Is 'I Think, Therefore I Am' a Valid and Obvious Philosophy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Descartes' philosophy, particularly the concept of "I think, therefore I am," is revisited in the discussion, highlighting the idea that the Evil Demon could not convince a person of their non-existence because that would require the person's existence to begin with. Some participants argue that thinking alone does not prove existence, suggesting that sensory experiences and attentiveness to one's being are also crucial. The conversation explores the notion that Descartes' assertion may be myopic, as it emphasizes the mind's authority over existence while neglecting the reality of the external world. Additionally, there is a playful reinterpretation of Descartes' statement to "I drink, therefore I am," emphasizing the importance of experiential engagement. Ultimately, the discussion reflects on the interplay between thought, perception, and existence.

Was Descartes right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • No

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Total voters
    33
  • #61
... 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"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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([beep]), 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 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.[/color] (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 [quoted] 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.

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

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.

:frown:

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...
 
  • #63
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 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".

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.
 
  • #64
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...
 
  • #65
... 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 ).
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?"
 
  • #66
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 perceived 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.
 
  • #67
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 :wink:.

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?
 
  • #68
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 learned in Mathematics, the function f(x) takes x from its domain and maps it into f(x) value from its range. Now consider P([beep]), 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): "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...
 
Last edited:
  • #69
... 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.
 
  • #70
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
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.


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 learned in Mathematics, the function f(x) takes x from its domain and maps it into f(x) value from its range. Now consider P([beep]), 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 [bleep]". I am not saying that. I am saying that there need be an "I" 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[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.

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 separate 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 (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. 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.

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"?
 
Last edited:
  • #71
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 separate 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.
 
  • #72
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For 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([bleep])". 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 statements 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 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' statement.

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 anyone 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 :wink:.

"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.
 
  • #73
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" ). 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 :wink:). 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?
 
  • #74
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 ascertain 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" ). 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...
 
  • #75
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...
 
  • #76
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.
 
  • #77
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 ascertain 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...
 
  • #78
... 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 :wink:.
 
  • #79
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
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.


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 :smile:).

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).
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
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.
 
  • #82
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([bleep]) 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" 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.
 
  • #83
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.
 
  • #84
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.
 
  • #85
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 a lot 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.:wink:
 
  • #86
Originally posted by Lifegazer
I claim to be a rationalist too. I don't know a lot 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.:wink:

That's very true, at least as far as I've read from his Philosophies.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by Mentat
That's very true, at least as far as I've read from his Philosophies.
You surprise me. Do you realize 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.
 
  • #88
Originally posted by Lifegazer
You surprise me. Do you realize 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 :wink:. That's just the kind of person I am: The true Devil's Advocate .
 
  • #89
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 :wink:. 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.
 
  • #90
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).
 

Similar threads

Descartes: I Think Therefore I Am
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
31K
Proving Existence Beyond Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
How Can I Find Peace Between My Mind and Life's Chaos?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Why am I so obsessed with a girl who may never accept me?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Can I save anything in my greenhouse from frost damage?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Philosophy Playing Cards Design: Looking for Feedback
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
My Grade 11 Math mark is eating me alive. What do I do?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
12K
Explore Hegel's Dialectic & Its Impact on Modern Philosophy
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
15K
Having extremely hard time letting go (serious viewers only)
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K