You say one can't be convinced of something unless one exists. You say you have to exist to be convinced. Where does that come from? As far as I know the first thing to be proven is existence. Being the prime primary it has to be proven without a single assumption. All assumptions can be made after proving that one exits. If one's still in hesitation about one's existence how can one assume that "I should exist to be convinced?"
Being able to think doesn't necessarily mean the existence of the thinker. That that one has to be before one is able to think is an "existence-based" assumption. Hence is doesn't qualify for proving existence.
.No. Read it again, please. It's a "supposed" (we've this word in comon) proof against any statement of the form "I [beep] therefore I exist." You needn't go there again, it's here:
I'm not convincing you that you don't exist, I repeat for 102th time. I'm showing how meaningless it may be to take any statement (even this well-shaped one) for granted.
There are no "necessities" at this level. See, Descartes had gone a long way when he came to "I think therefore I am." He'd put away his religious and scientific suppositions along with the common sense. This is the purifying of the mind. He purified his mind to see beyond what he was usually supposed to see.
).It's "I think therefore I am", "Cogito ergo sum", "je pons donc je suis." I thought Descartes' word would seem better in his native language.
Being is a pragmatically superior supposition but it's nothing more than a supposition.
) was able to try and convince someone that they didn't exist (not saying that that's what you are doing, you "could" though, and that's the point), proves that both people (the one convincing and the one being convinced) exist.There are two things here. First, that my proof relies on linear logic's vulnerability to an uncertain statement. On the first step I ask you to define the state of truth for the two contrary statements, P([beep]) and P'([beep]). Since we're viewing it using linear logic, you've no escape from giving the statements their respective truth values. You'll either have (P([beep]) = T, P'([beep] = F)) or (P([beep]) = F, P'([beep] = T)). I've shown that either of your possible choices in the framework linear logic lead to situations that are out of context, again for linear logic.
Well, everyone makes mistakes... even me and...
No, I haven't said that. In my proof I offered you a statement, P([beep]), and asked you to determine its truth value. Whatever truth value you've chosen, it doesn't relate to me. I only have to show that for every truth value something obscene happens.
I can't get this. I wasn't kidding and really meant the hint. The paragraph I'd written above that hint really suffers internal inconsistency. I meant is as an excercise to find out if you can find where I've slipped. The hint is still there. See if you can find the weak point in that paragraph.
I'm not contradicting myself, I'm contradicting your idea. Causality is the bond that connects the doer and the deed. It isn't a necessity. It needn't be there. The deed can be there without a doer if we ignore causality. This won't be a bad ignorance for causality is an empirical pattern; it isn't a logical obligation.
No, I haven't ever read the book or caught a glimpse of it. I'd be thankful if you quote the part you're referring to.
.Uncertainty is the death of many other things. That's what I really enjoy about it. Uncertainty is the death of confidence, righteousness, significance, preference, prudence, supremacy, ... If they're dying perhaps they don't deserve living on.
It's a book on actual Motorcycle Maintenance. Only the motorcycle is a bit bigger, a bit more complex, a bit stranger, a bit different, just a bit. For me, it ranks among the very best among the books I've read.
Remember what you said before, "uncertainty won't affect our lives." I'm not going to take this back.
First, you must know the Evil Demon scenario is a very basic one. Many other much more elaborate scenarios can be made. I'm one of those scenarios.
In a sense, you're right! But we may never know...
Aha! I'll take you back
. Let me re-structure my proof into a storyline:I needn't convince you. I'm not posing for or against, I'm posing neutral. I'm not saying you have to exist to [beep] neither do I say you have not to exist to [beep]. I say there needn't be an ontologic bond between you and [beep]. It would seem sensible to you if I said: "your being there isn't an indication of an action being done." The same way, I could say and I've said: "the action's being there isn't an indication of your being there." These two statements are complementary. That you accept the first easily but reject the second with so much effort means that you're still under Aristotle's spell.
I'll tell you later.
No, it isn't. It isn't a "logical" obligation, it's an empirical pattern. For it isn't proven, it is observed. Do you consider Columb law of electric force between point charges an empirical pattern or a logical obligation?
I won't kill the result of my quest in exchange for a cold comfort. Uncertainty is the essence of dynamism and change. If I was certain I'll go to hell someday I would never move a finger for escaping the hell and winning the heavens.
Yes! You got it. That's the heart of this debate. I'm stating self-contradictory statements but am not embarrassed. Paradox is inevitable. You see my statements like lunacy but they're there just to make you think about it. I'm giving you self-contradictory statements to show the implications of uncertainty.
"Cogito ergo sum" was there to prove Descartes' existence. If he hadn't yet proven his existene how could have he proven his means of proving his existence?
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
1. For Mentat:
Aha! I'll take you back
00. You say: "Ahoy! I'm going to tell you I think therefore I am."
01. I say: "Behold! You can't say that!"
02. "Why not?"
03. "Wait a moment! Since you're the linear-logic-o-phile I may ask you anytime I wish if a statement is true or not, na?"
04. "Yep."
05. "So please tell me if P([beep]) is true or its contrary P'([beep]), P([beep]) being that there need be an I to [beep]."
06. You either say:
----a. "P([beep]) = T and P'([beep]) = F"
----b. "P([beep]) = F and P'([beep]) = T"
07. If you say (a) then I'd say: "You said there need be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement so you've pre-assumed Descartes' statement truth. Since you're informing of something you'd pre-assumed, you aren't doing much, you aren't proving. You're trapped in a loop, pre-assuming something and then debating about its truth."
08. If you say (b) then I'd say: "You said there needn't be an I to [beep] before we've started the debate about Descartes' statement. If it's so how could you say Descartes' statement is true? You'd said there's no necessary-sufficient relation between the I and the [beep] so you can no more say there's such relation."
Don't ask me. Show where the logical fault is. I described a step-by-step procedure whose steps are logical. Nothing wrong happens during the transition from one step to the other. Consequently, this can be considered a logical proof.
Yes, I said that. I said that about Causality. Causality has no relation to your existence. Anyway, I didn't pose pro/contra Causality. I only said "it needn't be there." Saying it "needn't" be there doesn't mean it "mustn't" be there, means it's not necessary if one's going to talk Philosophy.
May I ask if "thinking" is "not occurring" when you "think?" The implication of Descartes' statement is that a certain action, "thinking," when performed by the mind is a ground for the mind's existence.
It's indeed paradoxical/self-contradictory but not at first glance.
Don't play around with definitions, you'll get burnt! You should've known how I indulge in loops
I don't think that's a decent way of talking about EPR Experiment. This experiment has consumed years of physicists' lives and is still a hot topic. Is that you with few lines of argument have shown how much it should be credited?
I thought I was the stubborn one. For the zillionth time, Leibniz's idea and yours can't be proven. That's why they're equally creditable. Both are uncertain like any other idea one may think of.
Irrationality? Who said it was irrationality? And who said rationality is the only way of learning? And who said uncertainty hasn't helped me learn more? And who said progressive knowledge was worth throwing away the inevitable? And who said I'm stuck to uncertainty? And who said the death of progressive knowledge means that it can't be used anymore?
It's not you who determines if I can. I can think of "a Demon tricking" without "a Demon being there" because I'm not under Aristotle's spell, or at least I'm aware of the rune that's been cast here.
Before proving he existed he had to assume he didn't exist until he could prove his existence. Then if he didn't exist how could he believe he was thinking? He had to know and be sure that he was thinking but he couldn't be thinking if he didn't exist so his statement turns into: "I am therefore I am." What a miracle! He is therefore he is. That's why he no more "is"
I didn't. You only repeated what you'd written many times before, so I wrote nothing in response. I asked you to show me the logical fault in my proof. If there isn't a logical fault in my proof and it leads to a dilemma while studying Descartes' statement then the statement must be erroneous. This is simple; if a logical procedure leads to an illogical result, there should have been problems in either the procedure or its subject of study.
The proof has nothing to do directly with "I think." That P([beep]) statement in the proof is not (how many times have I said this?) related to Descartes' statement. It's a statement I made and asked you (in the course of that storyline) to determine its value as you liked. Since we're talking in a framework of Aristotelian logic you had to choose either T or F as the value for the P([beep]) I offered. P([beep]) can assume no states other than T and F, and you had to choose one. Then I showed that (whatever your choice has been) Descartes' statement, with regard to your choice about P([beep)'s value, leads to a dilemma.
The "fact?" Do you mean "fact" as you defined it? That sort of fact has no place in Philosophy. What I'm struggling over with you for such a long time is this "fact." You say it is necessary, it is a "fact," that one exists in order for one to think. I asked it over and over how you can be sure of this necessity. You said it was simple Causality (or so I understood) and I'm showing how trivial Causality is.
I don't hold the EPR Experiment sacred but I think it's very interesting, nor do I hold sacred its results. I would have a hard time with uncertainty if I wanted to hold something sacred. What I don't like so much is ignorance and careless conclusions.
It isn't that I've chosen a path that loops infinitely; it is that all known human paths are infinite loops. Loops are all you can see. Our knowledge is self-referenced. It doesn't include what "is" (if "being" in the sense we understand is sensible to the Universe) but what "is represented." There's a chasm of Unknown between what "is" and what "is represented."
Did I write this sentence? Or this is what you understood of what I wrote? There's a big difference between these two.
It is circular. "That has been caused has been caused" lacks the meaning of causation. You say "that has been caused," so you're expected to say "what causation is" independent of "that has been caused." Then you say "has been caused" implying that "causation" is the event happening to "that has been caused." The first part "that has been caused" promises to define "causation" in its following part while the following part points back at the firs part.
I'm not a Physicist but I'm wondering what you're thinking of Quantum Mechanics. It isn't sorcery, it's science. Being "quantum mechanically" bound doesn't means anything more than being bound. Protons and Neutrons in an atom nucleus are "quantum mechanically" bound to each other by strong nuclear force. They aren't one entity; they're one group of distinct entities. The same way, a pair of entangled particles isn’t one entity; they're simply a pair gathered into one group under a certain rule of conduct.
How could the Physicist (the cause) cover the delay between two far-off events? A Physicist is usually located at one place and can affect (act as the cause to) things in a radius of a few meters and there's always a delay between what she/he does (as the cause) and what happens (as the effect). In this case you can consider the Physicist the cause to the spin change but then how can you explain absolute zero delay between her/his action and the spin change in the remote particle? Nothing changes here, whatever the cause may be, the zero delay can't be explained with a Causality bond that takes the chronological order as a basis to the distinction of the cause and the effect.
Don't use this word, "fact," this much. As long as we're debating uncertainty and existence, fact is out of context and using it is premature for if uncertainty is shown to prevail, no such thing as fact can be called for. You can't talk of some "fact" as a certain piece of knowledge before you've shown certainty has any chance here.
Even if I was in your physical presence you couldn't point at something. We talked about this before on "Knowledge?" thread where I described that before being certain of your existence, your audience's existence, your qualia, your audience's qualia and a big bunch of other things, you can't "point at" or "show" something. We're discussing certainty and uncertainty so we ought not to be bound to either point of view and/or use their suppositions/obligations.
A logical obligation is the outcome of deduction from the axioms of a logical system. As long as the participants of the dialog are bound to that logical system, these logical obligations must be held inviolate. Let's see this example in Boolean algebra:
I only asked a few questions. You could show me if there was a problem with them. Don't you think avoiding the answers to possibly "stupefied and irrational" questions is even more "stupefied and irrational?"
Isn't that there are those certain premises to this statement, another premise? Where does this premise of yours take it validity from?
You told me the Demon may be either "existent" or "non-existent" and that this statement, "a Demon tricking," implies that a Demon exists. What I wrote in response was that the Demon may assume many states other than "existent" and "non-existent." And that for your deduction (a Demon must be there if a Demon is playing tricks) to be creditable it was necessary that we're bound to Boolean logic, where the statement "a Demon is there" (one of your sub-propositions) may only be either T or F.
I wasn't wandering in dreams of uncertainty (although it's much fun to do); I was showing you the vista of uncertainty and the vast realm beyond Aristotle.
Let's go the other way. If Descartes "had" to exist in order to think then why do you bother "proving" his "cogito ergo sum?"
.And I'm telling you it does apply. The problem here is your misunderstanding of the notation I used.
This thread is named "I think therefore I am" and I'm trying to show this statements and all statements of the form "I [beep] therefore I am" lead to undesirable situations when viewed from the viewpoint of Boolean logic. I came to this thread because we had a debate on another thread where I claimed the Uncertainty applies to all human knowledge and you opposed saying there are certain parts of human knowledge one can be sure of.
It'd be helpful to know that your stance could be modified to comply with Uncertainty. I'm opposing you because you see Descartes' statement as a proof of existence. I think this statement can't be held as a proof but as a between-the-lines hint. This between-the-lines hint doesn't prove or guarantee but it intrigues.
I don't hold the Uncertainty sacred. For me, it's just a between-the-lines hint, nothing more. And yes, we've talked about the paradox but we haven't reached a compromise.
After having understood what Uncertainty is, how it works, what its results are and how it is inevitable and paradoxical, you're left on your own to choose what has merit for you. That's why I emphasize Uncertainty this much. No certainty can bring those degrees of freedom, even though there're still boundaries, that Uncertainty brings. Uncertainty is the most general point of view for it simply allows everything.
Uncertainty needn't allow certainties but again it's a drive towards them. A Physicist is uncertain of her/his findings so she/he will try to gather more about her/his subject of study. This is the Uncertainty drive although it's aimed at certainty. And then why do you like certainty this much? You like to be certain that you are, that you are the way you see yourself in the mirror, that the Universe be the way you currently perceive. Isn't this liking a bit too simplistically oriented? What do you want out of certainty?
Where does your passion for progress come from? Who says progress in its current form is better than stability? All your reasoning is based on your suppositions (suppositions like, "science is good," "learning is good," "progress is necessary") that don't seem to be more valid to me.
That's another rule from Boolean logic. Another system of logic may even assign other states to a statement, no true or false.
Sorry for the roughness of the analogy but your saying deserves some hard opposition. There was once a horse that loved her blinders for she had them on for so long.
Aristotelian way of thinking is woven into our everyday lives. It's endured 2000 years and will endure much longer for it's easy (not quite easy but much easier than a sincere study of our knowledge) and frees one from the burden of thinking further into the complexity.