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
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 let's 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...
.