Descartes' Second Rule vs. Uncertainty

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce

I have no idea who first said; "The more I learn the less I know."
Which, of course, means the the better educated we are, the more we learn, the more we know that there is so much more to learn and that very little is known for certain. I have said in other threads that I know nothing. It is one of my favorite lines and is meant to be taken literally.

"The more I know, the more sure I am I know so little.
The eternal paradox."
James Clavell


The Zen and Taoists like to say they are just a beginner. :0)

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's mind there are few.
- Shunryu Suzuki

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Royce
I think Descartes had it wrong when he said "I think; therefore, I am."
In my opinion it should be 'I am; therefore, I think.'

The point is that your existence is confirmed via thought. You cannot confirm your existence without your thoughts. Therefore, there is no logical-legitimacy in your statement.

I have no idea who first said; "The more I learn the less I know."
Which, of course, means the the better educated we are, the more we learn, the more we know that there is so much more to learn and that very little is known for certain. I have said in other threads that I know nothing. It is one of my favorite lines and is meant to be taken literally.

You know *nothing*? I find it ironical that people who adhere to such philsophy often have a lot to say. No offense intended.

I can only perceive the world, reality, through my senses and I know my senses are limited and fallable.

Our sensations are the basis of the known laws of physics. And our physicists are knocking at creation's door. So are our philosophers. You do an injustice to the majesty of our sensations - and I'm not speaking aesthetically here.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think Descartes had it wrong when he said "I think; therefore, I am."
In my opinion it should be 'I am; therefore, I think.'


The point is that your existence is confirmed via thought. You cannot confirm your existence without your thoughts. Therefore, there is no logical-legitimacy in your statement.

Let:
p : The fact that I exist
q : The fact that I think


Logical assertion:
~p -> ~q (If I don't exist, I don't think)

Which implies:
q -> p (If I think, I exist)

Fact: q
p (I think: therefore I exist)

So, Descartes first tested q, and stated affirmitive that "I think", and then concludes that "I am" (I exist).

The statement "I am, therefore I think" is not following from this, nor directly nor indirectly. While it is true that when I am not, neither I think, it is not the case that when I don't think, therefore I am not.

A stone 'IS', but it does not think. So for a stone the following is true : 'I am'. Being doesn't require thinking. Thinking on the other hand requires Being.

So, Descartes was right in that, and made the logical conclusion that from the fact that he was thinking it can be concluded that he exists/is.

This is just based on the premise that thinking requires being.
Nowhere it says however that being requires thinking. A stone is, but does not think. A river is, but does not think. The universe is, but does not think (#)


(#) although it can be argued that we are a part of the universe, and we think, it follows then also that the universe thinks...

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by ahrkron
(Thanks for the reminder )

(Thanks for answering )

Originally posted by ahrkron
Why does that pose a paradox? There is no
reason to expect that reasoning should
produce a "clear explanation" for every problem.

There isn't ?

Originally posted by ahrkron
Think of it as a bunch of chemicals on a huge
petri dish. After a big while, lots of small
formations can reproduce, and they develop
behaviors they pass on to their successors.
Among such behaviors there are "reasoning"
(whatever that is), and a name for the
sensation they have when such "resoning
capability" produces some sort of pleasure.
They classify as a "clear explanation" the
sequence of thoughts they have when such
pleasure is felt.

Why would they expect their "reasoning"
behavior to produce such a sequence for
every possible problem?

Because they can have an infinite amount of
this type of sensations (like humans
who can think and invent). Anyway, I'm not
sure this methaphor is really helpfull here.

Originally posted by ahrkron
Even if that was the case, why would that
pose a paradox?

Because any reasoning we're aware of or can
think about has entities and relations (between
these entities). Now, when you apply any such
reasoning to the Universe you're expecting
everything to have some sort of relation
to anything else. If something apparently should
have no such relations (like the origin of
existence/Universe when considered as a single
total entity - the Universe/existence), then you
can't reason with it. And the rest of the
explanation is in the question above.
(The above is just one of the PoE's many "faces".)

Originally posted by ahrkron
But in order to have a paradox, you need more
than uncertainty; there should be a
contradictory statement that, at least
apparently, has a similarly solid logical
support.

The above explanation should fit. Also, the
answer - question of mine above should fit.
Also, the recent stuff that comes to mind -
the rules of the game can't explain the game.

Plenty of basicly totally unsolvable (so far
at least) contradictions.

Today, for example, GR and QM appear to disagree.
Why don't we go shouting it's a paradox ?
Because while it may be one, we believe it's
temporary due to its rather limmited and
complicated nature. The PoE poses so many
of the most basic and fundumental questions
and has been recognized for phousands of years,
so we truly accept it (some of us, at least )
as a true(nothing is certain, of course) paradox.

Live long and prosper.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Our sensations are the basis of the known laws of physics. And our physicists are knocking at creation's door. So are our philosophers. You do an injustice to the majesty of our sensations - and I'm not speaking aesthetically here.

I don't believe that. If ALL we had were our perceptions and sensations, we would have never been able to discover most of the physical laws. How could electro-magnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces have been discovered without instruments?

Can you imagine that?

Physics does NOT describe our perceptions and sensations of reality, but describe the ACTUAL PHYISICAL world.

I can repeat that 10 MILLIONS TIMES, but you still keep denying that.

Physics decribes the world OUTSIDE OF OUR SENSATIONS, PERCEPTIONS and THOUGHTS, or the MATERIAL WORLD which exists INDEPENDEND of our MIND.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't believe that. If ALL we had were our perceptions and sensations, we would have never been able to discover most of the physical laws. How could electro-magnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces have been discovered without instruments?

All knowledge is derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Of course, it can be argued that mathematics and certain 'concepts' are derived from reason alone. But all scientific knowledge is formulated through sensation.

Physics does NOT describe our perceptions and sensations of reality, but describe the ACTUAL PHYISICAL world.

All physical-law is formulated upon, and confirmed by, sensation. Primarily the sensation of 'sight'.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

And what's the point in that statement ?
Sounds just like one of those wise-ass
slogans that sometimes fit the situation.

The point is that too many people think they look smarter by doubting everything they learn. They think that to doubt what you learn is to have true knowledge. This is not true (according to Descartes), and really makes you just as good as a person who never learned it (because what good is taking in knowledge, if you're not going to do so with any kind of certainty? People who have never learned that bit of knowledge also don't have certainty on the matter, so you're no more knowledgeable than them), and perhaps worse, because you have given yourself the opportunity to know more, and have not taken advantage of it.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All knowledge is derived from the
reasoned analysis of sensation.
Of course, it can be argued that mathematics
and certain 'concepts' are derived from
reason alone. But all scientific
knowledge is formulated through sensation.

I've been wondering for some time LG - how
did you arrive at this general "conclusion"
in the first place ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
"The more I know, the more sure I am I know so little.
The eternal paradox."
James Clavell

How is that a paradox? It just means that you are progressing in knowledge. I've heard this before, and just disagree because learning that there is much more to learn is a positive thing. It shows that you have acquired some wisdom, and is not to be looked on as contradictory to learning.

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's mind there are few.
- Shunryu Suzuki
[/B]

I've heard this one too, and while I agree, I don't see the point. If someone is an expert, why do they need possibilities? They've already accomplished one (or perhaps more) of the possibilities that they had before them, and that is true accomplishment - while the one with just possibilities has yet to accomplish anything.

Oh well, I guess this isn't the thread to discuss old philosophies in.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I've been wondering for some time LG - how
did you arrive at this general "conclusion"
in the first place ?

Live long and prosper.

Well, if I may speak for lifegazer, he's shown before that that which we reason on is first "sensed/percieved" and then reasoned on. IOW, if I were to reason on why a comet's tail points away from the sun (for example), I would have to have already perceived the existence, both of the comet, and of the comet's "tail".

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All knowledge is derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Of course, it can be argued that mathematics and certain 'concepts' are derived from reason alone. But all scientific knowledge is formulated through sensation.

Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason. Reality is the arbiter on what reason is applicable and what not.

All physical-law is formulated upon, and confirmed by, sensation. Primarily the sensation of 'sight'.

Are you a physicist?

This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason. Reality is the arbiter on what reason is applicable and what not.

True, but knowledge is not just a knowledge of facts. Knowledge is a collection of that which you believe, and you derive that which you believe from your "reasoned analysis of sensations", don't you?

Are you a physicist?

Calm down, count to ten, then to 100, and so on...

This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.

How did physicists happen to come to know about these things, which they cannot observe in any way?

 

[Royce]

In response to all of your responses to my reponse, Yes I know and when I was younger I thought that that was the one ultimate truth that we could know with certainty. I pondered it for years but found that for me it was a dead end. I could not proceed beyond that point.
As I grew older I came to believe that thinking was being, at least being human. That they are like identities. One implies the other. I am is a given or I couldn't say or think it. A rock is but it doesn't think. To be self aware is to think. I think; therefore, "I" am.

"I know nothing." obviously can be blowing your own whistle or showing off. It can also be a sincere admission of being the opposite of a "know it all" and in possession of a seeking, inquirering mind. It's a Zen thing.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
The point is that too many people think they
look smarter by doubting everything they learn.
They think that to doubt what you learn is to
have true knowledge. This is not true (according
to Descartes), and really makes you just as good
as a person who never learned it (because what
good is taking in knowledge, if you're not going
to do so with any kind of certainty? People who
have never learned that bit of knowledge also
don't have certainty on the matter, so you're
no more knowledgeable than them), and perhaps
worse, because you have given yourself the
opportunity to know more, and have not taken
advantage of it.

Thank you for the clarification Mentat, but
I understood the statement in the first place.
I simply disagree with it. It's just the
way existence/Universe works that no certainties
about it are possible. Doubt is a reasonable
necessety according to any reason, not a semantic
issue. Doubt is also important because it
teaches us respect and strangely enough often
allows us to solve problems by approaching them
from different viewpoints. (That is also
why I respect Descrates' opinion and recognize
its occasional usefullness, but I disagree with
it in general.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Let:
p : The fact that I exist
q : The fact that I think


Logical assertion:
~p -> ~q (If I don't exist, I don't think)

Which implies:
q -> p (If I think, I exist)

Fact: q
p (I think: therefore I exist)

So, Descartes first tested q, and stated affirmitive that "I think", and then concludes that "I am" (I exist).

The statement "I am, therefore I think" is not following from this, nor directly nor indirectly. While it is true that when I am not, neither I think, it is not the case that when I don't think, therefore I am not.

A stone 'IS', but it does not think. So for a stone the following is true : 'I am'. Being doesn't require thinking. Thinking on the other hand requires Being.

So, Descartes was right in that, and made the logical conclusion that from the fact that he was thinking it can be concluded that he exists/is.

This is just based on the premise that thinking requires being.
Nowhere it says however that being requires thinking. A stone is, but does not think. A river is, but does not think. The universe is, but does not think (#)


(#) although it can be argued that we are a part of the universe, and we think, it follows then also that the universe thinks...

Nope, it just follows that part of the universe thinks. The universe is a set of all things that exist, but only a minority of the things within it actually think. Therefore, if you were to take the universe as a whole, then it is an over-all non-thinking entity.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, if I may speak for lifegazer, he's shown before that that which we reason on is first "sensed/percieved" and then reasoned on. IOW, if I were to reason on why a comet's tail points away from the sun (for example), I would have to have already perceived the existence, both of the comet, and of the comet's "tail".

Well said Mentat. In fact, I have enjoyed most of your posts in this thread.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason.

What reality do you see? And what else do you see except the various c[/color]o[/color]l[/color]o[/color]u[/color]r[/color]s[/color] (and non-colour) of light?
And what are these colours? Are they not the representations of the reality you speak of, but cannot see? Are they not the product of the sensation of sight?

This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.

Totally incorrect. Our whole theories about the atom, and of the fundamental-energy which accounts for this base building-block of existence, is derived via reasoned (mathematical) analysis of things which we can see.
Quantum-theory is derived no differently (in method) than were the classical laws of physics. Indeed; any upheld theory can only be validated by the sensation of sight - observational qualification.
I find it highly ironic that the sensation of all theories, is used as the verification of ~reality~. Very very ironic. And somewhat amusing from a philosophical point-of-view.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What reality do you see? And what else do you see except the various c[/color]o[/color]l[/color]o[/color]u[/color]r[/color]s[/color] (and non-colour) of light?
And what are these colours? Are they not the representations of the reality you speak of, but cannot see? Are they not the product of the sensation of sight?

The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.

Totally incorrect. Our whole theories about the atom, and of the fundamental-energy which accounts for this base building-block of existence, is derived via reasoned (mathematical) analysis of things which we can see.

When did you see an electron?

Quantum-theory is derived no differently (in method) than were the classical laws of physics. Indeed; any upheld theory can only be validated by the sensation of sight - observational qualification.
I find it highly ironic that the sensation of all theories, is used as the verification of ~reality~. Very very ironic. And somewhat amusing from a philosophical point-of-view.

Wrong again. Our sensation of sight is not the only standard. Of course our physical description should match our sensation of it.
When we see the sun goes down the horizon, we see that sun gets larger and redder. A theory of light explains the sensations we have, because of the way the light is interacting with the atmosphere, cause the red colour and the virtual increase in the sun's disk.
The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation. We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world. And of course these instruments produce output that is meaningfull to humans. Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.

But you can't prove this. I agree with you, please let that be known. However, I also happen to know that you cannot prove that this phenomena is actually external. It's believed by physicists, but that doesn't mean it's right.

When did you see an electron?

Ah, but did not physicists postulate the existence of an electron because of having observed what they believed to be it's effects?

Wrong again. Our sensation of sight is not the only standard. Of course our physical description should match our sensation of it.
When we see the sun goes down the horizon, we see that sun gets larger and redder. A theory of light explains the sensations we have, because of the way the light is interacting with the atmosphere, cause the red colour and the virtual increase in the sun's disk.
The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation. We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world. And of course these instruments produce output that is meaningfull to humans. Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise? [/B]

No, I don't think he would, but I think you've dug yourself a hole. If you say that "science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge", then what's to prevent you from believing that human knowledge comes from the Mind of God?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well said Mentat. In fact, I have enjoyed most of your posts in this thread.

Truth of the matter is, I don't agree with your conclusion, but I have come to realize that it is unfalsifiable (at least by empirical data, I still may be able to disprove it through rational argument (possibly not)). I defend a lot of it's premises, because a lot of it's premises are correct.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.

The "knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave" is a reasoned conlusion, arrived at by applying reason to our sensations.
Reason upon sensation - this is what 'knowledge' boils down to. All scientific-knowledge is "reason upon sensation".

The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation.

The knowledge of such things is gleaned via reason upon sensation, also. But I'm sure I'm correct in stating that quantum-events can be observed via effects of light. Hence, QM is a theory which is also verified through observation/sensation.

We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world.

"Instruments" are built by, and for, humanity. And their results are also sensed.

Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise?

No. Although I would qualify that science is governed by a materialistic philosophy, at present. But it won't always be like this. Materialism is a philosophy which has no footings. It is an endangered species.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Materialism is a philosophy which has no footings.

This is only as true of Materialism as it is of your hypothesis, isn't it? You cannot disprove either of them.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is only as true of Materialism as it is of your hypothesis, isn't it? You cannot disprove either of them.

I can promise the reader that there isn't one single rational-argument to support the basic premise(s) of materialism - that all effects have a material-cause. And then you know how I present my own argument:- with universally-experienced facts.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I can promise the reader that there isn't
one single rational-argument to support
the basic premise(s) of materialism - that
all effects have a material-cause.

That's old materialism - including the
false assumption that science reveals truth.
"New" materialism is JUST science - observation
of the Universe with no assumptions.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
That's old materialism - including the
false assumption that science reveals truth.
"New" materialism is JUST science - observation
of the Universe with no assumptions.

Live long and prosper.

*laff*
So you will no longer insist that 'thought' emanates from within the brain (matter)? And you will no longer insist that 'life' came-about via material-processes? And you will no longer insist that the BB had a material-cause?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
So you will no longer insist that 'thought'
emanates from within the brain (matter)?
And you will no longer insist that 'life'
came-about via material-processes? And
you will no longer insist that the BB
had a material-cause?

I personally never did. It's just the most
probable - direct - lacking of premises
deduction from what we observe. Isn't it ?

Peace and long life.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
I personally never did. It's just the most
probable - direct - lacking of premises
deduction from what we observe. Isn't it ?

Since all three of those assumptions require that you believe that all effects have a material-cause, I think that that's exactly what you support - 'materialism'.
And given my own philosophy of such matters, I'd have to say that your conclusion is utterly unfounded.
I find it laughable that you would come to the same conclusions as "old materialism", using the exact same beliefs, and have the gall to call it "new materialism."

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Since all three of those assumptions
require that you believe that
all effects have a material-cause,...

And what is material-cause ?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
But you can't prove this. I agree with you, please let that be known. However, I also happen to know that you cannot prove that this phenomena is actually external. It's believed by physicists, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Excuse me, but what are you talking here? If physicist observe physical phenomena, and use detectors that "witness" some physical phenomena regaring electrons, then what is it they are witnessing?

Do you claim that all the physicists did was looking at their own navel or something? What do you mean with "external"? External to what? The mind? The mind does not exist in forms of electrons (the brain of course consists of things like electrons, but that is something different), so they can't be witnessing an "internal" electron.

You are only right that all we can say and know about the "electron" being really out there that it has some properties according to some model of the electron, that makes it possible for us to calculate things and predict the behaviour of electrons.
That is of course a necessary property the model of the electron should obey, else it would be a false theoretical model, if the electron would not behave predictably.

Ah, but did not physicists postulate the existence of an electron because of having observed what they believed to be it's effects?

Yes, they did observe the electron. But to see an electron, with the human eye is not what is being stated there. Science can and does observe things that are unobservable for the human perceptory organs.

No, I don't think he would, but I think you've dug yourself a hole. If you say that "science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge", then what's to prevent you from believing that human knowledge comes from the Mind of God?

Nothing. But then this 'Mind of God' must be put in the form of a scientific hypothese, and must be explorable. If the hypothese is to be stated true, then there must be some objective scientific evidence for it that can either state the 'Mind of God' does exist, or does not exist.

So far I have not seen any workable scientific hypothese about the existence of the 'Mind of God'.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
So far I have not seen any workable scientific hypothese about the existence of the 'Mind of God'.

You should do some serious reading about the placebo-effect... and the power of thought (positive & negative).