What can I know with 100% certainty?
I am 100% certain that I am conscious but it is not possible for me to know with 100% certainty that my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe actually exist. I perceive my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe. It is possible that what I perceive is either a dream or a hallucination or an illusion or a simulation and not objectively real. It is also possible that my perceived reality is actually real, but I have no way of knowing this with 100% certainty. Given the fact that I cannot know with 100% certainty what is objectively real, how can I know what is morally correct with 100% certainty? Does quantum indeterminacy prevent macroscopic determinism? Quantum superposition does not create macroscopic superposition. When one tosses a coin, either the head or the tail ends up on the top but not both. How can we know if macroscopic determinism is true or false with 100% certainty?
Comments (1386)
I suppose in a more philosophical area, the idea that questions exist and answers can be formulated, proven, and disproven. Albeit not to every individual's particular satisfaction or standard of burden of proof or level of scrutiny.
In short, "I think, therefore I am." .. or are you? Therein lies the proof there is at least some truth or falsehood and the ability to ascertain whether or not a statement or concept is closer or further away to each, respectively. If not at least by widely accepted standards, practices, and definitions.
Edit: That's amazing. I didn't even read @flannel jesus's post under after. lol
Great minds think alike I suppose :smile:
Good question. I probably wouldn't even begin to go there. I am either convinced of something or not. Percentages add nothing. What is the difference between being certain and being 100% certain? Adding that percentage seems to be a scientistic way of saying, 'I have no doubts'. But so what? What is the difference between 100% and 95% certain? They are functionally the same in as much as we carry on and incorporate that 'certainty' (a bad word) into our presuppositions for life. I see no value in graduating certainty.
I have never subscribed to '100% certainly' style language for anything. My beliefs are based on 'reasonable confidence' via the best evidence I have available at the time. I take it as a given that we don't have access to any ultimate style truth and that truth is itself an abstraction which looks different in different contexts. We don't really need any more than this to go about our business.
A: I know X with 100% certainty.
B: But are you 100% certain that you know X with 100% certainty?
A: Yes, I am 100% certain that I know X with 100% certainty.
B: OK, but are you 100% certain that you are 100% certain that you know X with 100% certainty?
etc.
I thought the same, but I supposed that was obvious.
By the way, glad to see you around again, Corvus.
For death of every life on the Earth, I was not so sure in the past. When I was a child, I believed people die, but they come back or resurrect next day - because I have seen a film, and the actor was killed and the film ended. I saw another film with the same actor but different role, and I recognised him, and thought to myself, wow people die, but they resurrect no problem.
As time goes by, and you get older, and you notice that was not true. Truth is that, everyone dies eventually, and they never come back forever.
OK, I'd agree about 100% certainty of my own awareness.
I watched part of the video, but its part 5 of 6, so I decided to watch all of part 1 of 6 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX7bs4uvPyc
I think that no free will and entirely free will are two extremes, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Answer: you don't know. Although this answer isn't satisfying to some, I think you just have to go with your intuitions. You can have reasonable confidence that you share a reality with others and that there are implications for how that reality is shared. Suffering seems real enough when experienced, so perhaps go with a worldview that works to prevent causing suffering (you can include being a vegan).
When it comes to gods I can't think of any good reasons to believe in them other than old books/traditions. My experience of the world does not include gods in it and, so the arguments (ontological, cosmological, from morality, experience, etc) are not especially relevant.
For me the experience of being human is living with uncertainty and knowing that much of what we believe or hold as true are constructions of mind and culture. I think this can only make life more interesting.
Exactly. This can be one of the universal affirmative premises.
All one can know is what one perceives, and what one perceives is real at some level in one way or another. Real is anything that has effects in the world and it does not need to be exclusively objective or subjective. Ideas and even fantasies can be as effective in the world as anything else, and thus at a minimum have some measure of reality. The general theory of reflexivity by George Soros i believe illustrates this point well enough.
Certainty is a subjective term that is only applicable from the point of view of an observer with a question. However, the universe is 100% certain in what it will do, which is known as determinism ("the will of the universe"). From an observer perspective, probabilities or certainties fluctuate between 1% and 99%, and are determined by one's level of knowledge about the system in question. All variables that can impinge on the system must be accounted for, and the more complete one's information about the system, the higher the accuracy of one's predictions and thus one's level of certainty. Once an event of interest has passed, it is assigned 100% certainty or 0% if it did not happen.
If one were to calculate for instance what a proton will do in the next 5 seconds, one would need to include every particle state within 5 light seconds from the proton in their calculation. These other particles would all be components of the system that is the proton (everything within 5 light seconds = 1.5 million kilometers radius) that can have an effect on the proton within those 5 seconds. There is no need to calculate the state of the entire universe, but it's still not a thing humans can do yet.
Imperfect information yields imperfect probability projections and low certainty values.
Except tautologically, how are you "100% certain" of anything at all?
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die
What I really want to do is go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy but I can't do it. I am doing things I don't want to do. I can't do what I want to do. So, how can I have free will?
You would probably need a point of comparison to figure out if you are high or not, but depressed? Do you have to have experienced non-depression to know you're depressed?
I would say that "certainty", in the sense of absolute--beyond a doubt--confidence of the truth of a proposition, is only a derivative of uncertain reasoning, as it is defined by an inductive commitment to the principles of logic. Thusly, the truth of a proposition is said to be (absolutely) certain iff it is logically impossible for it to be false.
Therefore, only what is deduced from the inductively ascertained grounds of logic is said to be certain. Such as, for example, 'a = a'.
For me, consequently, absolute certainty only pertains to the form of an argument and never its content; and only certain principles of that form which I inductively commit myself to.
In the sense of some sort of absolute certainty, some absolute ground, from which one can begin their reasoning, I find it to be non-existent. One is only afforded degrees of confidence at the roots of their derivations.
If it is possible to be 100% certain of something then we must know what "100% certain" means.
I do not know what "100% certain" means.
Therefore it is not possible to be 100% certain of something, and therefore it is not possible to be 100% certain of anything.
I would say that to doubt oneself is self-contradictory to say the least. :naughty:
A provocative question.
"Per cent means out of every 100. Percentage figures are derived by dividing one quantity by another with the latter rebased to 100. Percentages are symbolised by %. Besides being especially useful when making comparisons, they come in handy for studying a difference compared with a benchmark or initial value." - Google
Eventual death of all life is definitely more certain than doubts on other beings existence or consciousness from general induction.
Please bear in mind everyone ever born on the Earth have all died, and are still dying even at this moment.
And not knowing something doesn't have relevance with more certainty or less certainty. Your not knowing something just means you don't know it.
When the word "Souls" is uttered, it indicates the speaker is already speaking from religious or artistic literature point of view, which is based on faith / belief / imagination, not fact or knowledge.
I have never witnessed detached souls reincarnated from dead bodies in real life. I have read about souls in fictions and poems and religious texts.
I think it's easier to be 100% certain of what is not, rather than what is.
From that position, I am 100% sure of many 'is not's.'
I am 100% sure that I am not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, etc, etc.
I am 100% sure I don't own a castle.
I am 100% sure I am not Donald Trump.
I am 100% sure many people (including some on TPF) are illogical and irrational.
! am 100% sure Harry Potter and Darth Vader were not real people. I have no choice to drop that 100% surety to something less when it comes to God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus etc because I cannot confirm 100%, who the original authors of such stories are.
Yeah, when it comes to having faith in / believeing in God, souls, reincarnation, resurrection, etc, there is no room for certainty. Because there is no certainty, one has to have faith and belief in them.
There is again difference between bogus certainty and genuine certainty. Just because one felt something was certain, does NOT mean it was truly certain.
I am certain that my fridge has pickles in it. I open the fridge to find there are no pickles -- someone must have eaten them in between, and so what I was truly certain of turned out that I could no longer be certain of. But I was certainly justified, even epistemically, in my belief since I put the pickles in the fridge.
A lot of the time I think our desire for certainty falls to this -- we're certain of things, but things are subject to change. And so the desire for certainty is to somehow overcome change so that no matter what happens I'll know what I believe is true and infallible. But this is an entirely different kind of certainty to the more mundane one I presented: it's changing what's required of certainty not just so that we're certain, but so that we'll always be certain.
1 man and 1 woman married and became 2 people in the family. A few years later they had offsprings, and the family became 3 and then 4. So was 1+1=2 true? No, 1+1 became 4.
So all certainty is subject to change by time, or situation or process be it natural or artificial.
Certainty is not something that is absolute and fixed concept. It is relative and changeable.
You always get percentage of certainty. Some certainties are more certain than other certainties.
Therefore I suggested "All life on the earth will die eventually." was one of the 100% certainty. Because it is a conclusion derived by billions and billions of examples in millions of years of historic records, the biological facts of lives + the on-going processes happening right now. There maybe other 100% certainty cases, I am sure.
But Gods, souls and reincarnation? Where is your data? physical evidence? witnesses? Nothing? You must recourse to faith and belief.
I agree that religious beliefs are faith-based rather than evidence-based. Religions contradict themselves and each other. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com and https://www.evilbible.com
However, if our perceived reality is not actually real, then science can't be relied upon to give us facts. Science assumes that what we observe is real and not simulated or dreamt or hallucinated, etc. It is not possible for me to know with complete certainty that my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the Universe actually exist.
According to Hinduism, our perceived world is an illusion called Maya. It is created by the Hindu Gods to test living things. It is impossible to prove or disprove this claim.
For other example, you get 2x separate bricks, and glue them together with cement mortar, it becomes 1. So 1+1=1 not 2.
Thanks for the links. Interesting read. :up:
Not exactly informative, though, hardly a fantastic epistemic discovery/development or grand philosophical innovation.
Can you doubt that this is English?
Not really, which is a bit more informative.
I suppose, however unlikely, that an alien could happen to find it a description of a comet they're in the vicinity of, not knowing English in the first place.
This: Thoughts therefore exist. (? A more accurate version of cogito ergo sum.)
I can understand what people mean by "100% certain" vs "99.99% certain" -- the former means they know it to be true and it's impossible to be wrong, and the latter means that the believer understands that their feeling of certitude is the same as in the former case but they have a reason to believe that the belief's false value could be wrong (though they don't believe that).
But notice how this is just a binary between two kinds of certainty: one which is infallible, and the other which feels just as good but is not infallible, or at least we have a reason to believe that it's not infallible. Rather than a percentage of cases we're just using two different meanings of certitude, and the percentage is there more as an adjective than a mathematical relationship.
After all what could the domain even be for percent certainty when we're being as vague as all our knowledge or all our beliefs? Those aren't exactly easy to count sets, which is what you'd need to be able to do to set up a percentage -- something like the ratio between certain beliefs and all beliefs held.
But there are cases, as you pointed out, the calculation is impossible, but people still use statements such as - I feel 90% great today. I mean where is the data to utter such statement apart from just feeling great in most areas of life although I have some stress in finishing the project in time back of mind, or feeling rough on my back muscles due to heavy work in the garden ...etc.
Also there are cases, where certainty in percentage don't apply logically, because the topic belongs to in the realm of faith and belief such as Gods and souls, reincarnations - because it has no physical evidence in anywhere under the sun, apart from in the literature or religious text books. People could still say I am certain that souls exist, or reincarnate after deaths, it just means he has faith in existence of such entities or phenomenon, and believes in them - but most people will not take the statement as a truth or certainty.
And what would the data for certainty be?
Cool :). Then I think I know what you mean, and I've answered the question with that thought in mind. It seems that if you follow what I've said, then, we can be [s]100%[/s]99.99%* certain of a lot of things, but that this doesn't have a relationship to our knowledge of whether or not our beliefs are infallible. Which on the face of things shouldn't be that surprising given that "infallible" is a pretty hard standard to reach, but we are certain of much more than what we are infallible about.
*I would say 100% certain, but the terms laid out made that the wrong expression.
Yes, but one must also consider ones time horizon.
The general heuristic that i usually try to apply is to first identify the possibilities in a specific situation and then determine the probabilities associated with each possibility. This approach aims to consider all the factors that can converge on an event.
For instance, when considering the behavior of the aforementioned proton, it is known that light can interact with the proton and alter its quantum state. Given that light travels at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per second, it is necessary to take into account all potential interactions within the specified time horizon, such as the next 5 seconds. Within this time frame, a photon that is 1,498,962,290 meters (5 light-seconds) away can potentially interact with the proton 5 seconds later. If the time horizon were extended to the next 10 seconds, then the sphere of influence would expand to a radius of 2,997,924,580 meters (10 light-seconds). However, not every particle within this area would affect the proton. Only those particles on a trajectory towards the proton would have a probability of interaction, with the likelihood increasing as the particles get closer to the proton. Other factors also come into play such as the specific type and nature of the particles. Beyond the termination boundary (surface of the sphere of influence), the probability of interaction drops to 0% for any particle outside the sphere of influence.
Current technological capabilities are limited in dealing with the combinatorial explosion that arises from such calculations. However, technologies like quantum computers and artificial neural networks, which naturally handle probability calculations, could potentially address this challenge for us.
The example i used of the proton simplifies the concept only a little bit. Higher realms of complexity, such as biological, psychological, sociological systems, are much more highly integrated and therefore much more challenging to analyze. However, with the right tools and approaches, it should not be impossible to tackle these complexities.
Approaching 100% certainty in ones predictions or assertions is as difficult as approaching infinity itself.
Ends of spectrums exist. Because of you remove the end point of any spectrum, there is always another point that then must assume the state of ultimate limit.
Therefore ultimate extremes must exist oractiy speaking. Of course, theoretically, we can have infinities, for example in natural number line, you can count forever. But physical things are quantized. They have quantities. And the conservation law dictates that if energy cannot be created nor destroyed then it's quantity is finite.
Certainty is not some material object, but a mental product of knowledge. So what data it would be for certainty would depend on what knowledge the certainty derived from. If the knowledge was that it is raining outside now, then certainty gets generated from the sense data of the sound coming from the window even if it is dark night, and you cannot see anything, you can hear the noise of the rain falling down onto the ground will give you the certainty of 100% that it is raining outside?
My paraphrase of that is "existence exists right now".
If all of our memories are fake then we cannot be sure
that we really know how to do first grade arithmetic even
though we have a memory from a few seconds ago of doing
first grade arithmetic.
You can have a true description of something that is nonetheless misleading due to its lack of detail. E.g., "North Korea invaded South Korea because of Acheson"s equivocal response re defense of the First Island Chain."
While it is true that the Soviet archives show that the speech was taken as evidence that the US was unlikely to expend significant resources defending the ROK, which in turn led to the Soviets greenlighting the invasion, it's also fairly misleading. The war was likely to happen, maybe in a different form, regardless of the speech and it also seems like the speech was simply used to justify the position of the hawks in reports, who could have swayed the situation either way. Still, the speech has become a part of all histories of the war because it's an easy to pinpoint misstep by an administration that was otherwise one of the best at grand strategy in US history (Containment doctrine being formed under Truman and winning the Cold War mostly peacefully).
Likewise, "a car works by burning gas," is true, but it lacks the precision and detail of an in-depth explanation of how internal combustion engines and drive trains work, which in turn lack the detail of an engineers description of how a particular make and model of a vehicle works (e.g., if you have a turbo the engine works differently).
If we subscribe to the Principal of Sufficient Reason then it seems like total explanations will always trace backwards in time to prior causes such that any complete description may need us to explain everything, all causes from the begining of the universe, in order to explain anything (or at least anything we can't show through pure deduction).
To my mind, this suggests a sort of gradient of "accuracy," if not truth. E.g., Obiwan says Darth Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father, Darth Vader says he is Luke's father.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck
and does everything else just like a duck it could still possibly be
a space alien perfectly disguised as a duck.
Thus when a set of physical sensations matches a duck then it
is very reasonably plausible to conclude that it is most likely a duck.
Within the assumption that it is a duck we can know with 100%
perfectly justified complete certainty that it is an animal.
Exactly. These sorts of judgements are certain. On the downside, they are also the sorts of judgements where the conclusion is contained in the premises. So ,they sort of amount to "provided x is true, x is true."
This is the whole: Scandal of Deduction, or "Problem of Deduction."
Funny enough, if you accept the Problem of Induction and the Problem of Deduction, then we cannot be certain of anything we learn from induction, while deduction doesn't give us anything we don't already know, making knowledge production seem near impossible. And yet, we seem to manage pretty well... enough that these objections start to seem prima facie unreasonable, even if it is hard to pin down why they are wrong.
The sum total of all analytical human knowledge is simply a {semantic tautology} a set of self-evident truths.
We create new knowledge in a way that is acceptable to the USPTO (Patent and Trademark office) by combining existing ideas together in a uniquely different way.
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
This means that deduction is simply one or more links into the knowledge tree verbal model of the actual world.
Copyright 2023 PL Olcott
I only put copyright notices on key insights that have taken me many years to achieve.
If it even has the same DNA as a Duck because it replaced the Duck's consciousness with its own, then we cannot even tell from blood samples.
This is a hypothetical example thought experiment of the boundaries of the
Identity_of_indiscernibles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles#:~:text=The%20identity%20of%20indiscernibles%20is,by%20y%20and%20vice%20versa.
The set of every self-evident truth is stored in a knowledge ontology verbal
model of the actual world. A cat is an animal even if no cats physically exist.
That is great. There is no simple upvote so I do it verbally.
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them.[/b] Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die
I am 99.99% or almost certain of the following:
1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are conscious.
4. Being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
I assume that this applied at the exact moment you were composing this topic. Because you cannot say "I am conscious" in general, i.e. with no time reference. So, since we are talking about 100% certainty, we should also be as exact as possible in our statements, whether these are applied to being, having or doing.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Right. This is the first thing that came to my mind. And see, you are bringing it up yourself, invalidating therefore your first statement, i.e. that you are 100% certain that you are conscious! :smile:
Quoting Truth Seeker
Second invalidation! :smile
Quoting Truth Seeker
Now, this makes it much more difficult to talk about 100% certainty, since morality is something relative and can be defined in a lot of different ways.
Quoting Truth Seeker
I think that now we lost --at least I-- the ball!
The more abstract the ideas the certainty of which we are querying, the more difficult is to establish its degree, esp. 100%. And the opposite, the more concrete and easily definable they are, the easier and more exact will be our estimation of their certainty.
Yet, the problem does not lie in concreteness or abstractness. It lies in the nature of knowledge, however we define it: "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles" or "justified beliefs" (as some people like to describe it), etc. And the question of the topic becomes "Is there absolute knowledge?"
Because if I could have this absolute knowledge, then I would be 100% certain, wouldn't I?
And if we are talking about "absolute knowledge" then we are also taking about "absolute reality".
So, here's where views split. Mine is that "reality is subjective". (I have talked about that extensively in various occasions, but I won't do it here too.)
You said that you lost the ball when I mentioned macroscopic determinism. So, I will explain it. Quantum indeterminacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy and the Uncertainty Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle exist. However, this does not lead to indeterminacy at the macroscopic level. We can precisely measure the position and vector of a football even though we can't do that with an electron.
I agree that our perceptions of reality is subjective but there is such a thing as shared subjectivity e.g. we can both see the Sun and the Moon. So, the Sun and the Moon exist in our shared subjective world. Most humans would say that the existence of the Sun and the Moon is an objective truth because every human with a functioning visual system sees the Sun and the Moon when they are visible.
You mean, when you are conscious, you are conscious indeed. But how do you know that you are not dreaming or hallucinating? You may be dreaming or hallucinating at any time. And you wouldn't know it if you are.
But this is stretching the point a little too much. Let's simplify it and assume simply that you are indeed able to know that you are conscious. This is more pragmatic. Otherwise, we would be living in a consctant doubt!
So, OK, I agree with your statement that you are 100% certain when you are.
About quantum indeterminacy, etc. I'm not quite knowledgeable in this area. Physics are not my strong point. Yet, I know a few things, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which reinforces the position that we cannot be 100% certain for anything. Although, I don't know in which cases and how microcosm agrees with macrocosm ...
Quoting Truth Seeker
"Shared subjectivity" ... Interesting expression. Never met it or thought about it. I personally use the expression "shared reality". But I agree with the way you described it.
It's good that you brought up this point, since a shared reality is an agreement about something, a common viewpoint, etc. And this is where I use to say, that common reality is the closest we can get to absolute reality. The more a reality or agreement about something is common among people, the more solid that reality is. And this is good enough. We don't need more. :smile:
BTW, its's interesting to see that the above apply also to the individual him/herself. The conflicts in us that we are experiencing, are disagreements between different thoughts or ideas in our mind. They act as opposing forces fighting with each other. And on the contrary, lack of conflicts make for calm and harmony. In such cases, our reality is more solid and we are closer to 100% certainty. :smile:
Premise: We don't know anything with 100%, absolute, undeniable certainty.
Conclusion: Therefore, we don't know anything.
Of course, no one would actually suggest such an inept argument...
I created the term "shared subjectivity". It is more accurate than saying "shared reality" because we don't actually know with 100% certainty whether our perceptions of reality are of an actual reality or not.
What is true at the quantum level is not true at the macroscopic level. We can't measure both the position and vector of electrons but we can measure both the position and vector of footballs. Another example would be quantum superposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition This never happens at the macroscopic level. When one tosses a coin, it does not land on both the head and the tail at the same time. It lands on either the head or the tail.
"Shared subjectivity" (quoted) gets 9,300 results in Google. "Shared reality" (quoted) 317,000. :strong:
:smile:
I didn't say that "shared subjectivity" is wrong, anyway ...
As for QM .... I pass. :smile:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing
OK
I suggest you glance at the talk page.
I can "know" with 100% certainty (from my perspective) that the world is flat.
However from the perspective of the International Space Station I'd be 0% accurate.
I agree with you, I merely referenced a very famous quote that seems to disagree with you.
We can at the very least know that existence exists right now.
Within the assumption that our memory is not fake we can also know everything that we are aware of that is proven to be completely true entirely on the basis of its meaning. We know that cats are animals.
While we are looking at a cat we can know that we are looking at a cat (as long as it is not a space alien perfectly disguised as a cat). This remains true even if all of actual reality is a mere figment of our own imagination.
Rubbish. It's not at all clear what that might even mean. Use of ideas from Ayn Rand will only detract from your credibility.
I'll again leave you to it.
It is a paraphrase of: https://www.britannica.com/topic/cogito-ergo-sum
That is the way that I mean it.
If one is aware that one is thinking this proves that thinking exists.
If thinking exists then this refutes the assertion that nothing exists.
This is the most certain thing because it occurs RIGHT NOW.
I really appreciate all of your feedback. This whole forum seems filled with
people that are knowledgeable of the subject and sincerely want an honest dialogue.
Trying to talk to logicians about the foundations of truth and logic is like trying to
talk to atheists about God. I am very happy that I found this forum.
I tend to mistrust all the information I read in the books and magazines, or said in the mainstream media recently due to lack of credulity on these sources, possibility of bias, and prejudice. I tend to rely on my own reason to judge either the information is true or false, or just discard them as non-sense.
But I cannot mistrust the perceptions of my own senses in my daily life, and knowledge about the world from my own inductive reasoning such as every life on earth will die eventually, or the Sun rises in the east.
All the sensory perception I have through my own senses must be taken as 100% truth until they are found, and proven as otherwise via self verification, logical thinking process or repeated observations.
Exactly. But more importantly the term "100% certainty" is consistent with being in error, as long as one is certain one is right, even if you're wrong.
Of course. Otherwise, if subjectivity were always "shared", the expression "shared subjectivity" would have no meaning, would it? :wink:
You are welcome. The reason why I think that, is because I experienced in real life that my sensory perception is the most accurate source of truths. It has the possibility of getting wrong sometimes, but in most cases it has been accurate. If any truths I thought were found as falsity via verifications, observations and thought process, then they could always be corrected.
But all other sources of information are indirect, and it is often difficult to verify the truths. And in many cases, even what I read in the textbooks, history books, and watched on the mainstream media ... etc were found to be either as controversial, inaccurate or simply wrong. With repeated happenings of this, one learns to realise that the indirect information and so called objective knowledge is not reliable, and then I stopped buying them altogether being very cautious and doubtful in accepting the facts and information publicly available.
To cut the long story short, the old saying "Seeing is believing" summarises my points. :)
Well, if one can be 100% certain of essentially anything, right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, as long as one is convinced you're right, then this thread dissolves into an essentially meaningless question, since the answer is: just about anything.
One must be 100% certain with one's own direct sensory perception even just to lead a normal life, let alone being scientist or telecom engineers what have you.
There will be times when one's direct sensory perception can be wrong due to the possibility of illusion e.g. I was seeing this black object on the ground beside the tall fern in the garden. From a distance, it looked like a black cat. But when I opened the blind fully, and had another look into the black object, it was a black bucket placed beside the fern, which looked like a cat. This type of perceptual illusions can happen, which have been re-observed, verified and corrected.
But indirect knowledge or information via television news, reports or interviews, rumours told by your neighbours or friends, or the contents of history books cannot be verified directly by oneself. Or you could, if you have time and finance and inclination to do it. You could fly to Ukraine, and observe and verify all the situations you hear on the media, by yourself. But would you?
I would disagree with this assertion. In order for one to understand what is a dream, hallucination, illusion, or simulation, one must contrast this with what it is not. This is the world in which we interact with, talk about, act on, born into, communicate with others, learn from others; basically, the background in which we accept and act in. For example, one typically learns the concept of "dreaming" from their parent when upon waking up from sleeping they begin to report strange accounts that never happened with a subsequent reassuring from the parent that all was a dream.
Illusions, hallucinations and reality like dreaming are possible in perceptions. But one normally has the ability for judgement on the state of the perceptions, as truths or falsity.
That is why I said, truth is one's judgement on one's perception.
When perception is not 100% certain for its reality or truth, one will go through doubting, observations, verification processes to re-evaluate the perception, if it is not directly inferable for truth, and will come to judgement on the perception whether it is true or not.
Truth can change through time. Even scientific truth can change to falsity by new discovery of the evidence or facts by repeated observations or changes of the conditions and situations in the environment.
Situation or knowledge you always believed as truth can change due to change of mind by your friends or partners. Only your judgement can tell you whether you have 100% certain truth or not.
I believe that philosophy is the study of doubting, observing, evaluating, thinking and verifying perceived contents.
I agree with you too. My position is to leave open minded for conclusions and judgements on what cannot be directly seen, heard and proved with my own eyes, ears, feelings and thoughts. :)
This is what we call an imagination producing a fiction. For example, I can enjoy a novel of fiction where the author has a rich history of some made up land. But there is no proving that this fictional history is true or false.
Free will is relative. No one, since born, can be truly free. We are molded into what we are so we will forever carry things in our bone and blood. They can also be our prison. So I assume free will is what you choose to believe and do in combat with the restraints posed by your own history.
Pretty ugly word.
Yes, but I mean no offense. It's just used to refer to a condition. Which word would you use?
https://www.aruma.com.au/about-us/blog/two-words-you-need-to-remove-from-your-vocabulary/
Thanks!
Free Will is for the freewill to choose or decide on given options. For example, you choose to drink coffee or tea or beer or nothing. You decide to go home instead to the shopping centre.
Free Will is not the freewill to play God like an omnipotent being doing superhuman things, magics or saving and helping others who are in troubles. :)
Did you watch the Robert Sapolsky video?
But all your sayings sound like your judgements. You say something is a lie. It is your judgement. You say something is true. It is your judgement. I don't know whether you have been to the Moon for your holiday, or whether you are from the Moon. The sayings are your judgements. Until you ask me about them, I am not even aware of these stories. When you asked me, then I will make my own judgements if they were true or false.
When you are dreaming or hallucinating, you are not concerned if they are real or not. You only judge them as real or not, when you are fully conscious.
OK, if you say, there is no universal definition of free will, that is your judgement. I was not talking about the universal definition of free will. But I was suggesting the concept of free will in the most logical sense.
Free will is only applicable, if you have the option to choose by your own decision not forced or controlled by any other external means, situations or conditions.
Your decision based on your mental operation, be it your logic, desire or biological condition whatever on something that you decided to do or not do. This is the only logical sense of free will to me.
We are not talking about some superhuman magic helping and saving troubled people or bringing back the dead from the ancient times ... etc, and say that is your free will. It sounds like some Harry Potter movies.
No, I don't know that name. I don't watch TVs or the Internet. In my spare time, I would go out and do some gardening, or read old books.
Great clip!
Not to say you deserve any praise for posting it. :razz:
I have never said that statement is judgement. I said truth is judgement. 1+1=2 is a statement. To say it is true is a judgement. "The Earth orbits the Sun." is a statement. To say "It is true." is a judgement. Please bear in mind that the statement was not a true statement before time of Galileo and Copernicus. There are still lots of people out there who believe that The Earth is flat, and the centre of the universe.
And there are many cases in reality where 1+1=x depending on the circumstances, situations and the subjects and time spans, and have you thought about the case of "possible worlds"?
"X is guilty of murdering Y." can also be a belief or inference too.
Fair enough. Thank you for the link, and information. :)
True, it is easier to define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that.
To me, Determinism is believing that antecedent state A leads each and every time to resultant state B, never C. Free Will is believing that antecedent state A can lead to resultant state B or C.
Huh? Free Will deals specifically in the realm of animal decision making, not the behavior of billiard balls.
You are welcome. :)
You come to the conclusion true or false by your thought process. But it is always your judgement which tells you something is true or false.
Truth is not something that exists out there independently itself without the judgements.
When you say 1+1=2 is true, it is too self evident. It does not extend any knowledge already known or gives you anything meaningful for saying it.
1 2 3 4 .... are just numbers. Numbers on their own don't have any meaning of philosophical truths. Numbers are used in real life to denote the amount of something, measurement of size of the real objects, ... tangible things.
In real life, there are many cases where 1+1 does not come out as 2. For a simplest example, you can write a software program which does some extra calculations to give you the answer, 1+1= 257 or -35 .... depending on what functions you implement in the coding. The software would be a totally closed world itself from outside, in which only the software writer knows how it operates. In that world 1+1=2 would be false. Therefore saying 1+1=2 is true is not a 100% correct judgement.
One of you said "True, it is easier to define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that." and the other one of you agreed with it. My comment is meant to point out that I believe you have cast far too wide a net with that definition.
That definition implies that anything with any amount of randomness is free will.
This is a simplest example of such cases in simulation scenario just to explain.
A software can be written to calculate how many hours are left for you to finish your project. Let's say the project requires 37 hours to work to finish. The app asks you to input total hours required to complete the project. You type in 37.
First night on the activation of the app, it is written, so it will ask you 2 inputs a day for morning and evening hours you worked.
App: How many hours have you worked this morning?
You: 1
App: How many hours have you worked this evening?
You: 1
It calculates ... (-37 in the hidden register)+1+1= -35
You have 35 hours to work to finish the project.
Next time you activate the app again.
App: How many hours have you worked this morning?
You:1
App: How many hours have you worked this evening?
You:1
App: Calculates (-35 in the hidden register) + 1+1= -33
You have 33 hours to finish the project.
Several things:
First, everyone agrees that when speaking of simple physical systems, like billiard balls, that their behavior is governed by (determined) physics. In a Philosophy Forum (not the Physics Forum) discussion on Determinism vs Free Will specifically refers to complex neurologic systems governing animal decision making.
Second, most Determinists I know do not acknowledge "any amount of randomness" as far as human decision making is concerned, because that would violate their premise that the antecedent state DETERMINES the resultant state AND if a portion of the outcome of decision making was forever unpredictable (no matter the degree of detailed knowledge of the antecedent state), this so called "randomness" would be functionally indistinguishable from true Free Will. And you know they would never go there.
Ah okay, so any complex neurological system that isn't deterministic is free will, is that the idea?
I agree, you didn't say that. That's not the implication of my question.
Uummm... no, as you correctly pointed out, a possible system is a random one. Therefore one option is 100% determined and 0% will or choice ("Free" being a label, not a descriptor) called Determinism. A second choice is <100% determined and >0% will or choice (commonly called Free Will). Other options incorporate randomness. 100% randomness is called Randomness (as TS noted). Of course there could be <100% randomness incorporated into either of the first two. I'm OK with that, but as I previously mentioned Determinists abhor (or more likely fear) the concept since functionally randomness can be indistinguishable from Free Will.
Ah okay, so that original definition, "define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that" is not what we're going with then right? You've established that randomness isn't determinism, but randomness also isn't free will.
How do you think the definition should be adjusted to match up with your intuitions of free will?
You seem to be starting from Descartes, and so the obsession with "knowing" and the idea of an outside world. But you have to exist (and in a particular mode) to even ask the question in the first place. It's kind of silly to doubt this or that, or use words like "know" or "certainty" as if we're certain about their meaning. What's so great about certainty, anyway?
In any case, "I am, therefore I am consciously aware" is about right. But then again, this overlooks the 99% or so of our lives that are unconscious, habitual, automatic, etc. So perhaps unconsciousness can tell us more about our being rather than consciousness.
On the specific topic of the definition of Free Will, IMO folks get too hung up on "Free". You hear again and again "free from what?" Others propose that if an individual is influenced by this or that "they're not free". To me, forget about "Free" and concentrate on "Will". If an individual can take their numerous perceptions, memories and opinions which all, yes, influence individuals, then add their analysis, and then (most importantly) they are able to exert their Will (or choice or decision). Unlike in the Determinist universe where there is no choice, just the illusion of choice (or will), since the brain state before the (false) choice, determines the outcome, not human choice or will.
Can neurological processes be semi-deterministic? I don't think so. As far as I know, neurological processes are completely deterministic and therefore, we do not have any free will.
My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints. I clearly don't have free will because my will is both determined and constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. I clearly have a determined and constrained will instead of a free will.
Of course, it is possible that I am an immortal soul who is experiencing the illusion of having a body and being on Earth. It's possible that I don't actually have a brain and body and cells and genes and environments and nutrients. It's possible that I only have the illusory experiences of being embodied. These are interesting ideas but they are totally untestable.
"define what Determinism is and just say, Free Will is not that.
To me, Determinism is believing that antecedent state A leads each and every time to resultant state B, never C. Free Will is believing that antecedent state A can lead to resultant state B or C."
When I pointed out that this definition casts too wide of a net, because it implies things have free will even if they're not conscious, as long as they're also not deterministic, the definition was clarified and narrowed down a little bit:
"Determinism vs Free Will specifically refers to complex neurologic systems governing animal decision making"
So round 2 of the definition of free will on offer by Lucky R looks to me like "Any complex neurological system that isn't deterministic is free will".
My question to lucky r, which you responded to but I believe did not answer, was just clarifying that - is that what's on offer here as a definition of free will?
Please note that I'm not asking you or him if you think free will exists or is real. This is purely about the definition being put forth.
Do you think that's a reasonable definition of free will? If not, how would you change it?
Can neurological processes be semi-deterministic? I don't think so. As far as I know, neurological processes are completely deterministic and therefore, we do not have any free will.
This is why I clarified that I'm not asking you if you think free will is real or possible. My question is about the definition on offer, not your opinion about if it's real or not. You have still not answered the question.
Ah, you're referring to this as the answer.
So, any amount of genuine randomness in the brain would mean that brain has free will then, right?
So, the definition on offer which just says "define determinism, and free will is just not-that" actually cannot be a sufficient definition. I have an example of something that is not-determinism, and so if the definition were valid, it would have to be free will.
Does that make sense?
I might be incorrect but my intuition says, your definition allows for "randomness" to meet the criteria given as well.
"My definition of free will is a will that is free from determinants and constraints."
Can you talk a little bit about why you think randomness doesn't meet this criteria?
Yes, neither did lucky R's, and yet randomness fit the bill all the same.
I think randomness also fits the bill for your definition. Randomness seems free from determinants and constraints to me.
Quoting flannel jesus
Do you not agree that randomness fits the description "free from determinants and constraints"?
Quoting Truth Seeker
There's no context for this question. I never suggested that I know that.
I'm going to reiterate something I said before: this is purely about the definition on offer. You've put forth a definition, I am exploring that definition. Exploring the definition is separate from questions about if I think anything in particular exists or not.
These ideas are very definitely testable. To state otherwise would be to say that every mystic who has ever claimed to know the truth is or was a liar. If you mean they are untestable by sensory empiricism then this is true, but only in the sense of finding a final proof. There's plenty of empirical evidence that lends these ideas credibility.. Only for a final proof would inner realisation be necessary, for this would be the only way to finally test them. .
Mystics claim to know the truth, and for the most advanced to actually BE the truth, so you're claiming they are liars. No mystic who ever lived claimed that they rely on beliefs rather than knowledge. To do so would make them a laughing stock. In one of his German sermons Meister Eckhart openly and explicitly pledges his soul on the truth of his teachings, and nobody would do this on the basis of beliefs that might be mistaken. , .
As for empirical evidence - off hand I would cite the falsification of local realism, the 'hard' problem of consciousness, entanglement and non-locality. Then there is the failure of scientists and philosophers to construct a fundamental theory to compete with the nondual global theory endorsed by the mystics. There is no other global theory that works, and this could be called an empirical fact since it may be established by a literature review. .
For conclusive evidence I would cite the demonstrable logical absurdity of all other global theories, although I''m not quite sure a logical argument counts as empirical evidence.
Then there is the empirical fact that nobody is able to falsify or refute the nondual doctrine which, after two millennia of trying, might be counted as suggestive.empirical evidence.
Then there is the global phenomenon of mysticism itself, which is inexplicable unless it is grounded in truth.
Just some of what comes to mind, But you've given men an idea for an essay bringing the empirical evidence together. Or perhaps it could be a new topic for the forum. .
. .
. . ,
If you are referring to unfalsifiable propositions then we can include all manner of claims: ghosts, alien abduction stories, and most variations of conspiracy theories. None of which are falsifiable. The fact that a claim is unfalsifiable is problematic, not a strength. If we can't test a proposition then I don't see how we can assume that it must be true. How would we determine nondualism is an accurate account?
Quoting FrancisRay
Not sure what you are thinking of here. The fact that a person believes something deeply and sincerely does not make it any more true. How do we know when a mystic holds a true belief?
This is true for untestable and unfalsifiable claims, but I did not say the nondual doctrine is untestable or unfalsifiable. It is testable and falsifiable but as yet unfalsified because it passes the tests. It is really quite easy to test a neutral or nondual metaphysical theory. . . . . .
In mysticism nobody talks about true beliefs. Either one knows or one does not. The Western idea that truth or knowledge is 'justified true belief' is rejected. For the mystic truth and knowledge depend on knowledge-by-identity or what Merrell Wolff calls 'introception'.
This is a vital point and much misunderstood. To believe that the mystics rely on beliefs that might be wrong is to entirely misunderstand what mysticism is about. It is about the acquisition of certain knowledge, and the only certain knowledge is identical with its object. This is possible where the knower and the known are one.
Thus the great Sufi sage Al-Hallaj was executed for stating 'I am truth, and not 'I know truth'. Or as Sri Aurobindo writes: 'Knowledge can only come by conscious identity, for that is the only true knowledge, - existence aware of itself'.
The basic point is that mysticism is not about believing but about knowing. Hence no knowledge claim made by mysticism has ever been refuted or falsified. These claims are made with 100% certainty. .
.
Lots of people make claims with 100% certainty - like many ordinary Christians or Muslims - they may also be 100% wrong. How would we know? There are many fundamentalists out there who also say things like, "I know that I know that I know that Jesus is Lord.' They 'feel' this as truth and certain knowledge. I wonder if mysticism isn't just a more sophisticated version of this very human desire to encounter certainty. I have no doubt that many mystics are certain about their experiences, what I do doubt is any need to accept their subjective experience of certainty.
Quoting FrancisRay
I think there may be a Noble Prize waiting for the person who can demonstrate nondulaism. Can you tell us how this can be done? You can't just say it is 'easy' and breezily move on. While it might be child's play to point to omissions and flaws in scientific knowledge, this doesn't give us license to fill the gaps with what some might call 'woo'.
Not a liar, just naive, and in too many cases grandiose.
Yes, people often confuse beliefs with knowledge, but avoiding doing this must be the very basis of any search for truth. The entire point of the mystic's practice is to replace belief and faith with knowledge. The idea that the Perennial philosophy is an expression of faith will not survive a little investigation. . .
The practices of mysticism take us beyond subjective experience. If it did not it would have to be nonsense.
Nah. I''m not even the first person to demonstrate this. The most famous logical proof appeared in the second century CE and has yet to be refuted. Here is my briefest proof I can manage. .
1. It is demonstrable that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible/ .
2. It is demonstrable that a neutral theory is logically defensible
3. The nondual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy translates into metaphysics as a neutral metaphysical theory.
4. Ergo. the Perennial philosophy is the only fundamental theory that survives analysis.
As a philosopher It is within your powers to verify the truth of these statements - with no need to take up a meditation practice. We could go through them in order if you wish. .
This argument explains why Western metaphysics never makes any progress. It sees the truth of the first proposition but rejects nondualism, as you do in your comments above, and so has no way forward and has been rooted to the spot for twenty centuries. Even today It still thinks mysticism is all about speculative faith and belief despite having easy access a vast explanatory literature.
Happy to expand if you wish.
.
You said that they may be wrong, in which case they are lying when they say they know the truth.
The answers they would give to all your questions here is no. None of these ideas would be true. This would be why none of them survive analysis. . ,
See post above.
Oh boy,.. You're calling the Buddha and Lao Tu naive and grandiose? But not yourself?
Apparently, knowing "the truth" doesn't involve having very good reading comprehension. I didn't say anything about the Buddha or Lao Tzu.
Let's talk about your grandiosity instead. Why would anyone take seriously your claim to know "the truth". Lots of people know all sorts of truths that you don't know. So other than as a naive grandiose claim, how is your claim to know "the truth" to be interpreted?
To make things more concrete... There is an object sitting on the computer case on the right side of my desk. What is "the truth" about the nature of that object. Give as much detail as you can.
This has nothing to do with the knowledge claims of the mystics. I appreciate that you believe these claims are speculative, but I have the impression you've never studied them. For the mystic a ;justified true belief is not knowledge. Knowledge would be what we know. This is perhaps the most basic issue in the practice, which requires that we abandon our faiths, beliefs and speculations for the sake of knowledge. . . .
It seems an odd thing that someone called 'truth-seeker' would deny the possibility of knowing the truth. What exactly are you seeki0ng? .
Because they all imply dualism. All such ideas are rejected by nondualism. Western philosophy rejects all these ideas for their absurdity, where mysticism rejects them all for their falsity. .
Which claims do you mean specifically?
Pardon me but yes you did. You claimed that the mystics are naive, grandiose and by implication untrustworthy. I can't imagine how you arrived at this idea.
I did not claim to know the truth, What I would claim is that the nondual doctrine, for which it is possible to know the truth, is the only theory that makes sense in metaphysics. I can know this because it's just a matter of doing the sums. . . .
All object are empty of substance or true reality and may be reduced to nothing, as was shown by Kant. Meister Eckhart puts this clearly when he states that extended objects are 'literally nothing'. This would go for your body as well, and those who dig deep say it also goes for your mind. . . .
Both metaphysics and mysticism study the nature of all extended objects, so it makes no difference whether it is this or that object. As the Upanishads state:
The understanding of one single thing means the understanding of all;
the voidness of one thing is the voidness of all.
Aryaveda
Catuhsataka
v. 191
I don't see how these premises stack up and besides I would need more than an eccentric syllogism to establish non-dualism as a fact. I suspect we're not going to get anywhere but I appreciate you taking the time. Thanks.
Trouble is, from a claim that you know such-and-such, we cannot conclude that such-and-such is true.
After all, we do sometimes say "I thought I knew..."
Wittgenstein, On Certainty.
Like Dogberry, this learned constable is too cunning to be understood.
But for a mystic, that's probably the point.
Nowadays mysticism is often proffered as a method to adjudicate knowledge claims, particularly in relation to religions. Yet I think it is becoming widely recognized that the error in this sort of thinking overlooks the fact that mystical experiences are highly conditioned by antecedent beliefs. Thus such a view grossly oversimplifies the relation between the experience and the belief(s). They claim that the experience explains and justifies the belief, whereas it is plausible that the exact opposite is occurring, and in any event the belief conditions the experience (even if it does not explain it).
To take an example, a Buddhist may have an experience where their identity dissolves into nothing, and a Christian may have a very similar experience where they feel united with God (and some dissolving or dissociation is also involved here). An older theory would say that the two experiences are identical, different inferences are drawn based on the belief system, and some inferences are more rational than others. Yet a more recent, more nuanced theory shows that very often the experiences themselves are notably different, and that they tend to cohere with the antecedent beliefs of the practitioner. Further, it is not at all clear where the experience ends and the so-called "inference" or interpretation begins.
It seems to me that mysticism is valuable, but as far as public adjudication goes it is a dead end. Its value lies elsewhere.
There were and are many mystics and they all don't have identical worldviews. Which specific mystic or mystics are correct? How do we know that they are correct?
I asked in an earlier post: "Is solipsism true? Is idealism true? Is materialism true? Is monism true? Is dualism true? Is determinism true? Do souls exist?"
You said that the answer to all of these questions is "no". How can that be? Monism is nondualism. You claimed elsewhere that nondualism is true. If nondualism is true then monism is true. How do you know the answer to any of these questions?
I did not say that nothing can be known.
So far, I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die
I am almost certain of the following:
1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are conscious.
4. Being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
I'm not sure how these comments are relevant here. It hardly needs saying that you cannot know whether someone else knows the truth. To know something we have to know it ourselves. . .
No need for insults. t doesn't matter whether what I posted is a syllogism or not. The propositions I posted are true, and you can make of them what you will. There's nothing cunning about them and I doubt they could be stated any more simply.
I wonder why they seem difficult. I;d be happy to explain further.
If you believe this you will never understand mysticism. But that's okay, unless you actually want to do so. I have the impression you're too sure it's nonsense to investigate the issues.
Do you really think your objections are telling? I finds this hard to believe. You're suggesting that even before understanding it you can work out that the Perennial philosophy is false, and not just false but easily debunked. As this would make me a complete idiot,there seems little point in my saying more.
Do you not see the irony in your name?
[qquote]So far, I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
[/quote]
Do you not know that mysticism denies the metaphysical reality of the 'I' you speak of here? They would call your view ignorance, for it assumes a naive realism. The egoic individual 'I' would be a fantasy, and this would be what is discovered when we investigate consciousness. . . . .
.
Please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
My knowledge about mysticism, Perennial philosophy, monism and nondualism is limited to what I have read on Wikipedia.
It is quite easy to quote what I actually said. I'll repeat it below with emphasis.
Quoting wonderer1
Can you see that that I wasn't referring to "the mystics", but instead to a subset of mystics? I try to refrain from looking at things in black and white ways. So I would appreciate it if you would be so charitable as to try to avoid jumping to conclusions that I've said something is black and white when I haven't done so.
Quoting FrancisRay
Bzzzt! The way that can be summed is not the true way. That's Mystic 101.
Quoting FrancisRay
That's some grade A bullshit, in addition to being grandiose. Seriously? "The understanding of one single thing means the understanding of all"? Look around. Have you have seen many of your fellow social primates who seem like they understand all? If so, I don't think you are paying very close attention.
And of course the Buddha and Lao Tzu were naive. They didn't have the benefit of the tremendous growth in human knowledge that has occurred since their day. Why would they be anymore likely to understand all, than the people you see around you?
Not to say that people don't pick up some beneficial perspectives and skills from the Buddha, Lao Tzu, et. al.
I should apologies for my previous prickliness. I seem to have misinterpreted your comments and approach. What makes forum discussions so difficult is never knowing who one is talking to.
I haven't checked but doubt if Wiki is reliable on these topics. I'll just say a little about monism because in order to understand nondualism it would be vital to see that it's not monism.
Do you know Russell's paradox? This is the problem of monism. Russell tries to reduce all sets to one set and immediately problems of self-reference arise. The term 'advaita' (not two) as used to describe the nondual doctrine is negative precisely in order to avoid the implication of monism. It means both 'not two' and 'not one'. Where the ultimate is spoken of as the 'One', for instance by Plotinus, this is not a numerical one.but a unity that transcends form and number.
On another thread there is a discussion of George Spencer Brown's book Laws of Form. In it he explains that the Many do not reduce to the One but to formlessness and a conceptual emptiness. It is for this exact reason that nondualism works where monism does not.
The topic here is what we can know with 100% certainty. How those such as Lao Tzu acquire their knowledge and can be so certain of its reliability may one of the trickiest things to grasp about mysticism. In Western philosophy, for instance in the philosophy of Russell, certain knowledge is impossible and the best we can do is 'knowledge by acquaintance or 'justified true belief'. Neither of these is certain knowledge, so often philosophers believe there is no such thing. .
In fact, as I believe Aristotle states somewhere, true knowledge is identical with its object. Knowledge may be certain when what we are is what we know. Then the relativity of knower and known is overcome and doubt becomes impossible. An example would be 'I am', and this would be why Descartes was forced to start here when he needed a 100% secure axiom.
Thus mysticism becomes incomprehensible when we assume it is monism or that its knowledge claims are tentative.
As for books it's a tricky question since there are so many and every reader is different. One of the joys of studying mysticism is its wonderful literature, but there's no predicting what will appeal to or suit a reader. It's a matter of just diving in and looking out for texts that make sense and resonate.
For someone new to metaphysics, especially if they are scientifically-minded, I'd highly recommend The Mind of God by the physicist Paul Davies. It's the best introduction I've read and this may be partly because he's a scientist and does not waffle.
For mysticism it's really pot-luck. The Enneads of Plotinus and the German sermons of Meister Eckhart are well worth reading. The best introduction to the work of Nagarjuna I've found is The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso.
The first book on this topic I read was Cultivating the Empty Field: The Silent Illuminations of Zen Master Hongxhi. The poetry may mean little to a non-practitioner but the preface and introduction are brilliant.
In my opinion the best way to get to grips with the Perennial philosophy, other than to take up the practice, is to try to falsify it, so there's no need to abandon scepticism. Good luck!.
I'm trying to stop arguing but am always happy to chat on this topic.
. .
I reckon Russell's paradox is a good place to start since it arises for philosophers whatever their leanings. Also, Russell was dismissive of mysticism and did not investigate it, so he makes an interesting philosophical case study.
Rene Descartes (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes/)
David Hume (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/)
Immanuel Kant (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/)
Descarte - Truth and knowledge comes from your mind, and knowledge is innate. He was a rationalist.
Hume - Truth and Knowledge comes from your experience of external object and world via impressions and ideas. He was an empiricist.
Kant - Knowledge comes from outside from your sensation, but it needs concepts in your mind to be able to know and judge what they are. Intuition and imagination combines the externally given sense data with the internal concepts, and allow knowledge and judgments possible.
Some knowledge is never known to the human mind e.g. God, Freedom and Afterlife etc etc. They are outside of human knowability. For knowledge of God, the concept is postulated rather than perceived or sensed i.e. it is the world of faith and postulation. Kant didn't deny the existence of God, Freedom and Afterlife etc. He limited the power of human reason and knowability, saying they are in the world of faith and belief, and their existence is postulated rather than reasoned, sensed or perceived.
Kant tried to combine the rationalist and empiricist and come to a more complete system of epistemology.
If you want to know more about religious knowledge and God, then I would start with Kierkegaard.
After reading them, whoever you decide to judge as right, is right.
And of course, by all means you could keep on inferring what would be the case, had you had those people's, animals, aliens genes, DNAs, fates ... etc even in another galaxies or possible worlds or parallel universes. But you should also ask, if you could really take on their genes, DNAs and fates and their lives in your real life?
Remember, every life is unique, and only valid for once in a lifetime, so there is no definition of individual life. The only definition of life in general terms is, that it is an entity born, lives and destined to die sometime. The content of your life is irreplaceable and unique, and all the individual lives since the start of the universe have been the same - unique, irreplaceable and never to be repeated.
But the content of all the lives are unique, random, irreplaceable, non exchangeable, unrepeatable and free. In that sense all life is both deterministic and free in nature.
Please explain in detail with evidence and proof, why you need the effects of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences to go for a walk or sleep etc.
If I was put in a very hot environment or very cold environment I would die. This is because my body can maintain homeostasis only within a narrow temperature range. If I had free will, I would have been fine at 1000 degrees Celsius and at minus 270 degrees Celsius. If I was put in a vat of acid, I would die because my body would be consumed by the acid.
I depend on nutrients for my existence. If I was deprived of oxygen, water and food I would die. If I had free will I would have been able to live without consuming any oxygen, water and food. I hate having to breathe, drink and eat. I long to live without consuming anything but I can't do it because I lack free will.
My experiences have a huge effect on all of my choices. I am having this conversation with you in English. If I had never learned English, it would not have been possible for me to have this conversation with you in English. I would love to be fluent in the 600+ languages that are still around without having to learn them.
Every single choice made by organisms is the result of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.
If I have a stroke giving me locked-in syndrome, I would not be able to go for a walk. If someone kidnaps me and ties me up, I would not be able to go for a walk. If someone knocks me unconscious, I would not even have the thought of going for a walk, never mind going for a walk. The examples are endless.
As I suffer from depression, I am unable to sleep well.
I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
[b]6. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
7. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die[/b]
I am almost certain of the following:
1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. It is impossible to be completely certain about this.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are conscious.
4. Being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms do not have free will. Our wills are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes, may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body - I have no way to test this idea.
And of course, you could make lots and lots of presumptions, inferences and imaginations on the metamorphic illusions, but but but you will know yourself, that it is a necessity in your reality that you cannot transform physically and biologically into any one of those beings no matter how much you would wish to.
You will be forever you, and you know it well for truth, that you cannot change that. This is a determinism and necessity.
But for you to make simple daily life decisions such as going for a walk, or sleeping, listening to music or reading, you only need your dispositional decision in your mind. And in that regard, you are FREE. Death of all life cycles is determined. No one can change that.
So life has deterministic, and also free aspects. Life is not an atomic object.
I am a vegan but I want to be non-consumer. It is impossible for me to live without consuming any oxygen, water and vegan food.
Is it not the case of your free choice to be unfree with all the reasons you stated, why you are not free, therefore that was your free choice not to be free? You are still free.
There is part of your life which is deterministic, but there is also part which free. This seems more accurate claim and truth.
To prove me wrong, you would have to do the following:
1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, and food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Be able to teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that you have free will. If I had free will I would have already done the above tasks.
1 and 2 sounds like the biological or ecological topics. 3 4 5 6 sounds like the magical abilities only possible in the Harry Potter movies.
You were still free that you woke up this morning, powered on your computer or phone, visited the forum, read posts, and wrote your replies. No one or no genes or anything forced you to do so.
You could have done other things such as gone shopping, meeting your friends, going for a drive, taking out all your books from the shelves and organising them or reading them. But you chose to do otherwise. You have been free. You are free.
Just because one is unable to accomplish certain actions does not mean they lack free will. Free will means that they have the knowing ability to choose to attempt these actions, not that they succeed. Hence it is called free will, not free action, i.e. omnipotence.
I would have thought your genes may control your personality, traits, looks and bodily immunities, but not your momentary actions, speeches, and daily life patterns.
You may argue or presuppose under the same genes of the other beings or species for your determinism, which sounds too far fetched anyway, but you cannot push that presupposition to even to the same brain structure and content. Even in the case of brain transplant of you with some other person or other species, it is doubtful if your actions, speeches or decisions will be dictated by the content of the transplanted brain. Anyhow this is too sci fi topic, which I am not even familiar or knowledgeable with. I am only an amateur hobby philosophy reader, not a biologist, ecologist or definitely NOT a sci fi expert.
It would be like saying, if you had a dog's body, dog's genes, and dog's brain, then youI would bark rather than talk. You would be far superior in smelling things than humans. Of course, you would, but where is philosophical point in those sayings?
Thank you for your recommendation. I would love to read and learn about all those subjects, but my interest in reading only lies in Philosophy and Psychology, and it is enough to fill my spare time.
Yes, they are all different subjects, and you might already know their topics, and methods of studying are totally different from each other. For instance, if you read and study Physics, you would need all the laboratory instruments costing tens of thousands of pounds.
For instance, if you are researching radio waves, and its characteristics under solar storms etc, then you would need radio frequency receivers, transmitters, chokes, dummy loads, SWR meters, generators and various types of antennas installed and set up for your studies and research.
Philosophy doesn't need all these mechanical electrical instruments, because as you might already know, it uses reasoning, logic and common sense, and it is interested in analysing whether someone's claims are making sense, logical, valid, reasonable or even commonsensical.
Philosophy is not about blindly and pointlessly agreeing with someone's illogical, unreasonable and delusional claims or ideas. It is not about showering people with sugar coated consolations and positive encouragement for life, as some people do.
Philosophy is about seeking logical, reasonable and objectively true solutions to the problems by critical analysis.
I would recommend you to read "The Central Questions of Philosophy" written by A.J. Ayer on this particular topic.
There are many limitations to philosophy. That's why I use science in my search for the whole truth. Unfortunately, we cannot know anything to be objectively true. Some truths are exclusively subjective e.g. what it is like to be me and what it is like to be you or what it is like for an elephant to be an elephant. Other truths are shared subjective e.g. our perceptions of being on a planet called the Earth in a galaxy called the Milky Way in a universe.
Thank you for recommending the book. I look forward to reading it.
You are welcome my friend :) Ok that's fair enough.But please remember not all scientific knowledge is true. It starts with premises or hypotheses which may be true or false. Then they observe the phenomenon, to find the evidence to support their hypotheses. If it does support, then they make it as theories.
But the experiments and observations are never conclusive or verifiable beyond doubt. There is always a chance that it may be not true, and get falsified. Because no one can experiment and observe the results under every possible different circumstances in the universe. And the affairs in the universe are all bound to change through time.
Anyhow, then new theories replace the old ones. This is science. I feel that there are many people who blindly trust anything if there is label called "Science". Philosophers know about this, and they tend to be suspicious of all scientific knowledge. "Philosophy of Science" is a subject which explains on this topic throughly.
The fundamental problem with knowing anything objectively cannot be overcome unless one is all-knowing.
A lot of people consider shared subjective truths to be objective truths. Most people will say that the Earth is objectively real. It is not. The Earth is one of many things that are part of our shared subjective reality. Sentient beings could be souls plugged into a simulation of the Earth, the Milky Way and the Universe. This hypothesis can't be tested by science. Of course, just because it can't be tested it does not make it true but it does not make it false either. It just makes it untestable and unknowable.
For instance, they still don't know what is the origin of life, just lots of hypotheses and theories. Blackholes and galaxies? No one can even go near to them. Only see them through the telescopes. Big Bangs? How do you know? Were you there when the bang happened? No !! In all these cases, it is just full of speculations not much different from esoteric religions. :)
We have sent probes to the farthest planets of our solar system and even outside the solar system. We have sent people to the moon. Astronauts have lived for months at a time on board the International Space Station. The Russian cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov spent 437 consecutive days on the Mir space station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_Polyakov We are preparing to send people to Mars and I am convinced that we will succeed within the next 50 years. I may not live to see it but my children probably will.
We could use generational ships for interstellar travel. These ships could grow food onboard and have facilities for having children and educating them as they grow and learn while travelling towards another star. We could do this with the current level of technology.
If we ever learn to build the warp drives used in Star Trek we could travel much faster than the speed of light. I know that this is science fiction for now. However, television, radio, computers, the internet and mobile phones were science fiction not long ago. They are all real now thanks to science and technology.
If a large asteroid were to strike Earth, the Earth could be destroyed and all living things here could become extinct. The dinosaurs became extinct due to asteroid strike. To increase the probability of human survival, we must become a multiplanet species. It would be even better to become a multi-star-system species and a multigalactic species and a multiversal species.
I don't feel it is necessary or meaningful for me to clarify or define these concepts. Because they are not controversial, obscure, diverse, or esoteric in nature, as you might agree. They are simple words from Sci Fi, daily use of language and popular science, which everyone knows what they are. They are not controversial nature like the concept of God, afterlife or freewill. If you are really unfamiliar with those terms, and want to find out, then do some Google search, and they will tell you what they are instantly. I personally don't see any philosophical significance or points for defining them unless we are discussing Philosophy of Science topics with these concepts.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Quoting Truth Seeker
Well I told you before, that you can imagine or infer anything from these scientific and technological appliances we currently have and use, but the current technology you seem to be impressed so much, and we use are not something which are miraculously complicated or sophisticated. If you read and study about them a bit, then you will find that they are just technologies which are a bit more clever, and are perfectly possible to be manufactured, marketed and popularised under the normal Earth environments with the available resources.
But what you are imagining and dreaming as possible reality in the future are totally different in level and calibre of things that are beyond the limit of reality and the law of the universe.
Just because those technologies you mentioned are available to us within short space of time and the last few decades does not follow logically and realistically all the other possibilities such as living on Mars, visiting other galaxies will be possible by necessity. If you read and study about the details of these ventures more, what is actually the case, and involved you will know why they are not possible in reality.
Your sayings are like "Because we built a 300 story building on earth, we could soon build a tower reaching Mars, Jupiter even the other Galaxies." I would have thought your intuition would tell you immediately, that it is impossibility within the law of the physical universe.
I know what the concepts mean so no need for me to look them up.
There is knowledge from over 100 PhDs that goes into making a smartphone. I don't think you are appreciating the years of research that went into developing these things.
You said: "Your sayings are like "Because we built a 300 story building on earth, we could soon build a tower reaching Mars, Jupiter even the other Galaxies."" This is not true. We already have the technology to build a generation ship. We already have the technology to go to Mars. We are trying to reduce the cost of space travel before making the journey to Mars.
Do you have any formal educational degree from a university in any branch of science, such as a BSc or BSc (Honours) or MSc or PhD or DSc?
The Big Bang stories, other galaxies, and aliens ... these stories were in science magazines for teenagers a long time ago, and I used to read them with much interest when I was a teen.
Now, I am a sceptic, and tend to only believe what I can feel, think, observe and verify.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Smart phones are just device which is slightly more clever and miniaturised Wireless radio communication device with the touch screens. Wireless communication has been available since the early 1900s, and it is not really some esoteric black art technology. Nowadays the companies have mastered how to make them smaller and also adding more extra features due to the digital technology. But the point is that these devices can be manufactured by any developed country with the available parts and resources. No need to be hugely impressed with the smart phones, broadband or electric cars ... how they work ins and outs are all in the internet, if you search for them.
And 100 Ph.d graduates in Physics and Electronics working for the smart phone technologies? But they don't know how the universe began, how and where from life originated, and they will all get old fast, and die one day just like all other humans and species on earth. What is special about them? :D
Quoting Truth Seeker
That was just to give you an analogy to what you were speculating for the future from the current technology, which sounds unrealistic and far-fetched.
You send a spaceship to Mars costing billions of dollars. It gets there, and it wheels around maybe a few hundred meters on the surface, and take some fuzzy photos and send them to Earth. Take some soil samples to analyse, and then it goes to Sleep mode due to signal failure, and dies. What benefit could these current space technology bring to the living humans on earth?
Suppose you have landed on Mars. How long can you survive up there without the heavy spacesuit? How long your oxygen, water, and food supply will last? What if you suddenly need emergency surgery due to sudden medical problems? Can you even take shower? To solve all these issues, you need to transport maybe a whole cityful of gear, equipment, supplies and people with you to Mars? It is not logically impossible thing to imagine suppose, but realistically sounds too remote possibility. So where are the truths with 100% certainty you are seeking?
Quoting Truth Seeker
I am just a casual reader, and here to learn. :)
Designing smart phones is very different from knowing how life originated. You are not comparing similar things.
We are diverging from the topic of this thread so I will limit what I say.
I was not denying the existence of those extraterrestrial entities. But I was meaning that they are out of reach, and unknowable, no one has been there, no one has tangible proof, so why not limit what we talk about them? You are free to imagine whatever you want to imagine, but please allow others who are sceptical about them too.
In the case of the Big Bangs, I am surprised you believe they are real. Have you been there when it happened? Has anyone been there and seen it was happening? It is just a theory not much different from religious claims on some miracles. OK, they will bring all sort of inferences from the other galaxies and blackholes etc with so called "scientific inferences" from the observations made millions miles away, but the bottom line is it is just inference and presumption. It still lacks any type of critical concrete evidence. OK, you still believe it? I will not stop you.
The real bottom line here seems that my point is trying to limit the debatable subjects to what we can see, touch, smell, and hear, observe and verify in person directly, whereas your ideas mostly come from the media and imaginations.
It is ok to get info from the media if the subjects are tangible, and exist in daily life such as smartphones or electric cars. But when the topics are millions miles away from Earth, and no one has been there, or seen on a daily basis (in the case of aliens), if you bring stories from the media, how much more accuracy of information can you get?
Bear in mind science and technology advances have done good to human life, but there is also an enormous amount of damage done to humans too - I will let you reflect on what they are. For example Smartphones and your computer will trace everything you type and search on the internet, so your privacy is non-existent, no one in this age has privacy, and you have to admit, and allow that, unless you are someone in the Amazon jungle hunting and fishing for your daily life and family.
Yeah, the topic is digressing to popular science and technology for some reason. I think you started it :D. These are my least favourite topics, and I was only responding to your cry outs :D
It was not comparison as such, but again giving you analogy that the scope of knowledge of Phd in Physics or Electronics is very narrow and limited, while there are vast amount of topics in Science and the Universe we don't still know.
I am completely certain of the following:
1. I am conscious.
2. I am typing in English.
3. I am not all-knowing.
4. I am not all-powerful.
5. I change.
6. I know concepts e.g. what a square or circle or triangle is.
7. I know apparent facts about reality e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits the Earth.
8. I know how to walk, run, eat, drink, cook, shop, work, read, write, type, go to the toilet, cycle, swim, etc.
9. I can't do lots of things I really want to do e.g. go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things forever happy.
10. I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:
1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die
I am almost certain of the following:
1. I and all the other organisms currently alive will die. Every second brings all organisms closer to death.
2. My body, other organisms, the Earth and the Universe really exist and they are not part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion.
3. Other organisms e.g. humans, cows, dogs, cats, chickens, pigs, lions, elephants, butterflies, whales, dolphins, etc. are sentient beings who feel pain.
4. Being a non-consumer is more ethical than being an autotroph, being an autotroph is more ethical than being a vegan/herbivore, being a vegan is more ethical than being a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian is more ethical than being an omnivore or carnivore.
5. Gods do not exist.
6. Souls do not exist.
7. Reincarnation does not happen.
8. Resurrection does not happen.
10. Organisms evolved and were not created by God or Gods.
11. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth became extinct in 5 mass extinctions long before humans evolved.
12. Humans and other organisms make choices but they are not free from determinants and constraints. Our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. The reason I have put this one in the almost certain category is that it is possible that bodies, genes, cells, stars, planets, moons, galaxies, universes may not actually exist. These things could be part of a simulation or dream or hallucination or illusion. It is impossible to know with complete certainty. I could be a solipsistic soul experiencing the illusion of being in a human body on a planet in a universe or I could be a body without any soul - I don't know these things for sure, hence I am an agnostic. There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.
The 'I' is the weakness in this statement. It is not 100 percent certain that the person thinking is you. As far as I can see, there is NO 100 percent certainty about anything, no matter how much we wish there was.
I hear you. I have not attempted to identify what I know for certain. I also take the view that absolute certainty is not available. However I hold that I have no alternative but to accept that I operate in a physical world that I share with others. To not do this would likely result in catastrophe. The rest is blundering through. While there is no argument against hard solipsism, I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince.
I think it is
What is the "I"? That seems to me to be the root of the problem. What even is "certainty"?
This is not a perfect thought experiment but the point might still be there.
What if eons ago, humans created an exercise with breathing, one which became socialized into each offspring, such that it became second nature. For e.g., what if with each breath, is the thought I am breathing. Such that today, we believe breathing involves the will, even if subtly.
Can you conceive of that creating the following:
1. I breathe therefore I am
2. How do I breathe in deep sleep? There must be two beings, the one which breathes with volition; and the Body breathing. My Body is one thing, but my breath must be a Spirit which is coming and going with the air.
And so on.
Is it really evident that there is any being, let alone the Real Being, "I" at the source of thinking?
Or, you know what? Forget that admittedly shitty thought experiment.
Alter it.
What if the same exercise took place and was socialized etc. for 200 millenia, but humans never developed language of any kind.
Would we still be faced with, I breathe therefore I am? How do I breathe in deep sleep? Is the "locus" of my Being in the Body which carries on breathing, autonomously in sleep, or in the I who breathe willfully?
Of course not, there wouldn't be an I, a Body, sleep, or multigenerational exercise, etc.
The things we believe with 100% certainty, are contingent upon the use/existence of Language. In fact, I submit, they are ultimately just constructions.
The 100% certainty is something more like, Body breathes, eats, bonds, mates, thus Body is. But of course that too is both expressed and formulated by Language.
"Certainty," itself is a fiction.
The Truth is in the Body being without attention paid to the I or the I's supposed certainty.
I cannot even be 100 percent sure that there is such a thing as Japanese or English, or languages. 100 percent certainty is a strange concept because there is no evidence of such a thing in the known universe, as far as I can tell. But if someone can offer proof of something being 100 percent certain with no possible room for any doubt whatsoever, then I'd be interested to hear about it.
Now, do I BELIEVE that I am typing Japanese? No. Of course, I cannot say for sure, but I think it is unlikely. (I'd be really impressed with myself if I was! ;) ) But do I believe that there is such a thing as 100 percent certainty? To me, it seems so unlikely, simply because I see no evidence of it. Therefore, it could just as easily be something we made up in our minds, as real as a unicorn or griffin, but more powerful than that because it is something many people really desperately want, such as Descartes, which is evidenced by the extremes he put himself through to try to prove it. Of course, he didn't. He simply convinced himself that he did because he wanted it so much because uncertainty, particularly in times of great change like he was living through at the time, is unnerving.
Quoting flannel jesus
'Think' being the operative word here. You may believe it is, but belief is not 100 percent proof or certainty. It is impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is not someone, or thing, else making you believe the thoughts are yours. In that case, you cannot say, 'I think', and since the cogito only works from the first person perspective, it fails. The 'thing' controlling the thoughts that you perceive of as coming from you could be the evil demon that Descartes spoke of, or pretty much anything. It doesnt even have to be a being. You could be like a computer controlled by the forces of the universe. There are just so many possibilities of what COULD be happening regarding the thoughts you perceive of. (I wrote a paper on this but had to cut out LOADS of it because I was coming up with so many different possible scenarios that the paper was thousands of words over the word limit! lol) This is why 100 percent certainty is so problematic, because, since it demands such precision, it opens itself up to the smallest of possibilities.
I personally do not think I am a computer, or the made up thoughts of an evil demon, but there is no way of 100 percent proving otherwise. But let's just say that I am the thoughts of an evil being who is creating the illusion that is my life, I cannot worry about this because I would drive myself insane. I guess if this became apparent at any point, then I would deal with it then, or maybe I would simply disappear. Maybe when the illusion is broken, there is no more me, or there never was because I am the illusion. But anyway, for now, I am pretty happy to believe in the illusion, if it is one.
Quoting Tom Storm
I come to the same conclusion.
What I know absolutely or with absolute certainty are things that many people have already mentioned. For example, I know that I'm sitting here in my office typing with 100% certainty. A doubt here wouldn't even make sense. There are millions or even billions of conscious things we do that we know with absolute certainty. This is not to say that people don't express doubts about these things, it's just that certain doubts people express aren't reasonable or justifiable.
And even if that's true, you're still "perceiving thoughts" and therefore you still are. So the conclusion "I am" still follows, even if "I think" actually just means "I'm perceiving thoughts that are put in my head" (which I have no problem describing as "I think").
If you want to learn more about breathing, please see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4880533
Not if the thoughts are not yours. As other philosophers pointed out long ago, you cannot say, "I think" if the thoughts are not yours. This is just one of the many arguments, however, that throw doubt on the cogito. I'd find some links, but I'm travelling at the moment. I'll find some later :)
Yes, even if the thoughts "aren't yours". In order to perceive thoughts handed to you externally, you first must *exist*.
Your opinion/belief is valid, but you cannot (well, you can if you like, but it won't be true) say that something is 100 percent certain without 100 percent proof, which you cannot provide. I was just saying though, this is just one of many arguments against the cogito.
Not necessarily, you could be JUST thought, but even if we take that to be true, as mentioned, the cogito only works from the first person perspective, therefore, if the thoughts are not yours, you cannot say "I think".
Quoting Beverley
yeah, in other words "I am". You've not figured out a way around the "I am" part of it, and you're stretching quite hard.
Not a problem at all. It would be a really boring world if we all agreed with everything ;)
I notice that this is an old OP, so maybe you might have already done so. But just to refresh memories, defining the key concepts and confirming would make sense.
You are merely wrong. We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. That would require perfection. Even if you think you know, or believe you know, you do not know. Knowing requires what might be referred to as god-like will, god-like awareness, and god-like being; all three at the same time.
We delude ourselves into this 'knowing' thing. We draw 'conclusions'. But these words are wrong words, immoral in their meanings. The actual meanings are wholly contained only in the single point of perfection.
We do not know properly. We believe only. This is a tautology.
We do not conclude properly. We non-conclude properly, only. There is more work to be done.
Quoting Truth Seeker
No, you do not perceive these things. You believe that you do. There is a marked difference. Speaking and writing correctly is difficult, but, ... better.
Quoting Truth Seeker
I would say that this statement is much closer to your 'knowing' than the others have been. It is indeed a hallucination, but, that situation was not inflicted upon you. It was chosen by you, incorrectly. And it will continue to be so. The hope is that you grow through suffering (the only way) to earn wisdom and approach truth/perfection.
We are incapable of objectivity. To be honest with oneself one must say instead 'We are TRYING to be objective (and we are trying to be aware that we will fail). This continual try takes effort and that is the basic path of moral choice, EFFORT.
Quoting Truth Seeker
You cannot know. And that aim, to know, is darkly improper as a stance. Approach knowing with the belief that you cannot arrive. This is better.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Yes, the fundamental nature of reality is neither order nor chaos, but both in flux and balance at the same time. There is no contradiction.
Quoting Truth Seeker
In tracking the suggested answers I have offered you will realize I would say again, we cannot know. The need to know is foolish. The need to become more aware is wise. It is a matter of perspective.
I think that the statement "I think, therefore I am." is incorrect. The correct statement is "I am, therefore I am."
What is real?
Quoting Truth Seeker
What is your confidence on your knowledge? For instance, does God exist? How did the universe begin? Are you confident on all the answers on these questions?
If your confidence was just your feeling, then can you be confident on the certainty?
Confidence is one's feelings and emotions on something. If your ground for certainty is based on your own feeling and emotion of confidence on your knowledge, then all your knowledge seem prone to be fallible.
I know nothing. Apparently, you did not read for comprehension.
I believe you are wrong. I believe it's a hallucination. I believe that you chose it. And I believe it (your premise) is incorrect.
If you say you know or even that knowing is your goal, it is my belief that this false knowing that can only be belief will lead you astray. Further, I believe that the central issue with your paragraph post was indeed the precise point I am making here. Knowing is an immoral aim in some senses.
"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd!" - Voltaire
Quoting Truth Seeker
There are in fact nine permutated equivalent statements at least:
I think therefore I am. Enneatype 5
I want therefore I am. Enneatype 4
I want therefore I think. Enneatype 2
I think therefore I want. Enneatype 7
I am therefore I think. Enneatype 1
I am therefore I want. Enneatype 8
The three reflexive ones are there as well:
I am therefore I am. Enneatype 9
I think therefore I think. Enneatype 6
I want therefore I want. Enneatype 3
I would not classify "P because of P" as a correct statement.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Huh?
Ha ha! That is indeed the generally present response to some of my most revealing posts. But, what is being addressed here merits the merit of that set of assertions.
Do you know the Enneagram? It is one of many maps of human personality. Ennea - nine Gram - Measure. The 9 measures of human motivation.
Type 5 is the quintessential scientist type. They tend towards Nihilism immorally. They are observers. Good science is good observation (Avatar). One of the telltale identifying characteristics of a type 5 is the distinct impression that their body is merely a vehicle for who they really are, which they perceive to be their mind only.
This OF COURSE gives rise to intellectual or mental hubris, yielding in such people, 'Cogito ergo sum!' . The quote is entirely predictable if one knows the Enneagram and ... has thus some insight into typology and behavior. I do.
But the wise observer completes the scope and variety of the aims. The nine statements are the total set. And each statement stands to reason in its own unique way.
My own extension of the Enneagram asserts that Type 5 is anger infused fear. But anger infusion creates the situation/state know by the Hornevian triad of withdrawal. That means the 5 is a withdrawn or low presence type, at least via the contribution of the 5ishness of their personality. This is easily confirmed in actual 5 as typed in reality.
The unified matrix of all these disparate systems lends credibility to all assertions made because of successful cross pollination. Of course pure logic might assert that is bogus as a non-conclusion, but what we often deem as 'pure' logic is anything but, and in any case, logic is only fear. It's ironically humorous that proponents of logic in the social media and movie or literature canon often state that logic stands opposed to emotion. This is a dangerous lie as there is nothing but emotion in existence. Logic and thought is all only fear.
But each level of reality folds the 3 emotions back onto themselves again and again yielding greater detail but only the same final scope (of meaning). Thus fear permutates into anger, fear, and desire infused fear. The type 5 is anger infused fear.
Happy happy! Joy joy!
My confidence about my sentience is 100% certainty. I don't know whether God exists or not.
As for as I know, the universe I appear to exist in, began with a tiny silent beginning. This tiny silent beginning is known popularly as the Big Bang but that name is a misnomer given the fact that the beginning was neither big, nor noisy. It's possible that by body, the universe, etc. are not real. It's possible these things are part of a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. I don't know for sure and can't know for sure.
What are you certain of?
I experience the experience of what it is like to be me. This is not a belief. This is an incontrovertible knowledge for me.
What do you mean by whatever exists? How do you know your sentience exists?
Quoting Truth Seeker
I am certain of the fact that I typed this sentence.
What has happened to your confidence of 100% certainty of your sentience?
In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". :smile:
Bayesian probability :
Broadly speaking, there are two interpretations of Bayesian probability. For objectivists, who interpret probability as an extension of logic, probability quantifies the reasonable expectation that everyone (even a "robot") who shares the same knowledge should share in accordance with the rules of Bayesian statistics, which can be justified by Cox's theorem.[3][10] For subjectivists, probability corresponds to a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Your post seem to be filled with contradictions. You state that your certainty is 100% due to your experience of you being conscious. But then you say that you could a solipsistic soul without a body, or you could be a body without a soul. You don't even know what you are, but how could you claim that you are 100% certain of your consciousness? If one is true then the other is false. Which one is truth for you? They cannot be both truth.
Everyone knows that you cannot prove the content of your consciousness directly to other minds. But we can all infer the other mind and the contents of the other minds' consciousness by the linguistic and behavioural expressions and actions they take.
Again this is a solipsistic statement, which is not saying much meaningful. Does it mean that if you imagined something, then it cannot exist? If you stopped imagine something, it must exist? Things exist regardless of your imagination.
Nobody experiences existence directly, you experience yourself when you think, feel, remember etc. That is Descartes' point. He knows he is because he thought.
Quoting Truth Seeker
That I know nothing.
I don't know and can't know which of the three possibilities is true: 1. I am a soul without a body. 2. I am a soul in a body. 3. I am a body without a soul.
Just as I don't know and can't know which of the five possibilities about the universe is true: 1. The universe is real. 2. The universe is a simulation. 3. The universe is a hallucination I am having. 4. The universe is a dream I am having. 5. The universe is an illusion.
I don't think that all of the possibilities are equally likely. I can't work out how probable each of them actually are. Statistics can't be applied in these cases because we can't test the possibilities.
OK. It is good that you accept that at least your sentience is real. But looking at your 3 possibilities on the existence of yourself.
1. If you are a soul without a body, then how did you even type the above posts? I am pretty certain (I could be wrong, because anything is possible in this world) that you must have a body with 2 hands and 2 feet, and 1 head with 2 eyes and all the rest of it. For you to have typed up the posts and sent them out to the forum, you must have a body for you to sit down on your chair, or stand with your 2 feet with either a phone, pad or computer to read and type the message. I cannot imagine anyone can carry out even the simplest task with a soul alone without a body. Therefore it proves you have a body.
2. You are a soul in a body? This is possible, if and only if you believed you have a soul residing in your body. Some people don't believe souls exist, and some do. You can ask yourself, if you believe in the existence of the soul. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you do, then yes your soul might be living in your body. If you don't believe it, then it doesn't exist. Soul is a matter of your belief and faith.
3. You are a body without a soul? This is also a possibility. A living body doesn't have to have a soul in it, if souls never exist in the first place. It would be wrong to believe that you are a body with a soul in it. You are likely just to have consciousness and mind, but not soul.
The existence of the soul is not a problem of epistemology or philosophy of mind. It is rather a topic in philosophy of religion. There is no way anyone can prove the existence of the soul in scientific, physical, biological or material ways. It is a matter of faith and belief. Therefore it depends on your belief on its existence or nonexistence.
For the problem of the universe, you listed 5 possibilities. But I think it can be reduced to 2 possibilities.
1. The universe is real.
2. The universe is not real. (It is simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion.)
From my reasoning, the universe is real from all the evidences based on the coherence of its operations rooted in the cause and effect principles. The sun is rising every morning without fail, and nights come after days, spring comes after winters, I hear the news of people getting born and people dying every day, I can see that everyone on the earth is getting older everyday, and heading for their own deaths one day.
But there are also mysteries and unknowable antinomies in the universe viz. How did the universe start? Does God exist? Who was the first person on the earth? Is there life on another planet or star? Is there after life? What is the next lottery jackpot number?
The fact that there are some mysteries and unknowable things in the universe doesn't mean that the universe is not real. It just means that we don't have enough information or evidence for our questions due to the limitation of our reasonings or lack of data.
How do you prove an alien in your room in your imagination is not real? How do you prove the message you have been typing was not a part of your life dream? Is life real? Could it be a long dream in a dream in another dream ...?
How did he know he thinks?
Quoting Lionino
You know that you know nothing. Therefore you know something.
https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Descartes-1637%20Discourse%20on%20Method.pdf page 28
Quoting Corvus
Therefore "I know that I know nothing" is incorrect, therefore I know nothing.
There is no basis for anything other than beliefs.
My beliefs are chosen based on observation, model completeness, model scope, model cross verification as in via some studies and trends in understanding.
To me facts are only a subset of beliefs. There is no actual proof to 100% on any issue. So facts are different than beliefs only in that for a person that believes them they are considered as sufficiently validated that the person would SAY they are 'proven', even though they cannot be actually proven. So it's almost like proclaiming a fact is a mistake in reasoning, if you follow. It means you no longer profess any doubt about the matter, effectively, which as Voltaire reminded us, is absurd.
Quoting Truth Seeker
I suggest that this attitude is merely wrong (again). Your impressions of what happened are delusional. We as humans simply do not have the sensory apparatus to understand properly ... in any way. The position of doubt remains the most sensible, the most wise.
And yes, these experiences are only beliefs. Ask any dozen people what happened at the same event where they were all sober and present and you will have that many different ... BELIEFS about what happened. And zero of those will be precise enough to be objectively what happened.
We cannot know about anything for sure. Definitely not 100%. Only thing we can be sure of is the subjective experience we have. We are experiencing it no matter what be it in reality or dream, physical or real and illusion or real.
That's how I interpret "I think therefore I am"
...so we know our subjective experiences for sure, and hence there is something that we know for sure, and so it is not true that we cannot know about anything for sure.
I don't know whether souls exist or not. I am an agnostic atheist.
I like the way you put it. But the problem here is knowing and experiencing. You have to explain what exactly you meant by know to have a good definition. Subjective experience is there we know it. But isn't really experiencing rather than knowing, even the knowledge is an experience don't you think?
I was just typing out a response to address this issue: My first instinct was to say "Something exists" or "I feel something", because I believe our experience is prior to any knowledge we might have, even of ourselves. But when does the mere sense experience start to come together to make a model of reality and our identity? Don't we need to have an understanding of self in order to claim knowledge of anything, or maybe knowledge of the concept of knowledge itself?
No , cogito ergo sum, clearly distinguish mind and body
It is idealistic. Mine is subjective experience in any form regardless of any construct or boundaries.
Knowing is a delusion. Belief is all that we have.
He might believe he knows nothing. This is not knowing. It is only belief. So then he believes something.
The word or verb to know is a word that, like many, partakes of perfection too much. It is my assertion that the word know means objectively know, and that is impossible.
Playing word games with a word that has never really meant what people thought it means is not useful.
Of course the colloquial understanding of the verb to know is burdened with the colloquial confusion that 'knowing' is possible. And on we go ...
I think you mistook my statement. I was talking about subjective experiences not sense experience. Those are different things and subjective experience has a broad meaning when it comes to philosophy.
All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. There is no knowledge that is not only beliefs.
It is not just pedantic foolishness that originates these types of assertions. It is philosophy properly applied. Skepticism is a valid approach. It does not deny anything that is happening. 'Knowing' has never happened in the entire history of time because perfection is not possible. We may only approach perfection or try to aim at it. We have not arrived and theoretically will never arrive.
There are many verbs that contain this same conundrum. There are many situation in reality that should be understood more properly by applying the asymptotic state to their limited approaches. Knowing is just one example.
We operate only from a well of beliefs. Knowledge is delusional because it implies knowing which is impossible.
The linked article in my post describes the procedure for calculating the statistical probability of a personal belief. Other than objective evidence or blind faith, that may be as close to "certainty" as you can get to logical truth. Because it begins with a subjective guess, the calculation will never produce 100% certainty. Here's Bayes' formula in the form of an equation. :smile:
Quoting Abhiram
Justified true belief?
Quoting Abhiram
Whatever "it" is. Our knowledge is not limited to subjective experience. For example, that you answered my post demonstrates that you know you are a participant in a social organisation that spans the globe...
The mooted hegemony of subjective experience is a philosophical conceit, nothing more.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
And you know this to be so?
Quoting Lionino
This is said without irony?
:lol:
Is it set in stone that nothing is set in stone?
You are clever enough to understand that we must start somewhere...
From the quotes thread.
Quoting Banno
Yes. Therefore something is set in stone. Therefore it is not set in stone that nothing is set in stone. Therefore nothing is set in stone. This is a paradox! Exactly. Further showing how nothing is set in stone.
No. Therefore that is not set in stone. So what is it that is set in stone? It seems no one has clarified it yet. Some might say it is the law of identity, but that one is shrouded in mystery.
Quoting Banno
We can start from wherever we want. Knowledge can be like mathematics or logic where we can choose the axioms we want. But it is only certain axioms that give us good theorems. Some people start with the Christian God, others with PNC (but is it more fundamental than the PEM?), most people with a collection of brute facts ("I just know that gravity is 9.81m/s²!"). If we start with the negative that we don't know, we might stop worrying about being certain about things (as if certainty even exists) and start worrying about being less uncertain in general.
Clearly, I do not know it. I admit it. Certainty is absurd! I only believe it to be so. And I can and do argue as to why. Effort has been made to validate. That is all anyone can say or has time for.
Yep.
That's much better than the incoherent claim that we know nothing, or its inane sibling, that there are no true statements. It has a huge pop status, a mark of rebellion, sticking it to the man, talking truth to power, and so on.
But it undermines itself.
Doubt and certainty are twins, you don't get one without the other.
One can't play chess without the certainty that one's opponent will keep their bishop on the same colour.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Again, why are you so adamant about this?
I see this kind of attempt at twisting language and meaning so often, and it amazes me that people seem to fall for it. This does not magically mean that something is set in stone, unless I am missing something. It means the opposite. If we consider the following, we can see why: (BTW I am sure many others see this too, but I do very often notice misunderstandings regarding the same positive/negative wordings)
It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone --? positive and negative = negative, meaning there is nothing set in stone
It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone --? negative and positive = negative, meaning there is nothing certain
It is set in stone that something is set in stone ---? positive and positive = positive, meaning that something is set in stone.
It is not set in stone that there is nothing set in stone ---? negative and negative = positive, meaning that something is set in stone
I mean, am I missing something or is it this simple? Maybe I got it all wrong, and I cannot see how????
Quoting Banno
You are only as certain as how much you can convince yourself of certainty.
Yep, certainty is a form of belief, not of truth. One can be certain of whatever one choses. Or doubt whatever they like.
What I am pointing to is simply the performative contradiction in folk expressing such certainty in their doubt.
Quoting Beverley
You mean using logic?
Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional.
Well if you are going to cast doubt on something, let that something be certainty. It's my sin I guess. So certain that certainty is wrong! ;)
I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message.
But the possible (lack of) depth of moral agency does not preclude that agency, nor the infinity of choice. The only thing that is happening is the effort required to enact some high minded choice is exponentially higher in a body that is not evolved to support that agency in situ. But it's not impossible ...
I always chafed at that horridly untrue George Eliot quote, "Animals are such agreeable friendsthey ask no questions, they pass no criticisms." I think this man knew NO animals. He surely did not know erudite ones like dolphins and border collies.
No, I mean that I see it time and time again that someone will quote a positive negative to suggest that the result is positive, such as, it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, meaning that something must be set in stone if only that it is set in stone that nothing is set in stone, This is nonsense, and to me, seems like twisting words to throw unnecessary confusion into the conversation. That it not logic.
Certainty in doubt is also a positive negative, meaning it results in a negative... seems pretty straight forward to me, unless I am missing something. (But then I always doubt myself, so I could well be getting something wrong)
Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like?
Yes, that's what I meant. Fear, anger, and desire. The anger is the being in essence. So instinct is a body or pre-differentiated memory. The body's statement for choice, the starting state, is itself just a previous choice. That is belief from being (anger), implied, waking STATE. Evolution chooses. Therefore it DID believe. It seems to try all routes (desire) but really there is math in every one (fear).
I disagree.
The proper math is this: You are as certain as you are terrified. Fear is the origin of the need for certainty. Fear seeks comfort, the lessening of the excited state that is negative. The balancing anger STANDS on its own, confident, because it is, because it exists. It can be seen as foolhardy but, if done right, and there is a right way, it is not foolish at all.
It seems to be correct that language is not required, but it is not by any means redundant. We have a little Kokoni. Chances are you have never even heard of her breed, but she is constantly mistaken for a miniature border collie. And the funny thing is that she herds as well. The kokoni is an ancient Greek breed of dog, bred for the aristocracy as lap dogs and to entertain the children of the aristocracy. There are pictures of them on ancient artifacts, and yet, for some odd reason, they are only recognized in Greece as a specific breed and nowhere else. They have long and extremely soft fur. Their bark is extremely loud for their size (kokoni in Greek means 'little dog') but they rarely bark. They take time to attach themselves to a human, but once they do, they will stay loyal for life. Their average lifespan is 16 years and they do not suffer any specific illnesses apart from teeth issues. They can be as active as you want them to be, meaning that if you want to play, they do too. But they can also curl up and sleep soundly next to you for hours. She is our little treasure that someone threw away in a dumpster when she was 2 years old. We are the luckiest people to have found her. (although I would for sure take away the fact that someone threw her away in the first place if I could)
Sorry to go on about our dog, but I couldn't help it.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I totally agree with this and have said this before. It makes sense to me. Certainty means security and predictability. But we have lived with uncertainty for a LONG time, but we seem to convince ourselves otherwise. As humans, we look for patterns in EVERYTHING, for the same reason: patterns represent predictability. However, I often think that patterns may be simply something we make up in our minds. Maybe there are no patterns at all. Maybe we just see them because it makes us feel more secure. But of course, I do not know for sure.
I love it! Now I want one! I'm getting too old to be punished by a rascal energetic tornado border collie. I love them, but they need open spaces and a job to do. I'm a master trainer (self-proclaimed) and my collies usually surpass that famous border collie that knows 200 objects. Try that and fifty verbs. But yeah, there is no low energy setting. This one STAYS at 11.
Quoting Beverley
Yes, order is fear. So fear is all patterns. And the first fear is the primal pattern, fear of the unknown.
Fear emerges the 'like' or friendship pattern of love. We are only COMFORTABLE with those that are like us. This draws the delusional line between 'us' and 'them'. So fear is the origin of separation of all kinds, the limiting force. Want a barrier or a prison? Use too much fear! Identity is sourced in fear. What does that tell you?
Quoting Beverley
I disagree with that. There are patterns and one of them is the purpose of perfection as a source of desire itself, the opposition force to fear, chaos.
Quoting Beverley
We cling to the easy ones. It's effort to step into the unknown, harder, prone to cause suffering, and therefore MORE, not less, moral. We use the order of patterns only to inform those choices to hone them towards perfection.
To me, this seems a little too black and white. Could this not simply be another way of us trying to confirm certainty for fear of acknowledging the grey, in between, uncertain area of things? Maybe there is no either end: perfection or chaos. Weirdly enough, I suspect that perfection and chaos may be the same thing...if they exist.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Aren't all dogs amazing!? But I may be a little exhausted trying to keep up with that... although I'd have a good try!
So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows?
Nuh, best leave it.
How can I tell you anything without putting it in a proposition?
Knowledge is propositional.
What's a good Searle article/paper that deals with that?
So the dog knows that it is raining, even though the dog cannot say that it is raining. The content of the dog's knowledge is given by "it is raining", even though the object of it's knowledge is not the proposition that it is raining, but the rain.
Subtle, easily misconstrued, but important.
Far from it.
The objective nature of perfection is there, the white, and all the rest is only a degree of error. Existence is only some degree of moral failure.
The gray area is only amid the relative nature of comparing one viewpoint in error with another. So, there is both black and white and all shades of gray at the same and no contradiction either. This is the only way it could be.
The trick is holding seemingly disparate beliefs in mind simultaneously and coming to the inevitable conclusion that they are not finally contradictory. That is wisdom itself.
Quoting Beverley
I find that being comfortable with that aim is a desire side delusion. Fear will also participate though. You end up with a conspiracy for low aimed moral choice. Everyone excusing the gray areas without challenging them. The proper path is admission of failure and forgiveness, followed by a re-assertion of perfection as the only best aim.
Quoting Beverley
All final or perfect states are obtained in an infinite number of ways. It is that infinity of paths that seems to suggest the destination is not a single objective thing. But that suggestion is delusional in every way, and only the objective final aim is perfect.
Quoting Beverley
When I was younger it was THE thing for me. Border Collies! Accept no substitute! But I am of course in no way biased. ;)
I love most animals but the smart ones that have rich interactions are just charming.
"I am thinking therefore I exist,* was so secure and certain* that it could not be shaken by any of the most extravagant suppositions of the sceptics, I judged that I could accept it without scruple, as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking.*" - Descartes
Is there a logical necessity from someone feeling "so secure and certain" about something, and something to exist? It sounds like a psychological statement than a logical necessity.
"I am still so secure and certain that I think there exists life in Mars. Therefore life exists in Mars." Does it sound like a logically necessary statement to you? It sounds like a meaningless joke to me.
Thinking has its contents. Descartes doesn't reveal what the content of his thinking was. From mere his content-dubious thinking, deducing a spatial-temporal existence doesn't quite sound right, does it?
Quoting Lionino
If you know something, then you know nothing is a contradiction.
"Trust yourself, you know more than you think you do."- Benjamin Spock
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Analysing the vague and obscure use of words and expressions, and clarifying them is a part of philosophy.
Why would it be possible? Do you believe in Hinduism? Are you a Hindu follower?
Quoting Truth Seeker
If you are an agnostic atheist, then you could be a realist and possibly a materialist. Being a brute material realist would make things simpler. All there exists is matter and motion.
Here are my two problems:
1. What is my true nature? Am I a soul without a body or a soul in a body or a body without a soul?
2. Is the universe real or a simulation or my hallucination or my dream or an illusion?
Are all of the above possibilities equally likely? I don't currently know but does that mean I won't ever know?
Actually that is where the question of illusion arises.
We will never know if it real or certain. Like that is advaita Vedanta where there is an epistemic world and real world. The epistemic world is not considered real and their is a world of illusions.
I am an agnostic atheist pragmatist. When I am driving, I don't go around thinking that hitting pedestrians won't matter because the pedestrians are not actually real. They are real enough to have consequences for them and for me.
We don't know and probably can't know whether living things are real souls without real bodies, real souls in real bodies or real bodies without real souls.
We also don't know and probably can't know whether the universe is actually real or is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. The most likely scenario is that we will all die without knowing the true nature of selves and universes.
I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.
Dear living things,
My aim in life is to save and improve all lives. I am requesting all living things to share my goal. One for all and all for one. Together, we can do much more than we can alone.
With unconditional love,
Someone who loves you.
It is subjective experience itself. Think of it , it is a belief and it is justified. It is as simple as that. It is one part of it.
Quoting Banno
That is an argumentum ad absurdum. Everything is based on the subjective experience. You don't know anything out of your subjective experience. Even every concept you know is bound to your own subjective experience. I answered your post because it is in field of experience. And i am subjectively experience this activity.
If we loosen our restrictions a bit (leave aside skepticism), then we can say that we were born. Death would be a close second, assuming no afterlife.
When someone says they "know" something, 'know' is a word with composite meaning, indicating at least an attitude (belief) and a state of affairs (being true). To say you know something implies a commitment to something being true, and for me that implies certainty, which is why I think it is faulty when people say they "know the sky is blue" like they "know" they "can trust their eyes", as one is reliant on the other.
But if you want to say that knowing is not the commitment that something is true but that it is much more likely than its opposite (not-X), I am happy to say we know many many things.
Quoting Banno
One can hardly discern whether there is something "true" about the game they just made up to communicate or whether it is a useful fiction.
Are you trying to apply mathematical operations to English? Because
* "It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone" and
* "It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone"
can mean completely different things, even though both are made of a negative with a positive.
Or we can accept skepticism and carry on from there without stressing about certainty, knowing that we will die is as likely or less than that we were born.
:up:
That's a good approach, among others. Skepticism can't be defeated merely kept in check occasionally.
Quoting Gnomon
Probability, not Certainty :
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence becomes available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
Because there is nothing necessary about life in Mars, physically, metaphysically, logically. The point of the cogito is that it always confirms itself circularly, you can't deny it, because by denying it you prove it.
I will leave you with some editor/translator notes from some translation of the Discourse to show what I am saying:
Quoting Discourse on the Method Oxford World's Classics
More than anything, this is the key part:
It's not a magic incantation. Bayes formula requires that you take the first step, with your best guess. Then you have to do the work of finding new evidence to support or deny your intuitive answer. It's pragmatic, not magic. It's subjective, not science.
Would you be satisfied with a statistical solution to your personal problems? As I said before, if you seek the feeling of certainty, Faith is the answer. Philosophy is not about certainty, but merely diminishing doubt. :smile:
Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Fundamentally, Bayesian inference uses prior knowledge, in the form of a prior distribution in order to estimate posterior probabilities. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference
We don't know and probably can't know whether living things are real souls without real bodies, real souls in real bodies or real bodies without real souls.
We also don't know and probably can't know whether the universe is actually real or is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. The most likely scenario is that we will all die without knowing the true nature of selves and universes.
I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.
Stressing about Skepticism is futile, agreed. If Hume cannot overcome it and Kant cannot defeat it, what hope do mere mortals have?
Still, it's worth keeping it in mind as a problem. For ignoring it completely defeats the point of what is right about it, that we cannot attain certainty - in this world at least.
In a way that's like saying the most certain thing is that uncertainty will always exist (due to its link woth transience/transformation/change).
Not to say if Earth is Earth. Derridas concept of iterability involves the idea that every repetition is an alteration, every recurrence is a difference
The sun will die, the earth will be consumed by it and so will no longer "orbit it" nor will the sun "rise from the east - the east of what?". Even less certain, London will likely not always be the capital of England, perhaps the UK won't always be recognised as such (welch and Scottish independence could see to that), as for living things well, should they go extinct, the sentiment "living things die" will from there on be irrelevant as there are no livng things left.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but when I say things with 100% certainty, I refer to those things that are as fundamental and enduring in the universe as perhaps the universe itself. "That which remains true and valid for the longest duration" - is how I measure their magnitude of certainty.
So no, sadly i have to disagree that there are trillions of things that are 100% certain in a longevital sense. They are certainly 100% certain in a brief moment. But i guess this is contingent on the semantics of what we mean or qualify as "certain". Archaeologist can never be 100% certain about anything beyond a certain distance in the past. They can offer at best the most appropriate explanation/theory. Time is the ultimate dissolution of certainty.
For me the more brief and rare an event is, the less scientifically certain we can be about it. Especially retrospectively with the passage of time.
And on the macro scale, change is only one of few things I can conceive that meets that criterion of "absolute certainty". On the micro scale of self referentiality, I think therefore I am, may suffice.
I would agree. Like the buddhist concept that the same river can never be stepped into twice. Everything changes from moment to moment. So when we talk of "certainty" it is one of two things: a) that which cannot change and is eternal or b). That which is for the most minute of moments, for the briefest time, defined and certain. Before it changes of course.
It would suggest certainty at the two extremes of the scale of "Time", but for very different reasons.
If you are a sensitive feeling person, I doubt that you will find comfort in Analytic Philosophy. And you are not likely to find the feeling of certainty in a Hegelian dialogue on fundamental questions, that has been going back & forth for ages. But maybe you can reach a resolution with the angst-inducing vagaries of the world in the aloof solace of Stoicism, or the self-reliant meaning of Existentialism, or the introspective mindfulness of Buddhism. :nerd:
Existentialism vs. Absurdism :
As Camus explains, individuals are able to gain a sense of satisfaction in life, in spite of its meaninglessness. Whereas existentialism accepts the possibility that we might create our own meaning through our goals and achievements, the absurdists deny that meaning can be found at the outcome of any rational endeavor.
https://www.culturefrontier.com/existentialism-vs-absurdism/
Certainty does not depend on the duration something is true. It is certain that the Earth orbits the Sun now. The fact that the expansion of the Sun will incinerate the Earth does not make it any less certain that the Earth orbits the Sun now.
This seems to be around about the mentality of the perpetually paralyzed.
I was in this mentality for some time - I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. I evolved from it.
Good for you. If something is known, then one can conclude that it is true.
Quoting Lionino
In Chess, it is true that the bishop stays on it's own colour.
I'm not at all sure we are disagreeing here.
Maybe I need to rephrase the second one to: Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone. I think I just didn't negate it enough at the beginning and make the statements firm enough. As far as I can see, both of these
"It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone."
and
"Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone."
end up meaning that nothing is set in stone, since they overall negate themselves. I cannot see other meanings, but maybe I am missing something?
We do use these positive/negative patterns in language, although when I was at school in the UK, it was always stressed that we should avoid them and that they are frowned upon due to how much confusion they tend to cause. Due to this, I think that most people in the UK are aware of them, if only to avoid using them. (Although, I do sometimes hear mostly younger people wrongly saying, "I didn't do nothing" to mean, "I didn't do anything." "I didn't do nothing" would mean that they did do something.)
I had a double negative question in a philosophy exam when I was studying in Canada, and I was so surprised that I thought for a moment they had made a mistake. They hadn't though. I asked the professor about it and he said it was a common type of question there. (Actually, it may be a common philosophy question in the UK too, but I wouldn't know, as I have never studied philosophy in the UK.)
So you are now saying Bayesian inference is only probably correct...?
More of the same, really.
This project has lead to the deaths of 100s of millions across the human epoch. No one more than I recognizes the internal need to carry with you empathy, compassion and psychological adaptiveness with respect to them - But hte idea that this will solve problems (particuarlly ones you note) is absurd, for many reasons, not least of which is the historical abject failure (an in fact, patent harm) of that project.
Doesn't solve problems for who? For you, or for the people being shown compassion and caring? If you are saying that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems for those being shown compassion and caring, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others?
Quoting Beverley
No. It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole.
Quoting Truth Seeker
It is perfectly clear in my post what I am talking about. Pretending that compassion and caring solve problems, when they are literally internal emotions, is incoherent and has lead to countless deaths and the absolute incapability of society-at-large to develop faster than a snail.
Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.
I've wondered about that. :cool:
Just joking about the New Zealand lawyer. He's a bright guy.
To me, that is just another way of rephrasing compassion and caring.
Quoting AmadeusD
I'd be surprised if anyone actually did that. People can feel sympathy for others and feel sad, but crying themselves into a black hole seems like a bit of an over exaggeration. You are taking a very negative viewpoint of this for some reason. I get extreme pleasure out of helping others when I can, and it gives me a surge of hope (as it probably also does for the person I am helping) not despair. For me, looking at things from your point of view on this really would make me feel like despairing! But everyone is different I guess.
Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view.
In some scenarios, this is definitely true. But it touches not what you've intimated, and what I have in turn speculatively responded to. This is prevarication, for lack of a better term.
Quoting jgill
This is a great example of what I'm trying to put forward - Compassion literally doesn't solve problems. If the problem is 'I need a hug' that's not what I'm talking about. That's just a mindstate someone is in - and I would only ever employ compassion in that situation.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Oh brother. When your response is to assume I have some disparate, alien experience to you, I can be absolutely sure you're not coming to the table with a full basket.
In short: No, Don't be ridiculous. I have a different take on this than you do. As above though, this tells me a huge amount about your intentions here.
Quoting Truth Seeker
You're wrong, and not engaging the problem, so I'll pass.
Quoting jgill
You're not alone, obviously. And I'd have it no other way. I don't want to be particularly well-connected with those for whom compassion is the be-all-end-all. I've been through it and its self-destructive at every turn. As we're watching...Quoting jgill Not quite a lawyer, yet. But i very much appreciate the kind word :) It is very much returned, though I don't recall your occupation haha.
Then you are not in touch with the concepts at hand. Ironic.
Quoting Beverley
I responded to a specific occasion of OP claiming this is their stance... It's also very much in-line with two decades of experience trying to do the compassion-as-worldview thing, and it leading me to ... lets say reject it, to be less verbose. My feelings are much deeper than that.
Quoting Beverley
Not in any way. I am pointing out the fallacious point of pretending that emotional states solve problems.
Quoting Beverley
Extreme certainly strikes me as odd, but otherwise, I more or less agree, but this has nothing to do with what I've said or put forward. This is true enough for me too - which is why I volunteered running a mental health charity for several years among other things. You seem to be still talking about something I have already addressed, though, so perhaps this is going to devolve into me having to point out that you're ignoring me, as our other two threads have done:
Quoting AmadeusD
You can ignore the part you view as exaggeration (because you didn't make the statement it replied to..),. But, clarifying this otherwise, I am speaking here about hte fact that in dealing with other individuals we need to employ compassion and empathy. Though, the fact is this needs to be guarded very well. It is the weak carrying compassion who are manipulated, rode over, pushed and pulled etc... Into the people the scenarios OP is whining about.
So, in this context I'm actually in agreement, But i still think the sanguine, irrational mode of OP's suggestions are... exactly that, and do not solve problems.
When it comes to 'world issues' or 'national issues' let's say, compassion is pretty much the worst of all possible avenues to attack from.
A case in point is that currently our (NZ) social housing organisation, Kainga Ora, is under serious fire. What's the reason: Too much compassion.
They have, under successively shit governments been mandated to basically do absolutely nothing about their tenants abusing neighbours, destroying property and generally being violent wankers. Compassion is the reason. These tenants are struggling - some with addictions, some with mental health issues, some with bad socialisation, some with cultural disconnection etc.. etc.. etc.. .All shitty things.
But their behaviour is violating the rights of others to a point that we cannot employ compassion to solve this problem. The victims need seeing to, and the perpetrators do not require further compassion. They need consequences to prevent further harm to others. Compassion will solve no part of this problem. A rational apportionment of force as between two conflicting parties, from without, is required. This is actually true of any group conflict, or even badly-communicated personal ones.
What's actually happened?
What's actually wrong?
How do we solve it?
Compassion isn't involved here.
In your opinion.
Quoting AmadeusD
If I have ignored you then I apologize. I must have missed something.
Sort of. It's an opinion to which i give my assent.
Rational thinking, and compassion are necessarily different things. Point taken, nevertheless. My previous experiences with you have been to the effect that what you think is right, even if its wrong, so forgive a little shortness.
Actually all of us are in our own cage. We are just unaware of it that's all.
This should be a fun exchange fun.
The plague example is irrelevant. I never said that compassion and caring make all living things immortal. However, it is because of our compassion and caring that we treat people and other living things who are ill or injured.
Living things make choices due to the interactions of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Our choices are determined and constrainted by variables we did not choose. The people who behave irresponsibly most likely had terrible Adverse Childhood Experiences. What is needed is treatment for their mental illnesses and addictions. If they had received compassion and caring since conception and did not have the Adverse Childhood Experiences they would not behave irresponsibly. I have worked with many criminals and it is the lack of compassion they received that made them into criminals. So, the problem is not too much compassion. The problem is that we failed to prevent all Adverse Childhood Experiences. If you don't know what Adverse Childhood Experiences are, then please see https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html
I am quoting the following from https://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score You should look at the webpage in full.
Quoting Aces Too High
I recommend that you read the following books:
"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky
"Free Will" by Sam Harris
You should also watch this TED Talk: How childhood trauma affects health across a lifetime by Nadine Burke Harris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95ovIJ3dsNk
I go to lengths to make it clear that these are my opinions, and I try not to state my opinions as facts, which would be wrong. I also frequently let it be known that I respect the opinions of others. I may have, on occasion, fallen short on this (I do not claim to be perfect) and I do not have a problem apologizing if I have caused offense in any way.
I think having a conscience is important too (or is that the same thing?) When I have done something that, on reflection, I realize may have hurt (not physically) someone, I feel absolutely terrible. However, I recognize that this is a good thing and try to learn from the experience. I would hate to think that one day I might have no guilty conscience, despite it being painful.
Physically no, but metaphysically and logically? May be or why not?
Cogito to "I exist" is a deductive leap, tautology or just monologue. Problem with Cartesian cogito is, it lacks the content. Lack of content in cogito allows even denial of Ergo sum. What if, the content of cogito was "I doubt" or "I deny"? Does "Ergo sum" still stand?
Is having a conscience a problem? I suppose it could be if it became uncontrollable and developed into a mental health issue.
I wonder if everyone has a conscience though, but people choose to suppress it, or ignore their conscience by deceiving themselves into thinking that what they are doing is justified. This could be affected by environments and experiences, but would also involve some amount of choice. I am just playing with ideas here though and am not certain about any of them. I think it must be pretty hard to be certain about any of this. (haha and there I was thinking I was going off topic, and I ended up coming back round to it again :) )
I recommend that you read the following books:
"Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" and "Determined: Life Without Free Will" by Robert M Sapolsky
"Free Will" by Sam Harris
Scrupulosity is a somewhat relevant mental health issue.
In cases of psychopathy I don't get the impression that there is any conscience there to suppress.
I thought there may be something like that. It must be terrible :(
Quoting wonderer1
I also had this thought myself, but concluded that I wasn't sure.
Quoting Truth Seeker
Are we confusing (or it may be just me) conscience with remorse, if conscience is KNOWING what is right or wrong, and remorse is the feeling people get when they ignore doing the right thing (of course, that in itself can be interpreted in many different ways) But if people can have a conscience, but do not feel remorse, then it would make doing the wrong thing far easier and more likely. But then that makes me wonder if people can chose to do the right thing simply because they feel remorse and not because they care about hurting others. This is getting complicated. I haven't studied ethics, so I may well be blundering through all of this. Also, is there a way of distinguishing between what is considered right by some people, but that does not significantly affect others, and what is considered right by some people and does affect others? I would say that the latter is much more important. From what I can tell, fasting would fall under the former.
But would it be possible for someone to literally have no conscience, meaning they cannot distinguish between right and wrong? If so, that would be worrying because then they would not even be able to make a choice. Are there such people I wonder?
Quoting Truth Seeker
There does appear to be differing levels for different people I suppose, whether it be conscience or remorse. However, I am not sure if this is a problem if we consider the individual because if we, as individuals, are happy with our own consciences, and at least accept that we are trying to do our best (nobody is perfect) then from the point of view of our conscience, does it matter what other people are doing/thinking etc?
Quoting Truth Seeker
Thanks for the suggestions. :)
I think that most people are in agreement that hurting others is morally wrong. For me, anything else, such as the choice whether to fast or not, is up to the belief and opinion of the individual and only becomes morally wrong if someone else gets significantly hurt in the process. (but again, I am open to hearing other viewpoints)
What I was simply saying is there are other ways to qualify certainty.
For example, if something only occurs once in the universe. And is extremely brief. And we measure it and document it as certain -that it definitely existed in a defined state at a defined time. How long can we ve certain about that?
How much time must pass before we are no longer certain it occurred at all?
Which lends itself to my argument that from a scientific standard, it easier to establish certainty for things that endure the longest through time.
Does that make them any more certain? Perhaps not. But it certainly makes them more knowable as certain.
After all if you cannot choose to identify with a group, but are instead forced to, how can one be said to have faith in it? To actively believe it despite the option not to. One loses their autonomy as a devotee
I absolutely agree with this. To me, threats of death and coercion cause harm to others and are, in my view, morally wrong. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such people are not behaving like that for religious reasons, but because of the desire for power over others. Justifying actions like this by saying that they are for religious reasons is a very powerful, but manipulative, way of controlling others.
The most stable religions in my opinion are ones which are less dogmatic and more about asking questions, philosophising and discussing ideas. Ones that do not punish education and free thinking.
Apparently, by snarky implication, you are trying to put words in my mouth. Below is my original reply to 's question. Do you have a better method for quantifying the feeling of "certainty" in an uncertain world? Empirical Science may be able to approach absolute Objectivity for physical questions. But it has no answer for moral dilemmas.
Obviously, the harsh answer to the OP is that we humans can never know anything with "100% certainty". But I took his question as a sincere search for something to assuage his feelings of trepidation, ambiguity & anxiety regarding the moral imperfections of the world. Perhaps, something to believe in. Hence the reference to Bayesian belief. Do you have a problem with Bayesian inference as a means to approach true belief for vexing questions? If so, tell it to TS. And quit trolling Gnomon. :joke:
from this thread :
Thank you for your reply "flannel jesus." How would I calculate what percentage of certainty I assign to things such as the objective existence of my body, other humans, non-human organisms, the Earth and the rest of the universe? Truth Seeker
In the 18th century, Thomas Bayes developed a method for quantifying Certainty : it's called "Statistics". ---Gnomon
A Measurable Morality :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14834/a-measurable-morality/p1
I think you are wrong, and you've not provided more than a continuing repetition of your position, without much argument. Your points aren't lost on me - they just have nothing to do with the objections i've put out. It does, though, seem as if this is a deep ideological commitment and discussion isn't eaxctly something that moves you either. It seems that your position is essentially one where you've taken other people's positions on as your own, and labeled yourself just so. That isn't my vibe, and I genuinely don't think you're making a reasonable point.
So be it :)
@Beverley In the previous exchange, I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. But it is my choice to interact with you, so I take that on as it comes. Its nothing something you should apologise for. I am merely observing why I navigate your posts with that type of trepidation, and ahve a short fuse for prevarication.
I am not entirely sure now which exchange and instances you are referring to, but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. I do this to myself too, just to see if I am assuming too much or missing another way of viewing things. This may be frustrating for others who have set ideas on things. But, as I said before, I appreciate that others have different views to me, I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. Actually, considering my viewpoint on this very question-- that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty-- strictly speaking, I think all points made are opinion. But I get the feeling we will disagree on this. It is perhaps prudent for me to leave this alone before I totally get on your nerves!
Quoting Beverley
This does certainly frame your comportment well. It is likely prudent, but I have no interest in such :)
Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
If we discuss properties of matter, we are discussing everything that is. I suppose one might also say that space must be discussed as separate from matter. But space is really more so the distance between matter. So, matter and distance then. And then one can speak of energy. So we have matter, energy, and space. And then maybe time.
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. It's only a matter (ha ha) of degree. The space between meaningful or realized as meaningful parts of matter of choice, which MATTERS, is larger. And you think this means none. Hilarious!
The 'real' world you describe and most people accept is a childish delusion of anger only. Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. Anger is the honest emotion, 'calming fears', by demanding that we stand up every morning and face the unknown, our fear.
Everything contains the fractal seed of sentience. Therefore everything partakes of sentience. It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.
{When they told me I was delusional, I nearly fell off my unicorn!}
I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence.
Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example: Quoting Chet Hawkins
Quoting Chet Hawkins )
dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim:
Quoting Chet Hawkins
It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do.
The last bit has to be said. Compassion helps the giver. Why?
It does so because anger is the source of compassion. Anger is the pre-balanced emotion, more honest. It partakes of both fear and desire, the typical polarity of the universe, and thus aids in cancelling both to balance. Why is it an aid?
As internally balanced anger can relate both to fear and to desire. It's a common ground, a roundedness, neutral. Anger demands the normal aims of both fear and desire vanish. It is both angry and finally calming, balance. Compassion is the so called 'empty love'. It calms the excited state of friendship, that 'you are like me' bond. And it calms the fire of pure passion, of desire itself, which is also exhausting and over-extending. This is why it is called empty. The balance is the final effect of the emotion anger, which makes it and its echo amid love, compassion, the source of the 'unity principle', effectively, "You are me and I am you'.
In this reflection, compassion shows us neither fear's delusional worthiness, nor desire's delusional worthlessness. Balance is achieved. Honesty shows us that by helping others we are only helping ourselves and we neither need to aggrandize that (virtue signal) nor to wallow in the temporary defeats of failure.
Amid peace of BEING who we are, anger, allows us to find balance from which it is easier to proceed along the path to perfection.
Shaka, when the walls fell!
I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. Is it not yet enough. I will try to do better. Maybe you think I have no part in that?
Quoting AmadeusD
Sense alone is your goal. It cannot be the only goal or that is not wisdom. Wisdom seems to defy reason, via anger and desire. Reason is only fear. The fourth way includes all the other three in balance. If it seems like I am spouting lunacy only, I offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.
Quoting AmadeusD
I take that as high praise. Many thanks!
I will don my jesters hat (is how you see me) and preach sight to the blind even more.
So you advocate for the patron saint of depression, Macbeth:
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?
Your very existence is supported by the unknown. So what you know alone will never support you. It takes something more.
https://www.oprah.com/spirit/the-top-20-things-oprah-knows-for-sure
Apart from some philosophers, people in general seem to be completely sure of a whole lot of things.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
You vs. Oprah.
The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
Are you serious my guy?
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Your self image is a rather impressive edifice
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Oh, interesting. :)
Why do you think it is possible Hinduism is true? What about Buddhism, Christianity? Hinduism has Karma and Maya. Christianity has Garden of Eden, the Heaven and Hell. Buddhism says you will be reincarnated to this world into some other species according to your Karma.
What attracts to you to Hinduism, but not to Buddhism or Christianity?
the thing is... people arent asked a follow up or for a confirmation if they are 100% certain before people run off with what they accept to be wrong, rather than ignored or refused to be accepted as right (or wrong) Ignoring provides a way around, through without being seen yet, truth reveals though....No one cares to ask oprah if shes certain about those claims. AND those people that happen to care and exist, well, I can fully avoid and refuse their beliefs of certain claims, usually easily. I can see it coming, and confirm by simply asking a few questions. Because if I was bothered, i would have to admit a few different outcomes could happen, I like being bothered or if/when I want to become unbothered...That doesnt mean I am repelled from people who like or quote Oprah TO MAKE ANY POINT...Those Oprah-type people? Or just Oprah?
The thing is....these "people" and whatever insane claims they are making and "are sure completely sure of" are/is accepted, just as wrong or something "we (who is we?) mostly have to deal with")instead of just refusing to accept it (as right[orwrong?]) As anything! and its (its i mean they-those people you mean) [of bad opinions, disguised as bias-both non negotiable in general, how could they be certain of anything? you might know... ] you seem to be saying these certain people are simply tolerated by you MUCH to your own dismay AND loss? Can you prove, rather than letting the surety of acceptance you express in the comment you shared that you, if not you, people that were/are actually really bothered by Oprah-like people of certainty, and confirm that acknowledging it is your loss that you havent found a way in philosophy for dealing....you think one exists for you! that is to your loss and dismay. That seems to me like choosing to deal, not even accepting to DEAL with shit claims instead of attempting to understand or accepting the truth in those shit claims and why you dont want to understand shit claims...all that should be considered before making that judgement again, you dont have to deal with any insane claim of certainty...especially Oprah fans that do that.
Do you deal with things better from anything but when dealing from personal experience? (or close relation and clear understanding to/of that experience?)
"My kid is the cutest kid on the entire planet! You cant tell me otherwise"
Obvious this is dumb to say, bias or not. You'd have to get every kid lined up, in person, and confirm to be actually true. Their certainty should be taken with tone, and of course in context to what is exists to be so sure about anyways... what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with?
Quoting baker
So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about, Quoting baker , what does this even mean?
chet vs oprah = you vs me
To begin with, everyday things.
Such as an acquaintance accusing you of having done something, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. For example, an acquaintance (with whom I used to be on friendly terms years ago) accused me once that I called her. I denied, while she insisted that I was lying. Given the facts of the situation, I surmised that what happened was that her phone pocket-dialed me (she said she was backpacking and had her phone in her backpack and that it unclocked itself; this was back in the day of old Nokias that did all kinds of crazy things on their own). I wasn't around for that first call, but I returned it, and this was what she saw. It would be easy to just check the call history. But she refused to do that and instead insisted that I lied. The ease with which she accused me of lying!! And yet, who in the world would not side with her?
Things like that happen all time. One would need to have a team of lawyers and a camera crew at one's side at all times.
Secondly, metaphysical/spiritual/religious things. Like when people claim with 100% certainty that they know which religion is the right one (and how everyone who isn't a member of that religion will burn in hell for all eternity or some such).
Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.
I'd refer you to yourself:
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Without the bishop staying in one colour, it wouldn't be chess. Because of that, the above is simply an analytic statement of "If the bishop stays on its own colour, it is true that the bishop stays on its own colour", which is non-informative. I could raise an issue about analytic statements, but when I say nothing is set in stone I am referring mostly to a posteriori judgements. Every "it is true that..." has implicit "ifs", each "if" is a drop of uncertainty. Skepticism is a problem, a problem must be recognised before it is overcome.
Quoting Manuel
Well put and case in point.
Quoting Corvus
Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there.
Quoting Corvus
You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content.
Quoting AmadeusD
No one making Deepak Chopra-like claims is serious.
Quoting Lionino
Except Deepak? hehe
What are the evidences for the claims?
Quoting Lionino
Cogito was empty, so I put some contents to demonstrate anything can be put in as the content, even the contents which doubts or denies the existence of Descartes. If cogito content was "I think I don't exist.", then the conclusion "therefore I exist.", would be a contradiction.
Logic does not use evidence.
Quoting Corvus
What?
Isn't your acceptance of all religions and the worldviews they offer as possibility contradiction to your true belief, which is an agnostic theist's view? Why do you accept them as possibility for being true?
If you are an agnostic atheist, then shouldn't you reject all the religious claims as false and impossibility? Are you being an unauthentic agnostic atheist? Or your acceptance of the religious claims as possible truths were dishonest? Which is the case?
Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings.
Quoting Lionino
"You think you don't exist, therefore you exist.", is a contradiction.
For your cogito's empty content, "you don't exist" could be posited in there.
Deepak is not serious either, but as in a serious person.
Quoting Corvus
My claim that there is no life in Mars has plenty of backing.
Quoting Corvus
Good thing that was not Descartes' argument.
"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time.
Quoting Lionino
I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content.
And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise.
Quoting Corvus
That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident.
When I said "backing", I was meaning the logical arguments or scientific evidence, rather than the media backings. You said that your claim had a lot of media backings, and I was saying media and popular opinion backings don't offer the necessary ground for your claims.
Quoting Lionino
Thinking must have contents. You cannot just say "I think, therefore I am". What were you thinking of? Were you thinking of a beer? Or a burger? or chips? We don't know what you were thinking of. You should have made clear the content of the thinking for your conclusion "I am". (You = Descartes)
And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically.
I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity.
Quoting Corvus
It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument.
Quoting Corvus
I also have no clue what this means.
You haven't shown any logical argument for your point. When it is logical arguments, you would have evidential or hypothetical premises before your conclusion. You haven't shown any of that. Hence your saying your point has much backings, was inferred as the popular media backings.
Quoting Lionino
You walk therefore you move? "Move" and "Walk" are the same class of the terms, which are both motions. There relation is semantic, rather than logical or epistemic or ontological. "Think" and "Exist" are totally different type of entities. Think is psychological and Exist is ontological. There is no logical or any type of correlations between the two. It is so obvious, but you seem to be not able to see the point here.
Nothing obscure in there at all. :nerd:
You have to look up what "logical necessity" is.
Quoting Corvus
Yeah, and one implies the other. As Descartes and the editors have already explained, you can't think without existing, one thing begets the other.
Quoting Corvus
Just because you arbitrarily put two verbs into two boxes that are just adjectives, it does not mean anything. If it were obvious you would be able to explain yourself very easily, but there is no argument.
Quoting Corvus
You would be surprised.
You are talking about totally something else. The point is how your point for getting lot of backings implied, the popular media backings rather than logical backings. Because you had not shown any.
Quoting Lionino
Then he should have said, "I exist, therefore I think." He obviously misunderstood something.
He put the cart in front of a horse.
Sum, ergo cogito, makes sense. But it doesn't say anything new or exciting, does it? Moreover, it is a circular statement. How the hell does he know that he exists? He was supposed to doubt everything.
Quoting Lionino
Now I don't understand here. What do you mean?
Quoting Lionino
At your misunderstandings :)
I am talking about what I have been always talking about.
If you can't notice how this is completely different from Descartes' argument, this is beyond my powers.
Quoting Corvus
Think is a verb, psychological is an adjective, exist is a verb, ontological is an adjective. You classified one as the other. Ok, so what? And the classification is faulty, ontology is a field of philosophy, psychology is a (pseudo-)science, you don't classify loose verbs as "psychological", it is gibberish.
Quoting Corvus
:mask: :mask: :mask:
Thinking does not happen if there is no existing. Existing happens every time there is thinking. Thinking implies existing. I think therefore I am. Not the other way around.
Quoting Corvus
No, that makes no sense, existence does not imply thought.
Quoting Corvus
Quoting Corvus
Ok, time to sleep.
Oh, I see what you mean. Perhaps. I've spoken to him extremely briefly and he came across pretty robust, but wrong.
Quoting Lionino
I think he's trying to say that perceiving reality pre-supposed reality, so the Cogito is a step ahead of establishing 'existence'.
I think this is a red-herring though.
Since we cannot KNOW anything, all evidence is only faith.
I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence?
Quoting AmadeusD
I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model.
Quoting AmadeusD
Well, you do not say how or offer any specific. Why bother to respond at all?
It does indeed, if one's model of the universe is correct.
That is to say, what is thought?
That is ALSO to say, what is morality?
If we decide there is something called thought, what is it?
It is a pattern contained/experienced in a body. It is additive and complex in nature. That is to say there are thoughts that are many thoughts put together. Is it possible to reduce thought to a single thought?
Again, define thought.
A 'thought' is an excited state that arises from matching a pattern in one's past. This implies the pattern is present to match, in symbolic form, or structure.
Some structure must HOLD the thought. Further the thought itself is a pattern, implying a structure.
The pattern of the structure of thought is possibly not instantiated in the physical world. This would imply a 'thought dimension' or some such and possibly allow for non-existence. But the structures through which thought is enacted are physical in the most colloquial sense and the implication is indeed existence. This is a simple matter to reason through.
I already listed the 9 such statements that are all primordial. Further, that is all of them. That 9 relationships are the only possible equal statements of their kind. These are the primary relationships in the universe.
Cogito ergo sum was BOUND to be the first one. Why?
Thought is an excited state that arises by matching a pattern from one's past. After the base condition of being, having mass, the form of that mass acts physically on the surrounding area. Its form and characteristics, its IDENTITY, its atomic number if you go that small, determine its choices and how it impacts others in its environment. Sound familiar? Every particle in the universe is possessed of choice.
The first fear is what? Easy. The fear of the unknown. Done, pattern matched. Nothing, no match is now a match. And anything not previously matched is also 'unknown'. But well before this esoteric 'unknown' pattern is understood, the nothing is simply ignored. Awareness (thought) is minimal.
As physical and then chemical interactions happen, choices expand. More parts are making choices and they begin to relate them together because thoughts are additive. But each piece has its own identity and limitations on choice. The moral agency of an atom is quite small indeed. But morality is objective and the choices and how they play out are predetermined.
Over time the structures that hold patterns can hold more and more complex patterns. Eventually the nothing pattern and the something not yet known pattern are detailed versions of the fear of the unknown.
Familiar or beneficial patterns generate less excitement. This means the chooser 'likes' that. That which is known is more comfortable at every level of reality. Some chemical are -philic to other types. This is nothing but desire.
The three way nature of reality is played out at every level. There is no exception to this model that you can show me is my challenge.
The entire universe is nothing but interactions between fear, anger, and desire. Choice, free will is the only thing happening.
Cogito ergo sum was bound to be the first one. Why?
Because most scientists are Enneatype 5, observers. They are anger infused fear. Their type represents this motivation most strongly: the need to be aware. All thought is nothing but fear and all fear and thought are representative of the concept of order. They are so because order is the PATTERN part of my former definition.
Fear is therefore only and always an excitable state that arises as a result of matching a pattern from one's past. This applies to every moral agent in the universe and it follow the physical hierarchy chain naturally as all structure was its awareness from start to finish.
It was a reply to your irrelevant sentence, you know for certain there exist no life in Mars. It is strange for one to deny any knowledge on what one said, and got replied to.
Quoting Lionino
It is not a gibberish. It is saying that "Think" is a psychological concept, and "Exist" is an ontological concept. There is no logical transition between the two. It is an irrational leap to say "Think", therefore "Exist".
Quoting Lionino
That is why it has to be (at a generous stretch) "I exist, therefore I think." No?
Quoting Lionino
Existence comes first. Logically, and ontologically.
Quoting Lionino
Perhaps your lack of sleep was making you feel everything hazy. Sleep well and sweet dreams. :nerd:
No. Plenty of things presumably exist which don't think.
We are excluding the existing things which don't think in the discussion. We are only talking about the existence which thinks i.e. humans in here.
Before thinking takes place, something must exist. Thinking is not prior to existence. Thinking is a posteriori of existence. Descartes got it wrong, and is in deep confusion in this Cogito ergo sum muddle.
Yeah, that's what everyone else thinks except you. "Cogito ergo sum" works with that assumption, your reversal of it does not.
If I'm thinking, I must exist, because something must exist before thinking takes place like you said. I think, therefore I am.
If you read Kant's CPR, then he says our knowledge has limits. We don't have to know everything with 100% of certainty. Trying it would be futile exercise. Because our reasoning has antinomies. It is limited. And moreover, much of the needed data is not available for us to know things with certainty.
So that is a fact. You must accept that. And move on. If you read Kant, and understood the points, then you would either want to move up to Analytic Philosophy, Phenomenology or Existentialism.
If you mastered all these subjects, then maybe you would look into Religious philosophy.
You know that Religious topics are in different world which cause and effect principles work different way to the ones in the empirical world. You will then use your faith and intuitions rather than reason and logic for your analysis and observations for the subjects you want to enquire.
Who is everyone and where is the assumption? What reversal are you talking about? I was only putting the cart behind the horse, of which Descartes put in front.
The assumption I'm referring to is "Before thinking takes place, something must exist". This assumption and "I think therefore I am" are compatible, more compatible than "I am, therefore I think."
The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." eradicates need for saying "I think, therefore I exist."
"I am, therefore I exist." was introduced to notify the reverse is false.
The assumption "Before thinking takes place, something must exist." is borderline SYNONYMOUS with "I think, therefore I am". The two statements seem like alternate phrasings of the same idea. One is just a little more poetic.
You are very welcome. Sorry for not having answered your question. Well actually I don't have a worldview of my own. That is why I am keep reading philosophy and psychology.
If I had my own world view, then I would go up into a mountain, and start meditating. Not yet. I am not sure if it will ever happen. But who knows. We keep on trying until our last days. Now that is a philosophy. :nerd:
And one more thing - sometimes no answer can be the best answer in Philosophy and the World.
No it is not. They are reverse in the cause and effect. They are not synonymous.
I know I'm thinking.
Therefore, I know I had to exist.
If you agree that something can't think unless it exists, then "I think therefore I am" ought to make sense. Do you think something can think without existing?
There are two types of existence. The known and unknown. Unknown existence can be like non-existence. In that sense, yes unknown existence which is perceived to be non-existence can think.
Well flannel, if you try think clearer, perhaps you could see better. It is not all that easy to understand the deep knowledge and logic, suppose. :chin:
I took the thirsty horse to the river. It is now up to the horse to drink the water, or keep suffer from the thirst. I can do no more afraid.
Ah yes, the never ending pool of knowledge about "unknown existence" lmao. What a conversation-ender.
We're talking about if you can think without existing, "unknown existence" is just silly nonsense in this conversation. Get serious.
If you think about it, there are many unknown existence in this world. Until you know about them. Why is it so difficult to see?
This has no bearing on the conversation, so I stopped reading there. Other than that, that existence implies thought is an obviously incorrect statement unless you are a panpsychist. There are way too many things that exist and yet don't think. That should be a very simple point.
Quoting Corvus
I didn't say for certain. For the fourth time, I said it not logically necessary that there is life in Mars. You need to research what logically necessary means.
Quoting Corvus
It is gibberish. Think is a psychological concept as much as it is an epistemological, ontological, linguistic concept. Existence is also all of those. Thinking and existence are fundamental concepts of our reason, you are putting them in little boxes like one can put "acid" in the box "chemistry". But it is pointless.
Quoting Corvus
No, because that is not what the word "therefore" means. You are thinking of "I can only come to think if I exist", which is exactly Descartes' point. The city is wet, therefore is rained. I am sneezing, therefore I have a virus. In X therefore Y, Y is the cause, X is the consequence.
You are simply getting confused with the meaning of words.
Quoting Corvus
Funny that you say Descartes got something wrong when we both know you have not read Descartes.
Quoting AmadeusD
Which is just fine in line with Descartes' argument.
Quoting AmadeusD
No problem with working retroactively. In fact, Descartes' metaphysics is that God is the cause of his (soul's) existence. He works backwards from the cogito to the thing that causes the soul/cogito, so the cogito is "a step ahead" of establishing God too Cartesian epistemology and Cartesian metaphysics have different order. One can come up with many more example of retroactive arguments.
I think ? I am translates to
I think ? I am meaning
I am is necessary for I think.
It does not mean I am is sufficient for I think, which would be
I am ? I think or
I think ? I am, which translates to
I think ? I am, in English
I think because I am, which is incorrect, as we know, because, unless you are a panpsychist, you think not because you are but because of many reasons, including that you are.
This is definitive proof that cogit? ergo sum is not inverted. Farewell, ????.
I have no idea what's your fascination with logical necessity, and keep repeating yourself with the term here. The point is that is not relevant to your statements that you know life doesn't exist in Mars, or Cogito.
Quoting Lionino
This seems the real confusion and linguistic muddle.
Quoting Lionino
I don't need to read the whole Descartes to know that his main theme in Philosophy is illogical. No one needs to.
If you still insist that "You think therefore you are." is correct, then when you were just born, and was not able to think, does it mean that you didn't exist? What a contradiction.
Time to wake up from the slumber mate. :D
:grin: :pray: :pray:
Are you serious, my brethren?
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Im now simply happy to say the size of your ego is impressive.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Responses to your posts, from my estimation, are largely signals to other posters.
To which I reply I don't understand your fascination with Mars having life, a topic you brought up.
Quoting Corvus
It is not "the whole", you have not read a single page of it.
Quoting Corvus
Ok? So you realise you are misinterpreting what the "therefore" means? I guess not:
Quoting Corvus
No, it is the same mistake over and over and over. The newborn does not think, but it exists, existence does not imply thought. You are confusing explanation with causation.
Obviously you will still not understand that, and then there is clearly nothing I can do. I will simply tell you you are confused and leave you to it. All I can recommend is to read Descartes with a guide, I recommend Emanuela Scribano.
The whole point is so simple, but you seem to be trying to make it complicated needlessly for some reason. The point is that you don't need to think to exist. Existence doesn't need thoughts. It exists, because it does.
He agrees that existing things need not think. He also agrees that all thinking things must exist. Tying that all together into "I think, therefore I am" is just a step too far for some reaosn.
It seems though that I am not alone in this belief, that we cannot know things. After all if you presume to know you would stop trying to know. What would be the point of further trying?
This relationship rather PROVES the point, if you are paying attention. It is critically important that we do not have the capacity to know. It is likewise important and when I say this I mean to truth, that we realize this and remain curious, doubtful.
That is what is meant by Voltaire's quote and my various blathering(s) on the same subject.
If you throw doubt upon my assertion, I am rather allowed to throw doubt on yours. What are we left with? Belief only. That is the point, MY point.
That is my impressiom. He mentioned "cause" earlier. My impression is he is confusing a statement about logical entailment for a statement about causality.
It takes what to separate one from the other? Further, finer grained awareness is the right answer.
The tendency of order, of reason, of fear, is to take each and every short cut within a practical defined set of colloquially agreed upon short cuts. In this pool of fools there is then a top echelon that is academia or 'smart people'. These short cut takers think they can finally 'know' something. A God would be revolted by the notion. What mystery remains. None. End it.
This is also why fear in its panicked striving towards keeping its delusional worthiness, life, focuses on the short cut of mere survival, rather than really living. The result is instead the slow and cold progression of building one's own 'know' prison. That has another name: Death.
One really must wonder. Oh, um, sorry!
I love the moniker. My normal one is Series0. After me, they broke the mold. Can't have Q running about causing trouble in the universe.
The seeming is desire. A wish.
What is is anger. Being in essence, trapped between what was and what will be.
The structure and rules, the objective nature of these relationships is pattern, thought, fear, order.
A fear based or ruled person has a leaning to order that is accompanied by delusional worthiness. That is because they think they know. And they think they know thinking. It's all only fear. And this lack of admission makes them also often say things like, 'Use logic, not emotion' But logic is only fear.
Fear is the limiting force in reality. It is exactly like its mathematical namesake. It extends to, but never reaches infinity (asymptote). Infinity in this case, is perfection. Knowing is an objectively aimed verb. It is therefore a limit, a representative of this emotion, fear. It is also a bad idea in every case. The superlative of 'every' is a more aware use of that stress than 'know' is. That is because that superlative reflects acceptance and awareness of both the high probability of fear based evidence and the NEVER FINALLY PERFECT limit of fear as an approach to truth.
So logic and fear and order itself are only high probability short cuts, possessed of delusional worthiness. The grace of perfection is more elusive than it seems to them. As time passes and the moral agency of choosers increases, dread admission of this truth is required to advance in wisdom beyond that plateau, that limit, the limit of fear itself.
Anger and desire are the only other tools to work with. Each stands to fear and adds value.
Logic chafes at the self-indulgent perversity of low probability desire. After all desire runs in any direction, every direction at once, amok and irreverently illogical. How could that be wise?
Logic chafes at the foolhardy nature of anger and the lazy repose of calm alike. Logic prefers patterns and prisons and excitement and to then be calmed by the familiar short cuts, the path of high probability cowards.
Fear and logic alone lead inexorably to cold stagnant death.
Chaos and desire alone lead inexorably to blazing disintegrating explosions.
Balance and anger alone is listless, calm, just there, peaceful, and deeply boring. The most massive dull lump!
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
Your claims that "you think therefore you exist", deduces "If you don't think then you don't exist."
A simplest symbolic logic based on Modus Ponens demonstrates you guys claims are a contradiction.
¬E ? ¬T
¬(¬T ? ¬E)
It is all so tiresome.
[hide]
That is an irrational leap. It doesn't follow logically. If it is necessary you are for you think, then what is the point saying therefore you exist? It sounds redundant, circular statement, and doesn't prove anything.
By the way, it is necessary T in symbolic logic writes ?T. Not ¬(¬T)
You are not alone, but you are apparently in the unfortunate situation of never having developed expertise of much significance.
For me, knowing things plays a huge role in paying the bills. Knowing that other people know things is immensely helpful as well.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
Well, I'm living proof that you are wrong about that. Trying to know reveals that there is so much more that might be known, than one could possibly get around to. All the more reason to keep learning.
But I'm guessing learning from others really isn't your thing.
Quoting Chet Hawkins
I understand that all you have is beliefs. (Or at least you are into thinking so.)
Me? I'm left with all sorts of evidence. Not to mention internet access to a society where a lot of people have looked into things that I haven't looked at the evidence for, and therefore know things that I don't.
You really should stop.
Just been pointing out the problems. :nerd:
Well, THAT is maddeningly insulting. My expertise is present in many and varied fields.
Significance is a choice of each person, and I wonder if you'd argue that many and most choosers are woefully unskilled at choosing, at believing, and certainly at knowing. So, what is deemed significant is almost always wrong. And by wrong I mean when you dig into it, in the way your next response suggests, when you approach, because you can ONLY approach and never arrive at 'knowing'. Or do you suggest there is an arbitrary cut-off to 'knowing'? That would mean that good enough is acceptable and we search for laurels to rest on. (That is or would be) The seventh day as it were.
Quoting wonderer1
But they do not. They believe things and can demonstrate reasonable success with this belief. Therefore and of course I can and do often believe them. So your point is not lost on me. By mine is lost apparently on you, and indeed, still a point. Significance being what it is, perhaps I erred in addressing yet another who refuses to see.
Quoting wonderer1
Incorrect. If you know, you know all the way. There can be no reason to seek more. That is what 'knowing' should mean as it partakes too heavily of perfection, is my point. And ANY perfect virtue requires all virtues to be perfect, which is the nature of wisdom itself, again MY point.
If there is more to know then you DO NOT KNOW. You only believe.
Quoting wonderer1
Learning from others is precisely my thing. But I would also suggest that you are me and I am you, finally, if truth is KNOWN. So, there are no others, only other parts of me.
It has been my lot in life often enough to up-end the expert, not the common man who cares less about either of our fine points. Multi-tack approaches to truth are superior in all ways to the single path. Integration itself as a concept shows this form and that form to must be perfected, and yet never arrives at perfection. This 100% delusion is quite damning, is my claim. And that is what 'know' means to me.
You accept some mitigation, some half (ass) way of knowing. I admit freely that does not work for me. There are many verbs, many insinuations, of language that trick the unwary into false knowing. Culture these days is rife with misinformation and echoing chambers of wrong 'knowing'. It is more correct by far to doubt everything and yet believe in what is best shown to be resonant with truth in the day to day. This pattern is more successful, more balanced, more wise, than to claim any 'knowing'.
The path of doubt allows for earning more awareness from all states of ... you guessed it ... unawareness, e.g. NOT KNOWING. This path cripples dogmatism and yet empowers science and truth-seeking, which those who claim to be philosophers should be all about.
This is not mere wordplay and sophistry, a term I detest for its inaccuracy in meaning. Knowing is a cold delusional prison. It is a cowardly short-cut, Pragmatism, and as I continually must deem it, 'intending to fail'. The humorous joke though is on ALL of us, because you are me and I am you in the final state, truth. Pragmatists tend to win until there is a real, out of bounds challenge, and we meet them every day because that is the nature of reality.
Quoting wonderer1
And facts are only a subset of beliefs. They are exalted in no way beyond that. I would offer indeed by way of concession that even what I deem a 'fact' is what I consider to be 'an acceptably probable belief', but in doing so, I realize there is always a small chance of failure, of not KNOWING, because knowing is impossible.
Quoting wonderer1
And you say trite small things like all Pragmatists that reek of fear and the trap of KNOWING. This Vulcan stagnation is petty and cold. It has no fire. And life includes passion and passion is worthy, a part of wisdom.
I do believe that passion should mix with reason, but you exclude it too thoroughly (to me). You see only the probability of my chaos and not the beauty and dedication to actual perfection that is present in that belief. At least that is how I interpret your answers to me, and so many others here on this order-apologist thread.
If reason cannot admit from its trap the purpose of desire, of anger, then that reason is the unreasonable thing. Its limit has been reached and found stale, dead. The cycle must then be rebellion and disintegration. Try again, build everything back and hope the next time the logicians know (ha ha) their place because their current belief (for real) is not knowing and only haughtily presumed as such.
Once again, you've got it entirely backwards. "You think therefore you exist" implies if you don't exist, you don't think. The logic you've presented here, that I've quoted, is a logical fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
The correct, non fallacious way is to deny the consequent, detailed here by Oxford https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711647
Are you prepared to listen to find out why?
Sorry. I have already explained in most clear logical way with even the simplest symbolic logic Modus Ponens demo example. If you still cannot see it, then I can no longer do any further. I shall not waste any more of your time or mine with this point. Have a good weekend jesus.
I'm happy to illustrate why for you, just give me a source that you like for modus ponens
It seems that even the simplest logical demo is not getting through to you. Only thing I could ask you is keep reading my posts, and think clearly until you can understand it.
You said
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
That's not Modus ponens. Modus ponens is
P --> Q
P
=====
Q
I can prove, easily with real examples, why your argument is a clear fallacy. Do you have the courage to question your own beliefs?
Very simple examples can be used to prove your logic wrong. Do you have the courage to look at those examples seriously and consider the possibility that you're wrong?
You have a fallacious understanding of modus ponens. Are you brave enough to investigate if you might be wrong about it? Do you have the intellectual courage to look at it in the face?
You don't think, therefore you don't exist?
Quoting Corvus
Nope, I don't agree with that. You derived that from "I think therefore I am" via a fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.
Now are you prepared to understand why denying the Antecedent is NOT something you can do with modus ponens? Are you prepared to learn why I, other people on this forum, and the Stanford philosophy department consider it a formal fallacy? Your authenticity is on the line.
So, the only conclusion I can have is that, you are not an authentic interlocutor. Please read some books on the topic before engaging in the discussions.
Lose the fear. It won't make you wiser. Questioning yourself will make you wiser. You can turn it all around any moment, instead of doubling down into logical fallacies. You can choose bravery at any moment.
You presented your argument, now look at others.
You don't think, therefore you don't exist. ==> Is this correct?
Not to mention increase his competence at using logic. All for the low low price of admitting to having been a doofus.
I didn't refuse, I answered it:
Quoting flannel jesus
Hell, I don't even want him to admit that. I just want him to not be a hypocrite. He's come in here and told me I'm wrong, and given an argument why I'm wrong - that's great! Now I have a counter argument to his argument, and he won't look.
He expects others to look at his arguments, but refuses to look at theirs. The hypocrisy is... just unbelievably frustrating.
You presented this as if it's a valid form of logic
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
Now, I have countless sources online that call this a logical fallacy, Denying the antecedent. You, for some reason, don't want to look at any websites but just for thoroughness, I'll link a few.
https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/LogicalFallacies.htm
https://www.britannica.com/topic/denial-of-the-antecedent
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119165811.ch3
https://philosophyalevel.com/posts/if-p-then-q-modus-ponens-modus-tollens/
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627?p=emailAMbd16BqHZ1a6&d=/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095711627
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/59356/is-this-an-example-of-denying-the-antecedent
But you don't like online sources, so fine, I said I could disprove it with a simple example, so that's what I'm going to do:
All squares are rectangles - this should hopefully be an uncontroversial statement. Not all rectangles are squares - this should of course also be uncontroversial.
I have a bag full of paper shapes I've cut out. Some of them are squares. Some of them are non-square rectangular cutouts (like A4 pieces of paper). Some of them are triangles.
I pull out a piece of paper, and I tell you "I'm holding a square". Given that information (and this isn't a trick question, so you can assume I'm being truthful), can you conclude I'm holding a rectangle?
All squares are rectangles, so YES, you can conclude I'm holding a rectangle.
P is the statement "FJ is holding a square"
Q is the statement "FJ is holding a rectangle"
P --> Q
I hope all of the above is agreeable enough. FJ is holding a square implies FJ is holding a rectangle
I throw that piece of paper away, and I pull out another piece of paper. This time I tell you "I'm NOT holding a square."
¬P
Now, if your logic holds above, then
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
I'm not holding a square
====
I'm not holding a rectangle
But is that valid? Is it valid that, if you know I'm not holding a square, you also know that I'm not holding a rectangle?
If you don't think that's valid - if you understand that I could still be holding a rectangle, even when you know that I'm not holding a square - then you intuitively understand why denying the antecedent is a logical fallacy, and an invalid form of argument.
In symbolic classic logic, the contents don't matter. It works purely on the format.
So if you say,
P-> Q
Not P
Then it must be Not Q
There is no way Not P, and it is still Q.
The proof process goes on with introducing negations, assertions and inferences. That's why it could have Not P for the negation introduction. If Not P, then it must be Not Q.
But Not Q doesn't make sense. You confirmed that it is incorrect. Hence P->Q is incorrect.
You think, but sometimes you stop thinking. But you still keep existing.
Not thinking doesn't make you non-existence. You think therefore you are. is logically incorrect.
I hope this helps.
It gives me impression that if you were found that your point was wrong, then you seem to be reverting back to ad hominem, or you haven't read what I said replies. That is why I feel that you and your pal the wonderer are inauthentic.
OK we had enough discussions on it. I will leave you to it. Good luck.
Edit. Wondering what the odds are that the photographs of this textbook are going to be showing Modus Tollens instead of Modus Ponens.
P --> Q
¬Q
=====
¬P
Modus Tollens, above, is of course valid, and of course different from his argument.
Admitting it to us is of little consequence. Ability to admit it to himself could be hugely consequential for him.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3t|=~3e
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3e|=~3t
He will never, ever concede :rofl:
https://sites.millersville.edu/bikenaga/math-proof/truth-tables/truth-tables.html
Which makes conversations on the internet about philosophy and truth kinda inherently problematic. I don't get it lmao.
You think therefore you exist? -> T (Assumption)
P -> Q = T (assumption)
When you stopped thinking, you don't exist? (jesus has admitted it is incorrect) -> F
Not P > Not Q => F
T F -> F
P -> Q = F
Therefore you think therefore you exist is FALSE.
Please note T F are truth values of the propositions.They are not propositions themselves.
Well, this is the last time I am trying to make you understand. If you still can't, then I don't think there is hope. It is shocking that 3 of yous are all in the same cave of confusion. No one seems to be able to dig yous out the cave.
You're just rephrasing the same thing you already said. We'll see the photographs from your textbooks. I have alread presented documentation from Oxford and Stanford that you have rejected, so we'll see what you can find in your textbooks.
You think it's shocking that 3 of us have "the same confusion" - it will be a lot less shocking when you post the photographs from your textbook. Everything will be cleared up. Please post what your textbooks say about Modus Ponen, and optionally post the pages that talk about Denying the Antecedent, if you can find that.
Quoting Corvus
Except for Stanford University and Oxford University, for starters.
Now it gives me an impression FJ is a robot machine set up for keep replying automatically without even knowing what it is talking about. :roll: :chin:
So talk is cheap, from you. Talk is real cheap. Let's see the pictures of the textbooks. Until then, you're just running your mouth with 0 support, while I've provided quite a lot of support for my position, including an actual concrete example. You have no documentation, no other philosophers here agreeing with you, and no concrete example.
Talk is cheap. Don't run your mouth, get the pictures.
Because you being wrong is inconceivable?
It shows you are also one of the copy-paste internet info brigade without even knowing what it is, but not even knowing what we are trying to prove here.
That's it. AFTER we deal with that simpler problem, we can look again at cogito ergo sum. Let's keep it simple.
You have some textbooks that prove your point, so let's see them.
I'm afraid you have shown the core problem here to be your misunderstanding of logic. There is no sense in discussing proving something with you when you can't distinguish formal fallacies from valid logic.
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
I want to bet that you won't find a single textbook that will affirm that this is a valid argument. I want to bet that when you look up Modus Ponens, you will get
P --> Q
P
=====
Q
You might also be able to find Modus Tollens
P --> Q
¬Q
=====
¬P
But not a single textbook of yours will confirm the top argument. They may present the top argument as a fallacy, but not as a valid argument.
I think the terms of the bet should be intellectual humiliation. What do you say? Bet?
You have admitted that When you don't think, you don't exist is incorrect.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect.
We didn't even have to go into the symbolic logic.
Why is it so hard to see it?
If I had the proof you say you have, and I had a willing listener like you have, willing to look at that proof, I'd just... post it. I'd post the picture of the textbook.
And if I looked in my textbook and found no proof of my belief, and I had too much pride because I'd dug myself into too deep of a hole by being so relentlessly condescending (which, if you look in the conversation history, you will see that you started with the condescension, and not me) - if I looked in my textbook and found no proof, I would post exactly what you just posted. "There's no point talking anymore." That's exactly what I'd post if I was too proud to admit I'm wrong.
So either you post the picture from your textbook, or I know that you're too proud to admit that you can't find it.
We agree to disagree on the point, and that is fine by me. I really do hope to see you understanding the points though. But if not, so be it.
That's my strength - I can be convinced by things.
If I'm correct, can I convince you? I'm a lot less sure of that.
I love to be corrected. Your textbook photographs would correct me. You love to correct people - you've been arguing for pages that I'm wrong, so you must want to correct me.
If I love to be corrected, and you love correcting people, then let's both get what we want by you posting the pictures from your textbook. It's a win-win. I'd love to see you win in this way.
"Agree to disagree" just sounds like another way of wording "I looked in my textbook and couldn't find what I said was going to be there". So... if that's where this ends, then I'll know you looked and didn't find it.
Your insisting on requesting photographic evidence of the textbook ... etc, sounds very bizarre to me.
If you can't see the simplest logical proof shown to you with the explanation for the point, then that is fair enough. There is really nothing anyone can do about that to change your belief.
P --> Q
¬P
=====
¬Q
You are copping out out of fear. Let go of your fear.
If you had true intellectual courage, you'd pledge to go and post the pictures from the textbook about Modus Ponens no matter what the textbook says. Even if it agrees with me. I would love to see you have that kind of courage.
You have the proof, you have the very thing that could either change my mind, or maybe, if you have any balls, change your mind. We don't have to agree to disagree, because you literally have the proof.
No it doesn't prove that. Your next move is to say "Why not". Because burden of proof is not on me.
The last 5 pagees should be purged by some mod.
That proves, When you think, you exist is also logically incorrect."
"When you don't run, you don't move is incorrect.
That proves, when you run, you move is also logically incorrect"
Obviously, because you can't recall what you said 1 page ago, you will say those two are different. But:
Quoting Corvus
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3e|=~3t
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#t~5e,~3t|=~3e
I don't think you showed any arguments for it doesn't prove that, did you?
Quoting Lionino
Classic symbolic logic works by showing how the arguments transit from one to the other mainly using the variables. Sometimes you would introduce negations, AND, OR connectives in the process of proving. But in the process, if you noticed the critical point where it disproves the core points, then it will deduce the conclusion from the statement which is obviously true or false. This is the way the logical proving works. You seem to be totally ignorant of how the proving procedure works. It is like those folks who are into the habitual copying and pasting truth tables and some symbols in the internet, and insist that is the only way MP works what have you.
If you say, you think therefore you are, is the only way for you exist, then when you are not thinking, you stop existing. That is what you mean logically. Don't you find that absurd?
Do you stop existing, when you are asleep, or watching movies or listening to the music with no thoughts?
How about the walls in your room. The wall don't think. Does it mean they don't exist?
Please save this argument for after you post the pictures from your textbook. Your argument will hold more weight then - or it will disintegrate, depending on what's in the book.
Sorry but I am discussing this point with . Will get back to you after our discussion, if there is any more point for us to discuss on this particular point. If I don't, then you know the answer.
Is this you confirming that you won't post the pictures if they don't confirm your beliefs? I truly hope that you can be better than that
I am trying to focus on the discussion with without getting interrupted by the unusual requests and irrelevant posts.
Holy shit. Obviously nobody said that. That doesn't even make sense. "I think therefore I am" is an inference. How can an inference be the only way for something to exist?
Exactly :nerd: No wonder it didn't sound tightly logical necessity.
It can be helpful to understand that some posters post seeking narcissistic supply, and admitting having been wrong is never part of that 'plan'. In such cases, it's good to be able to recognize that one has made a mistake oneself, in thinking that one is dealing with a reasonable person.
I cannot find the page relevant to this point in my logic books. I came home, sat down at the desk, and reviewed the whole point again. I still feel that Cogito Ergo Sum seems logically not sound.
P = I think, therefore I exist.
Q = I don't think, therefore I don't exist.
P - > Q
Not Q (Q is FALSE)
therefore Not P (P is FALSE)
One's own existence is known by perception and sensation rather than just thought, no? Surely you must keep existing even when not thinking. Is this is the case, then I think therefore I am is not logically sound.
Mad props for telling the truth, that you looked and can't find it. I respect that, and did not expect it.
Do you think it's possible that it's not a coincidence that I predicted you would not find your argument supported in your logic books?
The explanation above in my post above is clear enough for this simple point for anyone to understand what it means. I hinted you to read some proper textbooks instead of keep getting confused based on ChatGPT's nonsensical info.
The core problem we were trying to prove is so simple and clear. Why do you try to make it complicated introducing the irrelevant points into it?
I'm not making it complicated, I'm making it simple. The Fallacy of denying the Antecedent is exceptionally simple. By focusing on this, I'm simplifying the conversation.
You said earlier that it could be found in any logic textbook. You apparently have multiple logic textbooks, and you can't find it in one.
It's time for you to stop deceiving yourself.
Here's a modus Tollens for you:
If it's true that you could find it in any logic textbook, you would be able to find it in your logic textbooks.
You can't find it in your logic textbooks.
Therefore, it's not true that you can find it in any logic textbook.
That's what valid logic looks like.
You seem to making out as if MP MT are some end point human race must achieve.
The core problem is to prove or disprove "Cogito Ergo Sum." is logically sound.
For that, normally folks wouldn't even need any Logic.
I only introduced the simplest Logic because you seem to be having difficulty in understanding anything on proving. But for some reason, you seem to be excited and obsessed with the definition of MP.
Well, if you cannot even understand what the core problem is about, what is the point of you learning about MP or MT or the rest of Logic? Please tell me what is the point you don't see in my post above, and I will try to explain it to you again if it looks any worthwhile.
The part where you're continuing to apply the exact same argument, which you erroneously call modus ponens, even though you know it's a fallacy.
Here.
You have the textbooks. You keep presenting this argument, but you aren't presenting the pictures. Put your money where your mouth is. If you can't produce the pictures, this argument is just a fallacy. It's called Denying the Antecedent, you have all the resources you need to understand why it's a Fallacy, and you haven't provided any resources to defend the position that it's not a Fallacy.
You have one job. The pictures. You can win the argument if the textbook says what you insisted it says. There's really no point talking about anything else, until you produce the pictures. Are you brave enough?
As I made clear already I am not going to flick through a Logic book to whatever ... no. There are more important thing to do in life.
If you cannot see my point in the written expressions, then there is no point I am afraid.
P: I think therefore I am. (This is the one you want to prove correct or not).
Q: I don't think therefore I am not. (This is implied from P logically oK???)
So, P ---> Q
But you know Not Q
Therefore Not P
It is so clear, what is it that you can't see ?
No, not okay. It's the same Fallacy. Why are you insisting on the same Fallacy when you know it's not in your textbook? When you know Stanford university and Oxford university are explicitly calling it a Fallacy?
You've failed to find it in your book, and yet you're still presenting the argument like it's valid. Grow some balls and admit your mistake please. Denying the Antecedent is a Fallacy.
P->Q then
Not P -> Not Q
Why is this fallacy?
I'm not holding a flower.
Therefore I'm not holding a plant.
Does that argument make sense to you? It doesn't make sense to me. There are a hell of a lot of plants that aren't flowers that I could be holding.
If my pet is a mouse, then my pet is a mammal.
My pet is not a mouse.
Therefore my pet is not a mammal.
Good argument, you think?
You are not even able to difference between "a" and "the".
You are totally ignoring the plant you were talking about in the proposition, and suddenly starting to making random inference of holding some other plant. Do you not even know what you were talking about?
I robbed a bank, therefore I committed a crime.
I did not rob a bank, therefore I did not commit a crime
argues the man accused of rape
after the video of him raping the victim is shown
Of course, there can be situations where denying the antecedent can also be true. But if it is presented as a logical necessity, it doesn't hold. It's not enough. Throw in an if and only if, and it can work, but that's a different condition.
What can we know for certain? IMHO there is a threshold that you reach or dont.
Either you are forever ensconced in solipsism, or you accept the world and everything in it
Any secondary knowledge after the first acceptance is almost a semantic difference.
Epistemologically speaking, the answer is that certainty is a myth, but what we call certainty is fairly common. I run a software company. Its analogous to what my c++ instructor once said a long time ago: There are two kinds of programmers. One kind makes relatively simple programs. The other kind makes programs with bugs in them. I want to teach you to make programs with bugs in them.
Aka: there are two types of certainty: the tautological kind, and the kind that has flaws. And it is better to have the kind that has flaws.
Is the entire world crazy and only you are correct? Or is it more likely that you are incorrect?
Here's a guy online with the same confusion as you
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/46651/question-about-validity-of-modus-tollens-vs-denying-the-antecedent
Big difference is, if you look, he answered his own question about the Fallacy, and he corrected himself.
Why is it that the one person I find online who shares your belief only shared it temporarily, until he thought about it for a minute and came up with intuitive counter examples? Why did the only guy to share your belief quickly come to share my belief? The belief I share with so far every other person on this forum who has weighed in, and Stanford, and Oxford?
Why can't you find it in your book?
If you aren't seriously considering the possibility that you're wrong at this point, you've got to be trolling.
You aren't being honest or honourable here. Are you trolling?
You thought the conversation was over 10 pages ago, but 10 pages ago there's no pictures of the textbook. Did you agree you're incorrect 10 pages ago?
Good point. I am not going to deny your point straight away. I wouldn't be that rude.
But it seems that you talking about again totally different case in your example. Why it is irrelevant, if you want know, then let me know.
I looked at one of my old textbook called "Discrete Mathematics" by P Bogart.
It says, P --> Q is equal to ¬P V Q.
This makes sense, and seems to prove my logic was correct.
I think therefore I am is unsound.
That in no way proves your logic is correct. notP still does not necessitate notQ.
What do you mean "good point"? You've just disregarded what he said.
OK, I was under the impression you were arguing with only the general rule. IOW using a general rule that shows the cogito is false. I don't think it's a good rule, for reasons/examples given by others. But here you say it is a different case. Well, then it doesn't like a rule is being used.
In that case it is not the rule the is running the argument but something more complicated.
IOW if I look at many of your posts it seems like you are saying the rule shows that it's false. But the moment you indicate that it works 'in this case' (but not in others), it seems to me, this is directly acknowledgement that it's not the rule. It's a specific situation or a specific condition, for example the 'if and only if case' special condition.
And, hey, post a picture of the textbooks. If it's there, that will surprise people and might move things forward.
Oh, and this isn't because I buy or like the cogito. I actually don't.
I think ? I am. P is "I think" and Q is "I am".
P Q ¬P?Q (aka P?Q)
0 0 1 "I don't think and I am not" holds P ? Q
1 0 0 "I think and I am not" does not hold P ? Q
0 1 1 "I don't think and I am" holds P ? Q
1 1 1 "I think and I am" holds P?Q
Yes, but your example and the other's examples are the case of categorical mistake. This is the problem with the symbolic classical logic. Because it uses variables instead of the real objects and cases in the world, they think they can use any irrelevant items and cases into the variables, which looks like the general rules doesn't make sense. That is why sometimes you must investigate the content in the propositions to see if they make sense.
But your point is good in that it reveals the problems with the misuse of the logic.
Your example, bank robbery has nothing to do with rape the criminal committed. They are totally separate matter. And yet, the criminal was trying to distort the truth as if they were the same category of crimes. They are different category of crimes. It is like saying
Socrates is a man, therefore he is mortal.
A dog is not a man, therefore he is immortal.
You swapped over Socrates with a dog. That is illegal in logical arguments.
Quoting Bylaw
I am no longer communicating with the folks who appear to be psychologically biased on this topic.
Quoting Bylaw
That's cool. :up:
I can just picture it. He's sat in his room, flipping through the textbooks, desperate to confirm his beliefs. First textbook, nope, no sign of it. Second textbook, nope, no sign of it. He clenches his fist. One more textbook to look through. And... nope, no sign of it. No text in his textbooks indicates that it's valid to deny the Antecedent.
But it's too late now, I can't give fj the satisfaction. I know, I'll pretend like I'm too good to look at a textbook, even though it was my idea in the first place. I'll even try to make it seem like people who are interested in the textbook are disingenuous! That's my out!
I mean, either that's the story, or corvus has been trolling the whole time. He's a pretty good troll if that's what he's been up to.
I don't think and I am not is FALSE.
so P -> Q is false at that point.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: So you are disagreeing with P Bogart, who you yourself quoted. That's crazy.
This is exactly the point I was making with misuse of Logic. P Bogart is not a math god. He is just a math teacher.
At Not P --> Not Q, if you were sensible, you would have inspected the content, which was FALSE.
Because it is FALSE the assumption, P->Q must be FALSE. You are guilty of the misuse of Logic.
You seem to be naively following the symbols as if they were some message from God.
You must inspect the contents of the symbols to decide for truth values as you keep progressing your reasoning and inferencing mate.
But rules are for us to apply them into the individual cases. Rules don't exist just for rules themselves, or for its own sake of just existing as rules. When you are going through the rules inspecting the corresponding real life cases, you can see the truth or false values by comparing them with the reality in the world, or the state of objects or situations.
Having said that, I agree with your point, that this particular case would have done with more stringent conditionals on the premise and also the assumptions.
The bottom line is that, Logic is not the core problem here. Logic was introduced to help clarifying the main point Cogito. Unfortunately it didn't seem to help much in doing so. As I said in the other thread, sometimes psychological bias seem to override logical arguments.
Cogito could have been not a statement that can be proved logically first place. Because it was never a logical statement. So, if we agree that Cogito is an epistemological issue, then it still is absurd to say Cogito necessitates existence. It would be rather perception, memories, imagination and sensations as well as reasoning and all the rest of the total mentality which grant one's own existence, I believe.
So why did you even quote him?
Quoting Corvus
This makes no sense. It is not a coherent thought.
Previously you were arguing that P?Q implies ¬P ? ¬Q. That was your argument that the cogito is logically incoherent. The issue is that P?Q is completely unrelated to ¬P?¬Q.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~4(~3p~5~3q)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~5(~3p~5~3q)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3p~5~3q)~5(p~5q)
Quoting Corvus
Oh hell nah @flannel jesus
To get some ideas. Did you think I quoted him because he was a god? blimey :roll:
Quoting Lionino
Could it be a psychological block somewhere in the thought?
Cool, this exactly Descartes' argument, but put more poorly.
Thanks for wasting everybody's time.
Maybe this was done earlier in the discussion and I missed it, but it would seem to me that your argument here would be that both sides stop using symbolic logic.Quoting CorvusOr, yes, one could do that.Quoting CorvusIt does matter what the Cogito is trying to demonstrate. I think 'experiencing is happening, something exists' is less troublesome, though it's almost redundant: what is before the comma is a paraphrase of what is after the comma.
Descartes said "He thinks, therefore he is." What are you talking about?
Thinking is not totality of mind. Thinking also has objects and contents. Descartes didn't even specify what they were. Hence it wasn't even a logical statement. As you admitted before, it was an inference.
Quoting Lionino
I have been only trying to reply to your questions and posts.
Everything you say seems not reflecting the reality or facts.
Love it.
The tautological kind shows us what certainty is, but gives us no real content. The simple non-buggy program we build is perfect example of certainty, but the program does no real work.
When we build complex things to do real work, we can take our understanding of the certain learned from the tautologous kind, and keep it as a tool to inspire improvement or identify areas that need to be tested to further the goal of getting some real work done as we build, but this is now a use of certainty in the process of building without a goal of achieving certainty in the function of the program, just the goal of getting the work done.
All of this means to me three things: we know tautologous things for certain; so we know what certainty is for certain; and we will rarely see certainty outside of tautology but nevertheless can use it as a guide to getting work done.
That looks like an example of a tautologous kind of certainty.
How does knowing trillions of things with certainty respond to what I said? Cant tell whether you saw what I was trying to say or not. Are you adding to it, narrowing it, disputing it, agreeing with it?
If there is any use in the term certainty there must be something taken to be 100% certain. Otherwise, the term wouldnt work at all, at any percentage.
We are here distinguishing certainty as a term.
In order to move from one sentence to the next using this term, we must make, we must take something distinguished in this term in our minds, hold it as something, and then build the next statement.
Following this process you can reply to Truth Seeker how can you be 100% certain of the place of your birth? And you can mention lie or show place of birth cant be 100%, etc, and make all of the context, but still hovering around this term certainty. You cant be hovering around certainty (or focus on any single thing) without taking something as certain. Or you would not be able to form your question.
Now I can make something of your statement and say, we wouldnt still be using the term certainty in this discussion unless there was something still clear, still fixed, a center of gravity - something is there we are getting at.
We are each taking this something there as the currently fixed idea 100% certainty.
This means to me the same three things I said before: certainty is exemplified in the tautologous; certainty itself is therefore certain (clear, a useful term); and certainty in a practical sense, in complex scenarios, is rare and best thought of as a tool or method used to seek out further clarifications in the complex.
"If there is any use in the term «extraterrestrial», there must be something that is extraterrestrial."
I am 100% certain that you know of some difference between certainty and any other term. Or this conversation wouldnt work.
Quoting Lionino
Thats not quite parallel to what I said. To make your example parallel to mine, you would have to say If there is any use in the term extraterrestrial there must be something taken to be extraterrestrial. Besides there is the moon, which Im some percentage certain is extraterrestrial. So even without some real distinction between the extraterrestrial and any other term, youve managed to use the term functionally well to describe the moon, creating the real distinction, taking something distinct up.
Well certainly there are a few terms that I can think of that are different than "certainty".
Quoting Fire Ologist
You know what I meant with "extraterrestrial". The point is that for a term to be useful it does not need to be instantiated in the real world or in our minds.
Extraterrestrial refers to a physical thing or many physical things. You will not get to any use of the term extraterrestrial until you place the earth and some space beyond it. Now you can introduce a distinction between a term and its instantiation in a physical world. You had to take the earth as a fixed jump off point to go extraterrestrial and sharpen a distinction between instantiated terms and non instantiated terms.
Instantiation of certainty is found in tautology (instantiated in the mind, instantiated in the brain if you will ). If you are saying certainty has no instantiation, is not distinct, then how are we still talking about it?
Corvus' argument here is of course invalid - tragic that this should need saying.
But Corvus is correct that the Cogito is not valid, at least in its usual form. "I think, therefore I am", rendered as "p?q", is invalid.
One needs to get inside the existential quantification if one is going to show validity. That is not an easy task.
Try it for yourself, see if you can avoid circularity.
Hence the common reading of the Cogito as an intuition rather than as an inference.
Your formula seems incorrect. This is the correct one.
But go ahead and bite the hand that feeds you. I am agreeing with your more general point that the validity of the cogito is questionable - indeed, it is questionable if the cogito is an inference. Your interlocutors seem to think that it is logically undeniable. Let them show us how.
My point was the content of Not Q was FALSE, therefore the original assumption P -> Q is False.
The 3 dualists have been havering with their muddled examples which didn't make any sense at all.
I agree cogito is not a logical statement, and it looks doubtful if it is even an inference.
All your friends need do is deny the right of the disjunct - which they have done.
p implies q.
But if p is false, that doesnt always mean that q is false. q could have another cause
Like saying its sunny and so it is warm. Hey if it isnt sunny then it isnt warm.
It is a standard fallacy - cant remember what it is called, been too long, but the concept is sound.
The standard with 3 facticities (not quite the same thing but another implication fallacy)
P -> q
Q > T
So p implies T. Obviously not sound. Plain English: Im hungry so I eat. Eating makes you feel good. Being hungry makes you feel good.
:chin:
p?q, q?t ? p?t. is the Hypothetical Syllogism.
Ah yes
I agree too.
I think = I am thinking.
So I am thinking, therefore I am isnt much of an argument. Its a tautology. Descartes pre-loads being as thinking in order to pull content out as certain knowledge of a thinking being.
I mean I see how he got to there, and that he was at a pivotal moment in his exercise of doubting.
Parmenides said It is the same thing to think and to be. He captured the Cartesian moment better. The cogito moment is an ontological moment, not a logical one; it highlights the am most of all in the words I am. You no longer really need any words so there is no argument to be constructed. Youre not at a conclusion.
If I say am out loud, there is no need to cloud this assertion by saying I first. Saying am is self-assertion. The I or any other self is redundant. More tautology. Saying is as good as thinking where you are trying to conclude being, as in therefore, I am being.
With all of this tautology and self-evident assertion at play, Descartes found certainty close by, which makes sense.
But the logic and certain knowledge comes after, or around, or just separately from the ontological observation here. I am is a premise, not a conclusion. I think.
Do you agree with him for the same reasons he thinks?
He thinks that if someone accepts "I think therefore I am", they must also accept "I don't think, therefore I am not". In other words, and in his own words:
P-> Q
Not P
Then it must be Not Q
Is this good reasoning?
Sure, good point. They disputed that Not P -> Not Q doesn't make sense. But the logic checker says it is valid.
(p?q)?(¬p?¬q)
(P -> Q) = -P or Q (P. Bogart)
We know and they even admit that Not Q = False
So it must be P -> Q = Not P or Not Q
P-> Q = False (proves I think therefore I am, is false).
Because Cogito is a psychological statement or intuition, it is very awkward to prove its validity using first order logic.
It is like a psychological statement, I feel happy, therefore I dance.
The statement is an obscurity itself. Who is "I"? And what does "I" feel happy about? We don't know.
The same goes with Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Who is the "I"? and What is the content and object of "think" in there. It is unclear. The only "I" know, is my "I", but I think I am doesn't warrant I am. Rather, what I see, feel, sense, remember and reason is a warrant for my existence. And it is absolute a private state of mentality.
We would never know anything about the state or nature of Cogito, who it belongs to or what the Cogito was about.
Perhaps for this type of purely psychological statement logical analysis, it would be better to use Kripke frame, Epistemic or Intentional Logic, and check for its validity. It would turn out to be invalid for sure.
You haven't quite grokked what the logic checker is actually doing. Guess what else the logic checker says is valid:
(p?q) ? (¬p?q) is valid.
Also
(p?q) ? (p?¬q) is valid.
A statement can be valid, but it could still be false. P -> Q is FALSE.
This is why I advised you to read some basic Logic books. It is not about the symbols.
The basic concepts on Logic seem lacking in your writings.
If not, what do you think it proves?
What does "(p?q)?(¬p?¬q) is valid according to this logic checker" prove in the context of this conversation?
(p?q) ? (¬p?q) is valid.
Shows that "Not P then Q" is validly drawn from P ?Q.
I'm using the same reasoning as you.
The thing you're getting confused by is thinking v can mean "the right side is validly drawn from the left side". That's not what v means.
I am telling you this again mate. Logic will only show you whether the propositions were derived correctly or not from the assumptions, and that's all. Nothing more.
The truths must be checked out with the reality in the world i.e. the events, objects and situations.
I think therefore I am is a psychological statement. How do you check "I" think of someone else apart from your "I"? It is a contradiction.
"I think therefore I am" is not meant to be applied to someone else, it's meant to be applied to yourself only. Every person can only apply it to themselves.
You aren't using the logic checker correctly. You've misunderstood what v means.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~5(~3q~5~3p)
Then, if we slightly modify it to your argument, which is that if you have p implies q, you can get not p implies not q, look at what happens
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~5(~3p~5~3q)
Modus Tollens is a valid argument format. It is generalisable and applicable to any p implies q situation.
Denying the Antecedent is invalid. It is not generally true, it is not applicable to all p implies q situations. It is trivially easy for anybody to think of situations where it doesn't apply.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((p~5q)~1p)~5q
That's affirming the Antecedent, which is how modus ponens really works.
Then we modify it to your denying the Antecedent variation
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((p~5q)~1~3p)~5~3q
Invalid
But if certain means perfectly 100% certain, no room for error, then it just seems immensely easy to think of things that could go wrong. One of my ex girlfriends had her middle name misspelled in her certificate - swapped a g for a j. If that's capable of happening, I find it very easy to imagine someone writing in a wrong date, swapping a 6 for a 5 perhaps.
And that's not even getting into the conspiratorial stuff.
If you feel certain, all the power to you. I just don't think so. I don't think it's fair to say, about this sort of thing, "there's absolutely no way anything on my birth certificate could be incorrect".
Not for the same reasons.
Quoting flannel jesus
I disagree with that.
My point is that it is tautology, not that it is unsound or invalid. Saying I think therefore I am to yourself does show a logic only to yourself. You, the existing one (as premise), thinking or saying or being, to conclude I am - its not bad logic, it just just a tautology that doesnt tell you anything you didnt already know.
I do not think, therefore I am not doesnt work here. (Except for maybe Parmenides.). If you assert anything whatsoever, you already are, so you cant conclude from it therefore I am not. The act of asserting even I do not.. is an act of am being. I negate, therefore I am makes it a positive assertion that shows the conclusion therefore I am not to be unsound. This is why Descartes couldnt doubt anymore. This is why he found his certainty. Undoing the logic of the statement I think therefore I am can never lead you to doubt the fact that you are.
To the extent it is an argument, it is still self-validating (to yourself when you say I am).
I think, therefore I am (which Descartes barely actually said) is the catchphrase for Knowing something to any degree of certainty, or just thinking about something, requires an act of being, or is itself an act of being, therefore, I can know with 100% certainty that I am being, when I am thinking or when I am knowing something else with any degree of certainty. And this tautology laden argument validates itself when it is a thought, or when you say it out loud.
Someone who speaks and who has the ability to hear at the same time: You dont need to wait for your own words to reach your own ears to already know the listener exists; no logic need bring you to this conclusion. The listener exists because the listener is the speaker who made the noise.
Bottom line to me, I am can only be a premise. Its an ontological observation, not a logical conclusion (except to yourself if you were ever wondering who that was who was doing all that thinking inside your head).
Interesting.
He has told me that I'm incapable of understanding basic logic because I don't think (p implies q) implies (not p implies not q). I of course do not think that that means I don't understand basic logic, and I can't find a single source that agrees with him on that - and I've looked. He has looked to, and has come up short.
To the contrary, I think it's basic logic that you can't just jump from (p implies q) to (not p implies not q). I can find quite a lot of sources that agree with me on that.
Quoting Banno
The catchphrase "I think therefore I am" of course is not a proper syllogism, and it doesn't have to be, the complete argument is:
Thinking ? existing
I think
Therefore I exist
That every single philosophical argument needs to be put in syllogistic shape is a fantasy. It is more than impressive that cogit? ergo sum, the crowning achievement of the father of modern philosophy, needs to be defended against so many bad arguments in a philosophy forum.
Quoting Corvus
That means nothing in this context. You can change it to https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~2(p~5~3q) or https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q)~2(~3p~5q) and it remains valid.
Quoting Corvus
That was never your argument.
Quoting Corvus
Curious, you were just saying how Bogart is not god. In any case, I already proved how this is in full agreement with Descartes:
Quoting Lionino
It seems that compared to the OP, he is malfunctioning, as then he clearly understood the problem of skepticism, but now he seems to think that it is a complete logical impossibility that he is adopted or that he got switched up in the hospital.
Quoting Fire Ologist
It seems tautological because it is so obvious, and it is obvious to us now because he pointed out, but he did have to point it out.
Its a tiny bit of logic as a statement, but it is a monumental basis for science. Things we may know can be demonstrably proven true, and valid and sound because, for example, I think, therefore I am.
Of course it is valid. Hence the assumption, Not P -> Not Q is valid. That was all it was trying to present. You too, seems not knowing the difference between validity and truth. Something is valid doesn't mean it is also true.
Quoting Lionino
I never said Bogart was no good. I said Bogart was not a god. You seem to keep distorting the facts habitually. His point can be taken where it proves my point in the argument, but Bogart is not a god, and he is not no good. I don't know he is good or not good, and I know he is not a god.
Quoting Lionino
There is no logical ground to deduce Thinking -> Exisiting.
I think therefore I exist is nonsense.
As I said before, Logic can only show you if the arguments and conclusions are derived from the premises. It cannot tell you the propositions themselves are true or false. You must get the truths or falsity from the real objects, situations and events in the world.
Cogito cannot be examined for truths. Therefore it is a meaningless statement, and Cogito ergo sum is a false statement based on the meaningless premise.
That is too sweeping a statement. Its not meaningless. Its something kid can derive meaning from.
Its not possible for you to think you are while you are not. That is a positive assertion about objective reality (to yourself).
There are moving parts with content. Thinking is objective content. Its an instance of general being sought as a ground for something to know. Knowing is part of the content. The general being versus the particular thinking is part of the content (happens to be in the premise and the conclusion turning this into tautology, but there are distinctions). And because there are parts there is a logic that stitches them into a single, somewhat tautologous, meaningful and certainly true statement.
Thinking is a subjective mental activity. Content of thinking is private with no access possibility to other minds. To the owner of the mind, thinking is realistic. But to the rest of the world, thinking mind of you is an unknown entity. Until you demonstrated your thought contents with your actions or linguistic expressions, your thinking has no existence apart from to your own mind.
Even if you have demonstrated your thoughts publicly indirectly using your actions and linguistic expressions, the other minds wouldn't have 100% direct knowledge of your thought contents.
Therefore I think therefore I am is a meaningless statement to the rest of the world, and it is not an objective statement.
I see me therefore I am, would be a more meaningful statement. Because at least someone else could verify your existence visually against your statement.
Completely agree the statement "I think, therefore I am" demonstrates nothing objective to you about me. But "I think therefore I am" or better put, "thinking 'I am'" to myself demonstrates the objective fact of thinking as content in the world. The world is just very small, objectively comprised of me thinking "I am."
I have to assume there are other thinking beings, but I don't have to assume that if a being is thinking, it is being. I can know this with certainty because thinking is already a particular instance of being.
The positive point in understanding that everything requires faith has to do with why I have faith in the first place, which is believed positive benefit. This opens up a gateway of having faith in other things for believed positive benefit. Many people think they can know things, so they don't think they desire to have faith in things (after all, if they know things, why would they do something as uncertain as having faith?). I've seen many who (in my opinion) are basically weakening themselves by thinking this way, by being unable to admit how uncertain they are of life they are unable to have hope to the degree of what I see as being healthy.
This is the second time you've made it out like it's about other people - it's about yourself, not others.
It's "I think therefore I am", not "he thinks therefore he is".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
Look at that last sentence - twice, it says "one's own". One's own existence, one's own mind. "I think therefore I am" is a statement for the speaker of that statement to understand as it pertains to himself, not to understand about someone else.
Your disagreements thus far have all been based on misunderstandings, misunderstandings of what the argument itself is about, and misunderstandings of basic logic like modus ponens.
This is true. It is real to you, but it is nothing to me. Likewise, you would never know what I am thinking. It is true and real to me, but nothing to you. Therefore it is why, I think therefore I am is a subjective statement. It is a psychological mumbling or monologue, or as Banno put it correctly, an intuition to oneself.
When someone said, I think therefore I am, it doesn't mean a thing to me. I can only presume, that the person is making some mumbling noise to himself.
I exist, because I see me visually, hear me talking to the other people, and they talk back to me in reasonable manner and interacting with the world as per cause and effect principles, not because I think I am.
I know X exists, because I can see it, touch it and feel it. Not because I think it exists.
No, it's discovery of a certain objective fact in reality. It's just a discovery each has to make all by themselves. It doesn't mean nothing is discovered, or nothing is - quite the opposite.
What you are thinking is irrelevant. If you are thinking, you are - that's the whole point. That's it.
Descartes was doubting. Do the objects of sense exist? Maybe not. Does his body exist? Maybe not. After removing everything that could be removed he was left with "I am".
This was his very first premise. The confusion here is that "I am" is not a logical conclusion, it's a discovery of a first premise, one that, because of it's objectivity and certainty, can be used to build the first bit of knowledge about the world "I am in it" or "the world is at least my thinking."
Descartes didn't conclude from logic that he exists; he used logic to conclude that everything else might not exist. Then he was left at a moment where there was this thing he could not doubt. That was his first premise.
To make this a bumper sticker moment, we coined "I think, therefore I am." Which axiomizes the premise. Now we have a source of meaning, content, truth, certainty. Tons to work with. Finally after all of that doubt.
So in a sense I agree with you that the syllogism "I think, therefore I am" is really not a good example of syllogism, as it is really a colorful way of saying "I am, therefore I am" which merely clouds the premise "I am" (which is certain throughout this exercise) in a conclusion.
We seem in agreement there even if not in complete degree. Well, that's a progress suppose.
Thank you for your input on the point.
It doesn't need a logical ground. Nothing can think if it doesn't exist. Your criticism changes with every post you make. But it is always a stupid criticism.
Quoting Corvus
What a clown. Goodbye.
Even if it did, he's already agreed with it prior in the thread. He agreed that someone has to exist in order to think. He just doesn't understand how that means "thinking -> existing".
Suppose this is a typical response when the hidden ignorance was revealed. :nerd:
Really guys - we are at the root of any certainty, any practical use for logic at all - that is the subject.
There is a practical, raw observation at play here, namely I am. This shows what certain knowledge looks like. This is a whole universe to enter (may be a small universe - Descartes immediately had to toss in God to find anything else.). Shows how a mind that developed mathematics and modern science would want to move, on certain, empirically verifiable ground.
Then there is the logic built around and on top of it I am. This logic I think, therefore I am is not great logic; its not a syllogism tempered for the rigors of analytics.
But Descartes was still a genius. His discovery in I am will forever be a part of philosophy. So downplaying the cogito as meaningless nonsense is just missing the point.
What other philosophical assertion besides I think, therefore I am joins the objective physical reality of my experience with my subjective reality of experiencing anything? When I experience anything, because of Descartes, I can admit things exist. It gets you out of your head by placing you in the world with certainty. I think over here in my head, therefore, its already true that something is there in the world.
People often resort to name calling if they are unable to find a way to respond to someone's comments.
I have to say, your patience at trying to get your point across is admirable. I don't think I would have so much patience. I would more likely think, "Let them just believe what they want."
What you are saying always seemed so clear to me, even before I researched how other philosophers criticized Descartes's cogito, I had already come up with similar ideas.
Quoting Lionino
The thought that immediately sprang to my mind was, "How do you know?"
(Before someone points out that I had a thought, so I must exist, just take it that I am not really here typing this, and you are not really there reading it, just to humour me ;) )
[quote=Russell, Bertrand. 1945. A History of Western Philosophy And Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 567.]Descartess indubitable facts are his own thoughtsusing thought in the widest possible sense. I think is his ultimate premiss. Here the word I is really illegitimate; he ought to state his ultimate premiss in the form there are thoughts. The word I is grammatically convenient, but does not describe a datum. When he goes on to say I am a thing which thinks, he is already using uncritically the apparatus of categories handed down by scholasticism. He nowhere proves that thoughts need a thinker, nor is there reason to believe this except in a grammatical sense.
All of what he's been saying? Including his reasons for disagreeing with the cogito?
His central argument in this thread has been, if "I think therefore I am" is true, then it must also be true that not thinking implies not existing.
In other words, (p implies q) necessitates (not p implies not q).
Do you think this is good reasoning? For all p implies q, must it also be true that not p implies not q?
Great minds think alike. Fully agreed with your fair and accurate analysis and comment on the point. :cool: :up:
Cant humor you there. Its not possible that both you do not really think you are typing this and I dont really think I am reading this; at least one of us (certainly me) is having the phenomenal experience of at least one of these two scenarios (namely me reading). You could be doubting you were typing, and I could be doubting I was reading, but neither of us could conclude to ourselves that means I might not exist while doubting, while reading, or while typing.
You said I just take it that Im not really . You said I twice here to make your point (in type I take it.) So you demonstrated the certainty to yourself that I take it, therefore I am really whether you want to admit it or not. You cant experience yourself not experiencing yourself. If you take anything, taking, or being, has to be taken with it.
Assuming you arent arguing from a solipsistic point of view (a useful endeavour sometimes but gotta pick your moments) there are things all of us are certain about. And to quantify that we need something fairly universal to act as a substrate for a pattern (or just cut it up by psychology like Quine, or whatever division you happen to like at the time).
Ive always like the idea of division not by psychology or language / semantic distinction - but by the state of change in a facticity. Aka dynamic or static. Doing so leads to consider how we can learn things, and probably it is only by dynamic events that we learn anything. Certainly (pun intended) we cant know anything about something that doesnt change. At least that is one line of reasoning. Or a boundary that isnt semantic or psychological. What other boundaries are worth considering?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of these boundary positions (Quine, Wittgenstein, Descartes, etc etc etc) that have already been proposed and why do we think those are the only ones to consider? Aka is everything else already a subset of a semantic argument (probably) .
(p?q)?(¬p?¬q) is invalid.
Quoting Corvus
No, it's invalid. It can still be true under some interpretation. It can also be false under some other interpretation.
But of course, that you have not shown the cogito to be invalid does not imply that it is valid. @flannel jesus has not shown that the cogito is valid - if indeed that is their supposition.
_______
Quoting Lionino
It's not a proper syllogism, yet you present it in syllogistic form? Make up your mind: is it an inference, or not?
Quoting Lionino
Is it a valid inference, on which we must all agree, or is it an intuition, a mere hunch or impression?
_______
Underpinning the whole of this thread is the misapprehension that we can only know stuff if we are certain of it, if our belief is indubitable.
This error leads folk to conclude either that we must build our knowledge from solid foundations, such as the Cogito, or else that we do not "truly" know anything. Both views are muddled.
In my conversation with Corvus, he himself has already agreed with the necessary intuition to agree with the Cogito - he has agreed that existence is required for thought.
If existence is required for thought, then "I think therefore I am" makes immediate sense, don't you think? If someone agrees that "I must exist in order to think", then the cogito becomes an obvious consequence.
I'm not trying to prove it to everyone, generally - mainly, I'm just pointing out that this guy's counter arguments do not hold. His main one is an explicit formal fallacy, denying the antecedent. It's a fallacy EVEN IF the cogito is incorrect - his conclusion being right or wrong is independent from his reasoning being explicitly wrong. The conclusion is of less interest to me than the reasoning used to get there.
It gets frustrating to teach multiplication to those that don't understand addition.
Quoting Beverley
Which is not Corvus' objection, as he himself does not know what his objection is.
Quoting Beverley
And the thought that sprang to mine is "Show how it could be otherwise". You are not playing the ultimate skeptic game well.
That is a completely different objection than your "how do you know?" to something that is self-evident Russell's objection being, by the way, mostly semantic.
The catchphrase is not a syllogism, the complete argument is.
Quoting Banno
It is a valid inference as I have shown. As to the others, I am not sure what you mean by them, and my brain is too fried today to try to reply.
Quoting Banno
You yourself said earlier "you must start somewhere". A start is a foundation, if you agree that we need a solid one, you side with Descartes, if you are of the side that we don't need a solid one, you are a skeptic and a pragmatist. Pick your poison.
So it's an intuition.
Is that sufficient for the foundation of knowledge? No. If someone has an intuition that folk born under Pisces are natural leaders, you'd throw it out offhand. If you want the Cogito to be the foundation of your enterprise, you will need more than intuition.
Sure, @Corvus has it wrong. That doesn't make you right.
What you call "the complete argument" is obviously circular. Hardly convincing.
Quoting Lionino
You assume your conclusion in the first line of your argument.
Quoting Lionino
You are playing on "solid" here, on the he misapprehension that we can only know stuff if we are certain of it, if our belief is indubitable.
Which part of the reasoning process do you personally think is 'just an intuition'?
Can you show that the Cogito is a valid inference? Can you set out it's logical structure, so that we can see why we ought accept it's conclusion, if we accept it's assumption?
And if not, why should we accept it?
The conclusion here of course isn't "Flannel Jesus exists", the "I" is a variable for the reader to place his own identity into it. This was a confusion that Corvus had - he would read the above and think I'm trying to prove to him that I exist. That's decidedly *not* the point of it - I'm sure you already know this, but I'm just making extra-sure. The conclusion I would want you to draw from it is not that "Flannel Jesus exists", but rather that Banno exists - and if Corvus was reading this, the conclusion I'd want him to draw is that Corvus exists. The "I" is a stand-in for whoever is doing the thinking - you do your own thinking, so you put your own identity into "I think therefore I am".
I've gone on about that for long enough, considering you probably already knew that, so that being said...
Would you please just honestly tell me, do you personally disagree with (a) your own existence, and/or (b) the idea that you wouldn't be able to think if you didn't exist? If you disagree with a and/or b, could you please try to clarify why?
Has anyone ever wondered if they might not actually exist successfully?
A good solid wait a minute am I?
You doubt everything first, see if you can. No matter how far you get - total blackness, sensory deprivation, mind in a vat, lose the vat, lose the mind - if you find yourself no longer thinking, no longer doubting, or breathing, or you cant find yourself anywhere anymore, you may have gone too far.
I have a hunch no one can get that far, because I am is either riding shotgun, or is the bus.
(1) If I think, then I exist.
(2) I think.
(3) Therefore, I exist.
Premise one is not explicitly stated in the cogito argument (at least I don't think it is), but surely it is implied.
The formal structure of this argument is:
(1) If p, then q.
(2) p.
(3) Therefore q.
It is a valid argument.
Or have I missed the boat on this one?
Or if you talk to some meditators, you've gone exactly where you should have. Though I'd agree with you, that's probably too far (except for a select few, who would probably benefit from mental non-existence - people for whom life is just complete needless suffering, for example, extreme chronic pain sufferers perhaps)
Why?
p?q is not a valid argument.
Move past attacking Corvus ad nauseam, we agree that he does not show the Cogito to be invalid. But can you show it to be valid?
Or is it something else? If so, what?
See
Quoting NotAristotle
Isn't that exactly what it was you were trying to prove, NotAristotle?
Would you please just honestly tell me, do you personally disagree with (a) your own existence, and/or (b) the idea that you wouldn't be able to think if you didn't exist? If you disagree with a and/or b, could you please try to clarify why?
Notice the presumption in that? Consider again Russell's objection - There is thinking occurring, but what is the "I"?
The other reading, which you might be groping towards, is to take the Cogito as a definition of "I"; that "I" am the thing that thinks - well, strictly, doubts.
You insist I answer your question when you have not answered mine - inference or intuition? Admit it is an intuition, not an inference.
Can you doubt that you are now reading my reply?
Point being, at the level you want to work, there are quite a few things besides the Cogito that are evident.
Or not.
Ok, so from what is it to be inferred? And if the answer is "I think", then how is the inference valid?
Yes, I can doubt everything except that I am doubting (which already includes that I am, which is the point of cogito).
What do you mean at the level I want to work?
I can see that's a loaded question. :wink:
Here is a more formal statement of an argument:
(1) if not (p then q), then (if not-q then possibly p).
(2) not-(p then q).
(3) Therefore, If not-q then possibly p.
Can we all agree with the first conditional, or would someone object to it (and if so what is the objection).
Well, it seems from the length of this thread, that one can doubt that, too.
It is valid.
Now consider this argument:
If not (if I think, then I exist), then (if I don't exist, then possibly I think).
Not (If I think, then I exist).
Therefore, if I don't exist, then possibly I think.
Is that what you wanted to show? That's not the cogito.
I just wanted to check, is your argument here that if 'I think therefore I am' is true, then logic dictates that 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist' must also be true. But since the latter makes no sense, then something is terribly wrong with it all?? Or am I totally wrong to assume that? I could have misunderstood.
[s]Line 1 is invalid[/s] (edit: it is valid in S5). Again, you presume your conclusion.
Yes, correct. You have got it spot on.
'I think therefore I am' implies 'I do not think, therefore I do not exist'. It is logically valid (reasoning via contradiction in Logic).
But I don't think or I think, therefore I do not exist is false. People do exist until death once born, whether they think or not. We know that from the fact of the reality in the world.
Therefore I think therefore I am is false. "I am" has nothing to do with "I think".
I am alive therefore I am, or I see me therefore I am are more meaningful statements.
I was doubting your statement that nothing can think if it does not exist. Russell is saying that Descartes does not prove that thoughts need a thinker.
((p?q)&p)?q is valid, and on one line.
But if one denies p, then the argument does not bind one to q.
And I ought correct myself, or at least finesse the point; line 1 is valid in S5.
Hallelujah! I was doubting myself for a moment! I am not going mad then :)
Quoting Beverley
Quoting Corvus
Does this make more sense to you now?
Things may exist and yet not think.
That is, letting p="I think" and q="I exist", the syllogism would be
(p?q) ? (~p?~q)
But this is, as has been explained many times, invalid.
In the course of the proof, they are both assumptions until "I don't exist" is found False, when we checked it against the fact of human life in the world.
No you are not. Your reasoning and understanding are spot on.
(((p?q) ? (~p?~q))?q)?~(p?q)
or
(((p?q)?(¬p?¬q))?q)?¬(p?q)
Still invalid.
whether they think or not?
I thought we were on the same page but we cant even seem to connect on what I am means and now you are bringing in what I am until death once born.
We are overthinking and adding way too much content to a simple observation - I am.
Forget the stupid syllogism.
Its really just a simple, present moment - being here right now for instance reeding the word reeding spelled wrong twice now. And now reading now. Again!
I am. Is about right now, being present. Here.
Lets drain the content. You could say I am sitting/standing here reading now to yourself. And whether you actually say this or believe or know anything you say or think, you already said I am before and during every any of them... What you say after you say I am doesnt matter anymore, its just content, like birth and death and think and say.
Forget the content. Whenever I say, I am saying. Whenever I think, I am thinking. The am is all you need to know about the cogito.
We can know that we exist, while we are existing. Its what we do. Its what we are doing right now, here, in this conversation. BUT, forget all that / to much content.
Words themselves do an injustice to the am.
This OP asks what we can know with 100% certainty. This brings in what and problems of identity and universal kinds.. and brings in we can know and problems of epistemology and its cousins physics and metaphysics and brings in certainty on a scale up to 100%.
Forget all of that for one more second.
Weve drilled down to this simple moment.
So, hey, let me ask you something.
Are you still reading?
Now lets ask a simpler question.
Are you being?
I am.
If you are, are you sure?
I am.
This is the point in this writing where an all caps HERE makes its appearance. I typed all caps HERE
to completely waste your time.
That is where being is. Now. Currently below a couple HEREs.
That is where I am now when I say I am. Its what it means to me - being in.
From this now, Descartes found certainty. That moves us away from the am now back into content and the stupid syllogism. I do see certainty as well, but I wonder if you even follow me here anymore.
Corvus, is the correct interpretation here that: "I don't think...or it is false that I think therefore I do not exist." (1).
Or is the correct interpretation here: "it is false that "whether I think or I don't think I do not exist." (2).
I think what he is trying to show here is that we cannot successfully use logic on the cogito in a way that it makes sense. From this, we can conclude that there is something wrong with the cogito. For example, it would obviously make no sense to say, "I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" because you cannot be thinking about not thinking unless you exist. Or, you cannot say 'I do not exist' if you do not exist. Now, you may reply, "Oh, that was Descartes's exact point: if you are thinking, then you must exist." However, since 'I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking" DOES NOT make sense, then logically, the cogito also does not make sense. As has been pointed out many times, the 'I' is not logical here. To make it logical at a stretch (whilst having to make assumptions) we would have to change it to: 'He thinks therefore he exists.' Then, we can more logically say: 'He does not exist, therefore he is not thinking.' But, as I am sure we are all aware, the cogito ONLY works from the first person perspective. Therefore, it fails; it all fails.
Now, I may have this wrong. Maybe there is a hole in my reasoning somewhere. (Considering it is past 1am, I wouldn't be surprised, but to me, this makes sense.)
Does this make sense? I am just checking. Please do point out if I have made a mistake somewhere.
If A implies B then the falsity of B implies the falsity of A by modus tollens. Whereas the proposition "I do not think therefore I do not exist" must be false if indeed I do not think (and yet exist), the proposition "I think, therefore I exist" needn't be false in the event that I do not think. In that case, the falsity of the proposition "I do not think therefore I do not exist" does not imply the falsity of "I think, therefore I exist."
Corvus, perhaps you were thinking that if I did not think, I would not know that I existed; in that case, it would appear that my existing could not be decoupled from my thinking. While it is certainly true that if I weren't thinking, I would not know I existed, there is surely a possibility that I do still exist (even if I am not thinking), as Banno stated.
But p?q is invalid. From p it does not follow that q.
Are you sure you understand validity?
I follow you on the logical analysis.
Does I am itself mean anything, show you anything, without the syllogism and analytics?
You say it all fails. Im wondering if anything is left at all in your view.
A formula is valid only if it is true for all assignments to its terms.
Here's the truth table for implication:
p?q is false for the assignment p=t and q=f; therefor it is not true for all values of its terms, therefore it is not valid.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#p
In general, you cannot jump from "p implies q" to "not p implies not q".
Do you believe you can jump from "p implies q" to "not p implies not q" in general?
I believe that the following is the correct logic:
Quoting Beverley
He established that as the logical basis for jumping from "I think therefore I am" to "I don't think, therefore I am not."
You are agreeing with him and his reasoning, so I just want to establish unambiguously: do you think what he thinks, that for any "p implies q" type statement, "not p implies not q" must also be true? Do you agree with corvus on that one or disagree?
Yeah you are still right. Folks seem to think still I think therefore I am is some sort of logical statement, hence all the confusions.
Because they are so confused, we were trying to show in simple classic formal logic to see whats happening there.
In the course of logical proof, regardless of being invalid or valid, we can reason by introducing contradiction to the statement, and try to eliminate or trigger truth or falsity values from the statement. At this stage every statement is assumption. Contradiction reasoning is based on the identity principle that P = P, Q = Q. Therefore if P-> Q, then Not P -> Not Q must hold. This principle is priority to being valid or invalid of the assumptions.
When we examine Not P -> Not Q, we find that statement is incorrect. Hence P -> Q cannot be true.
This has nothing to do with Not P -> Not Q is a logical leap and all that nonsense.
Cogito is a subjective intuition. No one can inspect others' cogito apart from his / her own. Hence it is not an objective concept. It shouldn't have been even started for logical process.
But you are again correct. Because Cogito is an intuition, logical proof is impossible. It can only prove that it doesn't make sense concept, hence the statement Cogito ergo sum is false.
I see what you are saying, but I also see what he is saying too. I have never studied logic before, but I spent a fair few hours last night reading up on it. (So, thanks to you all, I think I may know a bit more than I did before now... I think.) I also read every one of the links you posted about modus tollens, modus ponens, affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, hence, the position I took on, 'I do not exist, therefore I am not thinking.'
As I said, I think he was trying to show that 'I think therefore I am' does not make logical sense. I think this was his main argument there. And, for the reasons I mentioned, I agree with him. It does not make logical sense. The main premise 'I think therefore I am' is not reliable or logical in the first place to prove certainty, and therefore, pretty much anything that is said about it makes no logical sense either. (Although, of course, I cannot speak for Corvus; I can only say what I think he was trying to show. He is probably exhausted right now; he has been putting forward arguments against the cogito since page 14!) Also, I'd like to point out that this was not the only argument he gave; there are indeed other sound arguments, such as this:
Quoting Corvus
Descartes is indeed begging the question, or using a circular reasoning, which is invalid. Descartes assumes that he exists and then uses this to prove that he exists through 'I think therefore i am' because to think, he must exist.
This is why the logic is not working. You cannot doubt everything and then suddenly, magically be certain of something. That is not too hard to understand, in my view. It is impossible to beat the skeptics at their own game. The only way to 'beat' them is to NOT PLAY THE GAME.
Agreed. Thinking (Psychology) ===> Existence (Ontology, Epistemology). This is a leap. It is not even a logical leap. It is a psychological or paranormal leap.
Quoting Corvus
He's confirming it again - that denying the Antecedent is a part of his train of logic.
I want to make this clear, Beverley : I'm not overly concerned that you agree that the cogito is a bad argument. I'm concerned fundamentally with the reasoning used to get there. You said you agreed with Corvus reasoning, and this is a big part of corvus reasoning:
Quoting Corvus
I want to establish with you, before anything else, if this is a valid step in reasoning in your view. I'd like to be explicit about it, because if we can't get to the bottom of this, we can't get to the bottom of anything. Corvus says it's basic logic, and I agree, it's basic logic. If we can't get to the bottom of basic logic on a philosophy forum, what hope do we have to get to the bottom of anything?
And if you disagree with his logic there, that doesn't mean of course that you have to disagree with his conclusion. You can agree with his conclusion without agreeing with his reasons for getting there. If someone says "2+2 is 4 because I saw 5 guys jump Mickey mouse at Disney land", we can agree with their conclusion while still saying "your reasons for getting there are not good".
So would you mind trying to establish with me if its generally true to say "if P-> Q, then Not P -> Not Q must hold."? I would love to have this basic logic established, as it has so far been a fundamental part of Corvus reasoning to this point.
I have explained on the point in my previous post clearly enough.
Yes, I am bowing out from this thread after this message. I was going to do that about 10 pages ago. But I was getting frustrated to see the continuing confusions and groundless claims. It seems it better not to waste any more time, if the confusions going to continue, then let them get on with it. I don't see their views ever changing with no matter what rational explanations were given judging by their continuous circulatory posts.
Will get on with some other topics and readings. Thanks for your input on the point. :pray: :up:
As far as logic goes, the problem with Cogito is that the original premise is not a logical or valid statement. This means that you can say anything you like about it, and it still will not make sense logically. Since the original premise is not logical or valid, we are not playing by the rules of logic, so we can do or say what we like, but nothing about it will be logical. To apply modus ponens or modus tollens, or any other type of modus lol the original premise must be logical and valid...I believe. BUT I am new to all of this, so I could be wrong. There may be some 'modus' out there where the original premise doesn't need to be logical. I may not be totally read up on all my moduses!
Hold on, I should have added, IF you are playing by the rules of logic, and the original premise was valid and logical, then, if what I have read is correct, the 'not P, not Q' reasoning would not hold.
I do not blame you at all. I would have bowed out much sooner! You lasted for pages without agreement from anyone but didn't give in. I am really impressed!
You have expressed agreement with corvus reasoning - there are many people on this forum who see a problem in his reasoning, but you're the only one who thinks his reasoning is good, so we can talk about it.
His reasoning is based on going from "if I think, then I exist" to "if I don't think, then I don't exist". You've read the conversation apparently, so you can see him defending this throughout the pages - am I correct about that?
So the question many of us have is, where does "if I don't think, then I don't exist actually come from?"
Corvus has provided his logic for where it comes from. Where do you think it comes from? How do you, personally, Beverley, how do you go from "if I think then I exist" to "if I don't think then I don't exist"? Or, do you go to that at all? Perhaps you don't.
I missed this the first time around. I apologize. I applaud you for reading the material on symbolic logic, even though you were unfamiliar with it, and coming to understand some operations of basic logic.
You are correct, if we are playing by the rules of logic, the 'not P, not Q' reasoning does not hold. And we ARE playinig by the rules of logic - if someone could use the rules of logic to prove the cogito entirely incorrect, then I personally would abandon it. Corvus tried to do so, but a step in his reasoning was going from 'if p then q' to 'if not p, then not q', which means that his particular line of reasoning was not the line of reasoning that would convince me to abandon it. There of course may be *another* line of reasoning, but not the one provided by Corvus.
We still don't have a single other person than Corvus who thinks that the 'Not P, then Not Q' line of reasoning is valid. We do have universities that say it's explicitly a fallacy.
Thanks :) I am not an expert in Logic myself, but it can be an interesting subject at times. I think I will reread my Logic book again to refresh the memories. But really key points here folks don't seem know are these.
1. Validity does't mean Truth. Validity of arguments means that the conclusion was derived from the premises. A conclusion can be valid, but it still can be FALSE.
2. We are not trying to find validity of the main issue here. Our aim is trying to find truth or falsity values. They seem to betting whole their lives for validity of the assumptions for some reason, and accuse for logical leap.
3. When conclusion was based on the premises and true , the argument is classed as sound. When it is not based on the premises, but true, it is an unsound argument.
4. Here we didn't need to worry about the assumptions being invalid or valid. They are still not the conclusion yet. They were still assumptions. The point was finding truth or falsity of Cogito, not validity.
5. Truth of conclusion is always checked by the external real world events, facts and the state of objects. But here "Think" being a subjective operation of an individual, it is impossible to check the truth or false value from it. But we know about the existence of humans. It exists no matter what. Once a person is born, he/she exists until death.
6. When checking a statement in Logic, introduce contradictions based on the law of identity principles, eliminate some predicates by introducing AND OR connectives with the known axioms until the main statement's truth or falsity values emerges.
I have tried present my arguments based on above points, but not many folks seem to see the points. It was frustrating at times. But you were able to see and understood them, and I am impressed too. :D Have a great day.
Are you equally impressed with flat-earthers who persist in arguing for a flat earth?
1. I think.
2. If I think, then I exist.
3. Therefore I exist.
This is my understanding of the cogito in argumentative form. Do you object to premise 1 or premise 2?
So since "it is raining" has truth table values of true and/or false then it could have been false, even though the proposition is true. Is that what you are saying?
I'm *almost* certain that what's on your birth certificate is correct - I don't have any good reason to doubt it - but I'm also *almost* certain there are people in this world who are equally as sure as you are, and equally as justified, about what day they were born and, and who are *incorrect*. You probably aren't one of those people, but you could be!
I'm not suggesting you should behave as if you're not certain, of course. Don't go scream at your mom to tell you the truth of your Russian inheretence please.
Quoting CorvusThis is exactly what the cogito is asserting.
If you do what you suggest here, you are actually arguing in favor of panpsychism. That which exists can then think.
There's a fundamental misinterpretation of what the word order of the sentence is saying about chronology and ontological necessity.
I think, therefore I am.
Does not in anyway say that thinking leads to existence or is a necessary precursor or facet of existence. If anything the opposite. But it is not focused on chronology.
And I think you are reading that sentence as indicating chronology. And again when you say.....
You support the cogito.
And then I will reword this:
It seems to me you read the cogito as indicating via word order and the word 'therefore' that thinking is prior to existence. But that's not what the word order or 'therefore' indicates. In fact it's a misread of 'therefore.' Therefore means 'I get to conclude that something else is also true and, if anything was true before 'I think' occurred. It's not asserting this. The two processes could be simultaneous, for example. But it is not asserting precursion nor causation. And it is not saying the stuff in the beginning of the sentence causes the stuff in the second part.
Therefore could indicate that kind of chronology IF!!! there was future tense in the second part.
It is raining, therefore I will get wet (when I go out). But without 'will', it is not that kind of word.
When you reverse the cogito
I am, therefore I think.
You are actually doing what you complain about. Making existence dependent on thinking.
It indicates a process of thought not a proces of causation or chronology. The detective's thought process, not the scientists proclamation of causation and order in time.
So, again, I think you misunderstand 'therefore' and are confusing word order with a diagram of events in time.
I am aware. There is a reply to it here https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/5202 , which I find to be unsatisfying, leaving the criticism standing. The merits of Russell's criticism can and I think should be discussed, but I am afraid this thread is far from the right place to it.
Quoting Banno
I don't assume my conclusion in the first line because their contents are different. I am quite sure that what you are trying to say instead is that the argument has an unproven premise.
If you wanna know, Descartes talks exactly about this in his Objections and the Principles:
Screenshot is from "The Anatomy of the Soul".
It's very simple. I agree with him. You don't. I don't have a problem at all with that. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions. I always say that the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything :)
For one thing, Beverley rejects denying the Antecedent as a valid logical step, while corvus calls it "basic logic".
And another is, I'm not sure Beverley is aware that Corvus believes existence is required for thought.
That is Russell's criticism, which Beverley brought up, Corvus never nodded to it.
Cogito: I think ? I exist
Here is a mooted proof that I exist, from various corespondents...
1. I think ? I exist. (Cogito, assumption)
2. I think. (assumption)
3. ? I exist. (1.2, MPP)
This proof is not the Cogito, although it makes use of the Cogito. It does not show that the cogito is true, because it assumes the Cogito.
It is a valid argument that I exist. It is not a proof of the Cogito.
Now @Corvus attempted to show that the Cogito is invalid, with the following:
1. I think ? I exist. (Cogito, assumption)
2. I don't think (assumption)
3. ? I don't exist. (1.2, ?)
This has the form (p?q, ~p) ? ~q. This argument is invalid. It will remain invalid even if, as points out, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Corvus has not demonstrated that the Cogito is invalid.
Here's a seperate point, made by Corvus, Beverly and myself, and pretty much unaddressed by others: It has not been shown that the Cogito is valid.
Indeed, in propositional logic, the Cogito would be rendered
1. p ? q
Which is invalid.
So, is the Cogito is a valid inference?
The invalidity of the Cogito hasn't been a factor in my involvement in the discussion. My involvement has been out of curiosity as to whether Corvus could admit to having been a doofus.
It feels as if we are going back in time when such fallacy had not been addressed already.
Quoting Lionino
What fallacy?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890383
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890542
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890828
What I was hoping for, was that Corvus would recognize his lack of insight into logic, and engage in error correction with regard to his thinking. Unfortunately he doubled down on speaking as if he was some sort of expert on the subject, while repeatedly demonstrating that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Quoting Banno
What fallacy did you mean?
Even I give up after a page or two.
Quoting Banno
...is not a proof of the Cogito. As has been pointed out, it can't be, because it assumes the Cogito on line one.
Nor is it the Cogito.
Quoting Banno
Which I have already addressed when you made the same claim some two pages back.
Fine.
But it is not clear why an intuition must be seen as indubitable. And it seems odd to count a mere intuition as certain knowledge.
That'd at least move the topic along a smidge.
We have literally gone over that before. Fine.
Quoting Banno
This is wrong. Not even wrong, it is pointless, and it could be remediated by reading Descartes¹. His "argument" is not "I think therefore I am", that is the conclusion of the whole Second Meditation. It is a very classical syllogism of the type "Socrates is mortal", and I have addressed it when talking to Beverley already.
Whatever thinks, exists.
I think.
I exist.
The first premise is an intuition, the conclusion is not, because it very clearly derives from the premises (inference). We start with a universal, then to a particular, then the exclusion of the middle term.
1 Has anyone here?
You then say:
Quoting Banno
It is not circular, as I have shown clearly, otherwise "Socrates is mortal" is a circular argument even though it is the most classical Aristotelian syllogism that gives us what a deduction is.
Which I explain here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/890828
And by the way
Quoting Banno
No you. If "solid" can mean anything in the context of belief, it is a belief that can't be doubted.
But if you think that "p?q" is not invalid, then let that be an end to the discussion.
So, do we agree that "p?q" is invalid?
If no, I'm done.
If yes, then do we agree that the Cogito is "I think, therefore I am"?
If no, then what is the Cogito? And if yes, then do we agree that the following is not the Cogito?
Quoting Banno
If we agree that the argument quoted is not the Cogito, then do we agree that it is also not a proof of the Cogito? That as such, it would be circular?
And it seems we agree that the Cogito is Quoting Lionino
Then, returning to the topic, do we have some basis for thinking that this intuition counts as part of the 100% certain knowledge that the OP seeks?
If so, it seems odd that such a mere intuition should count as knowledge; if no, then Descart seems to have been of no help in answering the OP.
I am drinking lots of vodka, therefore, I am drunk.
Therefore causally joins drinking to subsequent drunkenness.
But there is no causation and subsequent effect or conclusion between I think and I am. When one realizes one is being, when one realizes one is, I think is already I am thinking, so already I am; not therefore I am.
But this is no small observation (despite how cleverly we can think small of the cogito syllogism).
Realizing that I am is an act of realizing - its an act. Its not a thing. Realizing, like thinking, is an act. But when you realize you are realizing, then the thing realized is an act as well, and further, it is the same act that lead to the realization. This demonstrates self-evidence, or certainty. It combines cause and effect into something else, like a simple, momentary observation such as I am thinking.
Now you can introduce therefore again.
The causal relationship here is not between thinking and being (they are the same basically). The causal relationship is between an existing fact (I am) and subsequent knowledge of that fact (therefore, here is what I still know despite all of the doubting.)
Descartes was saying the fact that he is causes him to know something certain. The causal relationship and the therefore arises between the fact of his existence as cause, and him knowing certainty as effect. Fact causes knowledge; fact, therefore knowledge.
New cogito: I can doubt everything and think I know nothing, but still, I am thinking, or more simply, I am being; and therefore, there is something I can know, namely, that I am.
I am is one certain fact we can each stop and visit with whenever we want, like a security blanket for science.
You can disagree with the premise. "Invalid" wouldn't be the word you use to describe a premise you disagree with though. The word would be "false" - "this premise is false".
So (p v~p) is valid, since whether p is true or false, the expression will be true. (p?q) is satisfiable, but invalid, since if we assign true to p and false to q, the expression is false. (p & ~p) is contradictory, since for every assignment of true or false the expression will be false.
I'd surmise that an advantage of working this way is precisely so that every expression is either valid or invalid. Also this treatment applies to other logics - predicate and modal logic define validity in this way, with some modification.
Validity is a property of a whole argument, not an individual premise.
If you won't accept such basic stuff, there's not a lot of point in discussing logic with you.
P implies q is a standard part of countless symbolic logic proofs, and its presence as a premise doesn't make an argument invalid to anybody except apparently you.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#p~5q
I'll leave you to it.
That's the fully drawn out argument - not just the premise, the argument.
That means, arguments that take p implies q as a premise can be valid. It's not inherently invalid.
No. That is not what I said.
Even you must see that.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((p~5q)~1p)~5q
Now, if it is not a valid argument, then it cannot be an inference.
So what is it?
How does it command 100% certainty?
If it is a premise, is your claim that it is just presumed?
He's speaking poetically. He is writing succinctly, and with brevity, for aesthetics sake.
There are a few different ways of translating his poetic and flowery slogan into a syllogism. You haven't engaged with those.
What is the basis for claiming that "I think, therefore I am" is indubitable?
Are you happy with that?
Do you think it's possible for you to think if you don't exist?
Can you show me that it isn't?
Can you make the Cogito the result of an argument, rather than a mere presumption?
You are going to need something more than propositional logic.
If you are going to claim that the Cogito is 100% certain, then you presumably are able to set out why.
As it stands, it seems it is only because you are convinced by what you describe as "Descartes flowery language"...
I missed it. What's the answer? I don't think it's loaded, I think it's just completely pertinent. I've answered a number of questions from you, you won't answer one from me? I'm being honest and open about my thoughts, because quite frankly what's the point of being here if I'm not? I am open to having my mind changed, but only by someone open and honest about their thoughts.
Do you think it's possible to think without existing?
I do not think the Cogito convincing, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Monday, and Wednesday, I'm quite convinced. Friday and Saturday, I take an agnostic position. Sundays, I rest.
Now, you think the Cogito is grounds for being 100% certain of your existence, on the basis of an intuition... is that right?
And do you Know, as a result of this intuition, that you exist? Is that a justified true belief? What justifies it?
You're allowed to say something like "I think you must exist to think, but I'm not 100% certain of that". You can put some caveats on your answer. It's okay. I just want you to be open and honest about it.
So help me - show me that "I think, therefore I am" is 100% certain.
With something more than your intuition.
That's not really what you said though, is it?. Anyway, I'll take the belated honest answer given here, you don't know. Wonderful.
I don't necessarily think there is more than intuition there. Maybe it is just intuition. It's an intuition that it seems most philosophers share, including even Corvus believe it or not.
Do you think I shouldn't be 100% sure because it's an intuition?
I think you know plenty of things, like that I'm a bit of a twat, that this is a post on at best a second-rate forum, that you are reading this sentence - and all without the need for an absolutely firm foundation.
So to that end, I've been arguing that the Cogito is not as firm as folk otherwise suppose.
That'll do. We can leave Wittgenstein and Ordinary Language for another time.
I don't know that I NEED an absolute foundation anyway. I don't agree with the cogito because I NEED to agree with the cogito. I agree with it because I read it and it resonates as truthful. Descartes ran a thought experiment where he doubted everything he could doubt, and then struggled to doubt two final things: he thinks, and he exists. He could doubt physical reality, he could doubt the existence of other minds, he could doubt the existence of gods or dogs or whatever, but if he doubted thought, the wall he hits is that that doubt is a thought...
I don't NEED to be 100% certain of cogito. I would be content being 99.99...% certain of cogito (or less, if there was a reason to be less).
Perhaps it's an intuition, but it's a unique intuition because there are multiple layers of reflexivity in it. It's a self referential intuition, because it's an intuition about the very things that allow you to have intuitions. It's a thought about thought itself. It's existence questioning it's own existence. It gives it a very different flavour from most other institutions. It feels that way to me.
One can maintain that cogito is valid.
Proving it is another matter.. if you don't get it you don't get it.
I did bow out from this thread, but you have directed your post with your poorly reasoned writings to me, misleading my points. Hence I am briefly back for pointing out the problems in your post.
You totally distorted the meaning of the word "Therefore" in your claims. Therefore means by the result of, for that reason, consequently. Therefore it has implications of chronology and cause and effect transformation for the antecedent being the past, or cause, and the descendant to imply the result, consequence and effect.
If you deny that standard meaning, then you are denying the general principle of linguistic semantics. And that is what you have done to mislead the argument and further present the nonsense.
Have a good think about these example sentences.
I drank, therefore I got tipsy. You are claiming that Therefore has no implication of chronology or cause-effect consequence. Therefore you are claiming that "you got tipsy therefore you drank." is the same meaning as the previous example. This is nonsense.
It rained therefore the ground got wet. You are saying it is OK to say, The ground is wet, therefore it rained. No. They are not the same meaning, and the latter clearly doesn't make sense.
"Therefore" has the meaning of consequence, resulting from the antecedent. Therefore, I think therefore I am saying that because you think, as a consequence you are, you exist.Your denial and distortion in that case by totally misleading the meaning of the word just sounded nonsense babble.
You are therefore you think just means that because you exist, you can think. If you didn't exist, then you cannot think. Nothing more to it apart from the logical illustration, your mental activities are only possible because you exist. Nothing wrong with that statement logically and ontologically, is it?
I have presented in my previous messages the formal logic how the Cogito is false, and if you examined the logical proof steps, you would know that it only makes sense because there are consequential, cause-effect links between the two events on both sides of Therefore.
The shape p?q is invalid under a broad definition of invalid, yes. Before you question me on what I mean by "broadly invalid", I will quote flannel quoting the SEP:
A notion of validity seems to imply that there are premises and a conclusion, which p?q does not have. So under a broader notion of invalid (where validity does not even apply), p?q would be invalid, yes.
Quoting Banno
The translation of cogit? ergo sum is "I think therefore I am", nothing else.
Quoting Banno
First-person singular of the present indicative tense of the verb cogit?re.
If you are asking what Descartes' argument is, I summarised it a few posts above a few times. For the actual argument, I can only recommend the books.
Quoting Banno
Descartes did not put his argument in syllogistic form, so there are a few ways you could translate it. Still, I will concede that is not Descartes' argument.
Quoting Banno
If you are using ? as material implication, is this https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(p~5q),p|=q circular? The problem for me is again that the first premise is unproven, not that it is circular.
Quoting Banno
Descartes' argument itself is not an intuition, it is a full-fledged argument as I have shown and as can be verified in the books. It relies on intuitions, like any argument does. An intuition is a belief that is not proven by inference or by experiment. Descartes is not worried to try to prove everything, he uses hyperbolic doubt, not unbounded doubt, so he does not doubt things that could not be otherwise (something thinking but not existing, or 2+2=5).
Quoting Banno
If the OP does not wish to doubt our basic intuitions of reason, which would undermine reason itself, Descartes' argument would count as something certain.
But then again, now OP seems to be sure even of things that he has no way of knowing for sure, such as the day of his birth.
Well put.
If you define swimming as propulsion through water, then being wet is contained in, or comes along with, or is a consequence of, swimming.
So therefore here isnt pointing to a conclusion; it is pointing to a property or aspect of the premise. Swimming includes being wet. You say swimming you have already splashed some water on the statement.
I think therefore I am works like that.
I am isnt a conclusion. Its as much the premise as the conclusion. Its just a premise that self-certifies its fact as a premise.
The cogito statement is an attempt to define self-certification.
All of the logical analysis is good, instructive of logic itself, pushing us all to clarify what we see here. But none of the logical analysis of the cogito syllogism really addresses the content of what Descartes was observing.
No matter how meaningless or meaningful we make the statement I think therefore I am, it would be more on point to talk about making meaning then whatever meaning is made.
I am making the cogito look meaningless, therefore I am. Making is the point. Something being always remains here and that is what Descartes said was certain about.
In a proposition, it is. You are trying best to make the point. I can see that. But we are talking within the syntactic and semantic realm with no additives. If you beg for the possible assumptions and allowances into all the expressions, then there would be other folks keep coming back with some other possible assumptions in the expressions and sentences under analysis. It shouldn't be allowed.
I'm pleased that this is being spelled out explicitly. I can assure you, most people on this forum don't share your view on this, most philosophers in general don't, most logicians don't. "Therefore" doesn't have the chronological relationship you think it has - it CAN flow in that direction, but the chronology can flow in the other direction as well.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mcvickerb/problem_solving/logic/simple_logic_form.htm#:~:text=The%20first%20example&text=All%20rainy%20days%20(A)%20are,a%20cloudy%20day%20(B).
The two top examples on this page from California State University show a reversed chronology, where A therefore B involves a B that happened before A. (The second example might be debatable, the first less so)
Bylaw is not denying basic language or logic, you are.
"I am wet, therefore I swim." doesn't make sense, as "I think, therefore I am." doesn't make sense.
"Think" doesn't warrant for anything. "Think" means "think".
Read the first line of his post again, and see the strawman you created.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No need to invent your own quotes
:ok:
Quoting Banno
Funny how you are the one who is playing the skeptic now :snicker: the tables turn
I could invent my own sentence with "therefore" but without reference to an institution, you're just as likely to say "you just made that sentence up and it's stupid". If I reference an institution, that counter doesn't hold.
What is your reasoning that my point is not correct? Please tell us. Don't lean on the others' shoulders or hide behind their shadows.
Is it about the word 'therefore'? Is it about denying the antecedent?
When you say "If you deny that standard meaning, then you are denying the general principle of linguistic semantics", that cant be settled by you and I without reference to outside sources. YOU don't define the word "therefore" for everyone else, YOU don't define the "standard" for everyone else, and neither do I.
The "standard meaning" of a term can only be confirmed or denied by references to outside sources. That's what "standard" kinda means - it's a popularity contest, essentially. How am I supposed to prove something's popular without being able to point you to any evidence of its popularity?
YOU said he's using it in the non-standard way, so perhaps you can show me by example - how can you prove that his use is non-standard, without referencing outside sources?
Words are lost at your groundless babbles. Do you realise my post were written after carefully checking the official sources for the definition?
For checking out definitions, sure it is a must. But for saying "the other folks don't agree with you." Or UOC said otherwise, and basing that for your judgement for right or wrong, I would say, is not really making sense.
This feels very assymetrical.
Do you not recall you suddenly out of blue, clashing into my post with your saying "the other folks don't agree with you. so you are wrong"?
I was then, asking you for your ground for the claims, and your own reasonings and explanations, why my points were wrong.
Other folks disagreeing with you, and agreeing with other things, is how standards about word usage are set.
Still hopeful are you?
Sorry I am not sure what you are even talking about. Now you are talking about some apples suddenly. I thought we were talking about your reasons and explanations for your claims.
We're having a meta conversation about why outside sources are relevant when there's a disagreement about how words are defined as a standard.
Do you have a link to your outside source? When you link to an outside source, I promise I won't say anything like "Don't lean on the others' shoulders or hide behind their shadows".
Yeah, no blaming you. It is a bit irritating to see him popping up with most smarmy useless comments with nothing useful or helpful contributions to the discussions when we are trying to clarify the issues in haze.
Therefore is to mean, as a result of, consequence of.
Please google Therefore for its meaning. It is everywhere. No need for link.
I swim therefore I am wet is correct. I am wet, therefore I swim, is not correct.
I drank therefore I am tipsy is correct. I am tipsy, therefore I drank, is not.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/therefore#:~:text=(%C3%B0e%C9%99%CA%B3f%C9%94%CB%90%CA%B3%20),a%20logical%20result%20or%20conclusion.
You use therefore to introduce a logical result or conclusion.
So the question is, can you derive a logical result or conclusion, where the *thing you're concluding* preceded, in time, the premises you used to get to that logical result or conclusion?
I think you can.
Are you certain regarding the certainty of 100% certainty?
If think means think then think warrants for the meaning of think. So you cant say think doesnt warrant for anything.
No one is saying I am, therefore I think.
Its like you are using words to try and not have a conversation.
I agree, the cogito statement can be logically deconstructed and is problematic, or tautology.
But Descartes wasnt proving he existed. He wasnt proving he was thinking. He observed that while trying to prove anything, he was existing, he was seeking proof, he was observing, he was thinking, and he observed he could not doubt any of these showed he was existing.
He stumbled upon a certain existing thing - namely stumbling.
Its an observation one cant remove from any picture, or better, from any act of picturing. Every time you are proving Flannel wrong or proving you are right, you are proving. Simple observation.
How best to codify it as a logical statement the saga continues.
And only very rare individuals who have a very fixed reading of therefore think it usually or there means chronology.
And I doubt there is a single published philosopher who took it in the sense you mean.
I don't agree with the cogito, but your interpretation of it is incorrect. It's not claiming that thinking causes or leads to existence or is prior to it.
But if you can find some philosopher discussing it in that way, let us know. They'd still be in a very tiny, tiny minority, but it'd be fascinating.
You have agreed that Therefore is to mean "result of", "consequence of" here. Result and consequence is clearly chronological and cause-effect nature. Result cannot precede Start. Consequence cannot precede cause.
And if you claim that some point or idea is wrong, then you must be prepared to provide full answer based on your own factual reasonings and logic for the claim. You cannot just claim some idea or point of someone is wrong, and then say it is wrong because the other folks don't agree with it or some authorities says so. That would make you look like a psychological biased man with emotional problems.
That's how language works. You said yourself that you looked up your definition from "official" sources. Why do you get to decide what's right because what other folks say in official sources, but I don't?
And the "consequence of" wording can work to. I know B, and as a consequence of knowing this, I also know A. I know B, therefore I know A. That doesn't mean B has to happen before A. Can you think of any examples where "I know B, therefore I know A" makes sense, even though A was true in time chronologically before B? I can.
I do. I am saying it. I think it is a more meaningful statement than "I think, therefore I am."
Saying "I think, therefore I am." is like saying "I am tipsy, therefore I drank." or "I died, therefore I am living."
I am therefore I think, is just saying, I exist, therefore I think. Without me existing, I cannot think.
No its not.
The statement is I think, therefore I am.
This is the same statement as I am thinking, therefore I am.
In the alcohol induced version we would have to say I am drinking, therefore I am. Or I am tipsy, therefore I am.
You keep missing the point, which is an observation of something existing, namely the observer in the act of observing, or simply observing is.
Observation and thinking are totally different mental operations. You are mixing the two, and it seems the source of your confusion.
The Larousse dictionary is clear:
"Donc" marks a logical conclusion. Je suis is the conclusion of je pense.
Ergo means the same as donc, Gaffiot 2016:
You see then it marks conclusion too. From "cogit?" I can conclude that "sum".
There is in fact a whole debate around the translation to English, and the fact that Latin and French don't separate imperfective present (I am doing) form prefect present (I do) like English does, resulting in "I think therefore I am" when instead it should be "I am thinking therefore I exist".
Conclusion is always consequent of the premises. You never conclude something, then list premises afterwards. Or like ByLaw suggested, you can never conclude something at the same time telling the premises. It is a temporal logical impossibility.
No publication on Descartes says "I am thinking, therefore I am." That sounds like your imagination.
It clearly says "I think, therefore I am."
Here "think" doesn't imply anything else than "think". You claimed also in your previous posts that "think" implies "exist". That is another nonsense. If think implied existence, then Descartes didn't have to say "I exist."
He could just have said "I think.". Saying anything more than that would be superfluous babble.
But Descartes weren't that daft. He said "I think, therefore I am." which means that he thinks that "think" doesn't imply "existence".
Therefore it can be concluded that "I think, therefore I am." is logically unsound, if not false statement.
You could say it is a valid statement. But false statements can be valid, if you marry them up with the matching premises.
You're absolutely right, but they does not mean the fact of the conclusion literally temporarily happened in time before the facts of the premises. Just because you write the premises first does not mean they happened first.
What is it going to take for you to consider the possibility that this might be right?
Good point. Do you have some example arguments for that?
A woman's on trial for arranging the murder of her husband, by hiring a hit man. The key piece of evidence for the prosecution is a text she sent 30 minutes after the murder - she sent a text to the murderers phone that said "Good job, he's really dead. I will pay you later"
The syllogism looks roughly like this:
She texted him that.
She would not have texted him that if it wasn't her desire to have her husband murdered.
Therefore
We can conclude it was her desire to have her husband murdered.
The conclusion happens in time before the premise.
I only eat after I become hungry.
I ate
Therefore
I must have become hungry prior to eating.
If you don't remember being hungry, but you do remember eating, you can use this logic to convince yourself you were in fact hungry.
If he committed the murder, then this glove must fit him.
He just tried to put on the glove, and it didn't fit.
Therefore
He did not commit the murder.
I think you are correct. Note the pattern though: I am [doing] therefore I am. Descarte's conclusion is flawed because it was to narrow. What defines us as Real existing beings, is the [x]ing.
Thinking, specifically, is not the ontological tool he thought it was. It has no special place in any [potential] hierarchy of Being or Reality. On the contrary, it is no less "mundane" "empty" than "painting" or "bicycling."
Any thought that "I'm bicycling therefore I am" is less persuasive than his cogito, arises as an illusion.
In fact, I would take it a step further. Thinking is proof of being. But thinking about x-ing does not bring x-ing to a "superior" ontological status, but the contrary. At the instant of thinking about x-ing, "Being" is "once removed," from Being and that Reality is displaced by the thinking.
And the conclusion of "I think" is "I am". :cry:
Quoting Corvus
Wrong.
The earliest known translation as "I am thinking, therefore I am" is from 1872 by Charles Porterfield Krauth (The Penn Monthly, Volume 3)
Then, at least a partial answer to your original question, "what can I know with 100% certainty," is "concepts." Generally, concepts can be known with 100% certainty?
Or, rather, you can be certain about "things" conceptually?
Or, is your answer revised, you cannot be certain about "100%" even conceptually?
So observing and thinking are different. I was talking about observing my own act of observing, like a self-reflection, which is like relfection, or thinking.
But I can work with that.
Granting observing and thinking are different operations, do you think thinking and being are different operations? Can you describe something that allows you to distinguish thinking from being? As in, I think distinct from I am?
x-ing. Exactly.
That is Descartes whole point.
Thinking, doubting, knowing always x-ing.
I x; therefore Im being.
How do you know it was an accurate translation? Anyway, "I am thinking" is no much different from "I think" in terms of not able to link to "I am". And thinking has objects and content. What were the content and object of "Cogito"? Je ne sais pas.
Of course they are.
Quoting Fire Ologist
All being has unique properties. When you exist, you are in some location i.e. a physical space on the earth a city or town or up on a hill, and you have mass and weight and shape. Your being can be described with the properties.
Thinking is a private mental event. It has nothing to do with being in any shape or form. I think, therefore I am, tells nothing meaningful at all apart from you are alive and able to make a linguistic expression. And every statement of "I think, therefore I am." is a subjective statement, which means nothing to the other minds apart from you.
Aside from forms like inebriated, feverish, anesthetized...
That does not matter. You said «No publication on Descartes says "I am thinking, therefore I am." That sounds like your imagination.». I showed otherwise. You are wrong.
Quoting Corvus
That is not the point at all. You are wrong, don't change subjects yet again to more nonsense.
Quoting Corvus
You yourself don't even know what you mean by these words.
Quoting Corvus
It doesn't matter, Descartes' argument is about the very act of thinking, not about what the thought is about.
Logically, semantically, and metaphysically Cogito doesn't make sense at all. "I am thinking." loses its credibility and meaning, as soon as the utterer stopped thinking and the utterance "I think". It is only valid when he is thinking. When he ended the utterance, "therefore I am." has no ground or validity, because he is not thinking anymore. This is especially the case, if you accepted the nonsensical claim that "think" implies "existence".
"Thinking" also doesn't exclude the possibility of being wrong. How many times have you thought something was the case, but found out it wasn't later on?
But in cogito, due to the absence of its content and object of cogito, it can be anything. It could have been "I think that I don't exist, therefore I am." or I think I doubt that I am, therefore I am, ...etc etc. It doesn't rule out these nonsense contradictory possibilities of implications in the expression.
Hence it appears that your claim has no logical or theoretical ground for validity. There is no compelling arguments in your claims at all apart from the empty blind declarations that my points are wrong.
With every page you switch your argument to new nonsense. Once debunked, you go on to make up more nonsense.
Quoting Corvus
More nonsense. He is of course thinking when he states "I am". The closest thing to a rebuttal to Descartes in your argument is Russell's objection which is basically a one-liner version of Cardano's argument critiquing the idea that the human subject is both subject and object of the enquiry at the same time.
Quoting Corvus
Four different people, including me, have completely eroded this claim of yours from multiple angles.
Quoting Corvus
You have never read Descartes and whatever you have read about him you have not understood.
Quoting Corvus
This is not even related to your previous paragraph. I have said before, I will spell it out again: the argument is about the ACT of thinking, NOT about what the thought is about.
Quoting Corvus
What?
Quoting Corvus
Apart from the fact you refuse to understand what material implication is, what "therefore" means, and that you have basically zero knowledge of Descartes.
Sorry mate. There is nothing making sense in your claim. You neither seem to know anything about Descartes nor logic or metaphysics. All I can advise you is to read my previous posts repeatedly, and meditate until you see some lights of wisdom.
This line you keep repeating reall could use a good inspection. If you're right about whatever you think you're right about, then this maybe gives off some sense of righteous superiority, BUT if you're wrong (and there's a lot of indications you are, if you care to pay attention to them), then... this thing you've said muliple times now, in different ways, takes on a very different tone.
You're demanding other people read your words on repeat until they come to agree with you, while yourself showing a general unwillingness to try to read and understand the arguments presented to you. There's a very narcisstic quality to this approach. And hypocritical, of course.
What would you think about a person on this forum arguing for something unambiguously untrue, like that 1 * 1 = 2 (thanks Terrence Howard), and they steadfastly held to that, and when someone disagreed for enough posts in a row, Terrence Howard says "Read my posts repeatedly until you understand that 1*1=2". How would that look to you?
That's how you look to us.
NOT, for the record, because you disagree with the cogito. That's fine. I don't care about that. Because of your misunderstanding of what the word 'therefore' does in logic, and because of your insistence on the validity of denying the antecedent, mainly.
1*1=2, read my posts repeatedly until you agree with me. That's what you look like to the rest of us when you make those points and say those words.
You also seem to be not able to read English sentences properly. How could anyone discuss anything with you when you cannot read, but distort the others' writings to that degree? Please I would advise you to read it again. I wasn't demanding anything. I was advising. Please stop keep writing nonsense wasting your and others time. You don't seem to know difference between advising and demanding, or you cannot read words properly.
People are providing arguments, giving links, and you ignore everything and say "read my posts until you agree with me", it's ridiculous. There's no way anybody could take that seriously.
I get to ignore you, but you have to read my words on repeat. No way dude.
People aren't narcissistic as a matter of free willed choice. So despite how natural it seems to do so, it doesn't really make sense to blame people for being narcissistic.
Remember when you insisted therefore can only be used one way, and you had mountains of reasons to change your mind thrown at you that you ignored?
These are your distortions that you can just give up on. You don't need to hold so tightly to your mistakes.
I would drop this; the nail that sticks out gets hammered down, if you catch my drift. There are plenty of other places your posts might be appreciated while you let this cool off, such as in my thread in which I responded to you.
Good advice TM. Yeah I left the thread while back, but they kept on writing to me with the distorted facts, hence I dropped back in briefly to clarify the biases and prejudices they were spreading.
I more or less had to keep repeating my points for the clarification. In the end, all I could do was, advising them to read my posts repeatedly until they get the points right. :)
Speaking of.
Quoting ToothyMaw
Denying the antecent has nothing to do with social pressure, now :roll:
Let me suggest a different approach to the question What can we be 100% sure of?. It regards mathematics.
Suppose you put two coins to the table in front of you. After repeating the process, you count the result and the score is five. Can we even imagine such an outcome and wouldn't we rather recount or suspect, we are under the influence of alcohol? Even if we concede, that mathematical proof is 100% certain, there remains the question: what does mathematics have to do with occurrences in nature? The interesting fact being, that all so-called laws of nature are expressed in the form of mathematical equations.
Can we be 100% certain that the sum of angles in a triangle is 180 or that two straight lines never intersect? Certainly not - considering Riemannian geometry. So the question boils down to: either we can never be certain about regularities in nature and the validity of natural science or we have to re-think our concept of material reality and its connection to a seemingly abstract endeavour like mathematics.
Notice that he has just complimented Corvus on his stubbornness, but not actually agreed with his reasoning about denying the Antecedent.
Sticking to your guns no matter what is the only virtue here. Not logic, not evidence, not considering the arguments of other people.
Thank you.
That is, and this is the point being made, "I think therefore I am", if parsed as "p?q", is not a tautology, is invalid, and need not, at least on that account, be accepted as 100% certain. It appears that this point is missed by some of our brethren, although not by you. The error to which I wish to draw attention was of supposing that the following argument is valid, therefore "I think ? I exist" is true.
Quoting Lionino
Thank you.
Just to be clear then, this is an argument for one's existence, and not an argument for Cogito ergo sum; if it where considered an argument for Cogito ergo sum then it presumes its conclusion.
Quoting Lionino
The argument is often taken from here:
Now what I have asked is for someone to present the structure of the argument. If you have indeed done so, then I've missed it.
For example, it might be tempting to pars the argument into a first-order logic, with "a exists" understood as ?(x)(x=a); That might give "I think therefore I am" as
Which is valid. But this just says that if some individual has a property, then there is an individual. It works not just for thinking but for being pink. For all x, if x is pink then there is something that is pink. This seems not to capture the quality of the Cogito.
Now I do not think there is any clear and distinct way (see what I did there?) to set out a logical structure for the argument given in the Second Meditation. In that regard, I do not see that it is an inference.
More can also be said concerning hyperbolic doubt. In On Certainty Wittgenstein shows that doubt is a language game, and so presupposes the features of language. To doubt some statement is to take other statements as undoubted. Here I will side with Gassendi, suggesting that Descartes has gone much further than he needed, and as a result concluded much less than he might have.
Descartes might have had more sympathy for @Corvus' argument than folk hereabouts suppose.
That is because Descartes himself (or whoever is thinking about this) is a soul, a thinker, res cogitans. One of the modes of this substance res cogitans is thought. It could be that without thinking, a res cogitans does not exist, but that is because it could be that the existence of a res cogitans goes hand in hand with thought as an operation. That however does not apply to res extensa, whose attribute is being extended in space and modes are things such as colour, movement, and temperature. Res extensae do not cease to exist when they stop thinking because rocks don't think at all.
Even in the case of res cogitantes, it will depend on how broad your definition of "thought" is, as so that if there are other modes to the soul other than thought, which could be desire or memory, he would not cease to exist by just stopping to think. But when we pay attention to it, it feels as though our desires and memories are kind of thoughts themselves, which is why Descartes says that:
In the same paragraph before he was talking about movement and physical feelings. Those things are separable from him, but not thought.
But that is not Corvus' argument, he did not bring substances, modes, or attributes a single time. His is the misunderstanding of the conjunction "therefore", which I cleared here.
[hide="Reveal"]I am not 100% sure of the all the details of the text above especially when the terminology revolving modes, substance and thought is somewhat fuzzy, even in Descartes. So I welcome corrections, even though most likely none will come. In any case, the information is still generally correct.[/hide]
I will reply to the preceding post later.
If you think the cogito illogical and doesnt show anything at all, you miss the point, just as, if you think the cogito doesnt show how the obvious is an important philosophical observation, you miss the point. Those focused here on whether the cogito statement is valid or sound are not addressing what the statement is trying to say (which is obvious to a 10 yr old).
There are a lot of people talking past each other here, from two different directions.
Addressing the logical statement is a worthy exercise in logical analytics. But you can never conclude I am is not something. I am already is. That I am is as prior as it is immediately present; it need not be a conclusion for it to already be proven.
This is why it is hard to make a logical proof out of the observation, the recognition, the thought, I am. We are taking a real, visceral, present moment, a simple obvious moment like reading these words right now, as I am here writing these words words right now, this very second where I am needs no explanation, a moment like this, and then we are trying to make a formulaic logical expression to re-capture this moment and codify a logical explanation on top of it. This is obviously difficult to do, and maybe I think therefore I am doesnt quite recapture it.
Dont mislead yourself, if you are misleading, then you are. This is both obvious, and once known, once conceptualized as I am, an example of the certain knowledge science seeks.
Because there is an unstated premise (many depending on how deep you wanna go). Not a big deal.
Quoting Banno
You have:
Quoting Lionino
I will restate this syllogism at the end of the post to reply to something else.
Quoting Banno
Like the law of non-contradiction. There was no such thing as dialetheias back in Descartes' times, and many would say that there is still no such thing as dialetheias. As I said, Descartes uses hyperbolic doubt, not unbounded doubt. He makes the point here:
Descartes was interested in proving whether something exists, not proving whether LEM comes from LNC or LNC comes from LEM.
Quoting Banno
Let's say pink then.
U(x)(Px ? ?(y)(x=y))
U(x)(Tx ? ?(y)(x=y))
These two arguments are identical in form but different in content, the difference in content being the statement that x instantiates the property of thinking or of being pink. The crux is that we may doubt that anything is pink, but we cannot doubt that we think, because when we doubt that we doubt, we are doubting, and doubting is a type of thinking and that is self-evident aka clear and distinct.
P1 Everything that is pink exists.
P2 I am pink (whatever that means).
C I exist.
A1 Everything that thinks exists.
A2 I think.
B I exist.
P1 and A1 are evidently true, as you have agreed. C and B follow from their premises, however P2 may be objected, A2 may not, ever.
He agreed with A1?
It seems like it:
Quoting Banno
I mean, seriously, who am 'I' to weigh in and say that 'therefore' does not mean 'which causes' in the cogito if I don't exist.
And all the philosophers who think that Descartes meant a different 'therefore' suffer the same ontological absence. I am suffering this absence, but I am not.
Do a lot of other philosophers think that? What do they think "therefore" means?
And I do not mean the cogito is right because it says this. I just find it miraculous that it is contentious what was intended by donc/therefore.
If it didn't mean that, then it would mean that Descartes' conclusion included the idea that one could think while not existing, at least for a moment - if it was chronological or causal
the left of the cogito causing that which is on the right in the cogito.
And you just ain't gonna find anybody, including Descartes saying that's what he was saying.
We could, of course, skip the middleman (in this case) of Descartes and forget donc, forget therefore and just ask each other do you think that one mus exist if one is thinking. Or to put it the other way. Could something that does not exist think? That's what D decided was self-evidently not the case.
For me to tricky part is what exists, not so much that existing/thinking is going on.
yeah of course, I misunderstood your previous post.
Quoting Bylaw
Yeah, which would make it VERY puzzling why philosophers as a group like the cogito very much. Obviously it doesn't mean that - if it did, that would be the FIRST counter argument you hear against it when you look for what people think about it - rather than some obscure counter you've only ever heard once in your life, from a guy who thinks fallacies are valid deductions.
Hey, how the hell did he think that was self-evident at all?
In philosophy it might well be worth exploring and Idealists, at least some of them might be saying that in some way. But it's not what Descartes was saying.
Which is the person's fault to try to interpret a view without having read at the very least the chapter in which the view is contained. Realistically, to really understand Cartesian epistemology you don't need much, perhaps the Discourse would be enough, but the metaphysics, which is relevant for the epistemology, can only be well understood after reading the Meditations, the Principles, and the Objections, at least.
Quoting Bylaw
Pages 20 to 30 of this very thread would blow your mind.
I avoided parts of this thread to prevent that.
I have a question: for Descartes, what do you think he thought 'existing' meant exactly?
For me, and people may disagree with this (if so, id be interested to know your views and why) I would say that Descartes wanted proof that the world, and he himself, were as he perceived them. (basically, the usual, everyday world we know and... love-- unless we are having a bad day)
As an aside here, I'd like to point out that I don't think it is such a wild thing to assume that most people, including myself, do actually believe that the world is as we perceive it.
Quoting flannel jesus
My point here is I think that this is no different to most, if not all, of us... excluding the 'strangest' of people who believe the world is being secretly run by aliens with glowing eyes and antennas on their heads! Most people do not need to be 100 percent sure because most of us are fairly certain things are as we know them to be. (I am not having a go at you here by the way, flannel jesus. From what I can tell--and it can sometimes be hard to tell when you only have messages on a forum to go by-- you seem like a fair and reasonable person. I try to be so too.)
However, the whole point, I believe, was that Descartes wanted absolute certainty that the world was not totally different than how he perceived it, such as, he wanted to be sure that he was not living an illusion and the world was not really like The Matrix, or something like that. (My imagination could make up hundreds of different weird and wonderful scenarios of what the world 'could' be like without us knowing it. I do not believe them, but still, it 'could' be like that.) But because I believe Descartes would not have been satisfied with discovering what the world/he 'may' be like--because he wanted to know FOR SURE--and the fact that he thought the cogito was enough to give him that certainty, because of this, I think that is why people are contesting it-- at least those who believe that there is no such thing as absolute certainty. However, the problem that seems to occur from his point of view is that, while a skeptic has at their disposal pretty much anything they can imagine to throw doubt on him, he has limited himself to absolute certainty because he wanted to find something to rely on absolutely that skepticism couldn't throw doubt on. (Okay, so I know some people believe the Cogito did this, and some do not, but anyway...)
Therefore, the 'I am' part of the cogito, in my view, relates to him existing, but specifically in the form that he perceives of himself (like a 'normal' every day person) I'm probably going to regret asking this but... does anyone else disagree with this? Oh and also, it would be good to hear from those who agree with it too.
This isn't an uncommon criticism, and I definitely have time for it.
If you allow the "I" to take a more amorphous form, "I think therefore I am" could be interpreted more like "there is thought, therefore there is something" - and the word "I" fits in there not as a clearly defined ego but just as the experiential reason for why the thinker knows "there is thought".
You, whatever "you" might refer to, knows there is thought because you're experiencing thoughts.
That is not what Descartes wanted. If you want to know "why" you have to read what he wrote.
I get what you're saying, but why do you think he did the meditations in the first place? What was he trying to achieve? What was he trying to find out? Do you think he was only trying to find proof that he was just a bunch of thoughts? Or some undefined form with a bunch of thoughts? Would have have minded what that 'form' was? Would have have not wanted to know? For example, if he was an evil demon with a bunch of thoughts, wouldn't he have wanted to know? Or would he have just been happy knowing that he existed in any form, evil demon or grotesque monster included, with a bunch of thoughts?
I feel like if someone wants to follow Descartes process, but maybe they want to reject the ego, the "I", part of it, they can rephrase it in a way that makes sense without the ego, which is what I was trying to do in my previous post.
Maybe he simply couldn't apply it as deeply as considering the possibility that he himself could be the evil demon (and who could blame him? Who wants to face the thought that they could be an evil demon?)
Also, I didn't mean to type the word silly above. Typo. I've changed it to "clearly".
Don't you think he would want to know if he was or wasn't?
No because that is not the point. Later in his metaphysics he refutes (or so he thinks) the existence of an evil demon.
I'm not sure how much demons have to do with his thought process for the cogito anyway. Seems unrelated to me.
It seems related because it is an example of how much i believe he would want to know. I think that when he says, 'I think therefore I am" he imagines himself to be as he perceives himself, and ordinary person. If someone said to him, "How do you know you are not an evil demon?" I think he would want to prove otherwise.
He never wrote anything about that, so I have no idea how he feels about that idea. I think the "I" in "I think therefore I am" is a lot more amorphous than that, it's not referencing any thing in particular. He's not confirming he's a human, or a mammal, or has a brain - he's only confirming 2 things, the existence of his thoughts, and his own existence. Maybe he's a mammal with a brain, maybe he's a demon - these things are debatable - but either way, he thinks and he is.
This is true. But I am pretty sure that he would want to know if he was a demon or not, for example. I think anyone would. (I know i would!)
And without knowing, wouldn't he be living in an illusion like the one he was trying to prove that he wasn't?
LOL I really hope I'm not!!!!
I did have a cream cake last night at 10.30pm. That does seem a bit devilish :grimace:
As for me, I don't mind. My favourite picnic food is deviled eggs.
Oh my gosh! I am not kidding, I have some angel cakes in my cupboard! How spooky! (I just spent ages trying to figure out how to post a picture ive just taken of them, but I couldn't figure it out, so I put it as my profile picture lol)
Watch out for those deviled eggs!
You keep doing this. I ask for a demonstration that "Whatever thinks, exists", and you reply with a demonstration that if "Whatever thinks, exists" then I exist:
Quoting Lionino
I am after a proof of the first line. The syllogism is not a proof of the first line of the syllogism.
I seem to have to keep making this point, and I am not enjoying doing so.
This is more to the case. But there is a problem here, in the move from a variable to an individual...
to
For clarity, let's move to free logic, adopting the definition ?!a = ?(x)(x=a).
What Descartes wanted was
(edited) But again, this is invalid. It needs the additional deduction Pa ? ?!a, which requires ?!a.
That is, the argument does not lead to the conclusion that I think - that individual. All it concludes is that something thinks - whatever is the referent of the variable x.
This is I take it the point Russell makes, probably set out a bit more formally than he was able to do with the state of logic in his time.
Quoting Lionino
There is a difference between concluding that a particular individual is pink - "Fred is pink" - and concluding that something is pink - "x is pink" .
That's why we differentiate Px and Pa in first order logic.
Quite right.
In so far as I have a purpose here, it is to show how silly it is to rely on "I think, therefore I am".
To that end, I have been at pains to show that a certain syllogism does not show that "I think, therefore I am" is true; and that "I think, therefore I am" is not the result of an inference but is rather closer to an intuition.
It would be extraordinary if mere logic were to conclude that this or that thing exists. That is not the sort of thing logic is capable of.
"I am" does not need "I think" as a preamble.
Quoting Banno
The Madfool was a now-banned individual.
It might be better to say that If Descartes' argument is valid, then it is circular.
A good rule of thumb might be that if your logic appears to demonstrate that some particular individual thing must exist, then there is an error in your logic.
I've got a book for you...
(Granted, it would make more sense if it was the Logic)
This is the first time you ask for a demonstration of that specific premise. The rest of the time you were asking for Descartes' argument as an inference. Even then, I preemptively addressed the first premise multiple times:
Quoting Lionino
Quoting Lionino
Quoting Lionino
Is that enough for the first premise?
It also leads me to think about how I hesitated in answers in primary school, wishing to be 'certain' of answers before volunteering answers at school. It raises the whole issue of doubt and how the spectrum of doubt and certainty exist in life and so many questions of philosophy.
I also wonder about the extent to which doubt and certainty are desired. Would I like all the answers to personal life and the existential questions of life to appear in the clouds as absolutes, Or, would it shortcut the philosophy quest, and the whole phenomenon of knowing and unknowing? T
To what extent is 'unknowing' the important variable for all philosophical exploration and innovation?
Well, no, but I won't do chapter and verse. See, you took over an argument from someone else - where they were claiming that to be the whole of the Cogito. And so I at first presumed you were also claiming it to be the whole thing.
I hope we are now agreed that
is a furphy.
Let's look at "Whatever thinks, exists".
I'm making the point that it does not parse validly (is not a tautology) in first order logic anymore than in propositional logic.
Do you agree?
"Whatever thinks, exists" is not a tautology, yes.
Is that it is an intuition enough for it to be 100% certain? Folk are 100% certain about all sorts of things.
Is it enough for it to be known with 100% certainty? Well, what justification is there for this intuition?
Thanks for your patience.
If you mean it with "100% certain", Descartes' achievement is not immune to silly doubts like "Do I really know what 'is' means?". In any case, no one can convince oneself that one does not exist.
You may not remember, but some 15 pages ago, our roles were switched here, and I was defending skepticism.
Quoting Banno
Using Bayes theorem, everything that relies on something else is already not 100%.
Quoting Banno
To be clear, I agree that the intuition is not logically valid just like p?q is not valid. Not that it is furphy, whatever that means.
Here's a list of your replies to me.
SO, if we go back to the beginning, I gather you were being ironic.
Again, I find myself puzzling as to what we might be disagreeing about.
Agreed. :up:
Quoting Fire Ologist
You still need to give some merit to Cogito. It is undeniable that it is a historical byproduct of ideas, which made start for the new philosophical tradition based on the method of doubt.
Supporting Cogito blindly as if it is a logical statement like some twidledee twiddledum folks in this thread would make them sound asinine.
However totally ignoring and rejecting Cogito as useless, and claiming, therefore it is not even worthwhile to discuss about it would make the interlocutor appear to be obtuse.
Well, yes, in the first four I am defending skepticism.
Quoting Banno
No, I would still defend skepticism. The fact that I have to defend Descartes against improper criticism has nothing to do with that.
I think the "problem" with Descarte's thought experiment is the "I". There are likely a few reasons but I'll focus on one. The problem of Time.
You are correct about his conclusion fitting the present. But this "I" which "is," is not the same "I" as the "I" which was nanoseconds ago thinking. The "I" is successive. Just as there isnt really a linear narrative, there are only successive nows.
Descarte's discovery was really "thinking therefore is-ing,." It does not rest thus no "am"; it does not rest thus no "I".
Interesting point. I wouldn't describe Cogito as some insane moronic babble. But it is obvious that it has many rational incongruities to be classed as a logical statement. It is a subjective psychological expression at best, which reminds us to use method of doubt in all reasonings.
But you agree with the fundamental premise of it, which is that one must exist in order to think.
I totally agree. Or should say agreeing is.
Ha! :up:
:up:
Query: why not thinking is existing in the present; beyond that, "I" and "one" is constructed to suit logic/meaning?
I'm not disagreeing. I'm wondering.
I fully agree with you. At the risk of offending, I think the poetry metaphor applies to much metaphysics. Perhaps not in the conventional way we view poetry. But, at the end of the day, isn't metaphysics necessarily metaphorical? This does not mean it is not deeply enriching to our particular form of existence. On the contrary, like all art, it is very enriching.
For Descartes, ultimately, duration is an attribute of a substance, so it would remain through time; but for him, that is only possible because God allows it. It is a convoluted double cop-out, and the two parts don't seem like they fit here. Which is why I made this thread a while ago https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14823/reasons-for-believing-in-the-permanence-of-the-soul/p1
Quoting ENOAH
There are additional issues to that. When we conclude that that thought isn't ours and we only have a memory of it, we can no longer conclude that anything exists, as that memory is no proof of anything thinking; if anything, it is proof that I exist, because I am remembering it, and remembering is thinking. Furthermore, "someone thinks therefore something is" is a phrase, it is hard to articulate (and perhaps that is the issue) how that phrase translates to thoughts, ¿is it a single thought or 2+ thoughts one after the other? If the latter, perhaps the first "something" is not the same as the second "something".
If the former, when we say "I think" in "I think therefore I am", we can be talking about "I think therefore I am" itself, then it can be taken as self-fulfilling.
Sadly, this thread has reached 1.1 replies.
Very informative.
Also, dishearteningly, so.
Logic. Damn!
It seems there is no place for the thinker to rest their weary head.
Just adding to the "Same." chorus. :up:
...unless Descartes was stating the discovery from his meditations is that "he" is a thinking thing.
In which case he could just as easily conclude that he is a breathing thing; a heartbeats thing; and so on, shaved down to the is-ing thing.
But no. Not if it was he who simultaneously decided he was a dualist. Was it he? Or did we superimpose that upon him?
Is the poem sufficient to give you 100% certainty?
Then what?
I can be certain I'm thinking, and existing.
The poem doesn't grant certainty, the poem is just a poem. The poem is there to trigger you to think.
I don't follow that.
Quoting flannel jesus
So what grants certainty? Is "I must exist in order to think" an inference? Or an intuition?
You don't follow what? That this poem is stated as concisely at possible for aesthetic purposes, but implies a more complete argument within?
Quoting Banno
My thoughts. My thoughts grant certainty to me. Descartes thoughts grant certainty to him.
So it's a poem and an argument? In your own words, it's not Quoting flannel jesus
You were convinced by an incomplete thought?
Quoting flannel jesus
All of them, or just the incomplete ones?
Walk away, then.
The question is, what can I know with 100% certainty? You seem to be claiming the Cogito as the source of your certainty. I'm asking how that works. What you have said in the last few posts does not appear coherent.
I don't think it is I who is not being serious.
I told you what I am convinced by, and I didn't say it was an incomplete thought.
You said:
"the cogito as a poem, rather than a complete thought"
"It's not the poem that gives certainty"
"this poem... implies a more complete argument within"
"My thoughts grant certainty to me"
So, what is the compete argument that grants you certainty? Presumably: "I must exist in order to think". But that is not an argument, or at the least is not valid. Sure, something is doing the thinking. Why presume it is you?
Are you just stipulating that you are the thinking?
But then, why did you laugh at the suggestion from @Corvus that you cease to exist when not thinking?
Presumably for you all this holds together somehow. I'm not seeing it.
Then perhaps you might explain it to me?
Quoting ENOAH
Are you suggesting that the arguments in the Second Meditation are metaphors? Metaphors for what? They look very much like arguments to me.
Ooo I take that back. I hadn't logged in. And now the reply I write as an edit to this post has gone into the aether.
Roughly, I take Russell as making a point about the illegitimacy of the move from "Something is thinking" to "I exist". See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-free/#inexp
Unless I know it is me, I can't say it is thinking, as I only have access to my own thoughts, not anyone else's.
Quoting Lionino
Quoting Banno
Because things don't cease to exist when they don't think. And his suggestion was based on denying the antecedent, which is bunk.
Well, they do if they are by definition thinking things. That's rather the point. It seems that the defenders of the Cogito now want something like "I am by definition that which thinks", which is not "I think therefore I am", and which has it's own difficulties. In particular, the bit where you stop existing when you go to sleep.
Yes, you went into great lengths about the difference between extended substance and cognitive substance, but having to invoke dualism to solve this issue counts against the whole enterprise.
But it is denied...
Here's my position again. The enterprise of the Second Meditation relies on doubt, and doubt is a language game. Doubting some proposition implies a range of other propositions which are held to be true - if only those that set the doubt out. Hence doubt is only possible if some things are held to be indubitable.
The things which need to be taken as granted in order to accept the Cogito include far more than one'e existence. One has to be a member of a language community...
And all this is to show that the very idea of finding some foundation that is "100% certain" is somewhat fraught.
Yup. Its hard to say anything without presupposing. Even hard for you to say It is denied without presupposing all of the logic and games surrounding the words involved.
So it is hard to say what Descartes was trying to say. Established that. Cogito isnt perfect. But you havent denied the existence of saying (something, anything, any game), and the saying is all you need to see what is said about existence.
But if you are saying "I am" will do, without the "I think, therefore...", then we can agree.
..saying that.
I have been.
saying that.
I say, therefore I am.
(Just ignore the therefore if the game of expressing I say or I am as a conclusion rather than a premise or just a present fact is no fun.)
You have this wrong. The logically entailed negation of 'I think, therefore I exist' is 'I don't exist, therefore I don't think' not 'I don't think therefore I don't exist'.
It's a rookie mistake you're making.
I tried reading Philosophy in Korean which is my native language, but it was actually more difficult to understand. I think problem is the translation.
Why he or she didn't mention this when it was pointed out how 'therefore' was being interpreted i this thread, I have no idea. I realize that the parallel error is happening in the symbolic logic, but perhaps it is inspired by not really getting 'therefore' (which can be used a few ways), as somewhat tricky word in a second language.
Could you forward your full explanation why it is?
Quoting Janus
You obviously don't seem know what had been tried there for the proof. Do you even understand what logical proofing means?
'If I am thinking I must exist'
It follows that
'If I don't exist I am not thinking'.
It doesn't follow that
'If I not thiing I don't exist'
Your hypothesis make no sense. Do you reject the standard meaning of "therefore" from the dictionaries? Symbolic logic works for all the languages in the world.
You seem to be just citing what is on the internet or textbook for symbolic logic truth table.
For proof process, you must apply your own reasoning to the statement you want to prove or disprove.
Anyhow it was the last attempt to make the dualist understand the core problems. As Banno put it correctly, Cogito is not logically provable. It is an intuition. It is a subjective psychological solipsistic statement.
Please note. In the Internet truth table, P and Q has the truth values, which were given as either T or F. Hence they can make axiomatic assumptions. It is still assumptions based on the truth values given to P and Q.
But here, we are not assuming any truth values at all to P and Q. Hence we can make most realistic assumptions and assertions against the original assumption based on the reasonable inference. I hope you see my point in the proof process.
You were citing something you saw on the internet truth table, and citing that as if all proof process must follow that, or it is wrong was your claim, which was really wrong and silly.
Quoting Banno
They do to me too. Convincing or not, they are edifying. And much more than I know has likely been built upon, or because of, them.
Quoting Banno
I recognize this may be excrutiating to some, maybe you. They can also be satisfying as poetry; read as metaphor. I believe you might have been rhetorical, so rather than offend you, I'll withhold any elaboration. But when you read the meditation, think of Descartes as an existing human being, grappling with a profound personal struggle. For my part, I defy you not to see the poetry.
Anyway, I respect where you're coming from and I won't trouble you with anything further on the topic.
Obviously, reading metaphysics strictly for its logic and reasoning is the orthodox approach.
IF I must exist in order to think (or do anything else for that matter) then it follows that there can be no thinking or anything else done by me if I don't exist.
It doesn't follow that if am not thinking or doing any other particular thing, that I don't exist.
Whether or not 'I think therefore I am' can be logically proven is irrelevant. It cannot be disproven by the spurious entailment you adduced.
Did you notice his bizarre understanding of the word "therefore" already as well? It's going to make it hard to reason with him, if he doesn't have a solid grasp of the basic English words we use to talk about reason and logic.
Causal Interpretation:
In English, therefore is a logical connective that indicates a conclusion drawn from preceding premises.
However, in Korean, the equivalent word ???? (geureom-eoro) can sometimes be interpreted more causally or chronologically.
Korean speakers might associate it with a cause-and-effect relationship, even though the intended meaning is more about logical inference.
Context Matters:
The context in which therefore appears plays a crucial role.
Philosophical discussions often involve nuanced reasoning, and the precise meaning depends on the overall context and philosophical background.
Alternative Translations:
To emphasize the logical aspect, one could use alternative translations like ????? (gyeollonjeog-eulo), which directly means conclusively.
Using ??? (geulaeseo) is another option, which is less causal and more focused on the logical connection.
Or it could just be a coincidence that the native speakers here are pointing out thattherefore is being taken by Corvus as causal and chronological, when in fact this is not the case, AND this is real possibility for native speakers of Korean to take the word in those incorrect ways.
Editing post now I have time to take a look...
t=I think
e=I exist
Quoting Corvus
t?e
Quoting Corvus
¬t?¬e
And the syllogism is...
Quoting Corvus
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e)
Quoting Corvus
¬(¬t?¬e)
Quoting Corvus
?~(t?e)
Giving
(((t?e)?(¬t?¬e))?¬(¬t?¬e))?¬(t?e)
Which is valid.
Check my working.
Quoting Janus
t?e negated is ¬(t?e))
but
¬(t?e) ? (¬e?¬t) is invalid, and
¬(t?e) ? (¬t?¬e) is invalid.
¬(t?e) ? (¬e?t)?
(fixed link)
As I read it @Corvus purports to prove that 'I think therefore I am/ is false, but I think his purported proof is invalid. It doesn't seem appropriate to talk about 'I think therefore I exist' as being valid or invalid, because it is not really an argument, but a premise.
You could put it as
P 1: If I am thinking then I must exist
P2: I am thinking
C: Therefore I exist.
That seems valid but it may not be sound I suppose, although it is hard to see what is wrong with it. Perhaps Corvus misinterprets the argument as claiming that thinking is not only sufficient, but necessary for existence. I think that is a different argument. That would be 'If I am existing, then I must be thinking'.
He thinks it's ALWAYS true. He thinks for all statements t implies e, it's always true that not t implies not e.
He even called that idea "modus ponens", that's how I know he thinks you can always do that for all implication statements.
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e) CAN be a premise in a valid proof, and it's synonymous with (t <-> e). But it hasn't been used that way
He's talking about modus Tollens though.
One problem I note is that "I" is not well defined. Does "I" refer to some immaterial thing which interacts with the pineal gland?
Of course we all have some conception(s) associated with "I", but how accurate is that conception?
Quoting Janus
Ok, so
(t?e) ? (¬t?¬e) is invalid.
"I think therefore I am" is not equivalent to "I don't think therefore I am not".
And
(t?e)?(¬e?¬t)
"I think therefore I am is equivalent to "I'm not, therefore I don't think"
But this is not the argument @Corvus presented in the quote.
Quoting flannel jesus
Here's the argument quotes:
Quoting Corvus
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e) is a premise. it's P->Q.
It's not easy to see what you're saying here. It looks like you're saying
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e)
Is equivalent to saying
(t?e)
Or in other words, whenever you have
(t?e)
You must also have
(¬t?¬e)
Is that what you're saying?
Only if you misread what is writ.
I certainly did not write
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e) ? (t?e)
That's invalid.
Indeed, I am not saying anything of that sort, but pointing out that the argument Corvus uses appears valid.
Quoting Banno
He wasn't always formulating his argument like that, he did that mid conversation. That is of course a VALID argument, but the question is, where does that premise come from?
We know where Corvus gets it from - he gets it from a missapplication of modus ponens, where he denies the Antecedent.
Quoting Corvus
P= (t?e)
Q= (¬t?¬e)
The first assumption:
Quoting Corvus
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e)
I can't see how to make that any clearer.
I don't think it matters how we conceive "i". We could say "if something thinks it must exist", and as I already said, "if something does anything at all it must exist". The idea of existence seems to be implicit and ineliminable in thinking of any activity at all.
Quoting Banno
What do you think his argument is? Couched in plain English would be good.
Quoting flannel jesus
Okay, I hadn't thought of that.
The premise is invalid. But it is not a contradiction. That is, it seems possible. (But it has been a long few days and I may be wrong).
@Corvus' logic has been less than impeccable - we all make errors. But again, while he has not shown that the Cogito is invalid, no one else has managed to show that it is valid.
I'm not going over that again. Time to move on. Corvus is wrong, but perhaps not in the way folk have suggested; and that he is wrong does not imply that therefore the Cogito is valid.
Of course it's possible, it's equivalent to saying a <-> b, and there's many a and b for which that's true.
But the cogito doesn't say a <-> b, it just says a -> b.
So how is Corvus turning a -> b into (a -> b) -> (not a implies not b)? We already know, because he told us. He says any logic textbook will show, modus ponens means you can deny the Antecedent.
I don't think anybody has that train of thought
No, it isn't.
Quoting Corvus
or in my parsing
Quoting Banno
Show how that is equivalent to A?B.
I slightly misstated the argument. If (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) holds, as a general rule, then all (t?e) are actually (t?e).
any time you have (t?e) and (¬t?¬e), you have (t?e).
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#((t~5e)~1(~3t~5~3e))~5(t~4e)
Fine.
Quoting flannel jesus
But...
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e) isn't itself equivalent to (t?e), it's equivalent to saying "if you have an implicaation (t?e), it's safe to say (t?e)". He's turning ALL implications into bidirectional implications. Which has some absurd consequences.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(t~4e)~5(t~5e)
I'm not sure what you're getting at with that.
Quoting flannel jesus
Make up your mind! :wink:
I'm out, I think. Too tired to think.
(Which can be seen in what I just wrote...)
Why do you want to prove (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B?
You too are missing the point here.
As you put, your conclusion Cogito is invalid is correct, but your logic seems to be missing the critical point in your reasoning.
You got explain in detail what you are exactly trying to do when you are asking (t?e)?(¬t?¬e) is equivalent to A <-> B, and I will tell you where you got it wrong.
He's asleep I believe, so he can answer you himself later
But do you not understand the fact P -> Q has not TF value at the stage? You shouldn't be brining in some internet truth table here. This is tragic that it has to be explained again and again because you seem to be talking with a thick blanket on your face.
Well you insisted, Banno's post was addressed to you, so I will wait until Banno gets up from his sleep, and comes back with his explanations. Then after that I will tell him where he got wrong.
If you can recall, it had been explained repeatedly over and over again.
Nope, never said anything like that in this thread. You must be dreaming, or believing that everything in the arguments and explanations were poems.
You seem to have read something about MP on the internet and been parroting about it
Can you get to the point without slinging shit?
You cannot logically go straight from p -> q to not p -> not q. If you're in a situation where p implies q, that does NOT mean you're necessarily in a situation where not p implies not q. That's why denying the Antecedent is a formal Fallacy
Your arguments so far amount to applying that Fallacy
Dude, just don't sling shit. Naughty words are fine. Unnecessary shit slinging is not. This isn't preschool, people can say naughty words.
You always find the goofiest ways to cop out of defending your arguments , never a real defense. The latest cop out: my mom told me not to talk to people who say the s word.
Opponent: First of all there are the epistemological problems - how can you know any of this? And what is this train really or what you means?
Descartes: You need to get off the tracks! The train is coming therefore you will get hit or worse!
Opponent: Therefore? Really?? Its not even a logical statement. I can show you how meaningless your babbling is with some analytics.
Descartes: Ok. Just sayin. You might want to be quick about it. Because I dont think we are talking about the same thing, and Id like to get back to my point.
No, no urgency in the cogito or anti-cogito argument. Just trying to analogize looking at the logic of the words before addressing the meaning of the statement.
Quoting Corvus
I don't, since it isn't. And that was directed at Quoting flannel jesus
Whaat does that mean - that we need a predicate logic? I offered that already. Have you an analysis that shows the validity of "I think, therefore I am"?
Quoting flannel jesus
To be sure, that is not what I am saying; but that certainty of my existence is not dependent on the cogito. Further, I suspect your exist was undoubted long before encountering the Cogito.
Fair enough. I got email from the forum that you quoted me in your post, and I also read in your post you saying my logic is wrong in somewhere. So I was trying to clarify on that point.
There are so many ways to reason about the Cogito statement to prove. You apply several assertions and inferences to the statement to prove. Some will be valid and some invalid. But what we were trying to prove was not validity here. We were trying to prove the statement is true or false, sound or unsound.
Others here claim that it is true, and indubitable, but offer no support for that contention.
It would help your standing immensely if you were to explicitly reject the argument that
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e).
The validity? Of the cogito text? An analysis?
The point of the cogito, once you get the point, is that no analysis is needed; by analyzing anything further, you just make the point again.
And again.
If one is carefully considering whatever may exist, once one comes to be considering ones own existence, one finds something existing that one cant deny.
One can deny the statement, but then I deny, therefore I am.
And again..
(t?e)?(¬t?¬e)
(¬t?¬e) = F
hence (t?e) = F
Would you agree on that?
Ignore the MP nonsense. It is not relevant here.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Notice the "if...then" in that? If what you say were so, someone ought be able to set the argument out formally.
If (one is carefully considering whatever may exist) and (one comes to be considering ones own existence) then (one finds something existing that one cant deny)
One can find all sorts of other stuff that one cannot coherently deny - like that you are reading this post. So if that is our standard, the Cogito is hardly special.
But you see that even a simple logical formalisation and reasoning of Cogito, proves it is false.
I gather (¬t?¬e) = F is to be understood as "(¬t?¬e) implies the false"?
No, it doesn't. Countermodel: Rocks don't think, but exist.
Quoting Corvus
You have not shown this.
Logical validity is only relevant, if Cogito had been deduced from some premises. But it hadn't.
The only premise of Cogito was Descartes has doubted everything (presumably).
Therefore (¬t?¬e) = F ?
I don't know what you are asking. Shouldn't that be (¬t?¬e) ? F? Which is not valid, as shown by the countermodel.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3t~5~3e)~5(p~1~3p)
I can coherently deny any sense data, like reading this post.
But I cant deny to myself that I am reading, or at least that I think I am reading. (Hence Descartes use of I think.)
But you just said the Cogito is hardly special based on it showing something one cannot coherently deny. BUT, you asserting that the Cogito isnt special wont work for you to argue that the Cofito is meaningless. You just asserted it has a non-special meaning.
If you don't think, you don't exist. Is this not False?
Even if you don' think, but you still do exist. No?
You replied to the post. Now you would deny that there was a post, and supose this to be somehow coherent?
I have not claimed that the cogito is meaningless.
I commend On Certainty to you.
There are things that... and here one needs a free logic... that don't exist and don't think.
But you have gone off on a tangent, I asked if you would explicitly deny that (t?e)?(¬t?¬e).
But here are we not talking about "I"? - "Cogito"? We are not talking about rocks and bricks here.
Quoting Banno
Of course I deny its Truth. It is FALSE. That is one of the proofs (t?e) is FALSE. But there are so many other reasonings that can be applied which makes t->e is false.
If we agree to infer that Descartes Cogito's premise was I doubt everything. Then,
I doubt everything. (P1)
But I don't doubt Thinking. (P2)
Therefore I think, therefore I am (C)
Then Cogito becomes invalid.
Doubt is also type of thinking, which makes P2 false.
The core problem here is that, mental event Think cannot leap into 100% certainty of verified Truth of one's existence. They are different class in existence. Think is a mental event. Existence is a physical object.
Then I dont know what you are arguing with me about. I already said Im not interested in the gaming of logical analysis of I think; therefore, I am. That whole conversation is an exercise in missing the point the feeble statement is trying to show, a point that any 10 year old thinks is so obvious it allows them to laugh at philosophers.
I know that I am while wondering what is, and I cant unknow this.
Its not about the I. Its not about the therefore. Its about the am present in think. Am thinking says enough.
Its a premise more than a conclusion, so certainly no argument is needed.
If you disagree with me I can only assume you might not exist to check my math.
But if you cannot prove, or refuse to prove your claims of "Am thinking", it means nothing to anyone apart from to yourself. It would be like talking about your last night's dream.
It's not false - if by that you mean that it is a contradiction and false for every interpretation.
(t?e) tells us nothing about (¬t?¬e).
How is it tell you nothing? It is a result from the principle of contradiction in proof process.
If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
Hence the ground is not wet.
How is it tell you nothing? They are the reasoning from contradiction.
If I think, then I exist.
If I don't think, then I don't exist. ???? False.
Hence If I think then I exist. Is False.
In Corvus world, there's only one way for the ground to get wet. That's the absurdity of taking p->q to imply notp -> notq - everything can only happen in one way, every property can only exist in one thing.
If you're arnold schwartzanegger, then your muscles are big.
You're not arnold schwartzanegger.
Therefore your muscles aren't big.
It's a hilarious type of reasoning really.
So you are certain of the Cogito without any justification?
Because (t?e) can be true and yet (¬t?¬e) either true or false.
He thinks implication is equivalence, it seems.
I have to go water the garden. It's not going to rain today.
Yes, that's what I was getting it when I was comparing it to a <-> b.
If all instances of implication p->q also mean notp -> notq, then all p->q are really p <-> q.
Which is kinda broadly similar to equivalence, I suppose.
(¬t?¬e) is definitely False in the Cogito case, which makes (t?e) False too.
No one with right mind would agree that, when he stops thinking, he ceases to exist.
I recommend sitting back and observing whether or not Banno can get through to Corvus. Here, have some popcorn.
Quoting Corvus
No, it doesn't.
You have been battered about this for a few days now, and it is difficult to back down when you make a mistake, even in the most friendly circumstances.
But I really do have to go water the garden. You see,
If it rains, then the ground is wet.
It doesn't rain.
The ground is not wet.
and
If I don't hose, and it doesn't rain, the ground will not be wet
But
If I hose, the ground will be wet.
All I did was remove "Hence". That's were you went astray.
If that is how you see it, you are wrong. I am only interested in the philosophical discussions based on reasoning. Nothing else will interest me in this forum.
I don't care about some inauthentic time wasters throwing nonsensical abuse in the thread. I have decided to ignore them totally. I have not been battered by what appear to be nonsensical tantrums motivated by some of their psychological problems.
Quoting Banno
Of course everyone knows that.
We are talking about the a logical progression started off from a specific premise in the argument.
It is about whether the conclusion is derived from the premises.
If you deny that and bring out some irrelevant argument, then there is nothing in the world which can be proven on the empirical issues.
If you hose your ground, so the ground will be wet.
But that is false, if the water gets dried out in few hours under the scorching sun.
I was under impression you would be good at logic and proofing, but taken back at your inability to understand even what simple logical proof process means. Bringing out some irrelevant premises into the argument to the conclusion drawn from the set premises and denying the validity of the proof is a sign of misunderstanding of the very basic foundational principle of the subject.
It seems not, but
I am. :nerd: Banno claims that he ceases to exist when he doesn't think. :rofl:
Hoping to be edified.
And from "If it rains, the ground will be wet" it does not follow that "If it does not rain, the ground will not be wet". I can hose the ground, and rocks exist without thinking.
Why - because that would be entertaining?
It is not about follow. It is about introducing assertion and inference.
Are you still claiming that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist is true? I am saying that is False.
Rocks existing without thinking is totally irrelevant. It doesn't rain, then the ground is not wet was given as an example to let you see, that Not t - > Not e is telling something, not nothing.
However, we are talking about Cogito (I think) here.
No, because if you are able to get through to Corvus, observing how you did so might provide me with insight that I don't have at present.
Yes, Follow. Quoting Corvus
No, Corvus. That is your confusion. I have never claimed that when you stop thinking, you cease to exist. What I have said, quite explicitly, is that if Descartes' argument is that if you are thinking, you exist, then that this does not, as you have claimed, imply that if you stop thinking you cease to exist.
I have also attempted to show you that your argument would hold if Descartes' argument is that by definition "I" am the thing that is doing the doubting. This is your out; but it seems you have difficulty seeing it.
You bite the hand...
Are we now playing "posts last wins"?
Previous experience has shown that Corvus will not correct his errors nor accept any interpretation not at one with his own, apparently now to the point of extremis.
On the other hand, he has quite successfully made this thread about himself. A tragedy in which we are all implicated.
We were moving on a bit, until became involved, leading us back into the mire.
No, that is not my game. You mistook me for some other folks in the thread.
I am just trying to understand your logic here. There are parts in your claims which is not crystal clear.
I will think over, and will return with my thoughts on your point. Enjoy your gardening. Cheers mate.
It's not just my logic.
As I said quite a ways back in the thread...
Quoting wonderer1
Still, I was hoping you could falsify my working hypothesis.
For better or worse, life has trained me to have strong pattern recognition of narcissism. (Both grandiose and vulnerable type.) I would have preferred being shown to be wrong.
Certainty is, on some accounts, indubitable belief.
Now there are all sorts of things that go undoubted. Are we certain of them all?
Or do we need reason, justification, warrant, to doubt?
Who else is saying what you have been saying? Although, it doesn't matter how many folks are saying the same thing. Ultimately what matters is the truth. Later~
That's kinda why I have been backing up and checking what I have writ with the tree generator.
(Edited - I assumed the wrong author)
If P doesnt think. It may or may not exist. For instance P may be dead, or may be in a meditative state or in a coma . Or it may be a fly on the wall incapable of what we
So then we have:
~p -> (q v ~q)
Now to go the other way
If q exists, then it may or may not think. It may be a bug. Forget the fact that bugs might think. Say amoeba instead of bug.
q -> (p v~p)
But if q doesnt exist then it doesnt think. A logocal impossibility.
~q -> ~p
That I think is as far as it can be taken in a limited scope. And I see no refutation of cogito ergo sum.
Or another simple way: existence doesnt necessitate thinking, but it doesnt preclude it either.
2 variables, so we have 4 entries in the truth table. No need for any more. Of course if I err please chime in!
But what you have not shown is that if P thinks then it exists.
Have you a proof of that?
Here we go again.
Unfortunately I haven't read On Certainty. Off the top of my head I'd say it's a big subject and I'm apt to start talking about our neurology and how it can result in doubt arising subconsciously in a way such that reason, justification, and warrant aren't the most applicable terms to be using.
On the other hand, I consciously consider doubt in the reliability of the cognitive faculties of myself and others to be a matter of good epistemic hygiene.
In any case, I'm not good at knowing how to respond to such an open ended question. So I'll leave it for you to clarify if you want to discuss things with a more specific focus.
Quoting Banno
No. P may or may not be capable of thought. A coma vegetable for instance. Or P may be an amoeba. Or a philosophy professor.
But that fact does not invalidate the cogito.
This covers it: q -> (p v~p)
No; nor does it validate it.
Why should we agree with the cogito?
Quoting Metaphyzik
But, ¬q ? (p ? ¬p) is equally valid. Note the negation.
Give me a real world example of
P-> ~q
I believe this is just sophistry.
An example of something that thinks but doesnt exist.
Quoting Banno
So not existing, implies that it thinks or doesnt think? That is invalid. It obviously doesnt think.
Real world example? Or are we playing games with letters ;). Haha
I dont know what you are asking me.
If you are asking am I certain that I exist while I am in the act of thinking I exist, than yes - I am certain of this. Something is up, and I am certain of it at that moment. And that is something I can know, while in the acting of knowing I am existing there still . Its a phrase like knowing now that describes this moment, this place. Immediate certainty of my own becoming that is seeming to forever keep coming once I am being aware of it aware of being I am, calling my own name because am calling told me I could.
Certainty of all that which is really nothing but I am.
If you are asking me whether the statement or syllogism I think therefore I am is valid, or sound, or both, or neither, or equivalent to if P then Q, than I am only mildly interested in that discussion because I think those things have little to do with what Descartes observed.
Here is the thing, I cant tell if you think the above two questions I posed are different questions, so thats why I started this post with I dont know what you are asking me.
You asked me a question and I answered you the best I could, posing two interpretations and answering them both.
Now let me ask you an honest question. Can you say what Descartes meant (or gets credit for for some reason even though any idiot knows I am for certain)? What did Descartes mean?
Without letting some syllogism, or logical, third-party verification, constrain you or set you free or justify your words - just what do YOU think Descartes meant. I am not asking you whether you are certain of it, or whether you are certain of it with or without any justification. My question is simpler. You have to see what I think Descartes meant. What do you think Descartes meant?
It is not ~p -> ~q
I think that is your logical error
Quoting Banno
Well, I'm not at all sure - that's somewhat the point.
Some folk think he was making an inference - you seem to think otherwise, and no one has set the inference out for us in a valid way.
Some folk think he was setting out an intuition. But if that is what he was doing, then can we coherently say the intuition is justified, as is needed if it is to answer the question in the OP - that we know we exist.
Some folk think it a definition of "I" - that his argument is that I am what thinks. That has various novel problems, pretty much not considered so far.
Now I've said quite a few times in this thread that I do not think we need be "100% certain" in order to get on with things. I think the phrase sets up a bad framework for dealing with doubt and certainty. I am being a pain in the arse in order to show that there are issues with the very notion of insisting on being "100% certain".
Actually, it's ~(p? q).
What I was pointing to is the triviality of your Quoting Metaphyzik
Both ¬q ? (p ? ¬p) and q ? (p ? ¬p) are valid.
Well the operators in logic have to relate to something.
And they are contextually relevant as that defines their set. Their axiomatic assumptions
So give me an real world example of your logic and then Ill consider what your atoms are made of ;)
You said justification. I thought of a third way to address your question.
You distinguished certainty of the Cogito from without justification. In order to justify certainty, or justify anything, I need some framework, to judge the certainty as justified. I have to clarify one thing certainty of Cogito and clarify some means and framework of justification, and then marry the two I suppose.
In order for me to justify the certainty of I think therefore I am I would have to be justifying, be in the act of justifying, to myself, to you, to whomever, about whatever. At the Cogito, the details are all drained and the only thing left is being, or becoming at best, like justifying or doing anythings else.
The clearest meaning of the Cogito starts looking at the act of justifying, or now the act of looking at the act of justifying. Its always an act that is the subject. An act of being, stated simply. It may as well be I am justifying, therefore I am. All I see is that I am, as I am justifying or I am anything (and even the I no longer matters in this seeing or this being).
I am is self-awareness.
It is mental reflection.
Thinking that I am does seem to be knowing that I am, and knowing that I am, while I am in the act of thinking seems to be knowing something that justifies itself in the act of thinking justifying thoughts.
So maybe I would say that, the I am reflection is self-justifying.
If by justification you mean words like I am that reflect or refer to an existing object, a referent, there being in the world in this case there being specifically here, being the thinking justifications. But I know thats an outlandish statement here.
BUT, like a tautology, (which is what I think of the language of the stupid Cogito; I am thinking = I am is just as good of syllogism for my purposes as I think, therefore I am.), like a tautology it kind of makes sense that the I am reflection would be self-justifying. It literally fabricates a self.
An I just to be expressed.
You just helped me clarify what I mean by the Cogito. I see it as: the I am reflection.
Thats it. No therefore. I also recognize we could deconstruct reflection and there are always identity problems, but then I would be deconstructing, or identifying, and would come right back to the I am reflection.
I did, you missed it, it's not going to help.
Quoting Banno
So I asked you what does Descartes mean. And you said.
Quoting Banno
If he was making an inference, then he was making or inferring. If he was setting out an intuition or intuiting, he was just the same.
Then you go right after the I further distancing from what I think Descartes meant, which is the am.
But I wish you would have answered my question.
We dont have to know whether its an inference, or an intuition, or logical, or whether we can know, or whether I have a split personality such that the I in I am starts us off on a bad foot. When you attempt to empty the I am reflection you have already moved past what the reflection means, moved on to where you are emptying, and you find again I am.
Enoah above said the am is-ing. Thats meaningful here. The inference or reference, is an act. The intuition is of intuiting. The content doesnt matter anymore. Inference and intuition distract as much as the I who might infer or intuit.
Thinking I am already happened when it is happening.
So sophistry is the logic?
That is a game and you know it haha. If you really believe in green cows (or think that is a justification for your arguments) you have a few screws loose.
Anyways when you feel like being honest let me know. You cant provide a real world example because your argument has no epistemological foundation else you would provide it.
Just an aside, I dont mind your intransigent. Its refreshing. So I know you can accept a rebuttal. As can I.
And those are logically identical, in this case, correct??? Haha
p -> -q. Is identical to ~(p-> q)
:wink:
I actually think it's a great opportunity. What we have here is someone who is *perfectly* wrong - I dare say there's very few things that are more provable on this forum, very few debates that are more explicitly settlable, then "Does P implies Q mean notP implies notQ?" Corvus APPARENTLY believes in logic, he's not in here saying "logic isn't useful / logic doesn't make sense / logic is a government trick", he believes in logic, he's just completely wrong about it.
Which makes it a fantastic little experiment, I think. Can you use logic to prove to someone that they've lost their grasp on logic? I think that's a wonderful question. No better opportunity to test it than here.
If you analyse the truth table of ~(p implies q) , it's only true when p is true and q is false.
Which is the same truth table, not as (p implies not q), BUT (p implies not q) and (p). So I think you're half right, but you need that "and p" to complete it.
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#(~3(p~5q))~5((p~5~3q)~1p)
Of course the frustrating part is, in natural language when someone says "it's not true that p implies q", they're not actually saying "p and not q", they're usually saying "p and q don't have that relationship, maybe no relationship at all".
Like if someone says "You're a virgo, that means you have a small brain", and you say "that doesn't imply that", you're not saying it means you're a virgo and you DON'T have a small brain, you're saying there's just no relationship between those two variables. Classic logic doesn't capture that well, it seems to me.
This is one of those instances where it's clear that natural language reasoning can diverge from symbolic logic.
Logic books? That's a poor logic of you again. If someone with poor logic or weird mind wrote some logic books and published (anyone can publish books by themselves via amazon these days), and if you happened to pick one up and read it, then you would believe in whatever is in the book.
You got to use your own loaf. Of course you read the books, but you must be able to apply the logic into the real life examples not parroting away what you read or seen.
I have thought this again, but it is clear what I say is correct. It is simple, but you don't see it for some reason.
(t -> e) -> (Not t -> Not e) This is via the contradiction reasoning.
This can be replaced with
T -> E
E = False
Therefore T = False
This is nothing to do with (t -> e) -> (Not t -> Not e) doesn't follow of your logic.
When you are applying the contradiction principle, it gets applied to both T and E.
Not just E or just T.
I am going out now, and will be back later. Would be interested in what you got to say about it.
The tree generator you keep brining in doesn't deal with applying the contradiction reasoning. It just generates trees and checks for validity. It cannot tell you a formula is true or false mate.
Yes thanks for the correction. Its been a long time since I was doing logical proofs. Most of the time now Im just coding in c / c++ / c# .
Right. Needed to add the boolean p truth phrase as well.
I believe my old friend Russel and Whitehead would balk at the soundness requirement for a true premise when confronted with gobbleydey-gook. Ergo my request for a real world example: In the mapping of reality to symbolic logic it seems like a very salient point to make. Should we not use the same soundness and completeness requirements for our mapping as we do within the closed logic system we are mapping to? Else those variables in use could in fact represent invalid states that would not be useful for inclusion in any computation.
In other words: you have to validate your inputs usually a purify method is prudent when taking in data from the wild before you include it in your precious logic / code ;). After all you cant let the wolves in - its bad enough they must already know where you live.
Yes no problem. I think your intuition was leading you in the right direction anyway, which is a good sign. Good logical intuition is valuable, because if you don't have it, your intuition leads you to thinking absurdities like "if it rained, the ground is wet; it didn't rain, therefore the ground isn't wet".
That is if a->b, then ~a->~b. Which is only true if you have a very limited and closed system or set to consider. Aka if there is no other way the ground could get wet, except for rain.
Aka the utility of formal logic depends on the validity / context of the parameters being used - their scope. So scope has to be verified and agreed on before logic can aptly be applied to anything really else the outcomes will not be accepted anyways.
Typically these can be represented with other axiomatic inclusions but when considering a mapping to reality it is easy to see how that fails at some point . Just too many variables to take into account. Completeness is the eternal problem.
But the simple cogito? With 2 things that could be easily represented as Booleans? Formal logic does just fine without contradicting itself. I dont think therefore I dont exist is not in the truth table as the negation would also have to include the truth of thinking for inclusion - as you so rightly have pointed out
If there were no other way to exist other than to think, Banno would be correct in considering such a closed system. But I dont believe anyone would allow that axiom into the equation.
Descartes' arguments are a meditation. The meditation is expressed with words on a piece of paper. But it is not the words on a piece of paper a poem , put together validly with logical connectives in the form of English conjuctions, that prove my existence. It is when I exercise the meditation myself that I realise that I exist.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Indeed, Fire, he says in the beginning of the Second Meditation:
And this article reaffirms it:
Quoting Descartes, Russell, Hintikka and the Self
In a letter to Bourdin, Descartes instead puts it as "ego cogitans existo". It is not so much that we take "I think" and then conclude "I exist", but every thought gives the certainty of existence. Which is why Descartes says, as quoted by Banno, that it is almost as if he would stop existing if he stopped thinking.
Quoting Banno
There are not many strong points in this thread.
Quoting Banno
Which I acquisced and clarified before, you say so:
Quoting Banno
I would hardly say that was a great length, but the proof of one's own existence does not depend on dualism. The mind-body dualism simply clarifies under what conditions something would cease to exist when it is not thinking. If something inherently thinks, it would not be anymore if it stops thinking. If X is inherently red, X would cease to exist were it to stop being red, aka it would stop being.
Quoting Banno
If we define dreaming as thinking too which is an assumption that "stop existing when you stop thinking" relies on , we don't stop existing when we go to sleep. Even if it were, there is a difference between ontology and epistemology. Descartes is trying to show how we can come to know that we exist, which is a different matter of under what conditions we exist. That I know that «I am» is different from «what it is that I am». He explores this also in the beginning of the Second Meditation:
Quoting Corvus
Guilty as charged ¯\_(?)_/¯
That is not the premise, that is where he starts his investigation.
Quoting Corvus
The two premises are contradictory. Not that it matters, because Descartes never said anything like this. I can only recommend reading Descartes.
That is one of the many mistakes he has made. I fully address it here:
Quoting Lionino
Which he replied:
Quoting Corvus
Then:
Quoting Lionino
To which there was no reply.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/therefore#:~:text=(used%20to%20introduce%20a%20logical,reason%20or%20as%20a%20result
The guy has a narrow understanding of a word in a language that isn't his first language, which is understandable and I don't fault him for that - the part that isn't understandable, that I do fault him for, is that he has absolutely 0 humility about it. He refuses to hear, from native English speakers, that "therefore" has different uses than what he insists it must mean.
The whole ordeal is a never ending illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect
If it is I that thinks and given that there is thinking, then isnt it necessary for I to be? Under these conditions, there is no way for I to be other than to think. Descartes used the term exist here and there, for which he should be forgiven, considerIng the general mandate of his thesis.
. This is the best way to discover what sort of thing the mind is, and how it differs from the body. How does it do that? I am supposing that everything other than myself is unreal, while wondering what sort of thing I am. I can see clearly that I dont have any of the properties that bodies haveI dont have a spatial size or shape, and I dont movebecause those properties all fall on the supposed-to-be-unreal side of the line, whereas weve just seen that I cant suppose that I am unreal. So I find that the only property I can ascribe to myself is thought. So my knowledge of my thought is more basic and more certain than my knowledge of any corporeal thing.
.I take the word thought to cover everything that we are aware of as happening within us, and it counts as thought because we are aware of it. ( )
.Im not going to explain many of the other terms (in addition to thought) that I have already used or will use later on, because they strike me as being sufficiently self-explanatory. I have often noticed that philosophers make the mistake of trying to explain things that were already very simple and self-evident, by producing logical definitions that make things worse! When I said that the proposition I am thinking, therefore I exist is the first and most certain thing to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way, I wasnt meaning to deny that one must first know what thought, existence and certainty are, and know that its impossible for something to think while it doesnt exist, and the like. But these are utterly simple notions, which dont on their own give us knowledge of anything that exists; so I didnt think they needed to be listed
(Principia Philosophiae, 1, 8-10, 1644, in Bennet, 2017)
I just found this so galling...
I mean, this is precisely an error a native speaker of Korean can make. It's easily forgivable that he makes that mistake. It's easy to find out this is a problem coming from Korean, and that there are two words used to translate 'therefore' one much closer to this use in the English cogito (and also donc in the French version). Several different native speakers are telling him he is misunderstanding the word. And when it's pointed out he tells me I am not using the standard definition. Well, there are a few ways to use 'therefore' in English.
Just for thoroughnessI'll like to what you're responding to of mine: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892205 and which you linked to.
Earlier he told Flannel Jesus that he could look in any logic textbook and find that his denying the antecendent was correct. Yet recently he chided Banno for citing logic books. And he never got around to showing us how his logic book said he was correct. But when a logic work (supposedly) supported his position, it was fine to point this out. (though never to get around showing us that it did). I don't understand the language. Banno doesn't understand the difference between truth and validity. Flannel Jesus doesn't understand....and on and on.
I do often wonder how conscious people are of what they seem to be avoiding admitting (to themselves? to us?) that maybe, just maybe other people might have a point. Conscious or not I think there are dozens of examples of disingenousness in this thread.
True!
Was thinking of a simpler model I guess:
If x thinks, then x exists.
And I guess if x is in a coma and is not thinking - or is successfully meditating then x would not be currently thinking (but capable of thought)
True.
Quoting Banno
:roll:
I wonder why you chose Korean specifically. But take a look at this https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857740
first part of sentence comes earlier in time ontologically than what is mentioned in the second part.
Any chronological is about one being able, when one notes the first, to conclude that the second was also present at the time of the thinking.
It's a basic misinterpretation of therefore in this context. Discussions by philosophers of the cogito will show that they all get this and interpret therefore and donc in a way different from Corvus. Corvus is a non-native speaker. In his language it is easy to mistranslate therefore to a words that has the meaning he projects on to the English word (and the French word also). There is another way to translate it into Korean that is better, and so on.
Instead of for one second considering he might be misinterpreting the term and exploring that for a bit, he accuses me of leading everything into nonsense.
in a post in response to you in fact...
Anthropomorphic tautologies with respect to x aside .on the off-chance you werent actually going there .the coma thing wont work, if were keeping with the original cogito simpliciter you started with, in that Descartes counts thinking as such because we are aware of it.
From this same article https://www.jstor.org/stable/40694016 . The second half with Gassendi is much more interesting than the first about Russell.
It is notable how much scrutinity Descartes' philosophy has received.
Ok ;)
My point was really more about the context
Far more wild premises are made up and forwarded as some reasons why the contradiction reasoning is not the case by the other folks. Those are not said or written by Descartes, but they are reasonable and interesting inferences for the premises of cogito.
In logical arguments, premises are made up with reasonable inferences and assertions. Nothing like talking about hosing a garden, when the argument was about the rain and wet ground.
If Descartes had said or written about the basis for cogito, then no premises would be necessary. Because the only basis for cogito was his doubt on everything he perceived, the premises from the reasonable inferences were asserted in the post.
I wonder if you read any Descartes at all yourself.
But he says in the Second Replies:
About that:
His wild imagination has no ground. Just someone said his native language is Korean doesn't prove that he is a Korean. His repeated meaningless citing on the point is very strange and irrelevant for the discussion. If you listen to him, and thinks it makes sense, it proves that you have no ability to reason.
OK. Thanks.
If red light, then drive away. R -> D
If not red light, then don't drive away. Not R -> Not D is False
Therefore If red light, then drive away. R -> D is False
They are not, which is why no scholar says Descartes' argument is contradictory.
Quoting Corvus
On what basis do you have this wonder, since you have basically admitted that you didn't read him at all?
Quoting Corvus
That is an order, it has nothing to do with logic. It is not how A?B is used.
If it's red, then the order is to drive away.
If it's not red, then the order is to not drive away, apparently
i don't know if he's saying that's a second, separate order or if he's saying that follows from the first order. Obviously to most people here (all except one), it doesn't follow from the first. You can order them to drive away if it's red and not order anything at all if it's not red, there's nothing wrong with that.
He's still just searching for new ways to deny the Antecedent. No idea why, he knows he didn't find it in his textbook.
The only basis for your claim, they are not, is because no scholar says D's argument is contradictory?
Quoting Lionino
Your claims on D seem to be based on some type of religious beliefs rather than academic theories.
Quoting Lionino
Any event which can be described in human language can be translated into the formal logic. It is called propositional logic.
If he could find that denying the Antecedent is valid in his textbook, then it's true that it's valid.
He couldn't find it in his textbook.
Therefore
it's not true that it's valid.
The basis for my claim is that I have read Descartes and that is not his argument. If that were his argument, some scholar would have picked up that his argument is contradictory, but that never happened, because that is not his argument.
Quoting Corvus
That sucks. But I have read him, the scholarship around him, the objections to him. I recommend you at least watch a series of lectures on him, there are plenty of uni channels on Youtube, so at least you stop embarassing yourself.
Quoting Corvus
Interesting, please translate the following into propositional logic:
"If you had been there, you would have seen that the fireworks went off at the same as the bell rang."
Sentence is the basic constituent of Logic. What do you think Logic is?
I'm just giving you a way to interpret it that leaves it as a logical implication still. It's of course a poor example anyway. Just giving him the benefit of the doubt
I am not sure what you mean here. You obviously are avoiding to answer for the question whether you agree or disagree with the example propositional logic shown calling it order, not logic.
Yes you do. You said every sentence can be translated to logic. Translate my sentence to logic.
Quoting Corvus
Your example has nothing to do with propositional logic, having the word "then" in it does not make it so.
One reaches a point where the only thing to do is laugh and walk away.
Thanks for attempting to explain this to @Metaphyzik.
The other missing bits for them are that p and q in p?q need neither be related nor true, and p?q might itself be false. Unlike p?p , which is always true, and p?~p, which is always false.
, you asked for an example of p?q. "That there are green crows implies there are no new ideas" is just that: with "There are green crows" for p and "There are no new ideas" for q. It is intended to show how hollow "p?q" is. Have a think on it.
By the way, when it comes to Descartes' argument as an inference, the Aristotelian concept of enthytema is interesting. But ultimately, it is a medidation, not an argument autistically put into a first-order logic, those that don't want to understand will not understand.
What's the point of that? What would anyone gain translating what you are saying into logic?
Quoting Lionino
You say it is order, not logic. That is nonsense. Orders are expressed in sentences. The sentences must have truth values to be effective as law or order.
Quoting Corvus
Proving your absurd claim.
Quoting https://www.queensu.ca/alumnireview/articles/2016-05-03/ego-sum-ego-existo-descartes-divisive-legacy
That doesn't prove anything at all. If you exist, you can think, or you don't have to think. It just means, in order for you think, prior to that, you must exist.
Sure. Certainty is often restricted to tautologies. And new ideas are extremely rare. Expression and learning and finding your way to navigate the channel are not.
However, as the pace of technology continues to increase, it seems inevitable that we are going to be getting actual new ideas at least at a glaciers pace
I am just telling you what is correct from the muddles that you folks have been spewing out. I am not trying to get out from anything like some of the senseless folks here try to make out.
No, you said any sentence can be put into logic. Put my sentence into logic.
I'm sure you do the same thing. Talking to multiple folk requires talking at different levels, or at least placing differing emphasis.
You are at pains to defend Descartes against my probing, but there is no need. I respect his system, and have enough of a grasp of it to see it's consistency. But there are problems with it, as I am sure you would acknowledge.
I seem to be the only one referring back to the topic. My position, again, speaking broadly, is that anything can be brought into doubt; and hence the notion of being "100% certain" is fraught. But also, not everything can be brought into doubt. And hence there are things of which we are certain. We are certain of those things for the purposes of the task at hand.
To that end I attempted to sow some doubt as to "I think therefore I am", by pointing out that it is difficult to give an account of it as an inference. To some extent that has been a success.
I'm not at present aware of a part of this discussion where you and I are at great odds.
You must be joking telling anyone putting your sentence into logic. Are you Descartes?
You never posted those pages from your textbook, so...
Here's another p?q: "If the milk is sour, then your bank account is empty".
Or "The first letter of the alphabet is 7, so Fred is a zebra".
So, from the Principles and the Replies to the Objections, to put in this exact terms, if I understand what is meant by them, the fact through which we realise we exist is an impression¹. When we express the impression, it is an inference an enthytema often, this reference of course relies on intuitions².
1:
2:
Do you agree the orders must be expressed in sentences, and the sentences must have truth values to be effective as the orders?
I don't care about your gibbersh. You said:
Quoting Corvus
If that is true, translate "If you had been there, you would have seen that the fireworks went off at the same as the bell rang" to formal logic.
I have asked you first, but you never answered my question. Is this the way you evade the question which will collapse all your points?
Do you agree the orders and rules must be expressed in sentences, and the sentences must have truth values to be effective as the orders and rules?
Quoting Corvus
Wow, so on top of not having ever read Descartes and feeling the gaul to comment on it, on top of not knowing how to use logic, you also don't know how time works? If you scroll up, you will see I requested that you translate my phrase before you deflected with that "question" of yours.
It would be wonderful to listen to Descartes and Wittgenstein discussing certainty.
Well, you keep running away from the question with smoky gibberish. How time works? Why do you suddenly want to know how time works? Please elaborate further.
For some reason, unclear to us, @Corvus is "unavailable for learning".
It is a pattern that can be seen in other threads in which he is involved. He puts up a pretence of paying attention and of understanding the discussion, then after a few days throws up a wall of nonsense. For some reason unknown to us, he is not able to take on new information.
For a teacher the only workable remedy is to address the circumstances. To give the student breakfast, treat their condition or approach the parents. We can't do that for Corvus.
Further conversation becomes like a child hitting the dog's cage with a stick. It will bark and growl back at you; fun, but progress will not be made.
Seriously this is your problem Banno. You think you are a teacher, and the rest of the members are the students. But you have no knowledge of the field that you claim to be knowledgeable at. Your claims are full of misunderstandings. When it is pointed out, you get upset, and then you put out unfair and untrue ad hominem.
I tried to treat you with my best fairness and friendliness this time. But it is over the limit. Your insincerity, dishonest and pretensions are too obvious in your post. It is a regrettable affair to be honest.
The lowest common denominator. What we always get in the end.
Welcome to the machine
Calm down Banno. This is The Philosophy Forum. :nerd:
Banno, we all know that you keep scanning other folks messages for sussing out the irrelevant grounds for your attacks. If you are honest, you will see and admit that I have never spoken to anyone with out of context vulgarities under any circumstances. I always kept my control in respecting others in the discussions.
There are a few of your cliques who have been throwing irrelevant out of context insults with the vulgar languages umpteen times. It just shows that they don't have basic respect for others, and disregard the manner of the discussions. But you never point out the problems of these folks because they are in your cliques.
With just this one evidence, your bizarre post is an unfair and untrue criticism of yours based on your psychological bias. I hope that you could realise the reality and be able to see the true situation.
You see, the number in the bottom left corner shows whether a message came up after or before.
Quoting Corvus
I did not run away all the times you posted nonsense, in fact I refuted you several times. And I refuted you again, your rendition of Descartes is wrong. Make some effort to actually read what he wrote.
or giving attention, even to excess, to the students who are on task, making their day pleasant despite the recalcitrant.
I have been away all day, and just returned to see your message to me. I have no clue what you were talking about on how time works. But I will catch them up when I have some spare time.
You see I don't read any other posts apart from which are directed to me.
Quoting Lionino
When I asked you about the If Red Light then Drive logic for your agree or disagreement on it, you said it was order, not Logic. It is a logic. It gave the impression that you were trying to avoid the answer.
That logic is a critical one. We will examine that tomorrow. I will try to read what you sent me in full in due course.
The positivists were right. Philosophy is nonsense. We should all learn coding instead.
Quoting Corvus
Yes, "drive away if there is a red light" is an order (drive away) with a conditional (if there is), it has nothing to do with statements of the type p?q. It is a bad example. Choose another one.
:wink: The understanding of logic of some here who do coding leaves me doubting this. I taught coding for years, in the hope that it would improve my student's comprehension of and intuition for logic. It may have been to no avail.
It seems that folk are able to follow the sequent in a deduction, but are unclear as to what the elements represent. Hence not recognising examples of p?q, or thinking commands are statements.
We have a winner on aisle 4
You have changed my original example back to front to make it sound like order. Please read my original example given to you again, and confirm.
The example sentence in the logical form is not order at all. It can be expressed different way for the same meaning, if you have linguistic problem understanding the sentence. For example,
If it is red light, then it is safe to drive.
If it is red light, then it is legal to drive.
If it is red light, then it is ok to drive. ... etc.
The argument is made up into the formal sentence form in the argument.
It is only an order, if some one tells you to your face, "When it is is red light, drive", or as you have changed it "Drive away, if there is a red light."
Even if a sentence is order form, it can be formalised and executed in the logic.
If you read anything about mathematical logic, then you would have known that many of the computer programming languages operate on the instructions executed under the Boolean logic in the order form.
For example, if total order >= 10$, then offer FREE shipping.
Therefore, your claim that sentences in order form are not Logic is not correct.
If red light, then drive away. R -> D
If not red light, then don't drive away. Not R -> Not D is False
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/892642
You can interpret this as "the law says"
The law says if the light is red, you must drive away.
It's false that the law says, if the light is not red, you must not drive away.
If we are making a circuit that takes an input and translates to an output, and I am really forcing it here, where there is a photoreceptor and if it gets a 1 value, it makes the miniature car move (1). I can't know what Corvus means by "False" because he doesn't mean [sic] at all. I am assuming it means 0.
In this case, being that R?D is the same as (¬R?D), and that ¬R?¬D is the same as (R?¬D), red light then drive away is the case (1,1), which makes ¬R?D (1), not red don't drive away is (0,0), so R?¬D is also 1, aka not 0, aka not false as Corvus claims.
This made-up scenario he came up with is not even equivalent to his original nonsense. His original nonsense is an argument where the two premises are contradictory. His new nonsense is an "argument" where the conclusion denies the first premise because the conclusion does not follow from the premises at all. It is a fantasy he made up.
Again, he has no clue what he is talking about, ever. It is nonsense upon nonsense on an unwillingness to learn basic propositional logic. He is LARPing that he has read books on logic. Someone who cannot even understand that he can't deny the antecedent does not have the skill to even read a high school book on set theory not an easy task by itself.
By the way, your bio does not mean what you think it means.
What do you mean? Could you please explain on that point?
It means Google translate does not work properly.
Yeah I agree with that, but if you want to show him that you probably have to agree on an example to talk about first. You don't like the one he gave, which I understand, it's genuinely a very strange example.
He previously said "if I'm swimming, then I'm wet". I think that's a fantastic example of implication to look at.
Why suddenly talk about the bio written in Latin? What do you think it means?
Ok, just for funsies, I found an Introduction to Logic textbook online.
https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf
End of page 24:
Suppose, for instance, that the antecedent A happened to be
false. If A then B would then not tell us anything about the actual truth value of the consequent B.
Denying the antecedent of a statement of implication tells you nothing about the truth value of the consequent.
I don't think it means anything. I know what it means. And it is not what you were thinking.
Quoting flannel jesus
I have tried that a thousand times already with "If it rains, the floor is wet". Banno also. It is pointless.
https://reader-service.z-library.se/reader-pdf/387cccf294949913ee2e9a2ef4687ceafd21b6effc11b65a211c579cd2817362?download_location=https%3A%2F%2Fz-library.se%2Fdl%2F2327764%2F8360ad&page=139
Page 130
But why do you talk about the Bio, in the middle of talking about order and logic? It would help in understanding, if you let us know what you think it means.
Quoting Lionino
Mentioning about Banno or the other folks in the discussion won't help for clarification on the point.
What did you say about "If it rains, the floor is wet."? What is your point? This is the first time I am reading you talking about it.
Because your bio says something other than what you meant. If anything, it means something funny.
Quoting Corvus
Another case of selective amensia in this thread.
I still cannot see any relevance of my Bio to this thread and what we have been discussing. Something other than what I meant? How do you know what I meant? :)
Quoting Lionino
I did discuss the argument case with Banno, but never with yourself.
Are you not mistaking me for someone else?
Please tell us what you said about it in summaries and points.
Because it is obvious.
Quoting Corvus
No. Go post that picture of a logic book you were talking about. And also translate my phrase to propositional logic.
It is the most mysterious answer I have heard in the forum, I am afraid. :D
Quoting Lionino
No Lion. Posting picture of a logic book is not a philosophical process. It is unnecessary. Our linguistic discussions and reasonings should be able to lead us to some sort of conclusion. I was going to explain everything again in detail, if you only let us know what you meant by you said thousands of times, but you were again telling untruths there.
You keep demanding to translate your phrase to PL. It is also unnecessary bizarre act in philosophical discussions. I have never heard such a ludicrous demand. If you read the good logic books, they would tell you with the reasonable inference and introducing assertions for the premises, one can build a logical argument on every event in the world. Obviously you aren't aware of that.
OK, I can only conclude that your motive was not philosophical in this discussion. So, I will leave you to it. I have learnt my lesson that I cannot make the folks to see the light, who are determined not to see it. So I will not keep trying wasting my time. All the best.
I would love to know who he can make see the light. One person who thinks (a -> b) leads to (~a -> ~b) as a general rule. I'd love to have a conversation with that person.
Sure, if you keep your control and just concentrate on the topics under the discussion, we can give another try. It is not because I am against using bad languages and swearing. I do swear in real life as much as anyone. Perhaps even much worse than you do. But in the forum, we must keep in control and respect the other party we are talking to. You cannot discuss anything rationally with someone who is not in control of their emotions.
You are judged by only on what you write here. So, check out if you are writing the facts, not the distortions or untruths and dishonest claims before posting. If you are ok with that, then I can give another try for clarifying (a -> b) leads to (~a -> ~b).
By the way, it is not a general rule. (~a -> ~b) is an assertion or inference against (a -> b).
You are trying prove (a -> b) is true or false.
One of the ways it can be done is applying the contradictions to (a -> b), and check if it is true or false with the reality.
So here already, it is clear that you have mistaken the very start of the point (a -> b) leads to (~a -> ~b) as a general rule. It is not a general rule at all. It is a reasoning by introducing contradiction case.
Oh, fascinating. That's not what it sounded like when you called it Modus Ponens, because Modus Ponens is indeed a general rule.
So you don't think it's a general rule, meaning you think there are scenarios where you can have an implication, a implies b, and yet not have the implication of (not a implies not b), is that right?
You can have (a implies b) without (not a implies not b), correct? In general, not specifically about the cogito.
There are many different ways proofs can be done. MP is one way to do it, but it was not good for proving cogito, so I tried different arguments to suit it. Is it such a shock? :rofl:
I am quite surprised to hear you all the way thought it was MP. MP is the most basic form, and was implemented by the Stoics. If it doesn't suit for the statement you are trying to prove, then you must move on to another type of reasoning.
It is a reasoning by contradiction in proof. It is so obvious just by looking at it, both premises and conclusions are contradicted and checked out.
(a -> b) -> (~a -> ~b) is not modus ponens, we can both agree on that now. Fantastic progress.
OK fine. That's rather quick and easy solution to us all. We have agreement. Thanks.
(a -> b) -> (~a -> ~b)
You said this isn't a general rule, which means there can be situations where (a -> b) is true, but (~a -> ~b) is not true, correct? Again, not to be interperted in the context of Cogito explicitly at this point, just in general. In general, there can be situations like that.
It is not, these two are not mutually contradictory. One translates to (a?¬b) and the other to (¬a?b). Both are true if a and b are true.
Quoting Corvus
The contradiction to a?b is ¬(a?b), it is not ¬a?¬b.
Quoting Corvus
The contradiction to "I think therefore I am" is not "I don't think therefore I am not".
More BS
And yet he still has you giving him attention.
Quoting Banno
You must reason the contradiction, and check it over with the real events or existence for the truth or falsehood. You don't keep on going on with the set truth table on this cogito case.
What is the contradiction of it? Tell us exactly what is the contraction of "I think therefore I am" in plain English.
A?B ? ¬A?B
¬A?B ? B?¬A
B?¬A ? ¬B?¬A = ¬A -> ¬B ?
I await to hear your contradiction of "I think therefore I am" in plain English, and will take it from there.
Quoting Banno
Quoting Corvus
No.
This seems to be your problem. ¬(a?b) is negation, not contradiction.
You don't know the difference between negation and contradiction.
https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm
https://www.math.toronto.edu/preparing-for-calculus/3_logic/we_3_negation.html
I'm a little confused by this proof. You told me a few posts ago that it's not a general rule, but if this proof were valid, it would be a general rule.
If this proof were valid, A?B would always imply ¬A ? ¬B - that's what I call a "general rule".
Would you mind clarifying that? Is this always applicable to all statements in the form of A?B, or is it not?
It is not. You are wrong again.
¬(a?b) = It is not the case (a?b) = negation. It is not contradiction.
You never admit the truth as truth. That is part of your problem.
Yes, that was the general rule. It was to show the logical inference processes in detail from the rule to Lion because he seems having difficulties understanding it.
Quoting Corvus
So that leaves me a little bit confused. Are you sure you want to say it's a general rule? Were you incorrect before when you said that it's not a general rule at all, and that that was a mistake from me to interpret it that way?
It has to be one or the other. Either (a -> b) leads to (~a -> ~b) as a general rule, or it's not a general rule. I would like clarity on this.
Thats an inference.
Quoting Corvus
This is inference from the rule.
That's what the "general rule" question means, every time I've asked it. Can you always do it, or not always?
The classic syllogism cannot handle more complicated cases well, and it would be better to use Modal, Epistemic or Descriptive Logics. But if you convert the complex sentences into more atomic ones, and formalise them, then it works ok too. I am not a Logic expert, and I will be rereading my old logic books to brush up my knowledge on it.
I am now really bowing out from this thread. I have spoken enough, and learnt a lot myself. Thank you for your engagement with me. Although there were some rough times between us, I respect your strong interest in the subject. I hope to meet you in the other threads for the other discussions later hopefully. All the best.
1. The cogito is not a logical preposition
2. It can be - like anything else - be translated into a logical preposition.
3. Then that logical proposition can be proofed.
4. Then any of those proofs can be translated back into an adjusted cogito statement.
5. The adjusted statement doesnt always make any sense. What was - it green cows?
The problem isnt the simple logic. Nor is it the cogito (although it has flaws but they havent been the focus here). It is of course the translations. Devil in the details.
A goal of philosophers a hundred years ago was to be able to provide a symbolic logic tied to natural language. So just by logic we could determine the truth and falsehoods of statements. That was a failure. Besides the obvious reasons of translation issues, the failure was due to paradoxes in logic (famously Russells set of sets, among others ).
And traditionally what we have garnished from the paradoxical failures of logic is that it is a useful tool in a context. With parameters. And a set of assumptions. Because if its opened up to any input whatsoever it can never be proven to be logically complete. It is insular in nature.
This grey area of translation makes great fun . But the mind grows weary of emotional sophistry no?
These are worthwhile considerations. I talked about it broadly on this post:
Quoting Lionino
It is usual for one to be able to state the missing premise. If not, the enthytema is presumably invalid.
Labouring the point, we have (I think, ? I am); and the missing premise is "If I think, then I am". Which is, it seems, what was to be proved...
And as discussed, one might get around this by treating it as a definition, " I am that which is doubting".
But if we do this, then "I" ceases to be when not doubting.
And to get around that, as you explained, one needs to move to "I am at least that which is doubting". Hence the doubting self is at least part of, but not the whole of, what exists.
Is that roughly what you would argue?
And is dualism always the consequence here?
It is a flaw of the cogito that it contains I. Because yes the inclusion of I does lead inevitably to dualism (as Banno has pointed out).
In any case the question is ill fitted to a logical proof, no?
If I answer your question "what can I know for 100% certainty" with the answer: "nothing".
Does that mean you know nothing with 100% certainty. Or you certainly know nothing.
Does accepting a lack of knowledge impart some form of knowledge?
Ill try . But probably wont succeed in answering your question.
The ultimate question (no not the one with the answer 42), is how can we know that we know anything. And the answer is we cannot. The best we can do is to convince ourselves of a solipsistic existence (think, therefore exist) . But no proof can be found - or even what the proof may look like - to prove the world.
So we can know that we know nothing at all. Which is, yes a piece of knowledge. The only knowledge perhaps, but it is a lot stickier than that .
However that is really a tautological problem, as it doesnt do anything for anyone. We accept the world regardless of mind games, so then the next question is: what can we be certain of, assuming we accept the world? Again if you dont accept the world then there isnt much point conversing with you ;). Haha
However given a set of things we do accept about the world - are we certain or more certain of them? Yes we are. That will depend on what context you accept, and if you indeed follow any logical reasoning (I would estimate that 2/3 of people have no logical reasoning capabilities whatsoever beyond habit), which doesnt really count). These people think with emotions, basically what they want to believe because it makes them feel particular ways. Etc etc. well probably a lot higher than 2/3. A lot. And of course everyone is logical sometimes and culpable sometimes, so lets talk percentages of thoughts - I still think it is a lot higher than 2/3.
The point is, we can be certain of some things within a context / framework. But it is only as certain as the framework within which it resides is valid. Take scientific knowledge for example, what we knew 200 years ago is out of date in parts because the framework and context had been improved. Ad infinitum.
So certainty is relative.
I am not in line with everything in the post but the last line, yes, I am at least that which doubts.
Quoting Banno
Yes, but we can't do much against that. The hard problem of consciousness is perhaps incontrovertible.
Many physicalist philosophers say:
Image from Dr. Bogardus
Quoting Metaphyzik
An immediate awareness, an experience. This is the experience that the philosophers above are talking about. That thinking presupposes existence is an intuition, a belief that does not come from inference or from experience but that we can't conceive otherwise.
We need to be very careful here.
Is your claim that there are two substances, or that Descartes said there were two substances? If the latter, I will agree. If the former, then I will disagree.
Also, given the topic, is you claim that you are 100% certain there are two substances?
If not, then I suggest that this is too far from the OP.
Never heard of.
Quoting Banno
I am not defending dualism, but only that it appears that physicalism will always be incomplete.
Quoting Banno
Latter. Even for Descartes I don't thik he would say prima facie it is sure that there are two substances. The existence of bodies, aka res extensa, is far from certain. If he did, and he likely would, he would do so by invoking God.
But a statement like certainty is relative is not relative.
I agree that we are only certain of things within a context, but when we say certainty is relative, we are making everything the context (with no room left for the context to change) and speaking of all certainties ( namely they are all relative).
So maybe it is not that certainty is relative, but that certainty is rare and reserved for things in the context of everything and all time.
In a sense it does. We still know something (maybe generally) before we might adduce we know nothing in particular.
I seem to recall Bertrand Russell making the same argument. In proclaiming, "I think, therefore I am," Descartes has snuck "I" in the back door. All he has done with 100% certainty is to demonstrate "thinking" exists -- not "I."
Yes of course. The posit of the statement certainty is relative is an absolute statement. Absolute relativity is an oxymoron.
The thought pattern leads to it though. So it is a standard self-referential paradox. Set of all sets kind of stuff. There are lots out logic traps out there. Sometimes we can get out of them by couching our terms and avoiding the validity of self-referential statements but in the end those never seem to be that convincing. They seem like special case exceptions for no real reason.
The takeaway is that it isnt a certain statement.
The paradox runs like this:
* everything is relative
* if true then that is an absolute statement
* if it is an absolute statement then everything cannot be relative
Certainty doesnt quite fit in place of everything. But close enough.
* certainty is relative
* if true then its an absolute statement. If we are to be certain of it then how would we even be certain in a relative way about something so straight forward / simple? It seems impossible to even know what relative certainty is in this case.
* if so, then certainty cannot be relative.
Now interestingly enough, that argument doesnt make the statement false. It shows that it is not logically complete. Meaning you cant say that it is always valid. In context And around the circle we go again.
Does this mean that context with regards to certainty is an invalid parameter?
Does this mean that believing in relativity with regard to certainty is not a logically sound argument (after all the premise cannot be certain)
Or does it simply mean it is a meaningless statement to call anything relative?
And therein lies the "resolution" to your unresolvable paradox, right?
You are judging how it stands up to logic.
If nothing is absolute, neither is logic.
Hence the illusion of a problem that does not arise in a/the Reality where everything isn't relative.
It ends up being a critique of how we think. Aka how we logically thinks
It is a resolution in that it posits that logic is in itself invalid except where we can consider it to be complete. The conclusion would be that logic is only absolutely correct when it is relative.
And a self referential statement like that - logically derived - implies that it is absolute, if that statement is to be believed absolutely. Therefore relativity has nothing to do with it, even though that was the purpose of the statement. Negate it and follow through the loop to the same point, ad infinitum.
It is not a solvable problem.
Now that is theoria. In praxis, we arent too much concerned over this. And the avoidance of self referentially applying propositions like that is all part of accepting the world - else we would be all solipsists, or one step above that (meaning we accept logic as valid as part of the world so avoiding that would mean we accept the world in absolute anarchy, which I think some do )
But this distinction is interesting when we consider what we can be certain about. It seems that we are certain about what at base level we accept of the world. Substitute that for I think, which would really be I accept therefore I am, because there really isnt much of a choice. So we are left to logically backfill the acceptance with an incomplete structural set of thinking patterns. Which are great when applied to a set, but fail when thinking about it belonging to its own set of sets that dont belong to itself etc etc. logic is a tool designed for certain uses.
That is why (one reason anyways) the philosopher doesnt really think he/she knows anything. We are certain to the extent that we can be convinced.
And the epistemological underpinning of acceptance is experiential, or a-priori if you will, etc etc. lots of room for plausible explanations (and room for some that dont make sense). Given a very basic acceptance level - what else actually makes sense? I would think that the further up the acceptance chain you go the more specific beliefs and sets of knowledge are in play, and if you actually try to understand them instead of believing you already know what you are supposedly investigating, then the amount of certainty in the world (measured by people purporting certainty about things) to be fairly large, and the amount of falseness that we would recognize to also be less large. Ugh. Never mind.
No, that was informative. Thank you. And I get your frustration. Feels impossible sometimes to address such multilayered complexities in a narrow time and space.
You did a nice job, at the very least, illustrating how it is much more multilayered and com0lex than my prompt implied.
Thanks. I do tend to ramble on a bit though haha. Just my take on it though, although I am always ready to be convinced otherwise. Looking for the most plausible explanation really arent we?
Thanks Ill take a read
This seems to justify: "I am" as opposed to merely: "thinking is," because there is both thinking and the recursive awareness of this thinking as thought. What is the "I" but this very sort of self-awareness in thought? But if there is self-awareness, some self exists, since it would seem that a "self" or "I" is definitionally just this very sort of awareness.
Whereas, it seems possible that a goldfish or fetus might experience some level of first person subjective experience, but not any sort of recursive self-knowledge.
Descartes' doesn't bring this out fully, but I do think he implicitly answers the big criticism against his famous line. For it is not simply that there "is thinking," but also that there is recursive self-awareness of thinking. This is what motivates the statement in the first place.
In other words, the "I" is what experiences thoughts definitionally as you said.
But about recursiveness, Cardano's criticism:
Quoting Discource on the Method, Ian Maclean translation, explanatory note 28
But then Descartes states not "I think therefore I am" but "'I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is conceived in my mind.". It is not that the memory of something allows us to know that we exist, but that everytime we think we are sure of our own existence.
I'm not sure if this is much of a criticism. Thought is essentially processual. The very effort to understand a claim like "I think, therefore I am," relies on "prior cognition," as Aristotle says. "This is also true of both deductive and inductive arguments, since they both succeed in teaching because they rely on previous cognition: deductive arguments begin with premisses we are assumed to understand, and inductive arguments prove the universal by relying on the fact that the particular is already clear." (Posterior Analytics)
But simply because thought "is" in the context of becoming doesn't mean "it is not," anymore than an eclipse can be shown "not to be," simply because it occurs over an interval.
Notably, I think the common complaints here are dealt with quite well by Augustine, who has his own formulation of Descartes' famous proposition. There, the theory of mind binds together being, knowing, and willing, such that the three are intrinsically related in forming the "I"
It is. Cardano's point is that the earlier part of the process might belong to a subject other than the one that says "I am".
It just doesn't seem very convincing. The experience of being aware of an experience is phenomenologicaly concurrent with it. Certainly, it's true that we don't have an experience "in no time at all," but it seems like a mistake here to take experience as being decomposable into smaller and smaller intervals, with certain parts having to follow others in serial order. Understanding seems to occur as a sort of parallel, composite process (which makes sense given our cognitive architecture).
I think the issue might be conflating the process of developing a thought into a propositional form, and the experience of self-awareness itself. For example, in the passage from Augustine above he spends a paragraph unpacking inferences made from an experience of knowing and willing that occurs in an instant. These two are divided in propositional thought, yet if a line drive is hit to us while playing baseball, our experience doesn't seem to involve first knowing that the ball has been hit, then willing our body to move to catch it. We do all of these together, seamlessly knowing, willing, and acting. Likewise, in introspection we experience and experience our own experiencing together.
Beyond the possibility of a mistake, the task of decomposing thoughts on the axis of time is very troublesome, and I would be interested to know if there was ever a philosopher to undertake this task. For example, when we think "red car", does that take less time than if we were to think "the happy swimmer dove into the shallow lake"? Surely one has many more concepts than the other, but ultimately at least for me , both give one single mental image that can be realised at a given instant of time. So is it a single thought when we say "X therefore Y" because we are uniting these concepts or is it the thought of X followed in time by the thought of Y? I expressed this worry before in the thread:
Quoting Lionino
In any case, though Cardano's criticism is very much welcome and healthy, I pointed:
Quoting Lionino
Descartes' idea starts with an immediate intuition. And it may not even be that we need to know thinking implies existence to have this immediate intuition (the inference we were talking about). Everytime we think we are making sure that we exist, every thought comes with the experience of being there, of existing a "da-sein" if you will.
Professor Hintikka in a letter put it as "ego cogitans existo" instead (I, who thinks, exists).
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Surely it is a process, but going too far with this idea would have implications on our view of personal identity, which might not be something that I want to commit myself to. Specifically, if our understandings cannot be at any point analysed from one other, we are committing ourselves to a psychological continuity. I think that it is desirable to be able to separate the thoughts from Tuesday from the thoughts of Sunday, even though they are ultimately linked the first and last link of a chain are distinct even if ultimately connected.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, I think this is an important distinction. Even if an experience, physically, neurologically takes place in time, it is still a experience; putting it in words is a translation of the experience, aiming for communication with people whose minds we assume are like ours; but yet language does not exhaust thought. If I had to make a wild guess, I would say this conflation is more common in people who think in words rather than images.
But as before, I still think the experiences/thoughts of Tuesday and the experiences/thoughts of Sunday can and ought to be separated.
. The schema of substance is the permanence of the real in time ..
The schema of possibility is the determination of the representation of a thing at any time .
The schema of reality is existence in a determined time .
The schema of necessity is the existence of an object in all time .
It is clear, from all this, that the schema of the category of quantity contains and represents the generation (synthesis) of time itself, in the successive apprehension of an object .
the schema of quality the synthesis of sensation with the representation of time, or the filling up of time .
the schema of relation the relation of perceptions to each other in all time (that is, according to a rule of the determination of time) .
and finally, the schema of modality and its categories, time itself, as the correlative of the determination of an objectwhether it does belong to time, and how.
The schemata, therefore, are nothing but à priori determinations of time according to rules, and these, in regard to all possible objects, following the arrangement of the categories, relate to the series in time, the content in time, the order in time, and finally, to the complex or totality in time.
(CPR A143-145/B182-185)
Maybe not exactly what you asked for, but does show there was/is a philosopher tasking himself with decomposing that which is thought about, to its necessary relation to time.
I have been kicking around ideas on this for a while. In Eddington's "The Rigor of Angles: Kant, Borges, Heisenberg, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality," he discusses a philosophical treaties by Heisenberg that tries to apply his famous uncertainty principle to language. His basic thesis is that words (and so propositional, syntactical thought) can have more or less dynamic or static meanings. In science, we try to speak very precisely and rigorously, using many words to be clear. This ultimately makes our language less dynamic, causing it to cover less cognitive ground. The more we try to focus them on to just one thing and fix that thing, the more the words lose their purchase on what we are describing.
I think we can tie this back to limits on the "cognitive bandwidth," conciousness has. R. Scott Bakker has written some good stuff reviewing studies on the quite limited bandwidth/bit rate of human propositional/linguistic thought (inner monologue being a prime example). Long descriptions essentially get too long and the flood of precise detail makes us lose the thing being described. For us to understand complex propositions about complex topics, e.g., some proposition about "Hegelian dialectical," we cannot stop to unpack our propositional knowledge of all the terms. We must have studied the terms and internalized them so that we have a "grasp" of their intelligibility such that they can be "present" to us simply, without unpacking.
We might liken this simple grasp to Aristotle's second sort of knowing, adiaireta. It's more a noetic awareness of the thing. It might be cultivated and informed by propositional knowledge, but it's opposite is ignorance or lack of awareness of a term, not falsehood as in propositional thought.
So for instance, we might paint a word portrait of the Mona Lisa quite well in a paragraph. If we try to be super detailed and start listing precise dimensions, hex codes for the colors used, etc., we can have a description with way more precision that we nonetheless read and have no idea what it is describing. By contrast, Keats' "Ode to a Grecian Urn," captures the substance of an art work in a dynamic way that a very static description cannot.
This is also why I think we can get endless milage out of some of the more poetic, vague philosophers. They don't fix their subject to the same degree, and this allows their words to cover a more dynamic range.
I think there is a good convergence here with some more phenomenolgical works on knowledge (e.g. Robert Sokolowski) and also St. Aquinas' understanding of the "God's eye view," where intelligibilities are present "all at once." The "view from nowhere," or "view from anywhere," errs by failing to account for how knowing occurs over time and how more and more abstract and rigorous formulations lose their grip on intelligibilities. The "view from nowhere/anywhere," really wants to be the God's eye view, where intelligibility is simply present, but the desire to excise God from an explanation led to excising mind as well, leading to incoherence where "objectivity approaches truth at the limit," and so the true view of things is "how they are conceived of with no mind."
The goal of understanding then is a sort of contemplative grasp that can then be used in the dividing and combining of discursive thought (e.g. Aquinas' description in his commentary on Boethius' De Trinitate).
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Interesting. This seems to be where the knowledge of my own existence falls into.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I wouldn't say being vague is ever a good thing in philosophy, I would say it is terrible indeed. Though the other side, limiting philosophy to language and philosophising by analysing propositions and syllogisms is also far from ideal, even if useful sometimes.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Instigating. There seems to be a useful anatomy of intellect entrenched in this idea.