What is your definition of knowledge?

  • #51
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.
... it's that he's saying that there are too many possibilities, with too many reprecussions, for any processing unit to pull of such a "trick" ...
For "any" processing unit? How can he/you know that? There's no certainty about the limits of processing units, including our minds. See, this isn't Science this is Philosophy. You can't show me a human brain and tell me "it can do something in a range from 10^14 to 10^17 IPS, so it can't do 10^20 GIPS." That's nonsense here. For Philosophy no such thing as a human brain is sensible. "The mind" is an abstraction of the thinker entity. It isn't the brain or the software loaded on a (possibly artificial) neural network. It can't be given properties the scientific way. There's no certainty about the outcome of observation (which is the first step for Science) for the objective reality undergoes unpredictable modifications that we can't know about, in the best case.

The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.

And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.
That doesn't mean that science loses it's credibility or usefullness ...
Halfway right. Whenever we talk/think we've already submitted to a set of pre-suppositions that are sometimes totally unknown. Fortunately, for Science at least they're well-introduced by giants like Francis Bacon as in his "Novum Organum."

Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.

It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.

You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.

Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.

Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.

Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...
Well, it is generally held that the mind is information produced by the brain...
Another scientific claim in extra-scientific context.
Your starting to remind me of Nietzsche's (and that other guy, who's name I forget, (it starts with an "St")), wherein he posits that there is no external reality, just the individual perceptions.
I'd be honored to be compared to the great Friedrich Nietzsche . I've only read his "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I read it when I was 9 for the first time. Then I couldn't even understand some words in its translation to my native language but was fascinated by Zarathustra's descent and the outer layer of his speech. Later I read it another two times with a 4-year gap in between though I never well understnood it. It still fascinates me.

And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little :wink:.

Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."

I'm waiting for your next post...
 
Last edited:
  • #52
3,762
2
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

I've got a severe problem here. You seem to interpret all my questions as negations. I ask "are you sure?" and you answer "it doesn't really matter." It does matter when I'm asking and when I'm asking I'm not negating or urging an opposition, I'm simply asking your opinion. I would appreciate any answer like "yes, because ..." or "no, because ..." but you just seem to think that I mean "you aren't sure" by asking if you're sure.

For "any" processing unit? How can he/you know that? There's no certainty about the limits of processing units, including our minds. See, this isn't Science this is Philosophy. You can't show me a human brain and tell me "it can do something in a range from 10^14 to 10^17 IPS, so it can't do 10^20 GIPS." That's nonsense here. For Philosophy no such thing as a human brain is sensible. "The mind" is an abstraction of the thinker entity. It isn't the brain or the software loaded on a (possibly artificial) neural network. It can't be given properties the scientific way. There's no certainty about the outcome of observation (which is the first step for Science) for the objective reality undergoes unpredictable modifications that we can't know about, in the best case.

The answer to "what a mind is built upon?" will later take shape after one's Philosophy has given her/him a concrete foundation for moving on. My thoughts have never given me such foundation thus I always hold that question in mind for further revisions/revolts. When it comes to talking Science I use the usual definition but am always cautious not to take it for granted.

And you're right. If I want to know Dennett's Philosophy I have to read his own book; that I can't because his book is possibly never published here. Your Philosophy, however, is present at hand and seems to take Dennett's point on this matter as a core concept for its further moves.

Halfway right. Whenever we talk/think we've already submitted to a set of pre-suppositions that are sometimes totally unknown. Fortunately, for Science at least they're well-introduced by giants like Francis Bacon as in his "Novum Organum."

Being submitted to the pre-suppositions of a certain point of view, Science for example, gives the viewer a sense of internal consistency. That's good and even necessary as long as that specific point of view is meant to be explored. Assessment and comparison of points of view which is a philosophical task, on the other hand, must be done free of pre-suppositions peculiar to a specific point of view in order to be fair. Every point of view is internally consistent and righteous and if it's measured by its own means it will always seem responsive of all needs. As I said before, an external pre-supposition-free point of view must be maintained to verify the validity of various points of view in a comparison.

It is always possible that a certain point of view is in someway superior to others. It would be such a pleasure if we could find these superiorities/inferiorities. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this is impossible due to that one can't be free of all pre-suppositions. In the best case, one is fair enough to put aside obvious pre-judices for or against a certain point of view but there're always pre-suppositions imposed on an individual that she/he is unable to detect. Consequently, general uncertainty can be applied here, too. Having applied general uncertainty, all points of view are leveled to a similar state. One can't be sure if one of them is really superior.

You say "isn't it possible that that's why they work so well, in describing reality?" That's indeed a just claim but let's see what "working well" means.

Science, for instance, has been successful in terms of longevity, prosperity and environment control (and Internet, of course!). Are these the ultimate terms for human beings? Longevity, prosperity and environment control seem so good to our common sense; no one wants to lose them. However, they are ultimates set and spread by Science (scientists in fact) in a period of about four centuries. These ultimates that seem so good to us needn't seem so good to everyone. Remember the resistance against Science and its means and ultimates in the past centuries? Didn't people of old times want better fruits? They perhaps did but they had ultimates that were of much higher worth to them. They thought environment control may be against God's will and their highest goal was to keep God satisfied. Longevity is partly gained by birth control, remember how the majority (really, the majority) stood against it? The ultimates/goals determine what is "working well" and what is not. And ultimates/goals are arbitrary. Nothing external limits the ultimates for a mind; the only limitation is the limits to the mind's imagination.

Every point of view "works well" when viewed from inside. This is the meaning of "internal consistency." This consistency is, however, no guarantee about the way that point of view appears from outside.

Before Science had become part of our daily lives, it was being viewed by people from other points of view, from outside. So it may have seemed frightening/absurd/dangerous/God-angering to them. It didn't seem to "work well" by their ultimates. Now that Science is just the biggest part of lives we're viewing it from inside and that's why it seems so good/satisfying/beneficial that we feel we can't live without it. Most of us perhaps wouldn't be alive without it. For feeding this over-populated planet seems to be a scientific problem but then that's another scientific claim which is coherent with the body of Science although this coherence may only be seen from inside and not outside. Perhaps there are other ways to feed people. There even may be extra-scientific means by which one can feed the entire population without any efforts. Seems ridiculous? It isn't! Think about it...

Another scientific claim in extra-scientific context.

I'd be honored to be compared to the great Friedrich Nietzsche . I've only read his "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I read it when I was 9 for the first time. Then I couldn't even understand some words in its translation to my native language but was fascinated by Zarathustra's descent and the outer layer of his speech. Later I read it another two times with a 4-year gap in between though I never well understnood it. It still fascinates me.

And I don't know that other one whose name starts with "St." Lest you mean Stewart Little :wink:.

Finally, I haven't claimed anything special, yet; let alone "no external reality, only individual perceptions." I've only argued about "general uncertainty."

I'm waiting for your next post...
Please don't take offense, Manuel. I only said that it didn't matter because you are "re-inventing the wheel", so to speak, and I have faintly lost interest in discussing why all of our pre-suppositions are wrong. I only lose interest in this because the systems that are based on these "suppositions" work, and I enjoy studying them. Don't get me wrong, I'm open to the idea that they are wrong, but it's rather meaningless to just speculate as to "what if" they were.

Even if Nietzsche's philosophy was correct, it wouldn't matter that our systems are wrong, provided they work - in our own "realities".

I was wrong, the philosopher that influenced Nietzsche's work was "Schoupenhauser".

We can keep discussing how all of the things that we believe in are wrong (except for our existence, of course :wink:) if you want (and I will be glad to continue this discussion with you). However, I'd like to present a point (that might slightly digress from the current theme of the thread), and get your opinion on it. You were talking about whether I can really know that I am talking to you. Well, why isn't the fact that I keep seeing your responses proof enough of this?
 
  • #53
152
0
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Dear Reader,

I've a list of questions and would be thankful if you give your set of answers and let us start a discussion on these answers. I will reveal my answers after having seen yours . New questions to be added to the list are also much appreciated.

01. What is your definition of knowledge? What do you think of it?
02. Does knowledge differ from science? Is it a more general term? Why and how?
03. Can knowledge be shared among human beings?
04. What are the means for sharing knowledge?
05. Are the means of sharing knowledge reliable?
06. Can knowledge be verified?
07. If yes, what are the criteria for verifying knowledge?
08. Are there different types of knowledge?
09. Should knowledge be sought for?
10. What does "seeking knowledge" mean?
11. Can knowledge be measured in comparative terms, eg A has more knowledge than B?
12. Can knowledge be measured in quantitative terms, eg A has X knowledge units more than B?
13. Can knowledge be divided into practical and theoretical knowledge?
14. If yes, what are the characteristics of practical knowledge?
15. Do questions like "how practical is this piece of knowledge" make sense for you?
16. Can knowledge be acquired? If yes, how?

PS: Shame on me! I changed "devised" to "divided"...

1.knowledge is thinking....we look something and thinking....
and get something
2.yes...like write a poem...it's a knowledge..but not science
3.yes
4.tell the other what your opinion
5.yes
6.yes...our life can verify
7.knowledge is only knowledge....it's no true or false
8.what u mean?
9.yes
10.learn something you don't know, and useful
11.no
12.no
13.no...it's not physics can devide theory and experiment
15.is it pratical is doing something?
16.why not?...reading, learn from other....because u just have 24
hours a day...if u learn for the the other....that mean u save times to experience that thing
 
  • #54
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Read this post well, please!!!
... I only said that it didn't matter because you are "re-inventing the wheel", so to speak, and I have faintly lost interest in discussing why all of our pre-suppositions are wrong ...
I, too, feel somehow tired of our discussion (or what?) but not because it is like "re-inventing the wheel." If it was Science re-inventing the wheel would be absurd but again this is "Philosophy." The wheel we re-invent is our own wheel; my wheel is different from Nietzsche's, Dennett's and yours. We're not re-inventing the same wheel all the time. I desire re-inventing my "own" wheel and for that purpose I seek help from others. I let others know my opinion and ask them to argue about it, to prove me wrong. It's an exhaustive task; it will need much time and patience though it's my deepest elation as well. Re-inventing the wheel is the very reason for having a PF-Philosophy. If it wasn't for re-inventing the wheel you wouldn't be the intelligent inquisitive Mentat but rather a non-Mentat.

My weariness comes from not achieving a single point of agreement. And partly that I feel you just don't get my point. I say it over and over again that I'm not about to say our "pre-suppositions" are wrong/right. I'm saying we can't be sure of them. I'm only saying they can't be simply seen as the one and only possibility. I talk of "general uncertainty" as a principle of thought. And what do you say? You say you've lost interest in discussing why all our pre-suppositions are wrong. Who's ever said we were discussing the wrongness of something? Did I ever say they were wrong? I only asked if you're sure and if you were someway sure you could say "yes" and explain the grounds. I repeat, I don't pose for or against any possibility but I ask of the reason you prefer one possibility over countless others.

Another time I say this: Philosophy is not Science. "What if" questions are crucial to Philosophy because they represent alternative possibilities to our current thoughts. Too many "what if" questions won't benefit Science for it needs a finite (and fairly small) set of them to empirically test but they do benefit Philosophy for it is meant to explore all possibilities for human beings. All those alternative possibilities have been the basis to alternative points of view which have later become the mainstream and formed the movements of human individuals and human societies. "What if" is the heart of our endeavor to explore new possibilities which have never been thought of. "What if it isn't that way?" is a motive for seeing if "it" is "that way" and if it isn't "the other way."
I was wrong, the philosopher that influenced Nietzsche's work was "Schoupenhauser".
The one you mean is Arthur Schopenhauer who is sometimes called the "philosopher of pessimism."

You compare me to him and then say how our suppositions are wrong? It is clear that you've built up an image of my thoughts from the very first post which is way far from what I meant to convey. You've made up this image in spite of me having so many times attempted to break it down with so much effort. This is the way our suppositions "may" be wrong. I'm no pessimist, I'm no optimist, I'm no [beep]-ist, I'm just me, I'm trying to think fair and just to whatever definition of fairness and justice I have set for me. I like all philosophers but I'm noway like Schopenhauer.

Even worse, I often see you ignore my words. I don't write them to waste your time and mine. My sentences convey my thoughts. They can't be ignored if one is about to criticize them.
Well, why isn't the fact that I keep seeing your responses proof enough of this?
The statement "I'm talking to you" is made up of two core concepts; first the act of talking and then your audience (that is the "you" which points at me).

The act of talking implies the conveying of meaning over a communication channel. Our communication channel ought to be an entity from the objective reality, PF forms on the Internet. That the entity is external to you is a matter to be doubted. If it is external for sure, then its reliability is subject to uncertainty. If its reliability in conveying the structure is verified, then its reliability in conveying the content can be questioned. Your evidence of talking to me is your perception of incoming/outgoing messages. This evidence can be satisfied with countless distinct scenarios, for example the whole thing your conscious mind perceives as a talk to an external entity may be an inter-process communication between a process in your conscious mind and a background process. None of the scenarios including the "real" talk has higher creditability compared to others for those matters of doubt I described here can noway be verified without first examining the structure of objective reality which in turn is something to be doubted and should be verified.

Then, the nature of your audience is suspect. Is it a computer? Is it a human? Is it a software process? Is it a mental process? Doesn't it transcend all guesses made at its nature? Matter of fact it really isn't important to whom you're talking but there are further implications to these questions I'm going to explain right now.

The statement "I'm talking to you" as meant in its common meaning has so many assumptions subtly hidden inside it. Here is a list of those I can conceive of:

00. There is an "I."
01. This "I" is capable of an action named "talking."
02. This action is by definition so and so and is being performed according to the statement.
03. There is a "you."
04. There should be a "you" to talk with.
05. "You" and "I" are prior to the action "talking."
06. The action will cease to exist if "you" and/or "I" cease to exist.
07. "You" and "I" are distinct.
08. "You" and "I" would continue to exist if the action ceases to exist.

There are indeed many other assumptions that I haven't been able to extract. I call them "assumptions" because they can't be proven but are always present whenever two individuals are talking or thinking they're talking or whatnot. Countless assumptions are hidden in our every action/thought. That they can't be proven doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong but they can't also said to be right to any extent. We just take them for granted to continue our habits of life.

What I'm doing to this daily statement is noway new. One century ago David Hilbert (great German mathematician) showed how the 2000-year-old beast named Euclidean geometry had much more axioms than it was said to have. The axioms, in fact, implied many (so-called, I suppose) "real" axioms that were much more "basic" and "intuitive" than the original axioms. And then instead of the first bunch of axioms (whose modification led to non-Euclidean geometries) there were many more axioms to be proven to be basic enough to be called "axioms." I'm furthering his work by saying that nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted (many others have done so, I'm sure) even the statement "nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted." You see, this is a paradox but that's another story.

2. For newton1:

Thank you for posting but I'm afraid you're a bit late. Please read the posts from the very beginning and tell us what you think.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
3,762
2
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Read this post well, please!!!

I, too, feel somehow tired of our discussion (or what?) but not because it is like "re-inventing the wheel." If it was Science re-inventing the wheel would be absurd but again this is "Philosophy." The wheel we re-invent is our own wheel; my wheel is different from Nietzsche's, Dennett's and yours. We're not re-inventing the same wheel all the time. I desire re-inventing my "own" wheel and for that purpose I seek help from others. I let others know my opinion and ask them to argue about it, to prove me wrong. It's an exhaustive task; it will need much time and patience though it's my deepest elation as well. Re-inventing the wheel is the very reason for having a PF-Philosophy. If it wasn't for re-inventing the wheel you wouldn't be the intelligent inquisitive Mentat but rather a non-Mentat.

My weariness comes from not achieving a single point of agreement. And partly that I feel you just don't get my point. I say it over and over again that I'm not about to say our "pre-suppositions" are wrong/right. I'm saying we can't be sure of them. I'm only saying they can't be simply seen as the one and only possibility. I talk of "general uncertainty" as a principle of thought. And what do you say? You say you've lost interest in discussing why all our pre-suppositions are wrong. Who's ever said we were discussing the wrongness of something? Did I ever say they were wrong? I only asked if you're sure and if you were someway sure you could say "yes" and explain the grounds. I repeat, I don't pose for or against any possibility but I ask of the reason you prefer one possibility over countless others.

Another time I say this: Philosophy is not Science. "What if" questions are crucial to Philosophy because they represent alternative possibilities to our current thoughts. Too many "what if" questions won't benefit Science for it needs a finite (and fairly small) set of them to empirically test but they do benefit Philosophy for it is meant to explore all possibilities for human beings. All those alternative possibilities have been the basis to alternative points of view which have later become the mainstream and formed the movements of human individuals and human societies. "What if" is the heart of our endeavor to explore new possibilities which have never been thought of. "What if it isn't that way?" is a motive for seeing if "it" is "that way" and if it isn't "the other way."

The one you mean is Arthur Schopenhauer who is sometimes called the "philosopher of pessimism."

You compare me to him and then say how our suppositions are wrong? It is clear that you've built up an image of my thoughts from the very first post which is way far from what I meant to convey. You've made up this image in spite of me having so many times attempted to break it down with so much effort. This is the way our suppositions "may" be wrong. I'm no pessimist, I'm no optimist, I'm no [beep]-ist, I'm just me, I'm trying to think fair and just to whatever definition of fairness and justice I have set for me. I like all philosophers but I'm noway like Schopenhauer.

Even worse, I often see you ignore my words. I don't write them to waste your time and mine. My sentences convey my thoughts. They can't be ignored if one is about to criticize them.

The statement "I'm talking to you" is made up of two core concepts; first the act of talking and then your audience (that is the "you" which points at me).

The act of talking implies the conveying of meaning over a communication channel. Our communication channel ought to be an entity from the objective reality, PF forms on the Internet. That the entity is external to you is a matter to be doubted. If it is external for sure, then its reliability is subject to uncertainty. If its reliability in conveying the structure is verified, then its reliability in conveying the content can be questioned. Your evidence of talking to me is your perception of incoming/outgoing messages. This evidence can be satisfied with countless distinct scenarios, for example the whole thing your conscious mind perceives as a talk to an external entity may be an inter-process communication between a process in your conscious mind and a background process. None of the scenarios including the "real" talk has higher creditability compared to others for those matters of doubt I described here can noway be verified without first examining the structure of objective reality which in turn is something to be doubted and should be verified.

Then, the nature of your audience is suspect. Is it a computer? Is it a human? Is it a software process? Is it a mental process? Doesn't it transcend all guesses made at its nature? Matter of fact it really isn't important to whom you're talking but there are further implications to these questions I'm going to explain right now.

The statement "I'm talking to you" as meant in its common meaning has so many assumptions subtly hidden inside it. Here is a list of those I can conceive of:

00. There is an "I."
01. This "I" is capable of an action named "talking."
02. This action is by definition so and so and is being performed according to the statement.
03. There is a "you."
04. There should be a "you" to talk with.
05. "You" and "I" are prior to the action "talking."
06. The action will cease to exist if "you" and/or "I" cease to exist.
07. "You" and "I" are distinct.
08. "You" and "I" would continue to exist if the action ceases to exist.

There are indeed many other assumptions that I haven't been able to extract. I call them "assumptions" because they can't be proven but are always present whenever two individuals are talking or thinking they're talking or whatnot. Countless assumptions are hidden in our every action/thought. That they can't be proven doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong but they can't also said to be right to any extent. We just take them for granted to continue our habits of life.

What I'm doing to this daily statement is noway new. One century ago David Hilbert (great German mathematician) showed how the 2000-year-old beast named Euclidean geometry had much more axioms than it was said to have. The axioms, in fact, implied many (so-called, I suppose) "real" axioms that were much more "basic" and "intuitive" than the original axioms. And then instead of the first bunch of axioms (whose modification led to non-Euclidean geometries) there were many more axioms to be proven to be basic enough to be called "axioms." I'm furthering his work by saying that nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted (many others have done so, I'm sure) even the statement "nothing is basic enough to be taken for granted." You see, this is a paradox but that's another story.

2. For newton1:

Thank you for posting but I'm afraid you're a bit late. Please read the posts from the very beginning and tell us what you think.
Manuel, I've been reading your posts thouroughly. I never respond until I do. My problem is not that I think that you are saying that everything we believe is wrong/right. My problem is that you are stating the obvious, that it can't be proven. However, when I said "it doesn't matter", I meant it in the same sense as Wuliheron always does - which is that it will make no difference to our lives; the pursuit of knowledge/wisdom; the studies of Science/the studies of Philosophy; or anything else.

Perhaps you should post one point of discussion at a time, and I will respond to each, individually.

As far as the supposition required for "I am talking to you", I agree with most of them. It is not an assumption that I exist, Descartes showed this rather well. It is not an assumption that I'm capable of communication, because I've observed myself as using is many times in my life. However, I guess you're right about the rest of it.
 
  • #56
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If you say that "it will make no difference to our lives" let's have your word. Plus that I still think you haven't read my previous post(s) thoroughly for there've been many important claims in them that you haven't even taken into account during the discussion.

I read "I think therefore I am" thread posts. Your noticeable post there is the one saying:
Please, don't get caught up in the phrase. It is but the conclusion of an important argument.

I have to ask you people (especially people like carl), do you think that you can convince someone of something, if that person doesn't exist? If not, then you cannot convince me that I don't exist, because I have to exist for you to convince me of anything.

Here is the point of Descarte's reasoning (and his axiom):

I can think about not existing, thus, I exist

In shortened form: I think, therefore I am.
I don't agree with you on these points. Please explain this post in more detail. Let's argue the case. Post here or we'll move to your topic, "I think therefore I am."
 
  • #57
3,762
2
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hi,

1. For Mentat:

If you say that "it will make no difference to our lives" let's have your word. Plus that I still think you haven't read my previous post(s) thoroughly for there've been many important claims in them that you haven't even taken into account during the discussion.

I read "I think therefore I am" thread posts. Your noticeable post there is the one saying:


I don't agree with you on these points. Please explain this post in more detail. Let's argue the case. Post here or we'll move to your topic, "I think therefore I am."
I haven't ignored any points, I just don't have time (or space, for that matter) to respond to all of them at once. That's why I asked if you wanted to ask me about one thing at a time.

Why do you disagree with those points? This is your thread, so if you don't mind side-tracking it, I will talk with you about Descartes' reasoning, but if you want to stay on-topic, then we can just continue this on my thread.
 

Related Threads for: What is your definition of knowledge?

  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
573
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
477
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
Top