way you currently perceive. Isn't this liking a bit too simplistically oriented? What do you want out of certainty?
Certainty is clearly the end to research. When you know something and know it for sure, will you do research activities? Isn't Uncertainty about your subject a better station to start from?
You're misinterpreting Uncertainty. It simply doubts everything and this doubt has proven to be worth noting.
I told you, a certain amount of uncertainty is required (and so I partially take back what I said above), however the kind of uncertainty you are talking about doesn't allow for any progress, and is thus unhealthy to progressive knowledge.Where does your passion for progress come from? Who says progress in its current form is better than stability? All your reasoning is based on your suppositions (suppositions like, "science is good," "learning is good," "progress is necessary") that don't seem to be more valid to me.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Apr22-03, 03:25 PM
... continued from the previous post
But if the sub-proposition is false, then the actual proposition must also be false, musn't it?That's another rule from Boolean logic. Another system of logic may even assign other states to a statement, no true or false.
Well, if Boolean Logic has been used by Science and philosophy for so long (as you mentioned earlier) then I like it.Sorry for the roughness of the analogy but your saying deserves some hard opposition. There was once a horse that loved her blinders for she had them on for so long.
I don't know any of Aristotle's philosophy. I may agree with some of what he postulated, but not on purpose.Aristotelian way of thinking is woven into our everyday lives. It's endured 2000 years and will endure much longer for it's easy (not quite easy but much easier than a sincere study of our knowledge) and frees one from the burden of thinking further into the complexity.
Aristotle was a genius and his ideas have originality but in his own context and his own time. His way wouldn't gain this much publicity if it was introduced somewhere other than ancient Greece.
The horse said she couldn't see any blinders and what was all this story about blinders.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For [b]Mentat:
First of all, there's one thing I'd like to draw your attention to: I put my words in the place I seem suitable for them so the way my words are is an expression of my opinion, I'm not humming dial tone I'm talking so please don't ignore the words.
There is something that I'd like to bring to your attention as well. I don't ignore anything you say. I read all of it. I reply to that which I question, provided it appears relevant to the discussion at hand (namely: I think therefore I am).
And I'm telling you it does apply. The problem here is your misunderstanding of the notation I used.
See, you do understand the concept of function f(x), don't you? Like you've learnt in Mathematics, the function f(x) takes x from its domain and maps it into f(x) value from its range. Now consider P(), P is a function that takes the action [beep] as the input and outputs a statement "there need be an I to [beep]." Function P works like a juicer, it takes apples (the action [beep], where you can place any action in place of [beep]) then it gives back apple juice (it gives you a statement, "there need be an I to [beep]").
Either you are still missing the point, or I am. You still keep implying that I'm saying "there need be an I to ". I am not saying that. I am saying that there need be an "I" [b]for "I" to [bleep].
This notation, P([beep]), doesn't mean "P [beep]s therefore P is." P doesn't substitute the entity being studied, it is the notation of a function. P is used only as a generalization.
Which is why the "P" reasoning doesn't apply to Descartes' philosophy. You must substitute an entity for "P" in order for it to be at all relevant to Descartes' philosophy.
Now, if you understand what I'm talking about, it will be clear that P([beep]) isn't Descartes' statement, it is a "helper" device for this proof. P([beep]) is independent from and irrelevant to Descartes' statement.
Then how can it possibly be relevant to this discussion?
This thread is named "I think therefore I am" and I'm trying to show this statements and all statements of the form "I [beep] therefore I am" lead to undesirable situations when viewed from the viewpoint of Boolean logic.
But you haven't showed that. You have showed that all statements of the form "P[bleep]" (the function notation) lead to undesirable results. And yet, you yourself have said that this reasoning (P[bleep] reasoning) is irrelevant to Descartes' philosophy.
P([beep]) is a word substitution function, like I said above. It's used as a generalization and a helper device in a specific proof that shows Descartes' statement, "cogito ergo sum," will result in confusion if it's viewed from the viewpoint of Boolean logic, which is the sort of logic used in these discussions.
Is it really a "helper device" if it is entirely seperate from and irrelevant to Descartes' type of reasoning (as shown above)?
The intonation and strength by which you say "I think therefore I am" is vital to the distinction made between a statement and a hint. You seem to like to shout it loud like there's something important, there's a victory. If you whispered it, like having found some tiny thing you liked then I wouldn't have opposed. For I would've understood that you hold "I think therefore I am" for your pleasure. Your tendency to shout the thing out makes this hint absurd and displays your stance as an aggressive attempt for certainty. Such attempt is, well, only heading for the wall. I suggest there would be a hit then, but then do you think this would happen if you quietly went around the wall?
I don't think that Descartes' philosophy is a victory over uncertainty. I know that there is debate to be had ([b]about that particular philosophy, not just statements of the same kind), that's why I started this thread. However, I do think that it is an interesting/meritable philosophy, and that it has not been disproven yet (on this thread).
Like I told you (and you ignored), I approach Uncertainty in steps whose order makes sense out of nonsense. The first step is the discovery of Uncertainty. The next step is to see how Uncertainty plagues itself.
Which should lead you to discard Uncertainty. If Uncertainty plagues itself (because of it's paradoxical and self-contradictory nature), then it isn't useful, it's plagued. Why would you stay with something that was plagued, when you could continue with non-paradoxical studies, such as Science/Philosophy?
Having passed these stages in order, Uncertainty is washed along with itself as the last of all universal principles (for Uncertainty is the most general universal principle) but there remains a residue. That residue is an understanding that can't be found if Uncertainty is either ignored or held sacred. Ignoring Uncertainty is ignoring the common point of all human knowledge. Holding Uncertainty sacred, as that wouldn't contradict itself and remain a universal principle that doesn't apply to itself, will deprive one from that residual understanding. I won't attempt to describe what and how this understanding is but I'll say it's the only thing that remains after having doubted everything and anything; it's the last residue of philosophical thought. I guess you don't oppose the principle of skepticism in the face of what one knows (and what one doesn't know) for that's the foundation of Philosophy. You must ask "why?" in the face of what is seen as apparent by others and what seems apparent to yourself.
I do question that which is apparent. However, I do so through the use of logic and progressive knowledge. [b]I build off of foundations, instead of reinventing the wheel at every point. I will question the foundation later, but if you question everything at once, you start all over again, every time.
[quote]
After having understood what Uncertainty is, how it works, what its results are and how it is inevitable and paradoxical, you're left on your own to choose what has merit for you.
It is not inevitable. It is a choice, that you already seem certain of.
That's why I emphasize Uncertainty this much. No certainty can bring those degrees of freedom, even though there're still boundaries, that Uncertainty brings. Uncertainty is the most general point of view for it simply allows everything.
If one is Uncertain about all things, then there can be no boundary. However, this creates a paradox similar to that of the paradox of limitlessness, which I have discussed on numerous threads. This means that Uncertainty itself, when applied to all things, is paradoxical. Not just plagued/dirty/difficult, but paradoxical, and paradox is the dead-end of progressive knowledge, as I see it.
You're committed to Science and that's your choice. Uncertainty won't lower, honor or change that but it gives you the freedom to see countless other options. I, too, have to some extents chosen my way of life, for now. Uncertainty gives me the freedom to see how worthless may be all that I hold dear. I, too, am interested in Science (you see, I'm a student of Physics) and will learn whatever comes my way. This, however, doesn't prevent me from seeing how trivial all Science may be, and what complexities may be beyond what I see, and that I may be dead wrong with all this.
Well, sure, I should be able to see other options. But, in doing so, I have to be able to look beyond Uncertainty itself. The only thing other than Uncertainty is Certainty, and since there isn't supposed to be anything certain, I shouldn't be able to look beyond Uncertainty. Thus, Uncertainty is a dead-end, isn't it?
You, passionate for Science, see irrationality as absolute mishmash. Matter of fact irrationality has very often its own rationale. That you can't see the complexity beyond what you understand doesn't mean it won't someday strike you hard from ambush.
Irrationality is mere "mishmash". That's the point of the irrational. If you say that there is something rational about irrationality, then you have another paradox on your hands. How many paradoxes must one run into, before abandoning a certain line of reasoning?
Uncertainty needn't allow certainties but again it's a drive towards them.
And thus, you use Uncertainty to get certainty. And yet, Uncertainty dictates that there are no certainties. How can a line of reasoning lead to something, when it (the line of reasoning) is based on teh premise that that "something" doesn't exist?
What do you want out of certainty?
A foundation, from which to question that which I am not certain about. There's not enough time in life to question everything. I'm only 14 and I know that.
Certainty is clearly the end to research. When you know something and know it for sure, will you do research activities? Isn't Uncertainty about your subject a better station to start from?
I told you, a degree of uncertainty is good - necessar in fact. I only object to being uncertain about everything (I don't even think you can be, but that's a subject for another thread).
Where does your passion for progress come from? Who says progress in its current form is better than stability? All your reasoning is based on your suppositions (suppositions like, "science is good," "learning is good," "progress is necessary") that don't seem to be more valid to me.
Well, it's my outlook on life. How is "nothing is certain" better than "progressive knowledge is necessary"?
Manuel_Silvio
Apr22-03, 05:08 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Either you are still missing the point, or I am. You still keep implying that I'm saying "there need be an I to [bleep]". I am not saying that. I am saying that there need be an "I" for "I" to [bleep].
No, no, no! I'm not implying anything. Only if you got the catch of that proof! Suppose there are two independent statements, one is Descartes' statement and the other is my P([beep]). We want to see if Descartes' statement is true or not, but before we do this I ask of you of the state you associate with P([beep]). See, P([beep]) is just a helper. Then you say that P([beep]) is true or false. The true/false state of P([beep]) has nothing to do with Descartes' statement. After you've given P([beep]) its state, we come to study Descartes' statement. Then I turn to you and show that Descartes' statement will lead to undesirable situations, "with regard to P([beep])." And I show that this happens for all states P([beep]) can assume.
This means there's an incompatibility between all the states P([beep]) may assume and Descartes' statement. Now, with asking for P([beep]) state and assigning a state to it, I haven't done anything illogical and I've also let you choose its state as you wish. There must be something wrong with the view point from which the problem is viewed. Simply put, Descartes' statement is incompatible with this viewpoint.
Which is why the "P[bleep]" reasoning doesn't apply to Descartes' philosophy. You must substitute an entity for "P" in order for it to be at all relevant to Descartes' philosophy.
I designed the proof and then you tell me what to do? I wanted to design it the way it is. P is a function, can you understand this? It has an input and an output, nothing more. P isn't part of the statement, it's the function that maps [beep] into the statement I wanted.
Let me see, do you know what f(x) means in Mathematics?
Then how can it possibly be relevant to this discussion?I told you many times before. P is a helper device. In that proof P isn't being studied, P is "being used." P "is used" to study Descartes' statement. A tin-opener is not a can but it's used to open a can. When you open cans, you don't say "how can a tin-opener be relevant here?" The tin-opener and the can are different but they're both involved in the mutual task of opening a can.
But you haven't showed that. You have showed that all statements of the form "P[bleep]" (the function notation) lead to undesirable results. And yet, you yourself have said that this reasoning (P[bleep] reasoning) is irrelevant to Descartes' philosophy.
I've shown, you didn't get it. P([beep]) leads to undesirable results, that's right but how then? In association with Descartes' statement.
I didn't say P([beep]) reasoning is irrelevant to Descartes' statement, I said P([beep]) is distinct and irrelevant to that statement. A tin-opener's action isn't irrelevant to the can being opened but the tin-opener itself is irrelevant to and distinct from the can.
Is it really a "helper device" if it is entirely seperate from and irrelevant to Descartes' type of reasoning (as shown above)?
Yes! You see how it works if you understand what is going on in that proof.
Which should lead you to discard Uncertainty. If Uncertainty plagues itself (because of it's paradoxical and self-contradictory nature), then it isn't useful, it's plagued. Why would you stay with something that was plagued, when you could continue with non-paradoxical studies, such as Science/Philosophy?
Once again, this isn't the way I've chosen. This is the way it is. Science is a disguise and Philosophy is not what you call Philosophy.
It is not inevitable. It is a choice, that you already seem certain of.
It is inevitable for it is the most general. How can you avoid the most general while you're concerned with its particulars?
If one is Uncertain about all things, then there can be no boundary. However, this creates a paradox similar to that of the paradox of limitlessness, which I have discussed on numerous threads. This means that Uncertainty itself, when applied to all things, is paradoxical. Not just plagued/dirty/difficult, but paradoxical, and paradox is the dead-end of progressive knowledge, as I see it.How did you conclude that? That I'm uncertain of everything (you're right, I can't be but I pretend to) doesn't have any implication but that I'm uncertain of everything. It won't give me power over something so it won't break any hard boundaries. Broken are the boundaries of my mind, those chains that needn't be there.
And I have no problem with paradoxes and paradoxical speech. Your paradoxes are merely lexical ambiguities but those paradoxes I'm concerned with are those relying not on ambiguity in literary expressions but on the nature of human knowledge.
Well, sure, I should be able to see other options. But, in doing so, I have to be able to look beyond Uncertainty itself. The only thing other than Uncertainty is Certainty, and since there isn't supposed to be anything certain, I shouldn't be able to look beyond Uncertainty. Thus, Uncertainty is a dead-end, isn't it?Yes, you have to look beyond Uncertainty, too. That's when that residual understanding I wrote of comes in.
Suppose Uncertainty is a dead-end, what then? Just tell me what then? Suppose you (and all humanity) have tried to sincerely study human knowledge or human being and you've encountered a dead-end. Wouldn't that be much more honorable than making an excuse, named Certainty, to intoxicate your mind and shield it against what is forthcoming? Certainty is a narcotic, I told you before. Narcotics aren't all bad, you need them sometimes to relieve but take it too much and you'll never get out of it.
I do question that which is apparent. However, I do so through the use of logic and progressive knowledge. I build off of foundations, instead of reinventing the wheel at every point. I will question the foundation later, but if you question everything at once, you start all over again, every time.
One such apparent thing would be "the use of logic and progressive knowledge." Don't you mind questioning this one?
Those foundations you're talking of are for others. They had their own and you should have your own, if you're really interested in having them. I told you before, this isn't re-inventing the same wheel all the time, it's inventing your "own" "all-new" wheel which's "unlike" any wheel that's come before and that'll come after.
Irrationality is mere "mishmash". That's the point of the irrational. If you say that there is something rational about irrationality, then you have another paradox on your hands. How many paradoxes must one run into, before abandoning a certain line of reasoning?
Irrationality has its own rationale like I said. That "rationale" is an extended version of the "rationale" you understand.
You think of irrationality and imagine picturesque scenes of humans fighting to death for nothing. That's one sort of irrationality. There are other kinds of it. Think of so many hermits with all sorts of odd faith, and even no faith, who've lived peaceful lives without your rationality. They had their own way of ordering things and that was their rationale. The order of things was different for them but it wasn't mishmash. Think of all peoples of ancient times who've lived their lives in so many ways that would seem absurd to the people of these days. Yet they were righteous over what they did.
Once again, if you insist that's a paradox, well, that's a paradox, what then?
And thus, you use Uncertainty to get certainty. And yet, Uncertainty dictates that there are no certainties. How can a line of reasoning lead to something, when it (the line of reasoning) is based on teh premise that that "something" doesn't exist?I don't use Uncertainty to "get" Certainty. I use it to "approach" Certainty. That's the twist. A Physicist will never be certain of the physical Universe but she/he will, led by the Uncertainty drive, approach Certainty day by day step by step.
A foundation, from which to question that which I am not certain about. There's not enough time in life to question everything. I'm only 14 and I know that.You can take any foundation you like but I think, being uncertain is much more honorable that being certain of something that holds no certainty.
I understand what you mean. The life is short, you're right and I agree with you but then couldn't we be wrong? Couldn't we be dying for we think we must die someday? This isn't ridicule, think about it.
Well, it's my outlook on life. How is "nothing is certain" better than "progressive knowledge is necessary"?Now that's a brilliant question. My answer is "noway." Suppositions of any sort are equally creditable but they can be more or less general. "Nothing is certain" leaves a way open for any new idea to come in while "progressive knowledge is necessary" is like condemning a whole bunch of new ideas that have equal creditability to those ideas enhanced and promoted by the supposition, "progressive knowledge is necessary."
"Nothing is uncertain" is so general that it can incorporate the other supposition but the other supposition isn't that general.
You may ask why I prefer more general suppositions. I'd say that's a matter of taste. If you agree to Uncertainty, everything and every choice will become a matter of taste. I don't know if you like this.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For [b]Mentat:
No, no, no! I'm not implying anything. Only if you got the catch of that proof! Suppose there are two independent statements, one is Descartes' statement and the other is my P([beep]). We want to see if Descartes' statement is true or not, but before we do this I ask of you of the state you associate with P([beep]). See, P([beep]) is just a helper. Then you say that P([beep]) is true or false. The true/false state of P([beep]) has nothing to do with Descartes' statement. After you've given P([beep]) its state, we come to study Descartes' statement. Then I turn to you and show that Descartes' statement will lead to undesirable situations, "with regard to P([beep])." And I show that this happens for all states P([beep]) can assume.
This means there's an incompatibility between all the states P([beep]) may assume and Descartes' statement. Now, with asking for P([beep]) state and assigning a state to it, I haven't done anything illogical and I've also let you choose its state as you wish. There must be something wrong with the view point from which the problem is viewed. Simply put, Descartes' statement is incompatible with this viewpoint.
But, Descartes' statement is not of the form "P()". That's what I've been trying to say. I understand functions in Algebra, but I don't think that Descartes' statement is using "I" as a function. Hence, I don't think that any reasoning on the problems of statments of the form "P([bleep])" is relevant to Descartes' philosophy.
I designed the proof and then you tell me what to do? I wanted to design it the way it is. P is a function, can you understand this? It has an input and an output, nothing more. P isn't part of the statement, it's the function that maps [beep] into the statement I wanted.
Yes, "P" is a function. But "I" in Descartes' statement is not. It doesn't work the same way. I didn't mean to tell you what to do, when discussing a "P([bleep])" philosophy, I was telling you that - if you wanted to use a variable in the place of the word "I" in Descartes' statement - you had to replace "I" with some other entity.
I told you many times before. P is a helper device. In that proof P isn't being studied, P is "being used." P "is used" to study Descartes' statement. A tin-opener is not a can but it's used to open a can. When you open cans, you don't say "how can a tin-opener be relevant here?" The tin-opener and the can are different but they're both involved in the mutual task of opening a can.
But, as I've been trying to tell you, P is a helper device [b]for other philosophies - not this philosophy of Descartes' (for the above reasons).
I've shown, you didn't get it. P([beep]) leads to undesirable results, that's right but how then? In association with Descartes' statement.
I didn't say P([beep]) reasoning is irrelevant to Descartes' statement, I said P([beep]) is distinct and irrelevant to that statement. A tin-opener's action isn't irrelevant to the can being opened but the tin-opener itself is irrelevant to and distinct from the can.
Yes, I know what you said. However, a tin-opener is useful for a can, while the P[bleep]-type philosophy that you are examining is not useful for understanding Descartes' statment.
Yes! You see how it works if you understand what is going on in that proof.
Once again, this isn't the way I've chosen. This is the way it is. Science is a disguise and Philosophy is not what you call Philosophy.
It is inevitable for it is the most general. How can you avoid the most general while you're concerned with its particulars?
How did you conclude that? That I'm uncertain of everything (you're right, I can't be but I pretend to) doesn't have any implication but that I'm uncertain of everything. It won't give me power over something so it won't break any hard boundaries. Broken are the boundaries of my mind, those chains that needn't be there.
And yet, in "breaking" those "chains", you enslave yourself to irrationality and paradox, and this is no better than being enslaved to progressive understanding.
And I have no problem with paradoxes and paradoxical speech. Your paradoxes are merely lexical ambiguities but those paradoxes I'm concerned with are those relying not on ambiguity in literary expressions but on the nature of human knowledge.
Yes, you have to look beyond Uncertainty, too. That's when that residual understanding I wrote of comes in.
You can't look beyond Uncertainty, if Uncertainty is your premise. That is the nature of absolute Uncertainty. It doesn't allow you to use it (or anything else, for that matter) as a foundation, because nothing is certain, and foundations must be at least partially certain.
Suppose Uncertainty is a dead-end, what then? Just tell me what then? Suppose you (and all humanity) have tried to sincerely study human knowledge or human being and you've encountered a dead-end. Wouldn't that be much more honorable than making an excuse, named Certainty, to intoxicate your mind and shield it against what is forthcoming? Certainty is a narcotic, I told you before. Narcotics aren't all bad, you need them sometimes to relieve but take it too much and you'll never get out of it.
And I have (repeatedly) told you that I like uncertainty, and I recognize it's necessity. I just know that too much of it is also bad. I'm certain of very few things, and leave most things uncertain. However, this is all - as I've said before - the subject for another thread.
One such apparent thing would be "the use of logic and progressive knowledge." Don't you mind questioning this one?
Not when the argument that I'm currently on requires this as a premise. As a matter of form, I cannot question all foundations at the same time. It's not just paradoxical, but it also doesn't allow me to ever answer the question that I started out trying to answer.
Those foundations you're talking of are for others. They had their own and you should have your own, if you're really interested in having them. I told you before, this isn't re-inventing the same wheel all the time, it's inventing your "own" "all-new" wheel which's "unlike" any wheel that's come before and that'll come after.
Yes, but your still inventing a wheel, when the problem your really trying to resolve has to do with the combustion engine of a Dodge Viper (please try to understand my illustration, I don't think I have enough space left, on this post, to explain it).
Irrationality has its own rationale like I said. That "rationale" is an extended version of the "rationale" you understand.
Irrationality, by definition and common use, cannot have a rationale of any kind.
You think of irrationality and imagine picturesque scenes of humans fighting to death for nothing. That's one sort of irrationality. There are other kinds of it. Think of so many hermits with all sorts of odd faith, and even no faith, who've lived peaceful lives without your rationality. They had their own way of ordering things and that was their rationale.
Yes, they didn't have my rationale, but they had one. That's the point. If they were truly irrational, they would have no rationale, whatsoever.
The order of things was different for them but it wasn't mishmash. Think of all peoples of ancient times who've lived their lives in so many ways that would seem absurd to the people of these days. Yet they were righteous over what they did.
Again, they were still rational, just in a different way than the typical person of today.
Once again, if you insist that's a paradox, well, that's a paradox,
what then?
You shouldn't speak of paradox as though it were just another logical approach. Or just another consequence. A paradox is the dead-end of reasoning on any one idea. Resulting in paradox usually leads people to discard that idea and try another.
A Physicist will never be certain of the physical Universe but she/he will, led by the Uncertainty drive, approach Certainty day by day step by step.
You can take any foundation you like but I think, being uncertain is much more honorable that being certain of something that holds no certainty.
Uncertainty doesn't hold any certainty either.
Couldn't we be dying for we think we must die someday? This isn't ridicule, think about it.
Well, if we're dying because we think we will die, then discussing it is making us all the more likely to die [;)].
"Nothing is certain" leaves a way open for any new idea to come in while "progressive knowledge is necessary" is like condemning a whole bunch of new ideas that have equal creditability to those ideas enhanced and promoted by the supposition, "progressive knowledge is necessary."
Well, actually, if your premise is "progressive knowledge is necessary", then those "other ideas" don't really have "equal creditability".
"Nothing is uncertain" is so general that it can incorporate the other supposition but the other supposition isn't that general.
"Nothing is uncertain" is not the premise that we were talking about. "Nothing is uncertain" is the opposite of your Uncertainty, and is equally wrong, IMO.
You may ask why I prefer more general suppositions. I'd say that's a matter of taste. If you agree to Uncertainty, everything and every choice will become a matter of taste. I don't know if you like this.
No, I don't. I think that moderation is important. Thus, whether to behave in a civilised manner on every occasion (for example) will not be a matter of taste, but a matter of form.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr25-03, 10:08 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
But, Descartes' statement is not of the form "P([bleep])"...
... But "I" in Descartes' statement is not. It doesn't work the same way. I didn't mean to tell you what to do, when discussing a "P([bleep])" philosophy ...That's right. The P([beep]) statement is not the statement category ("I think therefore I am" and similar) proven absurd in that proof. You're just stating the reason I wrote that P([beep]) was "irrelevant to" and "independent from" Descartes' statement, that it was just a helper device.
I've times described how this helper device works. It's irrelevant to Descartes' statement but it's engineered so that it causes trouble when the study of Descartes' statement is seen in association with P([beep]) state.
There may be faults in that proof. It may be wrong but what you're pointing out is "your" misconception. I've wrote so many times that the subject of study in that proof is Descartes' statement and P([beep]) is only a "helper device," so you can't tell me that since my P([beep]) isn't Descartes' statement the proof isn't studying that statement. Back to the tin-opener analogy, you can't tell me that since a tin-opener isn't a can, its task can't be opening cans.
I've done the best I could to describe it for you. Understanding that proof and criticizing it in its own context is your job. I think it'd be beneficial if you invite some PF member to take a look at it and explain it some other way so that you can understand.
And yet, in "breaking" those "chains", you enslave yourself to irrationality and paradox, ...At every given time, one is chained to a specific system of thoughts. What matters is the fairness and sincerity of that system of thoughts. Another thing that matters is the awareness of the chained mind of its chains.
So far that I've learnt, Uncertainty (if you like, Paradox and Irrationality) is the most sincere way to study something. Uncertainty implies absence of bias and prejudice.
Obviously enough, Uncertainty isn't a practical way. This isn't because of Uncertainty being useless, it's because of what we mean with "practice" and "practicality." We see practicality in terms of what satisfies our desires (the roots of these desires I don't know) and the more of satisfaction is the more of practicality. Uncertainty is for known and unknown reasons dissatisfying for it robs one of security, simplicity, ease, self-confidence and self-righteousness. These aspects of human life that fade away when Uncertainty comes in, are necessary for leading a normal life. Without them we could never be choosing our next moments' actions. These aspects are so important that they simply can't be taken away. Resultant is a milder version of Uncertainty that won't hurt these aspects much.
There's a fair way to avoid the loss of these aspects while avoiding being unfair with ignoring Uncertainty. That's the way of simultaneous acceptance and denial (another paradox, spot it, get it right there, get it up against "The Wall" [:D]). One will be aware and cautious of Uncertainty while one acts as if nothing's happened.
In order not to waste the fairness of this way, one should be warned against any unnecessary certainties. One such "unnecessary" certainty is the existence (lest you see me, I know [;)]). It really won't change much of one's perspective if one's informed of her/his existence/non-existence if this information doesn't change any aspect of her/his life.
I have to admit you wrote of "mild" Uncertainty before and were right with that but I didn't like the way you talked of it; it sounded to me like you were saying "well, we have this here and that there, I like this you like that, but if you insist I'll take a bit of that, too."
... As a matter of form, I cannot question all foundations at the same time. It's not just paradoxical, ...Let me see, you question a part of the foundation, make it up with it and go to the next. Seems pretty procedural task! Yet it's problematic. Whilst you question a certain part of the foundation you'll be assuming other parts true, won't you? And if the foundation is a coherent structure the validity of every part of it will be enough to prove other parts valid. Now "you" have a dead-end at hand, if you only question one part of the foundation, which is a coherent structure, every time you'll simply prove that part valid because you've assumed the other parts of the foundation.
The foundation, as a coherent structure, must be removed, thoroughly examined and then put back where it belongs. No part of the foundation can be allowed as a premise for studying the same foundation.
Yes, but your still inventing a wheel, when the problem your really trying to resolve has to do with the combustion engine...I understand what you wrote as "you are trying to modify the whole while you're asked to modify only the particulars."
This doesn't seem right to me. Making one's own system of thoughts involves the re-thinking of all one has as thoughts and then thinking new thoughts. This task must be done bottom-to-top and in order of complexity. The most basic intuition seems to be an intuition of existence (one that you're trying to change into a solid statement) so the first thing to be re-thought is the meaning, validity and works of existence. For this re-thinking one can't rely on any other thoughts for they are yet-to-come thoughts that haven't been revised.
Re-thinking isn't a work on particulars, it's ought to alter the whole. Consqeuently, it's equal to re-inventing a "new" wheel, not a mistake between the rudimentary conecpt of a wheel and the much higher level concept of a combustion engine peculiar to a specific car. Systems of thoughts are peculiar to their owners, the thinkers, so every system of thoughts must be built from the bottom to the top and without referencing other systems for the validity of other systems is, in the best case, limited to their owner. External references can only be used as helpers in explaining common or similar concepts, ie you can't point out Kant's idea on something and take that for a part of your system of thoughts but you may point at his idea and say "see, it's these points in common." It's obvious that similarities between two systems of thoughts one of which has gained public credit can't be held as an advantage for either of the systems.
Irrationality, by definition and common use, cannot have a rationale of any kind.
Yes, they didn't have my rationale, but they had one. That's the point. If they were truly irrational, they would have no rationale, whatsoever.Let's have your word. The consequence: there's never been such thing as irrationality for there's never been actions without some sort of rationale behind them. And there's never been systems of thoughts without a supportive skeleton of "rationale," one way or the other.
You claim that Uncertainty leads to irrationality but then you claim that every order in the things can be considered a rationale and isn't included in irrationals list. Now, Uncertainty has its own order of things. This order may be comlicated or even too complicated to comprehend but it is there. To conclude, Uncertainty isn't irrationality or irrational.
If you like it that way I can say that Uncertainty isn't irrational but has it's own not-so-much-publicized rationale. Does that work?
You shouldn't speak of paradox as though it were just another logical approach...I don't speak of paradox as another logical approach. I speak of it as the end to a "specific" form of logic. That which is a paradox in one logical system can be worked out simply in another system. The sight of a paradox isn't a dead-end. It's a call to change and a call to a new system. A paradox indicates that a logical system isn't even self-sufficient, let alone sufficient. A paradox is the rise of countless possibilities that were oppressed by the materialization of a certain possibility which hasn't "necessarily" been superior to those countless possibilities.
And what "people" do isn't the measure of what we do.
Uncertainty doesn't hold any certainty either.That's true but it gives you a perspective of countless options, at least. I didn't say it held certainty. I said it was more honorable than the "usual" excuse, certainty.
Well, if we're dying because we think we will die, then discussing it is making us all the more likely to die.You see the dark side of it. The same discussion may make us re-think the concept of death and, who knows, perhaps discard it.
Well, actually, if your premise is "progressive knowledge is necessary", then those "other ideas" don't really have "equal creditability".That's it. If you want to be fair in judging suppositions, first you have to be independent of them. In the court of fair judgment all suppositions are equally creditable for the judge isn't initially committed to any of them. It's after the judgment that premises come. Premises are the outcome of judgment and a choice of suppositions that've seemed the best to the court of fair judgment.
"Nothing is uncertain" is not the premise that we were talking about...Shame on me! I've played this certain-uncertain thing so much that I mix them all up. I beg your pardon. I meant "nothing is certain."
No, I don't. I think that moderation is important...You mean you tend to choose certain behavior and "officially" declare them "superior in form" and then present them as the "right" behavior?
Every choice is a matter of the chooser's taste. You may like to behave in a civilized manner on every ocassion while this me likes better not to do it that way every once in a while.
Do you give up chooser's choice for the groundless superiority assigned by the society?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1. For Mentat:
That's right. The P([beep]) statement is not the statement category ("I think therefore I am" and similar) proven absurd in that proof. You're just stating the reason I wrote that P([beep]) was "irrelevant to" and "independent from" Descartes' statement, that it was just a helper device.
Ok, for the millionth time. P([bleep]) reasoning is a helper device for other philosophies. It cannot be applied to Descartes' philosophy, unless you have some argument that you haven't yet presented. A tin-opener can be fitted to a can, thus it can be useful. However, I'm telling you that P([bleep]) reasoning doesn't "fit" with Descartes' statement. It cannot be made to fit, as far as I've seen - and you have not made any effort to "fit" them, taking it as obvious that this kind of reasoning (P([bleep])) is helpful.
I've times described how this helper device works. It's irrelevant to Descartes' statement but it's engineered so that it causes trouble when the study of Descartes' statement is seen in association with P([beep]) state.
There is no association. P([bleep]) requires that P is a function of whatever [bleep] stands for. Descartes' statement requires that P is an entity, that acts out [bleep].
There may be faults in that proof. It may be wrong but what you're pointing out is "your" misconception. I've wrote so many times that the subject of study in that proof is Descartes' statement and P([beep]) is only a "helper device," so you can't tell me that since my P([beep]) isn't Descartes' statement the proof isn't studying that statement. Back to the tin-opener analogy, you can't tell me that since a tin-opener isn't a can, its task can't be opening cans.
The proof isn't studying the statement, but not because they are different. It's because they are unrelated, the don't "fit" (see above).
At every given time, one is chained to a specific system of thoughts. What matters is the fairness and sincerity of that system of thoughts.
And yet, to assertain the "fairness and sincerity" of that system, you need to look at it from outside that system. In doing so, you must make use of another system, whose "fairness and sincerity" you haven't determined.
Obviously enough, Uncertainty isn't a practical way. This isn't because of Uncertainty being useless, it's because of what we mean with "practice" and "practicality." We see practicality in terms of what satisfies our desires (the roots of these desires I don't know) and the more of satisfaction is the more of practicality.
I'll tell you the root of these desires: survival. Humans would not have survived this long, if they hadn't used "practicality" and "progressive knowledge". Now, they are safe enough to question, but the "roots" are now deeply engrained.
Uncertainty is for known and unknown reasons dissatisfying for it robs one of security, simplicity, ease, self-confidence and self-righteousness.
This sounds like wuliheron's reasoning, and I only partially agree. I think that some uncertainty can accomplish this purpose, but full Uncertainty just robs you of any progressive knowledge, and thus you get "stuck".
There's a fair way to avoid the loss of these aspects while avoiding being unfair with ignoring Uncertainty. That's the way of simultaneous acceptance and denial (another paradox, spot it, get it right there, get it up against "The Wall" [:D]). One will be aware and cautious of Uncertainty while one acts as if nothing's happened.
I don't get this. You are saying, "I have an answer", then you say "My answer is paradoxical". What is supposed to incline me toward listening to this "answer"?
It really won't change much of one's perspective if one's informed of her/his non-existence
But, this "information" (of his/her non-existence) cannot be true, otherwise who would you be "informing" (Descartes' reasoning again)?
I have to admit you wrote of "mild" Uncertainty before and were right with that but I didn't like the way you talked of it; it sounded to me like you were saying "well, we have this here and that there, I like this you like that, but if you insist I'll take a bit of that, too."
That wasn't the way I intended you to take it. I meant that it's good to have some uncertainty, and that everything can be questioned, but in turns. You must take some things for granted while questioning others, and then later question the things that you previously took for granted, while taking the previous uncertainties as now certain. You just shouldn't be uncertain of all things at once. Can't be, IMHO.
Whilst you question a certain part of the foundation you'll be assuming other parts true, won't you? And if the foundation is a coherent structure the validity of every part of it will be enough to prove other parts valid. Now "you" have a dead-end at hand, if you only question one part of the foundation, which is a coherent structure, every time you'll simply prove that part valid because you've assumed the other parts of the foundation.
This reasoning isn't just for questioning foundations, but for questioning new assumptions/speculations, as well.
I'll finish my response in the next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
The foundation, as a coherent structure, must be removed, thoroughly examined and then put back where it belongs. No part of the foundation can be allowed as a premise for studying the same foundation.
I understand what you wrote as "you are trying to modify the whole while you're asked to modify only the particulars."
What you are missing is that it is impossible to question all foundations at once. I've tried to reason on it, and I can't, it's just not possible to do it. Let me explain: If it tried to question all foundations, then my foundation would become "question all previous foundations". However, since this is a foundation in itself, you are not questioning all foundations.
This doesn't seem right to me. Making one's own system of thoughts involves the re-thinking of all one has as thoughts and then thinking new thoughts. This task must be done bottom-to-top and in order of complexity. The most basic intuition seems to be an intuition of existence (one that you're trying to change into a solid statement) so the first thing to be re-thought is the meaning, validity and works of existence. For this re-thinking one can't rely on any other thoughts for they are yet-to-come thoughts that haven't been revised.
Exactly, and it is thus impossible to disprove existence! If re-thinking relies on other thoughts (which it obviously does) and you can't have had other thoughts without existing (as you've pointed out, in so many words), then you cannot really re-think your existence.
Re-thinking isn't a work on particulars, it's ought to alter the whole. Consqeuently, it's equal to re-inventing a "new" wheel, not a mistake between the rudimentary conecpt of a wheel and the much higher level concept of a combustion engine peculiar to a specific car.
That's what I've been saying you are not supposed to do. If you keep reinventing the wheel, then you'll never get to a car. Also, if you cannot work on any particular problem, without having to start form scratch, you will never solve any problem.
External references can only be used as helpers in explaining common or similar concepts, ie you can't point out Kant's idea on something and take that for a part of your system of thoughts but you may point at his idea and say "see, it's these points in common." It's obvious that similarities between two systems of thoughts one of which has gained public credit can't be held as an advantage for either of the systems.
I don't understand this. Do you mean that I can't use someone else's opinion to help create my own?
Let's have your word. The consequence: there's never been such thing as irrationality for there's never been actions without some sort of rationale behind them. And there's never been systems of thoughts without a supportive skeleton of "rationale," one way or the other.
You claim that Uncertainty leads to irrationality but then you claim that every order in the things can be considered a rationale and isn't included in irrationals list.
Yes, that's why Uncertainty (btw, I capitalize the first letter of "uncertainty" when I want it to mean "uncertainty of all things at once") is unusable, IMO.
Now, Uncertainty has its own order of things. This order may be comlicated or even too complicated to comprehend but it is there. To conclude, Uncertainty isn't irrationality or irrational.
Uncertainty does not have an order of things. If your uncertainty has an order to it, then it is not true Uncertainty.
If you like it that way I can say that Uncertainty isn't irrational but has it's own not-so-much-publicized rationale. Does that work?
No. It is, demonstrably, irrational and paradoxical (we've already shown this in previous posts).
I don't speak of paradox as another logical approach. I speak of it as the end to a "specific" form of logic. That which is a paradox in one logical system can be worked out simply in another system. The sight of a paradox isn't a dead-end. It's a call to change and a call to a new system. A paradox indicates that a logical system isn't even self-sufficient, let alone sufficient.
Which means that Uncertainty isn't sufficient, because it leads to paradox, right?
That's it. If you want to be fair in judging suppositions, first you have to be independent of them.
That, in itself, is a supposition. I have to get off-line now, but I hope you think about what I've written.
Until next time...
dr-dock
Apr25-03, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by RageSk8
I like "I think therefore I know"
-Stolen from Nagel in his characterization of Davidson.
yeah.this one is good.
by the way i'm means a lots of other things not just thinking.
let me put it this way:
i have 36 oC therefore i'm.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr26-03, 02:11 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I won’t discuss the proof anymore. You’re in harsh misunderstanding of it and I’ve done my best to clarify but have failed. I re-shape and re-explain the proof one more time, but I won’t discuss it until you show you’ve understood what I mean. I don’t mean for you to agree with it, I just want you to understand it and then say whatever you like. For one time only put aside all you think of the proof and read these lines, forget what we wrote before:
Take the statement “I think therefore I am” and call it Descartes’ statement and show it with Q. Now put this in the back of your mind. Put it away for later study. Don’t think about it for a moment.
Take the statement “There need be an I to think” and show it with P.
Since this proof is meant to be understood in Boolean logic framework, P may only assume one of these two states, T or F. I ask of you: “What state do you assign to P?” You may choose either T or F.
Now we come to study Q. We know nothing of its state because this is what we’re going to find out.
For P you have chosen either T or F.
If you’ve chosen P to be T, then you’ve pre-assumed truth for Q. P is independent of Q and you’ve chosen P to be true before we come to study Q, so you’ve pre-assumed truth for Q because Q is a corollary of P. In pre-assuming truth for Q and coming to study it after this pre-assumption you’ve made a circular deduction. You’ve first assumed Q is true then come to study it and then concluded, again, that Q is true. Circular deduction is non-informative and isn’t allowed in the framework of Boolean logic.
If you’ve chosen P to be F, then you’ve contradicted this pre-assumption with asserting that Q is true. If P is false then Q can’t be true so Q must be false, too. P being F and Q being T is a paradox and this isn’t allowed in the framework of Boolean logic.
Questions that may be asked concerning the proof:
00. How are P and Q related?
01. Why should I assign any state to P?
02. What if I want to study Q before assigning a state to P?
03. What does this whole mean?
04. Could this proof be applied to other statements?
Answers:
00. P and Q are semantically equal but logically independent. In the course of proof, they’re studied independently but then the results are synthesized and shown to be incompatible in a specific logical framework, namely Boolean logic.
01. For in a logical framework where only two states, true (T) or false (F), can be assigned to a statement, the state of any statement should be definitively determinable at any given time. Other logical frameworks, too, have this characteristic but they may incorporate additional/totally different states that make them more flexible and less vulnerable.
02. You can’t because even if you don’t assign a state to P it must have some state which is either T or F. No matter what the state for P is, it’s shown in the proof that either way will cause trouble.
03. Anyone can generate countless statements. These statements may be studied in countless logical systems, one of which is Boolean logic. The best logical system is the most consistent one, one that doesn’t contain any internal inconsistency. For this purpose the logical system must be able to synthesize and analyze all of the countless statements that can be generated without contradicting its own axioms. Out of countless statements two are chosen, P and Q. If a logical system is minimally consistent it must be, at least, able to synthesize these two statements. Boolean logic assumes an axiom that prohibits the collocation of contraries (which we call paradox) and the study of axioms or rather pre-assumed statements (which we call a loop, a circle or a self-referenced statement). In this proof it’s shown that Boolean logic is unable to synthesize these two statements although these two are valid statements (validity is not equal to truth, it means they’re really statements that can be assigned states).
04. Many other statements may be proven to be incompatible in the framework of Boolean logic.
And yet, to assertain the "fairness and sincerity" of that system, you need to look at it from outside that system. In doing so, you must make use of another system, whose "fairness and sincerity" you haven't determined. That’s right. Isn’t that another plus for Uncertainty? Since no system of thoughts can be shown fair and sincere without being committed to another or the same system of thoughts, one must always be aware of distortions in the judgment. Wouldn’t it be the fairest to be uncertain of everything? Being uncertain is just another way of thinking, the most general one.
I'll tell you the root of these desires: survival. Humans would not have survived this long, if they hadn't used "practicality" and "progressive knowledge". Now, they are safe enough to question, but the "roots" are now deeply engrained. Survival exists in the scientific Universe, it needn’t exist anywhere else. The struggle for survival has been scientifically observed in the nature. To say the root of desires is survival is equal to saying that there’s the nature, that it can be observed, that these observations can be concluded from and that the certain conclusion is the struggle for survival. This doesn’t seem to be much of Philosophy.
You can’t make any scientific claim in a realm beyond and over Science. Philosophy may study Science but Science may not get involved in Philosophy. Philosophy is meant as the study of anything and everything using all possible tools while Science is the study of a certain realm of knowledge with specific methodic tools.
This sounds like wuliheron's reasoning, and I only partially agree. I think that some uncertainty can accomplish this purpose, but full Uncertainty just robs you of any progressive knowledge, and thus you get "stuck". You tend to mention that “progressive knowledge,” too much. Perhaps I like it, too, but it won’t prevent me from seeing clearly that sticking to “progressive knowledge” may be as bad as “getting stuck.”
Let’s have your word and “suppose,” only “suppose,” that one will “get stuck” in Uncertainty. I just don’t see the problem with that. You may hate “getting stuck” but that’s your emotional state of mind, it may not enter this discussion.
I don't get this. You are saying, "I have an answer", then you say "My answer is paradoxical". What is supposed to incline me toward listening to this "answer"? Nothing. Absolutely nothing can incline you, or anyone else, towards listening to anything. One’s inclinations lie deep in the dark labyrinth of one’s mind. There’s as much rationale behind your preference of “progressive knowledge” to “Uncertainty,” as there’s behind your preference of, say, McDonald’s fast food to fish and chips.
You may be inclined towards inquisitiveness and like to see other options. One such option that you’re offered is Uncertainty. You aren’t obliged to accept it, you aren’t even invited to take a look at it but you’ve come to, at least, flash past it once. What makes you choose something over the other is unknown to me, and I guess it’s unknown to you as well. I, too, have no idea what drives me towards choosing something.
A solid mountain of logic or an ocean of emotion or a blinding lightning of power, when applied from outside of you won’t change your mind. However, the slightest breeze of logic, emotion or power blowing “in” your mind may become a critical point to your life.
But, this "information" (of his/her non-existence) cannot be true, otherwise who would you be "informing" (Descartes' reasoning again)? I’d be informing the “non-existing one.” Your system of thoughts doesn’t allow such thing, mine does. It’s up to you to fairly decide if a change is necessary somewhere.
… and that everything can be questioned, but in turns. You must take some things for granted while questioning others, and then later question the things that you previously took for granted, while taking the previous uncertainties as now certain. You just shouldn't be uncertain of all things at once… I want to emphasize these words of yours. You say I “must” do this, you say I “should” do that, where do you take these from? These “must” and “should” of yours aren’t of our points of agreement in this discussion.
Once again, if my knowledge is a coherent structure the truth of every part of it will directly result in the truth of other parts of it. Now if I question things in turn, I’ll always be taking something for granted. That something will be part of this coherent structure so it will always prove other parts true. Nothing will change if I do that. Is that all with fair questioning? I question but go back to where I was? My saying “everything happens in loops” is much similar to this. Isn’t it?
Even worse (from you point of view), is that every part of my knowledge is an assertion of other parts. Now if I take some part for granted, I’ll be asserting the truth of other parts and then getting into showing their truth. Isn’t that self-reference come back again?
This reasoning isn't just for questioning foundations, but for questioning new assumptions/speculations, as well.
What you are missing is that it is impossible to question all foundations at once. I've tried to reason on it, and I can't, it's just not possible to do it... I understand this but I don’t view it like you do. You’re assessing these situations according to your own priorities. You say paradoxes, self-reference, dead-ends and “getting stuck” are the results of being as fair as one can (that “fairness” is Uncertainty), and then insist one would better be a bit less fair but gain something worth that much effort put into many years of thinking.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Apr26-03, 02:14 PM
... continued from the previous post
You have your choice but then I’m also interested in Certainty just as much as I’m interested in Uncertainty. In spite of this interest I don’t assess those situations, assessed by you as “must-be-avoided,” as “must-be-avoided” but as “must-be-thought-of.”
Those situations are inevitable whenever one’s trying to use an encompassing logical system (see Gödel’s Theorem, I’m not much into it but I know a bit about it). Think about them and think why you think they must be avoided.
Exactly, and it is thus impossible to disprove existence! If re-thinking relies on other thoughts (which it obviously does) and you can't have had other thoughts without existing (as you've pointed out, in so many words), then you cannot really re-think your existence. I didn’t mean you have to exist to think. I “only” said that re-thinking “existence” as “the most basic intuition” when done in a “bottom-to-top” manner must occur independent of any other thoughts. One such thought is “there should be an entity if an entity is thinking.”
However, there’s something good with your words. I’ve never said it is possible to disprove existence, I only said it is impossible to prove it. These two are complementary sides of one thing, that one thing being Uncertainty. If one’s uncertain of one’s existence, one wouldn’t be thinking one exists, one wouldn’t also be thinking one doesn’t exist.
That's what I've been saying you are not supposed to do. If you keep reinventing the wheel, then you'll never get to a car. Also, if you cannot work on any particular problem, without having to start form scratch, you will never solve any problem. You like it the practical way. I won’t give up fairness for practicality. I haven’t come to solve a problem. I haven’t come to help the human species. I haven’t come to take something out of this. I want to build my own way of thought and for that purpose I’ll be scrutinizing every bit of every bit.
I’m doing it from scratch for I want to have it cleansed. Others seem to have introduced a hell of a lot of their own obsessions and absolute rubbish into the field. Even though there’ve surely been a few whose speech deserves reverence.
I don't understand this. Do you mean that I can't use someone else's opinion to help create my own? You can but you can’t take their validity and/or truth for granted. You have to question them and take them apart to see if they’re valid and/or true in the context for/in which you’re going to use them.
Uncertainty does not have an order of things. If your uncertainty has an order to it, then it is not true Uncertainty. The order of things in Uncertainty is their being uncertain and their being equally creditable.
No. It is, demonstrably, irrational and paradoxical (we've already shown this in previous posts). Paradox and irrationality aren’t synonyms. Paradoxes are the brinks of rationality; they’re as much rational as they’re irrational.
… I have to get off-line now, but I hope you think about what I've written. I seem to have thought about them [;)].
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For [b]Mentat:
I won’t discuss the proof anymore. You’re in harsh misunderstanding of it and I’ve done my best to clarify but have failed. I re-shape and re-explain the proof one more time, but I won’t discuss it until you show you’ve understood what I mean. I don’t mean for you to agree with it, I just want you to understand it and then say whatever you like.
I had a pretty good understanding of what you were trying to say. My problem was that I couldn't make it "fit" the statement, "I think therefore I am".
Oh well, I don't think it was applicable anyway, so I'm glad enough to move on without it.
For one time only put aside all you think of the proof and read these lines, forget what we wrote before:
Take the statement “I think therefore I am” and call it Descartes’ statement and show it with Q. Now put this in the back of your mind. Put it away for later study. Don’t think about it for a moment.
Take the statement “There need be an I to think” and show it with P.
Just so long as you don't think that I ever implied proposition P. I never did. I said (and this is important): There need be an I for 'I' to think". The distinction being, obviously, the reference to the entity doing the thinking.
Since this proof is meant to be understood in Boolean logic framework, P may only assume one of these two states, T or F. I ask of you: “What state do you assign to P?” You may choose either T or F.
Rephrased as "There need be an I, for 'I' to think" - I say it is true.
Now we come to study Q. We know nothing of its state because this is what we’re going to find out.
For P you have chosen either T or F.
If you’ve chosen P to be T, then you’ve pre-assumed truth for Q. P is independent of Q and you’ve chosen P to be true before we come to study Q, so you’ve pre-assumed truth for Q because Q is a corollary of P. In pre-assuming truth for Q and coming to study it after this pre-assumption you’ve made a circular deduction. You’ve first assumed Q is true then come to study it and then concluded, again, that Q is true. Circular deduction is non-informative and isn’t allowed in the framework of Boolean logic.
Wait a minute now. I said "P" was true, not "Q". Yes, I may be implying it, but that's just because Q inevitably follows P (as you've said). I was not even considering Q, because you told me not to.
If you’ve chosen P to be F, then you’ve contradicted this pre-assumption with asserting that Q is true. If P is false then Q can’t be true so Q must be false, too. P being F and Q being T is a paradox and this isn’t allowed in the framework of Boolean logic.
Questions that may be asked concerning the proof:
00. How are P and Q related?
01. Why should I assign any state to P?
02. What if I want to study Q before assigning a state to P?
03. What does this whole mean?
04. Could this proof be applied to other statements?
Answers:
00. P and Q are semantically equal but logically independent. In the course of proof, they’re studied independently but then the results are synthesized and shown to be incompatible in a specific logical framework, namely Boolean logic.
You didn't show them incompatible. You just showed that if P is true, then Q must be, what's wrong with that?
Besides, your proposition "P" is not the same as any of the propositions that I have made (as I've shown above, it (P) requires some adjustment before it becomes one of my postulates). I don't agree with: "There need be an I to think", but I do agree with: "There need be an I, for 'I' to think".
02. You can’t because even if you don’t assign a state to P it must have some state which is either T or F. No matter what the state for P is, it’s shown in the proof that either way will cause trouble.
No, you just showed that calling it false could be problematic, and I tend to agree.
04. Many other statements may be proven to be incompatible in the framework of Boolean logic.
That’s right. Isn’t that another plus for Uncertainty? Since no system of thoughts can be shown fair and sincere without being committed to another or the same system of thoughts, one must always be aware of distortions in the judgment. Wouldn’t it be the fairest to be uncertain of everything? Being uncertain is just another way of thinking, the most general one.
Has the paradox of trying to be completely Uncertain gone over your head, or are you just ignoring it?
Survival exists in the scientific Universe, it needn’t exist anywhere else. The struggle for survival has been scientifically observed in the nature. To say the root of desires is survival is equal to saying that there’s the nature, that it can be observed, that these observations can be concluded from and that the certain conclusion is the struggle for survival. This doesn’t seem to be much of Philosophy.
You forget, Science is a branch of Philosophy. Thus, any Scientific claims that I make, can be considered Philosophical.
You can’t make any scientific claim in a realm beyond and over Science. Philosophy may study Science but Science may not get involved in Philosophy. Philosophy is meant as the study of anything and everything using all possible tools while Science is the study of a certain realm of knowledge with specific methodic tools.
Science is one of the tools that Philosophy uses.
You tend to mention that “progressive knowledge,” too much. Perhaps I like it, too, but it won’t prevent me from seeing clearly that sticking to “progressive knowledge” may be as bad as “getting stuck.”
It may be, but the human race (and other animal races) seem to have a greater chance of surviving, if they progress in knowledge and understanding.
Also, you seem to like Philosophy. In case you haven't heard this before, Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom. Wisdom is applied Knowledge. Thus you cannot Philosophize without taking in knowledge, can you?
Let’s have your word and “suppose,” only “suppose,” that one will “get stuck” in Uncertainty. I just don’t see the problem with that. You may hate “getting stuck” but that’s your emotional state of mind, it may not enter this discussion.
No, it's not that I have a problem with getting stuck, it's that Uncertainty is not just "sticky", it's unusable. With paradox at it's very heart, it's impossible to use it in any way. In fact, it can be (and has been, by me) argued that it is impossible to completely Uncertain.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing can incline you, or anyone else, towards listening to anything. One’s inclinations lie deep in the dark labyrinth of one’s mind. There’s as much rationale behind your preference of “progressive knowledge” to “Uncertainty,” as there’s behind your preference of, say, McDonald’s fast food to fish and chips.
Didn't I already show that Uncertainty is inherently irrational? If so, then isn't it obvious that there can be no "rationale" to Uncertainty, while there is some to "progressive knowledge"? If so, then my choice is rather a bit more justified then my choice of Pizza Hut (one of my personal favorite restaurants), to Little Ceasers (who also makes good pizza, but not as good IMO [:)]).
You may be inclined towards inquisitiveness and like to see other options. One such option that you’re offered is Uncertainty. You aren’t obliged to accept it, you aren’t even invited to take a look at it but you’ve come to, at least, flash past it once. What makes you choose something over the other is unknown to me, and I guess it’s unknown to you as well. I, too, have no idea what drives me towards choosing something.
I don't know either. You know, It's interesting enough to point out that the fact that you can settle on Uncertainty, means that you aren't truly Uncertain.
I’d be informing the “non-existing one.” Your system of thoughts doesn’t allow such thing, mine does.
Then why do you still refer to "it" as "the non-existing one?
Once again, if my knowledge is a coherent structure the truth of every part of it will directly result in the truth of other parts of it. Now if I question things in turn, I’ll always be taking something for granted. That something will be part of this coherent structure so it will always prove other parts true. Nothing will change if I do that. Is that all with fair questioning? I question but go back to where I was? My saying “everything happens in loops” is much similar to this. Isn’t it?
And yet this reasoning only applies to questioning your foundations.
Even worse (from you point of view), is that every part of my knowledge is an assertion of other parts. Now if I take some part for granted, I’ll be asserting the truth of other parts and then getting into showing their truth. Isn’t that self-reference come back again?
I understand this but I don’t view it like you do. You’re assessing these situations according to your own priorities. You say paradoxes, self-reference, dead-ends and “getting stuck” are the results of being as fair as one can (that “fairness” is Uncertainty), and then insist one would better be a bit less fair but gain something worth that much effort put into many years of thinking.
Fairness and Uncertainty (please notice the capitalized "U") are not the same thing. Uncertainty requires a bias also. (Of course, that bias is just the bias of trying to be unbiased...which is a paradoxical concept of the same type as the Paradox of Limitlessness).
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Those situations are inevitable whenever one’s trying to use an encompassing logical system (see Gödel’s Theorem, I’m not much into it but I know a bit about it). Think about them and think why you think they must be avoided.
I didn’t mean you have to exist to think. I “only” said that re-thinking “existence” as “the most basic intuition” when done in a “bottom-to-top” manner must occur independent of any other thoughts. One such thought is “there should be an entity if an entity is thinking.”
But who is doing the reasoning then? The thought that there should be an entity if an entity is thinking, can be taken apart into it's two parts ("there should be an entity", and "an entity is thinking"), the second of which is composed of two propositions, one of which is "there is an entity". Oh well, I've already said this same thing before, and I still haven't gotten a good response, on this particular point.
However, there’s something good with your words. I’ve never said it is possible to disprove existence, I only said it is impossible to prove it. These two are complementary sides of one thing, that one thing being Uncertainty. If one’s uncertain of one’s existence, one wouldn’t be thinking one exists, one wouldn’t also be thinking one doesn’t exist.
You like it the practical way. I won’t give up fairness for practicality. I haven’t come to solve a problem. I haven’t come to help the human species. I haven’t come to take something out of this. I want to build my own way of thought and for that purpose I’ll be scrutinizing every bit of every bit.
I’m doing it from scratch for I want to have it cleansed. Others seem to have introduced a hell of a lot of their own obsessions and absolute rubbish into the field. Even though there’ve surely been a few whose speech deserves reverence.
You can but you can’t take their validity and/or truth for granted. You have to question them and take them apart to see if they’re valid and/or true in the context for/in which you’re going to use them.
The order of things in Uncertainty is their being uncertain and their being equally creditable.
Paradox and irrationality aren’t synonyms. Paradoxes are the brinks of rationality; they’re as much rational as they’re irrational.
I would respond to this whole quote, but I don't have time. I think you make some excellent points, and some that I don't agree with, especially to do with Uncertainty. However, let me draw your attention to your last sentence. You see, I believe you are wrong about Paradox. They may be the brinks of rationality, but that means that they are still in "irrational" territory. Besides, I don't see them as the brinks of rationality, so much as they are the end of one line of reasoning, and thus - when pursued - can easily lead one to irrationality.
Manuel_Silvio
Apr27-03, 07:17 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I had a pretty good understanding of what you were trying to say. My problem was that I couldn't make it "fit" the statement, "I think therefore I am".
Oh well, I don't think it was applicable anyway, so I'm glad enough to move on without it.
No, unfortunately you don't seem to have a phantom of a shadow of having understood this proof. Your following sentences show this. And it's me who must be assured that you've understood the proof for you yourself are always sure you've understood the whole thing.
Please don't be glad. I'm not moving on without it, I only suspend it until you get the point. If you don't the entire discussion has been pointless. Here are my last words on this proof.
Just so long as you don't think that I ever implied proposition P. I never did. I said (and this is important): There need be an I for 'I' to think". The distinction being, obviously, the reference to the entity doing the thinking.
I didn't say you implied it. I proposed it. The proof doesn't care who's proposed this statement.
Rephrased as "There need be an I, for 'I' to think" - I say it is true.You may not rephrase it. It’s my statement. I propose a specific statement and ask of you of its state. I'm not interested in any statements you may think are equal to that statement.
Wait a minute now. I said "P" was true, not "Q". Yes, I may be implying it, but that's just because Q inevitably follows P (as you've said). I was not even considering Q, because you told me not to.This is logic. P and Q are independent but I may derive Q's state from the state you assigned to Q. I asked you not to consider Q in order to take care of this independence but the logical system can be used at any time to derive and conclude. That's why I say P and Q show inconsistency in Boolean logic. I use the rules and never break them but I arrive at a forbidden point.
You didn't show them incompatible. You just showed that if P is true, then Q must be, what's wrong with that? I showed. That P's truth will result in Q's truth is taken from your premise that "for an entity to think there must be an entity," it doesn't relate to this proof. The proof shows that whatever state has been chosen for P, either T or F, P and Q together lead into either a loop or a paradox.
Besides, your proposition "P" is not the same as any of the propositions that I have made ... I don't agree with: "There need be an I to think", but I do agree with: "There need be an I, for 'I' to think".See, it isn't important which state your choose for P. You may agree or disagree with it. The point in this proof is that no matter you agree or disagree with P, it will cause trouble. And for Boolean logic you must either agree or disagree with P, you can't postpone or suspend judgment. This is the vulnerability I'm talking of. P can't be suspended to be judged after Q has been judged. They must be judged at one time and this coincidence causes trouble.
P needn't be one of your premises. It's only a statement and for every given statement you have to be able to definitely determine its state, if you claim consistency in Boolean logic.
No, you just showed that calling it false could be problematic, and I tend to agree.I also showed calling it true will be problematic. How then you ask? If you call it true you've slipped into pre-assuming an assertion of what you're just going to prove, the other statement, Q.
Has the paradox of trying to be completely Uncertain gone over your head, or are you just ignoring it?Being uncertain isn't absolutely fair but it's relatively fairer than any other stance. This relative fairness in comparison to other stances is what I call a plus for Uncertainty.
Being uncertain requires no assumption but "nothing is certain."
You forget, Science is a branch of Philosophy. Thus, any Scientific claims that I make, can be considered Philosophical.
Science is one of the tools that Philosophy uses.
It may be, but the human race (and other animal races) seem to have a greater chance of surviving, if they progress in knowledge and understanding.
Also, you seem to like Philosophy. In case you haven't heard this before, Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom. Wisdom is applied Knowledge. Thus you cannot Philosophize without taking in knowledge, can you?
If Science is a branch of Philosophy, it can be seen as Philosophy's subset. A subset has all its members contained in its superset but it doesn't contain all of the superset's members. Hence Philosophy may embrace non-scientific or even anti-scientific claims, which means scientific claims don't qualify for assessing philosophical claims. Philosophy is simply "over" Science.
Philosophy may study Science and scientific tools but it may not use Science as a tool. Using Science as a tool to assess/evaluate/judge will result in all scientific claims being approved and all non-scientific ones disapproved. It also limits the borders of Philosophy to Science.
And I don't like your way of talking the words, Philosophy, Wisdom and applied Wisdom. "Survival" is a piece of knowledge from scientific Universe; it may not be mixed with philosophical thought.
Philosophy is the study of human situation in all of its aspects. Philosophy must use tools independent of specific viewpoints, Science for example, in order to avoid confirming those viewpoints with their own tools. It's obvious that Science will seem consistent viewed by its own tools and premises. Philosophy must study Science and other ways of viewing the Universe from their outside.
No, it's not that I have a problem with getting stuck, it's that Uncertainty is not just "sticky", it's unusable... Let's suppose, only suppose, that Uncertainty is unusable. What's the problem with that? Suppose we've tried to study human situation and we've come to this unusable concept, is there a problem with that?
You may argue that total Uncertainty is impossible and I may "perhaps" accept that. In which logical framework has this happened? Boolean logic. Aren't there any other logical systems? There are. You must prove this for all logical systems and now this is impossible.
Didn't I already show that Uncertainty is inherently irrational? If so, then isn't it obvious that there can be no "rationale" to Uncertainty, while there is some to "progressive knowledge"?...You didn't show for I wrote of the order of things in Uncertainty and you accepted that every order may be considered rationale.
Even if we suppose, only suppose, Uncertainty is irrational, nothing is more "justified." Why do you think rationalization can distinguish one idea among others, that a rational idea is "better" than an irrational one?
You know, It's interesting enough to point out that the fact that you can settle on Uncertainty, means that you aren't truly Uncertain.For me, Uncertainty is only one step in a way. I don't settle on it. I take this step and then come new understandings. You view my stance as an aggressive attempt to Certainty about Uncertainty while it actually isn't that way. My way is another between-the-lines hint. Try to see the hint, between the lines, don't struggle to break the lines up, they aren't worth the effort.
Then why do you still refer to "it" as "the non-existing one?
"It" may include and refer to the "non-existing" ones as well as the "existing" ones.
And yet this reasoning only applies to questioning your foundations.Accept it for the foundations. Extend it to all knowledge for every piece of knowledge may be taken as an equally creditable foundation.
... Uncertainty requires a bias also...Yes, it is. Yet it's the fairest bias.
But who is doing the reasoning then? The thought that there should be an entity if an entity is thinking, can be taken apart into it's two parts ... the second of which is composed of two propositions, one of which is "there is an entity"...The non-existing one. See, I understand what you mean. You say "thinking" is so firmly in correspondence with "existing" (by the bond of Causality, that there must be a doer for a deed to be) that any form of "thinking" (eg, thinking about non-existence) can be an undeniable indication of "existing." I doubted that bond of Causality and talked of it being broken and its substitutes. Did you take this into account? If you avoid relying on Causality then a deed will no more be an undeniable indication of a doer, be the deed reasoning, thinking, eating, whatever.
Once again, I suggest you take a look at Gödel’s Theorem. Many things will be clear then.
... They may be the brinks of rationality, but that means that they are still in "irrational" territory. Besides, I don't see them as the brinks of rationality, so much as they are the end of one line of reasoning, and thus - when pursued - can easily lead one to irrationality.Let's see how you come to a paradox. A paradox is reached when you start out with valid premises, use valid rules of deduction but you end with an invalid result (the collocation of contraries). Everything in here is rational. It's rationalization come to a brink for only rationality may have brinks. Irrationality may even be "limitless" for it's irrational, where your argument of "limitlessness" no more works.
Paradox lies on the border of rationality and irrationality. You come to a paradox after some lines of reasoning and then you "may" bypass it into irrationality. You stop at the sight of a paradox, that's what you do. You won't go on after a paradox and that's exactly why it's the brink of rationality. You reach the border and you don't want to step into irrationality so you'll take aback for a while and then try to find another way.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
No, unfortunately you don't seem to have a phantom of a shadow of having understood this proof. Your following sentences show this. And it's me who must be assured that you've understood the proof for you yourself are always sure you've understood the whole thing.
Truth be told, I haven't made all that much effort to understand the proof, as you have yet to show me how it "fits" Descartes' statement. It still doesn't appear to.
Please don't be glad. I'm not moving on without it, I only suspend it until you get the point. If you don't the entire discussion has been pointless.
Only because you have placed so much emphasis on a proof that doesn't have anything to do with Descartes' statement. If you would argue the statement itself, I would not declare anything you said to be irrelevant.
I didn't say you implied it. I proposed it. The proof doesn't care who's proposed this statement.
No, I know, but then this statement would just be a random statement, designed for proving that Boolean Logic was inconsistent, but not designed to attack the statement in any way.
It now becomes apparent (please correct me if I'm wrong) that that's what you've been doing this entire time. You've just been trying to prove that Boolean Logic is inconsistent, while still claiming ultimate Uncertainty. This is obviously also contradictory, as you've said that Uncertainty is fair to all systems.
This is logic. P and Q are independent but I may derive Q's state from the state you assigned to Q. I asked you not to consider Q in order to take care of this independence but the logical system can be used at any time to derive and conclude. That's why I say P and Q show inconsistency in Boolean logic. I use the rules and never break them but I arrive at a forbidden point.
I'm sorry, I really do not see it. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I can't see anything wrong with one proposition's implying another.
I showed. That P's truth will result in Q's truth is taken from your premise that "for an entity to think there must be an entity," it doesn't relate to this proof. The proof shows that whatever state has been chosen for P, either T or F, P and Q together lead into either a loop or a paradox.
Where is the paradox?
See, it isn't important which state your choose for P. You may agree or disagree with it. The point in this proof is that no matter you agree or disagree with P, it will cause trouble. And for Boolean logic you must either agree or disagree with P, you can't postpone or suspend judgment. This is the vulnerability I'm talking of. P can't be suspended to be judged after Q has been judged. They must be judged at one time and this coincidence causes trouble.
Why? There coincidence means that they are inter-related. So? What's wrong with that? Is there some proposition of Boolean Logic that states that there can be no two inter-related propositions?
P needn't be one of your premises. It's only a statement and for every given statement you have to be able to definitely determine its state, if you claim consistency in Boolean logic.
I understand. Please forgive my past attempts to show that it didn't apply to Descartes' statement. It's obvious that you didn't care about Descartes' statement, but were trying to show an inconsistency with Boolean Logic as a whole. That's what the P() analogy was for too, wasn't it? While I still don't see the inconsistency caused by these proofs, I do see that that's all you were trying to show (inconsistency in Boolean Logic).
I also showed calling it true will be problematic. How then you ask? If you call it true you've slipped into pre-assuming an assertion of what you're just going to prove, the other statement, Q.
So? In deciding that P is true, I pre-suppose that another (very related) statement is also true. So what?
For example, if I say "I'm alive" = proposition P. Then I say that propostion Q = "I exist". Taking "P" to be true necessitates that I pre-suppose the truth of "Q" - but what's wrong with that?
Being uncertain requires no assumption but "nothing is certain."
Yes, and that would be an assumption, wouldn't it? If that is an assumption, then Uncertainty is not entirely free of assumptions, is it? However, if the one assumption that it has is "there are no assumptions", then it must both have and not have any assumptions...this is a paradox/self-contradictory idea, just like limitlessness.
Philosophy may study Science and scientific tools but it may not use Science as a tool. Using Science as a tool to assess/evaluate/judge will result in all scientific claims being approved and all non-scientific ones disapproved. It also limits the borders of Philosophy to Science.
Not necessarily. Let's say that Philosophy makes use of both religious philosophy, and nihilism. So what if they contradict each other? They are still both important Philosophies. Neither of them limit Philosophy, they simply provide structures - within the realm of Philosophy - for different kinds of people to form their opinions in.
Let's suppose, only suppose, that Uncertainty is unusable. What's the problem with that? Suppose we've tried to study human situation and we've come to this unusable concept, is there a problem with that?
You have called Uncertainty "fair", "more reliable then certainty", "better conclusion", etc... . If Uncertainty is unusable, then none of these terms apply to it.
You may argue that total Uncertainty is impossible and I may "perhaps" accept that. In which logical framework has this happened? Boolean logic. Aren't there any other logical systems? There are. You must prove this for all logical systems and now this is impossible.
Why do you ask me to do something that you know very well is impossible? Different logic systems often contradict each other directly. That means that no one can use all of them to prove something, at the same time.
You didn't show for I wrote of the order of things in Uncertainty and you accepted that every order may be considered rationale.
There is no order of things in true Uncertainty. You have shown the rationale (by my definition) of uncertainty, but not of Uncertainty.
Even if we suppose, only suppose, Uncertainty is irrational, nothing is more "justified." Why do you think rationalization can distinguish one idea among others, that a rational idea is "better" than an irrational one?
You think so too, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to assign a rationale to Uncertainty.
"It" may include and refer to the "non-existing" ones as well as the "existing" ones.
"It" may not include "non-existing" [b]ones. In speaking of specific "ones" you imply their existence, at least in a conceptual manner.
Yes, it is. Yet it's the fairest bias.
No it's not, because it denies all other biases. At least Science allows for some of the things that it finds/theorizes to be wrong. Uncertainty has only one premise, and that is that there can be no premises (which doesn't allow for any of the other fields of study to be correct). How is that fair?
The non-existing one. See, I understand what you mean. You say "thinking" is so firmly in correspondence with "existing" (by the bond of Causality, that there must be a doer for a deed to be) that any form of "thinking" (eg, thinking about non-existence) can be an undeniable indication of "existing." I doubted that bond of Causality and talked of it being broken and its substitutes. Did you take this into account? If you avoid relying on Causality then a deed will no more be an undeniable indication of a doer, be the deed reasoning, thinking, eating, whatever.
I took your "substitutions" into account. As it turns out, they all rely on Causality anyway. Or at least it appears that way to me. For example, the inter-relationship between two "Quantum-bound electrons"; the reaction is instantaneous, and thus neither of the two can be considered the "cause". However, the "observer" can be considered the "cause", and without him/her, there would be no effect (the change of spin of the two electrons).
Let's see how you come to a paradox. A paradox is reached when you start out with valid premises, use valid rules of deduction but you end with an invalid result (the collocation of contraries). Everything in here is rational. It's rationalization come to a brink for only rationality may have brinks. Irrationality may even be "limitless" for it's irrational, where your argument of "limitlessness" no more works.
Paradox lies on the border of rationality and irrationality. You come to a paradox after some lines of reasoning and then you "may" bypass it into irrationality. You stop at the sight of a paradox, that's what you do. You won't go on after a paradox and that's exactly why it's the brink of rationality. You reach the border and you don't want to step into irrationality so you'll take aback for a while and then try to find another way.
Yes, and that's what so many logicians/philosophers/scientists/mathematicians/etc... have done in the past. When they come to a paradox, they realize that there must be some flaw in the particular line of reasoning that they've been following, and they abandon it in search of a better one.
Lifegazer
Apr27-03, 03:25 PM
As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'.
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is.
Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that I think, therefore I am.
Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
As I see it, 'thinking' is how existence is assertained - along with 'sensation-of-awareness'. Thus thinking is the source of knowing that 'existence is'.
Therefore, it can definitely be claimed that 'thought' is evidence of existence. Since it is.
Therefore, since am-ness equates to existence, we can definitely say that I think, therefore I am.
Descartes was correct I think, about this. The only talking-point is the meaning of 'I'. "Who exactly am I?", is the only thing left to ponder.
So Descartes' reasoning applies, whether there is anything other than the Mind's thoughts, or not, right?
Good point, lifegazer.
Lifegazer
Apr27-03, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
So Descartes' reasoning applies, whether there is anything other than the Mind's thoughts, or not, right?
I claim to be a rationalist too. I don't know alot about Descartes, though I understand that his statement "I think, therefore I am." is rationally correct. Though like I say, the question of "Who am I?" is left untouched. By Descartes, anyway.[;)]
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I claim to be a rationalist too. I don't know alot about Descartes, though I understand that his statement "I think, therefore I am." is rationally correct. Though like I say, the question of "Who am I?" is left untouched. By Descartes, anyway.[;)]
That's very true, at least as far as I've read from his Philosophies.
Lifegazer
Apr27-03, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
That's very true, at least as far as I've read from his Philosophies.
You surprise me. Do you realise that Descartes' axiom puts you within touching-distance of my own personal mind-hypothesis? I'm not asking you to discuss my hypothesis - I'm just 'shocked' (pardon the exaggeration) at your responses here.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You surprise me. Do you realise that Descartes' axiom puts you within touching-distance of my own personal mind-hypothesis? I'm not asking you to discuss my hypothesis - I'm just 'shocked' (pardon the exaggeration) at your responses here.
I've always agreed with some of the points of your idea. I just don't agree with the premise/conclusion (there really should be a word for a premise that is also a conclusion). You are probably correct that we can't get information without the use of the "senses". And perhaps even correct that we can thus never prove the existence of an external reality. I just don't agree with your alternative.
Besides, even if I fully agreed with you, I would probably still present an argument against you [;)]. That's just the kind of person I am: The true Devil's Advocate [:))].
Lifegazer
Apr28-03, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I've always agreed with some of the points of your idea. I just don't agree with the premise/conclusion (there really should be a word for a premise that is also a conclusion).
My premise builds upon sensation & thought. The conclusion about God is not the same as the opening-premise.
Besides, even if I fully agreed with you, I would probably still present an argument against you [;)]. That's just the kind of person I am: The true Devil's Advocate [:))].
There's nothing wrong with that. But you should apply the same challenges to your own philosophies. Never close your mind to anything that you cannot disprove.
Originally posted by Lifegazer
There's nothing wrong with that. But you should apply the same challenges to your own philosophies. Never close your mind to anything that you cannot disprove.
Good point. I do try to apply my Devil's Advocate mentality to my own philosophies. I don't, however, type my contradictions to my own philosophy on the Forums (unless other people aren't making any worthy attempt to contradict it, in which case I decide to give them something to work off of, but this is rare).
Manuel_Silvio
Apr30-03, 03:52 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Apologies for the delay.
Truth be told, I haven't made all that much effort to understand the proof, as you have yet to show me how it "fits" Descartes' statement. It still doesn't appear to.How could you say that if you still haven't understood what it's talking about?
I explained many times the reason I think that proof applies, just look around the posts. Did you counter my reasons?
Only because you have placed so much emphasis on a proof that doesn't have anything to do with Descartes' statement. If you would argue the statement itself, I would not declare anything you said to be irrelevant.It was/is relevant. Only because you place so much emphasis on a stance that doesn't have anything to do with my proof doesn't mean you've shown it's irrelevant.
... but then this statement would just be a random statement, designed for proving that Boolean Logic was inconsistent, but not designed to attack the statement in any way.
... You've just been trying to prove that Boolean Logic is inconsistent, while still claiming ultimate Uncertainty. This is obviously also contradictory, as you've said that Uncertainty is fair to all systems.
... It's obvious that you didn't care about Descartes' statement, but were trying to show an inconsistency with Boolean Logic as a whole. That's what the P([bleep]) analogy was for too, wasn't it?...First, you're right. I've been trying to show the inconsistency but there's a specific place where the inconsistency occurs and that's when statements like "I think therefore I am" are studied. This shows an incompatibility between this statement and the viewpoint from which it's meant to be seen.
My statement, P, isn't random. If it was then I needn't even mention it. It's a statement engineered to suit your "I think therefore I am." If you had another statement, which fell in the category of statements that I think are incompatible with Boolean logic then I'd have made P different.
Like I wrote before, Descartes' statement isn't intrinsically problematic. Problems rise when this statement is viewed in a specific logical framework.
Uncertainty's fairness doesn't mean that it can't detect inconsistencies of knowledge structures. Uncertainty is fair in the sense that it lets one see inconsistencies that wouldn't be seen if the knowledge structure isn't doubted. To study a knowledge body you have to live outside that body, and then observe it. Uncertainty provides this "living outside." It lets one doubt the principles and that's why it's fair. It's worth noting that Uncertainty won't give an evaluation system by which to rank knowledge bodies, it only shows (or is meant to show) their status quo, show them as they are not as they're seen from inside. Uncertainty won't prefer one idea over the other but it enables its user to see that one idea is consistent while the other one isn't. It should be clear that inconsistency is only an attribute of a knowledge body, not a means of preference or else.
I'm sorry, I really do not see it. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I can't see anything wrong with one proposition's implying another.It isn't a simple implication; it's pre-assumption. This situation is similar to that you say: "I must live for living is an obligation." By saying "living is an obligation," you've already assumed you have to live, consequently deducing that "I must live" is logically incorrect (if you're bound to Boolean logic).
You may pre-assume something and then prove it, apparently, true. For me, there's no real problem with this, except that it's circular reasoning and it's non-informative.
Where is the paradox?If you say "P is T and Q is T" you've gone the way of circular reasoning. If you say "P is F and Q is T" then you've made paradox because P is an assertion of Q and may not be F when Q is considered T.
One way to overcome this loop and this paradox is to say "P is F and Q is F." Q and its assertion, P, can be simultaneously wrong without causing any trouble. The only problem is that you insist that Q is T.
Why? There coincidence means that they are inter-related. So? What's wrong with that? Is there some proposition of Boolean Logic that states that there can be no two inter-related propositions?No, but circular reasoning is forbidden (for you, of course). An assertion of Q, that is P, may not be assumed T when one is about to study Q's state. If Q is pre-assumed T then there's no need for studying it.
P may not be set T but it also must have a definite state and what remains is F, and P set as F will lead to paradox. Only if there was a third state like "null" then P could be assumed "null" while Q was being studied and then set to whatever suitable state. Such suspension is impossible in the framework of Boolean logic.
For example, if I say "I'm alive" = proposition P. Then I say that propostion Q = "I exist". Taking "P" to be true necessitates that I pre-suppose the truth of "Q" - but what's wrong with that?If you pre-suppose the truth of Q then there's no point in discussing if Q is true for its truth is your premise. Q must be kept "untouched" before it's studied thoroughly and during the time it's being studied. If Q's state is pre-supposed then the outcome of every study or discussion of Q will not result in a state for Q that's different from that pre-supposition.
You surely know of Vienna Circle and their "verifiability criterion." In analogy to that "verifiability criterion" (ie, "that which can't be verified may not be claimed"), one can say "that which can't be proven wrong may be claimed but is non-informative."
Yes, and that would be an assumption, wouldn't it? If that is an assumption, then Uncertainty is not entirely free of assumptions, is it? However, if the one assumption that it has is "there are no assumptions", then it must both have and not have any assumptions...this is a paradox/self-contradictory idea, just like limitlessness.Uncertainty has only one assumption which makes it fairer compared to other stances that require a plethora of assumptions.
Uncertainty's paradoxical nature makes it all open even to paradoxes. That's another plus compared to the selective nature of many other viewpoints (eg, they let some paradoxes in while they keep others out).
And, like I said before, Uncertainty should better be viewed as a step in a way. It isn't far different from countless other stances one may assume but it's distinguished by the degrees of freedom it offers. One step after Uncertainty there may be anything, even Certainty, who knows.
Not necessarily. Let's say that Philosophy makes use of both religious philosophy, and nihilism. So what if they contradict each other? They are still both important Philosophies...Philosophy doesn't "make use" of these viewpoints. Its main task is to "study" and "compare" them and in order to remain fair it must remain neutral to them. After having "studied" and "compared" them, they "may" be evaluated and ordered based on some criteria. Resultant is the choice of a viewpoint that would be one's stance on the subject. This stance is also called "one's Philosophy" but this is merely a lexical ambiguity. Philosophy happens before the selection, manipulation and implementation of a viewpoint.
Viewpoints may contradict each other while Philosophy, as the means of study, remains intact. Philosophy only needs to reflect these contradictions as comparative reports but need not and should not get involved in them. One such viewpoint is Science, another is Christianity, yet another is Logical Positivism and so on. Philosophy's task is to study these one by one and then comparatively. That a scientist thinks this planet has been around for some 4.5 billion years while biblical words say that the Creation happened some thousands of years ago, is something worth noting for Philosophy but nothing worth getting involved in.
You have called Uncertainty "fair", "more reliable then certainty", "better conclusion", etc... . If Uncertainty is unusable, then none of these terms apply to it."You" associate "fairness", "reliability," and "supremacy" of an idea with its "practicality."
By the way, I couldn't find out where I'd claimed Uncertainty to be "reliable." I said what we think we know is unreliable. This doesn't mean that doubting our knowledge is more reliable. I clearly said that Uncertainty (quoting myself) "robs one of security, simplicity, ease, self-confidence and self-righteousness."
Why do you ask me to do something that you know very well is impossible? Different logic systems often contradict each other directly. That means that no one can use all of them to prove something, at the same time.Because, as a result of this impossibility, one can't claim one's reasoning inbound some logical system is encompassing. You said: "total Uncertainty is impossible." If it's possible for you to claim something is impossible then it's possible for me to ask for something impossible. I wanted you to see that your statement doesn't work outside the framework it's designed for and to see that this framework is just one out of countless possible frameworks. If you say you've proven total Uncertainty impossible, you must have proven it for all logical systems (which is a cumbersome task, at least).
Many concepts may be invalid inbound a logical system but this is no indication of those concepts being erroneous in other systems. And all logical systems are equally creditable.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Apr30-03, 04:08 PM
... continued from the previous post
There is no order of things in true Uncertainty. You have shown the rationale (by my definition) of uncertainty, but not of Uncertainty.Let's see what "order" means. The books in the Library of Congress are "ordered." What does this mean? I guess it means there's a well-defined well-rounded rule set that assigns them to their respective places. This rule set has been chosen based on an analysis of the premises assumed for building a library (eg, accessibility, exactness, clarity, whatever). Notice that this rule set doesn't give significance or distinction to some books. It only orders them but doesn't rank them. There is an "order" but it isn't an order of "significance" or "preference."
So an "order" is the placing of things under a well-defined rule set based on the premises for assuming a viewpoint or for doing a task.
Now what's the premise for Uncertainty? "Nothing is certain." And what's the rule set? A rule set containing one rule, "everything is to be doubted." This rule set assigns everything one place, the place of equality. Nothing is different from nothing in any aspect. This is an "order" which places everything in the same attribute class, "uncertain."
You think so too, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to assign a rationale to Uncertainty.I don't. If it was me, Uncertainty needn't even be discussed because it's part of the past for me. It's "you" I'm talking to and for that purpose I need to satisfy your requests and your way of talking this over.
By showing (or at least, trying to show) that Uncertainty can be well interpreted as having rationale (within the boundaries of this discussion), I'm showing that "rationale" isn't as strict and significant as it appears to be.
"It" may not include "non-existing" ones. In speaking of specific "ones" you imply their existence, at least in a conceptual manner.This is "your" interpretation of what "referring to ones" implies. Ones can be non-existent ones (a paradox and a loop, you'd say [:D]).
No it's not, because it denies all other biases. At least Science allows for some of the things that it finds/theorizes to be wrong. Uncertainty has only one premise, and that is that there can be no premises (which doesn't allow for any of the other fields of study to be correct). How is that fair?Premises are chosen by individuals. Uncertainty's fairness is in that it allows everything, for it doesn't honor or lower any state of mind. All states of mind are equally doubtable thus equally creditable. Uncertainty doesn't judge the situation; it informs of the situation. Being uncertain, one may choose whatever premises that seem suitable to her/him, including those premises of Science.
That one isn't certain of the situation doesn't mean one must not, should not or ought not to choose her/his own way. It means condition, diversity, value, significance and outcome of every choice are wrapped in Uncertainty. One can risk choosing or even risk not choosing.
Science, on the other hand, prefers a methodic way of thinking and treating the Universe and not every method but a specific method. Out of countless ways, one way is chosen. That's what I call "unfair." Why would you choose one way out of countless ways and then insist it's the way to go? You could reason that Science is "practical" and "useful." Then I have to repeat, "practicality" and "usefulness" are intra-scientific criteria and it's clear they'll see Science consistent with their implications. Practicality can be defined either as "what Science is concerned with" or as anything else. The first definition is intra-scientific so it doesn't qualify to evaluate anything but Science. If the second definition, anything else, is allowed then there would be countless other definitions. If one of the countless definitions can be chosen at will one may choose one that corresponds with what Uncertainty concerned with. Now, with this new definition, Uncertainty is "practical."
I took your "substitutions" into account. As it turns out, they all rely on Causality anyway. Or at least it appears that way to me. For example, the inter-relationship between two "Quantum-bound electrons"; the reaction is instantaneous, and thus neither of the two can be considered the "cause". However, the "observer" can be considered the "cause", and without him/her, there would be no effect (the change of spin of the two electrons).I wrote of the structure and the function for Causality and for that "proposed" substitute which was Pre-established Harmony. The structure is different, the function is different, yet you say they're (almost) the same. What prevents you from seeing the difference is your affection for Causality as a means of scientific interpretation of the Universe.
Like I wrote, Pre-established Harmony is different from Causality in that it doesn't assume the cause-effect pair. Causality is the bond between cause and effect while Pre-established Harmony is the harmonized incidence of two (or more) phenomena. For Causality to work, there should be a distinction between two phenomena which are coinciding and what distinguishes the cause from the effect is the chronological order. For Pre-established Harmony to work, nothing is necessary. No interaction, stimulus-response set or similar concept is required. The two coinciding phenomena can be considered isolated just like two spatially or chronologically far apart phenomena would be. The pattern of events and the distribution of coincidences are governed by the Harmony. This central governance of Harmony ensures the simultaneous occurring of many pairs of phenomena but it doesn't require any bond or relation between them. There are no spatial or chronological limits to seemingly related phenomena.
What if I told you I've thrown a coin three times and have got tails every time and then conclude that an invisible bond relates this phenomenon with the presence of a mosquito in my room? You'd possibly say, in the best case, that I have to experiment many more times before I conclude. You know, however, that Probability Theory is all about a limit when the number of experiments yields to infinity. And I can never conclude (not without experimenting infinite number of times) if these two phenomena are really related or I've only experienced a statistical not-very-odd oddity. The Causality bond isn't a necessity; it isn't even a probabilistic conclusion. Causality is an optimization method based on hopes for recurring of events. One may use it as much as one wants but relying on it is senseless.
As for the EPR experiment, there are two problems with your interpretation. First, even if you consider the Physicist you can't find a delay between her/his action and the spin change in the far off particle. Exactly when the action takes place a far off event occurs. Second, the distinction you make here is based on your knowledge of the Physicist's intention. You know she/he wants to initiate a change somewhere so you conclude a relation between her/his action and the change. This knowledge of intention isn't intrinsic to your understanding of the situation. You could have observed an alien Physicist with her/his invisible particles performing the EPR experiment. Then, you couldn't have concluded based on your knowledge of her/his intention. Even though the same experiment occurs in both cases (eg, human Physicist and alien Physicist), you're able to distinguish the cause and the effect in the former while you wouldn't be able to do so in the latter. This means that the distinction of cause and effect is nothing but a mental pattern you try to impose on this event.
Yes, and that's what so many logicians/philosophers/scientists/mathematicians/etc... have done in the past. When they come to a paradox, they realize that there must be some flaw in the particular line of reasoning that they've been following, and they abandon it in search of a better one.Their actions were valid for them, yours should be proven valid for you. Nevertheless, a real paradox isn't made in case of erroneous reasoning but in case of an erroneous reasoning system.
Achilles and the tortoise (I'm not sure if it was a tortoise or a turtle) paradox, has been around for almost 2000 years. Is it there because of a mistake in reasoning? And 2000 years haven't been enough to find this mistake? Or is it solved now?
Not all Philosophers/Scientists have given up at the sight of paradox. There've been some to think of its nature and why it's faced everywhere. The great example is Kurt Gödel. Some of them have even based their views on the paradox-ridden ruins of the previous views. Some whole new concepts have been invented to avoid paradoxes, for example the concept of a Universal set in Set Theory came after Russell's Paradox. And these are only the outcome of evading Paradox. Great thoughts have been all put into diving into the depth of Paradox, especially by Eastern thinkers.
There's been a clear evasion in face of paradox in Science history. The reason may have been Paradox being "impractical" or something similar. This, however, means nothing here.
Hint: I told you Uncertainty is a double-edged sword. See if you can use the other edge.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Apologies for the delay.
How could you say that if you still haven't understood what it's talking about?
I explained many times the reason I think that proof applies, just look around the posts. Did you counter my reasons?
It was/is relevant. Only because you place so much emphasis on a stance that doesn't have anything to do with my proof doesn't mean you've shown it's irrelevant.
I also apologize for the delay, your post was simply too long for me to respond to, with the time I had left, yesterday.
You never showed how your reasoning applied to Descartes' statement. You showed the problems with your proof. You also showed that a "helper device" need not be of the same form as the proposition that they are trying to resolve/explain. However, you didn't show how your particular proof "fit" Descartes' philosophy.
My statement, P, isn't random. If it was then I needn't even mention it. It's a statement engineered to suit your "I think therefore I am." If you had another statement, which fell in the category of statements that I think are incompatible with Boolean logic then I'd have made P different.
How does it "suit" Descartes' statement? Your statement only examines the inconsistency found when trying to analyze a proof of the form "P(), doesn't it? Descartes' statement isn't of the form "P([bleep])".
Uncertainty's fairness doesn't mean that it can't detect inconsistencies of knowledge structures. Uncertainty is fair in the sense that it lets one see inconsistencies that wouldn't be seen if the knowledge structure isn't doubted.
But it's still not entirely "fair", because it contradicts itself.
To study a knowledge body you have to live outside that body, and then observe it. Uncertainty provides this "living outside." It lets one doubt the principles and that's why it's fair.
I agree with you, provided you are talking about limited uncertainty. I don't think that Uncertainty (which is the full form of uncertainty) can give you the "outside perspective", because you have to doubt that premise (the Uncertainty premise) as well. Of course, you only have to doubt the Uncertainty premise if you accept it (because it is that premise which states that you must doubt all premises). Do you see why this is paradoxical?
Uncertainty won't prefer one idea over the other...
Except it's own idea/premise? Come one, it's obviously no more useful than any other premise, because in any case, you are taking something for granted.
This situation is similar to that you say: "I must live for living is an obligation." By saying "living is an obligation," you've already assumed you have to live, consequently deducing that "I must live" is logically incorrect (if you're bound to Boolean logic).
[b]This is a very important point that I don't understand. Please explain it to me. I don't get why the fact that a proposition's truth necessitates the truth of another proposition means that that it is logically incorrect.
You may pre-assume something and then prove it, apparently, true. For me, there's no real problem with this, except that it's circular reasoning and it's non-informative.
Yes, it is non-informative. However (briefly returning to the point of the thread), if someone were to try to prove to me that I don't exist, then they are also pre-assuming my existence (otherwise, who are they trying to convince?), and thus it doesn't "inform" them of anything that they didn't already know, it just doesn't allow them to try to disprove that which they knew (that I exist) without contradicting themselves.
If you say "P is T and Q is T" you've gone the way of circular reasoning. If you say "P is F and Q is T" then you've made paradox because P is an assertion of Q and may not be F when Q is considered T.
It (assuming that P is T and that Q is T) is not so much circular as it is non-productive. However, the Evil Demon is assuming that P is T (otherwise, who is he trying to convince?), and then trying to prove that Q is F at the same time. Thus the paradox, and thus the conviction that trying to prove my non-existence is futile (according to Descartes).
One way to overcome this loop and this paradox is to say "P is F and Q is F." Q and its assertion, P, can be simultaneously wrong without causing any trouble. The only problem is that you insist that Q is T.
No, but circular reasoning is forbidden (for you, of course). An assertion of Q, that is P, may not be assumed T when one is about to study Q's state. If Q is pre-assumed T then there's no need for studying it.
I've already said that there is no need of studying it. It is the Evil Demon that has the problem of trying to prove that Q is F, while pre-assuming that P is T.
Also, isn't it just as "circular" (non-productive) to assume that P is F, and then to assume that Q is also F?
P may not be set T but it also must have a definite state and what remains is F, and P set as F will lead to paradox. Only if there was a third state like "null" then P could be assumed "null" while Q was being studied and then set to whatever suitable state. Such suspension is impossible in the framework of Boolean logic.
But it is also unnecessary. We are assuming the truth of both statements at the same time. What's wrong with that?
If you pre-suppose the truth of Q then there's no point in discussing if Q is true for its truth is your premise. Q must be kept "untouched" before it's studied thoroughly and during the time it's being studied. If Q's state is pre-supposed then the outcome of every study or discussion of Q will not result in a state for Q that's different from that pre-supposition.
Tell that to the Evil Demon.
Uncertainty has only one assumption which makes it fairer compared to other stances that require a plethora of assumptions.
Wrong. Uncertainty's one assumption makes it paradoxical and self-contradictory, not "fair".
Uncertainty's paradoxical nature makes it all open even to paradoxes. That's another plus compared to the selective nature of many other viewpoints (eg, they let some paradoxes in while they keep others out).
Uncertainty's paradoxical nature doesn't make it open to anything, it just makes it unusable. If it cannot even "agree with" itself, how can you use it to explain other phenomena?
And, like I said before, Uncertainty should better be viewed as a step in a way. It isn't far different from countless other stances one may assume but it's distinguished by the degrees of freedom it offers. One step after Uncertainty there may be anything, even Certainty, who knows.
Uncertainty shouldn't be viewed as a "step in a way" (IMO). It should be viewed as a road-block, because it's paradoxical.
Besides, if it leads to Certainty (which would the absolute form of "certainty") then it's not much good anyway. I don't want "Certainty". I want a healthy amount of uncertainty. If one can keep these things (certainty and uncertainty) in balance, then one doesn't run into the paradoxes of either extreme. This is the "fair" way (or so it seems to me).
"You" associate "fairness", "reliability," and "supremacy" of an idea with its "practicality."
As do you. You keep talking about how much better Uncertainty is than Certainty, and you also talk alot about it's being more "fair".
You said: "total Uncertainty is impossible." If it's possible for you to claim something is impossible then it's possible for me to ask for something impossible. I wanted you to see that your statement doesn't work outside the framework it's designed for and to see that this framework is just one out of countless possible frameworks. If you say you've proven total Uncertainty impossible, you must have proven it for all logical systems (which is a cumbersome task, at least).
You yourself have said (posted but un-quoted - ran out of room) that many systems contradict each other. So how is it that you ask me to use all of them at the same time, to prove anything?
Many concepts may be invalid inbound a logical system but this is no indication of those concepts being erroneous in other systems. And all logical systems are equally creditable.
Except those unusable ones, like Uncertainty (couldn't resist [;)]).
continued on the next post...
As is my response...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post
So an "order" is the placing of things under a well-defined rule set based on the premises for assuming a viewpoint or for doing a task.
OK.
Now what's the premise for Uncertainty? "Nothing is certain." And what's the rule set? A rule set containing one rule, "everything is to be doubted." This rule set assigns everything one place, the place of equality. Nothing is different from nothing in any aspect. This is an "order" which places everything in the same attribute class, "uncertain."
But the one rule contradicts the very concept of forming any "order" at all. You cannot assign this rule to things that will be "put in place", because the rule is that things cannot be "put in place" in any certain manner.
I don't. If it was me, Uncertainty needn't even be discussed because it's part of the past for me. It's "you" I'm talking to and for that purpose I need to satisfy your requests and your way of talking this over.
Fine, but you still haven't proven it's usefulness, or even it's existence (IMO).
By showing (or at least, trying to show) that Uncertainty can be well interpreted as having rationale (within the boundaries of this discussion), I'm showing that "rationale" isn't as strict and significant as it appears to be.
It doesn't matter. Uncertainty's only premise is that nothing is certain. In taking this premise as true, you have eliminated any possibility of producing any rationale of any kind.
This is "your" interpretation of what "referring to ones" implies. Ones can be non-existent ones (a paradox and a loop, you'd say [:D]).
Then why are you using this reasoning (when even you see the loop/paradox)?
Premises are chosen by individuals. Uncertainty's fairness is in that it allows everything, for it doesn't honor or lower any state of mind. All states of mind are equally doubtable thus equally creditable. Uncertainty doesn't judge the situation; it informs of the situation. Being uncertain, one may choose whatever premises that seem suitable to her/him, including those premises of Science.
Let me try to be more clear than I've been (though I don't know if that's possible): Uncertainty does not allow you to choose a premise, at any time, for any reason, because it's premise is that you cannot have premises.
That one isn't certain of the situation doesn't mean one must not, should not or ought not to choose her/his own way.
No, but that one is certain that nothing can be certain does mean that one must/should/ought not choose a "way".
Science, on the other hand, prefers a methodic way of thinking and treating the Universe and not every method but a specific method. Out of countless ways, one way is chosen. That's what I call "unfair." Why would you choose one way out of countless ways and then insist it's the way to go?
It's not the only way I go.
You could reason that Science is "practical" and "useful." Then I have to repeat, "practicality" and "usefulness" are intra-scientific criteria and it's clear they'll see Science consistent with their implications.
Now this I disagree with. "Practicality" and "usefulness" are intrinsic of many different reasoning systems. The fact that Science satisfies them, in spite of coming into existence after them, is what makes it so appealing to humans.
I wrote of the structure and the function for Causality and for that "proposed" substitute which was Pre-established Harmony. The structure is different, the function is different, yet you say they're (almost) the same. What prevents you from seeing the difference is your affection for Causality as a means of scientific interpretation of the Universe.
I don't understand the question (was it a question?). I was saying that Pre-established Harmony also necessitates a form of Cause-and-effect relationship, and is thus not an alternative to Causality, but merely one of the forms of it.
Like I wrote, Pre-established Harmony is different from Causality in that it doesn't assume the cause-effect pair. Causality is the bond between cause and effect while Pre-established Harmony is the harmonized incidence of two (or more) phenomena. For Causality to work, there should be a distinction between two phenomena which are coinciding and what distinguishes the cause from the effect is the chronological order. For Pre-established Harmony to work, nothing is necessary. No interaction, stimulus-response set or similar concept is required. The two coinciding phenomena can be considered isolated just like two spatially or chronologically far apart phenomena would be. The pattern of events and the distribution of coincidences are governed by the Harmony. This central governance of Harmony ensures the simultaneous occurring of many pairs of phenomena but it doesn't require any bond or relation between them. There are no spatial or chronological limits to seemingly related phenomena.
No, the limit is not between them, as it would under "usual" Causal reasoning. But that doesn't mean that there is no cause at all. I really don't remember what Pre-established harmony is. I thought it had to do with the Quantum binding of two particles, and that there states change instaneously/simultaneouly. It is in this particular case that I still see a cause (the "observer").
What if I told you I've thrown a coin three times and have got tails every time and then conclude that an invisible bond relates this phenomenon with the presence of a mosquito in my room? You'd possibly say, in the best case, that I have to experiment many more times before I conclude. You know, however, that Probability Theory is all about a limit when the number of experiments yields to infinity. And I can never conclude (not without experimenting infinite number of times) if these two phenomena are really related or I've only experienced a statistical not-very-odd oddity. The Causality bond isn't a necessity; it isn't even a probabilistic conclusion. Causality is an optimization method based on hopes for recurring of events. One may use it as much as one wants but relying on it is senseless.
Relying on it when speaking of abstract, unlikely, causes is rather senseless, I agree. However, if when I smack someone, they get hurt I can assume the bond, because science shows us exactly what chemical reactions are occuring.
As for the EPR experiment, there are two problems with your interpretation. First, even if you consider the Physicist you can't find a delay between her/his action and the spin change in the far off particle. Exactly when the action takes place a far off event occurs.
I can see that I confused the EPR experiment with "Pre-established Harmony". I'm sorry. Could you re-explain "Pre-established Harmony" please?
Now, for your counter-argument: You said "exactly when the action takes place, a far off event occurs". Does this not illustrate the relationship between the action and the far-off event?
Second, the distinction you make here is based on your knowledge of the Physicist's intention. You know she/he wants to initiate a change somewhere so you conclude a relation between her/his action and the change. This knowledge of intention isn't intrinsic to your understanding of the situation. You could have observed an alien Physicist with her/his invisible particles performing the EPR experiment. Then, you couldn't have concluded based on your knowledge of her/his intention. Even though the same experiment occurs in both cases (eg, human Physicist and alien Physicist), you're able to distinguish the cause and the effect in the former while you wouldn't be able to do so in the latter. This means that the distinction of cause and effect is nothing but a mental pattern you try to impose on this event.
But I wasn't taking their intention into account. I was saying that their making the observation (regardless of intent) caused the change.
Their actions were valid for them, yours should be proven valid for you. Nevertheless, a real paradox isn't made in case of erroneous reasoning but in case of an erroneous reasoning system.
But all reasoning systems are erroneous at some level, and will thus all yield paradoxes. However, in all cases - and within all reasoning systems - paradox signifies that you've been headed "in the wrong direction".
Achilles and the tortoise (I'm not sure if it was a tortoise or a turtle) paradox, has been around for almost 2000 years. Is it there because of a mistake in reasoning? And 2000 years haven't been enough to find this mistake? Or is it solved now?
It seems resolved. See the thread, "Zeno's Paradoxes".
Some of them have even based their views on the paradox-ridden ruins of the previous views. Some whole new concepts have been invented to avoid paradoxes, for example the concept of a Universal set in Set Theory came after Russell's Paradox. And these are only the outcome of evading Paradox. Great thoughts have been all put into diving into the depth of Paradox, especially by Eastern thinkers.
No, all of these people (including Kurt Godel) were forced to make their new conclusions, because paradox was "getting in the way" of progress.
There's been a clear evasion in face of paradox in Science history. The reason may have been Paradox being "impractical" or something similar. This, however, means nothing here.
It means everything here. It is the reason why I don't use Uncertainty.
Manuel_Silvio
May3-03, 03:13 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
You never showed how your reasoning applied to Descartes' statement...I repeat, you said you didn't understand the proof (or you haven't put much in effort into that) then how could you criticize it?
The storyline I used in describing the proof first goes through defining the state for P and then studies Q by asking what state you associate with it (which is T, for you're the defender of Q). On the next step it shows how P will lead into either a loop or a paradox when it's seen along with Q. This is how the proof is suitable for studying Q: it shows that Q results in undesirable results (loop or paradox) when it's studied along with P. It seems clear to me, exactly where do you see an ambiguity?
To criticize that proof you must be able to show one or more of these faults have happened:
00. P isn't a valid statement (but it is).
01. P can't be studied along with Q (but it can be for any two statements may be studied together).
02. There's a fault in deduction (there's none, as far as I can see).
03. Q won't lead to loop or paradox (the paradox case you've accepted, there remains the loop and that I will explain more).
But it's still not entirely "fair", because it contradicts itself.
Why do you think "fairness" can't be found "paradox?" By contradicting itself it's doing its task of fairness. It tells you: "this isn't the end of it, this isn't an absolute point, and it’s only a relative climax."
You say it isn't "entirely fair," and you're right. I haven't claimed it's "entirely fair;" I claimed it's "the fairest." Relatively more fairness when seen in comparison to other stances doesn't mean absolute fairness. It's only "the fairest" and not "absolutely fair."
... I don't think that Uncertainty (which is the full form of uncertainty) can give you the "outside perspective", because you have to doubt that premise (the Uncertainty premise) as well...I see why it's paradoxical but I don't run away at the sight of paradox. You accept that uncertainty gives the "outside perspective" to whatever subject of study you've chosen. See, whatever subject of study "except uncertainty itself," and Uncertainty gives the "outside perspective" for everything including itself.
You accept that for studying a knowledge body one must stand and view it from "outside." Now, by standing "outside" where does one exactly stand? Isn't it the "inside" to another knowledge body? And the "inside" to another knowledge body means the acceptance of its premises. Could then one be fair in studying a knowledge body while one is submitted to the premises of another?
The situation, even without Uncertainty, is naturally paradoxical. Running away from paradox dawned on one in one specific form won't get one far, soon paradox will come back in another form but with the same content.
Two knowledge bodies have had many firm defenders in the course of history: Science and Religion. Do you think it's fair to stand inside Science and judge Religion? I think not, for Science will call to discard Religion because it's "impractical;" why should one take into account an intangible agent that acts in an unforeseeable manner? And then, do you think it's fair to stand inside Religion and judge Science? I think not, for Religion will call to give up Science because it's "blasphemy," "sin," "interference in the work of God," "rudeness against the Creation," whatever; why should one commit something against the rule of a supreme power ready to take revenge on the sinners?
So if one's to study Science or Religion fairly one has to stay outside both of them and whatever other knowledge body that may interfere in fair judgment by the means of its premises. The same is valid for any study of any other knowledge body.
Is that possible? I think not but there's a way to offset those interferences, to doubt them. Whatever comes near should better be doubted before it's taken into account. This is exactly the task of Uncertainty. One premise that may interfere with fair judgment is that premise of Uncertainty (ie, "nothing is certain"), and Uncertainty itself advises one on doubting (and being cautious of) everything. That's why Uncertainty's paradoxical nature helps it be the fairest. This paradoxical nature is a reflection of the paradoxical situation of a "fair" observer. I guess you don't oppose a fair observer, do you?
Except it's own idea/premise? Come one, it's obviously no more useful than any other premise, because in any case, you are taking something for granted.First, it won't prefer even its own premise over others for it's paradoxical and contradicts itself. This is the function of paradox; it's simultaneous acceptance and denial that means it won't prefer anything over the other even itself.
Second, even if it prefers one premise over the others, like all other stances do, that premise is one that offers high degrees of freedom. If one has to assume one or more premise(s) in any case then wouldn't it better be chosen to be more flexible?
This is a very important point that I don't understand. Please explain it to me. I don't get why the fact that a proposition's truth necessitates the truth of another proposition means that that it is logically incorrect.This isn't true for any two statements, it's true for two statements which are assertions of each other.
For the statement Q, there's the statement P that asserts it. If P, the assertion of Q, is assumed T before Q is studied then Q itself has been assumed T before Q is studied. What happens here is what I call "circular" reasoning: a line of deduction which starts with the pre-assumed truth of some statement, Q here, and ends with the truth of the same statement, again Q.
I wrote that P was "engineered" to suit Q. The trick in this "engineering" is that P is an assertion of Q. If you set P as T, then you've set Q as T and later you start talking about Q but if you've set Q as T before even starting with your study of Q then the outcome of your study can't be anything other than Q being T.
Circular reasoning is non-informative because it starts and ends with the same thing. Starting with Q "pre-assumed" (you see, it's assumed "before" anything else) as T and ending with Q as T is non-informative and circular. One can start with any statement "pre-assumed" T and end with that statement being T.
Remember when you said "one can't be thinking if one doesn't exist" and I responded that such premise will turn "I think therefore I am" into "I am therefore I am." "I am therefore I am" is an ever-true statement but it's circular. One can't oppose a statement that is made of itself and that's why one can't oppose "I am therefore I am." Unfortunately, or fortunately, circular reasoning that makes up such statements is forbidden in the framework of Boolean logic. "I am therefore I am" is circular hence incompatible with Boolean logic. And for those who "like" Boolean logic too much and want to find "absolute truth" out of statements, as claimed by Boolean logic, "I am therefore I am" is, well, out of question.
... if someone were to try to prove to me that I don't exist, then they are also pre-assuming my existence (otherwise, who are they trying to convince?), and thus it doesn't "inform" them of anything that they didn't already know... And if "you" try to convince them that they exist, you'll get "the same problem."
There's a reason to that I accompany a discussion of Descartes' statement with a discussion of Uncertainty. Descartes' statement is one of the many places that Uncertainty shows up in full strength. Particularly because the statement has to do with foundations of one's thoughts (existence in this case). Descartes' statement can't be disproved (for it's circular) but it also can't be proven (for it's incompatible with Boolean logic). Where's the way out? Uncertainty. That statement is both ways equally creditable, and that's the essence of Uncertainty.
Uncertainty's paradoxical nature doesn't make it open to anything, it just makes it unusable. If it cannot even "agree with" itself, how can you use it to explain other phenomena?One thing to notice, have you thought of the name by which "that which agrees with itself" is called? That which expects and asserts its own righteousness is called a "loop," I guess.
Any knowledge body, in order to remain consistent, must somewhere assert its own premises. Many times though, this is done with much subtlety.
Let's see an example, Science. If I come to you and claim "there's an intangible unforeseeable uncontrollable agent acting in this Universe," you (depicted as a defender of Science) will possibly tell me to throw it away because it's an "impractical" premise. Where's the twist? By comparing that premise to a scientific criterion, that is practicality, you've pre-assumed Science's righteousness. Obviously enough, having pre-assumed Science's righteousness, you won't go much further than asserting that righteousness by telling me to throw away an "impractical" premise.
Furthermore, Uncertainty needn't care for explaining the "phenomenal" Universe. The "phenomenal" Universe is the "sensible" one and "senses" and "relying on the input from the senses" are all from the "scientific" Universe. Philosophy comes before one chooses to submit to the scientific Universe.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May3-03, 03:28 PM
... continued from the previous post
The balance you talk about is achieved after both extremes are experienced. That balance, I guess, is somehow like that "residual understanding" I wrote of. One experiences Certainty (in the form of scientific and/or religious and/or whatever belief) then one experiences Uncertainty and then comes the residual understanding, or as you call it "the balance." If you're in balance then you won't be sure that you're absolutely right but you also won't be sure that you're wrong. You have a good amount of hope in that that your thoughts may work as you wish and choose and think on the basis of that hope. Am I correct here? If yes, then I think you already have experienced with Uncertainty and Certainty.
As do you. You keep talking about how much better Uncertainty is than Certainty, and you also talk alot about it's being more "fair".I never said it's "better." I said it's a "fairer" substitute. And again "you" interpret the "fairness" I talk about as "practicality." I don't put any value on Uncertainty for it's worthless but it's "fair" and "sincere" to that which is called Philosophy.
You yourself have said ... that many systems contradict each other. So how is it that you ask me to use all of them at the same time, to prove anything?Don't prove and don't claim your argument "encompassing" and "ever-true." Your arguments are good inside a framework of Boolean logic, beyond that isn't in your, or anyone else's, power.
We can discuss the thing in some framework and get results for that framework and we can be satisfied with those results in their respective framework. However, there's no warranty, even limited, for outside of that framework. And clearly there's much more to outside than to inside.
Except those unusable ones, like Uncertainty...Seriously, do you have some grounds for that claim? If yes, do you know that if your grounds are creditable you would have overcome one of the most compelling challenges humanity has faced?
Claiming that some logical systems are "less creditable" makes a basis for choosing among logical systems. Do you know what this means? This means some forms of attitude can be preferred to other forms. This means some individuals have been "right" while some others have been "wrong." This means there's always been "absolute rightness" and "absolute wrongness." Do you know of what order of magnitude is such a claim?
But the one rule contradicts the very concept of forming any "order" at all. You cannot assign this rule to things that will be "put in place", because the rule is that things cannot be "put in place" in any certain manner.No, the rule is "there's no distinction between any two places, put them wherever and they'll be equal." Things are "put into place" but all into "one place" and that's the "place of equality."
Fine, but you still haven't proven it's usefulness, or even it's existence (IMO).I can't prove what I haven't even claimed. I never claimed that Uncertainty is useful; I said it shouldn't be assessed by practicality criterion. I never claimed its existence, I said it's paradoxical and can't be given a definite state.
... Uncertainty's only premise is that nothing is certain. In taking this premise as true, you have eliminated any possibility of producing any rationale of any kind.Why? And how? "Nothing is uncertain" doesn't seem to me like opposing "any" order. It surely opposes "many" orders but not "any" order. I wrote of an order that is well suited to this premise, the order that places everything in one place, the place of equality.
Then why are you using this reasoning (when even you see the loop/paradox)?For I don't run away from loops and paradoxes. I like to see how they work and why they appear all around.
Let me try to be more clear than I've been (though I don't know if that's possible): Uncertainty does not allow you to choose a premise, at any time, for any reason, because it's premise is that you cannot have premises.
No, but that one is certain that nothing can be certain does mean that one must/should/ought not choose a "way".Again, this is "your" interpretation (or rather "misinterpretation"). Uncertainty asks for caution, clarity and hesitation in the face of anything and everything; not a bit less, not a bit more. Uncertainty is of paradoxical nature that means it's nothing more than a between-the-lines hint. One may choose one's premises at will while one's uncertain of their truth.
One's choice for one's life isn't associated with one's stance on one's choice. Uncertainty provides a ground for always being cautious of what one chooses but doesn't prevent a choice from being made. Being cautious of one's choice one will always be ready to change it if one finds out that choice has been erroneous. This readiness is a basis for a dynamic system of thoughts that can change with new packets of knowledge (even though uncertain they are). Instead of taking "progression" as a premise (like with Science) one will be experiencing "change" as a consequence of a fairer, more general, less demanding and more open premise.
It's not the only way I go.
You seem to.
Now this I disagree with. "Practicality" and "usefulness" are intrinsic of many different reasoning systems. The fact that Science satisfies them, in spite of coming into existence after them, is what makes it so appealing to humans.Practicality does have meaning in many knowledge bodies but doesn't have the same meaning all over these places. Practicality can be defined even for a Religion, as "conformance to God's commandments" for example. This practicality is apparently different from the other one discussed in words of Science.
Science has to do with its own definition of this term which is an intra-scientific concept confined to a scientific understanding of scientific Universe. I don't think "practicality" in this sense is even an outcome of observing the scientific Universe. One can study the scientific Universe with scientific method but nowhere around this Universe it's written "survival, longevity, prosperity is our motto." We know that living beings, being living beings by scientific definition in the scientific Universe, want to live, live longer, produce more of their instances and get more energy/matter for their lives. Anyway, that's no necessity, it's not an obligation. We know there's this desire but we can't say it's an aim. That we want to "live, live long and prosper" doesn't make this desire a logical obligation. Nowhere in any description of the scientific method is stated that we have to reach for this target by the means of that method. This aim isn't intrinsic even to Science; it's intrinsic to scientifically-defined living beings, when they're viewed scientifically.
Relying on it when speaking of abstract, unlikely, causes is rather senseless, I agree. However, if when I smack someone, they get hurt I can assume the bond, because science shows us exactly what chemical reactions are occuring.
I can see that I confused the EPR experiment with "Pre-established Harmony". I'm sorry. Could you re-explain "Pre-established Harmony" please?
Now, for your counter-argument: You said "exactly when the action takes place, a far off event occurs". Does this not illustrate the relationship between the action and the far-off event?Causality bond is explained for scientifically through the declaration of forces. The four forces are the source of all interaction including that you smack someone. Forces are elements from the scientific Universe. They're of fundamentals of Science. Let's think of them for a moment. What's a force? An obscure concept that explains for a coincidence that is later called an "interaction."
How do you know they're hurt when you smack them? You see them getting hurt but do you see them? You see a consistent representation in your mind that goes through a transition but what's the nature of this representation? No one knows and is that what "really" (supposing there's some "real" thing around) happening? No one knows.
I meant EPR Experiment and Pre-established Harmony as two separate lines of discussion. Here comes my re-explanation of Pre-established Harmony:
You ask if there isn't a bond between two coinciding events and that's the central question to Causality and its substitutes. All of them try to explain for coincidences that are observed over and over.
Pre-established Harmony explains these coincidences as parts of the Harmony that governs the events of this Universe. The coincidence of two events is a part of the Harmony but not a necessity of Universe's structure which is supposed to be made of abstract Monads that are isolated from each other. While one part of the Harmony may force a coincidence and a seemingly relation between some of the Monads (of the two coinciding phenomena), a repetition is noway guaranteed. Monads are totally isolated and play their own roles in the Harmony but these roles may or may not be synchronized to mimic some relation.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May3-03, 03:32 PM
... continued from the previous post
But I wasn't taking their intention into account. I was saying that their making the observation (regardless of intent) caused the change.How do you know they're observing something? Isn't that you have a picture of an observing Physicist to compare them to? The alien Physicist may not comply with this picture so you'll never know it's been observing but you'll see the change.
Moreover, this doesn't solve the problem with zero time. Some "cause" (say, a Physicist or a particle) "causes" some "effect" but there's no time delay between them. How could you say which one is the cause and which one is the effect without previously knowing one of them (eg, the Physicist) has an intention for a change?
But all reasoning systems are erroneous at some level, and will thus all yield paradoxes. However, in all cases - and within all reasoning systems - paradox signifies that you've been headed "in the wrong direction"."The wrong direction" for that system but maybe "the right direction" for another totally unnoticed one which can bring you extension to the horizons of your thought.
No, all of these people (including Kurt Godel) were forced to make their new conclusions, because paradox was "getting in the way" of progress.Kurt Gödel’s "Incompleteness Theorem" seems different. I read a second-hand (or even worse, who knows) version of the theorem like this: "every encompassing system of logic must have at least one premise that can not be proven or verified without contradicting itself." It was referenced to "Scientific American, Gödel’s Proof, Vol. CXCVI.6, 71-86 (1965)." We can check it out if necessary.
Not "all" of them for sure. Eastern thinkers (that you seem not to count in "all") didn't do as you say, they even didn't go the way of "progression."
heusdens
May3-03, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
[BKurt Gödel’s "Incompleteness Theorem" seems different. I read a second-hand (or even worse, who knows) version of the theorem like this: "every encompassing system of logic must have at least one premise that can not be proven or verified without contradicting itself." It was referenced to "Scientific American, Gödel’s Proof, Vol. CXCVI.6, 71-86 (1965)." We can check it out if necessary.
[/B]
The wording I know of for the theorem of Godel reads that any formal, axiomatic system is either incomplete or inconsistent (or both).
incomplete:
the system has not the capacity to produce all the truths. there are truths that can not be produced by the axiomatix rules of the system
inconsistent:
the system has some internal problem of consistently defining the truth value of statements based on the axiomatic rules
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
I repeat, you said you didn't understand the proof (or you haven't put much in effort into that) then how could you criticize it?
I repeat, I am not criticizing the proof, I am waiting for you to show me it's applicability, otherwise it's not important to the discussion.
The storyline I used in describing the proof first goes through defining the state for P and then studies Q by asking what state you associate with it (which is T, for you're the defender of Q). On the next step it shows how P will lead into either a loop or a paradox when it's seen along with Q. This is how the proof is suitable for studying Q: it shows that Q results in undesirable results (loop or paradox) when it's studied along with P. It seems clear to me, exactly where do you see an ambiguity?
It may seem clear to you, but perhaps you are witholding something from me, because it doesn't make any sense - to me - to say that one proposition's implying another proposition's truth leads to a paradox/loop.
To criticize that proof you must be able to show one or more of these faults have happened:
00. P isn't a valid statement (but it is).
01. P can't be studied along with Q (but it can be for any two statements may be studied together).
02. There's a fault in deduction (there's none, as far as I can see).
03. Q won't lead to loop or paradox (the paradox case you've accepted, there remains the loop and that I will explain more).
I perfectly agree with point 03. Q won't lead to paradox, and I haven't agreed to anything of the kind.
Why do you think "fairness" can't be found "paradox?" By contradicting itself it's doing its task of fairness. It tells you: "this isn't the end of it, this isn't an absolute point, and it’s only a relative climax."
No, it's telling you "I'm unreliable, and self-contradictory". If something cannot even be self-consistent, how can it be consistent with any other system?
You say it isn't "entirely fair," and you're right. I haven't claimed it's "entirely fair;" I claimed it's "the fairest."
It's not that it's not "entirely fair". It's that it cannot exist. It's supposed "fairness" just contradicts it's premise, and thus leads to unusability.
You accept that uncertainty gives the "outside perspective" to whatever subject of study you've chosen. See, whatever subject of study "except uncertainty itself," and Uncertainty gives the "outside perspective" for everything including itself.
No, Uncertainty doesn't give a perspective for anything, [b]because it's unusable/paradoxical/self-contradictory - and thus self/defeating.
You accept that for studying a knowledge body one must stand and view it from "outside." Now, by standing "outside" where does one exactly stand? Isn't it the "inside" to another knowledge body?
Yeah.
And the "inside" to another knowledge body means the acceptance of its premises. Could then one be fair in studying a knowledge body while one is submitted to the premises of another?
Yes.
The situation, even without Uncertainty, is naturally paradoxical. Running away from paradox dawned on one in one specific form won't get one far, soon paradox will come back in another form but with the same content.
How is it paradoxical, without the use of "Uncertainty"?
Two knowledge bodies have had many firm defenders in the course of history: Science and Religion. Do you think it's fair to stand inside Science and judge Religion? I think not, for Science will call to discard Religion because it's "impractical;" why should one take into account an intangible agent that acts in an unforeseeable manner? And then, do you think it's fair to stand inside Religion and judge Science? I think not, for Religion will call to give up Science because it's "blasphemy," "sin," "interference in the work of God," "rudeness against the Creation," whatever; why should one commit something against the rule of a supreme power ready to take revenge on the sinners?
First off, there are many (rather intelligent) people, that I know of, that can study science with the Bible as their premise, and they have no problem. I think your problem here is that you are saying "stand inside X, to judge Y". This is not what I was talking about. I'm saying "take X for granted (as part of the foundation/premise), to judge Y".
Is that possible? I think not but there's a way to offset those interferences, to doubt them. Whatever comes near should better be doubted before it's taken into account. This is exactly the task of Uncertainty.
But saying that something necessitates Uncertainty is also contradictory to the premise of Uncertainty, can you see why?
One premise that may interfere with fair judgment is that premise of Uncertainty (ie, "nothing is certain"), and Uncertainty itself advises one on doubting (and being cautious of) everything. That's why Uncertainty's paradoxical nature helps it be the fairest. This paradoxical nature is a reflection of the paradoxical situation of a "fair" observer. I guess you don't oppose a fair observer, do you?
First, it won't prefer even its own premise over others for it's paradoxical and contradicts itself. This is the function of paradox; it's simultaneous acceptance and denial that means it won't prefer anything over the other even itself.
You are totally missing the point (IMO). You are saying "it will do this" and "it will do that". This implies it's practicality, when in fact such a thing (as practicality) cannot exist in an Uncertain world, nor can it exist along with paradox.
Second, even if it prefers one premise over the others, like all other stances do, that premise is one that offers high degrees of freedom. If one has to assume one or more premise(s) in any case then wouldn't it better be chosen to be more flexible?
It's not more flexible, when will you get this? It's unusable, that's not the same thing as "flexible".
answer continued on next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
This isn't true for any two statements, it's true for two statements which are assertions of each other.
For the statement Q, there's the statement P that asserts it. If P, the assertion of Q, is assumed T before Q is studied then Q itself has been assumed T before Q is studied. What happens here is what I call "circular" reasoning: a line of deduction which starts with the pre-assumed truth of some statement, Q here, and ends with the truth of the same statement, again Q.
I wrote that P was "engineered" to suit Q. The trick in this "engineering" is that P is an assertion of Q. If you set P as T, then you've set Q as T and later you start talking about Q but if you've set Q as T before even starting with your study of Q then the outcome of your study can't be anything other than Q being T.
I understand this. That still doesn't show any inconsistency the logic. Yes, assuming the proof of one of these things assumes the proof of the other. So what? What is wrong with my saying "I'm fifteen", and then saying "I was born fifteen years ago"? In fact, I could just omit one, and it wouldn't matter, because these things don't prove each other, they just assume the same thing.
Circular reasoning is non-informative because it starts and ends with the same thing. Starting with Q "pre-assumed" (you see, it's assumed "before" anything else) as T and ending with Q as T is non-informative and circular. One can start with any statement "pre-assumed" T and end with that statement being T.
Yes, you are right, they can. Also, why is it that it matters to you that it is "non-informative", when you were previously trying to show the folly of sticking to that which leads to progressive understanding/knowledge?
Remember when you said "one can't be thinking if one doesn't exist" and I responded that such premise will turn "I think therefore I am" into "I am therefore I am." "I am therefore I am" is an ever-true statement but it's circular.
I know. The point of all of Descartes' reasoning was not so much to prove that he existed (pay attention, please, this is important), it was to prove that the fact that he could contemplate not existing proved his existence - thus any attempt to prove his non-existence further validated his existence.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, circular reasoning that makes up such statements is forbidden in the framework of Boolean logic. "I am therefore I am" is circular hence incompatible with Boolean logic. And for those who "like" Boolean logic too much and want to find "absolute truth" out of statements, as claimed by Boolean logic, "I am therefore I am" is, well, out of question.
Again, and this is important, it is not so much circular, as restating the same thing twice. Pay attention to this, please, [b]Boolean Logic doesn't say that it is wrong to postulate the same thing twice (does it?), so "I am therefore I am" shouldn't be forbidden.
(Just to make sure you get this): The point of the statement is not to be found in the statement, it is found in the context. As I've said before, the point is that, the more one tries to prove that I don't exist, the more proof I have of my existence.
And if "you" try to convince them that they exist, you'll get "the same problem."
There's a reason to that I accompany a discussion of Descartes' statement with a discussion of Uncertainty. Descartes' statement is one of the many places that Uncertainty shows up in full strength. Particularly because the statement has to do with foundations of one's thoughts (existence in this case). Descartes' statement can't be disproved (for it's circular) but it also can't be proven (for it's incompatible with Boolean logic). Where's the way out? Uncertainty. That statement is both ways equally creditable, and that's the essence of Uncertainty.
One thing to notice, have you thought of the name by which "that which agrees with itself" is called? That which expects and asserts its own righteousness is called a "loop," I guess.
See above, for why it's not a loop; why Uncertainty is not an answer; and why the statement ought not be studied outside of it's context (the story about the Evil Demon).
Let's see an example, Science. If I come to you and claim "there's an intangible unforeseeable uncontrollable agent acting in this Universe," you (depicted as a defender of Science) will possibly tell me to throw it away because it's an "impractical" premise. Where's the twist? By comparing that premise to a scientific criterion, that is practicality, you've pre-assumed Science's righteousness. Obviously enough, having pre-assumed Science's righteousness, you won't go much further than asserting that righteousness by telling me to throw away an "impractical" premise.
However, Science is a perfectly sound branch of Philosophy, and thus there is nothing wrong with my using it to prove something's practicality (which, btw, is not just a scientific tool, it is a tool of practically all of the different reasoning systems that I've ever been introduced to).
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
The balance you talk about is achieved after both extremes are experienced. That balance, I guess, is somehow like that "residual understanding" I wrote of. One experiences Certainty (in the form of scientific and/or religious and/or whatever belief) then one experiences Uncertainty and then comes the residual understanding, or as you call it "the balance."
No, this isn't anything like what I was saying at all. I was saying that "uncertainty" is a balance, and you can't reach "uncertainty" (which means "partial uncertainty", btw) if you use the premise of "Uncertainty" at any time.
If you're in balance then you won't be sure that you're absolutely right but you also won't be sure that you're wrong. You have a good amount of hope in that that your thoughts may work as you wish and choose and think on the basis of that hope. Am I correct here? If yes, then I think you already have experienced with Uncertainty and Certainty.
You act like these are the only two choices. There is also the choice of "uncertainty", which is the one I've been pushing.
I never said it's "better." I said it's a "fairer" substitute. And again "you" interpret the "fairness" I talk about as "practicality." I don't put any value on Uncertainty for it's worthless but it's "fair" and "sincere" to that which is called Philosophy.
How can you say that it's both worthless and fair at the same time.
We can discuss the thing in some framework and get results for that framework and we can be satisfied with those results in their respective framework. However, there's no warranty, even limited, for outside of that framework. And clearly there's much more to outside than to inside.
There is no point in leaving a logical framework that works.
Seriously, do you have some grounds for that claim? If yes, do you know that if your grounds are creditable you would have overcome one of the most compelling challenges humanity has faced?
Honestly, have you ignored all of my posts in the past couple of pages?! Let me spell it out for you: Uncertainty is unusable because it requires you to accept a premise, while at the same time telling you not to accept any premises. This leaves you with no place to go, and thus you can't get anywhere. For a more detailed explanation of it's ineptitude, read my previous posts.
No, the rule is "there's no distinction between any two places, put them wherever and they'll be equal." Things are "put into place" but all into "one place" and that's the "place of equality."
I can't prove what I haven't even claimed. I never claimed that Uncertainty is useful; I said it shouldn't be assessed by practicality criterion. I never claimed its existence, I said it's paradoxical and can't be given a definite state.
In refering to "it", you claim "it's" existence, and you know it. You've been speaking about "it" as a reasoning system, and thus (obviously) implying it's existence.
Why? And how? "Nothing is uncertain" doesn't seem to me like opposing "any" order. It surely opposes "many" orders but not "any" order. I wrote of an order that is well suited to this premise, the order that places everything in one place, the place of equality.
Yes, it makes them all [b]equally unreliable, and unimportant, if taken as a premise. It opposes all order, because to assume an order is to violate it's premise of not assuming anything.
Again, this is "your" interpretation (or rather "misinterpretation"). Uncertainty asks for caution, clarity and hesitation in the face of anything and everything; not a bit less, not a bit more.
DEAD wrong, even by your own previous explanations of Uncertainty. In case you've forgotten, Uncertainty relies on the premise that "nothing is certain". This means that to believe in "caution" is against it's very premise. To believe in "clarity and hesitation" is against it's very premise.
Uncertainty is of paradoxical nature that means it's nothing more than a between-the-lines hint. One may choose one's premises at will while one's uncertain of their truth.
No, that's how "uncertainty" works, not "Uncertainty".
Uncertainty provides a ground for always being cautious of what one chooses but doesn't prevent a choice from being made.
YES IT DOES! [s(]
If you make a choice of premise to take for granted, you have violated the premise of Uncertainty, which doesn't allow you to take anything for granted (at least, that's how you've presented it).
Being cautious of one's choice one will always be ready to change it if one finds out that choice has been erroneous. This readiness is a basis for a dynamic system of thoughts that can change with new packets of knowledge (even though uncertain they are). Instead of taking "progression" as a premise (like with Science) one will be experiencing "change" as a consequence of a fairer, more general, less demanding and more open premise.
Don't you see that all through this you are speaking of the ability to take a certain premise for granted when you choose to. Uncertainty doesn't allow one to take anything for granted.
Practicality does have meaning in many knowledge bodies but doesn't have the same meaning all over these places. Practicality can be defined even for a Religion, as "conformance to God's commandments" for example. This practicality is apparently different from the other one discussed in words of Science.
It doesn't matter, it still exists in all reasoning systems.
Causality bond is explained for scientifically through the declaration of forces. The four forces are the source of all interaction including that you smack someone. Forces are elements from the scientific Universe. They're of fundamentals of Science. Let's think of them for a moment. What's a force? An obscure concept that explains for a coincidence that is later called an "interaction."
Or, it is that which causes the interaction. Haven't you considered that yours is a viewpoint based solely on non-conformance to other viewpoints, while Causality is explaining what is happening without postulating any extra speculations?
How do you know they're hurt when you smack them? You see them getting hurt but do you see them? You see a consistent representation in your mind that goes through a transition but what's the nature of this representation? No one knows and is that what "really" (supposing there's some "real" thing around) happening? No one knows.
I'm definitely not going to get into a discussion of whether there is a reality or not. I 1) don't have time right now; and 2) don't see it's relevance, because you are assuming your own reality/existence every time you argue with me anyway. What's to make you think that I'm actually seeing what you type? It doesn't matter, because that's not the topic of our discussions.
Pre-established Harmony explains these coincidences as parts of the Harmony that governs the events of this Universe. The coincidence of two events is a part of the Harmony but not a necessity of Universe's structure which is supposed to be made of abstract Monads that are isolated from each other. While one part of the Harmony may force a coincidence and a seemingly relation between some of the Monads (of the two coinciding phenomena), a repetition is noway guaranteed. Monads are totally isolated and play their own roles in the Harmony but these roles may or may not be synchronized to mimic some relation.
So the "mimicing" of relation isn't caused by the "Monadic" (is that a word? [:)]) nature of the universe?
Manuel_Silvio
May5-03, 07:46 AM
Greetz,
1. For heusdens:
Thank you. A logical system is a form of an axiomatic system, right? Truth values, structuring of statements and rules of deduction are the axioms of a logical system, I guess.
2. For Mentat:
I repeat, I am not criticizing the proof, I am waiting for you to show me it's applicability, otherwise it's not important to the discussion.You "are" criticizing it by claiming it's inapplicable. Isn't that sort of critique?
The proof's aim is to show that Q (Descartes' statement) and a valid statement, P, together make either a loop or a paradox based on arbitrarily-chosen state for P. "If" it succeeds in showing this point, it's also succeeded in showing that Q is somehow incompatible with the viewpoint in which all the proof has taken place. This seems so apparent to me. Is it unclear?
If one's to criticize this proof one must show one of those cases numbered 00-03 has happened.
... it doesn't make any sense - to me - to say that one proposition's implying another proposition's truth leads to a paradox/loop.
I perfectly agree with point 03. Q won't lead to paradox, and I haven't agreed to anything of the kind.Loop is one case and Paradox is another. The proof follows either of two different lines according to the state chosen for P. If P is set T then, so the proof claims, a loop is made. If P is set F then, so the proof claims, a paradox is made.
You accepted that if Q is set T then its assertion, P, may not be set F because that would lead to a paradox (saying that Q is both T and F is a paradox). So one of the lines that the proof follows has been approved. The other line should be followed when P is set T, and that's the loop case.
How is it paradoxical, without the use of "Uncertainty"?You didn't consider what I said. I asked if one could remain fair to some knowledge body as one's subject of study while one's submitted to another knowledge body's premises. And you answered "yes" but how could you ever answer "yes?"
Isn't it clear that one can't be fair if one's got premises? If one assumes some premises one will always assess everything with those premises in mind. Consequently, one won't evaluate one's subject(s) of study fairly anymore. Do you think an observer whose premise is "the event X will happen in this experiment" can observe that experiment fairly?
One wants to be fair in assessing a knowledge body. To be fair, one has to stand outside that knowledge body. Standing "outside" a knowledge body is standing "inside" another. Standing "inside" another knowledge body means being submitted to its premises. Now that one's submitted to some premises one isn’t fair. One can't stand in any place and claim that one's fair. This is the paradoxical situation of a "fair" observer. And this paradoxical situation is independent from Uncertainty.
First off, there are many (rather intelligent) people, that I know of, that can study science with the Bible as their premise, and they have no problem. I think your problem here is that you are saying "stand inside X, to judge Y". This is not what I was talking about. I'm saying "take X for granted (as part of the foundation/premise), to judge Y".One can't be both "religious" and "scientific" at the same time. Because Science and Religion have contradictory predispositions.
The Old Testament starts with Genesis, the cosmogony of Judaism and Christianity. Scientific cosmogony is totally different and in contradiction to Genesis. One can't believe in both of them at the same time.
Then, you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you were told with that Science and Religion example. Try to understand it.
But saying that something necessitates Uncertainty is also contradictory to the premise of Uncertainty, can you see why?I see, but did I say something "necessitates" Uncertainty? I said Uncertainty is a way to offset the interference of premises.
... You are saying "it will do this" and "it will do that". This implies it's practicality, when in fact such a thing (as practicality) cannot exist in an Uncertain world, nor can it exist along with paradox."You" think that's implied by my words. And you say practicality may not exist for an uncertain viewpoint, now wouldn't this claim of yours be wrong if I've really shown that Uncertainty does this and that?
It's not more flexible, when will you get this? It's unusable, that's not the same thing as "flexible".Is there a problem with saying that something is "unusable" (as you claim) yet "flexible?"
... That still doesn't show any inconsistency the logic. Yes, assuming the proof of one of these things assumes the proof of the other. So what? What is wrong with my saying "I'm fifteen", and then saying "I was born fifteen years ago"?...No problem as long as you don't assume one of them as a proof for the other. You may say that "I'm fifteen" and "I was born fifteen years ago" are logically equal but you may not assume "I'm fifteen" and deduce "so I was born fifteen year ago" exactly because these two are logical equivalents. In assuming one of them true you've assumed the other one true. This is starting with "I'm fifteen" as true and ending with "I'm fifteen" as true, and this is a loop. "I'm fifteen" can be true but this truth must be deduced through the rules of deduction for the logical system in which you're working from the truth of "a distinct statement."
"I am therefore I am" is a loop because the deduction starts with "I am" pre-assumed T and ends with "I am" deduced T. "I am" may be true or false but this true/false state may only be deduced from another statement. Suppose we call "I am" statement R. Saying "I am therefore I am" is saying "R is T so R is T."
... it was to prove that the fact that he could contemplate not existing proved his existence - thus any attempt to prove his non-existence further validated his existence.And any attempt to prove his existence further validated his non-existence, right?
However, Science is a perfectly sound branch of Philosophy, and thus there is nothing wrong with my using it to prove something's practicality (which, btw, is not just a scientific tool, it is a tool of practically all of the different reasoning systems that I've ever been introduced to).What do you mean with "perfectly sound?" To whose evaluation is it "perfectly sound" and by which means of assessment?
Practicality? Some American Churches' "practical" way was not to install lightning rods until many years after their invention by Benjamin Franklin. And to oppose birth control for many years until now. Is that practical by scientific measures? Surely not, but it's practical and favorable by those Churches' measures. Practicality isn't a solid idea shared among everyone. Any individual/group has its own view of practicality. Hence, practicality isn't a universal criterion to measure everything with.
You act like these are the only two choices. There is also the choice of "uncertainty", which is the one I've been pushing.As far as I've understood your "uncertainty" allows for doubting things but not all of them. Why not all of them? What's the difference between those things you doubt and those you don't?
How can you say that it's both worthless and fair at the same time.Is there a problem with something being worthless yet fair?
There is no point in leaving a logical framework that works.
Is it really working? Medieval Churches thought their logical framework and their way of governance really worked. I guess they really believed this from the depths of their hearts.
I hear the voice of an Inquisitor: "Burn him! He's leaving our framework that really works, what's made him leave the Kingdom of our Lord?"
That Inquisitor apparently believed his way was "working" but the one being burnt didn't think so, I guess. Every framework will seem working when it's evaluated by its own criteria.
... Uncertainty is unusable because it requires you to accept a premise, while at the same time telling you not to accept any premises. This leaves you with no place to go, and thus you can't get anywhere...And in this self-contradiction lies a reflection of "fair" observer's paradoxical situation.
In refering to "it", you claim "it's" existence, and you know it. You've been speaking about "it" as a reasoning system, and thus (obviously) implying it's existence.And who says this? Who says referring to "it" is an implication of "existence?"
"You" may think one way or the other but you may not generalize your way to everyone.
Yes, it makes them all [b]equally unreliable, and unimportant, if taken as a premise. It opposes all order, because to assume an order is to violate it's premise of not assuming anythingYou don't "assume" an order. You "discover" an order. One takes Uncertainty and discovers the order I wrote of. Uncertainty asks to take nothing for granted but doesn't require an avoidance from discovering that Uncertainty has made everything equally unreliable thus equally creditable.
... This means that to believe in "caution" is against it's very premise. To believe in "clarity and hesitation" is against it's very premise.This isn't a belief, it's a suggestion.
If you make a choice of premise to take for granted, you have violated the premise of Uncertainty, which doesn't allow you to take anything for granted (at least, that's how you've presented it).Since I know that Uncertainty contradicts itself, I won't be taking anything too serious, Uncertainty included.
Once again, Uncertainty is a step in a way. This step has much to tell us but it isn't meant to be the terminus.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May5-03, 07:51 AM
... continued from the previous post
It doesn't matter, it still exists in all reasoning systems.
You mean you've studied all "known" and "unknown" logical systems? How did you do this? And suppose, only suppose, it really exists in all logical systems. Doesn't it matter that its meaning changes from one system to the other?
So the "mimicing" of relation isn't caused by the "Monadic" ... nature of the universe?No. Monads are isolated. They don't interact but they may undergo harmonized changes. Two events coincide but aren't bound to each other by Universe's structural properties for the monads taking part in those events are isolated.
Note that I'm not particularly interested in Pre-established Harmony but I think it's a creditable substitute for Causality.
Greetings, Manuel_Silvio.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
For Mentat:
You "are" criticizing it by claiming it's inapplicable. Isn't that sort of critique?
Yes, in that way, I am criticizing it. What I meant was that I am not criticizing the proof itself, but rather, it's applicability to Descartes' philosophy.
The proof's aim is to show that Q (Descartes' statement) and a valid statement, P, together make either a loop or a paradox based on arbitrarily-chosen state for P. "If" it succeeds in showing this point, it's also succeeded in showing that Q is somehow incompatible with the viewpoint in which all the proof has taken place. This seems so apparent to me. Is it unclear?
It's not that it's unclear, it's that I disagree. (I've asked this a few times...) how does the fact that one proposition suggests (or, really, requires) the truth of another propostion lead to a paradox/loop?
Loop is one case and Paradox is another. The proof follows either of two different lines according to the state chosen for P. If P is set T then, so the proof claims, a loop is made. If P is set F then, so the proof claims, a paradox is made.
But I don't see a loop, so much as I see a restating of the same premise. If I state "I'm 15 years old", and then state "I was born 15 years ago", I have no loop/paradox, I have merely restated the same thing. Of course, accepting one necessitates that you accept the other, but there is still no paradox, IMO.
You didn't consider what I said. I asked if one could remain fair to some knowledge body as one's subject of study while one's submitted to another knowledge body's premises. And you answered "yes" but how could you ever answer "yes?"
Isn't it clear that one can't be fair if one's got premises? If one assumes some premises one will always assess everything with those premises in mind. Consequently, one won't evaluate one's subject(s) of study fairly anymore. Do you think an observer whose premise is "the event X will happen in this experiment" can observe that experiment fairly?
No. So? I wasn't saying that you had to actually believe any other premises, merely that you should take them for granted (as being true) for the purpose of testing something else.
I'll give you an example: If I want to test the response of a particle to near-light-speed velocities, I have to take for granted that the speed of light is ~186,000 miles/per second. I can test the other premise (that the speed of light is what I think it is) later, but I need it as a premise, when testing what happens at near-light-speed velocities.
One wants to be fair in assessing a knowledge body. To be fair, one has to stand outside that knowledge body. Standing "outside" a knowledge body is standing "inside" another. Standing "inside" another knowledge body means being submitted to its premises. Now that one's submitted to some premises one isn’t fair. One can't stand in any place and claim that one's fair. This is the paradoxical situation of a "fair" observer. And this paradoxical situation is independent from Uncertainty.
I don't get this last sentence. Uncertainty has it's own premises as well. You cannot stand within the framework of Uncertainty, and [fairly] judge another framework - according to your own reasoning.
One can't be both "religious" and "scientific" at the same time. Because Science and Religion have contradictory predispositions.
The Old Testament starts with Genesis, the cosmogony of Judaism and Christianity. Scientific cosmogony is totally different and in contradiction to Genesis. One can't believe in both of them at the same time.
Yes you can. However, I don't suppose this is the thread to discuss that in.
Then, you don't seem to have the faintest idea what you were told with that Science and Religion example. Try to understand it.
You need to start recognizing the difference between misunderstanding and disagreement. I used to do the same thing, and I got quite a few people angry with me (please don't think that I'm angry with you, I'm not, I just don't approve of this misunderstanding about misunderstandings [:)]).
I don't agree with the application of the Science vs. Religion reasoning, to our discussion, because I wasn't talking about stepping outside of an entire reasoning system. I was talking about studying one premise at a time, which necessitates the acceptance of some other premises. If you want to test an entire reasoning system, then there is no "fair" place to stand.
I see, but did I say something "necessitates" Uncertainty? I said Uncertainty is a way to offset the interference of premises.
Indirectly. You said:
Previously Posted by Manuel_Silvio
Whatever comes near should better be doubted before it's taken into account. This is exactly the task of Uncertainty.
In this, you are using the concept "should" (forget about word-usage, the concept has been present throughout most of this discussion).
"You" think that's implied by my words. And you say practicality may not exist for an uncertain viewpoint, now wouldn't this claim of yours be wrong if I've really shown that Uncertainty does this and that?
No. If you can find practicality in a reasoning system, then the reasoning system doesn't fit in the framework of Uncertainty. Something's practicality is an assumption, and Uncertainty doesn't allow for any assumptions.
Is there a problem with saying that something is "unusable" (as you claim) yet "flexible?"
Yes. The premises of "it's flexible" are (basically):
1. "It" exists.
2. "It is usable in a flexible manner".
No problem as long as you don't assume one of them as a proof for the other. You may say that "I'm fifteen" and "I was born fifteen years ago" are logically equal but you may not assume "I'm fifteen" and deduce "so I was born fifteen year ago" exactly because these two are logical equivalents. In assuming one of them true you've assumed the other one true. This is starting with "I'm fifteen" as true and ending with "I'm fifteen" as true, and this is a loop. "I'm fifteen" can be true but this truth must be deduced through the rules of deduction for the logical system in which you're working from the truth of "a distinct statement."
"From the truth of a distinct statement"? "I'm fifteen" is a distinct statement. The fact that I restate it later (even if in the same sentence) doesn't change that, does it?
"I am therefore I am" is a loop because the deduction starts with "I am" pre-assumed T and ends with "I am" deduced T. "I am" may be true or false but this true/false state may only be deduced from another statement. Suppose we call "I am" statement R. Saying "I am therefore I am" is saying "R is T so R is T."
Yes, stating the same things twice, so what? If I say "God doesn't exist, therefore God cannot act on anything", I am stating God's inability to act twice, but there is no loop. Besides, it was the Evil Demon who made the error of trying to convince someone (thus assuming their existence) of their not existing.
And any attempt to prove his existence further validated his non-existence, right?
No! Have you been reading my words and not my reasoning this whole time? No offense, but I think you have entirely missed the point of "keep the statement within it's context".
Any individual/group has its own view of practicality.
Yes, and thus "practicality" is not a strictly Scientific concept.
Hence, practicality isn't a universal criterion to measure everything with.
Yes it is, you just need to define which kind of practicality you are using at any given time.
As far as I've understood your "uncertainty" allows for doubting things but not all of them. Why not all of them?
Because I would then have to doubt my doubt, and doubt that doubt, and so on ad infinitum. If I doubt that I must doubt, then I can just as easily fall into Certainty as Uncertainty.
What's the difference between those things you doubt and those you don't?
Isn't that obvious?
Is there a problem with something being worthless yet fair?
Yes, it can't be fair, otherwise it would be (at least in some way) worthwile, instead of worthless.
Reponse continued on next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
That Inquisitor apparently believed his way was "working" but the one being burnt didn't think so, I guess. Every framework will seem working when it's evaluated by its own criteria.
And in this self-contradiction lies a reflection of "fair" observer's paradoxical situation.
Yes, thus your striving for a "fair" standpoint is in vain, is it not?
And who says this? Who says referring to "it" is an implication of "existence?"
Oh, come on! If I refer to "it", "him", or "her", I am refering to an individual entity, through the use of a pronoun. This is much too basic, and it's why I said that you fall under the unadvisable category of Descates' Second Rule.
"You" may think one way or the other but you may not generalize your way to everyone.
Says who? [;)]
Uncertainty asks to take nothing for granted...
This is wrong, and you know it.
...but doesn't require an avoidance from discovering that Uncertainty has made everything equally unreliable thus equally creditable.
"Equally unreliable" and "equally creditable" are opposites not synonymous, as you would have me believe.
This isn't a belief, it's a suggestion.
A suggestion is fine, but you cannot ask that one accept - or, even for an instant, take for granted - these suggestions, without contradicting the rule of Uncertainty.
Since I know that Uncertainty contradicts itself, I won't be taking anything too serious, Uncertainty included.
And yet, your "cautiousness" is based on Uncertainty, isn't it?
Once again, Uncertainty is a step in a way. This step has much to tell us but it isn't meant to be the terminus.
Once again, if Uncertainty were a step in the way, it would be one with no physical substance, and without any imaginable usefulness.
continued on the next post...
As is my response...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post
You mean you've studied all "known" and "unknown" logical systems? How did you do this?
I never said I did.
And suppose, only suppose, it really exists in all logical systems. Doesn't it matter that its meaning changes from one system to the other?
Sure it matters. It just doesn't change the fact that "practicality", by definition, is just something's usefulness in practice. Thus, people can have different ideas of what is "practical", but if they actually try their ideas out, they may (not necessarily, but likely) find that it is not really useful in practice.
No. Monads are isolated. They don't interact but they may undergo harmonized changes. Two events coincide but aren't bound to each other by Universe's structural properties for the monads taking part in those events are isolated.
Interesting. However, let's say that 100 times out of 100, certain Monads (harmoniously) change, after I clap my hands. Then it can be concluded that it is practical to assume a relationship (betwixt clapping and the change of those particular Monads). It is practical because it can be "put into practice" (and has been 100 times). If, at some point in the future, the clapping of my hands is not accompanied by the change of those particular Monads, then I will have to assume that something out-of-the-ordinary has happened. This is all just human nature.
Manuel_Silvio
May6-03, 08:24 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... What I meant was that I am not criticizing the proof itself, but rather, it's applicability to Descartes' philosophy.
... how does the fact that one proposition suggests (or, really, requires) the truth of another propostion lead to a paradox/loop?Questioning the applicability of this proof is senseless. "If" this proof is all right then it will show something about Descartes' statement (and that's clear), so it's applicable. It's "clear" that this proof is applicable for studying Descartes' statement because its aim is to show Descartes' statement's incompatibility with Boolean logic. Now "if" and only "if" this proof is all right "then" and only "then" we learn something about Descartes' statement. That's the "applicability" of "this proof" to "Descartes' statement."
The proof has "two" lines. These "two" lines are "different." One line leads to a "paradox." The other leads to a "loop." The paradox line is "clear." The loop line is what we are talking about right now. Don't use "loop/paradox," use "loop."
The proof claims that if statement P is set T, then any deduction resulting in statement Q set T will be circular reasoning, a "loop." Why is it that way? Because of the word "therefore" put there. We know P and Q are logical equivalents, so they can be used in place of each other. If one says "Q and Q" one would have said "P and Q" or "P and P." This isn't circular reasoning for it combines statements P and Q with the logical operator "and." (using mathematical notation, "Q ^ Q" isn't circular because it may be either T or F based on Q's state and the truth table for "and" operator).
Truth table for AND operator on statements R and S:
R----S----(R ^ S)
T----T----T
T----F----F
F----T----F
F----F----F
According to truth table:
If Q = T then (Q ^ Q) = T;
If Q = F then (Q ^ Q) = F;
On the other hand, it would be circular to say "Q therefore Q" or equally "P therefore Q" because "therefore" is the conditional logical operator, mathematically shown as "Q => Q." This form of reasoning is circular and non-informative because regardless of Q's "real" state, Q's conditional combination with Q will be true.
Truth table for CONDITIONAL operator on statements R and S:
R----S----(R => S)
T----T----T
T----F----F
F----T----T
F----F----T
According to truth table:
If Q = T then (Q => Q) = T;
If Q = F then (Q => Q) = T;
The difference here lies in the obvious distinction between AND and CONDITIONAL logical operators. Saying "Q and Q" is right but saying "Q therefore Q" is wrong. "Q and Q" is stating the same thing twice while "Q therefore Q" is deduction of Q's state from itself.
Clear enough?
No. So? I wasn't saying that you had to actually believe any other premises, merely that you should take them for granted (as being true) for the purpose of testing something else. Taking premises for granted means "believing" them. If you take a premise "true" then you'll judge everything according to the "truth" of that premise.
... If I want to test the response of a particle to near-light-speed velocities, I have to take for granted that the speed of light is ~186,000 miles/per second...This is different. Speed of light isn't a premise, it's a measurement. The premise here is that "everything in scientific Universe can be measured."
The premises of a knowledge body, Science for example, are the most basic statements which are necessary for conformance to that knowledge body.
Speed of light is a particular from scientific Universe. Particulars aren't challenged here, generalizations are called to judgment.
... Uncertainty has it's own premises as well. You cannot stand within the framework of Uncertainty, and [fairly] judge another framework - according to your own reasoning."Fair" observer's situation is paradoxical. Uncertainty's paradoxical nature is a reflection of that other more basic paradox.
The point with Uncertainty is that there's "no framework." You said that "Uncertainty" can never be achieved because it's paradoxical. That's right and that's why Uncertainty has no framework. I wrote many times before that "Uncertainty is a between-the-lines hint." It's a hint of "fair" observer's paradoxical situation.
By working inside Uncertainty one's working actually nowhere. It's surely somewhere but no certain place. Uncertainty provides dynamism. At any given time one's submitted to some set of premises, but Uncertainty lets one be aware of the uncertain nature of these premises and of interferences caused by them and also prepares one for change at every moment.
Like I wrote before, Uncertainty is one facet of something more basic. The other facets are Paradox and Self-reference. That more basic thing seems unreachable to me but its facets give clues to its nature.
Absolute fairness can't be achieved but relative fairness is at hand. Uncertainty is relatively fairer than other stances because it has a hint to the more basic concept of "fair" observer while many other stances only hide away that more basic problem.
Yes you can. However, I don't suppose this is the thread to discuss that in.No, you can't. Nonetheless, I don't think this is the thread to talk that over [:D]
You need to start recognizing the difference between misunderstanding and disagreement.And you need to start recognizing the difference between a well-thought disagreement and a disagreement made upon misunderstanding (and I'm not angry with you [:)]).
I was talking about studying one premise at a time, which necessitates the acceptance of some other premises. If you want to test an entire reasoning system, then there is no "fair" place to stand.We talked about this before. There's no point in studying one premise at a time while other premises are taken for granted.
Every knowledge body is "internally consistent." Inconsistencies and discrepancies can't be seen from "inside." This means you have no option of proving one of premises wrong when you have accepted other premises to be true.
Neither "inside" nor "outside" is fair. Now this is a point of agreement for us, right?
Previously Posted by Manuel_Silvio
Whatever comes near should better be doubted before it's taken into account. This is exactly the task of Uncertainty.
In this, you are using the concept "should" (forget about word-usage, the concept has been present throughout most of this discussion).That isn't a "should" which is an obligation. It's a "should better" which is a suggestion.
As an aside, at this level nothing is necessitated because necessities are against "fairness." If something is necessitated then it's been "preferred" and "preference" has no place here.
... If you can find practicality in a reasoning system, then the reasoning system doesn't fit in the framework of Uncertainty. Something's practicality is an assumption, and Uncertainty doesn't allow for any assumptions."Practicality" isn't an assumption. It's a "criterion." You define it and then compare things to it. One may define "practicality" as "being uncertain" and then Uncertainty is practical.
You've accepted that practicality may be defined at will.
Yes. The premises of "it's flexible" are (basically):
1. "It" exists.
2. "It is usable in a flexible manner".Who has associated these premises with "flexibility?" And what's given her/him an undeniable right to do so and to generalize her/his personal definition?
"From the truth of a distinct statement"? "I'm fifteen" is a distinct statement. The fact that I restate it later (even if in the same sentence) doesn't change that, does it?Yes, it changes based on the logical operator used in statement synthesis (see above).
No! Have you been reading my words and not my reasoning this whole time? No offense, but I think you have entirely missed the point of "keep the statement within it's context".Even if it's an "unfair, biased and personal" context that is claimed to be "fair, unbiased and encompassing?"
Yes it is, you just need to define which kind of practicality you are using at any given time.
It just doesn't change the fact that "practicality", by definition, is just something's usefulness in practice. Thus, people can have different ideas of what is "practical", but if they actually try their ideas out, they may (not necessarily, but likely) find that it is not really useful in practice.Smells like "self-contradiction." [;)]
The fact? What fact?
By definition? Whose definition?
Usefulness? What use?
Practice? Which practice?
Actually? Which, what or whose Actuality?
Because I would then have to doubt my doubt, and doubt that doubt, and so on ad infinitum. If I doubt that I must doubt, then I can just as easily fall into Certainty as Uncertainty.That's the dear price of "relative fairness." Be cautious, you will fall nowhere.
Isn't that obvious?No.
Yes, it can't be fair, otherwise it would be (at least in some way) worthwile, instead of worthless.And who associates "fairness" with "worthiness?"
Yes, thus your striving for a "fair" standpoint is in vain, is it not?Hell knows, it's in vain. All in vain but I didn't know this when I started out. I started doubting and went on till nothing remained but doubting itself. I doubted the doubt and I asked why ask why.
There's much more to the landscapes one sees on the way than to those one sees at the destination. The way is the destination.
This is humane treatment of human situation.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May6-03, 08:34 AM
... continued from the previous post
If I refer to "it", "him", or "her", I am refering to an individual entity, through the use of a pronoun. This is much too basic...Yes, "you" are doing that and "you" think it's "much too basic."
Says who?Me [:))].
"Equally unreliable" and "equally creditable" are opposites not synonymous, as you would have me believe.On a homogenous scale of credibility that starts from "most unreliable" and ends with "most creditable" those which are "equally unreliable" are "equally creditable."
Scale of credibility:
(-) most unreliable
(+) most creditable
X is at (*)
(-)----------------*------(+)
Y is at (*)
(-)----------------*------(+)
X and Y are equally close to (-);
Hence, X and Y are equally close to (+);
Note that saying X is as much creditable as it's unreliable is wrong (because X is 16 dashes away from (-) and 6 dashes away from (+)). However, saying that X and Y are equally creditable thus equally unreliable is right (because this means they occupy the same place on the scale).
A suggestion is fine, but you cannot ask that one accept - or, even for an instant, take for granted - these suggestions, without contradicting the rule of Uncertainty.Descartes' statement was fine, too, as long as it was a suggestion.
You're right but Uncertainty is a step in a way. What one gathers at this step can be used on next steps (seems like I've always got too many metaphors).
And yet, your "cautiousness" is based on Uncertainty, isn't it?Not "based on" but rather "derived from."
Once again, if Uncertainty were a step in the way, it would be one with no physical substance, and without any imaginable usefulness.Do you take your steps of thought for "usefulness?" Have you considered a situation in which you may take a step essentially creditable yet essentially impractical to scientific measures?
Why did you start asking why somewhere in your childhood? Is that scientifically practical? I think not, for those things you've asked "why" from have been of no scientific use.
Wouldn't it be more "practical" to swallow all scientific premises and then start out with them "blindly?" You could have taken many more "practical" steps if you studied Calculus all the time you were contemplating more basic things.
I never said I did.You said, however, that practicality exists in all logical systems.
Interesting. However, let's say that 100 times out of 100, certain Monads (harmoniously) change, after I clap my hands. Then it can be concluded that it is practical to assume a relationship (betwixt clapping and the change of those particular Monads). It is practical because it can be "put into practice" (and has been 100 times). If, at some point in the future, the clapping of my hands is not accompanied by the change of those particular Monads, then I will have to assume that something out-of-the-ordinary has happened. This is all just human nature.A "bond" among Monads can't be concluded. No structural property can be devised for the Universe.
Nevertheless, one can devise a property for the Harmony and hope that this property remains there within a very long (but not infinite) stretch of time. Now this property of Harmony may be put to "use," whatever "use" may mean.
Causality and all of its substitutes, including Pre-established Harmony, are mental patterns imposed on events happening here and there. That's why they're all equally creditable.
Using these mental patterns may end in desirable results but this use introduces a risk factor (for there's a considerable possibility that these patterns become invalid). That's why I call Causality and its substitutes "optimization" methods. These methods can "optimize" processing routines but at the cost of a new risk factor.
And notice, "probabilistic" conclusions can't be made because number of experiments never yields to infinity. Moreover, "probabilistic" conclusions don't describe the "distribution" of possible events in order of happening.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Questioning the applicability of this proof is senseless. "If" this proof is all right then it will show something about Descartes' statement (and that's clear), so it's applicable.
So, the fact that 1+1=2 is right means that it is applicable to Descartes' statement? What I mean by this is that any proposition could be proven correct in some framework, but that doesn't mean that all of them are "helper devices" for Descartes' philosophy. I can show you the inapplicability of "1+1=2" to Descartes' philosophy, but can you show me the applicability of your proof to his philosophy?
The proof has "two" lines. These "two" lines are "different." One line leads to a "paradox." The other leads to a "loop." The paradox line is "clear." The loop line is what we are talking about right now. Don't use "loop/paradox," use "loop."
Yes sir! [:)]
However, a loop is a paradox. If you have looping reasoning, then you have a paradox. But I'll just use "loop" from now on.
The proof claims that if statement P is set T, then any deduction resulting in statement Q set T will be circular reasoning, a "loop." Why is it that way? Because of the word "therefore" put there. We know P and Q are logical equivalents, so they can be used in place of each other. If one says "Q and Q" one would have said "P and Q" or "P and P." This isn't circular reasoning for it combines statements P and Q with the logical operator "and." (using mathematical notation, "Q ^ Q" isn't circular because it may be either T or F based on Q's state and the truth table for "and" operator).
I still don't think that the use of the word "therefore" makes a loop. Here's why: If I say "I'm fifteen, therefore I will be 30 in 15 years", I have no logical loop. Yes, the second proposition has a sub-proposition that is equal to the first proposition (in the sentence), but there is still no loop.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that you are examining the sentence outside of it's context. This would be fine, if there were no story involving a Demon that does create a loop (by trying to convince someone that they don't exist), but as it is I don't think it correct that one examine the statment, without making any reference to the context.
Truth table for AND operator on statements R and S:
R----S----(R ^ S)
T----T----T
T----F----F
F----T----F
F----F----F
According to truth table:
If Q = T then (Q ^ Q) = T;
If Q = F then (Q ^ Q) = F;
On the other hand, it would be circular to say "Q therefore Q" or equally "P therefore Q" because "therefore" is the conditional logical operator, mathematically shown as "Q => Q." This form of reasoning is circular and non-informative because regardless of Q's "real" state, Q's conditional combination with Q will be true.
I know this. I've already admitted to it's non-informative nature. However, I stil disagree. You are saying that because I say "this is true, therefore it is true", there is a loop. I just don't see the loop. Also, look at the example of my age. I have written that one in the same style as Descartes' statement, to get the point across. "I was born 15 years ago, therefore I am 15" is not circular, even though the first premise contains (as a sub-premise) the second premise.
Truth table for CONDITIONAL operator on statements R and S:
R----S----(R => S)
T----T----T
T----F----F
F----T----T
F----F----T
According to truth table:
If Q = T then (Q => Q) = T;
If Q = F then (Q => Q) = T;
The difference here lies in the obvious distinction between AND and CONDITIONAL logical operators. Saying "Q and Q" is right but saying "Q therefore Q" is wrong. "Q and Q" is stating the same thing twice while "Q therefore Q" is deduction of Q's state from itself.
Clear enough?
No, sorry (I mean that I'm really sorry, if my disagreeing is frustrating you). See above for why.
Taking premises for granted means "believing" them. If you take a premise "true" then you'll judge everything according to the "truth" of that premise.
Exactly, that's why Uncertainty doesn't allow one to take anything for granted - which is something that you seemed to disagree with me on before.
Also, there is something wrong with the (above quoted) comment. You said that I would then judge everything according to the "truth" of that premise. This is not necessarily true, I may just be judging one thing with that premise as my basis, and then discarding the premise later.
This is different. Speed of light isn't a premise, it's a measurement. The premise here is that "everything in scientific Universe can be measured."
No, it's that the speed of light can, and has been measured. It has nothing to do with any other measurements. Besides, how is it that I am not taking for granted the measurement, when performing an experiment on what happens at near-light-speed?
The premises of a knowledge body, Science for example, are the most basic statements which are necessary for conformance to that knowledge body.
Speed of light is a particular from scientific Universe. Particulars aren't challenged here, generalizations are called to judgment.
True Uncertainty must challenge everything. You may not like this one example (I don't much either, but it was the first thing that popped into my head), but that doesn't mean that you can take it for granted, and still be Uncertain.
"Fair" observer's situation is paradoxical. Uncertainty's paradoxical nature is a reflection of that other more basic paradox.
I know, that's the point I was making: Your attempt to find a "fair" (or even "fairer") observer's situation is doomed to failure, and Uncertainty is probably a step backwards, because that's just accepting that it can't be done, while (at the same time) believing that you have the answer.
By working inside Uncertainty one's working actually nowhere.
Exactly why it is utterly pointless, and impossible.
It's surely somewhere but no certain place.
Beware of contradictions.
Uncertainty provides dynamism. At any given time one's submitted to some set of premises, but Uncertainty lets one be aware of the uncertain nature of these premises and of interferences caused by them and also prepares one for change at every moment.
No, that's what uncertainty does. Uncertainty doesn't allow you (even for a moment) to submit yourself to any knowledge body or any premise of any kind.
Like I wrote before, Uncertainty is one facet of something more basic. The other facets are Paradox and Self-reference. That more basic thing seems unreachable to me but its facets give clues to its nature.
A true paradox is unsolvable. Self-reference is truly paradoxical. Thus, the grand thing that your searching for is probably going to end up being complete acceptance of the unsolvable nature of everything. I don't like this conclusion, therefore I don't like it's facets.
Answer continued on next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Absolute fairness can't be achieved but relative fairness is at hand. Uncertainty is relatively fairer than other stances because it has a hint to the more basic concept of "fair" observer while many other stances only hide away that more basic problem.
Look, the fact that it hints at paradox more than any other reasoning system does not make it more fair. I just makes it closer to what the concept of fairness actually is, impossible.
No, you can't. Nonetheless, I don't think this is the thread to talk that over [:D]
Well, if we were discussing it (which we're not), I would reply that knowing which things are symbolic and which things are literal resolves the situation. But, of course, we're not discussing it, so it really doesn't matter [:D].
And you need to start recognizing the difference between a well-thought disagreement and a disagreement made upon misunderstanding
Actually, the difference I mentioned was not between a disagreement and a disagreement made upon misunderstanding. It was between a disagreement (any disagreement) and a misunderstanding.
We talked about this before. There's no point in studying one premise at a time while other premises are taken for granted.
And there's not point in denying all premises. They're both wrong. But, it does seem that one has had greater success in the history of humankind [;)].
Besides, you have made it rather obvious that Uncertainty does exactly the same thing as any other system (it takes one premise for granted while examining all others), so it's no better.
Neither "inside" nor "outside" is fair. Now this is a point of agreement for us, right?
[quote]
Sure, we can agree on that - provided you realize that that leaves out Uncertainty.
[quote]
That isn't a "should" which is an obligation. It's a "should better" which is a suggestion.
No, it's a proposition. You are assuming that you know what's better. You are also assuming that the way you have posted here is better than others. Both of these are assumptions, not suggestions.
As an aside, at this level nothing is necessitated because necessities are against "fairness." If something is necessitated then it's been "preferred" and "preference" has no place here.
Then why do you prefer Uncertainty? *Contradiction Alert!!*
"Practicality" isn't an assumption. It's a "criterion." You define it and then compare things to it. One may define "practicality" as "being uncertain" and then Uncertainty is practical.
None of this fits the definition of "praciticality".
You've accepted that practicality may be defined at will.
Not exactly. I have accepted that people may have different views of what is practical, but "practical" retains the meaning of "useful when put into practice".
Who has associated these premises with "flexibility?" And what's given her/him an undeniable right to do so and to generalize her/his personal definition?
I/myself have associated these premises with "flexibility". Prove that they are inapplicable, and I/myself will change my/his mind [:D].
Yes, it changes based on the logical operator used in statement synthesis (see above).
(See previous post for refutation.)
Even if it's an "unfair, biased and personal" context that is claimed to be "fair, unbiased and encompassing?"
How can you know any of this, if you don't put the statement where it belongs (in it's context) and try to study it as it was intended.
Smells like "self-contradiction." [;)]
Not self-contradiction, completion of a point. I've already explained this (previous post) so I suggest that you read that explanation
In fact, I must go now. I apologize, but I will complete my response later.
heusdens
May7-03, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.
Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:
And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".
What is your opinion?
The statement "I think, therefore, I am" I regard as a statement regarding the issue of the relation between being and thinking.
It says that thinking requires being.
The inverse statement is "I am, therefore, I think".
This would claim that all being requires thinking. Something is, only if it is able of thinking.
I would consider the first "I think, therefore, I am" as the right statement regarding the relation between being and thinking. Thinking requires being. The inverse statement, claims a false relationship between being and thinking. Being does not require thinking.
Manuel_Silvio
May8-03, 06:14 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... can you show me the applicability of your proof to his philosophy?Let's see. If I gave you a proof (just some proof not this one) that shows that Descartes' statement is incompatible with Boolean logic then would this exemplary proof be applicable to Descartes' statement? I think the answer is "yes."
Now I claim that the proof we're discussing here is one that shows such incompatibility. If this proof succeeds in its task, that is showing some incompatibility, then it can be considered an "applicable" proof. Do you agree?
And in order to prove this proof "inapplicable" one has to "understand" it and then show that it either doesn't succeed in its task or that it just does another task. Please "show" either of these cases.
By the way, this proof isn't "every" proof. It's a specific one concerned with its specific task (and it isn't 1 + 1 = 2).
However, a loop is a paradox.How did you make that? A loop is based on self-reference. A paradox is based on the collocation of contraries. Are these two equal? If yes, why have they been forbidden through distinct rules of logic and not under a single rule?
You are saying that because I say "this is true, therefore it is true", there is a loop.Please make sure you read and re-read my following words until you get the point. I'm really tired of this and I can't describe my point more clearly.
No. (Q => Q) isn't "this is true therefore it is true." It's "because this is true therefore it is true." A loop is an instance of self-reference, where the validity/truth of some statement is taken from the validity/truth of the same statement.
As I showed on the previous post a (Q => Q) statement is "always" true, no matter whether or not Q is T. It was rock solid Boolean logic. You may insist that your (Q => Q) statement (which is "I am therefore I am" or "I'm fifteen therefore I'm fifteen") is T and you're right with that but you must note that the truth of Q can't be deduced from this.
Suppose we have (Q => Q) = T (means, "I am therefore I am" is considered T). You can't deduce Q = T (means, "I am" is T) because regardless of Q's state (means, the truth of "I am" which is I's existence and the matter of debate here) (Q => Q) is ever-true.
Whether or not I exist (means, whether or not "I am" is T), "I am therefore I am" is true. "I am therefore I am" leads nowhere but "I am therefore I am." From that you can't get "I am" as true and for I to be proven to exist "I am" must be proven true (and there's no discussion about that).
Non-informative-ness isn't only a "disadvantage," it's a "fault." The only non-informative statements in Boolean logic are those forbidden ones (they were forbidden because they were non-informative). If you have a non-informative statement you can know for sure that you have a "fault" at hand.
"I was born 15 years ago, therefore I am 15" is not circular, even though the first premise contains (as a sub-premise) the second premise.This can't be compared to a (Q => Q). Here you have (R => Q) where Q's truth is deduced from R's truth and R's truth is independent of Q.
You may be born 15 years ago but have 20 years of age because you were involved in a hypothetical time machine experiment. "I was born 15 years ago" isn't a logical equivalent to "I am 15." These two can be converted to each other in presence of other statements which declare solemnly that you haven't experienced any time distortions.
Consequently, this statement isn't analogous to Descartes' statement which is a (Q => Q) (deduction of a statement's truth from its logical "equivalent" and not from its "result along with other auxiliary statements").
Exactly, that's why Uncertainty doesn't allow one to take anything for granted - which is something that you seemed to disagree with me on before. Uncertainty is paradoxical so one can be taking its premise for granted while one doesn't violate "nothing is certain."
Uncertainty's premise assumes no definite state of T or F, its value is none of the members of truth value set defined for Boolean logic. It can be taken simultaneously T and F or none of them or a mixture of T and F or something beyond T and F.
Uncertainty is a step in a way. This step can be taken under many names, call it Uncertainty, call it Angst, call it whatever. Under one name or the other, this step must be taken. It's the righteous successor of all previous steps. One starts out with doubts, with precision, with clarity, with cautiousness, with hopes and with desire for knowledge. This individual will, I think, someday somehow understand how these starting steps give the clues to a critical step beyond them.
That critical step is where limits of knowledge, its righteousness, its fairness and the honesty in one's desire for knowledge become subjects to one's quest for knowledge. Knowledge is all we know. Consider the situation where knowledge itself becomes a subject for being known. What happens? Would our knowledge give us clues to its own nature? Isn't this another paradox?
If our knowledge contains the knowledge about the nature of knowledge then we'd be knowing it and there's no point in asking. If our knowledge doesn't contain the knowledge about its own nature then we'd never acquire that knowledge for we can't access something that lies outside itself (knowledge of any form or about anything must be somewhere inside knowledge and can't be outside of knowledge).
Uncertainty, Paradox and Self-reference are all evaded for they're the borders to rationalized knowledge. In studying the knowledge itself the most important aspects of study are the limits of knowledge - those borders.
No, it's that the speed of light can, and has been measured. It has nothing to do with any other measurements. Besides, how is it that I am not taking for granted the measurement, when performing an experiment on what happens at near-light-speed?
... This is not necessarily true, I may just be judging one thing with that premise as my basis, and then discarding the premise later.
I think we have different understandings of "premises" for a knowledge body. For me, the premises of a knowledge body are the "most basic" statements whose truth enforces the truth of all other statements of that knowledge body.
Science, for example, has its premises (historically) told in Francis Bacon's "Novum Organum." The most basic to Science is its methodology. Assuming that methodology will in time result in "all" scientific achievements, including a measurement of light speed.
You can't be working in a knowledge body without being "totally" (consciously or otherwise) believing in its premises (which are the "most basic" of all). You can't assume Science's methodology for studying stones but look from Bible's outlook at human beings. This is a paradox just like Uncertainty.
You choose to be a scientist. You understand Science's methodology. You use it to view the Universe, to view all. Then you get everything out of it. Science and all other knowledge bodies are self-sufficient encompassing systems of thought applied to an entire Universe (some knowledge bodies may assume more Universes or some Multiverse or no Universe at all).
Uncertainty's task is to detect inconsistencies and discrepancies in these knowledge bodies that wouldn't be seen if one's "inside" (or even "outside") these knowledge bodies. One concerned with Uncertainty won't fulfill the requirements of Uncertainty (eg, won't be "totally" Uncertain, as you say) but will be assuming a relatively fairer stance compared to other stances.
True Uncertainty must challenge everything. You may not like this one example (I don't much either, but it was the first thing that popped into my head), but that doesn't mean that you can take it for granted, and still be Uncertain.Uncertainty challenges Science's methodology instead. This challenge invalidates all that relies on this methodology including but not limited to a measurement of light speed.
I know, that's the point I was making: Your attempt to find a "fair" (or even "fairer") observer's situation is doomed to failure, and Uncertainty is probably a step backwards, because that's just accepting that it can't be done, while (at the same time) believing that you have the answer.This is humane treatment of human situation.
No, that's what uncertainty does. Uncertainty doesn't allow you (even for a moment) to submit yourself to any knowledge body or any premise of any kind.Your "uncertainty" allows for unfair preference of some premises over others. Uncertainty, by its paradoxical nature, doesn't "allow" and/or "disallow" anything.
A true paradox is unsolvable. Self-reference is truly paradoxical. Thus, the grand thing that your searching for is probably going to end up being complete acceptance of the unsolvable nature of everything. I don't like this conclusion, therefore I don't like it's facets.My current guess of that "grand" thing (as you call it) is that it's Unknown [;)]
There's even enough "scientific evidence" to the unsolvable nature of everything. Even Science doesn't claim "direct" observation or manipulation of everything or anything. Even Science asserts that what we observe and manipulate is a "representation," nothing more. However, this "unsolvable" case isn't my point here and now.
Look, the fact that it hints at paradox more than any other reasoning system does not make it more fair. I just makes it closer to what the concept of fairness actually is, impossible.So the fact that one is always ready to review one's thoughts doesn't make one fairer?
continued on the next post…
Manuel_Silvio
May8-03, 06:18 AM
… continued from the previous post
Well, if we were discussing it (which we're not), I would reply that knowing which things are symbolic and which things are literal resolves the situation. But, of course, we're not discussing it, so it really doesn't matter.Nevertheless, if we were discussing it (which we never ever are) I would counter that knowing that symbolic things can be interpreted at will worsens the situation, but, more apparently than obviously we aren’t discussing it, so it more really than really doesn't matter and has never mattered to no one [:D]
Actually, the difference I mentioned was not between a disagreement and a disagreement made upon misunderstanding. It was between a disagreement (any disagreement) and a misunderstanding.Well, I'm gradually learning to know that difference. Did you try, too? [;)]
And there's not point in denying all premises. They're both wrong. But, it does seem that one has had greater success in the history of humankind.Success? From what point of view? By what definition of success? In what history of human beings?
No, it's a proposition. You are assuming that you know what's better. You are also assuming that the way you have posted here is better than others. Both of these are assumptions, not suggestions.
Then why do you prefer Uncertainty? *Contradiction Alert!!*
You're right. Have you noticed you're using the other edge of the double-edged sword that Uncertainty is?
None of this fits the definition of "praciticality".
Not exactly. I have accepted that people may have different views of what is practical, but "practical" retains the meaning of "useful when put into practice".And how "useful" and "practice" are defined?
I/myself have associated these premises with "flexibility". Prove that they are inapplicable, and I/myself will change my/his mind.First you tell me, "inapplicable" to which measures and tell your grounds for choosing those measures.
How can you know any of this, if you don't put the statement where it belongs (in it's context) and try to study it as it was intended.As far as I know, the context is an entity's opposition to a denial of that specific entity's existence. That entity used a statement that was problematic within the framework that that entity intended that statement to be understood in.
Not self-contradiction, completion of a point. I've already explained this (previous post) so I suggest that you read that explanation.I'd read it. You used terms that weren't subject to consensus (in this two-individual community, of course) while we'd agreed to use terms that refer to the same (or almost the same) things on both sides of dialogue.
Originally posted by heusdens
The statement "I think, therefore, I am" I regard as a statement regarding the issue of the relation between being and thinking.
It says that thinking requires being.
The inverse statement is "I am, therefore, I think".
This would claim that all being requires thinking. Something is, only if it is able of thinking.
I would consider the first "I think, therefore, I am" as the right statement regarding the relation between being and thinking. Thinking requires being. The inverse statement, claims a false relationship between being and thinking. Being does not require thinking.
And I would agree with you entirely.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Let's see. If I gave you a proof (just some proof not this one) that shows that Descartes' statement is incompatible with Boolean logic then would this exemplary proof be applicable to Descartes' statement? I think the answer is "yes."
Now I claim that the proof we're discussing here is one that shows such incompatibility. If this proof succeeds in its task, that is showing some incompatibility, then it can be considered an "applicable" proof. Do you agree?
Yes, if it can be used to show an incompatibility between Boolean Logic and Descartes' philosophy, then I agree to it's applicability.
And in order to prove this proof "inapplicable" one has to "understand" it and then show that it either doesn't succeed in its task or that it just does another task. Please "show" either of these cases.
Didn't you already show that it is the type statement, wherein "P" is a function of ? If this is so then I may understand the proof, but I still don't see how it accomplishes the aforementioned task.
By the way, this proof isn't "every" proof. It's a specific one concerned with its specific task (and it isn't 1 + 1 = 2).
Yes, but it's specific task is to show an incompatibility between Boolean Logic and a statment of the form "P ([bleep])", isn't it?
How did you make that? A loop is based on self-reference. A paradox is based on the collocation of contraries. Are these two equal? If yes, why have they been forbidden through distinct rules of logic and not under a single rule?
Hm, I guess a loop isn't a paradox. I had read a book that dealt with paradox (Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid), and it seems to have said that self-referential statements are paradoxical. Oh well, I have already agreed to use the word "loop".
Please make sure you read and re-read my following words until you get the point. I'm really tired of this and I can't describe my point more clearly.
No. (Q => Q) isn't "this is true therefore it is true." It's "because this is true therefore it is true." A loop is an instance of self-reference, where the validity/truth of some statement is taken from the validity/truth of the same statement.
As I showed on the previous post a (Q => Q) statement is "always" true, no matter whether or not Q is T. It was rock solid Boolean logic. You may insist that your (Q => Q) statement (which is "I am therefore I am" or "I'm fifteen therefore I'm fifteen") is T and you're right with that but you must note that the truth of Q can't be deduced from this.
Suppose we have (Q => Q) = T (means, "I am therefore I am" is considered T). You can't deduce Q = T (means, "I am" is T) because regardless of Q's state (means, the truth of "I am" which is I's existence and the matter of debate here) (Q => Q) is ever-true.
Whether or not I exist (means, whether or not "I am" is T), "I am therefore I am" is true. "I am therefore I am" leads nowhere but "I am therefore I am." From that you can't get "I am" as true and for I to be proven to exist "I am" must be proven true (and there's no discussion about that).
Alright. I understand it. It isn't much different then I thought it was. You are showing that "Q=>Q" doesn't prove anything. I agree entirely. Now, put the statement back into context, please, and see the impossible nature of the Evil Demon's task (to prove to someone that they don't exist), and we will have nothing left to discuss.
I keep mentioning context because I already knew that the statement itself doesn't get you anywhere. It is the application to the story that shows that, when someone tries to prove to you that you don't exist, they only further validate belief in your existence.
Non-informative-ness isn't only a "disadvantage," it's a "fault." The only non-informative statements in Boolean logic are those forbidden ones (they were forbidden because they were non-informative). If you have a non-informative statement you can know for sure that you have
a "fault" at hand.
Why is a non-informative statement forbidden by Boolean Logic?
This can't be compared to a (Q => Q). Here you have (R => Q) where Q's truth is deduced from R's truth and R's truth is independent of Q.
Oh no it's not independent. It's not possible that I was born 15 years ago, and yet am not 15 years old. Thus, this statement is of exactly the same nature as "I think therefore I am", [b]because the first statement has the second statement as one of it's sub-premises.
You may be born 15 years ago but have 20 years of age because you were involved in a hypothetical time machine experiment. "I was born 15 years ago" isn't a logical equivalent to "I am 15." These two can be converted to each other in presence of other statements which declare solemnly that you haven't experienced any time distortions.
So now you introduce context? This is a little irritating.
Besides, if I was born 15 years ago, then I must be 15 years old. If I travel through time, I was still born 15 subjective years ago, and that's all that matters to the statement.
Consequently, this statement isn't analogous to Descartes' statement which is a (Q => Q) (deduction of a statement's truth from its logical "equivalent" and not from its "result along with other auxiliary statements").
Actually, Descartes' statement isn't the one that you showed to be equivalent to "Q=>Q", it was "I am therefore I am" that was of this kind.
Uncertainty is paradoxical so one can be taking its premise for granted while one doesn't violate "nothing is certain."
This is backward reasoning. You must take the premise for granted while not violating "nothing is certain", and thus Uncertainty is paradoxical.
Uncertainty's premise assumes no definite state of T or F, its value is none of the members of truth value set defined for Boolean logic. It can be taken simultaneously T and F or none of them or a mixture of T and F or something beyond T and F.
Then it isn't useful. You said that it's usefulness (and it's "fairness") were that it could be used to determine the truth of another knowledge body.
Response Continued on the Next Post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Uncertainty is a step in a way. This step can be taken under many names, call it Uncertainty, call it Angst, call it whatever. Under one name or the other, this step must be taken. It's the righteous successor of all previous steps. One starts out with doubts, with precision, with clarity, with cautiousness, with hopes and with desire for knowledge. This individual will, I think, someday somehow understand how these starting steps give the clues to a critical step beyond them.
I don't want to sound repetitious, but you leave me no choice: You are not describing Uncertainty, you are describing uncertainty.
That critical step is where limits of knowledge, its righteousness, its fairness and the honesty in one's desire for knowledge become subjects to one's quest for knowledge. Knowledge is all we know. Consider the situation where knowledge itself becomes a subject for being known. What happens? Would our knowledge give us clues to its own nature? Isn't this another paradox?
Not really. Knowledge is not a system for learning, and thus does not fall into the paradoxes of Russel or Godel.
If our knowledge contains the knowledge about the nature of knowledge then we'd be knowing it and there's no point in asking. If our knowledge doesn't contain the knowledge about its own nature then we'd never acquire that knowledge for we can't access something that lies outside itself (knowledge of any form or about anything must be somewhere inside knowledge and can't be outside of knowledge).
You are (IMO) misusing the word "knowledge". You are asking things like "if our knowledge contains the knowledge about the nature of knowledge...", when in fact, unless you know something about the nature of knowledge, it is obvious that "our knowledge" doesn't (yet) contain knowledge about the nature of knowledge.
Uncertainty, Paradox and Self-reference are all evaded for they're the borders to rationalized knowledge. In studying the knowledge itself the most important aspects of study are the limits of knowledge - those borders.
Uncertainty, Paradox, and Loops are not the borders of rationality. "Borders" have recognizable existence on both sides of them. Uncertainty, Paradox, and Loops do not have recognizable (or understandable) existence on either side of the rationality/irrationality.
I think we have different understandings of "premises" for a knowledge body. For me, the premises of a knowledge body are the "most basic" statements whose truth enforces the truth of all other statements of that knowledge body.
That's what I think a premise of a knowledge body is as well.
Science, for example, has its premises (historically) told in Francis Bacon's "Novum Organum." The most basic to Science is its methodology. Assuming that methodology will in time result in "all" scientific achievements, including a measurement of light speed.
You can't be working in a knowledge body without being "totally" (consciously or otherwise) believing in its premises (which are the "most basic" of all). You can't assume Science's methodology for studying stones but look from Bible's outlook at human beings. This is a paradox just like Uncertainty.
Not paradoxical, but yes, it is as unusable as Uncertainty.
You choose to be a scientist. You understand Science's methodology. You use it to view the Universe, to view all. Then you get everything out of it. Science and all other knowledge bodies are self-sufficient encompassing systems of thought applied to an entire Universe (some knowledge bodies may assume more Universes or some Multiverse or no Universe at all).
Uncertainty's task is to detect inconsistencies and discrepancies in these knowledge bodies that wouldn't be seen if one's "inside" (or even "outside") these knowledge bodies. One concerned with Uncertainty won't fulfill the requirements of Uncertainty (eg, won't be "totally" Uncertain, as you say) but will be assuming a relatively fairer stance compared to other stances.
Again you describe "uncertainty" instead of "Uncertainty". This is not fitting, as my argument is against your belief in "Uncertainty".
Uncertainty challenges Science's methodology instead. This challenge invalidates all that relies on this methodology including but not limited to a measurement of light speed.
Then you agree with me?
This is humane treatment of human situation.
Thank you [;)].
Your "uncertainty" allows for unfair preference of some premises over others. Uncertainty, by its paradoxical nature, doesn't "allow" and/or "disallow" anything.
Until you can prove to me that this reasoning system (Uncertainty) can even exist, I will keep on repeating myself: If it doesn't allow or disallow anything, then it is unusable.
My current guess of that "grand" thing (as you call it) is that it's Unknown [;)]
It's obviously unknown, the point is in getting to know it, isn't it?
So the fact that one is always ready to review one's thoughts doesn't make one fairer?
One cannot even take it for granted that they should review their thoughts, under the framework of Uncertainty.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Nevertheless, if we were discussing it (which we never ever are) I would counter that knowing that symbolic things can be interpreted at will worsens the situation, but, more apparently than obviously we aren’t discussing it, so it more really than really doesn't matter and has never mattered to no one [:D]
Yeah, so who cares that your absolutely wrong, and that the Bible supplies it's own interpretations, and makes itself clear to anyone who actually studies it? It isn't even an issue that historians don't call Herodutus' writings foolish, just because they use symbolisms. [:D]
Success?
Yes.
From what point of view?
The common one.
By what definition of success?
The usual one.
In what history of human beings?
The only one.
You're right. Have you noticed you're using the other edge of the double-edged sword that Uncertainty is?
I don't really consider it a double-edged sword. I consider it to have only one edge, and it's the one that pierces through whoever tries to use it. One may not turn it about, either, because that would be making use of it, and thus would (inevitably) lead to their being pierced, before any useful progress is made.
And how "useful" and "practice" are defined?
In my post, or in general use?
First you tell me, "inapplicable" to which measures and tell your grounds for choosing those measures.
Any measure that you choose. It is you that was assigned to prove the inapplicability of my premises, so it is you who decides what is and is not applicable. If I disagree with your definition of applicability, then I will argue that point later.
As far as I know, the context is an entity's opposition to a denial of that specific entity's existence. That entity used a statement that was problematic within the framework that that entity intended that statement to be understood in.
The statement is not problematic, merely self-evident (and thus non-informative, just as you said). He was telling the Evil Demond what it should have known to begin with: You can't convince me of [bleep] if I don't exist, and thus will never prove to me that I don't exist.
I'd read it. You used terms that weren't subject to consensus (in this two-individual community, of course) while we'd agreed to use terms that refer to the same (or almost the same) things on both sides of dialogue.
Please explain. What terms did I use, and which ones should I have used instead?
Manuel_Silvio
May8-03, 06:54 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Didn't you already show that it is the type statement, wherein "P" is a function of [bleep]?
Yes, but it's specific task is to show an incompatibility between Boolean Logic and a statment of the form "P ([bleep])", isn't it?
That P([beep]) was a generalization. I used it to prove that incompatibility case for all statements of the form "I [beep] therefore I am" ("I think therefore I am," "I eat therefore I am," "I want therefore I am," etc). Instead of using the specific verb, "think," I used a non-specific variable [beep]. You could say whatever verb in place of [beep] (for example "I discuss therefore I am") and P([beep]) would be a statement like "there need be an I to [beep]" (means, for example, "there need be an I to discuss").
Remember you claimed that one can't be thinking if one's not being. The function P([beep])'s value for [beep] = "think" is "there need be an I to think." P([beep]) is the generalization of your premise that thinking (or [beep]ing) and being are firmly bound. There's a reason for my using P([beep]). I took your premise (and generalized it, an action that complicated the matter), then I showed, during that proof, that your premise by which you claim the truth for Descartes' statement leads to a loop along with the same Descartes' statement. This was the loop case in that proof where I said if P = T and Q = T then we'll have a loop. And then I showed even if you put away your premise (eg, you say P = F) and we get P = F and Q = T you won't get much out of it because that would be a paradox. This was the paradox case.
Now, let's forget the P([beep]) generalization for it only complicates the matter (even though it's a decent generalization).
With or without P([beep]), it's clear that statements of form (Q => Q) are ever-true and that they "can't" be used to deduce the truth of Q itself. Take a look at this new formulation of the same proof, perhaps this one works for you.
You repeated many times that "if there wasn't an I, who could be thinking?" Let's have your word and say that "thinking" is the "undeniable" companion of "being." Saying this necessitates that "I think" be logically equivalent to "I am."
Descartes' statement is "I think therefore I am." Take "I think" and name it R. Take "I am" and name it Q. Descartes' statement can be expressed as (R => Q). Since R = Q (thinking is always the companion of being), we can always substitute Q with R so (R => Q) becomes (Q => Q). This (Q => Q) is an equivalent of Descartes' statement, (R => Q), by your premise that thinking and being are firmly bound. We know that any statement of form (Q => Q) is ever-true and the truth of Q itself (Q being "I am") can't be deduced from it. This is a non-informative case, a loop. You can't say if Q is T or F (eg, if you exist or not) by knowing that (Q => Q) is true.
It's worth noting that the equivalence of (R => Q) and (Q => Q) was taken from your premise. If you decide to put aside the firm bond between thinking and being then such equivalence can't be claimed and we have a (R => Q) which deduces Q's truth from R's truth like many other plain statements. However, in putting aside the firm bond between thinking (eg, "I think" which is R) and being (eg, "I am" which is Q) you've already accepted that Q's truth is irrelevant to R's truth and deducing Q's truth from R's truth isn't allowed. This is a self-contrary case, a paradox. You can't say R indicates Q when you've previously stated that R and Q are independent (eg, aren't bound).
Now, put the statement back into context, please, and see the impossible nature of the Evil Demon's task (to prove to someone that they don't exist), and we will have nothing left to discuss.Back to Evil Demon scenario, we have the Evil Demon claiming there's no Rene Descartes and Descartes claiming there is indeed a Rene Descartes by deducing from his ability to think of this scenario. Descartes is saying Q (eg, that "he is") is T because he's thinking of an Evil Demon scenario and from his thinking, his being can be directly derived, that (R => Q). Descartes is saying R = Q (eg, one's being can be derived from one's ability to think) and that (R => Q). The loop case happens here: (R => Q) can be turned to (Q => Q) and then Evil Demon can turn back to Descartes and tell him that from (Q => Q)'s truth (from "I think therefore I am"'s truth) Q's truth can't be derived without making a loop and violating the rules of game which are the boundaries of Boolean logic.
The incompatibility of Descartes' statement and Boolean logic gives the Evil Demon a chance to trap Descartes in a corner of the fight arena he's chosen to deal with the Evil Demon in; that fight arena being Boolean logic. Descartes' only way out is on the street and out of fight arena.
Why is a non-informative statement forbidden by Boolean Logic?For those who invented and developed it didn't like what wasn't "productive" and "practical" based on "their" understanding of "practice" and "production."
Searching for non-informative statements you won't find any but those statements that are inherently paradoxical and/or self-referenced. A statement is a sentence that can be assigned a "state" (in case of Boolean logic, either of T and F states). If a statement can be assigned a definite state then it's informative for it surely tells us something about something. There remain those statements which can't be assigned a definite state, these can only be of the above categories and because of their indefiniteness are non-informative.
So now you introduce context? This is a little irritating.
Besides, if I was born 15 years ago, then I must be 15 years old. If I travel through time, I was still born 15 subjective years ago, and that's all that matters to the statement.No, that wasn't a new context. I was only saying that "I was born 15 years ago" doesn't directly result in "I am 15." Hence, an "I was born 15 years ago therefore I am 15" can't be equaled to an "I am 15 therefore I am 15."
Even in the case you talk of 15 subjective years, those auxiliary statements (eg, those that must accompany "I was born 15 years ago" to get "I am 15") are present. Now they solemnly declare that there's a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Or they may declare Special Relativity and time dilation. Nonetheless, there should be some statements additional to "I was born 15 years ago" to deduce "I was 15." Your statement is of form (R => Q), R and Q being convertible to each other only under special circumstances, thus it isn't of form (Q => Q).
This is backward reasoning. You must take the premise for granted while not violating "nothing is certain", and thus Uncertainty is paradoxical.What happens after I realize Uncertainty's paradoxical nature? I know that its premise has no definite state and can be rejected while it is accepted.
Then it isn't useful. You said that it's usefulness (and it's "fairness") were that it could be used to determine the truth of another knowledge body.Truth or falsity aren't of the properties of knowledge bodies; they're states defined "within" knowledge bodies. Uncertainty doesn't determine "truth," it determines "attributes."
Here's an example. We can use aerial photos and telemetry to understand the geomorphology of Sierra Nevada. We can use the same methods to understand the geomorphology of Rockies. A geomorphologic assessment will determine the "attributes" of these terrains. Sierra Nevada will be seen with much more discontinuities than Rockies. Whether or not discontinuities are "good" or "bad" isn't a matter of geomorphology's interest; it's up to the inhabitants of these terrains to honor or lower the discontinuities of their land.
In analogy, Uncertainty isn't interested in finding out the "truth" (it would be biased if it was interested in truth which requires much debate before it can be defined), it will only reveal the attributes of knowledge bodies, for example if one specific knowledge body is consistent (or if is has whatever attribute) or not. It's up to the inhabitants of that knowledge body to decide if they like consistency (or any other attribute) or not. For example, those who live within Science like to see it consistent with observations while those who live within a Religion like to see their observations consistent with their Religion.
Not really. Knowledge is not a system for learning, and thus does not fall into the paradoxes of Russell or Godel.I wasn't talking about Gödel’s theorem or Russell’s paradox. Knowledge isn't a system for learning but this has nothing to do with its being studied. I was only asking if a study of knowledge, or rather gathering knowledge about knowledge, doesn't give rise to new problems.
... You are asking things like "if our knowledge contains the knowledge about the nature of knowledge...", when in fact, unless you know something about the nature of knowledge, it is obvious that "our knowledge" doesn't (yet) contain knowledge about the nature of knowledge.That's a repetition of my own question. If I ask "what's the nature of knowledge?" two possibilities are faced:
00. I know about the nature of knowledge, or the nature of my knowledge is contained in it. If so, why could I be asking this question?
01. I don't know about the nature of knowledge, or the knowledge of the nature of knowledge isn't contained in the knowledge. One part of the knowledge lies outside itself, so it can never be accessed.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May8-03, 07:03 PM
... continued from the previous topic
Uncertainty, Paradox, and Loops are not the borders of rationality. "Borders" have recognizable existence on both sides of them. Uncertainty, Paradox, and Loops do not have recognizable (or understandable) existence on either side of the rationality/irrationality.I have another definition of a "border," that's where one realm ends and another starts, a virtual line that inhabitants of one realm would pass in order to get to the other realm.
Suppose I'm a rational thinker. I start sorting out things rationally. I go on and on but then isn't there a limit to this task? I think there is. Whenever I, being a rational thinker, face Paradox, Self-reference and Uncertainty I go back and change my way in order to remain rational. If I went on my way I would've become irrational. I can pass these "borders" to go back and forth between these two realms. If I want to know in which realm I reside I only have to check out my log and see if I've passed these borders (eg, took into account these three or evaded them). Regardless of the nature of these three, they function like "borders" so I call them "borders."
Not paradoxical, but yes, it is as unusable as Uncertainty.
Yeah, so who cares that your absolutely wrong, and that the Bible supplies it's own interpretations, and makes itself clear to anyone who actually studies it? It isn't even an issue that historians don't call Herodutus' writings foolish, just because they use symbolisms.Not paradoxical, just in case you want to force match Science and Bible by interpreting Bible words as scientific statements. Does Bible include an interpretation of the symbolism used in Genesis? Does it say how to understand what "the throne of God" is? Does it say how to explain for Eve being second to Adam? Does it contain instructions to map Genesis' naïveté about Creation or Cosmogony into the hyper-complexity that this Universe is?
You can compare Genesis to Big Bang and then map the Christian God into Big Bang's primary fireball. Do you like it that way?
I haven't studied Bible. I haven't even read it completely once. However, I've seen people of the three major Western faiths (Christian, Judaist and Muslim) and seen them interpreting their "holy" books into scientific concepts. I've seen how they contradict both Science and their own Religion. I've seen how they modify Science to work to their liking and how they modify their Religion to work to the this-worldly necessity that is Science. In both of situations they were modifying these rigid bodies not to match them honestly but to explain for their actions, to make excuse for what they would anyway do.
Again you describe "uncertainty" instead of "Uncertainty". This is not fitting, as my argument is against your belief in "Uncertainty".Your "uncertainty" doesn't allow to see the inconsistencies in "uncertainty" itself but Uncertainty does even encourage one into looking at the inconsistency, the paradox that Uncertainty points at.
What I described required this condition and this condition is peculiar to Uncertainty and can't be satisfied with "uncertainty."
Then you agree with me?Conditionally yes. If you, too, think that Uncertainty challenges the generalizations and not the particulars because particulars are challenged naturally.
Until you can prove to me that this reasoning system (Uncertainty) can even exist, I will keep on repeating myself: If it doesn't allow or disallow anything, then it is unusable.Unusable for what use? And why do you want to "use" everything?
It's obviously unknown, the point is in getting to know it, isn't it?No. By the nature of its facets, it can't be known but it can be guessed at. Every two guesses are equally creditable [:))].
One cannot even take it for granted that they should review their thoughts, under the framework of Uncertainty.One needn't take that for granted. One will naturally be continuously reviewing one's thoughts to find out where this Uncertainty comes from and why one's is Uncertain.
The common one.
The usual one.
The only one.Common? Common among whom?
Usual? What's the usual definition of something? What's called usual?
Only one? Is this only one the only one written in history books or in cultural sediments or the only one advertised by governments? Viewed from whose point of view, from Blue Whales' point of view?
I don't really consider it a double-edged sword. I consider it to have only one edge, and it's the one that pierces through whoever tries to use it.I saw it flashing past me [:D] then I saw nothing. It's double-edged for it first challenges everything else then itself, it first pierces all other stances then itself.
In my post, or in general use?Neither. In your opinion.
Any measure that you choose. It is you that was assigned to prove the inapplicability of my premises, so it is you who decides what is and is not applicable. If I disagree with your definition of applicability, then I will argue that point later.My measures? I can make bizarre requests. Well, only those ideas are applicable that their written form is made up of 10,000 words each containing exactly 10 letters. By this measure, no idea is applicable.
Please explain. What terms did I use, and which ones should I have used instead?You said:It just doesn't change the fact that "practicality", by definition, is just something's usefulness in practice. Thus, people can have different ideas of what is "practical", but if they actually try their ideas out, they may (not necessarily, but likely) find that it is not really useful in practice.Where I think the terms:
00. Fact
01. Definition (you say by "definition" like there is "the" definition, a solemn one that is common among all beings)
02. Usefulness and/or Use
03. Practice
04. Actuality (referred to by the adverb "actually")
are unclear in the context of their containing sentences. I don't suggest any words in place of them, but I suggest we use them after we've made a common definition of them.
heusdens
May8-03, 07:12 PM
I think that the statement "I think, therefore I am" tells a different story as is stated above.
I think the statement is about telling a relationship between "thinking" and "being". The statement just says that "thinking" implies "being". The reverse statement however ("I am, therefore I think") is not necesseraliy true, which does not contradict the fact that if Descartes says it, or anyone else, it is nevertheless true.
Being is not reserved for the entities that think. A rock "is". But nowhere this implies that therefore the rock also "thinks".
When thinking about being, I could in principle doubt my being. But that would deny the fact that in any case I think. Because I know I think, it necessitates me to assume also I exist.
The main proposition therefore is:
~P -> ~Q
where P stand for "being" and Q stands for "thinking"
The proposition claims that non-being implies non-thinking. It does not however claim that non-thinking implies non-being, or that being implies thinking.
If the it is stated that Q is true ("I think") the argument is then that P also must be true ("I am").
As we can see, this makes logical sense. If we assume that "non-being" impies "non-thinking", and we can state that there is thinking, this implies that there is being.
Hence: I think, therefore I am.
How's it going, Manuel?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
That P([beep]) was a generalization. I used it to prove that incompatibility case for all statements of the form "I [beep] therefore I am" ("I think therefore I am," "I eat therefore I am," "I want therefore I am," etc). Instead of using the specific verb, "think," I used a non-specific variable [beep]. You could say whatever verb in place of [beep] (for example "I discuss therefore I am") and P([beep]) would be a statement like "there need be an I to [beep]" (means, for example, "there need be an I to discuss").
Yes, I know. I was refering to the time when you started to talk about P[bleep] reasoning in the term of functions (like f(x)), and you said that you need not substitute an entity for "P".
Remember you claimed that one can't be thinking if one's not being. The function P([beep])'s value for [beep] = "think" is "there need be an I to think." P([beep]) is the generalization of your premise that thinking (or [beep]ing) and being are firmly bound. There's a reason for my using P([beep]). I took your premise (and generalized it, an action that complicated the matter), then I showed, during that proof, that your premise by which you claim the truth for Descartes' statement leads to a loop along with the same Descartes' statement. This was the loop case in that proof where I said if P = T and Q = T then we'll have a loop. And then I showed even if you put away your premise (eg, you say P = F) and we get P = F and Q = T you won't get much out of it because that would be a paradox. This was the paradox case.
Yes, I understood this as well.
With or without P([beep]), it's clear that statements of form (Q => Q) are ever-true and that they "can't" be used to deduce the truth of Q itself. Take a look at this new formulation of the same proof, perhaps this one works for you.
Well, first I have to point out that Descartes was not trying to deduce the truth of Q, when he made the statment, he was just proving the Evil Demon's attempt to be in vain.
You repeated many times that "if there wasn't an I, who could be thinking?" Let's have your word and say that "thinking" is the "undeniable" companion of "being." Saying this necessitates that "I think" be logically equivalent to "I am."
Descartes' statement is "I think therefore I am." Take "I think" and name it R. Take "I am" and name it Q. Descartes' statement can be expressed as (R => Q). Since R = Q (thinking is always the companion of being), we can always substitute Q with R so (R => Q) becomes (Q => Q). This (Q => Q) is an equivalent of Descartes' statement, (R => Q), by your premise that thinking and being are firmly bound. We know that any statement of form (Q => Q) is ever-true and the truth of Q itself (Q being "I am") can't be deduced from it. This is a non-informative case, a loop. You can't say if Q is T or F (eg, if you exist or not) by knowing that (Q => Q) is true.
It's worth noting that the equivalence of (R => Q) and (Q => Q) was taken from your premise. If you decide to put aside the firm bond between thinking and being then such equivalence can't be claimed and we have a (R => Q) which deduces Q's truth from R's truth like many other plain statements. However, in putting aside the firm bond between thinking (eg, "I think" which is R) and being (eg, "I am" which is Q) you've already accepted that Q's truth is irrelevant to R's truth and deducing Q's truth from R's truth isn't allowed. This is a self-contrary case, a paradox. You can't say R indicates Q when you've previously stated that R and Q are independent (eg, aren't bound).
You are mostly right about all of this. One thing to keep in mind, R does not equal Q, but rather contains Q as a sub-premise. The difference is that R's truth necessitates that Q be true, but Q can be true without R.
Back to Evil Demon scenario, we have the Evil Demon claiming there's no Rene Descartes and Descartes claiming there is indeed a Rene Descartes by deducing from his ability to think of this scenario. Descartes is saying Q (eg, that "he is") is T because he's thinking of an Evil Demon scenario and from his thinking, his being can be directly derived, that (R => Q). Descartes is saying R = Q (eg, one's being can be derived from one's ability to think) and that (R => Q). The loop case happens here: (R => Q) can be turned to (Q => Q) and then Evil Demon can turn back to Descartes and tell him that from (Q => Q)'s truth (from "I think therefore I am"'s truth) Q's truth can't be derived without making a loop and violating the rules of game which are the boundaries of Boolean logic.
Incorrect. The Demon is the one that tried to convince an existent entity that he didn't exist, so it is the Demon that is at fault. Descartes would not tell the Demon "I think therefore I am", but would, rather, say "I can think about what you are trying to convince me of, therefore you are defeating your own purpose".
Something to remember about Descartes (I've read a few of his works now) is that he often starts with a statment or concludes with a statement, but the statement doesn't even need to make sense outside of it's context. He gives the context at some point, and the statement should be evaluated only within the framework of the context.
For those who invented and developed it didn't like what wasn't "productive" and "practical" based on "their" understanding of "practice" and "production."
Searching for non-informative statements you won't find any but those statements that are inherently paradoxical and/or self-referenced. A statement is a sentence that can be assigned a "state" (in case of Boolean logic, either of T and F states). If a statement can be assigned a definite state then it's informative for it surely tells us something about something. There remain those statements which can't be assigned a definite state, these can only be of the above categories and because of their indefiniteness are non-informative.
Well this makes sense. However, Descartes' was making the statement within a context that allowed it to be relevant. It was the conclusion of an entire "lesson", so to speak.
He started out with the Evil Demon, trying to convince Descartes that all of the things that he believed were false. Then the Evil Demon went on to try to convince Descartes that he didn't exist. But Descartes came back at him by (basically) saying that the fact that the Demon is making an effort to convince him (Descartes) that he didn't exist, and the fact that Descartes could think about not existing, proved that Descartes did (in fact) exist. At the end of it, Descartes compacted this reasoning into "I think therefore I am".
No, that wasn't a new context. I was only saying that "I was born 15 years ago" doesn't directly result in "I am 15." Hence, an "I was born 15 years ago therefore I am 15" can't be equaled to an "I am 15 therefore I am 15."
Look at the statement "I was born fifteen years ago": One of it's sub-premises is "I was born", and another is "it's been fifteen years since then".
Thus, the second statement of "I was born fifteen years ago, therefore I am 15" (let's call it Q') is one of the sub-premises of the first statement (P'). This is the same situation as "I think therefore I am", as I have shown before.
Even in the case you talk of 15 subjective years, those auxiliary statements (eg, those that must accompany "I was born 15 years ago" to get "I am 15") are present. Now they solemnly declare that there's a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Or they may declare Special Relativity and time dilation. Nonetheless, there should be some statements additional to "I was born 15 years ago" to deduce "I was 15." Your statement is of form (R => Q), R and Q being convertible to each other only under special circumstances, thus it isn't of form (Q => Q).
And neither is "I think therefore I am", as I've shown above.
Response continued on the next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
What happens after I realize Uncertainty's paradoxical nature? I know that its premise has no definite state and can be rejected while it is accepted.
No, a paradoxical state is also definite. It is the state of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", so to speak, and doesn't allow you to choose either to reject or to accept.
Truth or falsity aren't of the properties of knowledge bodies; they're states defined "within" knowledge bodies. Uncertainty doesn't determine "truth," it determines "attributes."
But each "attribute" is seen as either being true or false.
I really apologize, but I must go now. I will finish my response later.
P.S. Please wait for the rest of my response, before responding [:)].
"I can think only if I exist"
Premises:
1. to think, i must have intelligence
2. to have intelligence, i must have brain
3. to have brain, i must exist in one way or other
I think - is evidence, not reason or cause. its observable. true
if I exist = true
if I have brain = true
if I have intelligence = true
then I am thinking = true
negating any of above without negating conclusion invalidates logic.
invalidating of any of above will lead to invalid reasoning, or basically that answer is undefined and above inference cannot be used for reasoning
Thus, if you observe thinking, then it falls out that all of the above MUST be true.
if I exist = false
then I am thinking = false
if I exist = unknown
then I am thinking = unknown, maybe true, maybe false
not that this prooves you can't know if you exist, but that if your existence is undefined, then this reasoning is invalid. It cannot be used to inquire new information or check validity of claims.
if I exist = true
if I have brain = false
if I have intelligence = false (because of premise 2)
then I am thinking = false
if I exist = true
if I have brain = invalid
if I have intelligence = unknown
then I am thinking = invalid
if I exist = true
if I have brain = true
if I have intelligence = false
then I am thinking = false
Observation: there exists only 1 valid logical reasoning that yields statement I am thinking = true. And it is only when all of premises are both defined and true. Therefore we can safely backtrace and claim that if evidence supports that we are thinking, then all of the above must be true. There are no other valid cases.
Therefore, it is impossible to convince one into 'thinking' that he 'does not exist'.
Descartes was right.
Manuel is pointing out that logical reasoning is broken when encountering invalid premises. This means that conclusion of such reasoning cannot be used in further reasonings as premise, even though reasoning line itself is perfectly logical.
When premise's truth is unknown as is awfully often, then same long chain of reasoning can produce any of unknown, false, true, invalid, depending just on combination of truthness of premises and complexity of reasoning chain.
Thats the reason why circular reasoning is banned strongly, its truthness is undefined. Its easy when Q=>Q and thats not problem. Much worse is when such circular reference is hidden inside long chain of reasoning. When such circular reasoning is found, its usually evidence of confusing between anteriority and posteriority of statements and must be rearranged. This can be both killer and fruitful in finding more fundamental things.
Any theory depends of premises that cannot be proved. Because depending on these premises whole theory can go south, they are postulated true. Thats it, the rest is to find out how far you can get without hitting contradictions and complying with observable evidence.
So there are 3 components: premises -> internal consistency -> conclusions (testable).
When someone says 'this is logical' then only 'internal consistency' is implied.
One can only proove one thing: from this bunch of premises there exists internally consistent path to that bunch of conclusions. Nothing else. One cannot proove premises or that conclusions are true, their truthness depends on premises.
What Manuel seems to imply with Uncertainty is that you can never be completely sure that your premises are true. Similarily you can never be completely sure in your conclusions. You can only be sure in internal consistency. Postulates are arbitrary choices made under influence of beliefs.
Descartes just showed that given true observable and internally consistent reasoning there can be only one premise that can lead to thinking: to exist.
So at times it seems one can 'proove' premises by means of evidence. But quite often such 'proof' is illusion, there may exist other internally consistent reasoning that leads to opposite conclusions. This just tells that one must never be imagining that he has solid ground to start from, that this solid ground has been proved by evidence shouldn't get dogmatic.
Logical reasoning has no start and no end, its just endless swamp.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Here's an example. We can use aerial photos and telemetry to understand the geomorphology of Sierra Nevada. We can use the same methods to understand the geomorphology of Rockies. A geomorphologic assessment will determine the "attributes" of these terrains. Sierra Nevada will be seen with much more discontinuities than Rockies. Whether or not discontinuities are "good" or "bad" isn't a matter of geomorphology's interest; it's up to the inhabitants of these terrains to honor or lower the discontinuities of their land.
In analogy, Uncertainty isn't interested in finding out the "truth" (it would be biased if it was interested in truth which requires much debate before it can be defined), it will only reveal the attributes of knowledge bodies, for example if one specific knowledge body is consistent (or if is has whatever attribute) or not. It's up to the inhabitants of that knowledge body to decide if they like consistency (or any other attribute) or not. For example, those who live within Science like to see it consistent with observations while those who live within a Religion like to see their observations consistent with their Religion.
Nice analogy. Think of this, the arieal photos cannot be used to analyze the camera, can they? Apply that to Uncertainty (in analogy), and you'll see my point.
I wasn't talking about Gödel’s theorem or Russell’s paradox. Knowledge isn't a system for learning but this has nothing to do with its being studied. I was only asking if a study of knowledge, or rather gathering knowledge about knowledge, doesn't give rise to new problems.
Why would it?
That's a repetition of my own question. If I ask "what's the nature of knowledge?" two possibilities are faced:
00. I know about the nature of knowledge, or the nature of my knowledge is contained in it. If so, why could I be asking this question?
01. I don't know about the nature of knowledge, or the knowledge of the nature of knowledge isn't contained in the knowledge. One part of the knowledge lies outside itself, so it can never be accessed.
I don't understand point "00". Please explain it, and the I will respond.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I have another definition of a "border," that's where one realm ends and another starts, a virtual line that inhabitants of one realm would pass in order to get to the other realm.
But does this line not exist on both sides of it, like I said?
Suppose I'm a rational thinker. I start sorting out things rationally. I go on and on but then isn't there a limit to this task? I think there is. Whenever I, being a rational thinker, face Paradox, Self-reference and Uncertainty I go back and change my way in order to remain rational. If I went on my way I would've become irrational. I can pass these "borders" to go back and forth between these two realms.
Not really. As I see it, a (defined) border is a rational concept, and cannot exist on the irrational side. Once you get to "irrational", you lose track of all rational concepts, including the border, or what's on the other side.
Does Bible include an interpretation of the symbolism used in Genesis?
Yes, for all practical purposes. Besides, the only symoblism I can think of (in the Creation account of Genesis) is the use of the word "days" - and this is easily resolved with an understanding of the Hebrew term, rendered "day" in English.
Does it say how to understand what "the throne of God" is?
Yes, it is symbolic of His authority, and His right to rule - much like His having a "white beard" is symbolic of His wisdom, because that was the common-place opinion in the past (age = wisdom).
Does it say how to explain for Eve being second to Adam?
Common sense dictates that He wanted to try it (creating a human) out once, before making his masterpiece [;)]. (Or, He just didn't want someone telling Him how to do the job [:D]).
Seriously, it was to demonstrate the head-ship arrangement, as explained later in the letter to the Colossians (by the apostle Paul).
Manuel, we should drop the religious discussion now. This isn't the thread, or the Forum, for it. Can we agree on that, please?
Your "uncertainty" doesn't allow to see the inconsistencies in "uncertainty" itself but Uncertainty does even encourage one into looking at the inconsistency, the paradox that Uncertainty points at.
"uncertainty" is not inconsistent, merely lacking (like any other knowledge body). Uncertainty, OTOH, is inconsistent, and thus there is no reason to study it any further, because all you are going to get is further knowledge about why it is inwardly inconsistent, and thus outwardly unusable.
What I described required this condition and this condition is peculiar to Uncertainty and can't be satisfied with "uncertainty."
Conditionally yes. If you, too, think that Uncertainty challenges the generalizations and not the particulars because particulars are challenged naturally.
I don't understand this, can you please explain what you mean?
Unusable for what use? And why do you want to "use" everything?
Open foot and insert mouth, Manuel [;)] (no offense). You are the one who came up with reasons why Uncertainty was "fair" and "helpful". This was your attempt to make it appear usuable.
No. By the nature of its facets, it can't be known but it can be guessed at. Every two guesses are equally creditable [:))].
Every two usable guesses are equally creditable.
One needn't take that for granted. One will naturally be continuously reviewing one's thoughts to find out where this Uncertainty comes from and why one's is Uncertain.
Don't you get it? One will only continue to examine this after having taken Uncertainty's premise for granted.
Common? Common among whom?
Humans.
Usual? What's the usual definition of something? What's called usual?
Usual things. Things that are common.
Only one? Is this only one the only one written in history books or in cultural sediments or the only one advertised by governments?
Probably both.
I saw it flashing past me [:D] then I saw nothing. It's double-edged for it first challenges everything else then itself, it first pierces all other stances then itself.
Who assigns this order to it? If it has an order in which to challenge things, then it contradicts it's own premise of taking nothing (including such an order as you have posted here) for granted.
Neither. In your opinion.
Ok, practical is "useful when put into practice"; and useful is "able to be used".
My measures? I can make bizarre requests. Well, only those ideas are applicable that their written form is made up of 10,000 words each containing exactly 10 letters. By this measure, no idea is applicable.
By this post alone, one can see that you are stuck on the "irrational" side of the border.
You said:Where I think the terms:
00. Fact
01. Definition (you say by "definition" like there is "the" definition, a solemn one that is common among all beings)
02. Usefulness and/or Use
03. Practice
04. Actuality (referred to by the adverb "actually")
are unclear in the context of their containing sentences. I don't suggest any words in place of them, but I suggest we use them after we've made a common definition of them.
Fact: Something that is demonstrably, and unquestionably true. You don't have to agree that such a thing exists, but can we agree that that is it's definition?
Definition: Something assigned to the ink mark/electrically produced symbol/audible noise, produced by the mouth/or any other form of communicating "words", which gives the word meaning.
Actuality: Reality, being factual in nature.
Manuel_Silvio
May11-03, 04:41 AM
Greetz,
1. For wimms:
Thanks for your help. You said much more than, I think, I could've said.
2. For Mentat:
How's it going, Manuel?I have a cold and I'm having a feverish time but I can take it, or make it, with Uncertainty [:D].
Well, first I have to point out that Descartes was not trying to deduce the truth of Q, when he made the statment, he was just proving the Evil Demon's attempt to be in vain.Q is "I am." To show the Evil Demon's attempt was in vain, Descartes must have been able to prove that Q was true, that "he was." Otherwise, the Evil Demon's attempt could be considered successful. If he wasn't trying to prove that "he was," it's been him who's worked out of context. For the Evil Demon had only claimed that "he wasn't."
One thing to keep in mind, R does not equal Q, but rather contains Q as a sub-premise. The difference is that R's truth necessitates that Q be true, but Q can be true without R.Notice that the equality sign "=" used there meant "logical equivalence" and not "literal equivalence." If two statements always have the same state (like R and Q, because by your premise R's truth means Q's truth and vice versa) they are "logically equivalent" and each of them can be replaced with the other at any time.
The equality sign used in symbolic logic for logical equivalence of statements is a set of three horizontal lines put on top of each other, like a numerical equality sign (the "=," I mean) plus one other horizontal line. I couldn't find this symbol among PF symbols so I used "=" in place of it.
... Descartes would not tell the Demon "I think therefore I am", but would, rather, say "I can think about what you are trying to convince me of, therefore you are defeating your own purpose". And the Demon could tell him that by his premise that is the firm bond between "thinking" and "being" he has made loop in saying "I think about your attempts therefore I am and you've defeated your own purpose."
Descartes attacks the Demon with his rigorous Aristotelian logic but the Demon (at least, this Demon that I am) knows that logic has its own rules and the rules can be used to show Descartes that he has violated his own logic by making a premise that necessitates a self-reference.
Many centuries ago (even before Descartes, I think) there was a proof for a God. Many Religions and religious people refer to God as "the being whose being is necessary." You see, they've made up a statement that is "God is therefore God is." Some monk proved God this way: "if God is the one whose being is necessary then the God is necessarily there." The monk later interpreted this God as the Christian God and lived a life of relieved faith; the monk had proved God, at last.
You can always define a being whose being is part of the being's definition, for example you can say "a green Ostrich is a being that is." By this definition, the being of a "green Ostrich" can never be logically denied. Since you can make countless definitions of this form at will, you can fill the Universe with countless beings who can never be logically proven non-existent. After all, they all "are," by definition.
The monk made two mistakes. The first and the easier one to detect, is to interpret that "being that is" as the Christian God. The monk could define as many "being that is" beings as he wished but he couldn't tell of what nature they were or even if these beings could interact with this Universe or not. The being's being could be defined but its attributes had to be "investigated" and such investigation wasn't possible because the being didn't seem to have any tendency to show up around human inhabited places.
The second mistake was to include a being's being in its definition. Immanuel Kant (or some other philosopher, I'm not sure) later forbid this form of definition (in the boundaries of Aristotelian logic, of course). Such definitions were "impractical" and "unproductive" to the inventors and developers of Aristotelian logic.
Descartes' "I am therefore I am," is of the same nature. Descartes wanted to show that logical validity of this deduction can do in place of the validity of its premises. This act is logically forbidden by forbidding loops. His manner of using an "undeniable" indication of his being, which was "thinking," led him into making a loop with two elements that were "being" and "thinking." If "being" and "thinking" are so firmly bound that "thinking" can be an undeniable indication of being then "being" and "thinking" are the same thing and deducing "being" from "thinking" is like deducing a statement's truth from itself. It's a loop.
Something to remember about Descartes (I've read a few of his works now) is that he often starts with a statment or concludes with a statement, but the statement doesn't even need to make sense outside of it's context. He gives the context at some point, and the statement should be evaluated only within the framework of the context.I don't think I understand this well. The only context I can see is Descartes' conversation with the Demon.
The Demon says that Descartes "isn't there" and Descartes says the "he's indeed there." They are discussing the matter logically and have opposing opinions. One of these opinions can come out as the result of their debate, the one that's logically proven right or the one whose opponent is proven logically wrong. If either of these opinions, that of Descartes' or that of Demon's, has a logical fault inside then it's considered logically wrong so it's opposition is right. This is another limitation imposed by Aristotelian logic: it says "that which isn't right, is wrong."
Discussion about context is a new aspect of philosophical debates, compared to Aristotelian logic. Contextual conclusions can include uncertainties of many forms while Aristotelian logic allows for absolutely no uncertainty. It judges everything the harsh way, everything is either true of false. That's the reason why multi-value logic and later fuzzy logic were invented.
However, Descartes' was making the statement within a context that allowed it to be relevant. It was the conclusion of an entire "lesson", so to speak.A statement's validity is context-dependent. For example, "there's an intangible being right under my bed" is valid within a philosophical debate while it isn't valid within a scientific debate; there it's just out of context.
A statement's truth, on the other hand, isn't context-dependent. The statement "there's an intangible being right under my bed" is one calling for investigation of some being and its truth value can "always" be determined by investigation of its premises under the regulations of the logical system chosen for this investigation. Or the statement can be postulated and used for the formation of a new axiomatic construct. For Philosophy, there can "always" be countless intangible being right under everyone's bed.
Descartes' statement, being a statement and being discussed under the rule of Boolean logic, "must" be assigned a definite state that will remain with it all the time. The Evil Demon scenario makes a context in which this statement becomes valid but this statement's truth won't be limited to that context. Its truth can and should always be questioned until a proof or disproof (within the bounds the logical system it’s associated with) is found for it.
Look at the statement "I was born fifteen years ago": One of it's sub-premises is "I was born", and another is "it's been fifteen years since then".
Thus, the second statement of "I was born fifteen years ago, therefore I am 15" (let's call it Q') is one of the sub-premises of the first statement (P'). This is the same situation as "I think therefore I am", as I have shown before.The point is that "it's been fifteen years since then" isn't the logical equivalent to "I am 15."
"I am 15" is a statement about the chronology of a biological phenomenon (that's "you"). It means, "15 solar years have been past after the turnover that was my birth." For this statement to be true there need be other statements than your "it's been fifteen years since then." There need be the truth of a statement like "and I have never been in a time machine" to deduce
Symbolically expressed we have (P ^ R) => Q which isn't a loop.
P: I've seen 15 years passing by.
Q: I am fifteen.
R: I haven't experienced any time distortions.
Truth table for (P ^ R) => Q
P-------Q-------R-------(P ^ R)-------(P ^ R) => Q
T-------T-------T----------T----------T
T-------T-------F----------F----------T
T-------F-------T----------T----------F
F-------T-------T----------F----------T
T-------F-------F----------F----------T <-
F-------T-------F----------F----------T
F-------F-------T----------F----------T
F-------F-------F----------F----------T
This truth table has 8 rows (2 raised to the power of 3), for all possible combinations of P, Q and R.
(P ^ R) => Q isn't an ever-true statement so it's surely not a loop. Ever-true-ness is a characteristic of all loops.
As seen on the table (P ^ R) => Q deduction is T in 7 cases out of 8 while Q (whose truth is the desirable result, that you're 15) can be F in 3 scenarios without any problems in your deduction. (P ^ R) => Q which is a logical deduction can be valid and true while your desired result Q is valid and false.
With a look at the line marked with "<-" you can see the scenario I proposed. You're born 15 years ago (P = T) but you've experienced a time distortion (R = F), so you aren't 15 (Q = F); and this is a valid and true deduction (for ((P ^ R) => Q) = T).
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May11-03, 05:05 AM
... continued from the previous post
By the way, suppose this "I was born 15 years ago therefore I am fifteen" is really an "I am 15 therefore I am 15." If you're right in that supposition then you have another loop at hand, nothing more. What's the point in finding another loop?
And neither is "I think therefore I am", as I've shown above.
Neither of which you mean?
No, a paradoxical state is also definite. It is the state of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", so to speak, and doesn't allow you to choose either to reject or to accept.Let's see the bright side of it: "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't." It's much fairer than "blessed if you do, damned if you don't" or "damned if you do, blessed if you don't." For it incorporates the "Hypothesis of Damnation and Blessing Equality" [;)].
Quoting Lao-tzu from Tao-te Ching (James Legge’s translation):
13. 1. Favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared; honour and great calamity, to be regarded as personal conditions (of the same kind).
2. What is meant by speaking thus of favour and disgrace? Disgrace is being in a low position (after the enjoyment of favour). The getting that (favour) leads to the apprehension (of losing it), and the losing it leads to the fear of (still greater calamity):--this is what is meant by saying that favour and disgrace would seem equally to be feared.
And what is meant by saying that honour and great calamity are to be (similarly) regarded as personal conditions? What makes me liable to great calamity is my having the body (which I call myself); if I had not the body, what great calamity could come to me?
3. Therefore he who would administer the kingdom, honouring it as he honours his own person, may be employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted with it.
But each "attribute" is seen as either being true or false.This is a different story. Attributes themselves may be attributed some states, such as T/F. Uncertainty may be right/wrong in reporting an inconsistency or consistency in a knowledge body but the inconsistency attribute itself has no truth/falsity.
We have a database with data records like this:
Knowledge Body ~~ Consistency/Inconsistency Data
KB1---------------Consistent
KB2---------------Inconsistent
KB3---------------Inconsistent<-wrong data record, KB3 is consistent
KB4---------------Consistent
.
.
.
KBn---------------Inconsistent
Now, each of data records may contain wrong data but the contained data itself isn't about rightness/wrongness.
In that geomorphology example, we could have some topographic maps of the studied terrains. These maps might report wrong height values but height values themselves aren't about rightness/wrongness. Height values are chosen over an arbitrary range of real numbers and no real number is true/false (eg, 666.13 isn't true/false).
Nice analogy. Think of this, the arieal photos cannot be used to analyze the camera, can they? Apply that to Uncertainty (in analogy), and you'll see my point.Well-thought extension to analogy [:)].
That's a good question. Your "uncertainty" basically prohibits doubting its own premise(s) in order to avoid paradox. It tells one: "there's no point in trying to see a camera through the same camera." Uncertainty responds: "I know, but let's give it a try or at least pretend we're trying." By giving this "hint" of the situation it informs one of the aspects of one's situation. Your "uncertainty," on the other hand, hides away this basic piece of knowledge. If you explain Uncertainty to someone, that someone will be challenged in all aspects of her/his knowledge while if you explain "uncertainty," that someone will only be given another set of premises that challenges everything but itself and doesn't contain the basic rule of fairness: "challenge everything even yourself."
We could achieve absolute fairness if we could see a camera through the same camera, if we could analyze our premises without being committed to some premises. This isn't achievable, so absolute fairness isn't achievable. Relative fairness is in that you, at least, try "in vain" to view the camera through the same camera. It would be "in vain" but has a "hint" at one's desire of fairness. Without this "hint," it's easy to forget one's own desire.
In case of existence, it isn't logically provable or, at least, yet logically proven. That's where a form of uncertainty comes in. No one can indulge in playing with one's existence for too long but turning the existence into "a solid statement" is problematic. One breaks the rules of game by that action; a new game is created but this new game is blind and unfair. Existence would better be kept as a sort of "I know it, you know it, they know it, but I won't tell." Otherwise, the long debate is started over, possibly going through the same stages of development and experiencing the same downfall which spoils both existence and non-existence.
Why would it?Because of the situation faced after asking "what's the nature of knowledge?" Nonetheless, such problems are still in question; I'm asking not negating/affirming.
00. I know about the nature of knowledge, or the nature of my knowledge is contained in it. If so, why could I be asking this question?
I don't understand point "00". Please explain it, and the I will respond.For every piece of possible knowledge, either of the two states can be assumed:
00. It's contained in your knowledge (you know it).
01. It isn't contained in your knowledge (you don't know it).
Suppose you asked "what's the nature of knowledge?" (or similarly, "what're the limits of knowledge?" or any other questions concerned with knowing the knowledge itself). The answer to that question would be a possible piece of knowledge, for which either of the above states can be assumed:
00. The answer is contained in your knowledge, or your knowledge contains the knowledge of its own nature (you know the answer). If so, why could you be asking the question?
01. The answer isn't contained in your knowledge, or your knowledge doesn't contain the knowledge about its own nature (you don't know the answer). If so, the answer would be unreachable because this piece of possible knowledge lies totally outside your current knowledge and there's no way to get to something that lies totally outside itself (for the knowledge of the knowledge is some knowledge itself).
But does this line not exist on both sides of it, like I said?Does the equator exist on both Northern and Southern hemispheres? Equator is a virtual line of zero thickness. What gives meaning to this virtual line is its function: it divides.
Uncertainty, Paradox and Self-reference are virtual lines. They don't exist on no side (in fact, on the irrational side existence itself can be a varying concept) but they function like borders: they divide.
Not really. As I see it, a (defined) border is a rational concept, and cannot exist on the irrational side. Once you get to "irrational", you lose track of all rational concepts, including the border, or what's on the other side.See above. And irrationality doesn't have to do with "losing track of everything." One "needn't" keep track of anything when one's irrational but one may "like" to keep track of things and that liking works on both sides, rational and irrational.
Rationalization itself is a subset of irrationality. What's the rationale behind rationalization?
Yes, for all practical purposes. Besides, the only symoblism I can think of (in the Creation account of Genesis) is the use of the word "days" - and this is easily resolved with an understanding of the Hebrew term, rendered "day" in English.It wasn't me who said Bible is symbolic. If Genesis isn't symbolic, then it's meant literally and if it's meant literally it's in contradiction to scientific Cosmogony.
Manuel, we should drop the religious discussion now. This isn't the thread, or the Forum, for it. Can we agree on that, please?Yes. I won't make any other comments on that subject. However, it wasn't a religious discussion, it was one about two incompatible knowledge bodies as examples.
Manuel_Silvio: Your "uncertainty" doesn't allow to see the inconsistencies in "uncertainty" itself but Uncertainty does even encourage one into looking at the inconsistency, the paradox that Uncertainty points at.
Mentat: "uncertainty" is not inconsistent, merely lacking (like any other knowledge body). Uncertainty, OTOH, is inconsistent, and thus there is no reason to study it any further, because all you are going to get is further knowledge about why it is inwardly inconsistent, and thus outwardly unusable.I didn't say "uncertainty" is inconsistent even though it is. I was referring to the inconsistency (or the paradox) of "fair" observer.
Uncertainty contains a hint of that paradox while "uncertainty" doesn't. And I think this hint would better be present but there's no necessity and that's why I personally "like" Uncertainty more than "uncertainty" but use "uncertainty" (or rather a form of certainty) in my everyday life.
I've studied Uncertainty and I've learnt much. It wasn't unusable in my experience. Even if it's unusable, it's the "fairest." Suppose you (and all humanity) have tried to study human situation but have come to a possible dead-end. Close your eyes to the dead-end and you're stuck in a deadlock. Open your eyes and you'll possibly find some way out.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May11-03, 05:13 AM
... continued from the previous post
1. What I described required this condition and this condition is peculiar to Uncertainty and can't be satisfied with "uncertainty."
2. Conditionally yes. If you, too, think that Uncertainty challenges the generalizations and not the particulars because particulars are challenged naturally.
I don't understand this, can you please explain what you mean?
1 and 2 are separate. The condition called for in 1 isn't the one talked about in 2.
In case 1, the condition is that any system of thoughts one chooses after the realization of "fair" observer's paradox would better have a hint of that very basic paradox. Uncertainty satisfies this condition while "uncertainty" doesn't.
In case 2, the condition is that you put away discussion of particulars of scientific Universe and challenge its generalizations, its methodology for example. You've already satisfied this condition by not talking of measurement of light speed but talking of Science's generalizations.
Open foot and insert mouth, Manuel (no offense). You are the one who came up with reasons why Uncertainty was "fair" and "helpful". This was your attempt to make it appear usuable.What does that idiom mean?
I was the one who asked why you wanted to "use" something and what "use" meant.
I said it's "fair" and "helpful." You associate these with your "use."
Every two usable guesses are equally creditable.Usable to whom? Usable for what use? What does "use" mean? Why only usable guesses?
Don't you get it? One will only continue to examine this after having taken Uncertainty's premise for granted.And one will only realize one's paradoxical situation after having impossibly made possible the impossible.
Humans.
Usual things. Things that are common.
Probably both.
What are humans? How did you summon them all and ask their opinions?
Am I non-human in striving for something else?
What is common? Who has the right to determine what is common and what is uncommon?
Both? They were three, not two and these three have countless equally creditable substitutes. Human history isn't a solid entity sitting somewhere, it's the fluid colloid of previous representations of human interactions. What human history means, is dependent on the observer and on the context. Human history isn't the same thing for any two individuals or any two beings.
Who assigns this order to it? If it has an order in which to challenge things, then it contradicts it's own premise of taking nothing (including such an order as you have posted here) for granted.I, for I have a step-by-step approach to Uncertainty. I won't suggest anyone dives into it in one session.
Ok, practical is "useful when put into practice"; and useful is "able to be used".This definition introduces new terms to be defined. What does "use" mean? What does "ability" mean? What does "practice" mean?
After you'd defined these, tell me please why you've preferred those definitions of these terms over countless other definitions.
By this post alone, one can see that you are stuck on the "irrational" side of the border.Perhaps. I guess too much of rationality will lead to irrationality, at last [:D].
You said I can have my measures. I was free to choose my measures so I chose at will. If you have "better" measures, tell me. And then, tell me why they're "better" and what "better" means.
Fact: Something that is demonstrably, and unquestionably true. You don't have to agree that such a thing exists, but can we agree that that is it's definition?
Definition: Something assigned to the ink mark/electrically produced symbol/audible noise, produced by the mouth/or any other form of communicating "words", which gives the word meaning.
Actuality: Reality, being factual in nature.No problem, except for "definition."
I asked you to define "the definition" and not "definition." Because you use the phrase "by definition" like there's "the definition," a definition intrinsic to and inseparable from the terms you use.
You missed out two definitions: definitions of "usable and/or use" and "practice". Will you please define these?
Note that I can almost endlessly ask for definitions of the words you use to define your words. Think about it ... are you going to grant me that right?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
2. For Mentat:
I have a cold and I'm having a feverish time but I can take it, or make it, with Uncertainty [:D].
Well, I hope you feel better. [:)]
Q is "I am." To show the Evil Demon's attempt was in vain, Descartes must have been able to prove that Q was true, that "he was." Otherwise, the Evil Demon's attempt could be considered successful. If he wasn't trying to prove that "he was," it's been him who's worked out of context. For the Evil Demon had only claimed that "he wasn't."
The Evil Demon claimed that who "wasn't"? Don't you see that, in claiming that "entity D" (Descartes) didn't exist, he was implying "entity D"'s existence (otherwise there would be nothing to make claims about)? Then, to top it all off, the Demon tried to convince "entity D" of something, thus showing that the Demon believed "entity D" to be capable of thinking.
Notice that the equality sign "=" used there meant "logical equivalence" and not "literal equivalence." If two statements always have the same state (like R and Q, because by your premise R's truth means Q's truth and vice versa) they are "logically equivalent" and each of them can be replaced with the other at any time.
That makes sense.
And the Demon could tell him that by his premise that is the firm bond between "thinking" and "being" he has made loop in saying "I think about your attempts therefore I am and you've defeated your own purpose."
Don't you realize that the Demon was trying to convince Descartes that he didn't exist!!? This means that it is the Demon (not Descartes) that created the paradox. He was trying to convince someone that P was true, but that Q was not.
You can always define a being whose being is part of the being's definition, for example you can say "a green Ostrich is a being that is." By this definition, the being of a "green Ostrich" can never be logically denied. Since you can make countless definitions of this form at will, you can fill the Universe with countless beings who can never be logically proven non-existent. After all, they all "are," by definition.
It's really strange to me that don't realize this but...if I were to find a green Ostrich, and try to convince it that it didn't exist, I would be further validating it's existence. I have to try to convince the thing that it doesn't exist, before Descartes' reasoning can have any effect.
Descartes' statment is of the same nature...
Not exactly, but fine, you can think of it that way - I just don't see the relevance. The issue is not the self-referential nature of Descartes' statement (see above, I don't have room to re-post my reasoning here).
This act is logically forbidden by forbidding loops. His manner of using an "undeniable" indication of his being, which was "thinking," led him into making a loop with two elements that were "being" and "thinking." If "being" and "thinking" are so firmly bound that "thinking" can be an undeniable indication of being then "being" and "thinking" are the same thing and deducing "being" from "thinking" is like deducing a statement's truth from itself. It's a loop.
Actually, no, I've just realized where the difference lies, between the monk's statment and that of Descartes. The monks statment is unfalsifiable, because he has defined the words to make it so. Descartes' statment, OTOH, can be taken apart, and each of it's premises denied. Unfortunately (for the Demon) the Demon already made the mistake of assuming P's truth, and so is stuck with assuming Q's truth as well.
I don't think I understand this well. The only context I can see is Descartes' conversation with the Demon.
Yeah, that's what I was talking about - Descartes' statement has no worth, outside of the context of someone's trying to prove that someone else doesn't exist.
The Demon says that Descartes "isn't there" and Descartes says the "he's indeed there." They are discussing the matter logically and have opposing opinions. One of these opinions can come out as the result of their debate, the one that's logically proven right or the one whose opponent is proven logically wrong. If either of these opinions, that of Descartes' or that of Demon's, has a logical fault inside then it's considered logically wrong so it's opposition is right. This is another limitation imposed by Aristotelian logic: it says "that which isn't right, is wrong."
I disagree on one minor point: You omitted the fact that the discussion itself couldn't take place, if the Demon was correct.
A statement's validity is context-dependent. For example, "there's an intangible being right under my bed" is valid within a philosophical debate while it isn't valid within a scientific debate; there it's just out of context.
This is not the kind of context I was talking about (see above, as I do not have enough room to re-post).
Descartes' statement, being a statement and being discussed under the rule of Boolean logic, "must" be assigned a definite state that will remain with it all the time. The Evil Demon scenario makes a context in which this statement becomes valid but this statement's truth won't be limited to that context. Its truth can and should always be questioned until a proof or disproof (within the bounds the logical system it’s associated with) is found for it.
I disagree with your assessment of statements - at least when applied to Descartes' statments. Validity is really the only issue, as he would probably never say that "I think therefore I am" is true and not looping. He was merely pointing out the flaw in the Demon's attempt.
The point is that "it's been fifteen years since then" isn't the logical equivalent to "I am 15."
"I am 15" is a statement about the chronology of a biological phenomenon (that's "you"). It means, "15 solar years have been past after the turnover that was my birth." For this statement to be true there need be other statements than your "it's been fifteen years since then." There need be the truth of a statement like "and I have never been in a time machine" to deduce
Actually, I already took care of the "time distortion/machine" problem. I told you that I was talking about subjective years, as related to the standard (Earthling) measurement of time.
This truth table has 8 rows (2 raised to the power of 3), for all possible combinations of P, Q and R.
(P ^ R) => Q isn't an ever-true statement so it's surely not a loop. Ever-true-ness is a characteristic of all loops.
As seen on the table (P ^ R) => Q deduction is T in 7 cases out of 8 while Q (whose truth is the desirable result, that you're 15) can be F in 3 scenarios without any problems in your deduction. (P ^ R) => Q which is a logical deduction can be valid and true while your desired result Q is valid and false.
With a look at the line marked with "<-" you can see the scenario I proposed. You're born 15 years ago (P = T) but you've experienced a time distortion (R = F), so you aren't 15 (Q = F); and this is a valid and true deduction (for ((P ^ R) => Q) = T).
Well, I've already shown why "R" doesn't belong there, so reasoning on a table that includes it is not really relevant. I will read what is posted above when you explain to me why "R" belongs there.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
By the way, suppose this "I was born 15 years ago therefore I am fifteen" is really an "I am 15 therefore I am 15." If you're right in that supposition then you have another loop at hand, nothing more. What's the point in finding another loop?
I was trying to give you an example of a practical (and logically sound) statement that was non-informative (loopy). It doesn't really matter though, and we can drop it if you want to.
Mentat: And neither is "I think therefore I am", as I've shown above.
Manuel: Neither of which you mean?
Say what? I don't understand the question.
Let's see the bright side of it: "blessed if you do, blessed if you don't." It's much fairer than "blessed if you do, damned if you don't" or "damned if you do, blessed if you don't." For it incorporates the "Hypothesis of Damnation and Blessing Equality" [;)].
Funny, but not applicable. I really mean that you are damned if you, and damned if you don't, there is no blessing to be found within the confines of unusability.
This is a different story. Attributes themselves may be attributed some states, such as T/F. Uncertainty may be right/wrong in reporting an inconsistency or consistency in a knowledge body but the inconsistency attribute itself has no truth/falsity.
We have a database with data records like this:
Knowledge Body ~~ Consistency/Inconsistency Data
KB1---------------Consistent
KB2---------------Inconsistent
KB3---------------Inconsistent<-wrong data record, KB3 is consistent
KB4---------------Consistent
.
.
.
KBn---------------Inconsistent
Now, each of data records may contain wrong data but the contained data itself isn't about rightness/wrongness.
In that geomorphology example, we could have some topographic maps of the studied terrains. These maps might report wrong height values but height values themselves aren't about rightness/wrongness. Height values are chosen over an arbitrary range of real numbers and no real number is true/false (eg, 666.13 isn't true/false).
I don't see how this answers what I said. Uncertainty doesn't allow one to assume the truth or false of any attribute. 666.13 is not an attribute (you were right about that), but 666.13ft is an attribute (of the terrain) and may be accurate or inaccurate.
Well-thought extension to analogy [:)].
Thank you.
That's a good question. Your "uncertainty" basically prohibits doubting its own premise(s) in order to avoid paradox. It tells one: "there's no point in trying to see a camera through the same camera."
Kind of, although - actually - it allows you to doubt it's premise, but doesn't require it (as does Uncertainty).
Uncertainty responds: "I know, but let's give it a try or at least pretend we're trying."
No, Uncertainty responds: "There's no way that I'm going to take the camera for granted, I don't take anything for granted" (I know, I made it sound a little snobby, but it's how it feels to me).
Your "uncertainty," on the other hand, hides away this basic piece of knowledge. If you explain Uncertainty to someone, that someone will be challenged in all aspects of her/his knowledge while if you explain "uncertainty," that someone will only be given another set of premises that challenges everything but itself and doesn't contain the basic rule of fairness: "challenge everything even yourself."
If that is the basic rule of "fairness" then fairness = paradoxical.
We could achieve absolute fairness if we could see a camera through the same camera, if we could analyze our premises without being committed to some premises. This isn't achievable, so absolute fairness isn't achievable. Relative fairness is in that you, at least, try "in vain" to view the camera through the same camera. It would be "in vain" but has a "hint" at one's desire of fairness. Without this "hint," it's easy to forget one's own desire.
It's not about "desire" at all. Trying in vain to make the camera view itself is nothing like Uncertainty anyway, as Uncertainty demands that you both try to and not try to (can't take anything for granted, remember?).
For every piece of possible knowledge, either of the two states can be assumed:
00. It's contained in your knowledge (you know it).
01. It isn't contained in your knowledge (you don't know it).
Suppose you asked "what's the nature of knowledge?" (or similarly, "what're the limits of knowledge?" or any other questions concerned with knowing the knowledge itself). The answer to that question would be a possible piece of knowledge, for which either of the above states can be assumed:
00. The answer is contained in your knowledge, or your knowledge contains the knowledge of its own nature (you know the answer). If so, why could you be asking the question?
Well, I wouldn't be asking it, if I knew.
01. The answer isn't contained in your knowledge, or your knowledge doesn't contain the knowledge about its own nature (you don't know the answer). If so, the answer would be unreachable because this piece of possible knowledge lies totally outside your current knowledge and there's no way to get to something that lies totally outside itself (for the knowledge of the knowledge is some knowledge itself).
My current knowledge [x=] my potential knowledge.
Does the equator exist on both Northern and Southern hemispheres? Equator is a virtual line of zero thickness. What gives meaning to this virtual line is its function: it divides.
You are missing the point of my reasoning. What I'm saying is that the Equator must be distinguishable from the Hemisphere, and it must be distinguishable from either stand-point.
Uncertainty, Paradox and Self-reference are virtual lines. They don't exist on no side (in fact, on the irrational side existence itself can be a varying concept) but they function like borders: they divide.
See above.
And irrationality doesn't have to do with "losing track of everything." One "needn't" keep track of anything when one's irrational but one may "like" to keep track of things and that liking works on both sides, rational and irrational.
You can't be on both sides at the same time. You also can't distinguish "sides" when you are (fully) irrational.
Rationalization itself is a subset of irrationality. What's the rationale behind rationalization?
What are you talking about?
It wasn't me who said Bible is symbolic. If Genesis isn't symbolic, then it's meant literally and if it's meant literally it's in contradiction to scientific Cosmogony.
The Genesis account is not symbolic, just parts of it (like the use of the word "days" for example).
Yes. I won't make any other comments on that subject. However, it wasn't a religious discussion, it was one about two incompatible knowledge bodies as examples.
Good point.
I didn't say "uncertainty" is inconsistent even though it is. I was referring to the inconsistency (or the paradox) of "fair" observer.
You said: "your 'uncertainty' doesn't allow one to see it's inconsistencies in 'uncertainty' itself...
That means that it's got inconsistencies, but doesn't allow you to see them, right? That means that you did say that "uncertainty" is inconsistent.
Uncertainty contains a hint of that paradox while "uncertainty" doesn't. And I think this hint would better be present but there's no necessity and that's why I personally "like" Uncertainty more than "uncertainty" but use "uncertainty" (or rather a form of certainty) in my everyday life.
Actually, the "hint" is present only is "uncertainty" or forms fo "certainty", but it is not present in "Uncertainty" as nothing is present (you cannot take something's presence for granted) in "Uncertainty".
I've studied Uncertainty and I've learnt much. It wasn't unusable in my experience.
That's because (IMO) you probably weren't using actual Uncertainty (which I don't think exists). You were using drastic uncertainty, but never Uncertainty.
Even if it's unusable, it's the "fairest."
I'm sorry, but something cannot be both unusable and fair at the same time. "Fairness" is a quality that is expressed when the system is put into use.
Suppose you (and all humanity) have tried to study human situation but have come to a possible dead-end. Close your eyes to the dead-end and you're stuck in a deadlock. Open your eyes and you'll possibly find some way out.
Only if it wasn't an actual "Dead-End" to begin with.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1 and 2 are separate. The condition called for in 1 isn't the one talked about in 2.
In case 1, the condition is that any system of thoughts one chooses after the realization of "fair" observer's paradox would better have a hint of that very basic paradox. Uncertainty satisfies this condition while "uncertainty" doesn't.
"Uncertainty" doesn't satisfy that condition, as I've shown in the previous post.
What does that idiom mean?
Have you ever heard of "putting your foot in your mouth"? It's basically when you contradict your previous stance.
I was the one who asked why you wanted to "use" something and what "use" meant.
I said it's "fair" and "helpful." You associate these with your "use."
Yes, because nothing can be considered "fair" unless it has been shown to be so, when put into use.
Usable to whom?
Me [;)].
Usable for what use?
Any use. "Uncertainty" has not use, because it cannot exist.
What does "use" mean?
I thought I already answered that.
Why only usable guesses?
Because I have no use for unusable guesses [:D].
And one will only realize one's paradoxical situation after having impossibly made possible the impossible.
[g)] Was it your intent that that statment make no sense?
What are humans? How did you summon them all and ask their opinions?
I didn't have to. If you can show me that it's useful to any human, I will believe that it is "useful to humans".
Am I non-human in striving for something else?
No, you just don't realize that what you are striving for doesn't exist (no offense).
What is common?
That which occurs often.
Who has the right to determine what is common and what is uncommon?
Well, technically you gave me the right, by asking me.
Both? They were three, not two and these three have countless equally creditable substitutes.
Oops. I change my answer: probably all three.
Human history isn't a solid entity sitting somewhere, it's the fluid colloid of previous representations of human interactions. What human history means, is dependent on the observer and on the context. Human history isn't the same thing for any two individuals or any two beings.
Well that's just dead wrong, and I'll see if you can realize that without my help. (Hint: Time is one dimensional).
I, for I have a step-by-step approach to Uncertainty. I won't suggest anyone dives into it in one session.
Into what?! It doesn't exist, according to my previous reasoning, and you have yet to prove me wrong. You can avoid/ignore that point (in a purely wuliheron-ish style (no offense, wuliheron), and just keep talking about it as though it existed, but you would lose all creditability, AFAIC.
Perhaps. I guess too much of rationality will lead to irrationality, at last [:D].
If you are looking for irrationality, then you are already there. A rational person would not spend their time looking for irrationality, but an irrational person wouldn't realize that they were irrational, and could keep looking for it.
You said I can have my measures. I was free to choose my measures so I chose at will. If you have "better" measures, tell me. And then, tell me why they're "better" and what "better" means.
Well, since you've used the word first, why don't you tell me what it means? After all, I can't be expected to answer a question about which choice is "better" if the one questioning hasn't defined what they mean by "better".
No problem, except for "definition."
I asked you to define "the definition" and not "definition." Because you use the phrase "by definition" like there's "the definition," a definition intrinsic to and inseparable from the terms you use.
That's what Language is: The assigning of meaning to words. Once a meaning is assigned, it's supposed to stay that way.
You missed out two definitions: definitions of "usable and/or use" and "practice". Will you please define these?
Note that I can almost endlessly ask for definitions of the words you use to define your words. Think about it ... are you going to grant me that right?
You can continue doing so, if you please, you've had that right the whole time. However, I don't see how it helps your position any, so I don't see much use in responding.
Manuel_Silvio
May13-03, 03:42 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Well, I hope you feel better.Thanks. I do feel better now.
... Don't you see that, in claiming that "entity D" (Descartes) didn't exist, he was implying "entity D"'s existence (otherwise there would be nothing to make claims about)? Then, to top it all off, the Demon tried to convince "entity D" of something, thus showing that the Demon believed "entity D" to be capable of thinking.What I see as Evil Demon scenario is like this:
00. Rene Descartes is sitting by his fireplace. Satisfied by a French meal. Warmed by fire, daydreaming...
01. The Demon comes in, embodied in Aphrodite's most voluptuous figure.
02. The Demon says: "Honey, did you know you don't exist?"
03. Descartes responds: "No, I do exist, darling, for I can think of you. I think of you therefore I am."
You follow the scenario until here and conclude Demon's attempt has been in vain. How could the Demon be considered defeated if not given a chance to counter-attack?
Here's the Demon's counter-attack:
04. The Demon says: "But love, in making that conclusion you've made a loop."
05. Descartes blushes: "How then?"
06. The Demon caresses him, smiling: "You said your thinking of me is always equal to your being. So in saying that you've said you are therefore you are. You've pre-supposed your being's truth and proved it true. That's a loop and it's non-informative, my dearest!"
07. Descartes is lost in the Demon's eyes.
08. No one knows what happens hereafter but the two non-existent D entities (Descartes and the Demon) somehow make up their mind to write only the first part of scenario.
If you claim "the Demon claimed the non-existence of an existent entity," you're obviously biased towards the existence of this entity. How do you know the entity exists even before its existence is challenged? You first have to prove it exists (Q = T) and then ask the Demon how it could challenge the existence of an existing entity. One way or the other, Descartes "had to" prove Q = T to win this scenario (you know, he won in fact, but not the way you think [;)]).
Your (Q => Q) statement is true, is ever-true for all states of Q. Whether or not your entity is, means whether or not Q is true, (Q => Q) is ever-true. Q's state remains undetermined for this scenario. In order to show whose, Descartes' or the Demon's, attempt has been "in vain," one has to show which one has been wrong. Neither of them has been right or wrong.
Descartes' basic effort to prove his existence is healthy but his later unfair conclusion that he really exists and the Demon's attempt has been in vain is neither healthy nor respectable.
This means that it is the Demon (not Descartes) that created the paradox. He was trying to convince someone that P was true, but that Q was not.Suppose the Demon fails in proving Descartes' non-existence. Does this mean that Descartes' exists? I think not, it means Descartes is back to his state of hesitation about his existence (if he'd ever fairly doubted it). Descartes hasn't succeeded even though the Demon has failed.
... if I were to find a green Ostrich, and try to convince it that it didn't exist...The green Ostrich isn't an example of that situation, it's an example of a being whose being is included in its definition.
The monk story is a classic example. Those definitions are forbidden and Descartes' statement "I am therefore I am" is equivalent to "I is a being that is" for I's existence is included in its definition so it's forbidden, too.
The Demon's first claim has a similar fault. Descartes and the Demon both are stating non-informative statements. Hence, Descartes' existence (the subject of their debate) remains undetermined.
... The monks statment is unfalsifiable, because he has defined the words to make it so. Descartes' statment, OTOH, can be taken apart, and each of it's premises denied...Descartes' "I am therefore I am" isn't falsifiable, either. That's why it's non-informative. You saw it's an ever-true statement. (Q => Q) is ever-true regardless of its premises. Let its premise be true (Q = T), it's true. Let its premise be false (Q = F), it's true again.
... Descartes' statement has no worth, outside of the context of someone's trying to prove that someone else doesn't exist.So its result, Descartes' existence, is neither valid nor true outside its context, right? Descartes can't know if he exists unless he finds someone to challenge his existence.
Descartes' statement has no worth even inside its own context. If the Demon is allowed to counter-attack, that statement will be shown inconsistent with part of the context that's compliance to Aristotelian logic.
I disagree on one minor point: You omitted the fact that the discussion itself couldn't take place, if the Demon was correct. You insist that a non-existent entity can't discuss anything. Is that a logical obligation or an empirical pattern (using keywords from previous posts)?
The bond between an entity and a deed (which may be thinking, eating, discussing, whatever) isn't a logical obligation. It hasn't been deduced from a logical system's postulates. It isn't an abstract theorem proven from the axioms. We've observed it in scientific Universe so it's an empirical pattern.
For a statement to be undeniably true within a logical system, that statement must be proven to be logical obligation of that system and not an empirical pattern for empirical patterns are only "optimization methods" like I said. Empirical patterns such as "there must be a doer if there's a deed" aren't "proofs of truth" for statement like "there is a doer."
Moreover, if one uses an empirical pattern observed in scientific Universe one's already accepted the premises necessary for a scientific Universe to be. Those premises include one's existence. It's no great deed to feel oneself (perceive one's being) and claim that one is. The very premise for a perception to be, is the existence of the perceived and the perceiver. However, it's forbidden to take a premise for true and then prove it true. It's a loop. Hence, a bond between an entity and a deed "must" remain in scientific Universe and "must" be known to be an "empirical pattern" not a "logical obligation."
He was merely pointing out the flaw in the Demon's attempt.So he'd better confine himself to "merely" knowing that the Demon's attempt has been in vain, not concluding that his own attempt has been successful. He had to suspend his judgment of his being for he really hadn't proven his existence. He'd "merely" pointed out a flaw in someone else's attempt while "overlooking the flaw in his own attempt."
The Demon came in because Descartes needed someone to challenge his existence in order for him to prove it but he treated his sparring partner unfairly and with unleashed bias towards his own opinion. He didn't show that he existed, he showed that claiming that he doesn't exist was illogical while he himself was making illogical statements for that purpose.
Actually, I already took care of the "time distortion/machine" problem. I told you that I was talking about subjective years, as related to the standard (Earthling) measurement of time.Now that you're an Earthling and you're talking about subjective years are the auxiliary statements. By knowing that "you were born 15 years ago," one can't know that "you're an Earthling" and "you're talking about subjective years." So these auxiliary statements must be present in order to derive "I am 15" from "I was born 15 years ago."
I was trying to give you an example of a practical (and logically sound) statement that was non-informative (loopy). It doesn't really matter though, and we can drop it if you want to.
If it's a loop, it's "illogical." It's forbidden. It mustn't be there. I think, too, we'd better forget the thing.
Say what? I don't understand the question.I was just kidding. I meant I'd exhausted both of your statements. Forget it, please.
Funny, but not applicable. I really mean that you are damned if you, and damned if you don't, there is no blessing to be found within the confines of unusability.Funny, but not applicable, either. I really mean you are blessed if you do, and blessed if you don't, there's no damnation to be found within the confines of nowhere. Don't I offer a better prospect? [:D]
... Uncertainty doesn't allow one to assume the truth or false of any attribute. 666.13 is not an attribute (you were right about that), but 666.13ft is an attribute (of the terrain) and may be accurate or inaccurate.No. The number 666.13 is a value associated with the attribute "height" (I like SI more, I don't use British units [:)]).
Uncertainty is meant as a device (like GeoSat, for example) or a principle by which to measure the attributes of knowledge bodies (like GeoSat measures Earth's shape). Each attribute (eg, height) is assigned a value (eg, 666.13 units of length). These values may be right or wrong or accurate only to some decimal place, even though the attributes themselves have no rightness/wrongness. Aside from the rightness of a value assigned to an attribute, that attribute and its value can be honored or lowered by the inhabitants of a knowledge body. For example, those interested in Science honor consistency while those interested in Mysticism don't even mention it.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May13-03, 03:51 PM
... continued from the previous post
If that is the basic rule of "fairness" then fairness = paradoxical.Well, suppose so, what then? Please tell me if you have a non-paradoxical basic rule for fairness.
No, Uncertainty responds: "There's no way that I'm going to take the camera for granted, I don't take anything for granted" (I know, I made it sound a little snobby, but it's how it feels to me).
Perhaps we're referring to the same thing under different names. If it's that way, I have to retreat some steps. Even though my discussion of Descartes' statement remains there and is independent of Uncertainty.
My current knowledge [is not equal to] my potential knowledge.Please explain the transition from not-known to known, from potential knowledge to current knowledge.
What I'm saying is that the Equator must be distinguishable from the Hemisphere, and it must be distinguishable from either stand-point.Equator's dictionary definition doesn't necessitate this. Equator is only a virtual line dividing Earth into Northern and Southern hemispheres and making the imaginary reference for latitude. It's only one of countless great circles on Earth's surface.
Like I said before, Paradox, Uncertainty and Self-reference make the divide between rationality and irrationality. They divide so I call them "borders." Their function is my reason for calling them "borders."
You can't be on both sides at the same time. You also can't distinguish "sides" when you are (fully) irrational.I got a problem with your "rationality." You’re expanding its definition. If distinguishing is rationality, understanding is rationality, everything is rationality, then where's irrationality?
Silvio: Rationalization itself is a subset of irrationality. What's the rationale behind rationalization?
Mentat: What are you talking about?Rationalization means the use of reason for explaining things, as far as I know. To rationalize an idea one has to answer all "why" questions associated with that idea.
Now we have an idea: rationalization. We're rational ones, so we want to rationalize this idea as well. There are a few "why" questions associated with rationalization two of which are:
00. Why should one rationalize ideas?
01. Why should one throw away ideas that can't be rationalized?
The answers to these "why" questions lie beyond the duty and the power of rationalization. The roots to rational explanation and the need for it lie outside the boundaries of rationalization, in a realm that isn't rational, hence, irrational. Notice, irrational doesn't mean anti-rational for anti-rational thinking is another form of methodic thinking which can be categorized as rational. Irrational means non-rational, means that which is other than ration.
You said: "your 'uncertainty' doesn't allow one to see it's inconsistencies in 'uncertainty' itself...
That means that it's got inconsistencies, but doesn't allow you to see them, right? That means that you did say that "uncertainty" is inconsistent.That's your interpretation. My saying doesn't mean your "uncertainty" has got inconsistencies (even though it's got some), it means this "uncertainty" is unable to inspect itself. Your interpretation is wrong. Nonetheless, the problem is solved now by agreeing on that the camera (be it "uncertainty" or Uncertainty) can noway inspect itself. However, it can try to, at least.
Actually, the "hint" is present only is "uncertainty" or forms fo "certainty", but it is not present in "Uncertainty" as nothing is present (you cannot take something's presence for granted) in "Uncertainty".Isn't the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty the clearest hint of "fair" observer's paradox?
... you probably weren't using actual Uncertainty (which I don't think exists)... I doubted the very principle of doubting. Isn't that an implementation of Uncertainty?
... but something cannot be both unusable and fair at the same time. "Fairness" is a quality that is expressed when the system is put into use."Fairness" is the quality of being unbiased. A fair jury can be known by its members being put under rigorous study of their beliefs and their past. A fair stance can be known by studying the features of that stance. These features can be studied by a study of the statements associated with that stance, thus there needn't be an implementation of that stance.
The quality of being unbiased which is fairness can't be achieved. "Fairness" in your use is "absolute fairness" which has been discussed before. What Uncertainty offers is "relative fairness" that isn't being unbiased but being aware of one's biases and being ready to review them. Uncertainty implies the acceptance of the presence of biases and conscious avoidance from them.
Only if it wasn't an actual "Dead-End" to begin with.Or if this dead-end can be an opening to new realms. Within a paradigm, dead-ends may be encountered. These dead-ends are the hallmarks of that paradigm. Study of these dead-ends reveals knowledge about the structure and function of current paradigm and gives rise to the possibility of other paradigms.
Throughout human history (this is too big a claim for me, in fact) paradigm shifts have occurred very slowly and with many sacrifices. An understanding of current paradigm can facilitate paradigm shifts. There can even be self-initiated paradigm shifts towards a desired situation.
These dead-ends are hard as concrete within their respective paradigm. They are "actual dead-ends," and tough challenges. Outside that paradigm, they may be anything. Paradigm shifts aren't as easy as moving into a new house, but they're possible and they've happened many times, to individuals and to societies.
It's basically when you contradict your previous stance.Thanks for the explanation [:)].
Silvio: What does "use" mean?
Mentat: I thought I already answered that.Among the definitions I asked for were those of "use and/or useful" and "practice." You haven't defined them in your previous posts.
Because I have no use for unusable guesses.Suppose that I understand what you mean with "use." Why do you prefer "usable" ones? Why do you prefer those that have some "use" for you? Why are you seeking "use?"
... If you can show me that it's useful to any human, I will believe that it is "useful to humans".I didn't talk of human beings, you did. You said you meant "use" in its "common" definition and that a "common definition" is "common among human beings." I asked you how you could know all other humans' opinions.
Was it your intent that that statment make no sense?It's worth noting that the same applies to every human statement.
Well, technically you gave me the right, by asking me.I asked for a definition of "common." My next question was of your right over preferring this definition over other possible ones. That you accept to give a definition means you consider yourself righteous over that and I'm questioning this right.
Well that's just dead wrong, and I'll see if you can realize that without my help...Human history is dependent on the observer, for an instance compare human history from your own point of view with human history from a Blue Whale's point of view.
Human history is dependent on the context, for an instance compare human history in the context of Archeology and human history in the context of Hegelian system of thought.
If I'm still wrong, correct me please.
Into what?! It doesn't exist, according to my previous reasoning, and you have yet to prove me wrong. You can avoid/ignore that point (in a purely wuliheron-ish style (no offense, wuliheron), and just keep talking about it as though it existed, but you would lose all creditability, AFAIC.Into the non-existent...
You're honoring me in comparing me to Wuliheron. She/he knows he has my respect and admiration.
Try to understand the relativity of necessities and obligations. That you can't convince me doesn't necessarily mean I'm in ignorance, it may mean you're losing countless options for one option. One the most powerful motives of philosophical thought is "what if:" what if you're wrong? What if you're the one in ignorance?
I don't mean you're wrong or you're in ignorance but I think our ideas are equally creditable hence equally unreliable, like any two other ideas.
Well, since you've used the word first, why don't you tell me what it means? ...The word "better" is used to show preference of a choice over the other. Its use is user-dependent.
Your way of treating my proposed measures was like there're other measures that you prefer to those I proposed. By asking "why do you think they're better?" I asked of the reason of your preference. By asking "what does better mean?" I asked of the nature of this preference.
That's what Language is: The assigning of meaning to words. Once a meaning is assigned, it's supposed to stay that way.Please don't get into defining language, it will take another lifetime to do. We discussed this before: meaning isn't stuck to the terms. You use and refer to your own (or dictionary) definitions of terms like these meanings are intrinsic of those terms. I was reminding you that clarity in used terms is essential to a discussion. In asking you to define "the definition' of some term, I wanted to know what kind of definition has convinced you of its being intrinsic to the term it describes.
... However, I don't see how it helps your position any, so I don't see much use in responding.You say: "throw it away for it's unusable." I want to show your term "unusable" is vague enough to give an entire spectrum of meanings to your claim.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1. For Mentat:
What I see as Evil Demon scenario is like this:
00. Rene Descartes is sitting by his fireplace. Satisfied by a French meal. Warmed by fire, daydreaming...
01. The Demon comes in, embodied in Aphrodite's most voluptuous figure.
02. The Demon says: "Honey, did you know you don't exist?"
03. Descartes responds: "No, I do exist, darling, for I can think of you. I think of you therefore I am."
You follow the scenario until here and conclude Demon's attempt has been in vain. How could the Demon be considered defeated if not given a chance to counter-attack?
Here's the Demon's counter-attack:
04. The Demon says: "But love, in making that conclusion you've made a loop."
05. Descartes blushes: "How then?"
06. The Demon caresses him, smiling: "You said your thinking of me is always equal your being. So in saying that you've said you are therefore you are. You've pre-supposed your being's truth and proved it true. That's a loop and it's non-informative, my dearest!"
07. Descartes is lost in the Demon's eyes.
08. No one knows what happens hereafter but the two non-existent D entities (Descartes and the Demon) somehow make up their mind to write only the first part of scenario.
Funny, but inaccurate portrayal. The Demon didn't just say that Descartes didn't exist. He (or she [;)]) tried to convince him (the entity that s/he was speaking to) that he didn't exist.
If you claim "the Demon claimed the non-existence of an existent entity," you're obviously biased towards the existence of this entity.
No, I was saying that the Demon assumed Descartes' existence. If it didn't, then why would it even attempt to convince Descartes that he didn't exist.
How do you know the entity exists even before its existence is challenged?
Not before, but at the same instant. You see, the very fact that something's existence is being challenged prove that there is something to challenge. IOW, when someone tries to convince "entity D" that "entity D" doesn't exist, they have presupposed that there is such a thing as "entity D".
You first have to prove it exists (Q = T) and then ask the Demon how it could challenge the existence of an existing entity. One way or the other, Descartes "had to" prove Q = T to win this scenario
No he didn't. When will you understand that the Demon proved it for him? The Demon had to presuppose the existence of an entity (and the ability of that entity to think), before making an attempt to convince the entity that it didn't exist.
(you know, he won in fact, but not the way you think [;)]).
Then how?
Your (Q => Q) statement is true, is ever-true for all states of Q. Whether or not your entity is, means whether or not Q is true, (Q => Q) is ever-true. Q's state remains undetermined for this scenario. In order to show whose, Descartes' or the Demon's, attempt has been "in vain," one has to show which one has been wrong. Neither of them has been right or wrong.
The Demon's attempt was in vain, because s/he defeated their own purpose (as shown above).
Descartes' basic effort to prove his existence is healthy but his later unfair conclusion that he really exists and the Demon's attempt has been in vain is neither healthy nor respectable.
(See above).
Suppose the Demon fails in proving Descartes' non-existence. Does this mean that Descartes' exists? I think not, it means Descartes is back to his state of hesitation about his existence (if he'd ever fairly doubted it). Descartes hasn't succeeded even though the Demon has failed.
Don't you even realize what you are saying? You speak of Descartes as "hesitating" or "doubting". This also implies his existence. One cannot doubt anything, if one doesn't exist.
The green Ostrich isn't an example of that situation, it's an example of a being whose being is included in its definition.
It doesn't matter, I made application of it anyway [:))].
The monk story is a classic example. Those definitions are forbidden and Descartes' statement "I am therefore I am" is equivalent to "I is a being that is" for I's existence is included in its definition so it's forbidden, too.
Well, actually, his statement isn't really equal to "I is a being that is", but I'll let this go, since I have already agreed that the statement (by itself; outside of context) is non-informative and useless.
So its result, Descartes' existence, is neither valid nor true outside its context, right? Descartes can't know if he exists unless he finds someone to challenge his existence.
EXACTLY!! It was the fact that someone attempted to convince him that he didn't exist, that ensured that he did exist.
Of course, he could have just thought about it (which is what he really did) and come to the same conclusion (based on the fact that he could think about it).
You insist that a non-existent entity can't discuss anything. Is that a logical obligation or an empirical pattern (using keywords from previous posts)?
Both. It is empirically verifiable. But it is also a logical obligation since discussion implies existence (you can see why, can't you? Hint: sub-premises).
Moreover, if one uses an empirical pattern observed in scientific Universe one's already accepted the premises necessary for a scientific Universe to be. Those premises include one's existence. It's no great deed to feel oneself (perceive one's being) and claim that one is. The very premise for a perception to be, is the existence of the perceived and the perceiver. However, it's forbidden to take a premise for true and then prove it true.
What you don't realize is that the assumption of the act's having taken place, equals an assumption of the existence of the doer. You agreed with me on this before (by saying that "I think therefore I am" = "I am therefore I am"), so why are you disagreeing now?
So he'd better confine himself to "merely" knowing that the Demon's attempt has been in vain, not concluding that his own attempt has been successful. He had to suspend his judgment of his being for he really hadn't proven his existence. He'd "merely" pointed out a flaw in someone else's attempt while "overlooking the flaw in his own attempt."
Wrong, for the reasons already given above (I don't have time or room to re-post them, sorry).
Now that you're an Earthling and you're talking about subjective years are the auxiliary statements. By knowing that "you were born 15 years ago," one can't know that "you're an Earthling" and "you're talking about subjective years." So these auxiliary statements must be present in order to derive "I am 15" from "I was born 15 years ago."
It's not that they must be present (any more than the definition of "think" has to be present for "I think therefore I am"), it's that they are used as rebuttals to your arguments.
Sorry, I have to go right now. It appears that I've forgotten to be home on time for my little sister. Bye (I will finish my response later).
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
If it's a loop, it's "illogical." It's forbidden. It mustn't be there. I think, too, we'd better forget the thing.
You seem rather certain of the forbidden nature of looping statments, while at the same time claiming Uncertainty. You even go so far as to claim that loops and paradoxes are the boudary between rationality and irrationality, and that they should be recognized. However, whenever I bring up something that you percieve to be "looping", you dismiss it immediately. Why do you change your standards so?
I was just kidding. I meant I'd exhausted both of your statements. Forget it, please.
OK.
Funny, but not applicable, either. I really mean you are blessed if you do, and blessed if you don't, there's no damnation to be found within the confines of nowhere. Don't I offer a better prospect? [:D]
Are you kidding? There are no "confines" of nowhere. See Exercise in Nothing Semantics (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99&highlight=Nothing+Semantics), if you don't understand why.
No. The number 666.13 is a value associated with the attribute "height" (I like SI more, I don't use British units [:)]).
Only in this instance, and only because you have now specified that. The number 666.13 could just as easily be the number of molecules in Leonard Nimoy's butt (just using a hyperbole, my point is obvious isn't it?).
The purpose of the number is not intrinsic to the number itself, as you seem to believe.
Uncertainty is meant as a device (like GeoSat, for example) or a principle by which to measure the attributes of knowledge bodies (like GeoSat measures Earth's shape). Each attribute (eg, height) is assigned a value (eg, 666.13 units of length). These values may be right or wrong or accurate only to some decimal place, even though the attributes themselves have no rightness/wrongness.
But Uncertainty doesn't measure these attributes. This would be putting it to use, and I think I've already posted enough times why I believe it to be entirely unusable.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Well, suppose so, what then? Please tell me if you have a non-paradoxical basic rule for fairness.
Why? Would it please you if fairness could be found without paradox?
No, I don't have such a rule, because the rule cannot exist (as the very concept is, at it's heart, paradoxical).
Perhaps we're referring to the same thing under different names. If it's that way, I have to retreat some steps. Even though my discussion of Descartes' statement remains there and is independent of Uncertainty.
I don't understand, do you mean that you may not have been talking about actual Uncertainty?
Please explain the transition from not-known to known, from potential knowledge to current knowledge.
I don't see why explanation is necessary. Suffice it to say that this "transition" occurs whenever I become aware of new knowledge?
Equator's dictionary definition doesn't necessitate this. Equator is only a virtual line dividing Earth into Northern and Southern hemispheres and making the imaginary reference for latitude. It's only one of countless great circles on Earth's surface.
Yes, but only one of them divides the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. This means that it is a defined line, at a defined place, of a defined length. None of these "defined" states can exist in the realm of irrationality, therefore there is no "border" between rationality and irrationality that is percievable from the "irrational side", right?
Like I said before, Paradox, Uncertainty and Self-reference make the divide between rationality and irrationality. They divide so I call them "borders." Their function is my reason for calling them "borders."
No, Paradox and Self-reference are perfectly rational concepts. It is the actual paradoxes and self-referntial statments themselves that are in the realm of irrationality.
I got a problem with your "rationality." You’re expanding its definition.
Am I, or am I just expanding you definition of it? [;)]
If distinguishing is rationality, understanding is rationality, everything is rationality, then where's irrationality?
In the absence of these things (understanding, distinguishing, etc...), there lies irrationality.
Rationalization means the use of reason for explaining things, as far as I know. To rationalize an idea one has to answer all "why" questions associated with that idea.
Now we have an idea: rationalization. We're rational ones, so we want to rationalize this idea as well. There are a few "why" questions associated with rationalization two of which are:
00. Why should one rationalize ideas?
You already answered that: Because we are "rational ones".
01. Why should one throw away ideas that can't be rationalized?
Same answer.
The answers to these "why" questions lie beyond the duty and the power of rationalization. The roots to rational explanation and the need for it lie outside the boundaries of rationalization, in a realm that isn't rational, hence, irrational.
There are no answers in the realm of irrationality. Answers are the result of rational thought.
Notice, irrational doesn't mean anti-rational for anti-rational thinking is another form of methodic thinking which can be categorized as rational. Irrational means non-rational, means that which is other than ration.
Don't you realize that to be without ration, is to be anti-rational?
That's your interpretation. My saying doesn't mean your "uncertainty" has got inconsistencies (even though it's got some), it means this "uncertainty" is unable to inspect itself. Your interpretation is wrong.
My interpretation may be wrong, when compared to what you meant to say, but to "see the inconsistencies in 'uncertainty' itself" necessitates that such inconsistencies exist. Besides, you have now made the claim that there are such inconsistencies, so it's irrelevant that you didn't intend to with that particular statement.
Nonetheless, the problem is solved now by agreeing on that the camera (be it "uncertainty" or Uncertainty) can noway inspect itself. However, it can try to, at least.
The camera can't try to do anything, unless it rationally decides to. And, since looking at itself is utterly irrational, it couldn't rationally choose to try.
Isn't the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty the clearest hint of "fair" observer's paradox?
Nope. You cannot find the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty without using rationalization (as I have in previous posts). However, you cannot rationalize if you are bound to Uncertainty.
I doubted the very principle of doubting. Isn't that an implementation of Uncertainty?
No, because you must doubt the doubting of your doubt, and you must doubt that doubt, and so on and so on, ad infinitum.
The quality of being unbiased which is fairness can't be achieved. "Fairness" in your use is "absolute fairness" which has been discussed before. What Uncertainty offers is "relative fairness" that isn't being unbiased but being aware of one's biases and being ready to review them. Uncertainty implies the acceptance of the presence of biases and conscious avoidance from them.
You keep repeating this, but you are wrong. I will re-explain why: Uncertainty cannot cause you to be aware of anything, because that implies taking for granted that you should be aware of it. Uncertainty cannot imply acceptance of anything (or the concious avoidance thereof) for similar reasons.
Within a paradigm, dead-ends may be encountered. These dead-ends are the hallmarks of that paradigm. Study of these dead-ends reveals knowledge about the structure and function of current paradigm and gives rise to the possibility of other paradigms.
You are changing the definition of "dead-end". It would seem self-explanatory, that there is nothing beyond a true dead-end, to me, but...
These dead-ends are hard as concrete within their respective paradigm. They are "actual dead-ends," and tough challenges. Outside that paradigm, they may be anything. Paradigm shifts aren't as easy as moving into a new house, but they're possible and they've happened many times, to individuals and to societies.
You contradict youself. You said that they are actual dead-ends within their respective paradigms, but could be anything outside of those paradigms; then you said that you needn't "move to a new house".
Among the definitions I asked for were those of "use and/or useful" and "practice." You haven't defined them in your previous posts.
I defined "practice" as synonymous with "use". Thus, I need only define "use". I shall do so with an example: I have a hammer. The hammer is not useful on it's own. The hammer is only useful, when I "use" it to for whatever purpose I happen to find for it. Basically, it's "usefulness" is ability to be used for at least one purpose.
Reponse continued on the next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Suppose that I understand what you mean with "use." Why do you prefer "usable" ones? Why do you prefer those that have some "use" for you? Why are you seeking "use?"
Why have you asked the same question so many times? It's just the way I am. Why do you seek a reason for the way I am? Besides, by seeking to define it's "fair" state, you were also trying to find "use" for Uncertainty. You have betrayed the same tendency that I have, toward finding "use" for everything.
I didn't talk of human beings, you did. You said you meant "use" in its "common" definition and that a "common definition" is "common among human beings." I asked you how you could know all other humans' opinions.
Yes, and I answered that unless you can show me a human who thinks otherwise, I will believe as I have been. If this is about human nature, and I can produce numerous examples of people who have this opinion, while you can produce none that don't (and I'm not saying that you can't, I'm saying "if" you can't), I see no reason to leave my previous belief.
It's worth noting that the same applies to every human statement.
I asked for a definition of "common." My next question was of your right over preferring this definition over other possible ones. That you accept to give a definition means you consider yourself righteous over that and I'm questioning this right.
You haven't questioned Webster's right, have you? Besides, you were the one who asked for my definition (as I would be using it througout these posts), instead of the dictionary's definition.
Human history is dependent on the observer, for an instance compare human history from your own point of view with human history from a Blue Whale's point of view.
"Human" refers to the group of all Homo Sapiens. "Human history" refers to the action of these Homo Sapiens. In spite of opinions on what actually happened and didn't happen, there is one truth about what really did happen, and that's "human history".
Again, I must go. I'll finish my reponse tomorrow. I do apologize for the inconvinience.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Into the non-existent...
You're honoring me in comparing me to Wuliheron. She/he knows he has my respect and admiration.
As he has mine. However, the comparison was not a positive one, as people have extreme difficulty in trying to rationalize with such a person.
Try to understand the relativity of necessities and obligations. That you can't convince me doesn't necessarily mean I'm in ignorance, it may mean you're losing countless options for one option. One the most powerful motives of philosophical thought is "what if:" what if you're wrong? What if you're the one in ignorance?
I don't mean you're wrong or you're in ignorance but I think our ideas are equally creditable hence equally unreliable, like any two other ideas.
Wrong! Are ideas are not equally creditable, and to say so (without confronting my counter-arguments) is to side-step the issue.
Please don't get into defining language, it will take another lifetime to do.
Language already has a definition. Well...I guess it shouldn't really be able to define itself. However, Science (a field that is independent of language) has defined it, and so I guess I can define it.
We discussed this before: meaning isn't stuck to the terms. You use and refer to your own (or dictionary) definitions of terms like these meanings are intrinsic of those terms. I was reminding you that clarity in used terms is essential to a discussion. In asking you to define "the definition' of some term, I wanted to know what kind of definition has convinced you of its being intrinsic to the term it describes.
But what you are forgetting is that language/communication is based on agreement on the meanings of words. If, in my conception/definition, "pink" means what "sphere" means to you, we will get nowhere in trying to discuss a pink sphere, will we? So, unless we can stop debating definitions, and settle for those that have been agreed upon for so long (as long as the current English language has existed), we aren't going to get anywhere.
You say: "throw it away for it's unusable." I want to show your term "unusable" is vague enough to give an entire spectrum of meanings to your claim.
I see, but you haven't done this. By debating definitions, you have merely side-stepped the real issue: That you cannot show me any practical use for "Uncertainty", while I can show you why I think it to be unusable.
Manuel_Silvio
May16-03, 01:32 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... The Demon didn't just say that Descartes didn't exist. He (or she ) tried to convince him (the entity that s/he was speaking to) that he didn't exist.To my understanding, the Demon was Descartes' sparring partner. Descartes made the Demon to challenge his suppositions and verify their truth. From this viewpoint Descartes and the Demon have equal places, they're the two sides of a philosophical debate.
"Trying to convince" means "trying to prove logically," within a debate. It doesn't seem to me like that phrase has to say anything further. In trying to prove something logically, all positions are equal until a fault is found in one or more of positions.
If the Demon is said to "have tried to convince" of something (that Descartes didn't exist) then Descartes can also be said to "have tried to convince" of the opposite thing (that he did exist).
We have the statement Q (eg, "I am") and two minds who wish debating the truth/falsity of this Q. There's no difference (or at least, I can't see any, yet) between Descartes' and Demon's part in this act. The Demon tried to prove that Q = F while Descartes tried to prove Q = T.
Descartes' attempt had one difference. He didn't try to directly prove Q = T, instead he attacked the Demon's claim that Q = F and showed the claim's logical failure. He showed that "claiming Q = F" in face of the entity whose being is declared in Q, is logically problematic and from there he concluded "Q = T."
My proof furthers his attempt. The same way he proved "claiming Q = F" was logically problematic, I've proven "claiming Q = T" to be logically problematic, by using the same premise that was used in Descartes' proof.
The twist is that Descartes committed the same false attempt that the Demon had committed. He proved that "claiming Q = F" is problematic, and he concluded from there that "Q = T." He "claimed" Q to be T while he wasn't "allowed" to do so within the logical framework he and his partner, the Demon, were working.
No, I was saying that the Demon assumed Descartes' existence. If it didn't, then why would it even attempt to convince Descartes that he didn't exist.
No he didn't. When will you understand that the Demon proved it for him? The Demon had to presuppose the existence of an entity (and the ability of that entity to think), before making an attempt to convince the entity that it didn't exist.You aren't allowed to infer based on your guess about the Demon's assumption.
I discussed Causality in previous posts. There's a reason to that. You think "if there's deed, there's a doer." The same way you think "if there's an attempt, there's a target," which is another form of Causality (used in inferring the Demon's "will" from its attempt). These relationships are mental patterns. These are "optimization methods," like I wrote before. They aren't theorems derived from the logical system's axioms. Hence, they can't be used in any logical debate.
You can't determine what the Demon "had" to do before it claimed Descartes' non-existence. The Demon is "the Demon" exactly because it's meant to be "non-human." It must be free of (strong but only empirical) patterns that human beings are used to. It must be Descartes' conscience of pure reason (within Aristotelian logic, of course).
... IOW, when someone tries to convince "entity D" that "entity D" doesn't exist, they have presupposed that there is such a thing as "entity D".I think you mean that talking about "entity D" at the very moment the entity is named is equal to pre-supposing the entity's existence.
A subtle point is made here, very subtle indeed. If naming "entity D" is equal to pre-supposing its existence then "entity D" is defined by one of those "being that is" (remember the monk story) beings. You know, every being "is there" just after it's named. The very thinking of the existence of a being makes the being "be" in some sense. However, all these beings are "forbidden" within Aristotelian logic (and I wasn't the one who made this logical system).
Entity D "can't exist" within Aristotelian logic. I don't say it doesn't exist but it isn't allowed to "be" within this system. If Descartes is an "instance" of entity D then he "can't be" within the system he's chosen to work in.
Then how?
By those parts of the scenario that Descartes and the Demon decided not to publish [;)].
The Demon's attempt was in vain, because s/he defeated their own purpose (as shown above).And Descartes "later" attempt in concluding his existence from "his true proof" was in vain, because he defeated his own purpose (that's to remain within the bounds of Aristotelian logic).
... You speak of Descartes as "hesitating" or "doubting". This also implies his existence. One cannot doubt anything, if one doesn't exist.How do you know that?
The bond between the doer and the deed is "an empirical pattern" (and one from the scientific Universe). It isn't "allowed" for use in logical debates.
Well, actually, his statement isn't really equal to "I is a being that is", but I'll let this go, since I have already agreed that the statement (by itself; outside of context) is non-informative and useless.It is. Descartes' statement is non-informative because it's "circular reasoning," it's a loop. And a loop isn't allowed "even in that context," for part of the context to Evil Demon scenario is compliance to Aristotelian logic.
A loop must never ever appear in Descartes' statements because he himself has chosen to work bound to Aristotelian logic.
EXACTLY!! It was the fact that someone attempted to convince him that he didn't exist, that ensured that he did exist.But that someone was his own creation, what if he couldn't create that someone? What if he wasn't Descartes and hadn't made the Evil Demon scenario?
Both. It is empirically verifiable. But it is also a logical obligation since discussion implies existence (you can see why, can't you? Hint: sub-premises).It can't be "both." It's only an "empirical pattern."
I say "I discuss" and you break this statement into two: "I am" and "I discuss." How can you break that statement into two sub-premises (as you call them)? This is by "pre-supposing" that "if there's a discussion then there's someone who discusses."
You say the two sub-premises are contained in "I discuss." Where does this claim of yours come from? It comes from pre-supposing Causality, based on your mental patterns.
This isn't allowed in a logical debate. Use of empirical patterns isn't allowed, it's forbidden and must never ever happen. If empirical patterns are allowed into logical debates, we could use the very usual and simple pattern, "I feel something so there is something" to prove our existence. There wouldn't be a need to trouble ourselves this much.
... You agreed with me on this before (by saying that "I think therefore I am" = "I am therefore I am"), so why are you disagreeing now?I was following another line of discussion. There're two lines of discussion here:
00. If our agreement is in place then Descartes' had made loop. This can't be tolerated. No way, it's a loop and it "must" be thrown away. In the context or out of context, it "must be thrown away," if one's doing Aristotelian logic.
01. Our agreement can be questioned as well. I showed that Causality is one of countless possible options for explaining the phenomenal Universe (not going further than that even though it's possible). By that, the previous agreement that "I think" is an indication of "I am" is no more "necessarily true." It may be true, may be false. If that premise is doubted then Descartes' proof becomes totally invalid because it's based on a premise which has no definite state yet. This can't be tolerated, either.
You seem rather certain of the forbidden nature of looping statments, while at the same time claiming Uncertainty. You even go so far as to claim that loops and paradoxes are the boudary between rationality and irrationality, and that they should be recognized. However, whenever I bring up something that you percieve to be "looping", you dismiss it immediately. Why do you change your standards so?The restriction on loops is an axiom of Aristotelian logic. Descartes chose this system to work out his proof and I've countered his proof within the system of his own choice.
Axioms are pre-supposed and dismissed at will but once they're chosen one has to avoid violating them as long as one wants to remain within the chosen axiomatic system.
As long as one's inside Aristotelian logic one isn't allowed to use loops. You've chosen that system and you're treated by your own choice. I oppose any use of loops on your side.
I, on the other hand, haven't chosen that system. I'm free in using my own axiomatic system.
If you use a loop and insist on your use then you've accepted to get out of Aristotelian logic and you're no more subject to its restrictions but you can no more use those restrictions to oppose me. You can't ban paradoxes, you can't ban loops and you can't oppose my paradoxical statements.
If you want to oppose loops, you have to accept opposition when you yourself make loops. If you want to make a loop, you have to give up opposing loops made by others.
Are you kidding? There are no "confines" of nowhere.And are there any confines to the places that have "no confines?" [:D]
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May16-03, 02:05 PM
... continued from the previous post
The purpose of the number is not intrinsic to the number itself, as you seem to believe.Did I say the purpose of a number is intrinsic to that number?
I said there's a value associated with every attribute. We have the attribute (for example, height) and its value (for example, 666.13). Does this mean that 666.13 is intrinsic to height values? Or that all height values are 666.13? Or that 666.13 can only be a height value? No. None of these is contained in my words.
Sometimes you make such "big" mistakes and make me think you don't read what you're objecting.
Why? Would it please you if fairness could be found without paradox?
No, I don't have such a rule, because the rule cannot exist (as the very concept is, at it's heart, paradoxical).
Yes and no, but you say "fairness = paradoxical" and throw the concept away.
You say my definition is paradoxical like there's a non-paradoxical definition. If the concept of "fairness" (that seems to be so important to Philosophy) is paradoxical then I must be right in saying that Paradox is one facet of the most basic point in Philosophy, don't you agree?
I don't understand, do you mean that you may not have been talking about actual Uncertainty?I've been talking of Uncertainty as a manner of thought. As a way to approach "fairness" that is unreachable because of its paradoxical nature.
And I've been talking of doubt, as being generally applicable to every statement and supposition. This is what I mean with Uncertainty. Its basic rule that says "nothing is certain" is derived from the basic rule of uncertainty that says "most of things are uncertain." It's unreachable, like "fairness" is, but I tend to like it and "try in vain" to reach for it.
You oppose me because of the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty and that it's unreachable. You say it's "unusable."
Actually though, it (or at least, trying to reach for it) has got two uses:
00. Try in vain to achieve it and you've tried your best to achieve fairness. That best effort will give you the clearest possible human view point.
01. It's an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?" Answering a question is a use after all. Isn't it?
Silvio: Please explain the transition from not-known to known, from potential knowledge to current knowledge.
Mentat: I don't see why explanation is necessary. Suffice it to say that this "transition" occurs whenever I become aware of new knowledge?No, it doesn't suffice. The question "how do we move from not-knowing to knowing?," which is a question of this "transition," is a historical question.
It's been discussed since Plato and his "Meno" dialogue (where Plato contemplates the acquisition of "virtue," in fact). It's been answered many times and by many individuals.
If someone claims that this transition occurs or even that it's possible, that someone has to say "how it occurs," "why it occurs" and "why it doesn't occur in some other manner."
This debate must have taken place in "Knowledge?" thread but you came in and you were "sure" of "something" so I first had to "cure" this "certainty" [:D].
No, Paradox and Self-reference are perfectly rational concepts. It is the actual paradoxes and self-referntial statments themselves that are in the realm of irrationality.When I make a paradoxical and/or self-referential statement you tell me I'm being irrational. You can understand if I'm being rational or not by checking my statements for Paradox and Self-reference.
You don't want to call them, "borders." What do you call them instead (if you were to call them something, anyway)?
In the absence of these things (understanding, distinguishing, etc...), there lies irrationality.There's never an absence of these so there's no irrationality, right?
You already answered that: Because we are "rational ones".We've chosen to be "rational ones." Why have we chosen to be "rational ones?"
There are no answers in the realm of irrationality. Answers are the result of rational thought.That you find someone to answer you indicates that someone as a "rational thinker" but answers themselves can be anywhere.
Answering a question rationally happens within the realm of rationality but questions can be answered irrationally as well.
Suppose you have question like "what am I?" and you're told that Schrödinger’s cat's state (eg, live/dead) will be the answer to that question. Is that a "rational" answer? It isn't even definite, let alone being rational.
My interpretation may be wrong, when compared to what you meant to say, but to "see the inconsistencies in 'uncertainty' itself" necessitates that such inconsistencies exist. Besides, you have now made the claim that there are such inconsistencies, so it's irrelevant that you didn't intend to with that particular statement.I give up. You were right with your interpretation even though I didn't mean what you understood. I made a bad sentence.
Anyway, your "uncertainty" is either incomplete or inconsistent: incomplete if its rule doesn't apply to itself, inconsistent if its rule is applied to itself.
Nope. You cannot find the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty without using rationalization (as I have in previous posts). However, you cannot rationalize if you are bound to Uncertainty. I surrender [:)]. Uncertainty can't be achieved, it's unreachable, agreed?
You are changing the definition of "dead-end". It would seem self-explanatory, that there is nothing beyond a true dead-end, to me, but...
You contradict youself. You said that they are actual dead-ends within their respective paradigms, but could be anything outside of those paradigms; then you said that you needn't "move to a new house".Did I say I "needn't" move to a new house? I said it isn't easy (even though I really "needn't" do so).
You mean you don't get the "new house" metaphor or something like that? "The new house" means "another paradigm."
These dead-ends are "true" dead-ends, there's nothing beyond them "within their respective paradigm." And for someone within a paradigm "there's nothing there" where "there's nothing there only within that paradigm" even though "there may be anything there viewed from another paradigm."
From within a paradigm, there's "really" nothing beyond these dead-ends but "the reality" itself is twisted, if not entirely incomprehensible, within "every paradigm."
I defined "practice" as synonymous with "use". Thus, I need only define "use". I shall do so with an example: I have a hammer. The hammer is not useful on it's own. The hammer is only useful, when I "use" it to for whatever purpose I happen to find for it. Basically, it's "usefulness" is ability to be used for at least one purpose.You aren't defining "use" here because definitions can't be made using "inductive method" and with examples.
By the way, you've made a loop in defining "usefulness" using the phrase "being used," an understanding of which can only be gained by first understanding "usefulness."
Why have you asked the same question so many times? It's just the way I am. Why do you seek a reason for the way I am? Besides, by seeking to define it's "fair" state, you were also trying to find "use" for Uncertainty. You have betrayed the same tendency that I have, toward finding "use" for everything.Because if I don't ask "why are you this way?" I've introduced incompleteness in the rationalized system of thought. Why shouldn't I ask why you're this way?
To be rational, as you wish, one has to ask "why" and answer the "why" question. If you don't answer a "why" question, you're no more rational (I won't say you're irrational [;)]).
Perhaps I'm like you, seeking "use" for everything. Then I should ask "why am I this way?" and I ask this of you because you're the defender of rational thought.
Yes, and I answered that unless you can show me a human who thinks otherwise, I will believe as I have been. If this is about human nature, and I can produce numerous examples of people who have this opinion, while you can produce none that don't (and I'm not saying that you can't, I'm saying "if" you can't), I see no reason to leave my previous belief.Neither deductive nor inductive method suggest such a manner.
By deductive method you have to prove it. And you haven't.
By inductive method you have to find as many instances as possible, a reasonable statistical community. And you haven't.
Why do you want to keep this belief is it hasn't been proven superior?
Nonetheless, you can keep it and I can agree with you [:)].
"Human" refers to the group of all Homo Sapiens. "Human history" refers to the action of these Homo Sapiens. In spite of opinions on what actually happened and didn't happen, there is one truth about what really did happen, and that's "human history".
Human history from a Blue Whale's point of view hasn't been anything but a few lethal or friendly encounters with Homo Sapiens.
Human history from Carnivora Canidae Canis genus of living beings' point of view has been the course of speciation of a new species, Canis Familiaris.
Human history from a Homo Sapiens's point of view is an entirely different thing.
We human beings associate "meaning," "order" and "incidence" with the events we experience. Other living beings do this their own way. In fact, these differ from individual to individual, from observer to observer. What we perceive as World War II and classify as a distinct era won't seem much different from the entire 20th century for a tortoise living around a pond somewhere in England.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May16-03, 02:07 PM
... continued from the previous post
As he has mine. However, the comparison was not a positive one, as people have extreme difficulty in trying to rationalize with such a person.I know, but it’s challenge that toughens the reason, am I right?
Wrong! Are ideas are not equally creditable, and to say so (without confronting my counter-arguments) is to side-step the issue.Why aren't our ideas equally creditable? You see, I found two "uses" for Uncertainty.
Even if I couldn't find those uses, what is there to distinguish usable ideas from unsusable ones? What gives the usable ones the significance you claim for them?
One more question is: are there any "unusable" ideas at all?
Language already has a definition. Well...I guess it shouldn't really be able to define itself. However, Science (a field that is independent of language) has defined it, and so I guess I can define it.Science isn't independent of language because it's expressed in terms of language and the limits (if there are any) to language limit the expression of Science.
And Language's definition has been a matter of hard debate for many years. There're many definitions for Language, all made by renown linguists. It's still a hot spot.
... So, unless we can stop debating definitions, and settle for those that have been agreed upon for so long (as long as the current English language has existed), we aren't going to get anywhere.You're right.
I see, but you haven't done this. By debating definitions, you have merely side-stepped the real issue: That you cannot show me any practical use for "Uncertainty", while I can show you why I think it to be unusable.I gave two usages for Uncertainty. Even though I still claim your "usefulness" is a vague concept.
Besides, if you define "use" clearly then we can start discussing if Uncertainty is "unusable" or not.
Please forgive my tardiness in responding...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
To my understanding, the Demon was Descartes' sparring partner. Descartes made the Demon to challenge his suppositions and verify their truth. From this viewpoint Descartes and the Demon have equal places, they're the two sides of a philosophical debate.
"Trying to convince" means "trying to prove logically," within a debate. It doesn't seem to me like that phrase has to say anything further. In trying to prove something logically, all positions are equal until a fault is found in one or more of positions.
If the Demon is said to "have tried to convince" of something (that Descartes didn't exist) then Descartes can also be said to "have tried to convince" of the opposite thing (that he did exist).
Yes, but there is no logical flaw in trying to prove that you do exist, while I have already shown the logical flaw in trying to prove that you don't.
Descartes' attempt had one difference. He didn't try to directly prove Q = T, instead he attacked the Demon's claim that Q = F and showed the claim's logical failure. He showed that "claiming Q = F" in face of the entity whose being is declared in Q, is logically problematic and from there he concluded "Q = T."
My proof furthers his attempt. The same way he proved "claiming Q = F" was logically problematic, I've proven "claiming Q = T" to be logically problematic, by using the same premise that was used in Descartes' proof.
No you haven't proven that. You have proven that deriving Q's truth from the truth of P is logically problematic. There's a difference.
The twist is that Descartes committed the same false attempt that the Demon had committed. He proved that "claiming Q = F" is problematic, and he concluded from there that "Q = T." He "claimed" Q to be T while he wasn't "allowed" to do so within the logical framework he and his partner, the Demon, were working.
Do you still not realize there was not real battle going on, since the Demon commited a logical fallicy in "starting the fight" right to begin with. Therefore, the whole argument would have no basis, since what started it was logically problematic.
You aren't allowed to infer based on your guess about the Demon's assumption.
It's not a guess, it's a logical necessity, as there wouldn't be anyone to convince, if Descartes didn't exist. The Demon made his assumption as clear as it could possibly be.
I discussed Causality in previous posts. There's a reason to that. You think "if there's deed, there's a doer." The same way you think "if there's an attempt, there's a target," which is another form of Causality (used in inferring the Demon's "will" from its attempt). These relationships are mental patterns. These are "optimization methods," like I wrote before. They aren't theorems derived from the logical system's axioms. Hence, they can't be used in any logical debate.
You are not going to wiggle out that way, Manuel [:)], I have already shown that assuming one's capacity to think also assumes the existence of that one, and you agreed.
I think you mean that talking about "entity D" at the very moment the entity is named is equal to pre-supposing the entity's existence.
A subtle point is made here, very subtle indeed. If naming "entity D" is equal to pre-supposing its existence then "entity D" is defined by one of those "being that is" (remember the monk story) beings. You know, every being "is there" just after it's named. The very thinking of the existence of a being makes the being "be" in some sense. However, all these beings are "forbidden" within Aristotelian logic (and I wasn't the one who made this logical system).
Entity D "can't exist" within Aristotelian logic. I don't say it doesn't exist but it isn't allowed to "be" within this system. If Descartes is an "instance" of entity D then he "can't be" within the system he's chosen to work in.
No, you are wrong here. By naming the entity, the one doing the naming has assumed it's existence.
And Descartes "later" attempt in concluding his existence from "his true proof" was in vain, because he defeated his own purpose (that's to remain within the bounds of Aristotelian logic).
This "later attempt" was not really an attempt to prove that Q was true, it was an attempt to show that one cannot question Q's truth in the manner that the Demon had attempted to (I've said this before, haven't I?).
How do you know that?
The bond between the doer and the deed is "an empirical pattern" (and one from the scientific Universe). It isn't "allowed" for use in logical debates.
I know that because his existence is a sub-premise of all of the statements of the form "he was [bleep]" (you can substitute "doubting", "hesitant", or whatever else you want for "[bleep]", but it remains the same). This has already been explained, and is in fact the reason that you said that "I think therefore I am" = "I am therefore I am".
Got to go now, sorry. Please think about this, and await the rest of my response.
LogicalAtheist
May17-03, 10:18 PM
Philosophers never make good points. Their points are invalid. Their only purpose is a moment of emotional feelings. Philosophy has no purpose in reality. It's a Pseudo-System.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophers never make good points. Their points are invalid. Their only purpose is a moment of emotional feelings. Philosophy has no purpose in reality. It's a Pseudo-System.
Try an name a system of learning that is not a sub-set of Philosophy. Philosophy is the mother of all systems of learning, and thus deserves a little more respect.
Please forgive the delay in finishing my response, I just couldn't find the time...
Originally Posted By Manuel_Silvio:
It is. Descartes' statement is non-informative because it's "circular reasoning," it's a loop. And a loop isn't allowed "even in that context," for part of the context to Evil Demon scenario is compliance to Aristotelian logic.
A loop must never ever appear in Descartes' statements because he himself has chosen to work bound to Aristotelian logic.
And this choice denies the very feasibility of the Demon's challenge. Yes, there may be something wrong with the statement that Descartes used, but he was merely using a problematic statement to demonstrate the problem with the Demon's challenge. IOW, Descartes was saying that there is no need to argue the topic of his existence, because any attempt that the Demon made to disprove it, merely further validated it.
But that someone was his own creation, what if he couldn't create that someone? What if he wasn't Descartes and hadn't made the Evil Demon scenario?
Perfectly reaonable "what if"s but nothing more. The fact was that Descartes really did invent this Demon, and the Demon really did attempt to convince him that he didn't exist.
It can't be "both." It's only an "empirical pattern."
I say "I discuss" and you break this statement into two: "I am" and "I discuss." How can you break that statement into two sub-premises (as you call them)? This is by "pre-supposing" that "if there's a discussion then there's someone who discusses."
You say the two sub-premises are contained in "I discuss." Where does this claim of yours come from? It comes from pre-supposing Causality, based on your mental patterns.
Yes and no. You see, Logic allows for the use of premises, but almost every premise has sub-premises. In order to say that "Entity D did [bleep]" I have to assume both the sub-premise of their being an "Entity D", and then I have to assume that "the aforementioned entity did something".
The restriction on loops is an axiom of Aristotelian logic. Descartes chose this system to work out his proof and I've countered his proof within the system of his own choice.
It doesn't matter. Don't you get it yet? The Demon lost before the war could even start. Descartes' statement was irrelevant, as the Demon had commited the sin of trying to disprove Q, after having assumed that P was true (you yourself have shown that this is paradoxical, and cannot be done).
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Did I say the purpose of a number is intrinsic to that number?
I said there's a value associated with every attribute. We have the attribute (for example, height) and its value (for example, 666.13). Does this mean that 666.13 is intrinsic to height values? Or that all height values are 666.13? Or that 666.13 can only be a height value? No. None of these is contained in my words.
Sometimes you make such "big" mistakes and make me think you don't read what you're objecting.
Gee, thanks. No, I read what you said. You said "666.13 is a value of the attribute: height". The point I was making was that Uncertainty doesn't allow one to assume the truth of anything. We cannot assume the truth of assigning 666.13 to height, any more than we can assume that there is such a thing as "height" or "numbers".
Yes and no, but you say "fairness = paradoxical" and throw the concept away.
You say my definition is paradoxical like there's a non-paradoxical definition. If the concept of "fairness" (that seems to be so important to Philosophy) is paradoxical then I must be right in saying that Paradox is one facet of the most basic point in Philosophy, don't you agree?
Yes and no. I agree that there is a paradox, when one tries to find "fairness"; but I don't agree that it's all that important to Philosophy.
I've been talking of Uncertainty as a manner of thought. As a way to approach "fairness" that is unreachable because of its paradoxical nature.
You are trying to reach the unreachable. Might one ask, why?
And I've been talking of doubt, as being generally applicable to every statement and supposition. This is what I mean with Uncertainty. Its basic rule that says "nothing is certain" is derived from the basic rule of uncertainty that says "most of things are uncertain." It's unreachable, like "fairness" is, but I tend to like it and "try in vain" to reach for it.
Uncertainty cannot be derived from uncertainty. "Nothing is certain" directly contradicts assuming that "some things are uncertain".
You oppose me because of the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty and that it's unreachable. You say it's "unusable."
Actually though, it (or at least, trying to reach for it) has got two uses:
00. Try in vain to achieve it and you've tried your best to achieve fairness. That best effort will give you the clearest possible human view point.
Oh, bull! No offense, but I can't see how you can actually believe that trying to do something, while your effort is entirely in vain, can actually give you any clearer of a view.
01. It's an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?" Answering a question is a use after all. Isn't it?
If it is useful, then it is not an answer to the question "what can be unusable".
No, it doesn't suffice. The question "how do we move from not-knowing to knowing?," which is a question of this "transition," is a historical question.
It's been discussed since Plato and his "Meno" dialogue (where Plato contemplates the acquisition of "virtue," in fact). It's been answered many times and by many individuals.
If someone claims that this transition occurs or even that it's possible, that someone has to say "how it occurs," "why it occurs" and "why it doesn't occur in some other manner."
This debate must have taken place in "Knowledge?" thread but you came in and you were "sure" of "something" so I first had to "cure" this "certainty" [:D].
Very funny.
Anyway, I don't care that it's been debated for so long (that's something that Wuliheron loves to bring up too, and it doesn't do him any good either), I just care that I have moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" numerous times in my life, and thus know (from experience) that it happens.
How does it happen? Through many different media, but always through the use of the processing capabilities of my brain.
Why does it happen? Because that's how humans are made: to be intelligent.
When I make a paradoxical and/or self-referential statement you tell me I'm being irrational. You can understand if I'm being rational or not by checking my statements for Paradox and Self-reference.
You don't want to call them, "borders." What do you call them instead (if you were to call them something, anyway)?
I call them dead-ends.
There's never an absence of these so there's no irrationality, right?
Oh there's an absence of these things. Typically this absence is found in Paradox and Loops, but there are other ways of finding it.
We've chosen to be "rational ones." Why have we chosen to be "rational ones?"
I don't know.
I give up. You were right with your interpretation even though I didn't mean what you understood. I made a bad sentence.
Alright then.
Anyway, your "uncertainty" is either incomplete or inconsistent: incomplete if its rule doesn't apply to itself, inconsistent if its rule is applied to itself.
Then it's incomplete, like any other system. However, (IMO) it's "fairer".
I surrender [:)]. Uncertainty can't be achieved, it's unreachable, agreed?
I've been saying that since we started discussing it. Yes, agreed!
Did I say I "needn't" move to a new house? I said it isn't easy (even though I really "needn't" do so).
There, you've just said that you "needn't" do so.
You mean you don't get the "new house" metaphor or something like that? "The new house" means "another paradigm."
These dead-ends are "true" dead-ends, there's nothing beyond them "within their respective paradigm." And for someone within a paradigm "there's nothing there" where "there's nothing there only within that paradigm" even though "there may be anything there viewed from another paradigm."
From within a paradigm, there's "really" nothing beyond these dead-ends but "the reality" itself is twisted, if not entirely incomprehensible, within "every paradigm."
As I thought. You are trying to say that jumping to the use of another paradigm is a way to get around the dead-end. This is exactly what I was telling you: A paradox is just a sign that you should abandon your current line of reasoning, and use another to acheive the desired result.
\
By the way, you've made a loop in defining "usefulness" using the phrase "being used," an understanding of which can only be gained by first understanding "usefulness."
Not really. I could give you examples (and yes they can be used in defining, they do it in dictionaries all the time), and I could demonstrate it (if you were physically near me).
Neither deductive nor inductive method suggest such a manner.
By deductive method you have to prove it. And you haven't.
By inductive method you have to find as many instances as possible, a reasonable statistical community. And you haven't.
Why do you want to keep this belief is it hasn't been proven superior?
Nonetheless, you can keep it and I can agree with you [:)].
Well, that what's important (though it is perfectly allowable (IMO) that I should make a proposition that you can later test inductively, if you so choose).
Human history from a Blue Whale's point of view hasn't been anything but a few lethal or friendly encounters with Homo Sapiens.
Human history from Carnivora Canidae Canis genus of living beings' point of view has been the course of speciation of a new species, Canis Familiaris.
Human history from a Homo Sapiens's point of view is an entirely different thing.
We human beings associate "meaning," "order" and "incidence" with the events we experience. Other living beings do this their own way. In fact, these differ from individual to individual, from observer to observer. What we perceive as World War II and classify as a distinct era won't seem much different from the entire 20th century for a tortoise living around a pond somewhere in England.
It doesn't matter, as these are just examples of viewpoint. Viewpoint is not the same as actuality - although they are much more closely related than was originally thought (before Relativity theories).
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post
I know, but it’s challenge that toughens the reason, am I right?
Yes, but when one gets hard-headed about it, there is no progress.
Anyway, suffice it to say that I admire Wuliheron as much as any other person, but he has his flaws, as do we all.
Why aren't our ideas equally creditable?
'Cause mines usable and yours aint.
You see, I found two "uses" for Uncertainty.
NO YOU DIDN'T. Let me make this perfectly clear: You found uses for the concept of Uncertainty, not Uncertainty itself. The "concept of Uncertainty" doesn't even conform to the premise of "Uncertainty" and is thus not only a distinct entity, but is at odds with "Uncertainty".
Even if I couldn't find those uses, what is there to distinguish usable ideas from unsusable ones? What gives the usable ones the significance you claim for them?
Their usability. Think about this for a moment: I give you an idea that is unusable, and what are you going to do with it? You cannot get more ideas through it. You cannot make any progress in your knowledge.
One more question is: are there any "unusable" ideas at all?
Sure, but there are none that are "complete" or "fair".
Science isn't independent of language because it's expressed in terms of language and the limits (if there are any) to language limit the expression of Science.
It isn't always expressed in language. It can be expressed in mathematics, or it can be expressed through physical demonstration.
And Language's definition has been a matter of hard debate for many years. There're many definitions for Language, all made by renown linguists. It's still a hot spot.
That's a subject for another thread.
Manuel_Silvio
May21-03, 05:52 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Yes, but there is no logical flaw in trying to prove that you do exist, while I have already shown the logical flaw in trying to prove that you don't.There is a logical flaw in that attempt and that's the making of a loop. A loop (in Descartes' statement) and a paradox (in Demon's statement) are equally illogical.
No you haven't proven that. You have proven that deriving Q's truth from the truth of P is logically problematic. There's a difference.I have proven that for sure. I showed and you accepted that Descartes' statement is a loop (eg, it's of Q=>Q form).
Descartes' statement is a loop so Descartes has violated the rules of the logical system in which he was working just like the Demon had first violated those rules.
The Demon has gone wrong in making a paradox which is forbidden by Aristotelian logic. Descartes, too, has gone wrong in making a loop which is equally prohibited by Aristotelian logic.
Do you still not realize there was not real battle going on, since the Demon commited a logical fallicy in "starting the fight" right to begin with. Therefore, the whole argument would have no basis, since what started it was logically problematic.Let's clear this once and end it. I don't want and accept anymore of these "you don't realize" phrases because they themselves betray your own false realization of the problem.
The Demon comes in and claims Q = F, Descartes counters, saying that "claiming Q = F is logically problematic." Until now Descartes is right, then he proceeds and says "since claiming Q = F logically problematic I conclude that Q = T."
The problem lies in this second act of scenario. The first act invalidates Demon's claim about Descartes' non-existence and that's true. In the second act we have Descartes concluding his existence from disproving the Demon's claim. And this isn't true because his means of disproving the Demon is just as illogical as the Demon's claim.
If the second act isn't performed then Descartes' work is all right but there in the second part lies the crucial part of his (and your) claim that "I exist." Claiming "I think therefore I exist" is just as illogical as claiming "I think even though I don't exist."
This is no proof of existence like it's no proof of non-existence. Existence is subject to uncertainty in this scenario.
I'm being quite clear and there's no way to escape this conclusion. This is the end to this line of discussion.
You are not going to wiggle out that way, Manuel , I have already shown that assuming one's capacity to think also assumes the existence of that one, and you agreed. You haven't shown, you have assumed and I have agreed.
Yet I can question our agreement logically whenever necessary (surely not when I myself have used it in my proof). If I question that agreement my own proof won't be valid anymore but it isn't necessary when the agreement is questioned.
My proof can be used as long as I'm bound to our agreement.
Silvio: I think you mean that talking about "entity D" at the very moment the entity is named is equal to pre-supposing the entity's existence.
A subtle point is made here, very subtle indeed. If naming "entity D" is equal to pre-supposing its existence then "entity D" is defined by one of those "being that is" (remember the monk story) beings. You know, every being "is there" just after it's named. The very thinking of the existence of a being makes the being "be" in some sense. However, all these beings are "forbidden" within Aristotelian logic (and I wasn't the one who made this logical system).
Entity D "can't exist" within Aristotelian logic. I don't say it doesn't exist but it isn't allowed to "be" within this system. If Descartes is an "instance" of entity D then he "can't be" within the system he's chosen to work in.
Mentat: No, you are wrong here. By naming the entity, the one doing the naming has assumed it's existence.Well, how does this relate to the sentences you'd quoted?
I was saying that Entity D is a being defined by a "being that is" definition and such entity isn't allowed inbound Aristotelian logic. Put it by the door when you come in!
The one who's naming Entity D should better know she/he isn't working inbound Aristotelian logic. Didn't you call upon Entity D, Rene Descartes? You described Entity D and said that Descartes is an instance of these beings. I deduced upon your description of Entity D and claimed it's a "being that is" type being. If you have anything in oppostion it must be done in showing that Entity D isn't of "being that is" type.
This "later attempt" was not really an attempt to prove that Q was true, it was an attempt to show that one cannot question Q's truth in the manner that the Demon had attempted to (I've said this before, haven't I?).Since it wasn't an attempt to prove Q = T, it will never result in Q = T. And you and Descartes are wrong in thinking that Q is necessarily T, that you necessarily exist and have found a proof for that.
This is your wrong step.
Yes, there may be something wrong with the statement that Descartes used, but he was merely using a problematic statement to demonstrate the problem with the Demon's challenge. IOW, Descartes was saying that there is no need to argue the topic of his existence, because any attempt that the Demon made to disprove it, merely further validated it.There "may" be something wrong with Descartes' statement? You have accepted that it's a loop and that is "definitely wrong within Aristotelian logic."
Using a problematic statement to demonstrate another problem? Using a broken bowl to drink the hemlock?
Descartes was free to say whatever he liked but in order to prove something inbound Aristotelian logic he had to follow the rules. He violated the rules to show another violation. This manner can't be tolerated.
The Demon made a paradox. Descartes made a loop. Both wrong. Existence uncertain!
Perfectly reaonable "what if"s but nothing more. The fact was that Descartes really did invent this Demon, and the Demon really did attempt to convince him that he didn't exist.The fact? How do you know what is a fact if you don't know and can't know and can't prove whether or not you exist?
Yes and no. You see, Logic allows for the use of premises, but almost every premise has sub-premises. In order to say that "Entity D did [bleep]" I have to assume both the sub-premise of their being an "Entity D", and then I have to assume that "the aforementioned entity did something".This is another line of discussion where our agreement is questioned.
Every premise is its own sub-premise like every set is its own subset. Thus there's no problem in saying, for every statement S, S = S.
However, premises must be broken into their sub-premises using the "rules of the logical system." You break the premise, "I think," into sub-premises "I am" and "I think." What can validate your action other than another premise saying "if there's an I thinking then there must be an I?"
This other premise is a form of Causality, "if there's a deed there's a doer." You aren't using the rules of Aristotelian logic to break the premise into its sub-premises, these sub-premises aren't logical sub-premises. They appear when you incorporate Causality in your deduction.
Causality has absolutely no place in deduction and it must never be used there. Hence, your breaking of that premise into its sub-premises is illogical.
It doesn't matter. Don't you get it yet? The Demon lost before the war could even start. Descartes' statement was irrelevant, as the Demon had commited the sin of trying to disprove Q, after having assumed that P was true (you yourself have shown that this is paradoxical, and cannot be done).It "does" matter how you defeat your opponent. And the war starts whenever two opposing claims are put up. There was indeed a war for the Demon and Descartes faced each other. There was indeed a loss but there wasn't a winner and a loser, there were two losers.
You can't win a logical debate by committing the same fallacies you're accusing your opponent of. This isn't the way logic goes.
Yes and no. I agree that there is a paradox, when one tries to find "fairness"; but I don't agree that it's all that important to Philosophy.I thought "fair" judgment and "clear" understanding were the heart of Philosophy. Have I been wrong all the time?
You are trying to reach the unreachable. Might one ask, why?For in that effort lies "fairness" and "clarity."
Oh, bull! No offense, but I can't see how you can actually believe that trying to do something, while your effort is entirely in vain, can actually give you any clearer of a view.Because it does. Trying to be Uncertain is trying to doubt everything. One will never be able to doubt "everything" but in trying that one will doubt as much as possible.
By doubting and trying to answer the doubts one will see as "fair" and "clear" as possible. By being aware of the unachievable Uncertainty one will know that absolute fairness is unachievable, too. And one won't take oneself too serious.
If it is useful, then it is not an answer to the question "what can be unusable".This is paradoxical because of the vagueness of your "usability" concept. I've said it's vague many times before.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May21-03, 06:13 AM
... continued from the previous post
Here's a diagnosis of your "usability" criterion:
00. Assume there's the idea A.
01. By you claim, this A is either "usable" or "unusable."
02. If it's "usable" there's no problem.
03. But you claim A's "unusable."
04. If you say A's "unusable" then A must be an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?"
05. Being the answer to some question is a "use," considering the broad range you've included in its definition.
06. You'd said A's "unusable" but following your claim we've come to a "use" for A.
07. Hence, your "usability" criterion is paradoxical, if something is claimed to be "unusable." Everything "must" be considered "usable" in order to avoid paradox (and that's your tendency).
Don't counter me easily on this subject. I won't stand a single word of vague opposition for it's all so clear. If you have something in opposition, don't tell me that I don't get it or something, "reason" instead. Case dismissed!
Very funny.
Anyway, I don't care that it's been debated for so long (that's something that Wuliheron loves to bring up too, and it doesn't do him any good either), I just care that I have moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" numerous times in my life, and thus know (from experience) that it happens.
How does it happen? Through many different media, but always through the use of the processing capabilities of my brain.
Why does it happen? Because that's how humans are made: to be intelligent.
You can't simply get away with this question. It's been a crucial one and it's still a crucial one. It can't be treated carelessly.
You say you "know" you've moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" but then this is another piece of knowledge. How do "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing how you know" to "knowing how you know?"
The "knowledge" we're talking about isn't associated with brain. Brain and its artifacts are members of the scientific Universe which is a subset of human knowledge, Summa Gnaritas. This subset can't contain the whole and can't explain the process happening at layers beyond its power and duty.
Of course, you can reduce the whole to this subset (notice, this isn't a holist-reductionist debate, I'm not opposing analysis of systems). Many have tried to do so, but haven't questioned themselves if the motive to their action lied within the scientific Universe or another much more basic piece of knowledge. I guess the answer to this question will reveal their position.
Oh there's an absence of these things. Typically this absence is found in Paradox and Loops, but there are other ways of finding it.You counted these things as: thinking, distinguishing, etc. Is there ever an absence of distinguishing? Such absence can never be, thus irrationality can never be.
In realization of a paradox or a loop one thinks and distinguishes.
Besides, rules of invalidity for paradoxes and loops exist only within logical systems that postulate these rules. Are you going to limit the possible logical systems to this group? It isn't simple to throw away countless possible logical systems.
Irrationality must be independent of logical systems and existent for all of them. You sometimes call others "irrational." There must be a meaning to that word regardless of the logical system these people are working in, otherwise you've called them "irrational" not even knowing if irrationality has a meaning in their respective systems.
This independence must be gained through the exclusion of irrationality from properties peculiar to a certain group of logical systems.
Silvio: We've chosen to be "rational ones." Why have we chosen to be "rational ones?"
Mentat: I don't know.This isn't a question asked of you. It's asked of rational thinking. Since rational thinking claims to have an answer to every "why" question, this one should be answered, too. If this one isn't answered, you'll see the incompleteness in rational thinking, the crack in the wall.
And rational thinking "can't" have the answer to this "why" question. If it has an answer to this question then it must be considered self-sufficient (because it explains its own existence that way) and necessarily including self-reference.
As I thought. You are trying to say that jumping to the use of another paradigm is a way to get around the dead-end. This is exactly what I was telling you: A paradox is just a sign that you should abandon your current line of reasoning, and use another to acheive the desired result.I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."
Another paradigm is not just another line of reasoning, not just another way in the same field. It's a whole new Universe. In this new Universe everything changes, everything is twisted to correspond to the new paradigm, like it was twisted before to correspond to the previous paradigm.
Another paradigm may use entirely different methods to approach a problem. It may use no methods at all. It may even prohibit an approach. It may even deny such problem. The problem itself may vanish in the paradigm shift. There's no telling what will happen after a paradigm shift, even if "happening" and "incidence," let alone coincidence, are existent in the new paradigm. Existence itself may vary or even disappear after a paradigm shift. The new paradigm may be incapable or inert towards abstractions like existence or it may be all about such abstractions.
Not really. I could give you examples (and yes they can be used in defining, they do it in dictionaries all the time), and I could demonstrate it (if you were physically near me).Dictionaries aren't written for philosophical use. Dictionaries even define colors, they say "red like a rose." There's no "red" and no "rose" for Philosophy. You can even find a "dictionary definition" for "point," "ruler," "volume," "space" and "existence." They aren't written to really "define" something, they're written to give clues about what you already "intuitively" know, no further than that. And that's why a totally stranger to English language (or some jargon) can't use an English-English dictionary (or a technology cookbook); because she/he has no initial clues to the English language (or that field of technology).
Philosophy doesn't work on "demonstrations" in scientific Universe. It's got a different story.
Even if I accepted your "demonstration," could you then "demonstrate" the "use" of much of modern Cosmology? There's no "use" in it but answering highly abstracted questions and this "use" can't be demonstrated like the use of a hammer is shown.
A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete. It must include all instances of the type it's defining and exclude all other things. It must perform its task using agreed-upon keywords. It must be precise and clear. It must be able to withstand debate and analysis. It must act in top-to-bottom manner, in other words, it must be a general idea applied to beings to include them in or exclude them from a certain category. Consequently, it must be not a statistical bottom-to-top generalization (eg, inductive) but a definitive generalization (eg, deductive).
It doesn't matter, as these are just examples of viewpoint. Viewpoint is not the same as actuality - although they are much more closely related than was originally thought (before Relativity theories)."Actuality" itself may be different for every observer.
The external reality is supposed to be independent of the internal reality, as matter is put in opposition to mind. The great divide is supposed to tear apart the Universe into two: the self and the rest, the inside and the outside. This supposition is no more creditable than other possible suppositions.
Yes, but when one gets hard-headed about it, there is no progress.
Anyway, suffice it to say that I admire Wuliheron as much as any other person, but he has his flaws, as do we all.Hard-headed ones can reside on both sides, if we assume the presence of sides [:D].
NO YOU DIDN'T. Let me make this perfectly clear: You found uses for the concept of Uncertainty, not Uncertainty itself. The "concept of Uncertainty" doesn't even conform to the premise of "Uncertainty" and is thus not only a distinct entity, but is at odds with "Uncertainty".Now it's no more important. I've proven your "usability" criterion flawed.
It isn't always expressed in language. It can be expressed in mathematics, or it can be expressed through physical demonstration.
Language is a general term. It includes a wide range of possible ways of expression that all abide certain criteria. Although Linguists aren't in agreement about Language's definition, most of definitions apply to many means of expression and classify them all as Language; Mathematics included. Language doesn’t exclusively mean "natural" human languages, not to mention means of expression used by other living or non-living beings.
Certain structural and functional properties of these systems let them be classified as Language.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1. For Mentat:
There is a logical flaw in that attempt and that's the making of a loop. A loop (in Descartes' statement) and a paradox (in Demon's statement) are equally illogical.
But the second one that you mentioned preceded the first one that you mentioned, and was the basis for the argument. The Demon's case was problematic from the start, and Descartes was merely pointing it out to the Demon.
Remember, Descartes' reasoning is only problematic when it is used to prove one's existence, not when it is used to show the problematic nature of trying to prove one's non-existence.
I have proven that for sure. I showed and you accepted that Descartes' statement is a loop (eg, it's of Q=>Q form).
Descartes' statement is a loop so Descartes has violated the rules of the logical system in which he was working just like the Demon had first violated those rules.
The Demon has gone wrong in making a paradox which is forbidden by Aristotelian logic. Descartes, too, has gone wrong in making a loop which is equally prohibited by Aristotelian logic.
(See above.)
Let's clear this once and end it. I don't want and accept anymore of these "you don't realize" phrases because they themselves betray your own false realization of the problem.
Fine, I will never use that kind of phrase again. I only used it because I couldn't stand how obvious something seemed to me, while you utterly denied it. I apologize if this upset you, but remember that you have done it as well, by telling me that I don't understand the proof. I tried to get you to understand the difference between not understanding and disagreeing, but you didn't seem to even pay attention, so I left it alone.
The Demon comes in and claims Q = F, Descartes counters, saying that "claiming Q = F is logically problematic." Until now Descartes is right, then he proceeds and says "since claiming Q = F logically problematic I conclude that Q = T."
The problem lies in this second act of scenario. The first act invalidates Demon's claim about Descartes' non-existence and that's true. In the second act we have Descartes concluding his existence from disproving the Demon's claim. And this isn't true because his means of disproving the Demon is just as illogical as the Demon's claim.
I disagree with this interpretation. Descartes did counter with "claiming Q=F is problematic", but his second "statement" was "it is problematic because it only further validates Q's truth (since it assumes the truth of P)".
I'm being quite clear and there's no way to escape this conclusion. This is the end to this line of discussion.
No it's not. If you wish to leave, you go ahead, but that will only prove that you cannot counter the reasoning I have stated (above). Please, read what I said above and show me the flaw.
You haven't shown, you have assumed and I have agreed.
Yet I can question our agreement logically whenever necessary (surely not when I myself have used it in my proof). If I question that agreement my own proof won't be valid anymore but it isn't necessary when the agreement is questioned.
My proof can be used as long as I'm bound to our agreement.
I don't want to argue this point, so I will just say that the agreement can't be questioned without your losing the only argument you have in the "I think therefore I am" discussion.
Well, how does this relate to the sentences you'd quoted?
I was saying that Entity D is a being defined by a "being that is" definition and such entity isn't allowed inbound Aristotelian logic. Put it by the door when you come in!
The one who's naming Entity D should better know she/he isn't working inbound Aristotelian logic. Didn't you call upon Entity D, Rene Descartes? You described Entity D and said that Descartes is an instance of these beings. I deduced upon your description of Entity D and claimed it's a "being that is" type being. If you have anything in oppostion it must be done in showing that Entity D isn't of "being that is" type.
Listen to yourself. You are trying to say that there is a being who does not fit the criteria of "a being that is".
Since it wasn't an attempt to prove Q = T, it will never result in Q = T. And you and Descartes are wrong in thinking that Q is necessarily T, that you necessarily exist and have found a proof for that.
This is your wrong step.
Is this your final assumption? [;)]
There "may" be something wrong with Descartes' statement? You have accepted that it's a loop and that is "definitely wrong within Aristotelian logic."
Using a problematic statement to demonstrate another problem? Using a broken bowl to drink the hemlock?
Descartes was free to say whatever he liked but in order to prove something inbound Aristotelian logic he had to follow the rules. He violated the rules to show another violation. This manner can't be tolerated.
The Demon made a paradox. Descartes made a loop. Both wrong.
(See first response)
The fact? How do you know what is a fact if you don't know and can't know and can't prove whether or not you exist?
I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that no one can prove that I don't (without assuming that I do), and Descartes was equally satisfied.
This is another line of discussion where our agreement is questioned.
Every premise is its own sub-premise like every set is its own subset. Thus there's no problem in saying, for every statement S, S = S.
However, premises must be broken into their sub-premises using the "rules of the logical system." You break the premise, "I think," into sub-premises "I am" and "I think." What can validate your action other than another premise saying "if there's an I thinking then there must be an I?"
Yeah, so? Read your sentence again. You said "if there's an I thinking". Remove the word "thinking" (as it could be replaced by any verb anyway), and you have "if there's an I".
It "does" matter how you defeat your opponent. And the war starts whenever two opposing claims are put up. There was indeed a war for the Demon and Descartes faced each other. There was indeed a loss but there wasn't a winner and a loser, there were two losers.
(See first response please.)
You can't win a logical debate by committing the same fallacies you're accusing your opponent of. This isn't the way logic goes.
Descartes didn't commit the same fallacy, as I've already shown (see first response). Descartes only pointed out the flaw in the Demon's reasoning.
I thought "fair" judgment and "clear" understanding were the heart of Philosophy. Have I been wrong all the time?
"Clear understanding" is at it's heart, but that has nothing to do with it's being "fair". I can have a "clear understanding" of the universe, from my own PoV even if that PoV is perfectly irrational and goes against all logic. It would still be Philosophy, because it's my way of "pursuing wisdom".
For in that effort lies "fairness" and "clarity."
In the effort to reach "fairness" lies "fairness" itself? I doubt this very much.
Because it does. Trying to be Uncertain is trying to doubt everything. One will never be able to doubt "everything" but in trying that one will doubt as much as possible.
By doubting and trying to answer the doubts one will see as "fair" and "clear" as possible. By being aware of the unachievable Uncertainty one will know that absolute fairness is unachievable, too. And one won't take oneself too serious.
No, in trying to doubt everything, one will get nowhere. One "doubts as much as possible" by trying to "doubt as much as possible".
This is paradoxical because of the vagueness of your "usability" concept. I've said it's vague many times before.
You haven't proven that assumption yet, have you?
LogicalAtheist
May21-03, 05:21 PM
Mentat - You just tore him a new one! Alas, it isn't worth it.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post
Here's a diagnosis of your "usability" criterion:
00. Assume there's the idea A.
01. By you claim, this A is either "usable" or "unusable."
02. If it's "usable" there's no problem.
03. But you claim A's "unusable."
04. If you say A's "unusable" then A must be an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?"
Stop right here for a second, if you please. The question of "what on Earth is unusable" is not answered by idea A (unless idea A is usable, of course), but is answered by the concept of A. IOW, if A existed, it would be unusable.
Don't counter me easily on this subject. I won't stand a single word of vague opposition for it's all so clear. If you have something in opposition, don't tell me that I don't get it or something, "reason" instead.
I don't intend to be vague. I intend to "reason". I hope you don't construe my (above) answer as "vague" in any sense, because it wasn't intended to be.
You can't simply get away with this question. It's been a crucial one and it's still a crucial one. It can't be treated carelessly.
You say you "know" you've moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" but then this is another piece of knowledge. How do "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing how you know" to "knowing how you know?"
The same way I moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" in the first instance.
The "knowledge" we're talking about isn't associated with brain. Brain and its artifacts are members of the scientific Universe which is a subset of human knowledge, Summa Gnaritas. This subset can't contain the whole and can't explain the process happening at layers beyond its power and duty.
I disagree with this entirely. The Universe is not a sub-set of human knowledge, it is what is studied by the sub-set of human knowledge, Science. Yes, this may be an assumption of Science, but that doesn't mean that the Universe (should it be assumed to exist) is itself part of our reasoning processes.
You counted these things as: thinking, distinguishing, etc. Is there ever an absence of distinguishing? Such absence can never be, thus irrationality can never be.
Yes the absence of this can exist, and it is rather closed-minded to assume that it can't (if you'll forgive my saying so).
In realization of a paradox or a loop one thinks and distinguishes.
Yes, and I've already told you that - while paradoxes and loops, themselves, lie within the realm of irrationality - their realization lies in the realm of rationality.
Irrationality must be independent of logical systems and existent for all of them. You sometimes call others "irrational." There must be a meaning to that word regardless of the logical system these people are working in, otherwise you've called them "irrational" not even knowing if irrationality has a meaning in their respective systems.
No, no, no, I've called people irrational simply because their reasoning (at the time) didn't fit into any kind of reasoning.
This isn't a question asked of you. It's asked of rational thinking. Since rational thinking claims to have an answer to every "why" question, this one should be answered, too. If this one isn't answered, you'll see the incompleteness in rational thinking, the crack in the wall.
And rational thinking "can't" have the answer to this "why" question. If it has an answer to this question then it must be considered self-sufficient (because it explains its own existence that way) and necessarily including self-reference.
You mean to say that rational thinking can't have an answer for why we have chosen it? How can you possibly know that? Also, how can you use a rational approach to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality?
I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."
I thought we were going to dispense with the use of such statements.
Another paradigm is not just another line of reasoning, not just another way in the same field. It's a whole new Universe. In this new Universe everything changes, everything is twisted to correspond to the new paradigm, like it was twisted before to correspond to the previous paradigm.
Then it makes no sense to say that you move into this "new Universe" as a result of running into a dead-end, as the dead-end doesn't even exist in another "paradigm".
Dictionaries aren't written for philosophical use. Dictionaries even define colors, they say "red like a rose." There's no "red" and no "rose" for Philosophy. You can even find a "dictionary definition" for "point," "ruler," "volume," "space" and "existence." They aren't written to really "define" something, they're written to give clues about what you already "intuitively" know, no further than that.
Yes, but isn't Philosophy the pursuit of Wisdom? If so, then that which one "intuitively" takes for granted may be very useful to Philosophy.
Philosophy doesn't work on "demonstrations" in scientific Universe. It's got a different story.
Even if I accepted your "demonstration," could you then "demonstrate" the "use" of much of modern Cosmology? There's no "use" in it but answering highly abstracted questions and this "use" can't be demonstrated like the use of a hammer is shown.
Very true, but after I have demonstrated all of the basic things, that most human children have come to understand, we could build up to abstracts, could we not?
A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete.
So now mathematics is hard as concrete?
It must include all instances of the type it's defining and exclude all other things. It must perform its task using agreed-upon keywords. It must be precise and clear. It must be able to withstand debate and analysis. It must act in top-to-bottom manner, in other words, it must be a general idea applied to beings to include them in or exclude them from a certain category.
This is all your definition of "appropriate definition", isn't it? Do you see the paradoxical nature of such an undertaking? If you do, then you will quickly realize that yours is no more reliable than my definition of "appropriate definition".
"Actuality" itself may be different for every observer.
The external reality is supposed to be independent of the internal reality, as matter is put in opposition to mind. The great divide is supposed to tear apart the Universe into two: the self and the rest, the inside and the outside. This supposition is no more creditable than other possible suppositions.
Fine, but this reasoning is just as unprovable (and unfalsifiable, for that matter) as the Scientific Approach.
Hard-headed ones can reside on both sides, if we assume the presence of sides [:D].
If we assume the presence of sides, we have already chosen which one we are on.
Now it's no more important. I've proven your "usability" criterion flawed.
Not yet you haven't (see above).
Manuel_Silvio
May24-03, 01:29 PM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Apologies for the delay.
Remember, Descartes' reasoning is only problematic when it is used to prove one's existence, not when it is used to show the problematic nature of trying to prove one's non-existence.Let's sum it all up. We have the Demon claiming something and Descartes proving that claim problematic. That's all right.
The Demon may not say that Descartes doesn't exist (inbound Aristotelian logic, of course).
Descartes' proof, however, can't be used as a proof for his existence but as a disproof of a claim against his existence.
Descartes can't be claimed "non-existent." The same way he can't be claimed "existent," for that claim would result in a similar fallacy.
A judgment of Descartes' existence or non-existence (eg, whether or not he is) isn't the outcome of this scenario. If the scenario is confined to disproving Demon's claim it's all right, and I agree.
There remains one thing: you claimed you're "sure" of your existence. This is equal to "claiming Q = T." You referenced me to this scenario but then this scenario isn't meant to prove Q = T, it's only an objection to a claim expressed as Q = F, so you can no more be "sure" of your existence.
No one can claim that you "aren't" because that would be a paradoxical statement. The same way, no one can claim that you "are" because that would be a circular statement.
You can be "sure" that no one can claim your "non-existence," but by the same intensity you "have to be sure" that no one (including yourself) can claim your "existence." That first assurance is accompanied with the second. Take both or none.
Now, are we in agreement?
I don't want to argue this point, so I will just say that the agreement can't be questioned without your losing the only argument you have in the "I think therefore I am" discussion."My only argument" as long as we're bound to that agreement. Outbound I have my other ways (and we can take a look at them, too, if you like).
Listen to yourself. You are trying to say that there is a being who does not fit the criteria of "a being that is".Entity D category is, in fact, all-encompassing. All beings fall in that category but you can see it's forbidden by Aristotelian logic, the most prominent logical system. There's no being that isn't an instance of Entity D.
There lies the major opposition to Aristotelian logic. It's been used for so long while it's hidden in its heart the most bizarre paradox of all, that it doesn't allow for existence in its most primitive and purified form.
This is another expression of Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" (or at least, I think so). You did notice how much debate this concept raised. You know why? For it was poking at a sore spot in Aristotelian logic, a logical system woven into our everyday lives. An opposition to this system feels like an opposition to our lives, a threat to our comfort. Interesting is that PoE is dependent of this logical system but this logical system seems so elementary to everyone that they feel PoE is an opposition to all of their options. This is the power of habit, habit of thinking the Aristotelian way.
Yet, this sore spot isn't present in all possible logical systems. Other systems may "work" (to their own measures, of course, just like Aristotelian logic works well against our current measures that have evolved along with it) much better and eliminate such discrepancies.
As long as Aristotelian logic is thought of as the one and only manner of deduction, PoE will be present as a discrepancy. When presence of countless other logical systems, all equally creditable, is accepted and understood PoE will show up as a form of uncertainty, caused by the relativity of deduction. Since there will be countless ways of deducing there would be countless results, all equally creditable, that will in turn be incompatible with each other yet in conformity to their respective frameworks. These countless results will present the PoE at a higher level of abstraction.
I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that no one can prove that I don't (without assuming that I do), and Descartes was equally satisfied.You mean your source of satisfaction is only that you can't be proven non-existent? And you don't care that you can't be proven existent, either?
If that's all of it, I can agree.
Yeah, so? Read your sentence again. You said "if there's an I thinking". Remove the word "thinking" (as it could be replaced by any verb anyway), and you have "if there's an I".And what would give me that right to "remove" that single word? There should be an assumption to do so.
"If there's an I thinking" means "thinking is happening" and "this is done by I," when it's analyzed. You’re asserting the equality of "this is done by I" and "there's an I;" More generally that of "this is done by a doer" and "there is a doer."
It would seem strange (even insane) not to equal these two but their equality is actually not necessary. This equality is necessitated by Causality (or some other assumption).
If a sentence is analyzed there should be rules to that analysis; rules that sometimes encourage and sometimes inhibit a certain step in analysis. These rules must have their root somewhere. In your case their root is Causality.
"Clear understanding" is at it's heart, but that has nothing to do with it's being "fair". I can have a "clear understanding" of the universe, from my own PoV even if that PoV is perfectly irrational and goes against all logic. It would still be Philosophy, because it's my way of "pursuing wisdom"."Fairness" isn't associated with ration. "Fairness" is just being as close to irrationality as one is to rationality.
"Fair" judgment is avoidance from all biases (or as many as possible), be these "rational" or "irrational." If Philosophy is going to study and compare various points of view, it must be unbiased. Otherwise it will act in favor whatever point of view towards which it's biased.
In "pursuing wisdom" (and I have to say how meaningless this phrase seems to me) there need be "fairness" to gain "wisdom" that isn't twisted in favor of something.
Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?
In the effort to reach "fairness" lies "fairness" itself? I doubt this very much.In the effort to reach "absolute fairness," which is unreachable, lies "relative fairness," which can be used to avoid as many biases as possible.
No, in trying to doubt everything, one will get nowhere. One "doubts as much as possible" by trying to "doubt as much as possible".In trying to achieve "all human knowledge," we achieve "as much as possible." We strive for the ultimate and we get the most possible.
By doubting everything one doubts as much as "possible" because where doubting is "impossible," well, it won't happen for it's "impossible."
You can't set a definite limit to what can or may be doubted, but trial-and-error will show what can be doubted and what can't. In my experience I haven't faced anything that is so firm not to be shaken with doubt and there's been much for me in doubting.
I doubted my existence, my attributes, my way of life, my significance, my rights, my understanding, my knowledge, my surroundings and got much in knowing how meaningless could this "my" be. I haven't been brave enough to change when I understood this but I've at least tried to fathom the unfathomable. And I'm still trying...
Stop right here for a second, if you please. The question of "what on Earth is unusable" is not answered by idea A (unless idea A is usable, of course), but is answered by the concept of A. IOW, if A existed, it would be unusable.I guess this is a word game. We have to undo the ties one by one. We have idea A claimed to be "unusable." And we have a question: "what on Earth can be unusable?" Doesn't from these follow that A is an answer to that question?
Assume we have the idea "Ostrich." You give this idea a characteristic, you say it's "Struthionidae." And we have the question: "what on Earth is Struthionidae?" Clearly enough, an answer to this question is "Ostrich."
The same way we have the idea A (existent or non-existent, it doesn't matter). You give it a characteristic, "unusable." Clearly enough, idea A "must" be an answer to "what on Earth can be unusable?"
You say there's idea A and concept of idea A. What does "concept of idea A" mean? What's its difference with idea A itself?
And you give the "unusable-ness" characteristic to "idea A" and not to "concept of idea A." So the answer to that question must be "idea A" itself and not the "concept of idea A," for the question asks for something unusable and you yourself have said "idea A is unusable."
If idea A is unusable it "must" have the characteristic of "unusable-ness" and it "must" be an answer to that question. It doesn't matter that it doesn’t exist, or that its existence is postponed.
I say "object A is green" (object A may be existent or non-existent). You ask "what is green?" An answer to your question is "object A" and not "the concept of object A." Regardless of object A's status quo, I myself have assigned it the characteristic of "green-ness" and I can't deny it. I didn't say "the concept of object A is green" (even though I may have meant that, but that's out of question), I said "object A is green."
I could've said: "the flying Ostrich is green." There's no "flying Ostrich" but that doesn't matter because I have said that it's green. I've postulated its "green-ness" for the scope of this debate.
There's no escape from this unless you want to assert what is obviously paradoxical and elongate a debate that is already ended.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May24-03, 01:42 PM
... continued from the previous post
A similar case is with a statement like: "through every two points passes one and only one line." This is an axiom of Euclidian geometry and perfectly logical. It doesn't matter that there's no definition for a "point" and a "line." And it doesn't matter that there's no "point" and no "line" in the vast expanse of Universe. This statement postulates something and defines one part of the framework of Euclidian geometry. The only important thing is not to violate this axiom. Now if one asks "how many lines pass through two points?" There's an obvious answer defined by this axiom, that is "one line." And there's no debate about the existence of "point" and "line." No one says "the answer to this question is not one line but the concept of one line."
The same way I moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" in the first instance.And how do you "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing this" to "knowing this?" [:D]
I want to emphasize one thing, again: those questions are historical. They aren't to be taken easy. They've cost thousands of years of abstract thinking and they're likely to do so for many more years to come. If you wish to answer them, beware of their depth, please!
... The Universe is not a sub-set of human knowledge, it is what is studied by the sub-set of human knowledge, Science...Universe, as it is known by us, is part of our knowledge because, after all, it's that which is known to us. What isn't known dwells in the Unknown and the Unknown isn't our possession.
The Universe does exist where it has to exist, in our knowledge. If all our records of Universe are erased, there wouldn't be any Universe, as we "know" it, because there would be nothing "known." If there's no trace of something, that thing is neither existent nor non-existent, it's living its "primeval innocence" before "the original sin," before it becomes "known" [;)].
It's worth noting that Science itself has performed this form of mass cleansing against Religion. Science has ignored what is claimed to be intangible for a long time. It ignored deities, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits, fairies, elves and an army of other things for they were said to be undetectable by scientific devices. Now its time for Science to give up its "intangible" possession, that which isn't yet "known."
The scientific Universe is a record of what has become known under the rule of Science. Where do these "known" things originate from? No one knows. We perform the wizardry of Science, we apply the scientific method and things show up and become "known." Where and how have they been before becoming "known?" No one knows for they were "unknown" then.
The knowledge is all that is available to us. Existence of an external Universe (not to mention the existence of exterior and interior and the existence of existence itself) is just another part of our knowledge, an assumption taken for the sake of unknown purposes.
Beyond "the knowledge" we only "don't know." But then where does this stream of new knowledge come from? We "don't know" that for "the Known" emerges from "the Unknown" and "the Unknown" is simply "unknown."
Yes the absence of this can exist, and it is rather closed-minded to assume that it can't (if you'll forgive my saying so).
I don't care what you call me but I do care what I'm called to. You're hurling a big claim (believe me, it's very big) at me.
You say there can be an absence of distinguishing. Do you know what this means? An absence of distinguishing means "direct perception," that's when one's mental processes of selection, categorization and extraction are stopped. This experience means direct exposition to the Universe. It's facing the Universe without any shields to save one of its unimaginable greatness.
I think you remember when I wrote of distortions introduced into the input stream for a being, on the "Knowledge?" thread. I said these distortions can identify every being. These distortions (in fact, the pre-processing of input stream) are the humanity of a human being. Without them, directly exposed to the Universe, one is no more human. One is the "cosmic observer," the universal observer. One puts away one's last bias, one's humanity. What remains can't be described but it can be said to have achieved "absolute fairness" and "absolute clarity." The "cosmic observer" views the Universe from the "absolute viewpoint." This observer is no more subject to relativity for it observes the Universe "as is."
No one in entire human history has been able to prove or disprove the existence of such experience. Now you come in and simply say "it's narrow-mindedness to count this experience out."
I was jumping over this abyss, this long-lasting debate. Do you want to give it a try by diving into it? You can but you first have to deal with most of our knowledge of cognition and its processes (that I know nothing of).
No, no, no, I've called people irrational simply because their reasoning (at the time) didn't fit into any kind of reasoning."Any" kind of reasoning? There are countless logical systems. You call someone "irrational" because of their statement, name it S.
Now if statement S, no matter how "irrational" it seems to you, is an axiom of their logical system then they can't be called irrational for postulating it because axioms can be chosen at will.
For every statement S there's at least one logical system (there may be more) where it's perfectly logical. That logical system is one with S postulated as its only axiom. And there is absolutely no restriction on axioms for a logical system.
You mean to say that rational thinking can't have an answer for why we have chosen it? How can you possibly know that? Also, how can you use a rational approach to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality?You're getting the hang of it. You're using the other edge of the double-edged sword (I don't mean Uncertainty).
You see, I've used rationality to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality. I've mistaken but I couldn't have done it another way. If you use ration to rationalize the ration itself you get a problem. This means that rationality (like other axiomatic systems) is either incomplete (when you skip the question) or inconsistent (when you try to answer the question but find the crack). This is an application of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
Every universal rule (be it Uncertainty or Rationality or whatever) fails either in completeness (when it isn't applied to itself, thus becoming non-universal) or in consistency (when it's applied to itself but is unable to explain for its own existence).
Silvio: I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."
Mentat: I thought we were going to dispense with the use of such statements.I apologize [:)].
Then it makes no sense to say that you move into this "new Universe" as a result of running into a dead-end, as the dead-end doesn't even exist in another "paradigm".You don't "move" into a new Universe. You will either "be moved" or "decide to move" after a dead-end is encountered.
The dead-end isn't a portal to somewhere else, it's an indication of a limit to the capabilities of your current paradigm. Since it's no more capable, it will alter in the course of a "paradigm shift." You will either know this and actively participate in the shift (and play a minor role in defining the new paradigm) or you will be passively taken to a new paradigm (that is totally out of you control). Either way, paradigm shifts are inevitable.
Yes, but isn't Philosophy the pursuit of Wisdom? If so, then that which one "intuitively" takes for granted may be very useful to Philosophy."Pursuit of Wisdom" is meaningless to me. What do you mean with that?
It seems more like a coined phrase from TV ads than a decent and humble reference to humanity's honorable yet worthless effort.
Very true, but after I have demonstrated all of the basic things, that most human children have come to understand, we could build up to abstracts, could we not?No. We can't build up to abstracts "deductively." That's the trick with human understanding.
No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).
There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.
The one and only way is to define "use."
Silvio: A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete.
Mentat: So now mathematics is hard as concrete?Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning. Even though my previous words didn't contain such meaning. I said "mathematically formed" and "hard as concrete."
If I describe someone or something as "fast" and "furious," does it mean that "speed" is "fury?"
This is all your definition of "appropriate definition", isn't it? Do you see the paradoxical nature of such an undertaking? If you do, then you will quickly realize that yours is no more reliable than my definition of "appropriate definition".Well, what can I do? You want me to use "your" definition of an "appropriate definition?"
How can we know if a definition is healthy or defective?
Fine, but this reasoning is just as unprovable (and unfalsifiable, for that matter) as the Scientific Approach.This applies to all human statements. This is the reign of relativity and "uncertainty" (or Uncertainty).
The main point here is not to prefer or choose a view point over others. It's to realize the equality and understand the symmetry.
Manuel_Silvio
May27-03, 12:36 PM
Hey Mentat, where are you? Are you alright?
I'm waiting...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hey Mentat, where are you? Are you alright?
I'm waiting...
I'm sorry for the delay, I just don't seem to get to this thread until it's too late. I will read your posts, and reply, now.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,
1. For [b]Mentat:
Apologies for the delay.
Let's sum it all up. We have the Demon claiming something and Descartes proving that claim problematic. That's all right.
The Demon may not say that Descartes doesn't exist (inbound Aristotelian logic, of course).
Descartes' proof, however, can't be used as a proof for his existence but as a disproof of a claim against his existence.
This is pretty much right. We should also remember that the reason it was problematic was that the Demon had assumed Descartes' existence. In fact, the Demon had further validated Descartes' existence, by challenging it. Thus, while Descartes' reasoning cannot be used to prove his existence, it can be used to prove that any claim to the contrary is wrong and that trying to prove the contrary merely further validates the belief in his existence.
There remains one thing: you claimed you're "sure" of your existence. This is equal to "claiming Q = T." You referenced me to this scenario but then this scenario isn't meant to prove Q = T, it's only an objection to a claim expressed as Q = F, so you can no more be "sure" of your existence.
Well actually, you said that in Boolean Logic there were only two choices (T or F). If this is so, then by proving that Q = F is problematic, I have eliminated all choices but one: that Q = T.
No one can claim that you "aren't" because that would be a paradoxical statement. The same way, no one can claim that you "are" because that would be a circular statement.
Also not entirely true. If one claims any thing about "me", then they are claiming that I "am", and there's nothing wrong with this, is there? It is merely deducing your existence from the fact that you are doing something that is problematic. So, I can't deduce my existence from the fact that I am doing something, but one does have to assume my existence, if they are to speak of me as doing something.
"My only argument" as long as we're bound to that agreement. Outbound I have my other ways (and we can take a look at them, too, if you like).
After we come to a more complete agreement on the aforementioned, I would be glad to discuss your "other ways".
Entity D category is, in fact, all-encompassing. All beings fall in that category but you can see it's forbidden by Aristotelian logic, the most prominent logical system. There's no being that isn't an instance of Entity D.
There lies the major opposition to Aristotelian logic. It's been used for so long while it's hidden in its heart the most bizarre paradox of all, that it doesn't allow for existence in its most primitive and purified form.
Aristotelian Logic really denies that anything can exist?
This is another expression of Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" (or at least, I think so). You did notice how much debate this concept raised. You know why? For it was poking at a sore spot in Aristotelian logic, a logical system woven into our everyday lives. An opposition to this system feels like an opposition to our lives, a threat to our comfort. Interesting is that PoE is dependent of this logical system but this logical system seems so elementary to everyone that they feel PoE is an opposition to all of their options. This is the power of habit, habit of thinking the Aristotelian way.
Of course you must realize that the Paradox of Existence doesn't allow for it's own existence, and is thus as unusable as Uncertainty.
You mean your source of satisfaction is only that you can't be proven non-existent? And you don't care that you can't be proven existent, either?
If that's all of it, I can agree.
(See above).
And what would give me that right to "remove" that single word? There should be an assumption to do so.
"If there's an I thinking" means "thinking is happening" and "this is done by I," when it's analyzed. You’re asserting the equality of "this is done by I" and "there's an I;" More generally that of "this is done by a doer" and "there is a doer."
"this is done by I" has "there's an I" as one of it's sub-premises. It's sub-premises are "something is being done" and "it's being done by I" (this is just the same way of "analysis" that you used on "If there's an I thinking", so it should be obvious to you. But, maybe there's a flaw in my reasoning...)
"Fairness" isn't associated with ration. "Fairness" is just being as close to irrationality as one is to rationality.
Something is either rational or irrational. "Fairness" cannot exist, as we have already rationally deduced.
"Fair" judgment is avoidance from all biases (or as many as possible), be these "rational" or "irrational." If Philosophy is going to study and compare various points of view, it must be unbiased. Otherwise it will act in favor whatever point of view towards which it's biased.
No. Philosophy is a rational system. Irrationality doesn't allow for the pursuit of wisdom.
In "pursuing wisdom" (and I have to say how meaningless this phrase seems to me) there need be "fairness" to gain "wisdom" that isn't twisted in favor of something.
This is your opinion, and I disagree - as rationality is a necessity to the pursuit of wisdom.
Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?
No (see above).
In the effort to reach "absolute fairness," which is unreachable, lies "relative fairness," which can be used to avoid as many biases as possible.
The attempt to reach "absolute fairness" requires a bias (toward reaching absolute fairness), and is thus no better a way of reaching "relative fairness" as any other. Also, when one reaches "relative fairness" by trying to reach something else ("absolute fairness", in this case), one is reaching it by accident, and might just as easily miss it. However, if one is striving for "relative fairness", then one has a worthy, reasonable, and possible goal.
By doubting everything one doubts as much as "possible" because where doubting is "impossible," well, it won't happen for it's "impossible."
And you don't "doubt" this belief of yours? Besides, trying to doubt everything is not the way toward doubting most things.
I guess this is a word game. We have to undo the ties one by one. We have idea A claimed to be "unusable." And we have a question: "what on Earth can be unusable?" Doesn't from these follow that A is an answer to that question?
No, the concept of "idea A" is unusable, the actual "idea A" doesn't exist.
Assume we have the idea "Ostrich." You give this idea a characteristic, you say it's "Struthionidae." And we have the question: "what on Earth is Struthionidae?" Clearly enough, an answer to this question is "Ostrich."
Yes, but "Ostrich" would then be referring merely to the concept that you have invented, not to an actual Ostrich.
The same way we have the idea A (existent or non-existent, it doesn't matter).
Oh yes it does, it's the whole point! We don't "have the idea A" unless there is such a thing as the "idea A". Unless it exists, you may have the concept of the "idea A", but you don't actually have "idea A".
You say there's idea A and concept of idea A. What does "concept of idea A" mean? What's its difference with idea A itself?
The difference is this: I may say that "if 'idea A' existed, it would be unusable, but there is no such thing as idea A"; and in saying this, I have made reference to the "concept of 'idea A'", but never to the actual "idea A", because that doesn't exist.
I say "object A is green" (object A may be existent or non-existent). You ask "what is green?" An answer to your question is "object A" and not "the concept of object A." Regardless of object A's status quo, I myself have assigned it the characteristic of "green-ness" and I can't deny it. I didn't say "the concept of object A is green" (even though I may have meant that, but that's out of question), I said "object A is green."
This is not a good comparison, as an idea's existence is determined the very moment you refer to it, while an idea's color is free for speculation.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
A similar case is with a statement like: "through every two points passes one and only one line." This is an axiom of Euclidian geometry and perfectly logical. It doesn't matter that there's no definition for a "point" and a "line." And it doesn't matter that there's no "point" and no "line" in the vast expanse of Universe. This statement postulates something and defines one part of the framework of Euclidian geometry. The only important thing is not to violate this axiom. Now if one asks "how many lines pass through two points?" There's an obvious answer defined by this axiom, that is "one line." And there's no debate about the existence of "point" and "line." No one says "the answer to this question is not one line but the concept of one line."
No one says it, but that doesn't mean that it's not so.
And how do you "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing this" to "knowing this?" [:D]
I don't understand, are you asking me how I moved from not knowing that I moved from not-knowing to knowing, to knowing that I moved from not-knowing to knowing? By the same process that I moved from knowing to not-knowing in the first instance, I deduced it.
I want to emphasize one thing, again: those questions are historical. They aren't to be taken easy. They've cost thousands of years of abstract thinking and they're likely to do so for many more years to come. If you wish to answer them, beware of their depth, please!
This is a little personality quirk of mine: age is irrelevant to me. I don't think that an older person's ideas are any more important than a younger one's (or that they are necessarily more "deep"). And I don't think that an older idea is any more deep than one presented today. However, I am aware of this particular question depth, even if it doesn't show (since I'm trying to get across the point that it's age is irrelevant to me. Again, a personality quirk [:((]).
It's worth noting that Science itself has performed this form of mass cleansing against Religion. Science has ignored what is claimed to be intangible for a long time. It ignored deities, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits, fairies, elves and an army of other things for they were said to be undetectable by scientific devices. Now its time for Science to give up its "intangible" possession, that which isn't yet "known."
The scientific Universe is a record of what has become known under the rule of Science. Where do these "known" things originate from? No one knows. We perform the wizardry of Science, we apply the scientific method and things show up and become "known." Where and how have they been before becoming "known?" No one knows for they were "unknown" then.
Alright, this is just a debate on the merit of Science, and it's most out-of-place, don't you think?
Beyond "the knowledge" we only "don't know." But then where does this stream of new knowledge come from? We "don't know" that for "the Known" emerges from "the Unknown" and "the Unknown" is simply "unknown."
This, OTOH, is a good point.
I don't care what you call me but I do care what I'm called to. You're hurling a big claim (believe me, it's very big) at me.
You say there can be an absence of distinguishing. Do you know what this means? An absence of distinguishing means "direct perception," that's when one's mental processes of selection, categorization and extraction are stopped. This experience means direct exposition to the Universe. It's facing the Universe without any shields to save one of its unimaginable greatness.
Stop here please. You are distorting what I said, and making it sound like a good thing. This is exactly what you tried to do with Uncertainty. So, let me expose the flaw in this idea, before you go any further into this speculation (that's not to say that you wont speculate further, but I will at least have pointed out it's inherent flaw): To be facing the Universe without shields, is to be distinguished from those that aren't facing it in this way. It is also to be able to distinguish between shields and their absence, and between bounds and their absence.
I think you remember when I wrote of distortions introduced into the input stream for a being, on the "Knowledge?" thread. I said these distortions can identify every being. These distortions (in fact, the pre-processing of input stream) are the humanity of a human being. Without them, directly exposed to the Universe, one is no more human. One is the "cosmic observer," the universal observer.
One is no such thing, unless they can be distinguished as such.
One puts away one's last bias, one's humanity.
It's not possible to put away your last bias, without being biased toward removing bias (it's as impossible as Uncertainty).
You're getting the hang of it. You're using the other edge of the double-edged sword (I don't mean Uncertainty).
[:))]
You see, I've used rationality to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality. I've mistaken but I couldn't have done it another way. If you use ration to rationalize the ration itself you get a problem. This means that rationality (like other axiomatic systems) is either incomplete (when you skip the question) or inconsistent (when you try to answer the question but find the crack). This is an application of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
Every universal rule (be it Uncertainty or Rationality or whatever) fails either in completeness (when it isn't applied to itself, thus becoming non-universal) or in consistency (when it's applied to itself but is unable to explain for its own existence).
Yes, I don't deny that rationality is incomplete, although the deduction of it's incompleteness has been done by a rationalistic appraoch, which cannot be done, so... I guess I'll just have to say that rationality is "undetermined" [:((].
I apologize [:)].
Quite alright - I've caught myself making exactly the same statments, and then erased them and re-worded the sentence.
You don't "move" into a new Universe. You will either "be moved" or "decide to move" after a dead-end is encountered.
The dead-end isn't a portal to somewhere else, it's an indication of a limit to the capabilities of your current paradigm. Since it's no more capable, it will alter in the course of a "paradigm shift." You will either know this and actively participate in the shift (and play a minor role in defining the new paradigm) or you will be passively taken to a new paradigm (that is totally out of you control). Either way, paradigm shifts are inevitable.
I'm sorry, I you are using such keywords as "paradigm shift", and I'm getting a little confused. I don't get what you mean by the paradigm's "shifting". What does it mean? And what requires that this must happen?
"Pursuit of Wisdom" is meaningless to me. What do you mean with that?
I mean to purse wisdom. It can't be any more plain than that. I have take for granted that there is such a thing as "wisdom" and that it is possible to "pursue" it, but that is the nature of Philosophy.
No. We can't build up to abstracts "deductively." That's the trick with human understanding.
This sounds like a good "thread-starter". You should start a thread on this.
No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).
There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.
Actually, there is. It is to make use of the human faculty which we don't understand [:)].
Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning.
You believe this, without a doubt?
Even though my previous words didn't contain such meaning. I said "mathematically formed" and "hard as concrete."
If I describe someone or something as "fast" and "furious," does it mean that "speed" is "fury?"
Actually, if you said that something "must be fast and furious", then that thing must be able to be both fast and furious, at the same time. In essence, you are saying that speed and fury can co-exist, and that they must in a certain circumstance. It is the same with saying that something must be "mathematically defined and hard as concrete". Unless mathematics is "hard as concrete" - at least in some instances - it is impossible for both to co-exist as you "believe" they must.
Well, what can I do? You want me to use "your" definition of an "appropriate definition?"
Why are you trying to find a "useful" definition of "appropriate definition"? [;)]
How can we know if a definition is healthy or defective?
Conventional "wisdom" (an oxymoron, if you ask me) dictates that one can do so by putting that definition to the test, in actual practice. But, since none of these "keywords" are rigorously defined, we are going to have to stick to the knowledge that definitions (and language itself) are not as perfect as "common sense" would have one think.
Manuel_Silvio
May29-03, 10:04 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... In fact, the Demon had further validated Descartes' existence, by challenging it... merely further validates the belief in his existence.All right but for the usage of the phrase "further validates" which is a reference to an illogical background. It sounds like Descartes' existence had been validated before and the Demon's challenge has only "further" validated it, while this isn't true for the Demon's challenge is the only place Descartes' existence is ever validated (except for similar scenarios).
Well actually, you said that in Boolean Logic there were only two choices (T or F). If this is so, then by proving that Q = F is problematic, I have eliminated all choices but one: that Q = T.
That's what I've been trying to say with my proof. Here is where Aristotelian logic becomes defective.
With my proof I showed that "claiming Q = T," what you're doing, is as illogical as "claiming Q = F." For that would make a loop, regarding the premise essential to this scenario's actual aim which is to prove that "claiming Q = F" is problematic.
Aristotelian logic leaves no way out for this scenario. And this is what I've been trying to convey all the time, that in spite of this logical system's assertion that "if Q is not false then it's true," its own tools of deduction show that Q can be neither F nor T for both states lead into forbidden areas.
Aristotelian Logic really denies that anything can exist?You're swinging between acceptance and denial, would you please stop amidst only once?
Aristotelian logic doesn't deny, it doesn't allow. You would say "what's the difference?" The difference can be understood after realizing that you can't fit everything into one of True/False states, that Aristotelian logic is "incomplete."
This logical system denies existence, as much as it denies non-existence. It has at its heart a statement (eg, "object A exists") which can't be fit into either of the two states it proposes. Existence can't be proved or disproved, hence it remains uncertain.
Of course you must realize that the Paradox of Existence doesn't allow for it's own existence, and is thus as unusable as Uncertainty.Paradox of Existence (to my understanding) is neither denial nor acceptance of existence. It doesn't say "nothing exists," so it can't be said to deny its own existence. It doesn't say "everything exists" as well, to be said to be making a loop in affirming its own existence.
It's a situation. You encounter it when you're studying existence under Aristotelian logic.
You separate this situation from Aristotelian logic and direct your blames at the situation without ever re-thinking the source of this situation. What is to blame is the incapability of Aristotelian logic in including in itself the primary knowledge of things, their existence/non-existence.
"this is done by I" has "there's an I" as one of it's sub-premises. It's sub-premises are "something is being done" and "it's being done by I" (this is just the same way of "analysis" that you used on "If there's an I thinking", so it should be obvious to you. But, maybe there's a flaw in my reasoning...)You say we have "this is done by I" and its sub-premises "something is being done" and "it's done by I." Then you say one of its sub-premises is "there's an I."
By this, you're implying that "it's done by I" is equivalent to "there's an I." You're right but I'd like to draw your attention to what is actually said in saying "it's done by I:" this statement contains a reference to Causality because it describes the bond between and "I" and "I's deed."
Now if Causality is put aside in favor of another way of explaining the coincidence of phenomena, one that is equally creditable, then every statement referencing Causality will become invalid, including "it's done by I."
Simply put, "this is done by I" and its sub-premises and results are all supported by Causality. And Causality can be replaced at any moment with an equally creditable substitute which invalidates all that is referenced to Causality unless these references can be re-shaped to become compatible to the new manner.
Causality is the basis for a premise essential to the Evil Demon scenario. Yet Causality itself isn't firm enough, it's got substitutes which no more support that premise.
Something is either rational or irrational. "Fairness" cannot exist, as we have already rationally deduced.What can't exist is "absolute fairness," exactly because of its paradoxical nature. No. Philosophy is a rational system. Irrationality doesn't allow for the pursuit of wisdom.
This is your opinion, and I disagree - as rationality is a necessity to the pursuit of wisdom.
Silvio: Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?
Mentat: No (see above).We're still discussing the existence of irrationality and you haven't still shown its existence.
Rationality itself is an attempt to fairness, even though it may sometimes act against this. Rationality is made to be "fair" in the sense that it behaves with integrity against all that it's given for analysis. Its integral and inseparable axiom is to treat all statements similarly and to compare all of them to similar criteria. This is exactly what is expected from "fairness."
What is lacking here is that Rationality can't behave with the same integrity against questions and statements about its own existence and characteristics. And it doesn't qualify for judging "irrationality" because they're peers and have equal ranks of credibility. Hence, there need be a "manner of higher order" to judge among these systems. This manner of higher order is called "fairness."
The attempt to reach "absolute fairness" requires a bias (toward reaching absolute fairness), and is thus no better a way of reaching "relative fairness" as any other...That's exactly why "absolute fairness" is unachievable.
Suppose I agree with you on this point. What other way of achieving relative fairness do you propose?
And you don't "doubt" this belief of yours? Besides, trying to doubt everything is not the way toward doubting most things.I had to doubt it, and I did so. Haven't you noticed how many seemingly certain statements I use?
I understand how doubt eliminates every chance of having the slightest certainty, yet I also understand there's much in doubting what many others don't dare doubting. I guess you do, too.
How would you harmonize these two incompatible understandings? How would you take something temporarily or permanently for granted yet remain ready to put it away when the time comes? How would you be "fair" while you're constrained by your human constraints? How would you push your thoughts to the limits of human thinking?
The difference is this: I may say that "if 'idea A' existed, it would be unusable, but there is no such thing as idea A"; and in saying this, I have made reference to the "concept of 'idea A'", but never to the actual "idea A", because that doesn't exist.I think "idea A" itself is a "concept." What is non-existent is that which "idea A" hints at.
Let "idea A" be "a flying Ostrich." "A flying Ostrich" is existent as a concept while it may be non-existent as an entity. "Idea A" is a thought and it can't be non-existent but it may be non-manifest.
The "concept of idea A" is one level of abstraction higher. It's an instance of "thoughts about thoughts."
Moreover, there's a difference between usefulness and existence. You have to separate these two. A magic wand would be useful, very useful, if it was existent. Don't you agree with this? If yes then I can say "idea A would be useful, for at least one use, if it was existent." Since "idea A" is an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" it would be useful if it existed.
Back to what you said: "Uncertainty is unusable." If you're still saying this then Uncertainty "must" be an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" You yourself say this.
You either claim that "Uncertainty is unusable" or you don't claim that. If you do you're claiming something paradoxical, if you don't then Uncertainty must be useful even though non-existent.
No one says it, but that doesn't mean that it's not so.It means, however, that you're breaking a rule of the game.
... I don't think that an older person's ideas are any more important than a younger one's (or that they are necessarily more "deep"). And I don't think that an older idea is any more deep than one presented today...We're not talking of an "idea" but of a "question," one that isn't answered so far.
Age won't give it credibility or significance but reveals its resistance against being answered. The passing of years hasn't given rise to a human mind able to cope with this question satisfactorily (or to convey the result, if any). Every approach to such question is an act of arrogance.
Arrogance is a property of every free thinker yet it can blind every free thinker if it isn't used dexterously, no matter how powerful she/he is. To step into the battle arena you have to have an estimate of the magnitude of your undertaking. Otherwise you won't go even as far as others have gone.
Alright, this is just a debate on the merit of Science, and it's most out-of-place, don't you think?I would say it's a debate on the characteristics of Science but not its merit.
Knowledge bodies, including Science, are equally creditable for they're all knowledge. None can be said to be of more or less merit.
Furthermore, Science can be studied as an example of a knowledge body and some of its more basic characteristics may be found to be global characteristics of knowledge bodies.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
May29-03, 10:16 AM
… continued from the previous post
Stop here please. You are distorting what I said, and making it sound like a good thing. This is exactly what you tried to do with Uncertainty. So, let me expose the flaw in this idea, before you go any further into this speculation (that's not to say that you wont speculate further, but I will at least have pointed out it's inherent flaw): To be facing the Universe without shields, is to be distinguished from those that aren't facing it in this way. It is also to be able to distinguish between shields and their absence, and between bounds and their absence. Stop right there, please [;)]. First, who is associating "goodness" with what I said?
I, personally, would be happy if "absence of distinguishing" could be proven existent or non-existent but don't associate my "happiness" with "goodness," "truth," "righteousness" or else.
Then, you're mismatching the observers. The distinguishing you talk about belongs to the observer who is observing the cosmic observer. The cosmic observer won't distinguish its past from its present and its future, it won't distinguish its self from the rest, and it won't distinguish its previous state from its current state. These are all the corollaries of "absence of distinguishing" which was your claim.
It was your claim that "absence of distinguishing" is possible. I only described the consequences and the magnitude of your claim.
The one who distinguishes between the presence and absence of shields is you and that distinguishing is one of the shields that prevent you (and every other human being) from becoming the (exemplary) cosmic observer.
Once again, you're challenging a historical question without being aware of its depth (or at least, it doesn't show [:D]). This question is noway a new one. Many of the ways you go are the ways of those gone before you. You're only echoing claims that have been discarded long ago.
One is no such thing, unless they can be distinguished as such."Absence of distinguishing" is the state of the "cosmic observer" while the distinguishing of the "cosmic observer" from "other observers" is attributed to an observer speculating about the "cosmic observer."
When one becomes the cosmic observer all distinguishing is stopped for one but others still distinguish and they'll find the cosmic observer different from all they've ever observed. The cosmic observer itself won't distinguish the absence of distinguishing from its presence.
... I don't get what you mean by the paradigm's "shifting". What does it mean? And what requires that this must happen?Let's first see a definition for the term "paradigm" (to admit something, I was surprised to see this dictionary using the phrase "body of knowledge," I thought it was my invention).
Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems:
Paradigm:
I. An outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype.(Webster's)
II. The total pattern of perceiving, conceptualizing, acting, validating, and valuing associated with a particular image of reality that prevails in a science or a branch of science. (Kuhn)
III. A theoretical model to explain a type of social behavior. (Dictionary of Anthropology)
---------------------------------------------------------
The pattern underlying the process of constructing theories and explanations and thereby affecting the form of the body of knowledge within a social domain, eg, within 18th century science. Paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence. Kuhn describes the history of Science as a succession of paradigms, transitions resulting not only from the emergence of empirical phenomena an existing paradigm is unable to explain but also from socio-political interests within the scientific communities. (Krippendorff)My use of this term refers to a generalized form of what this dictionary says in (II) along with its following description. I say "generalized" for my usage of paradigm embraces all knowledge bodies (ie, not only Science or a branch of it as described in this dictionary).
A "paradigm shift" is what is called a "succession of paradigms" in this dictionary, except for that it isn't "necessarily progressive." It's only the transition from one paradigm to the other (and it's a well-known term).
Every change in one's understanding is towards a "paradigm shift." The accumulation of changes will finally alter the paradigm to such an extent that it can be called a new paradigm and be considered distinct from the previous one.
Since changes to one's understanding happen all the time, a "paradigm shift" will sooner or later happen as the consequence of their accumulation.
I mean to purse wisdom. It can't be any more plain than that. I have take for granted that there is such a thing as "wisdom" and that it is possible to "pursue" it, but that is the nature of Philosophy.These are obscure to me. What is Wisdom? And why should one pursue it?
Silvio: No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).
There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.
Mentat: Actually, there is. It is to make use of the human faculty which we don't understand.You know you're making a big claim, again?
Re-reading what you wrote: "a human faculty which we don't understand." Such faculties aren't allowed in a philosophical debate for they can be created and destroyed at will.
Here's a scenario based upon "a human faculty which we don't understand:" (all the credit is yours)
00. Priest comes to Atheist and says: "See, you got a human faculty to perceive the imperceptible."
01. Atheist responds: "But I don't feel like this, how do you know it?"
02. Priest says, soothingly: "Turn inside, keep calm and wait."
03. Atheist feels uneasy: "I've got much to do and I can't feel anything like what you're saying."
04. Priest is still calm: "Don't try to understand it. Feel it! Feel the spirit within!"
If something is not to be understood it'd better not be put in the way of understanding. I can tell you of a zillion faculties within that "we can't understand." Do you want to take care of all of them?
You have to either define "use" clearly or give up "using" this term as a core concept to your argument, even though you still can "use" it like other words.
Silvio: Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning.
Mentat: You believe this, without a doubt?Mathematics is made to be that way. Whatever that works that way, as the tool of reasoning, is gathered under one word, Mathematics.
This isn't a belief, it's a reference to the usual definition of Mathematics.
Actually, if you said that something "must be fast and furious", then that thing must be able to be both fast and furious, at the same time. In essence, you are saying that speed and fury can co-exist, and that they must in a certain circumstance. It is the same with saying that something must be "mathematically defined and hard as concrete". Unless mathematics is "hard as concrete" - at least in some instances - it is impossible for both to co-exist as you "believe" they must.I said "mathematically formed" and not "mathematically defined." And yes, a mathematical formation is hard as concrete because it's ought to be "clear" and "precise." That's my understanding of hardness.
Why are you trying to find a "useful" definition of "appropriate definition"?For I may be as human as you are.
Conventional "wisdom" (an oxymoron, if you ask me) dictates that one can do so by putting that definition to the test, in actual practice. But, since none of these "keywords" are rigorously defined, we are going to have to stick to the knowledge that definitions (and language itself) are not as perfect as "common sense" would have one think.How can we then agree on "your" concept of "use" and its significance? How can I show that "your" definition is defective? How do "you" talk of "existence" when it’s not even clearly defined? What are we doing here?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
All right but for the usage of the phrase "further validates" which is a reference to an illogical background. It sounds like Descartes' existence had been validated before and the Demon's challenge has only "further" validated it, while this isn't true for the Demon's challenge is the only place Descartes' existence is ever validated (except for similar scenarios).
Well, the belief that Descartes existed already existed in Descartes' own mind, and in the minds of most (if not all) of the people that he interacted with. Thus, the Demon merely further validated, that which Descartes - and many others - already believed.
That's what I've been trying to say with my proof. Here is where Aristotelian logic becomes defective.
With my proof I showed that "claiming Q = T," what you're doing, is as illogical as "claiming Q = F." For that would make a loop, regarding the premise essential to this scenario's actual aim which is to prove that "claiming Q = F" is problematic.
Aristotelian logic leaves no way out for this scenario. And this is what I've been trying to convey all the time, that in spite of this logical system's assertion that "if Q is not false then it's true," its own tools of deduction show that Q can be neither F nor T for both states lead into forbidden areas.
Actually, didn't the paradox of assuming Q = F arise from the fact that you must first assume that P is true? You showed that it is problematic (and, indeed, paradoxical) to assume that P = T while Q = F. The same was the case with assuming Q = T, because you had to already assume P = T in order to assume Q = T.
However, if I just assume that Q = T, then I am merely making an assumption, and not trying to deduce it's truth at all. Is this still problematic?
Aristotelian logic doesn't deny, it doesn't allow. You would say "what's the difference?" The difference can be understood after realizing that you can't fit everything into one of True/False states, that Aristotelian logic is "incomplete."
This logical system denies existence, as much as it denies non-existence. It has at its heart a statement (eg, "object A exists") which can't be fit into either of the two states it proposes.
No, you said that the problematic statement was "the existent entity A...". This means that it is not problematic to assume that A exists (merely unfounded), but it is problematic to try to deduce the truth of A's existence, right?
Existence can't be proved or disproved, hence it remains uncertain.
Paradox of Existence (to my understanding) is neither denial nor acceptance of existence.
The Paradox of Existence (by it's very name, as well as it's teaching) requires that you accept existence. You merely cannot prove it - or anything else, for that matter.
You say we have "this is done by I" and its sub-premises "something is being done" and "it's done by I." Then you say one of its sub-premises is "there's an I."
By this, you're implying that "it's done by I" is equivalent to "there's an I." You're right but I'd like to draw your attention to what is actually said in saying "it's done by I:" this statement contains a reference to Causality because it describes the bond between and "I" and "I's deed."
Yes, but - as can be deduced from just your previous (quoted above) statement - this means that Causality is at the heart of every statement of the form "this is done by I", right? Though this would seem obvious (given the nature of this sentence, as seen even from the standpoint of common sense), it is (IMO) an important point - because it shows that, if one would deny Causality, one would never be able to use statements such as "I think".
.
What can't exist is "absolute fairness," exactly because of its paradoxical nature. We're still discussing the existence of irrationality and you haven't still shown its existence.
I haven't shown the existence of irrationality? Well, I would have to rationally deduce that such a thing must exist, as anything that does exist (including rationality itself) exists instead of it's own non-existence. IOW, if rationality exists, then that means that there is at least the concept of rationality's not existing.
Rationality itself is an attempt to fairness, even though it may sometimes act against this. Rationality is made to be "fair" in the sense that it behaves with integrity against all that it's given for analysis. Its integral and inseparable axiom is to treat all statements similarly and to compare all of them to similar criteria. This is exactly what is expected from "fairness."
What is lacking here is that Rationality can't behave with the same integrity against questions and statements about its own existence and characteristics. And it doesn't qualify for judging "irrationality" because they're peers and have equal ranks of credibility. Hence, there need be a "manner of higher order" to judge among these systems. This manner of higher order is called "fairness."
I think you already realize this, but it seems like so much fun to point out, that I will do so: Everything you have just deduced about the incompleteness of rationality has been done from a rational standpoint, and is thus entirely invalid, according to very reasoning you were trying to use [:D].
Suppose I agree with you on this point. What other way of achieving relative fairness do you propose?
By striving for it. As I've said, the way toward relative fairness is not to be found in trying to acheive something else, but "stumbling upon" relative fairness on the way. This is a hit-or-miss way of achieving it, and might not work. However, if one strive directly for relative fairness, it is not out of their grasp - and they needn't rely on an accident.
I understand how doubt eliminates every chance of having the slightest certainty, yet I also understand there's much in doubting what many others don't dare doubting. I guess you do, too.
How would you harmonize these two incompatible understandings?
You mean harmonize "ultimate doubt is impossible" and "one should doubt as much as they can, because they are missing out if they don't"? I'd say, "doubt what you can, while knowing your limits". Or, IOW, "continue to doubt everything you learn, but do so with a view to later eliminating that doubt - no matter how long that happens to take you".
How would you be "fair" while you're constrained by your human constraints? How would you push your thoughts to the limits of human thinking?
Good questions. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm smart enough to answer them. After all, I'm nowhere near the limits of human thinking. In fact, the very attempt to reach the limits of human thinking is concocted from human thinking [:((].
I think "idea A" itself is a "concept." What is non-existent is that which "idea A" hints at.
This is a fair re-phrasing of what I meant.
Let "idea A" be "a flying Ostrich." "A flying Ostrich" is existent as a concept while it may be non-existent as an entity. "Idea A" is a thought and it can't be non-existent but it may be non-manifest.
I like that.
The "concept of idea A" is one level of abstraction higher. It's an instance of "thoughts about thoughts."
Sort of a "meta-thought", eh?
Moreover, there's a difference between usefulness and existence. You have to separate these two. A magic wand would be useful, very useful, if it was existent. Don't you agree with this? If yes then I can say "idea A would be useful, for at least one use, if it was existent." Since "idea A" is an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" it would be useful if it existed.
"It would be useful, if 'it' existed" is contradictory. You are probably already aware of this. I only point it out because one shouldn't think that "idea A" doesn't exist (as you yourself have already agreed), it does exist, and is useful. What is unuseable and non-existent is that which "idea A" represents: namely, nothing at all [;)].
Back to what you said: "Uncertainty is unusable." If you're still saying this then Uncertainty "must" be an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" You yourself say this.
No. When I said "Uncertainty is unusable" I was using the word "Uncertainty" to represent absolutely nothing at all. IOW, there is no such thing as that which "Uncertainty" is supposed to represent, and thus the concept of "Uncertainty" (and the concept does exist, btw) is usable, while that which it represents isn't. Does that make sense, or should I reword it?
Age won't give it credibility or significance but reveals its resistance against being answered. The passing of years hasn't given rise to a human mind able to cope with this question satisfactorily (or to convey the result, if any). Every approach to such question is an act of arrogance.
Arrogance is a property of every free thinker yet it can blind every free thinker if it isn't used dexterously, no matter how powerful she/he is. To step into the battle arena you have to have an estimate of the magnitude of your undertaking. Otherwise you won't go even as far as others have gone.
I agree with you here. You make a very good point. However, one must also be aware of the fact that a new idea can be just as powerful as an old one, they just can inductively prove it.
Response continued on the next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I would say it's a debate on the characteristics of Science but not its merit.
Knowledge bodies, including Science, are equally creditable for they're all knowledge. None can be said to be of more or less merit.
This is true, and I've incorporated this line of thinking, in all of my time on the PFs (by giving everyone's opinion as equal an amount of merit, in my mind, as anyone else's).
Response continued on the next post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Stop right there, please [;)]. First, who is associating "goodness" with what I said?
I, personally, would be happy if "absence of distinguishing" could be proven existent or non-existent but don't associate my "happiness" with "goodness," "truth," "righteousness" or else.
Why not? If you make something sound like it would be a grand acheivement, it implies that you think it would be "good".
Then, you're mismatching the observers. The distinguishing you talk about belongs to the observer who is observing the cosmic observer. The cosmic observer won't distinguish its past from its present and its future, it won't distinguish its self from the rest, and it won't distinguish its previous state from its current state.
It doesn't matter that the "cosmic observer" wouldn't distinguish between these things. Unless there truly is no difference between the "cosmic observer" and the rest of reality (in which case, the "cosmic observer" would not have the ability to "observe" anything), we have yet to reach the state of true irrationality.
It was your claim that "absence of distinguishing" is possible. I only described the consequences and the magnitude of your claim.
No, you made your own claim, based on the possibility of the existence of irrationality. You just didn't go as far as I did, in not allowing that there be an distinction between "observer" and "observed".
The one who distinguishes between the presence and absence of shields is you and that distinguishing is one of the shields that prevent you (and every other human being) from becoming the (exemplary) cosmic observer.
And being classified as a "cosmic observer" is a shield to reaching true irrationality. Remember, all I said was that irrationality existed. I didn't say it could be understood, except to think of it as an absence of all of the things that exist in the rational universe. This means that debating what "irrationality" is, in a rational way, is entirely useless (or, at least, will never reach the desired result).
"Absence of distinguishing" is the state of the "cosmic observer" while the distinguishing of the "cosmic observer" from "other observers" is attributed to an observer speculating about the "cosmic observer."
Wrong. If the "cosmic observer" would actually "observe" something, they must already have distinguished between the "observed" and the "observer".
Let's first see a definition for the term "paradigm" (to admit something, I was surprised to see this dictionary using the phrase "body of knowledge," I thought it was my invention).
My use of this term refers to a generalized form of what this dictionary says in (II) along with its following description. I say "generalized" for my usage of paradigm embraces all knowledge bodies (ie, not only Science or a branch of it as described in this dictionary).
A "paradigm shift" is what is called a "succession of paradigms" in this dictionary, except for that it isn't "necessarily progressive." It's only the transition from one paradigm to the other (and it's a well-known term).
Alright then, thanks for explaining "paradigm shift". I have another question though: you said that the "paradigm shift" is not necessarily progressive. Why would you say that? Didn't you say that paradigm shifts occur when one abandons a line of reasoning for another? If so, then one would obviously be seeking a "better" paradigm, would they not? Also, wouldn't this search be a "paradigm" of it's own?
Every change in one's understanding is towards a "paradigm shift." The accumulation of changes will finally alter the paradigm to such an extent that it can be called a new paradigm and be considered distinct from the previous one.
From what stanpoint? How can I distinguish between paradigms, unless I, myself, am bound to one (a distinguishing one)? Oh well, this is just back to the discussion of irrationality and "fairness", isn't it?
These are obscure to me. What is Wisdom? And why should one pursue it?
When you asked these questions, you were pursuing Wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. I think most people have different reasons for pursuing it, and I think I'd like to know your reason (after all, your (quoted) questions are in the pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge).
You know you're making a big claim, again?
Re-reading what you wrote: "a human faculty which we don't understand." Such faculties aren't allowed in a philosophical debate for they can be created and destroyed at will.
So? Does Philosophy really limit itself so? Personal (and thus empirical) experience has shown me that there is such a thing as consciousness, and I don't like the idea that consciousness is not allowed for in Philosophy, merely because we do not yet understand it.
Here's a scenario based upon "a human faculty which we don't understand:" (all the credit is yours)
00. Priest comes to Atheist and says: "See, you got a human faculty to perceive the imperceptible."
01. Atheist responds: "But I don't feel like this, how do you know it?"
02. Priest says, soothingly: "Turn inside, keep calm and wait."
03. Atheist feels uneasy: "I've got much to do and I can't feel anything like what you're saying."
04. Priest is still calm: "Don't try to understand it. Feel it! Feel the spirit within!"
If something is not to be understood it'd better not be put in the way of understanding. I can tell you of a zillion faculties within that "we can't understand." Do you want to take care of all of them?
No. I'd say you have a point, though I disagree with applying this to consciousness - as consciousness can be empirically (and thus, Scientifically) shown to exist.
You have to either define "use" clearly or give up "using" this term as a core concept to your argument, even though you still can "use" it like other words.
Again, you are trying to make use of the word "use" or to deny that it has "use". You are making the same assumptions that I am.
I said "mathematically formed" and not "mathematically defined." And yes, a mathematical formation is hard as concrete because it's ought to be "clear" and "precise." That's my understanding of hardness.
And you (much like Descartes, in his second Rule for the Direction of the Mind) believe that all ideas should be as well defined as mathematics, otherwise they are not useful?
For I may be as human as you are.
You most certainly are as human as I am, and demonstrate it most succinctly in your attempts to escape that limitation [:)].
How can we then agree on "your" concept of "use" and its significance?
What I'm telling you is that, unless you think that significance is "useful", there is no point in debating the meaning or significance of "use". It is better to simply take for granted the usual human use of the word.
How can I show that "your" definition is defective?
By making "use" of a line of reasoning (an obviously paradoxical attempt).
How do "you" talk of "existence" when it’s not even clearly defined?
I'm human, I can do that.
What are we doing here?
I don't know about you, but I was enjoying the philosophical sparring [:)].
Manuel_Silvio
Jun1-03, 11:58 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
... the belief that Descartes existed already existed in Descartes' own mind, and in the minds of most (if not all) of the people that he interacted with...I see, but then don't you mean Descartes, and his mates, were somehow biased right from the start? [;)]
I'm kidding. It's all right; you can have "further" there if you like it.
However, if I just assume that Q = T, then I am merely making an assumption, and not trying to deduce it's truth at all. Is this still problematic?No, there's no problem with "pre-assuming" Q = T. That's the process of postulation. You can postulate whatever statement you like and go on with it.
This freedom in choosing axioms has some notable aspects, as far as I can see:
00. Since axioms are to be chosen at will, they can be replaced anytime by anyone with any other statements thus invalidating everything based upon them, unless there's an agreement about remaining bound to a certain set of axioms.
01. Even though one can postulate freely (for example, one can postulate eternity of human beings), there seem to be many agents affecting an individual that act out of their control, which at the same time may be in conflict with axioms (for example, death may be imposed on everyone even those who've postulated eternity).
02. Despite what stated in (01), existence of such factors can also be another set of axioms (eg, pre-assumptions in our mind) that have been accepted unconsciously. Hence, one may be able to break them somehow, as has been claimed by many but never proven (or proven but not in terms of truth that are required by our axioms).
03. Considering (00)-(02), every statement should be considered relative and uncertain, yet open for discussion.
04. Interestingly, (00)-(04) are all subject to the same relativity and uncertainty stated in (03). Paradoxical!
No, you said that the problematic statement was "the existent entity A...". This means that it is not problematic to assume that A exists (merely unfounded), but it is problematic to try to deduce the truth of A's existence, right?Right but not complete. You've explained only one part of the problem.
I wrote that even the statement "object A exists" (ie, not only "the existent entity A exists") is subject to such problem. This was a result of our former discussion about Entity D category of beings. Entity D is a being of type "being that is."
You said that Entity D is actually assumed existent right when it's named. I added that Entity D is the category to which all beings belong (eg, every being is a "being that is"). Now, in saying "object A exists," object A is named, so it belongs to Entity D category. And we know any instance of Entity D has been forbidden inbound Aristotelian logic.
This isn't the "incapability of object A" for being but "Aristotelian logic's incapability" for expressing the most basic state of "object A," its existence, in a plain statement like "object A exists."
... this means that Causality is at the heart of every statement of the form "this is done by I", right? Though this would seem obvious... it is (IMO) an important point - because it shows that, if one would deny Causality, one would never be able to use statements such as "I think".Right. For that purpose, however, one can simply re-define the use of "verbs" (and perhaps other language functions) to correspond to the substitute chosen for Causality.
In case of Pre-established Harmony, for example, one can re-define "I [beep]" (eg, "I think") as "there is the monadic I and there is the monadic [beep] and there is a coincidence of I and [beep] at this monadic space-time locality," in which "merely coincidence" is stated and not a bond or a guarantee of situation's repeatability.
So whenever "I [beep]" is faced it will be interpreted with its new definition which no more incorporates Causality.
There's even more to the depth of Causality's role in human languages. Causality has opened its way right to the heart of human languages, to the very basic statements like "I think," "I do," "I eat," etc.
That's why a "perfectly logical" opposition to taking Causality too serious seems so strange (sometimes, at least).
... As I've said, the way toward relative fairness is not to be found in trying to acheive something else, but "stumbling upon" relative fairness on the way...
... I'd say, "doubt what you can, while knowing your limits". Or, IOW, "continue to doubt everything you learn, but do so with a view to later eliminating that doubt - no matter how long that happens to take you".Good points! thanks [:)].
After all, I'm nowhere near the limits of human thinking. In fact, the very attempt to reach the limits of human thinking is concocted from human thinking.Interesting. More interesting is that you've simply found a limit to human thinking by this.
You, thinking the human way, think that limits of human thinking are themselves known by thinking and that wouldn't do. Isn't that a limit to human thinking? You're already on the brink of human thinking, like all the individuals who try to think of limits of human thinking.
... I only point it out because one shouldn't think that "idea A" doesn't exist (as you yourself have already agreed), it does exist, and is useful. What is unuseable and non-existent is that which "idea A" represents: namely, nothing at all...
... Does that make sense, or should I reword it?Let me see, you say "what is unusable is what is represented by idea A, that is nothing at all."
To re-word your words I'd say:
00. What is unusable is nothing at all.
01. What is unusable is nothing.
02. Nothing is what is unusable.
03. Nothing is unusable.
Isn't that what I claimed at the very start, by which I claimed your "usability" criterion defective when "something" (eg, something can't be nothing) is claimed "unusable?"
When "something" is "something," be it a "concept" or an "entity." Be it a thought or a manifestation, it is "usable." What is unusable is non-existent, so it can't be "something," it's simply "nothing at all."
Idea A, as a concept, is always "usable" for at least one use and it would be paradoxical to call it "unusable." The reason is that that "idea A" is always existent.
Idea A's manifestation, as an entity, may be non-existent and "unusable." Its "unusable" nature is the inseparable companion of its non-existence. It is "unusable" because it can't be "used" because it can't even be reached, let alone "be used."
However, what is meant with "idea A" is clearly "idea A" itself and not its manifestation.
Uncertainty is apparently an idea.
Uncertainty, as a concept, as the perspective of a state of mind, is usable.
Uncertainty's manifestation, as an entity, as a state of mind, is non-existent thus unusable.
To sum it up: you may say "there's no implementation of Uncertainty" and conclude that "one should better not strive for an implementation of Uncertainty for it's non-existent thus unusable."
On the other hand, you may not say "there's no such thing as Uncertainty" and you may not conclude that "one should better not think of Uncertainty for it's unusable." For Uncertainty, as a concept, is existent and usable even though it has no manifestation.
This resolves the debate about the credibility of "ideas," "thoughts," "logical systems" and "viewpoints." All of these are usable for at least for one use because they're conceptual beings even though some of them may have no manifestation (or otherwise called, implementation), which would make their manifestation non-existent thus unusable. The usability criterion approves all of them. Consequently, the usability criterion can't be used to prefer one of these over others or to isolate one of them with a label like "unusable."
All right?
I agree with you here. You make a very good point. However, one must also be aware of the fact that a new idea can be just as powerful as an old one, they just can inductively prove it.A lethal mistake here: "inductive proof." There's no "inductive" proof of any strength.
Inductive method relies on statistical hopes. A result of inductive method is not a proof but a hypothesis. Observation of phenomena on large scale may give concordant results which in turn can give us a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be later verified to become a theory.
A proof is a closed case after it's checked thoroughly for errors and found fully compliant with the logical system in which it's proposed.
A theory, in contrast, is an ever-open case. Science, mainly relying on empirical evidence and theories based on them, is always revising its theories, producing new ones, comparing them to scientific criteria and discarding problematic ones. A theory has to work in favor of both empirical evidence and other theoretical restrictions of higher credibility. For example, a theory about heat transfer has to, first, satisfy observations and predict the results of new ones and, second, avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy.
Theories of highest credibility can later be used to "deduce" and the results of deduction have to be compared to empirical evidence, again. For example, the principle of conservation of energy can be used to deduce the total amount of dispersed heat after a moving body is stopped because of friction; the result must be carefully checked with precise measurements of the speed of the body and the dispersed heat in a very carefully isolated environment. If the result is in agreement with the measurement then we have another empirical evidence for the principle of conservation of energy and a new way of knowing the dispersed heat in our problem.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Jun1-03, 12:14 PM
... continued from the previous post
Deductive method gives "proofs." Inductive method gives "theories."
This is true, and I've incorporated this line of thinking, in all of my time on the PFs (by giving everyone's opinion as equal an amount of merit, in my mind, as anyone else's).That's indeed a characteristic of a free thinker.
Why not? If you make something sound like it would be a grand acheivement, it implies that you think it would be "good".For "good" is still a reserved keyword for many. "Goodness" as an absolute quality still prevails in many human minds and one would better save oneself from their anger [:D].
It doesn't matter that the "cosmic observer" wouldn't distinguish between these things. Unless there truly is no difference between the "cosmic observer" and the rest of reality (in which case, the "cosmic observer" would not have the ability to "observe" anything), we have yet to reach the state of true irrationality."Absence of distinguishing" isn't equal to "absence of difference." "Absence of distinguishing" doesn't level everything to one thing but it levels everything to what "they are" and not what "they are perceived as."
A "cosmic observer" experiences the difference but not in terms of superiority/inferiority, only sheer difference.
A human observer is biased in many ways. That leads her/him into understanding the difference in terms of "more/less" of the qualities. Cosmic observer, on the other hand, has no biases, so it won't experiences the "more/less" of qualities but it will experience qualities "as is."
Distinguishing is the process that "selectively" and "contextually" alters the input stream into the observer. When this process is stopped the input stream will be fed in raw, without alteration. The difference will be apparent because the input stream changes but it won't be interpreted, it will only be accepted.
Simply put, cosmic observer isn't human in any respect. Understanding, which is usually expected of a human observer, is a task of interpretation and interpretation will lead into distinguishing. In absence of distinguishing, understanding will be absent as well as interpretation.
No, you made your own claim, based on the possibility of the existence of irrationality. You just didn't go as far as I did, in not allowing that there be an distinction between "observer" and "observed".You said irrationality is in "absence of distinguishing." I said that "absence of distinguishing" is the subject of a historical question, and I described what happens in "absence of distinguishing." Since the question hasn't been answered, the existence of irrationality remains a question.
Now, you can do one of the following:
00. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is possible, with all its consequences kept in mind. So that you can claim there's a "manifestation of irrationality." And that there are individuals who can be called "irrational." Then determine exactly who are subject to the "absence of distinguishing" and the title, "irrational."
01. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is impossible, readily accepting that "an implementation of irrationality" doesn't exist.
02. Accept to put aside this debate of "irrationality" and to avoid calling others "irrational."
04. Change the case of irrationality's existence from "absence of distinguishing" to something else.
03. Whatever else you like.
Without all this hassle, I agree that irrationality is existent, "as a concept," if that's all you want but if you claim an "implementation of irrationality" existent, see above. Notice that an "irrational individual" is an "implementation of irrationality."
... This means that debating what "irrationality" is, in a rational way, is entirely useless (or, at least, will never reach the desired result).So how do you call someone else "irrational" while you're still "rational? "
If "irrationality" can't be understood rationally then its symptoms, too, can't be understood and detected rationally.
Wrong. If the "cosmic observer" would actually "observe" something, they must already have distinguished between the "observed" and the "observer".Cosmic observer is a human name for something totally alien.
It's more of an anthropomorphic analogy: the cosmic observer watches everything from far away, from the vacuum where no biases can be found, where no atmosphere distorts the view, where no dependencies mislead reception. And it watches at universal scale.
... Everything you have just deduced about the incompleteness of rationality has been done from a rational standpoint, and is thus entirely invalid, according to very reasoning you were trying to use.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sort of a "meta-thought", eh?
-------------------------------------------------------------
... I have another question though: you said that the "paradigm shift" is not necessarily progressive. Why would you say that? Didn't you say that paradigm shifts occur when one abandons a line of reasoning for another? If so, then one would obviously be seeking a "better" paradigm, would they not? Also, wouldn't this search be a "paradigm" of it's own?
-------------------------------------------------------------
From what stanpoint? How can I distinguish between paradigms, unless I, myself, am bound to one (a distinguishing one)? Oh well, this is just back to the discussion of irrationality and "fairness", isn't it?These quoted parts of your post are closely related and very interesting (to me, at least). I need your very keen attention here.
How did Kurt Gödel come to his Incompleteness Theorem? He used a tool named "Meta-mathematics" that was designed to analyze mathematical structures. Meta-mathematics works out and beyond mathematics itself, though still rationally.
How does Science come to choose among various theories explaining the same phenomenon? It compares them to scientific criteria. These criteria are intra-scientific yet meta-theoretic. They are chosen to judge among theories so they're independent of theories: the scientific criteria are valid inside Science but out and beyond every scientific theory. Science has meta-theories for judging theories.
How does an individual come to choose among "paradigms," "viewpoints," "systems of thought" and "ways of life?" Here is the critical point.
Paradigm shifts occur inevitably. The inhabitant of the paradigm has a minor but effective role in the direction of the shift. Ways of life are always changing, new ways come in, old ways are revived, some prevail, some fade out. Systems of thought have varying populations, varying side-effects and varying consequences. The third question is one of the most notable questions one can ask.
This third question has no clear answer, in my knowledge, at least. Obviously one will choose what seems "better" to them but then what is "better?" What are the criteria for judging "paradigms?" How can we know if an "animist shaman's" paradigm is "better" or that of a "medieval priest" or that of a "scientist?" (this is my favorite example)
My very first topic on PF was named: "Meta-paradigm?" I asked (and still ask) for meta-paradigms, a set of criteria for choosing among paradigms. The only PF member to post a reply and start a discussion was Wuliheron. She/he did it really well: no answer but an invaluable discussion.
Have in mind this phrase from the definition of a paradigm: "... paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence..."
The source of justification in a paradigm is exactly the set of criteria by which "better/worse" is determined. A paradigm is self-sufficient. If one living inside a paradigm has pre-set the most basic criteria of preference and pre-set them to the current paradigm, how can one ever choose between one's current paradigm and any other paradigm "fairly?"
Wouldn't the outcome of such comparison always be in favor of one's current paradigm?
A paradigm contains its own source of justification. Good/bad, better/worse, best/worst, right/wrong, true/false, all opposites, all comparatives and superlatives of preference point at the same paradigm.
This provides the internal consistency of a paradigm. An "animist shaman," a "medieval priest," and a "scientist" find themselves satisfied and justified by their paradigm. That's the reason for individual and social inertia. Paradigm shifts are dangerous, bizarre, and unpredictable. Even small changes are critical. Who knows if anything will remain there, if "remaining" has any meaning in the new paradigm, in the new paradigm? Why would the satisfied beast move unless it's forced or excited?
The free thinker, however, has come willing for danger and for reward. She/he has come to change to better, to gain more, to know more, to understand more, to do more and to wield her/his newly gained power. The free thinker is the wolf, hungering for more. What do we have here to offer them?
She/he will learn the relativity of "more." And she/he will know the human situation. She/he will be faced with the last of barriers to total human power. If this last barrier is passed, if the paradigm is modified at will, impossible will become possible. Possibility itself will twist. Universes will bend under her/his power. She/he will bid farewell to humanity (and possibly go beyond she/he [;)], not to lose the comedy of situation and the dear memory of Douglas Adams).
Alas, I know no meta-paradigms. They may be non-existent. Yet, the topic is still open for discussion. Someone I know was brave enough to claim there are meta-paradigms, but she/he hasn't yet told me what they are. And many more questions, more abstract, can be asked.
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Jun1-03, 12:25 PM
... continued from the previous post
Some of these many questions:
00. If the paradigm is all that is available to a human observer, where does common experience of human observers come from? Is there anything independent of observers?
01. Could it be that common experience comes from one source? Or that it emerges from multiple synchronized sources? Or mutual observation with similar results is only another paradigmic twist that may vanish during the next paradigm shift?
02. How does the paradigm handle the interaction of distinct observers?
03. Are there distinct observers?
04. How real is reality? How solid is the solid wall?
05. What if two conflicting paradigms happen to incorporate the same experience? For example, we have paradigm A that has no such thing as "death" inside and paradigm B which has "death" as an event occurring after certain events. A and B are identical in other respects including that they both incorporate the Universe known to us (or better said, to me) through our (or better said, my) current experience. Individual A lives in paradigm A and individual B lives in paradigm B. Individual A is ran over by a car at 200 km/h. Paradigm A has no "death" inside, so "death" won't occur to A. Individual B observes individual A while A is ran over. Paradigm B judges the event as "lethal" and must report a "death." What has happened to individual A? What does A experience? What is "actually" happening?
06. What is "Actuality" when the only things available are "paradigms?" Paradigms which at best twist one or more "actualities" to correspond to the paradigmic content and at worst are "actualities" themselves without any "actual" "Actuality" (in other words, "the" reality) being "actually" anywhere.
07. If an individual is considered a "distinct being" what happens to her/him in a paradigm which has no such things as "distinction" and "existence?" What is handed over from one paradigm to the next during paradigm shifts?
08. Our knowledge of paradigms must have come from "outside" paradigms because it’s a generalization over all paradigms. How could have we known anything about paradigms from "outside" without ever being "outside" a paradigm? Could it be all "in vain?"
09. Do we "lose" something living in a paradigm and not living in another? What's the meaning of "loss?" Are there measures present in all paradigms? Is there a universal measure of utility for the individual? Wouldn't that be a meta-paradigm at last?
10. How could one use or even think of meta-paradigms without being able to go "beyond and out" of one's current paradigm?
11. Could it be that study of paradigms is just another twist of our (or better said, my) current paradigm? What fixates the necessity of such study and what defines its goals?
At last, a critical question:
What do I do now?
This "I" isn't only my "I." Think about it, please!
When you asked these questions, you were pursuing Wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. I think most people have different reasons for pursuing it, and I think I'd like to know your reason (after all, your (quoted) questions are in the pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge).Isn't that another loop? Shouldn't Wisdom have a meaning independent of me questioning it?
Wisdom is the "application" of knowledge? Its application to what? And for what purpose?
I myself don't know why I ask questions. Do you know? Is it enjoyment, necessity, or something totally different? I don't know.
So? Does Philosophy really limit itself so? Personal (and thus empirical) experience has shown me that there is such a thing as consciousness, and I don't like the idea that consciousness is not allowed for in Philosophy, merely because we do not yet understand it.Consciousness is "discussed" under Philosophy until its known and understood, to some extent at least, then it's "used" in debates.
Before an understanding of Consciousness is achieved it won't be used as a basis for understanding other things.
In defining "use," you have to offer everyone something they can understand or something based on what they already understand. That's why I say you can't make a definition out of a "human faculty that we don't understand." The purpose of a definition is to convey meaning. This purpose won't be fulfilled if a definition contains an unresolved reference, a term that isn't understood (or isn't "yet" understood).
How can I know what you mean with "use" if I don't understand it? And how can I criticize or discuss it if I can't learn it?
And you (much like Descartes, in his second Rule for the Direction of the Mind) believe that all ideas should be as well defined as mathematics, otherwise they are not useful?
What I'm telling you is that, unless you think that significance is "useful", there is no point in debating the meaning or significance of "use". It is better to simply take for granted the usual human use of the word.What I need is "precision" and "clarity" and these can be found in Mathematics (I don't know any other places they may be found).
I think critique is possible after knowing and understanding and these can be gained with precision and clarity. This precision and clarity can't be found in common usage of words so I demand a rigorous definition.
Please tell me if you have another way.
By making "use" of a line of reasoning (an obviously paradoxical attempt).Paradoxes again, and Loops are all I see. Then you say they aren't the most basic [:D].
I'm human, I can do that.You're indeed human but how do you "know" this? You can indeed do it, but how did you "learn" this?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I see, but then don't you mean Descartes, and his mates, were somehow biased right from the start? [;)]
I'm kidding. It's all right; you can have "further" there if you like it.
Alrighty then. One problem, I can't deduce from this (quoted) whether you were agreeing with me or not.
03. Considering (00)-(02), every statement should be considered relative and uncertain, yet open for discussion.
Including this (quoted) statement, right?
04. Interestingly, (00)-(04) are all subject to the same relativity and uncertainty stated in (03). Paradoxical!
Ah, I see that you are one step ahead of me. Kudos.
Right but not complete. You've explained only one part of the problem.
I wrote that even the statement "object A exists" (ie, not only "the existent entity A exists") is subject to such problem. This was a result of our former discussion about Entity D category of beings. Entity D is a being of type "being that is."
You said that Entity D is actually assumed existent right when it's named. I added that Entity D is the category to which all beings belong (eg, every being is a "being that is"). Now, in saying "object A exists," object A is named, so it belongs to Entity D category. And we know any instance of Entity D has been forbidden inbound Aristotelian logic.
This isn't the "incapability of object A" for being but "Aristotelian logic's incapability" for expressing the most basic state of "object A," its existence, in a plain statement like "object A exists."
But you haven't quite answered my question. I have understood what you are saying, but I still don't know for sure whether it's the claiming of something's being existent that is wrong, or if it's the trying to deduce "object A"'s existence that is wrong.
Right. For that purpose, however, one can simply re-define the use of "verbs" (and perhaps other language functions) to correspond to the substitute chosen for Causality.
In case of Pre-established Harmony, for example, one can re-define "I [beep]" (eg, "I think") as "there is the monadic I and there is the monadic [beep] and there is a coincidence of I and [beep] at this monadic space-time locality," in which "merely coincidence" is stated and not a bond or a guarantee of situation's repeatability.
So whenever "I [beep]" is faced it will be interpreted with its new definition which no more incorporates Causality.
There's even more to the depth of Causality's role in human languages. Causality has opened its way right to the heart of human languages, to the very basic statements like "I think," "I do," "I eat," etc.
That's why a "perfectly logical" opposition to taking Causality too serious seems so strange (sometimes, at least).
Very interesting. It does seem rather exhaustive to use Pre-Established Harmony's notation, instead of Causality's, doesn't it? Also, I believe there is a flaw (or rather, and assumption of Causality) in assuming that Pre-Established Harmony [beeps] differently (whether "[beep]" be replaced by "speaks", "explains", "sounds", "reasons", or any other verb).
Interesting. More interesting is that you've simply found a limit to human thinking by this.
You, thinking the human way, think that limits of human thinking are themselves known by thinking and that wouldn't do. Isn't that a limit to human thinking? You're already on the brink of human thinking, like all the individuals who try to think of limits of human thinking.
I guess that makes sense.
Let me see, you say "what is unusable is what is represented by idea A, that is nothing at all."
To re-word your words I'd say:
00. What is unusable is nothing at all.
01. What is unusable is nothing.
02. Nothing is what is unusable.
03. Nothing is unusable.
Isn't that what I claimed at the very start, by which I claimed your "usability" criterion defective when "something" (eg, something can't be nothing) is claimed "unusable?"
I see what you mean, however, what I am pointing at is a very deep flaw in human reasoning: Namely, we can refer to that which doesn't exist. So, while we are not really refering to anything, we are still refering, and thus can say that that which we are refering to is unusable (and, really, non-existent).
Thus, when one speaks of "Uncertainty", one isn't refering to anything at all, but one is still refering, and thus can say that that which s/he is refering to is unusable (and, really, non-existent). Does that make sense?
I'm sorry, but I must go now. I will finish my response tomorrow. Please await it's completion, before responding.
Preator Fenix
Jun5-03, 02:16 AM
Maybe we should try an other angle of attack on this problem of "i". Much of the problems with the concept of "i" stem from the idea of ownership of "i" ( in that this "i" that I speak of is 'mine' )It is the idea that thought, or thinking, is the product of ONE, SINGLE, *INDIVIDUALIZED authoritive entity (namely "i")that somehow uses a *THING called reason (logic) for its production. Human thought is by no means singular, continuous, individualized, or hireacahely orgainized( In fact it is quite impossible to distinguish between enviormental influencaces (body) and mental processeics (mind)) nor is logic a thing to be used. I intend to demonstrate how human personality has little to do with indipendant existance, and of the pittfalls in trying to use thinking as a meauring tool to define and prove ourselfs as persons and individuals....
'i think therefore i am'
I agree with miguel that this statment presupposes that to think one needs to have "i". In most case's yes but not all. If I program an AI engine to think in the same way that I do following a set of predefined formulations I have provided it who is the one thinking, me or the AI? Does the AI's thinking prove its existance or mine? More fundamentally, when the AI says "i am", is that the AI's "i", or mine? The only logical escape is to say that we both have "i", but in that sense our "i's" would be one and the same. Yet in that case, our thinking will declare to be the same "i", in which case my and the AI's definition of "i" are unsolvabe! I make another AI engine but this time was lazy and didnt make it a copy of myself, but instead made it much simpler. So much simpler in fact that it has lost its qualites as an idividual. But still it thinks!? Thinking to itself it can never say "i think...i am" if it does not exist as an "i" in the frist place, this AI has no "i" to speak of no matter how much it thinks. Therefore thinking does not need an "i". Now what if another AI engine is made that is smart engouh to be an individual but not a clone of me???....Let me get back to this later in my post....
I agree with Mentat that people are miss reading Descrates. When he says "i" he refers to an OBJECTIVE entity. When this entity does ANYTHING, it exist.If it diplayed ABSOULUTLY no output then it could be said that it dosnt exist at all. Unfortunately "we" are not such entities ("we" are far too 'subjective'). What could I possiblely mean by all this?
Yes there exist an "i", but this "i" has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with "me", as a person, as Emanuel Wazar, or as an individual. Take the case of an AI conviecned of its its individuality. What can its thinking prove? At frist you might say it can prove "itself". But then what is "itself"? The AI shouldnt make the mistake to think thats its output (eg. actions, emotions, feelings) ARE its "i" (namely because it is only output). This AI "i" is a set of formulated rules that generate it's many certain outputs. Its thinking only proves that there are rules (logic)to its output, its thinking implies the presance of logic in its design, its thinking proves the reality of its own objective existance, but its thinking does not nesaccarly imply the existance of what the AI at first would define as its own "i", its individuality (eg. actions, emotions, feelings).
There is thought therfore there is logic.
(logic, wrong or right, because to think IS to use logic. To think does not imply that YOU thought about it.) logic is not a THING,....logic is an inherant property of the universe which is taken advantage of by nature ( in humans in particular) to futher biological surviaval (but it is not the only property and so cant be used to handle ALL situations. --therefore the universe in some case is irrational, and uncertatain. As for humans there is no such thing as rational human thought without the use of logic!) So we can prove the real exitance of logic but that dosnt nesaccerly imply a proof of "us"
'...when the deamon takes everything away from you,(eg. actions, emotions, feelings, and even your memories) "you" (the individual) DO NOT exist anymore!
so to summarize here is what I posulate.
1.That which we call personality and Logic thought process are completely differnt things.
2.That they can exist independant of each other.
3.Thinking(any aciton) proves(implies) existance, but it does not prove(imply) PERSONAL existance.
4.The universe need not be fundamentally rational.
5.Decartes "I" may be said to be his soul, but that soul has nothing to do with Decartes the person.
6.Therfore, I AS IN EXISTANCE CAN BE PROVEN, I AS IN PERSON CAN NEVER BE PROVEN BASED MEARLY ON THE FACT THAT I THINK.
***there well very well be such a thing as I as in person, its just that it cant be proved or disproved.
God bless Gobels.
Feel free to critic.This is my frist post.
(you just got to love the avatar....fits me like a glove)
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
When "something" is "something," be it a "concept" or an "entity." Be it a thought or a manifestation, it is "usable." What is unusable is non-existent, so it can't be "something," it's simply "nothing at all."
Idea A, as a concept, is always "usable" for at least one use and it would be paradoxical to call it "unusable." The reason is that that "idea A" is always existent.
Idea A's manifestation, as an entity, may be non-existent and "unusable." Its "unusable" nature is the inseparable companion of its non-existence. It is "unusable" because it can't be "used" because it can't even be reached, let alone "be used."
However, what is meant with "idea A" is clearly "idea A" itself and not its manifestation.
Uncertainty is apparently an idea.
Uncertainty, as a concept, as the perspective of a state of mind, is usable.
Uncertainty's manifestation, as an entity, as a state of mind, is non-existent thus unusable.
To sum it up: you may say "there's no implementation of Uncertainty" and conclude that "one should better not strive for an implementation of Uncertainty for it's non-existent thus unusable."
On the other hand, you may not say "there's no such thing as Uncertainty" and you may not conclude that "one should better not think of Uncertainty for it's unusable." For Uncertainty, as a concept, is existent and usable even though it has no manifestation.
Please see my previous post, for my reasoning on this matter.
A lethal mistake here: "inductive proof." There's no "inductive" proof of any strength.
Inductive method relies on statistical hopes. A result of inductive method is not a proof but a hypothesis. Observation of phenomena on large scale may give concordant results which in turn can give us a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be later verified to become a theory.
So, basically, inductive reasoning can lead to theory, but never any farther? Well, in that case, Science is based on inductive reasoning (which is rather obvious, as it relies rather heavily on empirical patterns).
Response Continued On Next Post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Deductive method gives "proofs." Inductive method gives "theories."
Point taken
That's indeed a characteristic of a free thinker.
Thank you.
"Absence of distinguishing" isn't equal to "absence of difference." "Absence of distinguishing" doesn't level everything to one thing but it levels everything to what "they are" and not what "they are perceived as."
A "cosmic observer" experiences the difference but not in terms of superiority/inferiority, only sheer difference.
But to experience difference is to distinguish.
Distinguishing is the process that "selectively" and "contextually" alters the input stream into the observer. When this process is stopped the input stream will be fed in raw, without alteration. The difference will be apparent because the input stream changes but it won't be interpreted, it will only be accepted.
And yet, one cannot pursue this, without first distinguishing it as a better course.
Simply put, cosmic observer isn't human in any respect.
Does the cosmic observer know this? [;)]
Understanding, which is usually expected of a human observer, is a task of interpretation and interpretation will lead into distinguishing. In absence of distinguishing, understanding will be absent as well as interpretation.
That means that the cosmic observer is doesn't understand anything that it observes.
Now, you can do one of the following:
00. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is possible, with all its consequences kept in mind. So that you can claim there's a "manifestation of irrationality." And that there are individuals who can be called "irrational." Then determine exactly who are subject to the "absence of distinguishing" and the title, "irrational."
I've already shown that rational thought allows for the existence of "irrationality". However, after having discussed this with you, I see that it is never really correct to consider a human being "irrational".
Cosmic observer is a human name for something totally alien.
It's more of an anthropomorphic analogy: the cosmic observer watches everything from far away, from the vacuum where no biases can be found, where no atmosphere distorts the view, where no dependencies mislead reception. And it watches at universal scale.
And yet all these absences are as much an obstruction (in that they are distinguishing marks) as the presence of "atmosphere", "dependencies", etc, aren't they?
These quoted parts of your post are closely related and very interesting (to me, at least). I need your very keen attention here.
Know that you have my attention, and that I read everything that you posted. Alas, I must delete some of it, from my response, and I cannot respond to all of it. But most of it doesn't call for a response anyway.
Paradigm shifts occur inevitably. The inhabitant of the paradigm has a minor but effective role in the direction of the shift. Ways of life are always changing, new ways come in, old ways are revived, some prevail, some fade out. Systems of thought have varying populations, varying side-effects and varying consequences. The third question is one of the most notable questions one can ask.
This third question has no clear answer, in my knowledge, at least. Obviously one will choose what seems "better" to them but then what is "better?" What are the criteria for judging "paradigms?"
Exactly. You see, you have attempted (quoted above) to define the limits of paradigms. However, trying to define the limits of a paradigm requires stepping into another paradigm.
My very first topic on PF was named: "Meta-paradigm?" I asked (and still ask) for meta-paradigms, a set of criteria for choosing among paradigms. The only PF member to post a reply and start a discussion was Wuliheron. She/he did it really well: no answer but an invaluable discussion.
You should revive that thread.
Have in mind this phrase from the definition of a paradigm: "... paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence..."
Of course, this is a way of defining the limits of paradigms, and is thus only "true" within it's own paradigm. However, my analysis of it only exists within my current paradigm, and my analysis of my analysis exists within it's own paradigm, and so on and so on...
But I understand what you are trying to say.
The source of justification in a paradigm is exactly the set of criteria by which "better/worse" is determined. A paradigm is self-sufficient.
Very interesting (and important (IMO)) point.
If one living inside a paradigm has pre-set the most basic criteria of preference and pre-set them to the current paradigm, how can one ever choose between one's current paradigm and any other paradigm "fairly?"
Very true, however the preference of treating paradigms "fairly" is also part of a paradigm, is it not?
Paradigm shifts are dangerous, bizarre, and unpredictable. Even small changes are critical. Who knows if anything will remain there, if "remaining" has any meaning in the new paradigm, in the new paradigm? Why would the satisfied beast move unless it's forced or excited?
Interesting enough; just remember that all of your analysis on the nature of paradigms, and paradigm shifts, is within it's own paradigm, and is thus not necessarily true within other paradigms. IOW, unless you claim to have found the meta-paradigm (which I know is not your claim), your analysis of paradigms is subject to uncertainty.
However, for what it's worth, I agree with you, and I am fascinated by the very idea.
If this last barrier is passed, if the paradigm is modified at will, impossible will become possible. Possibility itself will twist. Universes will bend under her/his power. She/he will bid farewell to humanity...
Perhaps that's what God really is [:D].
Response Continued On Next Post...
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Some of these many questions:
00. If the paradigm is all that is available to a human observer, where does common experience of human observers come from? Is there anything independent of observers?
I was going to ask that question! I'm glad we're on the same frequency. I really have no idea why humans seem to share such similar paradigms. Of course, if there is one paradigm that is "absolute", then this coincidence would be understandable. However, the determination of an "absolute" paradigm requires the use of another paradigm, doesn't it? [g)]
02. How does the paradigm handle the interaction of distinct observers?
03. Are there distinct observers?
Well, if the answer to #03 is "no", then the answer to #02 is obvious. However, if "yes", then one truly has a conundrum, as the paradigms of different people should be (according to the paradigm that I have somehow settled in) completely different.
05. What if two conflicting paradigms happen to incorporate the same experience? For example, we have paradigm A that has no such thing as "death" inside and paradigm B which has "death" as an event occurring after certain events. A and B are identical in other respects including that they both incorporate the Universe known to us (or better said, to me) through our (or better said, my) current experience. Individual A lives in paradigm A and individual B lives in paradigm B. Individual A is ran over by a car at 200 km/h. Paradigm A has no "death" inside, so "death" won't occur to A. Individual B observes individual A while A is ran over. Paradigm B judges the event as "lethal" and must report a "death." What has happened to individual A? What does A experience? What is "actually" happening?
Ah, now I understand (one needs to read the whole of that (quoted) piece, in order to understand the point you're getting at). I guess I don't know.
What we should remember is that it appears (only appears, mind you) that humans always share some things, in their respective paradigms. One of them is death.
07. If an individual is considered a "distinct being" what happens to her/him in a paradigm which has no such things as "distinction" and "existence?" What is handed over from one paradigm to the next during paradigm shifts?
One would deal with that when it came, I suppose. After all, a distinct being cannot move into a paradigm where there is no such thing as distinct beings. Thus, they would have to lose their individuality, in the paradigm where they actually had it, before moving into one without it. (But, of course, this raises all kinds of questions - such as, how can they move into another paradigm, once they've ceased existing as a distinct being?)
08. Our knowledge of paradigms must have come from "outside" paradigms because it’s a generalization over all paradigms. How could have we known anything about paradigms from "outside" without ever being "outside" a paradigm? Could it be all "in vain?"
That's what I've been trying to say - it could very well all be in vain (as any analysis of paradigms resides in it's own paradigm). Of course, we have to realize that the belief that one must step outside of a paradigm, in order to analyze it, also resides in it's own paradigm.
09. Do we "lose" something living in a paradigm and not living in another? What's the meaning of "loss?" Are there measures present in all paradigms? Is there a universal measure of utility for the individual? Wouldn't that be a meta-paradigm at last?
Yes, but it probably doesn't exist. Also, in response to your other questions (about "loss" and whether we are experiencing "loss", by being in one paradigm, instead of another), I just don't know.
10. How could one use or even think of meta-paradigms without being able to go "beyond and out" of one's current paradigm?
The "concept" of a meta-paradigm could exist in one's paradigm. Remember, the "concept" of a non-existent entity exists, even though it isn't really the concept of anything.
11. Could it be that study of paradigms is just another twist of our (or better said, my) current paradigm? What fixates the necessity of such study and what defines its goals?
This is a restating of one of my main points, in the last few posts: to try to understand paradigms, is to reside in the paradigm of trying to understand paradigms. It appears to defeat it's own purpose. And yet, my analysis here should also exist in it's own paradigm, and is thus not absolute.
At last, a critical question:
What do I do now?
This "I" isn't only my "I." Think about it, please!
It is possible that there is no "should". In my paradigm, I must assume that this could drive one crazy if one continued to think about it for long periods of time (I know I'm starting to "lose it", according to the typical human paradigm - if such a thing can be said to exist, or if saying it exists is "fair" to the paradigm where it doesn't exist...[g)][o)]
Isn't that another loop? Shouldn't Wisdom have a meaning independent of me questioning it?
Does anything really have a meaning, if it's meaning isn't questioned?
Wisdom is the "application" of knowledge? Its application to what? And for what purpose?
Whatever purpose one can find (though it's rather strange to see that you seem to be seeking purpose in something, when you're not even certain about what purpose is).
I myself don't know why I ask questions. Do you know? Is it enjoyment, necessity, or something totally different? I don't know.
It's the human condition.
Think of this (as I think it's a very important point):
Trying to understand meta-paradigms and questioning the meaning of everything is an inevitable result of a mind that is conditioned so as to never actually find the answers.
This must be why Wuliheron chooses acceptance.
Consciousness is "discussed" under Philosophy until its known and understood, to some extent at least, then it's "used" in debates.
Before an understanding of Consciousness is achieved it won't be used as a basis for understanding other things.
Our consciousness has been being used for understanding everything that we have ever understood.
In defining "use," you have to offer everyone something they can understand or something based on what they already understand.
Again, the human condition allows you to "understand" "use", but it doesn't allow you to question it.
That's why I say you can't make a definition out of a "human faculty that we don't understand." The purpose of a definition is to convey meaning. This purpose won't be fulfilled if a definition contains an unresolved reference, a term that isn't understood (or isn't "yet" understood).
No, it can be understood, it merely cannot be analyzed. Language itself (our only means of communication, as humans) cannot be fully analyzed, but even an infant can "understand" it.
*Sudden Thought*: what if one needs to return to the mind-state of an infant, in order to understand how we understood such unexplainable things, in the first place?
What I need is "precision" and "clarity" and these can be found in Mathematics (I don't know any other places they may be found).
Why do you need this "precision" and "clarity"?
I think critique is possible after knowing and understanding and these can be gained with precision and clarity. This precision and clarity can't be found in common usage of words so I demand a rigorous definition.
But you demand it by using words, do you not? Thus, you are not making a specific enough demand, and will have to settle for a purely human response.
Paradoxes again, and Loops are all I see. Then you say they aren't the most basic [:D].
They aren't basic. Drag has helped me understand what it really is (maybe, nothing's really certain anymore, but this is possible): Concepts that are basic may defy definiton.
You're indeed human but how do you "know" this? You can indeed do it, but how did you "learn" this?
This cannot be understood without stepping outside of the human condition.
However, in closing, once one is outside of the human condition, does one really have any ambition toward finding the answers that they had asked while in the human condition (this is reminiscent of my question about a paradigm shift, into a paradigm where there is no such thing as individuality)?
Manuel_Silvio
Jun6-03, 08:32 AM
Greetz,
1. For Preator Fenix:
I guess you're a bit late for this thread but anyway you're welcome. I got problems reading your post but I managed to get something out of it.
For the part where you addressed me, I think, you're making a mistake in thinking that an AI entity can be "made to think like its creator." Any entity capable of human thinking is too complex to be said to have "deterministic" behavior.
You set up your AI entity and set its initial conditions to your own conditions. Then you start it. You expect it to follow the same ways of thought that you're following but it won't necessarily do so.
Since it’s a complex system, the sequence of states it will follow can't be predicted by knowing its initial conditions and its internal structure. You and your AI entity won't be identical.
For other parts of your post, I leave it to Mentat. Will you take it please, Mentat?
2. For Mentat:
Alrighty then. One problem, I can't deduce from this (quoted) whether you were agreeing with me or not.I'm in agreement. Descartes thought he existed before he started thinking about it, so the Demon's challenge "further" validated his thoughts.
... but I still don't know for sure whether it's the claiming of something's being existent that is wrong, or if it's the trying to deduce "object A"'s existence that is wrong.What is wrong here is violation of the rules of a logical system, one that we've chosen to abide. In this case we've chosen Aristotelian logic as the logical system.
One of its rules says that loops are forbidden. Anywhere we find a loop, we have to run away and avoid it. The problem is that these loops sometimes occur at the most basic statements, where we expected the logical system to be the most efficient and the most decisive.
We've studied two of these loops:
00. The loop in "I think therefore I am," when there's a premise saying "I's thinking is in undeniable relationship with I's being." When one tries to deduce one's existence by using that premise, one encounters a loop. In order to remain bound to the chosen logical system, one has to avoid making such loop, to avoid that deduction.
01. The loop in "object A exists." You invented the Entity D category of beings. I described this category as every being that can be said to be a "being that is." Then we agreed that this category is all-encompassing, that every being is an instance of Entity D. "Object A" in an Entity D, too. Aristotelian logic, however, forbids definitions that include a being's existence (eg, "being that is") and does this because of the restriction put on loops (eg, "being that is" itself is a loop for it's the logical equivalent of "that which exists, exists"). So the statement "object A exists" is a problem within Aristotelian logic for it declares "object A" existent while it's pre-assumed the existence of "object A" right when it named "object A."
These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being." There lies Aristotelian logic's deficiency.
Very interesting. It does seem rather exhaustive to use Pre-Established Harmony's notation, instead of Causality's, doesn't it? Also, I believe there is a flaw (or rather, and assumption of Causality) in assuming that Pre-Established Harmony [beeps] differently (whether "[beep]" be replaced by "speaks", "explains", "sounds", "reasons", or any other verb).It seems exhaustive because we're used to Causality. Causality has become dominant and has found its way into language functions. When these functions are re-defined to correspond to a substitute for Causality, there's no need to repeat the definition every time. After re-defining "I [beep]," one can simply use "I [beep]." The same process has happened, though at a slower pace, for Causality. Current language functions have been gradually re-shaped to correspond to Causality but this shape isn't stuck to them. That "I [beep]" implies Causality is part of our current condition, not an innate property of "I [beep]," for it can be re-defined at will and it will function with its new definition just as it would function with its previous definition.
Besides, it would be equally exhaustive to re-define language functions to correspond to Causality, again. For example, "I [beep]" can be re-defined as "there's I and there's [beep] and I and [beep] are bound through certain means which will guarantee this bond for a hopefully long stretch of time."
... what I am pointing at is a very deep flaw in human reasoning: Namely, we can refer to that which doesn't exist. So, while we are not really refering to anything, we are still refering, and thus can say that that which we are refering to is unusable (and, really, non-existent).I think you're right but then aren't you "reasoning" right now? This "reasoning" suffers the same flaw. You're pointing at a flaw which, by its paradoxical nature, ought to be non-existent, but you're still referring, and what you're referring to is another "nothing at all."
Even though human reasoning is "cracked" only "somewhere," it will "sink" as "whole." And we're all on board [:D].
You see, Loop and Paradox can be found everywhere. And they're double-edged swords, as you know.
Thus, when one speaks of "Uncertainty", one isn't refering to anything at all, but one is still refering, and thus can say that that which s/he is refering to is unusable (and, really, non-existent). Does that make sense?I would say Uncertainty, as a concept, is usable and existent but Uncertainty, as an entity, is unusable and non-existent.
Uncertainty, as an entity, is what is referred to by Uncertainty, as a concept. The reference itself is usable and existent while the entity referred to is unusable and non-existent.
Are we in agreement?
So, basically, inductive reasoning can lead to theory, but never any farther? Well, in that case, Science is based on inductive reasoning (which is rather obvious, as it relies rather heavily on empirical patterns).Yes, Science is based on inductive method. That's why theoretical and empirical revision is Science's main concern.
But to experience difference is to distinguish.
And yet, one cannot pursue this, without first distinguishing it as a better course.
Does the cosmic observer know this?
That means that the cosmic observer is doesn't understand anything that it observes.That isn't right for "sheer difference."
A traffic light, for example, is "distinguished" by human observer. A human observer distinguishes it by "structure" and by "function." Its "red" light isn't merely a "wavelength," it has a "meaning" associated with the "wavelength;" the same for the "green" light. This is the basis of distinguishing "red" and "green."
A cosmic observer "perceives" the "wavelengths" but not the "meaning." It won't associate "meaning" with "red" and "green." Here the difference is "sheer," "red" and "green" aren't anything but two wavelengths. "Red" won't be distinguished from "green," as much as it won't be distinguished from "the traffic light."
Suppose you have an exceptional particle which "exists" without "interaction" with anything (you know, such particle won't be perceived by anyone for it doesn't "interact" with them). What this particle is able of is to be "affected." It can "be acted on" but it can't "act on." One side of "interaction" lacks in it. This particle is a "cosmic observer." It receives everything, it has an input stream but it doesn't affect anything. For this particle "sheer difference" can be said to be the changes in the input stream but there's no distinguishing because the particle doesn't "participate" in its own input stream, it won't alter the stream. It's only a "receiver," nothing more.
This exceptional particle doesn't even "intend" to be the way it is. For "intention" would arise from distinguishing. Perhaps this is a reason for the non-existence of such particle. "No intention" and "intention" don't seem to be compatible.
And it won't even "understand" in human sense. For human beings, "understanding" occurs when the input stream is pre-processed and then processed until it’s expressible as their "knowledge." A cosmic observer is merely "affected" by everything else. This is the meaning of "direct perception."
I've already shown that rational thought allows for the existence of "irrationality". However, after having discussed this with you, I see that it is never really correct to consider a human being "irrational".I like this manner.
And yet all these absences are as much an obstruction (in that they are distinguishing marks) as the presence of "atmosphere", "dependencies", etc, aren't they?Right. I said before, "this is a human name for something totally alien."
Know that you have my attention, and that I read everything that you posted. Alas, I must delete some of it, from my response, and I cannot respond to all of it. But most of it doesn't call for a response anyway.Thanks. I really didn't mean you don't read them, I only wanted to call for high sensitivity. And the call was successful, judging by your response, as it was brilliantly responsive.
You're intelligent and I'm in envy. Be proud! [:)]
You should revive that thread.You know, nothing is left for me beyond this thread [;)].
... the preference of treating paradigms "fairly" is also part of a paradigm, is it not?
... Why do you need this "precision" and "clarity"?These two questions point at the same thing. I learnt about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).
continued on the next post...
Manuel_Silvio
Jun6-03, 08:43 AM
... continued from the previous post
"Fairness," "precision and "clarity," all my criteria of preference, are part of my current paradigm, and the remnant of my previous ways.
I know that I'll always be biased someway, why not determine part of my biases consciously. Most individuals are satisfied this way but I know you're clever and you'll ask, "Why consciously? Why do you prefer it?" And I have no answer. After all, relativity is everywhere, even in relativity itself.
I was going to ask that question! I'm glad we're on the same frequency... Of course, if there is one paradigm that is "absolute", then this coincidence would be understandable. However, the determination of an "absolute" paradigm requires the use of another paradigm, doesn't it?... to try to understand paradigms, is to reside in the paradigm of trying to understand paradigms. It appears to defeat it's own purpose. And yet, my analysis here should also exist in it's own paradigm, and is thus not absolute.Your answers are the best I could think of even though I can't tell you more about them. I don't know the answers. I don't even know if the questions are eligible. No one can tell others of right and wrong when they've reached this balance.
There are countless questions which may never be answered.
The "concept" of a meta-paradigm could exist in one's paradigm. Remember, the "concept" of a non-existent entity exists, even though it isn't really the concept of anything."Existence" itself is part of your current paradigm, "concept" as well.
What we should remember is that it appears (only appears, mind you) that humans always share some things, in their respective paradigms. One of them is death.These things can be explained for in other ways as well. They needn't be result of "a shared part of individual paradigms." These other ways are equally creditable.
Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them. One has a free port of type A, the other has a free port of type B. In order to connect them using one line your have to choose a line that is able of translating A to B and B to A. Now the two appliances are able of talking to each other. Appliance 1 produces a message, M1, that is put on the line by its port of type A, the line translates A to B and Appliance 2 reads a message, M2, from its port of type B. M1 and M2 aren't identical, even worse they may be of different natures, for example, M1 may be a mechanical movement while M2 is an electrical pulse. The two appliances can talk continuously without noticing inconsistency as if they were connected without any translator in between. Although the two appliances are totally different and may experience totally different experiences they can "share" these experiences. They may even "cooperate" on this basis as long as they follow an innate protocol on interpreting each other's messages. Their only chance of getting notified of the situation is when one of them tries to "understand" the other's messages as if they were its own messages. Now, the messages may seem totally absurd and the pondering appliance will get confused.
One would deal with that when it came, I suppose. After all, a distinct being cannot move into a paradigm where there is no such thing as distinct beings.Hasn't it come? Are we still "distinct beings?"
An interesting aspect of a paradigm is its interaction with its inhabitant. The inhabitant is characterized by its paradigm for its image of itself has been gained through the same paradigm. Its entire actualities and potentials lie somewhere in the paradigm. In a sense, it "knows" all that can become "known" to it for the paradigm determines all that "is" and all that "can be" and the bearer of a paradigm realizes its paradigm.
Nevertheless, analysis of paradigms is only part of my current paradigm, like you said.
Does anything really have a meaning, if it's meaning isn't questioned?I don't know.
Trying to understand meta-paradigms and questioning the meaning of everything is an inevitable result of a mind that is conditioned so as to never actually find the answers. Brilliant! Yet like an arrow in the darkness...
You have it there, it's the human situation.
Our consciousness has been being used for understanding everything that we have ever understood.That's an assumption you have to prove "consciously." I guess there's no way out.
Again, the human condition allows you to "understand" "use", but it doesn't allow you to question it.Or it forces "you" into putting restrictions where there needn't be restrictions [;)].
*Sudden Thought*: what if one needs to return to the mind-state of an infant, in order to understand how we understood such unexplainable things, in the first place? Perhaps, who knows!
Something from Tao-te Ching (not to be taken too seriously):
20. 1. When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?
What all men fear is indeed to be feared; but how wide and without end is the range of questions (asking to be discussed)!
2. The multitude of men look satisfied and pleased; as if enjoying a full banquet, as if mounted on a tower in spring. I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled. I look dejected and forlorn, as if I had no home to go to. The multitude of men all have enough and to spare. I alone seem to have lost everything. My mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of chaos.
Ordinary men look bright and intelligent, while I alone seem to be benighted. They look full of discrimination, while I alone am dull and confused. I seem to be carried about as on the sea, drifting as if I had nowhere to rest. All men have their spheres of action, while
I alone seem dull and incapable, like a rude borderer. (Thus) I alone am different from other men, but I value the nursing-mother (the Tao).
They aren't basic. Drag has helped me understand what it really is (maybe, nothing's really certain anymore, but this is possible): Concepts that are basic may defy definiton.Well said. And what concept doesn't defy definition?
However, in closing, once one is outside of the human condition, does one really have any ambition toward finding the answers that they had asked while in the human condition (this is reminiscent of my question about a paradigm shift, into a paradigm where there is no such thing as individuality)?Good question. Very good indeed. Alas, I have no answer for it... like countless other questions.
I like to end this post differently. You know, there's a film by Ridley Scott, "Blade Runner." Vangelis composed and performed the film score. The soundtrack was later released. One of the pieces it contained was "Tears In Rain," that had someone talking on the music. Here's the text and it's most descriptive of how this situation feels:
[Tears In Rain]
[Roy:]
"I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe, hmmm,
... attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion,
I've watched C Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate,
All those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain..."
["... time to die ..."]
All the moments of brilliance, all the greatness of a human being, will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Welcome to the Total Perspective Vortex (remember Douglas Adams?) [:D].
Hey Mentat ! [:)]
I saw this thread when you enitially posted
it and it's really grown since then ! [:D]
I did not vote niether then nor now and
I have a question for you - How come you didn't
add a third choice - "I don't understand the question" ?! [:D]
That one would surely get my vote. [;)]
Peace and long life.
Ooops...[:((] Wait !
It says that I did vote at the top, wierd ! [g)]
I can't remember doing that nor do I remember that
I ever prefered any of the answers. [s(]
Maybe I just said no enitialy because I wanted it
to mean that Descartes was wrong because the
question doesn't make sense, not because of whatever
sense some people might attribute to it.
Sorry again. [:(]
Preator Fenix
Jun6-03, 10:36 AM
On determinisim you are right. The mind is a complex system and is not deterministic. The point though that I was making is that the two are the same because they both are the same insofar as they follow the same logic gates. That they evolve differnt "identities" is due to the complex nature of the universe. Identity expersees itself as a distinct but self similar pattaer across humanity, the espersions are differnt but it is the same fundamental logic the same. Like fractels. Each one is very unique, but still part of the larger selfsimaliar pattern. And as well, the fractel really isnt the shiney inifinietly repetting pattarn on book covers,...the fractel is the simple elegant mathamathical formula underneath that gernerates every fractel pattern. Which is way I say that existance may be proven but not personality(or more precisly personality cant be justified or made into a axiom)
Personality is a symptom of our reality, it is not our reality itself.
I agree that delivery of my thoughts is a little obtuse at times. I dont have as much experiance in verbal debate as you guys have.
Drag, I don't approve of the use of an "I don't understand the question" choice. It makes one give up his/her ability to choose between on of the real choices - once they've understood the question - just to ask about the question. That's why I never use it. I just expect someone to post that they don't understand, and then I would attempt to explain it (so that they could reach their decision, and vote).
BTW, what is it, exactly, that you don't understand?
Drag,
You may find it interesting that Manuel_Silvio and I have digressed from the Descartes discussion (though we still discuss it in our posts), and have discussed things such as "Meta-paradigms" and "Complete Uncertainty (which is impossible, btw)". That's what's happened for the last few pages, anyway.
Preator Fenix,
Thanks for your participation. It's been a two-person discussion for a long time. I will try to respond to your post, as Manuel seemed to think I would have some insight...
Originally posted by Preator Fenix
Maybe we should try an other angle of attack on this problem of "i". Much of the problems with the concept of "i" stem from the idea of ownership of "i" ( in that this "i" that I speak of is 'mine' )It is the idea that thought, or thinking, is the product of ONE, SINGLE, *INDIVIDUALIZED authoritive entity (namely "i")that somehow uses a *THING called reason (logic) for its production.
Human thought is by no means singular, continuous, individualized, or hireacahely orgainized( In fact it is quite impossible to distinguish between enviormental influencaces (body) and mental processeics (mind)) nor is logic a thing to be used. I intend to demonstrate how human personality has little to do with indipendant existance, and of the pittfalls in trying to use thinking as a meauring tool to define and prove ourselfs as persons and individuals....
Alright then, here we go...
'i think therefore i am'
I agree with miguel that this statment presupposes that to think one needs to have "i". In most case's yes but not all. If I program an AI engine to think in the same way that I do following a set of predefined formulations I have provided it who is the one thinking, me or the AI?
It is the AI that is thinking, and thus this situation doesn't fall into the category of "I think therefore I am" (since "I" and the AI are distinguishable entities).
Does the AI's thinking prove its existance or mine? More fundamentally, when the AI says "i am", is that the AI's "i", or mine? The only logical escape is to say that we both have "i", but in that sense our "i's" would be one and the same.
I disagree. You "I's" aren't the same, and this is proven by your own reasoning; you said that it is either the AI's existence that is proven, or it is "I's" existence that is proven, thus showing that they are seperate, distinguishable, entities.
I make another AI engine but this time was lazy and didnt make it a copy of myself, but instead made it much simpler.
I see, so the reason you said that the two "I's" are the same entity is because they are exact copies. Well, think of this: if the AI says "I think", but you don't, then you have distinguished one from the other (and only validated the existence of the one).
Thinking to itself it can never say "i think...i am" if it does not exist as an "i" in the frist place, this AI has no "i" to speak of no matter how much it thinks.
This is not true. If something thinks, then it obviously exists (which is the whole point of Descartes' statement, "I think therefore I am"). If it exists, and can think about itself, then it can easily declare itself an "I".
I agree with Mentat that people are miss reading Descrates. When he says "i" he refers to an OBJECTIVE entity. When this entity does ANYTHING, it exist.If it diplayed ABSOULUTLY no output then it could be said that it dosnt exist at all.
Well, everything up to that last sentence, is implied in Descartes' reasoning, yes.
Unfortunately "we" are not such entities ("we" are far too 'subjective'). What could I possiblely mean by all this?
I've been asking myself the same thing (just kidding).
Yes there exist an "i", but this "i" has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with "me", as a person, as Emanuel Wazar, or as an individual.
What?! What is the purpose of using the word "I", if not to refer to yourself?
Take the case of an AI conviecned of its its individuality. What can its thinking prove? At frist you might say it can prove "itself". But then what is "itself"? The AI shouldnt make the mistake to think thats its output (eg. actions, emotions, feelings) ARE its "i" (namely because it is only output).
But Descartes did not believe that the "I" is the "output", he just believed that the fact that one can think about oneself proves that there is such a thing as "oneself".
Its thinking only proves that there are rules (logic)to its output, its thinking implies the presance of logic in its design, its thinking proves the reality of its own objective existance, but its thinking does not nesaccarly imply the existance of what the AI at first would define as its own "i", its individuality (eg. actions, emotions, feelings).
There is thought therfore there is logic.
The thought logically leads to the conclusion of the existence (as an individual entity).
(logic, wrong or right, because to think IS to use logic. To think does not imply that YOU thought about it.)
It does if you believe in cause-and-effect. If one says "I think", what they are really saying (when you break it down logically) is: "something is thinking" and "that something is me".
logic is not a THING,....logic is an inherant property of the universe which is taken advantage of by nature ( in humans in particular) to futher biological surviaval (but it is not the only property and so cant be used to handle ALL situations.
While I slightly disagree with this definition of "logic", I'll just direct you to this thread, about logic (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2740), instead of debating it here.
'...when the deamon takes everything away from you,(eg. actions, emotions, feelings, and even your memories) "you" (the individual) DO NOT exist anymore!
Not true, as the fact that there is someone for him to take something away from, proves that you exist.
so to summarize here is what I posulate.
1.That which we call personality and Logic thought process are completely differnt things.
Very true.
2.That they can exist independant of each other.
Only in one direction. In other words, yes, personality can exist without logical thinking (and Descartes knew this), but logical thinking cannot occur without some entity doing the thinking (according to Causality).
3.Thinking(any aciton) proves(implies) existance, but it does not prove(imply) PERSONAL existance.
Why not?
4.The universe need not be fundamentally rational.
Also true.
5.Decartes "I" may be said to be his soul, but that soul has nothing to do with Decartes the person.
Why not?
Feel free to critic.This is my frist post.
Welcome to the PFs. You are a good thinker. I hope to see your responses soon.
Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, what is it, exactly, that you don't understand?
I do not understand the meaning of the word "think".
I know it has a linguistic definition and I know
and understand what it is supposed to refer to. However,
when I answer a question such as the above I need to
be adequetly = scientificly certain of its meaning
and unfortunetly I'm not, at all.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
For other parts of your post, I leave it to Mentat. Will you take it please, Mentat?
I have attempted it.
2. For Mentat:
I'm in agreement. Descartes thought he existed before he started thinking about it, so the Demon's challenge "further" validated his thoughts.
It's nice that we've finally come to an agreement - though the debate was rather fun.
What is wrong here is violation of the rules of a logical system, one that we've chosen to abide. In this case we've chosen Aristotelian logic as the logical system.
One of its rules says that loops are forbidden. Anywhere we find a loop, we have to run away and avoid it. The problem is that these loops sometimes occur at the most basic statements, where we expected the logical system to be the most efficient and the most decisive.
We've studied two of these loops:
00. The loop in "I think therefore I am," when there's a premise saying "I's thinking is in undeniable relationship with I's being." When one tries to deduce one's existence by using that premise, one encounters a loop. In order to remain bound to the chosen logical system, one has to avoid making such loop, to avoid that deduction.
Nice summary.
01. The loop in "object A exists." You invented the Entity D category of beings. I described this category as every being that can be said to be a "being that is." Then we agreed that this category is all-encompassing, that every being is an instance of Entity D. "Object A" in an Entity D, too. Aristotelian logic, however, forbids definitions that include a being's existence (eg, "being that is") and does this because of the restriction put on loops (eg, "being that is" itself is a loop for it's the logical equivalent of "that which exists, exists"). So the statement "object A exists" is a problem within Aristotelian logic for it declares "object A" existent while it's pre-assumed the existence of "object A" right when it named "object A."
Also a very good summary.
These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being."
YES! This is why I rebelled against the very idea for so long, but it seems rather inevitable doesn't it?
It seems exhaustive because we're used to Causality. Causality has become dominant and has found its way into language functions. When these functions are re-defined to correspond to a substitute for Causality, there's no need to repeat the definition every time. After re-defining "I [beep]," one can simply use "I [beep]." The same process has happened, though at a slower pace, for Causality.
Wait a minute, I thought that all statements, of the form "I [beep]" were inherently related to Causality.
Current language functions have been gradually re-shaped to correspond to Causality but this shape isn't stuck to them. That "I [beep]" implies Causality is part of our current condition, not an innate property of "I [beep]," for it can be re-defined at will and it will function with its new definition just as it would function with its previous definition.
How so?
I think you're right but then aren't you "reasoning" right now? This "reasoning" suffers the same flaw. You're pointing at a flaw which, by its paradoxical nature, ought to be non-existent, but you're still referring, and what you're referring to is another "nothing at all."
Good point. Hey, wait a minute, this is my mind game to play on you, and you've turned it around! [;)]
Even though human reasoning is "cracked" only "somewhere," it will "sink" as "whole." And we're all on board [:D].
Yeah, and the real conundrum is how to "jump off" without landing back on the boat (since it is part of human reasoning to think we should jump off) [g)].
I would say Uncertainty, as a concept, is usable and existent but Uncertainty, as an entity, is unusable and non-existent.
Fair enough re-phrasing.
Uncertainty, as an entity, is what is referred to by Uncertainty, as a concept. The reference itself is usable and existent while the entity referred to is unusable and non-existent.
Are we in agreement?
Definitely (at least, in this paradigm (*evil laughter*)).
Yes, Science is based on inductive method. That's why theoretical and empirical revision is Science's main concern.
Well great! Oh well, at least now I have some more basis for saying that Science is unprovable and unfalsifiable (as that is the nature of any inductive reasoning).
That isn't right for "sheer difference."
A traffic light, for example, is "distinguished" by human observer. A human observer distinguishes it by "structure" and by "function." Its "red" light isn't merely a "wavelength," it has a "meaning" associated with the "wavelength;" the same for the "green" light. This is the basis of distinguishing "red" and "green."
Well, sure, I'lll agree with this. Of course, our eyes had to distinguish between the different wavelengths of light, before our brain had any "color" to process.
A cosmic observer "perceives" the "wavelengths" but not the "meaning." It won't associate "meaning" with "red" and "green." Here the difference is "sheer," "red" and "green" aren't anything but two wavelengths. "Red" won't be distinguished from "green," as much as it won't be distinguished from "the traffic light."
But these wavelengths would be distinguished from darkness, would they not? If not, then the cosmic observer can never "see".
Suppose you have an exceptional particle which "exists" without "interaction" with anything (you know, such particle won't be perceived by anyone for it doesn't "interact" with them). What this particle is able of is to be "affected." It can "be acted on" but it can't "act on." One side of "interaction" lacks in it. This particle is a "cosmic observer." It receives everything, it has an input stream but it doesn't affect anything.
Observation without change is impossible, it's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Right. I said before, "this is a human name for something totally alien."
I see. This is really just an analogy to help a human mind understand the "cosmic observer" state. Much like I would use the analogy of a two-dimensional being's existence, relative to ours, to help a human mind comprehend higher dimensions (which the human mind is not really capable of actually conceiving).
Thanks. I really didn't mean you don't read them, I only wanted to call for high sensitivity.
That makes sense.
And the call was successful, judging by your response, as it was brilliantly responsive.
You're intelligent and I'm in envy. Be proud! [:)]
Thank you very much [t)], and I promise not to mention that I disagree (oops).
You know, nothing is left for me beyond this thread [;)].
Well, the revival of an old "meta-paradigm" thread might help us share these insights with the rest of the members, would it?
These two questions point at the same thing. I learnt about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).
Rather paradoxical, don't you think?
Originally posted by drag
I do not understand the meaning of the word "think".
I know it has a linguistic definition and I know
and understand what it is supposed to refer to. However,
when I answer a question such as the above I need to
be adequetly = scientificly certain of its meaning
and unfortunetly I'm not, at all.
Live long and prosper.
Well, to "think" is to process incoming data.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
"Fairness," "precision and "clarity," all my criteria of preference, are part of my current paradigm, and the remnant of my previous ways.
I know that I'll always be biased someway, why not determine part of my biases consciously. Most individuals are satisfied this way but I know you're clever and you'll ask, "Why consciously? Why do you prefer it?" And I have no answer. After all, relativity is everywhere, even in relativity itself.
Thus you admit your human nature. I am bound in exactly the same way. We are all "going down with this particular ship" and have absolutely no way out.
Kind of makes your mind claustrophobic, doesn't it?
Your answers are the best I could think of even though I can't tell you more about them. I don't know the answers. I don't even know if the questions are eligible. No one can tell others of right and wrong when they've reached this balance.
There are countless questions which may never be answered.
Yes, but speculating on them is fun (in this paradigm).
"Existence" itself is part of your current paradigm, "concept" as well.
Can't argue with that - except to point out that, in a discussion of entities that only exist within my paradigm, we are forced (by some unknown human tendency towards logic) to use the logic of that paradigm.
These things can be explained for in other ways as well. They needn't be result of "a shared part of individual paradigms." These other ways are equally creditable.
Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them. One has a free port of type A, the other has a free port of type B. In order to connect them using one line your have to choose a line that is able of translating A to B and B to A. Now the two appliances are able of talking to each other. Appliance 1 produces a message, M1, that is put on the line by its port of type A, the line translates A to B and Appliance 2 reads a message, M2, from its port of type B. M1 and M2 aren't identical, even worse they may be of different natures, for example, M1 may be a mechanical movement while M2 is an electrical pulse. The two appliances can talk continuously without noticing inconsistency as if they were connected without any translator in between. Although the two appliances are totally different and may experience totally different experiences they can "share" these experiences. They may even "cooperate" on this basis as long as they follow an innate protocol on interpreting each other's messages. Their only chance of getting notified of the situation is when one of them tries to "understand" the other's messages as if they were its own messages. Now, the messages may seem totally absurd and the pondering appliance will get confused.
[g)][o)]
Hasn't it come? Are we still "distinct beings?"
That depends on your "body of knowledge". As I see it, in a meta-paradigm - which is where the "cosmic observer" must reside - all paradigms are just twists of the reality that both is, isn't, and some other option that I know nothing of. [:)]
An interesting aspect of a paradigm is its interaction with its inhabitant. The inhabitant is characterized by its paradigm for its image of itself has been gained through the same paradigm. Its entire actualities and potentials lie somewhere in the paradigm. In a sense, it "knows" all that can become "known" to it for the paradigm determines all that "is" and all that "can be" and the bearer of a paradigm realizes its paradigm.
Nevertheless, analysis of paradigms is only part of my current paradigm, like you said.
This also makes my mind feel claustrophobic.
*Sudden thought*: Have we taken a sort of "side-ways" approach toward the true Uncertainty, which really doesn't exist, in this paradigm? You see, we can't actually approach Uncertainty, but there is something that it's concept is hinting at (perhaps meta-paradigms) and we seem to be at least seeing faint shadows of it.
I don't know.
Are you sure about that? [;)]
Brilliant! Yet like an arrow in the darkness...
You have it there, it's the human situation.
Yeah, but one can't strike the human situation, without stepping outside of it, and one cannot step outside of it, without wanting to (as a result of the human condition). Thus, any attempt we make to leave it, lands us right back in it.
The frustration could drive one mad!
That's an assumption you have to prove "consciously." I guess there's no way out.
Well, consciousness exists, in the human paradigm. Also, any attempt to prove anything must be done consciously, and is thus just as hopeless.
Or it forces "you" into putting restrictions where there needn't be restrictions [;)].
Yes!! And then, when you try to break free, you realize that breaking free is just another form of restriction.
Something from Tao-te Ching (not to be taken too seriously):
20. 1. When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?
What all men fear is indeed to be feared; but how wide and without end is the range of questions (asking to be discussed)!
2. The multitude of men look satisfied and pleased; as if enjoying a full banquet, as if mounted on a tower in spring. I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled. I look dejected and forlorn, as if I had no home to go to. The multitude of men all have enough and to spare. I alone seem to have lost everything. My mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of chaos.
Ordinary men look bright and intelligent, while I alone seem to be benighted. They look full of discrimination, while I alone am dull and confused. I seem to be carried about as on the sea, drifting as if I had nowhere to rest. All men have their spheres of action, while
I alone seem dull and incapable, like a rude borderer. (Thus) I alone am different from other men, but I value the nursing-mother (the Tao).
Very interesting.
Well said. And what concept doesn't defy definition?
Well, complex concepts have definitions, but one could just take the reductionist approach, succesfully bringing them to their most basic level, and then all that is left is either a circular reasoning system, or nothing at all (drag stated this a bit more eloquently, IMO, but this is the gist).
Good question. Very good indeed. Alas, I have no answer for it... like countless other questions.
And yet, it's starting to seem as though we must both embrace our ignorance, and try to pursue knowledge, at the same time.
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, to "think" is to process incoming data.
Hmm... O.K. In that case it's clear.
Next, I do not understand what "I am" means.
akhenaten
Jun6-03, 10:02 PM
The subjective experience of thoughts does not justify the conclusion of 'I am'. Because linguistically and conceptually we always associate thoughts with an 'I', 'you', 'him' or 'her', it was natural for Descartes to do the same, yet from that habit he produced a supposed proof of the existence of the Self, upon which much philosophy (esp Continental philosophy) was based.
All he was justified in saying was 'there appear to be thoughts' or something similar.
His proof of God was equally flawed.
Manuel_Silvio
Jun7-03, 09:45 AM
Greetz,
1. For Mentat:
Silvio: These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being."
Mentat: YES! This is why I rebelled against the very idea for so long, but it seems rather inevitable doesn't it?You mean this situation is inevitable? Inbound Aristotelian logic, you're right but we could simply use another logical system capable of expressing Existence. This new logical system will have its own deficiency but this one may be located somewhere less controversial.
A modification of Aristotelian logic would suffice: just throw away the restriction on Loop and Paradox. We'll have a new logical system at hand which is less error-prone and more capable of expressing what we esteem more in our current paradigm (eg, it may be less capable in another paradigm).
Wait a minute, I thought that all statements, of the form "I [beep]" were inherently related to Causality.
How so?Causality's dominance is part of our current condition. It's become dominant through centuries of Science's effort for establishing its necessary yet not sufficient principle.
A few centuries ago Causality wasn't this much honored. What's made it so useful and honored is the paradigmic content of our times. As a farmer from Middle Ages you needn't have organized your mind in your entire life as much as a high school student does in our times. To organize your mind, to build up mental patterns, mental patterns that you're aware of, you have to observe empirical patterns and categorize them. One way of categorizing the empirical patterns is Causality (eg, you categorize events happening in a space-time locality as causally bound while you categorize other events as irrelevant or indirectly bound).
This form of categorization has gradually become dominant and has found its way into language functions. Remember, these functions have "never" been static for the language has always been fluctuating. Even current language functions aren't the same as those of, say, 40 years ago.
If scientific experiments which show Causality's insignificance (EPR Experiment, for example), as only one form of categorization and not the only one, gradually become of more importance then language functions, too, will gradually undergo changes towards more capable forms of categorization. For example, "quantum entanglement" which is used in EPR Experiment is crucial to Quantum Computation, future networking, cryptography and communication security. These new effects can no more be expressed in terms of Causality, so it will become less dominant in favor of a more capable form.
Definitely (at least, in this paradigm (*evil laughter*)).Get you on the coming paradigm [:D] (evil grin depicted).
But these wavelengths would be distinguished from darkness, would they not? If not, then the cosmic observer can never "see".Their difference from "darkness" is equal to their difference from an "Ostrich." This is the point: distinguishing incorporates "evaluation of difference," in other words, it answers the question "how much difference?" while "perception of sheer difference" incorporates only "passive re-action to difference."
A "cosmic observer" only "passively re-acts." It's shaken and it shakes, it's moved and it moves. The re-action to being shaken and being moved is different but the difference is "sheer," there's no "evaluation of difference."
And yes, a cosmic observer "can't see," in human sense; just as much as an electron can be said to be "unaware," in human sense.
Observation without change is impossible, it's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.That's another ground for the claim that "cosmic observer" is an impossible state for human beings.
That's why I called my particle an "exceptional" particle. Clearly, it's non-existent, as an entity, but as a concept we can think of it.
Well, the revival of an old "meta-paradigm" thread might help us share these insights with the rest of the members, would it?Surely, but not now. Of course, you're free to open a "meta-paradigm" topic but I won't be able to participate, for I need some time free. And this isn't meant to cut my participation in this topic, "I think therefore I am." I'll be here until I've nothing more to say.
Silvio: These two questions point at the same thing. I learnt about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).
Mentat: Rather paradoxical, don't you think?Why paradoxical? Human thoughts are all "anthropomorphic," only to different degrees.
"Human is the ultimate creation" is utterly anthropomorphic while "human beings think with their brain" is much less anthropomorphic.
Thus you admit your human nature. I am bound in exactly the same way. We are all "going down with this particular ship" and have absolutely no way out.
Kind of makes your mind claustrophobic, doesn't it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but one can't strike the human situation, without stepping outside of it, and one cannot step outside of it, without wanting to (as a result of the human condition). Thus, any attempt we make to leave it, lands us right back in it.
The frustration could drive one mad!Not that much. Our options are bounded but virtually countless. We're restricted to our being human beings but we have much space, at least for being different human beings, within this restriction (a bit of optimism).
What you call "frustration," I'd rather call "Awe" and like it. This species would survive much longer if it learnt how to feel Awe against what exceeds its entire resources (more bits of optimism).
Can't argue with that - except to point out that, in a discussion of entities that only exist within my paradigm, we are forced (by some unknown human tendency towards logic) to use the logic of that paradigm.Can you have the slightest certainty on that I have the faintest idea of your paradigm?
Silvio: Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them...
Mentat: [g)][o)]
You mean it's too complicated or something? I can explain it more clearly with some mathematical notation.
Appliance 1 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:
I1 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 1}
O1 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 1}
Appliance 2 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:
I2 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 2}
O2 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 2}
Function f(x) is defined as, f: O1 -> I2.
Function g(x) is defined as, g: O2 -> I1.
Now, the connection line is f(x) from Appliance 1 to Appliance 2 and g(x) from Appliance 2 to Appliance 1.
An output of Appliance 1, which is a member of O1, is given to f(x) as x. This function maps x to f(x) and this will be a member of I2. Thus Appliance 2 will receive a message which is comprehensible to it in that it's made up of Appliance 2's possible inputs.
An output of Appliance 2, which is a member of O2, is given to g(x) as x. This function maps x to g(x) and this will be a member of I1. Thus Appliance 1 will receive a message which is comprehensible to it in that it's made up of Appliance 1's possible inputs.
The two appliances won't notice the presence of f(x) and g(x), the "translator" functions.
The two appliances can be considered human individuals, and the translator functions can be seen as their respective paradigms. The appliance won't notice the presence of different paradigms, they'll think they're using a "shared" paradigm. Presence of totally different paradigms won't be noticed and the two human individuals may think they're living in a "shared" paradigm.
*Sudden thought*: Have we taken a sort of "side-ways" approach toward the true Uncertainty, which really doesn't exist, in this paradigm?You decide... I've done no mischief, believe me [;)]...
... complex concepts have definitions, but one could just take the reductionist approach, succesfully bringing them to their most basic level, and then all that is left is either a circular reasoning system, or nothing at all...Really well said. Drag has done it really well.
And yet, it's starting to seem as though we must both embrace our ignorance, and try to pursue knowledge, at the same time.Perhaps, who knows...
Originally posted by drag
Hmm... O.K. In that case it's clear.
Next, I do not understand what "I am" means.
It means that there is an "I", to speak of.
Basically, Descartes was denouncing the Demon's attempt to convince Descartes that he (Descartes) didn't exist, by saying that the fact that the Demon had assumed Descartes to be able to think about not existing, proves that the Demon already "knew" (or rather, "believed") that Descartes existed.
Originally posted by akhenaten
The subjective experience of thoughts does not justify the conclusion of 'I am'. Because linguistically and conceptually we always associate thoughts with an 'I', 'you', 'him' or 'her', it was natural for Descartes to do the same, yet from that habit he produced a supposed proof of the existence of the Self, upon which much philosophy (esp Continental philosophy) was based.
All he was justified in saying was 'there appear to be thoughts' or something similar.
His proof of God was equally flawed.
Please see my previous post (the response to drag), as it appears that you have slightly misconstrued what Descartes said.
akhenaten
Jun7-03, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Please see my previous post (the response to drag), as it appears that you have slightly misconstrued what Descartes said.
I don't think I've misconstrued anything. The demon was essentially a conceptual device for the purpose of pushing scepticism as far as possible. Descates conclusion of 'I am' was naively taken as proof of the existence of something which was no more than a lingiustic and conceptual device ("I").
The demon was tricking him with illusions and delusions including his own existence. Descartes felt that this was the only case where he felt that this was impossible, however reach that conclusion he had to assume that thoughts had to be had by an "I".
Originally posted by akhenaten
I don't think I've misconstrued anything. The demon was essentially a conceptual device for the purpose of pushing scepticism as far as possible. Descates conclusion of 'I am' was naively taken as proof of the existence of something which was no more than a lingiustic and conceptual device ("I").
The demon was tricking him with illusions and delusions including his own existence. Descartes felt that this was the only case where he felt that this was impossible, however reach that conclusion he had to assume that thoughts had to be had by an "I".
Alright, so I guess you're not going to read what I've written before. That's alright, but you should have just told me so, so that I could re-explain it right away.
The fact that the Demon was trying to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes"), that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, proves that there is such a thing as the entity called "Descartes". Otherwise, who would the Demon have been trying to trick?
Descartes' statment comes from the fact that the Demon didn't just assume that Descartes existed, but also assumed that Descartes could think about not existing.
Preator Fenix
Jun8-03, 01:48 PM
Well I must concede that you have made some good points in conter of my examples. Thinking can be indepadant and individual, but it still does not imply presonality. Irregardless I think I can try for more lingisticly stable arguments. In your reply youve made a very good case for the fact that to think implies existance of a thinking entity. But again I ask why that would imply the existance of a personlity? In the orginal statment the demon puts into question all of descrates statments...even those of his own personality (eg. emotions) Descrates is left with only the his own very existance as a thinkging entity as his only stable reality. Personality is a subjective reality given to be very illusanary in nature. Personality is (by definition) the human copacity to generate an illusonary world for himself. But such a system can be twisted and truned to user demand rendering it irrelavant to an outside objective reality ( and in many cases personality uncheck to lead to chatostrophic error) personality can itself be at times be fundamentaly untrue and so is not at all sutible for checking the varicity of universal truths. Individual Thinking in my opion is not nessacrrly the same as personallity.
akhenaten
Jun9-03, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright, so I guess you're not going to read what I've written before. That's alright, but you should have just told me so, so that I could re-explain it right away.
The fact that the Demon was trying to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes"), that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, proves that there is such a thing as the entity called "Descartes". Otherwise, who would the Demon have been trying to trick?
Descartes' statment comes from the fact that the Demon didn't just assume that Descartes existed, but also assumed that Descartes could think about not existing.
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Descartes. Anyway, the question is not what was Descartes thinking when he wrote it, but whether he was right to conclude the absolute certainty of a discreet self from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. I hold that he was not.
The self is a construct. It is neither fixed, nor separate, nor indivisible.
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Appliance 1 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:
I1 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 1}
O1 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 1}
Appliance 2 has sets of possible inputs and outputs, defined as:
I2 = {x | x is an input of Appliance 2}
O2 = {x | x is an output of Appliance 2}
Function f(x) is defined as, f: O1 -> I2.
Function g(x) is defined as, g: O2 -> I1.
Thats very interesting example, because, imo, it encodes fundamental aspect of existence. Consider fundamental particles as appliances, and above description as fundamental interaction between the two. Add some functions for p(x): I1->O1 and q(x): I2->O2 to describe 'inherent properties' of particles, and attempt to resolve any interaction, causally.
It is immediately apparent, that such resolution is selfreferential, loop. And while at that, particle 1 has no way to distinguish between inherent property q(x) of particle 2 and translational function f(x). Same applies to other particle. Translational functions f and g can be seen as 'action-reaction', and eventual outcome of interaction as (mutual) cause-and-effect.
It seems quite obvious that there can be no 'cause' distinguishable from 'effect', or, there is no sense in asking which occurs 'before' and 'after', unless there is objective separate notion of time. Even state of the pair-system is completely undeterminate unless there is notion of quantification, in both time and state-values.
Simplest 'inherent function' is negation of input, that in case of any kind of quantification would lead to wildly oscillating system. (Which human communication in its most part .. is [;)])
Also interesting is to note that translational 'appearance' of other particle is indistinguishable from what it really is. And because particles are in mutual interaction, it appears that other particle 'is' what it 'appears' to be, and it appears to be that because 'this' particle 'is' like that. Basically this is notorius fallacy of circular reasoning.
Originally posted by Preator Fenix
Well I must concede that you have made some good points in conter of my examples. Thinking can be indepadant and individual, but it still does not imply presonality. Irregardless I think I can try for more lingisticly stable arguments. In your reply youve made a very good case for the fact that to think implies existance of a thinking entity. But again I ask why that would imply the existance of a personlity?
This is what I really haven't been able to understand about your argument. What does Descartes' "I think therefore I am" have to do with personality?
In the orginal statment the demon puts into question all of descrates statments...even those of his own personality (eg. emotions) Descrates is left with only the his own very existance as a thinkging entity as his only stable reality.
Yeah, that was the whole point of the "Demon scenario".
Personality is a subjective reality given to be very illusanary in nature. Personality is (by definition) the human copacity to generate an illusonary world for himself.
Well, I really don't understand what you are saying here; but, more importantly, I don't see the relevance to my argument.
Originally posted by akhenaten
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of Descartes.
Why not?
Anyway, the question is not what was Descartes thinking when he wrote it, but whether he was right to conclude the absolute certainty of a discreet self from the fact that thoughts were being experienced.
He didn't conclude it from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. He concluded it from the fact that thoughts were being experience by him - along with the fact that the Demon had apparently already assume his ability to "think about not existing".
akhenaten
Jun9-03, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
He didn't conclude it from the fact that thoughts were being experienced. He concluded it from the fact that thoughts were being experience by him - along with the fact that the Demon had apparently already assume his ability to "think about not existing".
"by him"? Only lack of rigour lead him to assume that thoughts had to be experienced by a 'person' in order to exist and that that person must be Descartes. He never actually experienced himself or any 'self' experiencing the thoughts - he only experienced thoughts and habit of mind and his fallacious use of the principle that if he could not conceive of something it could not exist and if he could then it could exist, and perhaps the feeling that they 'belonged' to himself.
The 'Demon' thought-experiment was no more than that. Don't get too attached to it. From the start he covertly assumes his own existence.
Originally posted by akhenaten
"by him"? Only lack of rigour lead him to assume that thoughts had to be experienced by a 'person' in order to exist and that that person must be Descartes. He never actually experienced himself or any 'self' experiencing the thoughts - he only experienced thoughts...
That is a contradiction. You said that the thoughts didn't have to be experience by a particular person, and then you said "he only experienced thoughts" - thus showing that it was, in fact, him that was thinking.
Basically, the Demon and Descartes both assumed Descartes' ability to think. The Demon assumed it when he tried to get Descartes to think about not existing, and Descartes assumed it after having actually done it. Therefore, the Demon's challenge further validate Descartes' previous belief that he existed.
The 'Demon' thought-experiment was no more than that. Don't get too attached to it. From the start he covertly assumes his own existence.
Exaclty, and the Demon's challenging it further validates it.
akhenaten
Jun9-03, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
That is a contradiction. You said that the thoughts didn't have to be experience by a particular person, and then you said "he only experienced thoughts" - thus showing that it was, in fact, him that was thinking.
No offense, but DUH! It's a figure of speech - and the due to that figure of speech Descartes made the same error as you are. Anyway, I'm not saying there is no self, I'm saying that that there is no justification for believing in a separate, certain, indivisible or fixed self.
Originally posted by Mentat
Basically, the Demon and Descartes both assumed Descartes' ability to think. The Demon assumed it when he tried to get Descartes to think about not existing, and Descartes assumed it after having actually done it. Therefore, the Demon's challenge further validate Descartes' previous belief that he existed.
Forget the goddam demon. There's no such thing as demons. What this hypothetical demon assumed or didn't assume is besides the point. It didn't exist - it was probably only there to illustrate a point and certainly would only be viewed that way nowadays. Descartes may have made that assumption, his imaginary fiend may have made that assumption, but they were wrong to and that's the point. *I* don't make that assumption. And please don't tell me I'm contradicting myself by using the word "I".
Originally posted by Mentat
Exaclty, and the Demon's challenging it further validates it.
Forget the goddam demon. Imagine instead that the source of the delusion of separate self is not a demon, but a natural artefact of neural architecture. Then nothing and no one validates it.
Originally posted by akhenaten
No offense, but DUH! It's a figure of speech - and the due to that figure of speech Descartes made the same error as you are. Anyway, I'm not saying there is no self, I'm saying that that there is no justification for believing in a separate, certain, indivisible or fixed self.
I'm trying to understand your point, but I may have missed it. Are you saying that there are not necessarily "many people"?
Forget the goddam demon. There's no such thing as demons.
Whatever. If you get rid of the demon, you have to replace it with someone else, who is trying to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist, and you have the same situation. It needn't be a demon.
What this hypothetical demon assumed or didn't assume is besides the point. It didn't exist - it was probably only there to illustrate a point and certainly would only be viewed that way nowadays.
I know that the Demon was just there to illustrate the point. That's why you should be looking at the point being made, instead of worrying about who or what it was that was (in the illustration) trying to convince Descartes that he didn't exist.
Descartes may have made that assumption, his imaginary fiend may have made that assumption, but they were wrong to and that's the point. *I* don't make that assumption. And please don't tell me I'm contradicting myself by using the word "I".
Well, you've already told yourself, so I needn't tell you.
Anyway, what you don't realize is that if it was "you" in the illustration, instead of a Demon, you still couldn't convince Descartes that he didn't exist, because in trying to, you assume there is someone to convince. Do you get it now?
akhenaten
Jun9-03, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm trying to understand your point, but I may have missed it. Are you saying that there are not necessarily "many people"?
I'm saying there is not neccessarily even a single Person of the discreet, self-contained nature that we might expect.
Originally posted by Mentat
Whatever. If you get rid of the demon, you have to replace it with someone else, who is trying to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist, and you have the same situation. It needn't be a demon.
It needn't be an aentity of any sort. Epistemological doubt can come from many sources.
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you've already told yourself, so I needn't tell you.
Grrr...[;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
Anyway, what you don't realize is that if it was "you" in the illustration, instead of a Demon, you still couldn't convince Descartes that he didn't exist, because in trying to, you assume there is someone to convince. Do you get it now?
I understand. For this argument to work then you have to make two assumptions:
1 for thoughts to occur there must be a Person having the thoughts
2 If someone tried to trick Descartes, Descartes would have to be exist in order to be tricked.
1. simply does not follow logically - its just a habit of thinking
2. assumes the existence of the 'Person' being tricked from the start
Originally posted by akhenaten
I'm saying there is not neccessarily even a single Person of the discreet, self-contained nature that we might expect.
Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.
It needn't be an aentity of any sort. Epistemological doubt can come from many sources.
But whatever source it comes from must be an entity (and not just any entity, but an entity that is capable of doubting).
Grrr...[;)]
Just couldn't resist [;)].
I understand. For this argument to work then you have to make two assumptions:
1 for thoughts to occur there must be a Person having the thoughts
Actually, that's not exactly correct. In order for one entity to cause another entity to think, there must be two entities.
So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.
2 If someone tried to trick Descartes, Descartes would have to be exist in order to be tricked.
Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?
1. simply does not follow logically - its just a habit of thinking
That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), [color=red]any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.
2. assumes the existence of the 'Person' being tricked from the start
Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.
Originally posted by Mentat
It means that there is an "I", to speak of.
Basically, Descartes was denouncing the Demon's attempt to convince Descartes that he (Descartes) didn't exist, by saying that the fact that the Demon had assumed Descartes to be able to think about not existing, proves that the Demon already "knew" (or rather, "believed") that Descartes existed.
I'm not certain how exactly the proccessing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff. Even if such a distinction is
assumed it only has the data itself to be applied to,
so there's seemingly no likely possibility of any other
type of related distinction. Further more even that type
of distinction is unproved since first it must be proved
that proccessing of the data indeed takes place rather than
just more misleading input, and that's kin'na hard to do... [;)]
Again, I just don't understand the assense of the statement.
It seems meaningless to me.
Live long and prosper.
Originally posted by drag
I'm not certain how exactly the proccessing of incoming data
is a proof of any kind of the existence of a distinction
of the form - I + other stuff.
It is not the processing of incoming data that Descartes was refering to (though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?), it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.
Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statment that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.
akhenaten
Jun12-03, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Then who was the Demon trying to convince. (Edit: It needn't be a Demon, the point is that if someone is trying to convince Entity D that Entity D doesn't exist, they just further validate that there is such a thing as Entity D.
You are assuming Entity status from the start. Assume as little as possible. All that is known ie observed is a (loosely defined) pattern or body of thoughts and beliefs. If another process 'intends' to change that pattern of thoughts and beliefs, nowhere is there an indication that either grouping of events has the status of a distinct 'entity'.
Originally posted by Mentat
So basically, to re-phrase your #1 point: For an entity to think, there must be an entity, and that entity must be capable of thinking.
You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.
There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts
does not follow.
Originally posted by Mentat
Pretty much. Otherwise, who would be being tricked?
A pattern of thoughts and beliefs is changes into another pattern of thoughts and beliefs.
Originally posted by Mentat
That's both true and false. Manuel and I have gone over this many times. It does follow logically, provided you take Causality to be a necessity. Also (*important point*), [color=red]any statement of the form "I [bleep]" (no matter what verb you use to replace "[bleep]") implies causality, as it indentifies both the action, and the one doing.
Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.
Originally posted by Mentat
Which is exactly what someone does, when they start to try to convince someone that they don't exist.
Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately. The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules. 'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind. A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.
Originally posted by akhenaten
You are assuming Entity status from the start.
Yes, when someone says "I think", you have to assume that there both is an entity (I) and that it thinks.
You have to remember that Descartes illustration of the Demon (which tried to convince him that he didn't exist) is the context of the statement, and thus the meaning of the statement lies in the illustration.
You see, in order for the Demon to attempt to convince Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") that he (the entity called "Descartes") didn't exist, he had to assume that there was an entity called "Descartes" to convince. I believe I've said this before. What is so confusing about it?
You're just not getting it. Every time you are introducing the 'Entity' status at the start of the argument. Is it any revelation that you find at the end? No 'entity' is observed - only thoughts.
That's the point that keeps stopping you from seeing Descartes's reasoning - no one was observing that there were thoughts occuring. All that happened was a Demon assumed that Descartes was capable of thinking about not existing. But, if Descartes (the entity called "Descartes") is capable of thinking about not existing, then there is an entity called "Descartes" that is capable of thinking. So, it is not just a though being observed, it is a Demon (or whatever you wish to substitute for it in the illustration) assuming that the entity called "Descartes" can think (about not existing).
There are thoughts
Therefore an entity exists which is having the thoughts
does not follow.
No, but it does follow that: "I am going to convince Descartes that he doesn't exist" = There is an I
There is a Descartes
I am capable of convincing
He is capable of being convinced
Only because that is the *common conception* of the situation and hence, the linguistic form that such statements make. You would have a hard time finding the 'I' in any detailed causal description. 'I' is just a useful label attached to a particular clump of events.
Well if that particular "clump of events" happens to be an entity (as all "clumps" are (obviously)), then I can't even speak of a "clump" without speaking of an entity.
Yes, but our conceptual / linguistic model of social interaction involving symbols/labels such as 'Person A' and 'Person B' do not necessarily describe reality accurately.
And I'm not saying that it does. However, in a statement of the form "I [bleep]" there must be an "I", because "I" was identified in the statement.
The Self has no more intrinsic reality than an inanimate object such as a cup, which in itself is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of molecules.
Well this is a whole other discussion, entirely.
'Cup' is just a label and a concept existing in the mind.
But you cannot label something, unless it exists (which is another point that Descartes was making, when he said that the Demon couldn't convince him that didn't exist - what is the Demon refering to as "non-existent" if not the entity called Descartes?).
A mind has no more right to the status of 'separate', fixed' or 'indivisible' than does a cup or a family of swans as it floats across a lake.
But is not a cup divisible/distinguishable from a family of swans?
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
(though, really, how can data be processed unless there exists a "processor"?),
How do you know that data are being proccessed ?
Maybe it's just more data.
Originally posted by Mentat
it was the fact that the Demon (or whoever would have attempted to convince Descartes that he didn't exist) had to assume that there was a Descartes, otherwise he would have no one to convince. He also had to assume that this Descartes (whose existence he has already assumed) is capable of thinking about not existing.
Thus, "cogito ergo sum" is Descartes way of saying, "you can't convince me that I don't exist, because you would have to assume that 'I think' (that I can think about not existing), which is a statment that both identifies the deed (thinking) and the doer (I)". And, of course, the identification of the doer, is a proof of the doer's existence.
How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?
The whole situation is flawed enitially because it assumes
a Demon entity that is independent of all obsrvation that
asks the question. However, in reality that does not appear
to be possible and if the Demon is part of the observed
data then it's question makes no sense. You see, the
whole situation here requires a seperation that doesn't
actually appear to exist and thus the whole thing's seemingly pointless.
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Live long and prosper.
M. Gaspar
Jun15-03, 01:24 PM
"I post, therefore I subscribe"...to this thread, not necessarily to Descarte's statement.
Was directed here...but no time to read just now.
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
How do you know that data are being proccessed ?
Maybe it's just more data.
Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).
How could Descrates separate the Demon from the
rest of observation and thus make any sense in
saying "I am" as an answer to the Demon's request for
proof ?
What does that mean? He didn't say that the fact that "he was" was proof that "he was", that would be foolish. He just said that the Demon had already assumed that "he was" - otherwise he (the Demon) would have no one to convince of their non-existence.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, the Demon was assuming that Descartes could think about not existing (IOW, it assumed that Descartes could process the information of the concept of non-existence).
Yes, but can Descartes himself proccess ?
Maybe the Demon, what he said and Descrates' thoughts
are just data with no real meaning, as he attempts
to provide here - of separate and/or real Demon/
/Descrates/Descartes' thoughts and so on.
In short, leaving the demon part alone for the moment,
how's all of that at all known ? How can you actually
know anything for certain ? In an abstract hypothetical
situation that may be possible, but Descartes is trying to
mess with our actual perception of reality here.
Originally posted by Mentat
What does that mean?
I am trying to explain why the situation doesn't make sense
and thus there is no real value to the relevant statement.
The relevant problems and assumptions are :
1. A Demon - even with no regards to its qualities this
is an assumption of real existence of a separate entity.
2. Think - that word, when applied to reality, contains
an assumption that says that you can cause something to
change in observation - new relevant thoughts/actions and so on.
3. I am - refers to a distinction. (of what ?)
4. The whole situation - an absolute matter of interpretation(example: what if in another language the Demon's words
mean something totally different ? [g)] So, what and
how can absolute communication - another relevant supposedly
real entity here, take place ? As a further example, all our
current communication requires accepted norms - objectivity -
axioms of communication and the accepted reasoning that we use.)
In conclusion, Descartes may've invented a nice abstract
thingy but as something with real meaning it makes
no sense, not even in the likely manner that other things
make sense to us today - because absolutes appear unavoidable
in the posed situation and statement.
Is it clearer now ?
Live long and prosper.
Deslaar
Jun17-03, 06:18 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, I just don't have the patience so if this has already been discussed then I apologise.
First I voted yes because I believe that, for the most part, Descartes got it right.
Descartes application of systematic doubt to the world that he saw around him was intended to achieve one thing. That thing was a philosophical foundation to build from that was beyond doubt. The result is the cogito. While some have argued that Descartes does not go far enough and that "I think, therefore I am" should be reduced to "there are thoughts", the first step in any reconstruction is assigning those thoughts to something in much the same way we assign sensation or emotion to someone. Pain cannot exist without a possessor, just as thought cannot.
Originally posted by drag
Yes, but can Descartes himself proccess ?
That's the point, the Demon assumed that there was such a thing as and entity called Descartes in the first place (because he assumed that he could convince that entity that he didn't exist). How is this so complicated that it should be beyond understanding? No offense, but can you actually address the fact that, in order for entity A to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, there must be and entity B and that entity must be assumed to be capable of thinking?
Maybe the Demon, what he said and Descrates' thoughts
are just data with no real meaning, as he attempts
to provide here - of separate and/or real Demon/
/Descrates/Descartes' thoughts and so on.
But there is no such thing as thoughts without a thinker (seriously, I mean that, because "think" is a verb. A verb is an action, and an action requires a subject that is acting. For example, the following cannot be a complete sentence: "Thought."
It cannot be a complete sentence because it is just a preposition, with no subject. Now, I know that this has direct reference to Causality, and that Causality is not provable, however it still demonstrates that any statement of the form "P [bleeps]" (where P is an entity and [bleeps] is a verb), requires both the presence of an entity and an action done by that entity.
In short, leaving the demon part alone for the moment,
how's all of that at all known ? How can you actually
know anything for certain ?
All you can know for certain is your own existence, because to contemplate non-existence require that you exist. Wuliheron has had his own way of making much the same point, but it is pretty much what Descartes was saying too.
I am trying to explain why the situation doesn't make sense
and thus there is no real value to the relevant statement.
The relevant problems and assumptions are :
1. A Demon - even with no regards to its qualities this
is an assumption of real existence of a separate entity.
One has to assume this from the start, because the whole reasoning takes place in the context of someone attempting to convince someone else that they don't exist.
2. Think - that word, when applied to reality, contains
an assumption that says that you can cause something to
change in observation - new relevant thoughts/actions and so on.
Yes, and the Demon had made this assumption.
Remember, the whole point of Descartes' statement was to reveal the flaw in the Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (because the Demon had to make the assumptions that you have pointed out, before trying to get Descartes to deny the very same assumptions).
3. I am - refers to a distinction. (of what ?)
"I am" doesn't refer to a distinction, but rather to the existence of "I".
Originally posted by Deslaar
I haven't read this whole thread, I just don't have the patience so if this has already been discussed then I apologise.
First I voted yes because I believe that, for the most part, Descartes got it right.
Descartes application of systematic doubt to the world that he saw around him was intended to achieve one thing. That thing was a philosophical foundation to build from that was beyond doubt. The result is the cogito. While some have argued that Descartes does not go far enough and that "I think, therefore I am" should be reduced to "there are thoughts", the first step in any reconstruction is assigning those thoughts to something in much the same way we assign sensation or emotion to someone. Pain cannot exist without a possessor, just as thought cannot.
This is much appreciated, even this far into the thread (after all, the thread took a powerful digressive turn (into a discussion of Aristotelian Logic, it's flaws, human paradigms, the possibility of a "meta-paradigm", etc), and Descartes' reasoning has been on the back burner). I agree with your reasoning here, btw, and it is much like what I posted to drag: any statement of the form "P [bleep]" (where "P" is an entity and "[bleep]" is an action) has direct reference to Causality.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point, the Demon assumed that there was such a thing as and entity called Descartes in the first place (because he assumed that he could convince that entity that he didn't exist). How is this so complicated that it should be beyond understanding? No offense, but can you actually address the fact that, in order for entity A to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, there must be and entity B and that entity must be assumed to be capable of thinking?
That's not the point. I don't care about Demons or whatever.
From the perspective of Decartes the Demon came to him
and posed the question - but, is that TRUE ? How can it be
proved then ?! How can he know that he thinks and makes
sense of the question posed ? How can he be certain of
anything ?
Originally posted by Mentat
But there is no such thing as thoughts without a thinker...
Funny, I was not aware of a proven existence of the
concept "thoughts".
Originally posted by Mentat
All you can know for certain is your own existence, because to contemplate non-existence require that you exist. Wuliheron has had his own way of making much the same point, but it is pretty much what Descartes was saying too.
STOP ! You can not know for certain "your own" existence !
All you can know for certain IS existence - no shape,
no form, no definitions (and you can't even prove this
claim [;)]). That's what wuli talked about, but NOT Descartes.
Originally posted by Mentat
One has to assume this from the start, because the whole reasoning takes place in the context of someone attempting to convince someone else that they don't exist.
Good hypothesys, bad reality. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, and the Demon had made this assumption.
Remember, the whole point of Descartes' statement was to reveal the flaw in the Demon's attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (because the Demon had to make the assumptions that you have pointed out, before trying to get Descartes to deny the very same assumptions).
No, you have to look at an even broader picture of the
situation - which is precisely why you may feel I'm pushing
you so hard with this most basic level definition and truth stuff.
Descartes indeed used a hypothetical situation, however
he attempted and meant to extract a REAL relevant conclusion
from this situation. I am trying to show you that even if he
was talking about the neighbor and not the Demon and said
that the whole thing actualy happened to him yesterday -
his conclusion is still unbased and uses absolute assumptions.
That's why I'm saying that his statement makes no real sense.
I couldn't care less if it was just about a hypothetical situation and a hypothetical statement. But, that's not what he meant.
Originally posted by Mentat
"I am" doesn't refer to a distinction, but rather to the
existence of "I".
The only way that "I" does not make a distinction, apparently,
is if "I" is a synonym for existence.
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Live long and prosper.
DR OF DEATH
Jun23-03, 08:38 AM
i think im thinking, therefore i possiably am.
oooohh that throws a metaphorical spanner into the metaphorical works doesnt it.[6)]
Originally posted by drdeath
i think im thinking, therefore i possiably am.
oooohh that throws a metaphorical spanner into the metaphorical works doesnt it.[6)]
Thanks for your participation, drdeath, however I if you can state with confidence that you (the entity that is you) is thinking, then you must assume that there is such a thing as you (which is the point of Descartes' reasoning). There is no uncertainty of one's existence, if one is definitely thinking.
akhenaten
Jun23-03, 10:33 AM
But one doesn't know one is thinking. One doesn't know that the thoughts are had by oneself, or anyone else's self. One only experiences thoughts. That thoughts are had by 'selves' is a a concepual and linguistic habit, which is why D assumes that the thoughts are had by a self - his self to be specific.
That there is a phenomenon of thinking is all that is truly known.
Originally posted by drag
That's not the point. I don't care about Demons or whatever.
From the perspective of Decartes the Demon came to him
and posed the question - but, is that TRUE ? How can it be
proved then ?! How can he know that he thinks and makes
sense of the question posed ?
"How can he know that he thinks"? How about the fact that he did (in obvious fact) concieve of the idea of a Demon? You yourself said that from his persepective, a Demon posed a question. How can one concieve of a Demon, unless they are concieving (thinking)?
How can he be certain of
anything ?
He wasn't certain of all that much, but he was seeking certainty, and thus tried to stay within the bounds of what he knew for certain to be true - one of which was his own existence (because, if he knew anything at all (or thought of anything at all, including the idea of his non-existence) then there must be a "he" who knows whatever it is "he" knows).
Funny, I was not aware of a proven existence of the
concept "thoughts".
Funny, I was under the impression one could not "think" something was "funny" unless one could "think".
STOP ! You can not know for certain "your own" existence !
All you can know for certain IS existence - no shape,
no form, no definitions (and you can't even prove this
claim [;)]).
Wait a minute, drag, you have used the word "you" in this statement more than enough times to undermine your own stance. If "I" can't be certain of anything else, "I" can still be certain that there is an "I" that is uncertain of everything else.
Good hypothesys, bad reality. [;)]
What do you mean? It's true. That's what the context was. If you go into a situation where entity A is trying to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, you have to assume that there is such a thing as entity B and entity A (obviously).
No, you have to look at an even broader picture of the
situation - which is precisely why you may feel I'm pushing
you so hard with this most basic level definition and truth stuff.
Descartes indeed used a hypothetical situation, however
he attempted and meant to extract a REAL relevant conclusion
from this situation. I am trying to show you that even if he
was talking about the neighbor and not the Demon and said
that the whole thing actualy happened to him yesterday -
his conclusion is still unbased and uses absolute assumptions.
No, his conclusion is correct, regardless of who/what it is that tries to convince him (notice "convince him") that he doesn't exist.
Let me ask you something: How is it that you attempt to explain entity A's attempt to convince entity B that entity B doesn't exist, without ever refering to entity A or B?
The only way that "I" does not make a distinction, apparently,
is if "I" is a synonym for existence.
Not exactly. To speak of any entity is to assume it's existence - as how can you speak of something that doesn't (at least conceptually) exist? - thus, "I" is just a reference to an entity like any other reference to an entity, but all entities exist (at least conceptually).
Originally posted by akhenaten
But one doesn't know one is thinking. One doesn't know that the thoughts are had by oneself, or anyone else's self. One only experiences thoughts.
And here you contradict yourself, and this contradiction is extremely important. You cannot say that one "experiences thoughts" without refering to "one". You see? One can know that one is thinking, because they know that they are thinking about thinking. This needn't go into infinite regress (btw), because you already said "one experiences thoughts".
That thoughts are had by 'selves' is a a concepual and linguistic habit, which is why D assumes that the thoughts are had by a self - his self to be specific.
Why do you refer to "D" (one entity), and then say that "D" assumes (which requires thought), while trying to support an argument against the belief in seperate selves, and the ability of individuals to think? This is counter-productive. Usually, when one runs into so many self-contradictions, there is something wrong with what they are trying to say.
That there is a phenomenon of thinking is all that is truly known.
Truly known by who?
akhenaten
Jun23-03, 02:38 PM
Why do I phrase it in this way? because it is built into our language. Let me rephrase:
The phenomenon of thoughts exists
And what can we deduce from that? Nothing.
In fact, even that is misleading because I use the word 'thoughts' whereas a true sceptic would not make any assumptions about the nature of what he experienced.
Really I should just try to render a stream of D's consciousness:
...must rememeber to write new book...this is such a great idea I've had ...I think therefore I am...wow I'm so amazingly clever...this could form the basis for a whole new pointless movement in continental philosophy...damn I'm good...oh no I've not fed the cat for three days...couldn't have done it if I hadn't thought of sitting in this oven...must be the fumes...
At what point does it become safe for one of these thoughts to deduce that it and all the other thoughts are 'had' by a self? At what point is a self ever experienced?
Greetings !
Mentat, I'm afraid that after reading your response to my
message I can see that my attempts at an explanation of
my opinion on this issue are apparently futile.
All I can advise you is something another Greek philosopher
(probably a much better and smarter one than Descartes) -
Socrates, considered of prime importance - "Question everything". [;)]
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Peace and long life.
This is for my friend Mentat,
This is true:
To the insane, sanity appears insane.
To the irrational, rationality appears irrational.
To name a thing is to limit it.
(Think about it.)
This is said:
Royce: I know nothing.
Wuliheron: All including existence is paradox.
Manuel_Silvio: All including existence is uncertainty.
This has been shown:
Einsein showed the world that everything in physics and life is relative to the observer.
Niels Bohr et al, showed the world that everything in physics and life is uncertain.
Mentat, at your stage in life it is important to have a strong firm foundation made of what you know and believe on which to stand and build. Just keep in mind that this foundation is a tool, a useful and necessary tool for here and now, but none the less an illusion. Do not build too high or too strong with your blocks of knowledge.
Do not make strong walls or high castles with your blocks of knowledge for there will come a time in your life when the walls and castles you build may become your prison from which you may never escape. Or they may fade away and become quicksand and you may sink into the abyss.
If you remember in your mind and heart that nothing is known for certain and all is paradox, then when your foundation and walls melt away into the illusion that they are, and you will have no place to stand, no where to place your feet. You will be set free to float like a leave carried on the breeze or soar high into the skies like the clouds drifting in the wind.
With everything relative, unknown and uncertain, nothing will be impossible, nothing will be unthinkable, nothing will be irrational. Everything will be possible, thinkable and rational. Paradox will become doors to open and go through into new worlds of thought and being or at least windows to look through and see those new worlds if you are timid.
I speak/write in metaphor and allegory because it is much easier to express and convey these thoughts by image than by words alone.
akhenaten
Jun23-03, 08:58 PM
Whoah! I'm starting to hallucinate just from reading that...
Very concisely and poetically put Royce.
DR OF DEATH
Jun24-03, 09:17 AM
but how do i know i exist what if i am just a figment of somethings imagination, or part of a computer programme, that is programmed to think it exists and to believe that its thoughts are its own and real.??
Another God
Jun24-03, 09:54 AM
I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?
Its a contingent truth. It just so happens that 'You' exist.... Whether 'You' is physically anything like you appear to yourself or not is another question, but if YOU can ask whether you exist, then you have already answered your own question.
DR OF DEATH
Jun24-03, 10:29 AM
but if i am just a part of somethings vivid imagination or computer programme (matrix situation) then i would think i exist. but would in fact not exist in any tangiable / physical sense, but in a metaphorical sense i may exist.
there is a difference between the two.
Greetings !
Royce, not bad ! [:))] wuli would be proud ! [:D]
Originally posted by Another God
I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?
Is he/she ? [;)]
I don't know, in fact, I don't even know if I really don't know...[:D]
Live long and prosper.
Another God
Jun24-03, 04:40 PM
What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?
I am certain that everyone defines themselves as their mind. As such, to ask "Do I really exist?" is a silly question, because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).
maximus
Jun24-03, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Another God
What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?
they're the same thing. you can't have one without the other.
maximus
Jun24-03, 05:47 PM
here's what i see: in the phrase "i think therefore i am" the key word is am. if you take this to mean "i think therefore i exist" then it is obvious. you could not think without being in a state of existance. (in this case, the reverse or "i am therefore i think" does not hold true becuase inanimate life doesn't think)
but if you take am to mean something else, then i'm forced to ask: am what?
Greetings !
Originally posted by Another God
...because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).
How can one know that he actualy knows ? Maybe thought
is a prewritten script that can't change and hence
you don't think and don't know - you just "watch".
Assumption is futile...[:D]
Originally posted by maximus
in the phrase "i think therefore i am" the key word is am. if you take this to mean "i think therefore i exist" then it is obvious. you could not think without being in a state of existance. (in this case, the reverse or "i am therefore i think" does not hold true
Indeed. To add some clartification, I hope that's what you meant
as well(I didn't understand the inanimate part):
"I think therefore I exist" is, apparently, a statement
that is correct. But, of course, it is a hypothetical
statement since it is relevant if we assume we think.
As for the opposite statement - "I exist therewfore I think",
the entire statement is a clear assumption about existence.
Thus, clearly, not even apparently true/false but reather
more of a subjective nature as this thread appears to demonstrate.
Live long and prosper.
maximus
Jun24-03, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by drag
How can one know that he actualy knows ? Maybe thought
is a prewritten script that can't change and hence
you don't think and don't know - you just "watch".
Assumption is futile...[:D]
very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completly unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.
To add some clartification, I hope that's what you meant
as well(I didn't understand the inanimate part):
"I think therefore I exist" is, apparently, a statement
that is correct. But, of course, it is a hypothetical
statement since it is relevant if we assume we think.
what i meant by the reverse does not hold true (or i am therefore i think) becuase you can be a rock and not think. you still exist but you do not therefore think.
Thanks akhenaten and drag. I wonder what mentat thought of it or even if hes seen it yet.
Okay, maximus different day, different thread, you ready? No I'm not picking on you just coincidence if yopu brelieve in coincidences too.
First a rock can't think or wonder if it exists so that part is not relevant. Some time ago in another but similar thread I said that Descartes had it wrong or backwards. It should read "I exist; therefore, I think." Caught all kinds of H*** about that because it out of context and not within the subject of the thread that was concerned with Descartes and I didn't understand.
My point was that only a rational, intelligent, aware being could conceive or say "I". If the "I" could say that I, it's existence was already determined and proven. No longer a question worth discussing. If it coukd say "I" then it must think for thats was consious aware being do, THINK. We have no choice really. We are always thinking. The original I think; therefor, I am is redundant and stateing the obvious. But then it is the same my way too.
I've got to go along with Manuel and say the entire statement is meaningless.
maximus
Jun24-03, 06:52 PM
another thing i realize. the word "I" is an issue. by "I" you you mean my conciousness, becuase after i die my body still exists but is that the same thing? if we're talking about the body beyond the consciousness, than we'd exist even if we didn't think. (i am, therefore i don't think) (after death)
(sorry, AG, i think this is what you were asking in your earlier question, but i answered too quickly)
maximus
Jun24-03, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Royce
First a rock can't think or wonder if it exists so that part is not relevant. Some time ago in another but similar thread I said that Descartes had it wrong or backwards. It should read "I exist; therefore, I think."
this can lead to problems. if you are a rock you still exist, no? but you do not think or ponder about existance. therefore you can exist and not think. you can exist and think, yes. (we're doing it now, actually) -talk about multitasking! but your existance (if by existance you mean we can be located in a position) does not imply thought.
No it doesn't about that your right of course. the statement inclusr bot "I" and think so rocks while they may exix=st in realityare not part of this subject. Let sleeping rocks lie, I always say.[:D]
maximus
Jun24-03, 07:03 PM
the next question to your claim would be what state of "I" are you talking about? (see my above post)
Maximus,
The state of the "I" that I'm talking about is any state that can concieve of, be aware of, be conscious of itself and utter, write or think "I" meaning "me and all that I am", alive or dead, in or out of objective reality, in this plane or any other plane of existence or dimension.
If it can concieve of "I" and is consciously aware then it is my assertion that is exists. No other limits or assertions or proof are needed. Merely being self aware and knowing that it is "I" is enough all else is redundant surplufous and unnecessary to prove or comment upon it's existence.
I don't care if it is a computer program or hardware. I don't care if its a spirit or ghost. I don't care if its alive or dead or inanimate. I don't care if its a dream. I don't even care if its you or me. If it meets the above minimum criteria, it is. It exists.
It is of course not the only thing that exist; but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.
maximus
Jun25-03, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Royce
It is of course not the only thing that exist; but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.
oh? this is remenisanct of the old "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" if a rock exists, and nobody is around to observe it does it still exist. the universe does not go away when you close your eyes.
Greetings !
Originally posted by maximus
very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completly unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.
Saying I do think is also quite pointless. If it were
useful then it would not be philosophy but rather
turn into physics. The point is not the usefullness of
this statement, rather it is open-mindedness and recognition
of assumptions which is important in any philosophical discussion.
Peace and long life.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by Another God
What are 'you'? Your body, or your mind?
I am certain that everyone defines themselves as their mind. As such, to ask "Do I really exist?" is a silly question, because u have to exist to be able to ask a meaningful question (to yourself). I don't know whether he/she exists, but he/she knows (or doesn't know, in which case doesn't exist).
The question is being asked, that is all that is known. Even the necessity for questions and other thoughts to be 'had' by 'selves' is just a conceptual habit.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by maximus
very interesting... but it's sort of pointless to ask it, because it is completly unprovable and doesn't add to our understanding of the universe any.
You missed the point. He doesn't need to prove it. He's just raised one of several spectres of doubt that show that 'I think' is an assumption - a double assumption at that.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Royce
but' a rock must have witnesses willing to demonstrate and testify that the rock exist where as "I" is self evident to itself.
Good night again.
The data of the mind, including the sense of self, are not experienced in a fundamentally different way to anything else. That the mind is an indivisible point is an illusion caused by its inablity to model itself - actually it is more akin to a nation, with departments, internal conflicts and divided 'pools' of information.
Originally posted by maximus
oh? this is remenisanct of the old "if a tree falls in a forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?" if a rock exists, and nobody is around to observe it does it still exist. the universe does not go away when you close your eyes.
Technically speaking, maximus the tree makes vibrations. It isn't sound until an ear converts the vibrations into electrical impulses and sends them to a brain. When the brain receives the impulses and interprets them to be sound, then it is sound.
Yes I agree that in an objective reality the rock exists but it doesn't know that it exists nor does anyone else unless stumbled upon and discovered. Where as "I" exists in any system that recognizes "I" and is selfevident. That's the point, thinking and existing.
If a raven flew in my window, perched on top of my monitor and quote "Nevermore" I would throw my copy of "In Search For Schrodinger's Cat" at it and tell it to get the hell out of here and leave me alone. However, if a drunken one eyed, pegged leg parrot staggered in through my window, flopped down onto my keyboard, looked up at me with it's one bleary, bloodshot eye and slurred in a cockney accent; "I am." I would offer it my hand or a chracker if I had one handy and say; "Glad ta meetcha. I am too."
The data of the mind, including the sense of self, are not experienced in a fundamentally different way to anything else. That the mind is an indivisible point is an illusion caused by its inablity to model itself - actually it is more akin to a nation, with departments, internal conflicts and divided 'pools' of information.
There I disagree. The sense of self, awareness that "I" exist, does not require thought or analysis. It is selfevident as I said. I can at times choose not to think anything at all, meditate, and as Les said be far more aware of myself, my existence and others existences than at any ther time.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Royce
There I disagree. The sense of self, awareness that "I" exist, does not require thought or analysis. It is selfevident as I said. I can at times choose not to think anything at all, meditate, and as Les said be far more aware of myself, my existence and others existences than at any ther time.
I practice zazen meditation on a regular basis. In such as state awareness heightens, yet there is little or no sense of self. It is interesting that such techniques are used in Buddhism and other religions to dissolve the ego, and to gain insight into the illusory nature of a separate self.
In such states, the existence of 'a self' is not self-evident, if evident at all, it is as nothing more than a mental construct and not as something, ultimate, separate, indivisible or self-evident.
This is also evidence against Hofstadter's theory that consciousness is somehow produced by 'self-awareness' (I don't even see that self-awareness is possible without consciousness).
I agree that self awareness is not possible without consciousness; but there are many levels and types of consciousness.
I, too, practice a form of Zen meditation. It is the ego that is the illusion. Once we get past that then we become self aware of our true self not of our self image. It may not be petty but it is in the end all that we have. As a zen-christian or christian-zen-buddhist, I at first likened it to standing naked before God. I don't mean naked as with out clothing. I mean really naked with out self illusions or delusions. I of cousre have to see myself that way too. Which is probably the real purpose for it.
I thought long ago that before we could begin to make any headway in Zen, we had to do away with our egos. I found this impossible for that is doing away with ourself. It is the illussions and dellusions of the ego, our self images, that must be done away with and seen beyond. Our egos must become integrated with the rest of ourselves so that we become one within ourselves.
From you previous post it sounds to me as if you are just reaching that realization, ie. there is more than just one person in there.
This is just another step in a long road. I may be a step or two ahead of you on that road but a few steps behing on others. It is the same with Wu Li and I.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Royce
I agree that self awareness is not possible without consciousness; but there are many levels and types of consciousness.
I, too, practice a form of Zen meditation. It is the ego that is the illusion. Once we get past that then we become self aware of our true self not of our self image. It may not be petty but it is in the end all that we have.
The illusion is that this self is separate, indivisible and unchanging. It is precisely this delusion that dominates Cartesian dualism and Continental Philosophy in general.
Originally posted by Royce
As a zen-christian or christian-zen-buddhist, I at first likened it to standing naked before God. I don't mean naked as with out clothing. I mean really naked with out self illusions or delusions. I of cousre have to see myself that way too. Which is probably the real purpose for it.
As a zen atheist I liken it to the wind in the trees.
Originally posted by Royce
I thought long ago that before we could begin to make any headway in Zen, we had to do away with our egos. I found this impossible for that is doing away with ourself. It is the illussions and dellusions of the ego, our self images, that must be done away with and seen beyond. Our egos must become integrated with the rest of ourselves so that we become one within ourselves.
IMO the most important thing is to rid ourselves of our illusions about the ego and to cling to it no more.
Originally posted by Royce
From you previous post it sounds to me as if you are just reaching that realization, ie. there is more than just one person in there.
This is just another step in a long road. I may be a step or two ahead of you on that road but a few steps behing on others. It is the same with Wu Li and I.
Yep, certainly it sounds like you've not got rid of your ego. ;)
Originally posted by akhenaten
Why do I phrase it in this way? because it is built into our language. Let me rephrase:
The phenomenon of thoughts exists
And what can we deduce from that? Nothing.
In fact, even that is misleading because I use the word 'thoughts' whereas a true sceptic would not make any assumptions about the nature of what he experienced.
Really I should just try to render a stream of D's consciousness:
...must rememeber to write new book...this is such a great idea I've had ...I think therefore I am...wow I'm so amazingly clever...this could form the basis for a whole new pointless movement in continental philosophy...damn I'm good...oh no I've not fed the cat for three days...couldn't have done it if I hadn't thought of sitting in this oven...must be the fumes...
At what point does it become safe for one of these thoughts to deduce that it and all the other thoughts are 'had' by a self? At what point is a self ever experienced?
And yet you still miss the point. Let me make it clear: DESCARTES' POINT IS THAT ONE CAN NEVER PROVE TO ANOTHER THAT THAT OTHER DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THEY MUST FIRST ASSUME THE EXISTANCE OF THE OTHER, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THAT OTHER.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how much more clear that can be. Descartes had already assumed his own existence (as do all people), but he also found something that should have been obvious: Any attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (indeed, any attempt to convince him of anything) proves that the "convincer" (the "demon" of his illustration) believes that there is an entity that can be convinced.
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
Mentat, I'm afraid that after reading your response to my
message I can see that my attempts at an explanation of
my opinion on this issue are apparently futile.
All I can advise you is something another Greek philosopher
(probably a much better and smarter one than Descartes) -
Socrates, considered of prime importance - "Question everything". [;)]
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Peace and long life.
But did he ever question his questioning of all things? Wait a minute, why would he do that, if he didn't already accept the "question everything" motto? .........paradoxes are fun, aren't they?
It seems as though you still disagree with me. Why is that? Perhaps, when you think of a more concise way of explaining yourself, you will post it here, please?
Originally posted by Royce
This is for my friend Mentat,
This is true:
To the insane, sanity appears insane.
To the irrational, rationality appears irrational.
To name a thing is to limit it.
(Think about it.)
This is said:
Royce: I know nothing.
Wuliheron: All including existence is paradox.
Manuel_Silvio: All including existence is uncertainty.
This has been shown:
Einsein showed the world that everything in physics and life is relative to the observer.
Niels Bohr et al, showed the world that everything in physics and life is uncertain.
Mentat, at your stage in life it is important to have a strong firm foundation made of what you know and believe on which to stand and build. Just keep in mind that this foundation is a tool, a useful and necessary tool for here and now, but none the less an illusion. Do not build too high or too strong with your blocks of knowledge.
Do not make strong walls or high castles with your blocks of knowledge for there will come a time in your life when the walls and castles you build may become your prison from which you may never escape. Or they may fade away and become quicksand and you may sink into the abyss.
If you remember in your mind and heart that nothing is known for certain and all is paradox, then when your foundation and walls melt away into the illusion that they are, and you will have no place to stand, no where to place your feet. You will be set free to float like a leave carried on the breeze or soar high into the skies like the clouds drifting in the wind.
With everything relative, unknown and uncertain, nothing will be impossible, nothing will be unthinkable, nothing will be irrational. Everything will be possible, thinkable and rational. Paradox will become doors to open and go through into new worlds of thought and being or at least windows to look through and see those new worlds if you are timid.
I speak/write in metaphor and allegory because it is much easier to express and convey these thoughts by image than by words alone.
You write well, and I agree up to a point. Yes, we should never trust our premises too much, but we must trust in some premise, at least for some period of time. We can never deny all premises at once. Indeed, "deny all premises" is it's own premise, and is thus an impossible demand. Also, if all was paradox, then it would be impossible to know that all was paradox. However, I see that you are hinting at something much more important - the ability to be free of human and self-imposed paradigms. This seems to me to be of utmost importance (especially after my conversations with Manuel_Silvio (see previous pages of this thread)).
I thank you for your words of wisdom, and am unceasingly flattered that you directed them at me.
Originally posted by Another God
I find the question "How do I know if I exist" to be so damn silly. Of course you exist...you're asking the stupid question aren't YOU?
Its a contingent truth. It just so happens that 'You' exist.... Whether 'You' is physically anything like you appear to yourself or not is another question, but if YOU can ask whether you exist, then you have already answered your own question.
Ah. Beautifully put. A breath of fresh air. Kudos.
People, please read this post carefully. It explains what Descartes was trying to get across very eloquently: It is foolish to question whether you exist or not, because the act of questioning cannot be made by non-existent people.
akhenaten
Jun25-03, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet you still miss the point. Let me make it clear: DESCARTES' POINT IS THAT ONE CAN NEVER PROVE TO ANOTHER THAT THAT OTHER DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THEY MUST FIRST ASSUME THE EXISTANCE OF THE OTHER, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THAT OTHER.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how much more clear that can be. Descartes had already assumed his own existence (as do all people), but he also found something that should have been obvious: Any attempt to convince him that he didn't exist (indeed, any attempt to convince him of anything) proves that the "convincer" (the "demon" of his illustration) believes that there is an entity that can be convinced.
And I already told you that the 'demon' was only a thought experiment.
It may be that 'He' (ie some thoughts in a brain of the human referred to as 'Descartes') tried to change some beliefs in the same brain. No self is needed.
Originally posted by drag
How can one know that he actualy knows ? Maybe thought
is a prewritten script that can't change and hence
you don't think and don't know - you just "watch".
You can't "watch" unless you exist. You also can't question whether you are just "watching" unless you exist.
Indeed. To add some clartification, I hope that's what you meant
as well(I didn't understand the inanimate part):
"I think therefore I exist" is, apparently, a statement
that is correct. But, of course, it is a hypothetical
statement since it is relevant if we assume we think.
That's the point! If I were to try to assume that I don't think, I would be thinking about not thinking.
Originally posted by akhenaten
And I already told you that the 'demon' was only a thought experiment.
It may be that 'He' (ie some thoughts in a brain of the human referred to as 'Descartes') tried to change some beliefs in the same brain. No self is needed.
Who said anything about "self"?! I never mentioned anything but the need for there to be an entity called "Descartes".
Originally posted by akhenaten
The question is being asked, that is all that is known.
Ah-ha! And so you destroy your reasoning! (Excuse the energy, I'm kind of freaking out from not being able to log on yesterday).
The moment you say "a question is being asked", you imply an "asker". You cannot have a question "being asked" if nothing is asking the question.
Originally posted by akhenaten
You missed the point. He doesn't need to prove it. He's just raised one of several spectres of doubt that show that 'I think' is an assumption - a double assumption at that.
And what if I were to tell you that both of you have assumed that he is asking a question? You would have no valid argument, because it goes on forever into a realm of uncertainty. However, there is no need of this, because there is one thing that remains constant: For every new point that is made in the argument, a person's existence is validated over again - because the person cannot pose counter-arguments, unless there is a person posing counter-arguments (i.e. unless they exist).
Originally posted by akhenaten
As a zen atheist I liken it to the wind in the trees.
IMO the most important thing is to rid ourselves of our illusions about the ego and to cling to it no more.
Yep, certainly it sounds like you've not got rid of your ego. ;)
It is the same. Whatever works for each of us.
The important thing is to know ourselves and integrate the ego and not let it rule but rule it. We cannot be complete or whole without all of our parts being integrated into one. It is harmoney not surgery that we seek.
No I've not gotten rid of my ego, nor will I. But, what does ego have to do with it? We are all travelers on our own paths. We are not in a race. What possible difference could it make where we are on our individual journey or path. Perhaps I presumed too much from to little information; but, it was only to see where you are on your journey to know you better and know better how to relate to you. If I offended you I abologize. No offense was intended. I have light brown hair and blue eyes. Is this significant to you?
Originally posted by Mentat
You write well, and I agree up to a point. Yes, we should never trust our premises too much, but we must trust in some premise, at least for some period of time. We can never deny all premises at once. Indeed, "deny all premises" is it's own premise, and is thus an impossible demand. Also, if all was paradox, then it would be impossible to know that all was paradox. However, I see that you are hinting at something much more important - the ability to be free of human and self-imposed paradigms. This seems to me to be of utmost importance (especially after my conversations with Manuel_Silvio (see previous pages of this thread)).
I thank you for your words of wisdom, and am unceasingly flattered that you directed them at me.
The paradoxes come at the end of every line of inquiery. We can and do learn and grow following these lines; but, evertually you come to the paradox. If you are not too hindered by your paradigms you go to another line of study or look or walk past the paradox. Everything has an end and a beginning. For every ending there is a new beginning just one step further.
You conversation with Manuel was what inspired(?) me to write the letter. His point was that we should doubt everything, that all is uncertain. This is denying nothing this is simply not betting your life on two pair when someone is surly holding three of a kind. Yeah, I'm watching the World Poker Tour as I'm writing. The important thing is that you did see the main point and understandit well
Friends do not flatter friends, friends care about friends. Your welcome. I hope they help and that you don't forget them.
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet you still miss the point. Let me make it clear: DESCARTES' POINT IS THAT ONE CAN NEVER PROVE TO ANOTHER THAT THAT OTHER DOESN'T EXIST, BECAUSE THEY MUST FIRST ASSUME THE EXISTANCE OF THE OTHER, IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE THAT OTHER.
Oh really ? He had a strange way of suming up such
an argument in the sentence - "I think therefore I am". [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
But did he ever question his questioning of all things? Wait a minute, why would he do that, if he didn't already accept the "question everything" motto? .........paradoxes are fun, aren't they?
Questioning everything just means that you accept no view as
absolute without reason. It is not a separate assumption, it
is just the way that all reasoning we're aware of so far works-
if you make an absolute assumption you must prove it is absolute,
otherwise it is not.[;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
It seems as though you still disagree with me. Why is that? Perhaps, when you think of a more concise way of explaining yourself, you will post it here, please?
I have done so many times but you seem confused by your
own created internal conflicts of views, so it seems
pointless for me to do it over and over again until you
yourself make an effort of constructing your own consistent
"big picture" view. I believe I already provided a great deal
of examples that can help you do it, but eventually it's
all up to you.
Originally posted by Mentat
You write well, and I agree up to a point. Yes, we should never trust our premises too much, but we must trust in some premise, at least for some period of time. We can never deny all premises at once. Indeed, "deny all premises" is it's own premise, and is thus an impossible demand.
Like I just said in my first response we need not deny all
premises. We just need to see that to say they are absolute
is also a premise and we want to use it we must supply a proof
of that too (if we can... [;)] [:D]).
Originally posted by Mentat
However, I see that you are hinting at something much more important -the ability to be free of human and self-imposed paradigms. This seems to me to be of utmost importance (especially after my conversations with Manuel_Silvio (see previous pages of this thread)).
It is unfortunate that while you recognize that you fail
to apply it. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
You can't "watch" unless you exist. You also can't question whether you are just "watching" unless you exist.
In the first sentence the second "you" is unnecessary.
As for the second sentence...[:D] no offense, pathetic...[:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point! If I were to try to assume that I don't think, I would be thinking about not thinking.
What ?
Actualy my point was just that if am = exist then any
claim of the form - I "some verb" therefore I am, is an
apparently correct statement because existence includes
everything and because you use the I part in the enitial
premise too so it's second use is then the result of this enitial
premise. But, like I said the "some verb" part is seemingly
unprovable whatever the verb is and the I part too(even if you're
able to apply some actual meaning to I) so it's just a hypotheticly
correct assumption.
Originally posted by Mentat
And what if I were to tell you that both of you have assumed
that he is asking a question?
Doubt is irrelevant here. It would appear that
there is something called time. It would appear that we
can think - deal with the observed (before that). And
that's just what appears to happen - these preccesses of
time and thought. Are they absolute premises ? To answer
yes is to make an assumption, same goes if I answer no,
same goes for the question's validity, same goes once
you try to pose any argument.
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Peace and long life.
Originally posted by drag
Oh really ? He had a strange way of suming up such
an argument in the sentence - "I think therefore I am". [;)]
That's how it is with Descartes. You should try deducing his reasoning on the Rules for the Direction of the Mind, by just reading his "sum-up" sentence at the beginning of each one [g)].
Questioning everything just means that you accept to view as
absolute without reason. It is not a separate assumption, it
is just the way that all reasoning we're aware of so far works-
if you make an absolute assumption you must prove it is absolute,
otherwise it is not.[;)]
But the assumption that "you must prove something absolute or else it is not" is an assumption in it's own right, and is not absolute (by virtue of it's own reasoning). But, if it's not absolute by virtue of it's own reasoning (which you must take as absolute in order to use it) you have a paradox very much akin to the "Limitlessness" paradox.
I have done so many times but you seem confused by your
own created internal conflicts of views, so it seems
pointless for me to do it over and over again until you
yourself make an effort of constructing your own consistent
"big picture" view. I believe I already provided a great deal
of examples that can help you do it, but eventually it's
all up to you.
You have provided reasoning that disproves Descartes' statement, that I haven't had a valid counter-argument for? Where?
Like I just said in my first response we need not deny all
premises. We just need to see that to say they are absolute
is also a premise and we want to use it we must supply a proof
of that too (if we can... [;)] [:D]).
Good point. However, one of these absolutes would have to be our existence. Now to prove the assumption of it's being absolute...[;)]
It is unfortunate that while you recognize that you fail
to apply it. [;)]
I do apply it with everything but that which can be shown to be absolute. And, even after it is shown to be absolute, I still retain the ability to dismiss it as part of a former paradigm. This has all been discussed in previous pages.
In the first sentence the second "you" is unnecessary.
No it's not, for it is an integral part of both of the sub-propositions to the proposition: "I watch".
As for the second sentence...[:D] no offense, pathetic...[:D]
Why? It's true. I was merely showing to akhenaten that his/her idea of just "watching" thoughts, without having personal existence, is flawed.
What ?
If I were to assume that I don't think, I would be thinking about not thinking. How can this possibly be unclear? Assumptions are thoughts.
Actualy my point was just that if am = exist then any
claim of the form - I "some verb" therefore I am, is an
apparently correct statement because existence includes
everything and because you use the I part in the enitial
premise too so it's second use is then the result of this enitial
premise. But, like I said the "some verb" part is seemingly
unprovable whatever the verb is and the I part too(even if you're
able to apply some actual meaning to I) so it's just a hypotheticly
correct assumption.
Now it's my turn: What?
Seriously, the fault is probably mine, but I just can't understand what you are getting at (except for the part at the end about it's just being a hypothetically correct assumption, which is wrong, because there needs to be an "I" for "I" to do something. That's just simple deductive logic (see Tom's "Logic" thread)).
Doubt is irrelevant here.
Really?!?! Never though I'd see you say that.
It would appear that
there is something called time. It would appear that we
can think - deal with the observed (before that). And
that's just what appears to happen - these preccesses of
time and thought.
No, no, no. If anything "appears" to happen, then someone must be thinking about that as though it had happened. It has to "appear" to be so to someone. It also takes a certain amount of time, for one to process how the situation "appears" to be, and there must thus be time. Seriously, these do not seem like worth-while counter-arguments, but in fact I am not arguing against a worth-while claim, as you haven't substantiated your claim that there needn't be time or thought for there to "appear" to be time and thought.
Are they absolute premises ? To answer
yes is to make an assumption, same goes if I answer no,
same goes for the question's validity, same goes once
you try to pose any argument.
Same goes for your having posted the question in the first place, but there is nothing wrong with making assumptions, if one can back them up with Logical reasoning (at least not in the Philosophical paradigm).
Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
That's how it is with Descartes. You should try deducing his reasoning on the Rules for the Direction of the Mind, by just reading his "sum-up" sentence at the beginning of each one [g)].
I still disagree. I believe his sentence IS what he
meant to say. If you got a link or something that is
relevant then please post it.
Originally posted by Mentat
But the assumption that "you must prove something absolute or else it is not" is an assumption in it's own right, and is not absolute (by virtue of it's own reasoning). But, if it's not absolute by virtue of it's own reasoning (which you must take as absolute in order to use it) you have a paradox very much akin to the "Limitlessness" paradox.
How many times do I have to repeat this ?
O.K. Let's analyze this on the REALLY basic level.
Absolute = true, not absolute = true/false/whatever else possible.
As it can clearly be seen "not absolute" is LESS inclusive
than absolute and indeed appears to be the general case
defining all the possible range of possibilities left to prove.
Such is the use of this word combination in most of the
types of reasoning we use/used. If you would not like to
accept this really simple fact then purhaps your reasoning
is a bit different from the normal type ? [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
You have provided reasoning that disproves Descartes' statement, that I haven't had a valid counter-argument for? Where?
Not only have you not provided valid arguments but
your arguments do not even object the things they're
supposed to.
Originally posted by Mentat
Good point.
Good point ?!
So how come your first response to precisely the same issue
says something completely different ? [:D]
Originally posted by Mentat
However, one of these absolutes would have to be our existence. Now to prove the assumption of it's being absolute...[;)]
That is irrelevant to this discussion, however, existence
itself is absolute. But, it is seemingly impossible to say/reason
why that is so or what it is. It is a singular argument with no real content, add a single word and it will all be dispersed by the wind.
We can only answer this question if we solve the PoE. And yet it
is undeniable through everything.
Originally posted by Mentat
I do apply it with everything but that which can be shown to be absolute.
[:D] [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
No it's not, for it is an integral part of both of the sub-propositions to the proposition: "I watch".
Indeed. Make it just watch with no I.
Originally posted by Mentat
Why? It's true. I was merely showing to akhenaten that his/her idea of just "watching" thoughts, without having personal existence, is flawed.
I think that I expressed the idea here first, but that's irrelevant.
As for your sentence which I believe is pathetic, well read it
again - it's quite abvious really, no offense. [:D]
Just as a sidenote - science supports that idea. Science says
all proccesses are the result of physical laws and hence
you can see that consciousness is not at all free choice or
something - you just "view" things as they inevitably happen
precisely according to the laws of physics. [;)]
Originally posted by Mentat
If I were to assume that I don't think, I would be thinking about not thinking. How can this possibly be unclear? Assumptions are thoughts.
You see, it's pointless for me to repeat the same things all over
until you'll WANT to understand them.
Originally posted by Mentat
Now it's my turn: What?
If I say that I do whatever and hence I exist then it is
correct because existence is everything, by definition.
However, since the first word is just an assumption and the
I part too - it's just a hypothetical claim. What's unclear ?
It's like if I say: 1+2=3 so numbers exist.
Originally posted by Mentat
Same goes for your having posted the question in the first place,
But how can that be absolutely known ? How can anything ?
Your argument NEEDS the content of a question and the
supposedly existing thought. To be inclusive and without
pre-set assumptions you should avoid that.
Doubt or shout ! [:D]
Peace and long life.
akhenaten
Jun27-03, 05:53 AM
Mentat,
The flaws of this thinking have been clearly stated, again and again. I suspect that you are emotionally wedded to the idea of a separate, indivisible self and thus will do anything to fight anything that makes you doubt this.
I've given up trying to convince you - anything else is playing for the audience.
This is a good short article on Descartes, with links to some related articles, all very well written. Excerpt:
"I think, therefore I am" is probably the most famous phrase in Western philosophy and certainly continues to cause the biggest problems for those studying mind and brain. In his thought experiment, Descartes systematically doubted everything, beginning with his sitting by the fire in his dressing gown because he might be dreaming. He declared he could not doubt that he was thinking thus his famous assertion.
...Now it seems to be the soul that is dying. Descartes declared the human mind indivisible, but neuroscience has revealed its constituent functions. We truly are a machine of parts, without a central seat of consciousness. Much of the evidence comes from people with specific brain damage those who lose the ability to recognise faces, people with blindsight who can name an object they cannot consciously see, and those with conditions in which the brain 's computational structure is revealed.
Even more unsettling, much thinking can occur without us being conscious of it. How we recognise objects is no more open to consciousness than how we run across a field. When we talk, we may know what we are saying, but we are not aware of exactly how we will say it until we hear it. Unconscious machinery takes care of all that and can be biased by all kinds of factors of which we are never aware. Philosopher Patricia Churchland sums up the neuroscience view "The mind that we are assured can dominate over matter is in fact certain brain patterns interacting with and interpreted by other patterns. Moreover, one 's self, as apprehended introspectively and represented incessantly, is a brain-dependent construct.
Laying the ghost in the machine (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/humannature/article.jsp?id=23964900&sub=Free%20will)
akhenaten
Jun27-03, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Who said anything about "self"?! I never mentioned anything but the need for there to be an entity called "Descartes".
This is not my previous understanding of you position. Although, I think there is no reasonable doubt that a creature bearing my name exists, it cannot be proved with logic alone and there is no implication of the mind or self being 'special' in some way which is what Descartes concluded.
akhenaten
Jun27-03, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Ah-ha! And so you destroy your reasoning! (Excuse the energy, I'm kind of freaking out from not being able to log on yesterday).
The moment you say "a question is being asked", you imply an "asker". You cannot have a question "being asked" if nothing is asking the question.
Yet again... this is a linguistic and conceptual convention. I'm having to invent new ways of writing English just to debate with you. A question exists, a sensation exists, a thought exists - no self, or mind is logically necessary.
akhenaten
Jun27-03, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Royce
It is the same. Whatever works for each of us.
The important thing is to know ourselves and integrate the ego and not let it rule but rule it. We cannot be complete or whole without all of our parts being integrated into one. It is harmoney not surgery that we seek.
No I've not gotten rid of my ego, nor will I. But, what does ego have to do with it? We are all travelers on our own paths. We are not in a race. What possible difference could it make where we are on our individual journey or path. Perhaps I presumed too much from to little information; but, it was only to see where you are on your journey to know you better and know better how to relate to you. If I offended you I abologize. No offense was intended. I have light brown hair and blue eyes. Is this significant to you?
I was only teasing. All the best in your journey. :)
akhenaten
Jun27-03, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
And what if I were to tell you that both of you have assumed that he is asking a question? You would have no valid argument, because it goes on forever into a realm of uncertainty. However, there is no need of this, because there is one thing that remains constant: For every new point that is made in the argument, a person's existence is validated over again - because the person cannot pose counter-arguments, unless there is a person posing counter-arguments (i.e. unless they exist).
Only if you ASSUME that the existence of a person is logically necessary for the esistence of thoughts such as questions and counterarguments.
If I create a hypothetical entity called 'Gaia' from which all things emerge and which contains all things, your argument is the equivalent of arguing that, every instance of something existing (including the existence of people doubting the existance of 'Gaia') are just more proof that 'Gaia' exists, since existence (in this hypothetical culture) means to be an expression of Gaia. Gaia rains, therefore Gaia exists. Gaia makes me think, therefore Gaia exists.
Originally posted by akhenaten
I was only teasing. All the best in your journey. :)
Well thanks for that. You obviously pushed a button of mine, which of course makes it, the tease, a valid observation. I guess that I should be embarrassed but I'm not. It merely proves what I already know, I've still got a long way to go.
I was more concerned that I had hit a nerve in you and offended or allienated you.
Good luck on you journey too.
Dark Wing
Jun27-03, 10:01 PM
As far as i could read it, Descartes never actully said "I think, therefore i am".
The way i read his meditations was more along the lines of....
1st step: I am.
What kind of thing am I?
2nd step: i am a thinking thing.
Arguments for this came from the division of body vs indivisibility of mind aguments, etc. but thinking was never his premise for existence.
akhenaten
Jun28-03, 05:12 AM
"Though I wanted to think that everything was false, it was necessary that the 'I' who was doing the thinking was something; and noticing that this truth, I think, therefore I am, was so solid and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics were incapable of upsetting it, I judged that I could accept it unhesitatingly as the first principle of the philosophy that I sought." Ren Descartes, 1637
Originally posted by drag
I still disagree. I believe his sentence IS what he
meant to say. If you got a link or something that is
relevant then please post it.
Yes, it is what he meant to say, in the context that he provided (the illustration of the Demon). I've been readin the works of Descartes, and that's how he does things. He likes to sum things up in one grand statement, but it (the statement) never captures the full flavor of what he is teaching.
How many times do I have to repeat this ?
O.K. Let's analyze this on the REALLY basic level.
Absolute = true, not absolute = true/false/whatever else possible.
As it can clearly be seen "not absolute" is LESS inclusive
than absolute and indeed appears to be the general case
defining all the possible range of possibilities left to prove.
Such is the use of this word combination in most of the
types of reasoning we use/used. If you would not like to
accept this really simple fact then purhaps your reasoning
is a bit different from the normal type ? [;)]
Are you really still missing the point that Wuliheron has been explaining for so long? If You State That One Can Be "Not Absolute" About All Things, Then That One Must Be "Not Absolute" About His Being "Not Absolute".
Why don't you counter that point directly? Is there something I'm saying that is just laughably rediculous, because - if there is - you should make sure to tell Wu Li about it too. This is exactly the reasoning he was using when describing the paradox of "Limitlessness".
Not only have you not provided valid arguments but
your arguments do not even object the things they're
supposed to.
Examples, please.
Good point ?!
So how come your first response to precisely the same issue
says something completely different ? [:D]
Well, it is a good point, however I still insist on our existence's being absolute.
That is irrelevant to this discussion, however, existence
itself is absolute. But, it is seemingly impossible to say/reason
why that is so or what it is. It is a singular argument with no real content, add a single word and it will all be dispersed by the wind.
We can only answer this question if we solve the PoE. And yet it
is undeniable through everything.
"Solve the PoE"? It's very nature makes it unsolvable. However, I'm not talking about what existence is, or why it is, or even how it is. I'm just saying (as was Descartes) that I couldn't think about not existing, unless I did exist - thus, any attempt you make to convince me that I don't exist (thus inciting me to think about not existing) defeats it's own purpose.
[:D] [;)]
I'm serious. There are some things (existence being one of them) that are undeniably true, in the human paradigm. I retain the right to question the nature of my own paradigm, should I choose to do so, but then 1) questioning would just further prove my existence and 2) all of my questions would also exist in my own paradigm.
Indeed. Make it just watch with no I.
Make "it" just watch? Pray tell, what is "it", if not Descartes (the one who's existence was questioned)?
I think that I expressed the idea here first, but that's irrelevant.
As for your sentence which I believe is pathetic, well read it
again - it's quite abvious really, no offense. [:D]
It is one thing to call an argument pathetic (which does nothing but perhaps irritate the person you are speaking to), it is another thing entirely to actually show the flaw. What is wrong with saying: In order for one to just learn, there must be a "one" who is just learning. And if there are no individuals, then we cannot possibly disagree on our existence, or any other issue, for that matter.
Just as a sidenote - science supports that idea. Science says
all proccesses are the result of physical laws and hence
you can see that consciousness is not at all free choice or
something - you just "view" things as they inevitably happen
precisely according to the laws of physics. [;)]
Science recognizes that there are scientists, and that there are physical objects to study. It doesn't matter that Quantum Mechanics shows us all to be made of the same stuff, there are still those collections (and that's where the variety comes, in collections) that are scientists, and those that are rocks. This distinction is clearly seen in the Scientific Method - but as you deny yourself acceptance of the most basic principle of Science, and still attempt to study the more advanced things (QM, Relativity, etc), you will probably never accept this.
You see, it's pointless for me to repeat the same things all over
until you'll WANT to understand them.
I might as well say the same thing to you. I ask you to show me the flaw in this statement (and no side-stepping or use of Science (as you misguidedly believe it to be) which is only one branch of Philosophy. Attack the reasoning directly, or not at all): In order to convince Entity A that Entity A doesn't exist, you must count on Entity A's ability to think about not existing, in which case you have assumed both that there is an Entity A, and that Entity A can think..."I think therefore I am".
If I say that I do whatever and hence I exist then it is
correct because existence is everything, by definition.
However, since the first word is just an assumption and the
I part too - it's just a hypothetical claim. What's unclear ?
It's like if I say: 1+2=3 so numbers exist.
Yes, because you have just used numbers. Besides, you are taking the statment out of context yet again. Manuel_Silvio didn't learn to stop doing this until many pages into the thread, and I'm rather exhausted from those pages (as far as reasoning on Descartes goes), so could you do me a great favor and discuss the statement in it's context, or not at all, please? In the context of one entity trying to convince another entity that the other entity doesn't exist, the other entity says "I think (about what you are trying to convince me of) therefore I am (because 1) you are trying to convince me, and 2) I am thinking about what you are saying (which you already assumed I could do, according to point 1))".
But how can that be absolutely known ? How can anything ?
Your argument NEEDS the content of a question and the
supposedly existing thought. To be inclusive and without
pre-set assumptions you should avoid that.
Ah, but the one that tries to convince me that I don't exist has made the first mistake, and I need assume nothing else (other than that another entity tried to convince me that I don't exist) in order to form Descartes' reasoning. No, Descartes' reasoning doesn't prove that I exist (because I can't prove to you that I am thinking about not existing (though I can take a Wuliheronish approach and say "whatever you do, don't think about not existing. Just don't do it. Do NOT think about not existing" [:)]), but it does invalidate any and all attempts to prove that I don't exist.
Originally posted by akhenaten
Mentat,
The flaws of this thinking have been clearly stated, again and again. I suspect that you are emotionally wedded to the idea of a separate, indivisible self and thus will do anything to fight anything that makes you doubt this.
I am nothing of the sort. If you (the entity whose username is akhenaten) can pose an argument to me (the entity whose username is Mentat) that there are no seperate selves, then you will have invalidated there being a you and a me, we would just be the one entity - yet how can you (the one entity) try to convince me (the other entity) of anything, if we are all one entity?
Also, your link doesn't invalidate Descartes' reasoning in the appropriate contexts (Entity A convincing Entity B that there is no Entity B (isn't the logical inconsistency obvious here? [:((])). It merely shows that there is no center of consciousness (as Descartes did, in fact, believe). So yes, Descartes was wrong about many things, but his reasoning on being convinced of your own non-existence still holds, until someone directly counters it.
P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am. My glasses are broken and I'm seeing double (not to mention the pounding headache that almost kept me from the PFs for the second day in a row).
Mentat:
Not absolute does not mean NOT absolute it means that
it can be either true/false/something in between.
For the rest, please read my PM.
Live long and prosper.
akhenaten
Jun28-03, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I am nothing of the sort. If you (the entity whose username is akhenaten) can pose an argument to me (the entity whose username is Mentat) that there are no seperate selves, then you will have invalidated there being a you and a me, we would just be the one entity - yet how can you (the one entity) try to convince me (the other entity) of anything, if we are all one entity?
Because that entity (reality, the universe) has many parts or subdivisions. One component of a system can affect another.
Originally posted by Mentat
Also, your link doesn't invalidate Descartes' reasoning in the appropriate contexts (Entity A convincing Entity B that there is no Entity B (isn't the logical inconsistency obvious here? [:((])). It merely shows that there is no center of consciousness (as Descartes did, in fact, believe). So yes, Descartes was wrong about many things, but his reasoning on being convinced of your own non-existence still holds, until someone directly counters it.
I think you barking up the wrong tree here. The doubt about the existence of Entity A may arise spontaneously in the mind
I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as entities or selves, what I'm arguing against is Descartes and his follows conclusions that selves are special and somehow fully known, separate, indivisible and unchanging. A self is like a nation state, even to the extent of having an identity.The delusions we have about ourselves are probably due to the fact that the workings of the mind are a blindspot to itself - it seems to come from nothing and nowhere.
Originally posted by Mentat
P.S. Forgive me if I make a lot of typo's or if I am not as clear as I usually am. My glasses are broken and I'm seeing double (not to mention the pounding headache that almost kept me from the PFs for the second day in a row).
Take it easy. Don't go blind over a silly message board.
Originally posted by akhenaten
Take it easy. Don't go blind over a silly message board.
Same here, didn't see that before, relax nobody's in a hurry.[:)]
Originally posted by drag
Mentat:
Not absolute does not mean NOT absolute it means that
it can be either true/false/something in between.
For the rest, please read my PM.
Live long and prosper.
I read the PM, and can agree to just drop the issue of being absolutely uncertain of all things, if you want to, but we still have the issue of Descartes' statement to contend with.
Originally posted by akhenaten
Because that entity (reality, the universe) has many parts or subdivisions. One component of a system can affect another.
Well that's obvious, and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that - we are all parts of the Universe. However, we are still individual sub-entities, are we not? If yes, then Descartes' reasoning shouldn't conflict with yours.
I think you barking up the wrong tree here. The doubt about the existence of Entity A may arise spontaneously in the mind
Yes it may, but not if Entity A doesn't have a mind and cannot think about being convinced by a hypothetical Entity B. IOW, unless Entity A exists, it cannot think about not existing - it thinks therefore it is. However, you would be correct in saying that Descartes' reasoning only validates the belief in his own existence, it does not invalidate Solipsism (or any other Idealistic reasoning), as some think it does.
I'm not arguing that there is no such thing as entities or selves, what I'm arguing against is Descartes and his follows conclusions that selves are special and somehow fully known, separate, indivisible and unchanging. A self is like a nation state, even to the extent of having an identity.The delusions we have about ourselves are probably due to the fact that the workings of the mind are a blindspot to itself - it seems to come from nothing and nowhere.
Well I think we can all agree with that last statement. The mind's most severe weakness is trying to determine the nature of itself.
Take it easy. Don't go blind over a silly message board.
Probably sound advice, and I thank you for your concern. (Of course, the fact that I'm responding now shows that I have not heeded that advice, but oh well, I'm just a dumb kid [;)]).
Who are the 18 people who said No to the poll?
I think this is a clearcut yes.
PhysicsRocks88
Jun30-03, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
This philosophy of Descarte has been brought up numerous times, in the old PFs. I'm just starting it up again.
Descarte gave an illustration that went (somewhat) as follows:
And Evil Demon sought to convince a man that everything he (the man) had ever believed, was false. The Demon had such power that it almost succeeded. The only thing that the Demon could not prove to the man was that the man himself did not exist. It could not do this because you cannot convince someone that doesn't exist, of anything. From this came the saying, "I think, therefore, I am".
What is your opinion?
If by "am" he meant exist, he is so obviously wrong.
Many things which do you think still exist.
Can you convince someone who thinks that he/she does not exist?
Of course you can. There are plenty of mentally retarded or abnormal people who would readily believe this if told it to them by an authority.
Descartes was a 100% jack-***. Oh wait, a jack-*** philosopher, that's redundant!!!!!!!!!!
I think you're wrong.
If you think you exist, infact it's the only think you know for your.
There may be a reason why mentally retarted people might believe they don't exist, it's because THEY'RE RETARDED!
PhysicsRocks88
Jun30-03, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Dave
I think you're wrong.
If you think you exist, infact it's the only think you know for your.
There may be a reason why mentally retarted people might believe they don't exist, it's because THEY'RE RETARDED!
Thanks for making 100% no sense. You did not use a single proper sentence, and made word-change errors.
I see you're from New Zealand - that sucks bad enough that I won't rag on you more...
Another God
Jun30-03, 09:22 PM
ummm...physicsrocks88...if you keep up this attitude, I can promise you right now that You won't be around for much longer. That sort of stuff isn't tolerated in here.
I don't think your first post there was particularly helpful, and then your second one was just ad hominen and a complete waste of every readers time. Please stop it.
akhenaten
Jul1-03, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Dave
I think you're wrong.
If you think you exist, infact it's the only think you know for your.
There may be a reason why mentally retarted people might believe they don't exist, it's because THEY'RE RETARDED!
Wow, this is pretty deep stuff Dave - I never saw it in this way before.
akhenaten
Jul1-03, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes it may, but not if Entity A doesn't have a mind and cannot think about being convinced by a hypothetical Entity B. IOW, unless Entity A exists, it cannot think about not existing - it thinks therefore it is. However, you would be correct in saying that Descartes' reasoning only validates the belief in his own existence, it does not invalidate Solipsism (or any other Idealistic reasoning), as some think it does.
Dammit! Caught out by careless language again! Let me rephrase that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you barking up the wrong tree here. The doubt about the existence of Entity A may arise spontaneously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this all boils down to what is meant or implied by 'exist' and what the nature of the knowledge of this existence is.
I don't think anyone really doubts that they are some sort of mentally active 'system', for all reasonable pragmatic purposes at least. But what are the limits to this?
- I might not be who or where I seem to be. I might be in some sort of 'Matrix'. So, the 'I' might not be what I think it is.
- It is not safe to assume these rationality of the thought processes are infallible, the logic could be flawed at any step, and I have no way to check this without continuing to rely on logic
- There is no reason to assume the awareness of the thoughts is perfect. There is only changing appearance of phenomena as with all other phenomena. There is no reference point against which I can check this.
- Each thought might be an illusion, from an external source
From this it seem that it is reasonable to deduce one's own existence from apparent phenomena, it is not reasonable to see one 'self' as special or separate from other phenomena, nor is knowledge of it perfect or fundamentally different to that of other phenomena. Few would question their own existence as an object and mentality, its just the conclusion of the existence of a special existential self that is flawed. Many do not have such a sense of self, including young children, Buddhists and anyone fully absorbed in something or under the influence of certain psychoactive drugs.
Originally posted by akhenaten
Dammit! Caught out by careless language again! Let me rephrase that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you barking up the wrong tree here. The doubt about the existence of Entity A may arise spontaneously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter. "The doubt of the existence of Entity A..." already implies that there is (at least conceptually) an Entity A. It is the flaw of Aristotelian Logic, and was already discussed on this thread.
However, I would be interested in a thread about how thoughts can spontaneously arise, with no one to think them. You should start a thread like that.
I think this all boils down to what is meant or implied by 'exist' and what the nature of the knowledge of this existence is.
I don't think anyone really doubts that they are some sort of mentally active 'system', for all reasonable pragmatic purposes at least. But what are the limits to this?
- I might not be who or where I seem to be. I might be in some sort of 'Matrix'. So, the 'I' might not be what I think it is.
Very true, but you'd still exist (just making sure we're clear on that).
- It is not safe to assume these rationality of the thought processes are infallible, the logic could be flawed at any step, and I have no way to check this without continuing to rely on logic
Ah, but your deduction about the possibility of their being a flaw, and the fact that you can't use logic to find it, both relied on logic. Yes, that is the human paradigm, and we are stuck with it.
- There is no reason to assume the awareness of the thoughts is perfect. There is only changing appearance of phenomena as with all other phenomena. There is no reference point against which I can check this.
I don't understand this point, please expound.
- Each thought might be an illusion, from an external source
And yet, the one that was "tricked" by this "external source" would have to exist (on top of which, they would have to think, otherwise they would not be susceptible (sp?) to mind tricks).
From this it seem that it is reasonable to deduce one's own existence from apparent phenomena, it is not reasonable to see one 'self' as special or separate from other phenomena, nor is knowledge of it perfect or fundamentally different to that of other phenomena.
Interesting enough, and I don't/haven't disputed this. I simply disputed the idea that one can think without existing. They may be part of the "whole" of existence, or they may be seperate, but they must exist.
Few would question their own existence as an object and mentality, its just the conclusion of the existence of a special existential self that is flawed. Many do not have such a sense of self, including young children, Buddhists and anyone fully absorbed in something or under the influence of certain psychoactive drugs.
You have a point. You should include it in the thread - that I mentioned earlier - should you choose to start a thread like that.
akhenaten
Jul1-03, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
I don't understand this point, please expound.
If we had perfect knowledge of our own thoughts, we should expect them to arise in perfect clarity, lack of knowledge of them or gaps in them should not be an issue. Sometimes I don't realise I've been thinking something except in retrospect and sometimes thoughts hide beneath the surface only to emerge in dreams, or reverie - if there is such a thing as the subconscious (and there is good reason to think there is) then these are thoughts of which we have only partial awareness. Also, more modern psychological and neurological research shows that the vast majority of even our cognitive functions goes on without awareness or with distorted awareness - events (internal and external) are often resequenced in time by the mind.
It also seems possible to have a temporarily divided awareness.
Knowledge of thoughts seems to be no more perfect than anything else. Rather it seems that the mind is a geography of mental events, which is what we should expect from the structure of the brain. Brain activity does not occur at a single point in space, nor is all brain information routed to a single point.
Originally posted by Mentat
And yet, the one that was "tricked" by this "external source" would have to exist (on top of which, they would have to think, otherwise they would not be susceptible (sp?) to mind tricks).
The trick to being thoroughly sceptical is to assume nothing. Forget all your previous knowledge about the brain and mind. These thoughts could be objectively existing things appearing in some sort of space. Or they could be ripples in a tank of some selfless mental medium. (what's the philosophical difference between that and the thoughts appearing as things in an objective space - why does either imply the existence of a self?)
Originally posted by Mentat
You have a point. You should include it in the thread - that I mentioned earlier - should you choose to start a thread like that.
Hmmm...I was thinking of winding this down. I'm spending too much time on it. Life is short.
Originally posted by akhenaten
The trick to being thoroughly sceptical is to assume nothing. Forget all your previous knowledge about the brain and mind. These thoughts could be objectively existing things appearing in some sort of space. Or they could be ripples in a tank of some selfless mental medium. (what's the philosophical difference between that and the thoughts appearing as things in an objective space - why does either imply the existence of a self?)
Well, it implies the existence of a self, as an existant entity, but it doesn't imply that you exist seperate from everything else, or that you are an "individual". It seems that, throughout all of your participation here, you have been combating the idea of "individual selves" instead of the idea that our thoughts are conclusive evidence of our existence.
akhenaten
Jul4-03, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, it implies the existence of a self, as an existant entity, but it doesn't imply that you exist seperate from everything else, or that you are an "individual". It seems that, throughout all of your participation here, you have been combating the idea of "individual selves" instead of the idea that our thoughts are conclusive evidence of our existence.
That and the idea that awareness of our minds does not have a fundamentally different nature to knowledge of other phenomena.
Originally posted by akhenaten
That and the idea that awareness of our minds does not have a fundamentally different nature to knowledge of other phenomena.
I see. However, do you deny that the ability of Descartes to think about his existence, proves that there must be such a thing as Descartes?
akhenaten
Jul5-03, 10:16 PM
I think he can infer his own existence, but not experience it or deduce it directly.
Originally posted by akhenaten
I think he can infer his own existence, but not experience it or deduce it directly.
Well, of course he can deduce it, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, merely that it's logical.
Here is the deduction of Descartes' existence:
Proposition 1: I am thinking (this cannot be disputed, because to try to get him to "believe" that he is, in fact, not thinking, is to cause him to think about not thinking).
Proposition 2: Only things that exist can think (this is also rather obvious, so I don't think it needs much more clarification - except to say that "things that exist" is a nasty little error in Aristotelian Logic, but appears every single time you refer to any entity).
Proposition 3 (conclusion): I exist.
That is deductive logic, and is thus unquestionably valid, but not necessarily true.
Originally posted by Mentat
That is deductive logic, and is thus unquestionably valid, but not necessarily true.
Huh? Isn't it necessarily true?
Originally posted by Dave
Huh? Isn't it necessarily true?
Well, Dave, it is logically valid because it has been concluded from logical deduction. I also believe that it is true (and rather obviously so), but "truth" cannot be ascertained by logic (no matter how valid).
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.