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

  • Thread starter Mentat
  • Start date
In summary, Descarte's famous saying "I think, therefore, I am" comes from an argument in which an Evil Demon tried to convince a man that everything he believed was false, but could not prove that the man himself did not exist. The saying highlights the fact that thinking is proof of one's existence. However, others believe that attentiveness to one's being or experiencing can also lead to the awareness of existence. Some suggest a slight modification to the saying, such as "I think therefore I know" or "I think therefore I am aware". Ultimately, the saying is just a conclusion of an argument and should not be taken too literally.

Was Descartes right?

  • Yes

    Votes: 25 75.8%

  • No

    Votes: 8 24.2%
  • Total voters
    33
  • #141
... continued from the previous post
As he has mine. However, the comparison was not a positive one, as people have extreme difficulty in trying to rationalize with such a person.
I know, but it’s challenge that toughens the reason, am I right?
Wrong! Are ideas are not equally creditable, and to say so (without confronting my counter-arguments) is to side-step the issue.
Why aren't our ideas equally creditable? You see, I found two "uses" for Uncertainty.

Even if I couldn't find those uses, what is there to distinguish usable ideas from unsusable ones? What gives the usable ones the significance you claim for them?

One more question is: are there any "unusable" ideas at all?
Langauge already has a definition. Well...I guess it shouldn't really be able to define itself. However, Science (a field that is independent of language) has defined it, and so I guess I can define it.
Science isn't independent of language because it's expressed in terms of language and the limits (if there are any) to language limit the expression of Science.

And Language's definition has been a matter of hard debate for many years. There're many definitions for Language, all made by renown linguists. It's still a hot spot.
... So, unless we can stop debating definitions, and settle for those that have been agreed upon for so long (as long as the current English language has existed), we aren't going to get anywhere.
You're right.
I see, but you haven't done this. By debating definitions, you have merely side-stepped the real issue: That you cannot show me any practical use for "Uncertainty", while I can show you why I think it to be unusable.
I gave two usages for Uncertainty. Even though I still claim your "usefulness" is a vague concept.

Besides, if you define "use" clearly then we can start discussing if Uncertainty is "unusable" or not.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
Please forgive my tardiness in responding...

Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
To my understanding, the Demon was Descartes' sparring partner. Descartes made the Demon to challenge his suppositions and verify their truth. From this viewpoint Descartes and the Demon have equal places, they're the two sides of a philosophical debate.

"Trying to convince" means "trying to prove logically," within a debate. It doesn't seem to me like that phrase has to say anything further. In trying to prove something logically, all positions are equal until a fault is found in one or more of positions.

If the Demon is said to "have tried to convince" of something (that Descartes didn't exist) then Descartes can also be said to "have tried to convince" of the opposite thing (that he did exist).

Yes, but there is no logical flaw in trying to prove that you do exist, while I have already shown the logical flaw in trying to prove that you don't.

Descartes' attempt had one difference. He didn't try to directly prove Q = T, instead he attacked the Demon's claim that Q = F and showed the claim's logical failure. He showed that "claiming Q = F" in face of the entity whose being is declared in Q, is logically problematic and from there he concluded "Q = T."

My proof furthers his attempt. The same way he proved "claiming Q = F" was logically problematic, I've proven "claiming Q = T" to be logically problematic, by using the same premise that was used in Descartes' proof.

No you haven't proven that. You have proven that deriving Q's truth from the truth of P is logically problematic. There's a difference.

The twist is that Descartes committed the same false attempt that the Demon had committed. He proved that "claiming Q = F" is problematic, and he concluded from there that "Q = T." He "claimed" Q to be T while he wasn't "allowed" to do so within the logical framework he and his partner, the Demon, were working.

Do you still not realize there was not real battle going on, since the Demon commited a logical fallicy in "starting the fight" right to begin with. Therefore, the whole argument would have no basis, since what started it was logically problematic.

You aren't allowed to infer based on your guess about the Demon's assumption.

It's not a guess, it's a logical necessity, as there wouldn't be anyone to convince, if Descartes didn't exist. The Demon made his assumption as clear as it could possibly be.

I discussed Causality in previous posts. There's a reason to that. You think "if there's deed, there's a doer." The same way you think "if there's an attempt, there's a target," which is another form of Causality (used in inferring the Demon's "will" from its attempt). These relationships are mental patterns. These are "optimization methods," like I wrote before. They aren't theorems derived from the logical system's axioms. Hence, they can't be used in any logical debate.

You are not going to wiggle out that way, Manuel :smile:, I have already shown that assuming one's capacity to think also assumes the existence of that one, and you agreed.

I think you mean that talking about "entity D" at the very moment the entity is named is equal to pre-supposing the entity's existence.

A subtle point is made here, very subtle indeed. If naming "entity D" is equal to pre-supposing its existence then "entity D" is defined by one of those "being that is" (remember the monk story) beings. You know, every being "is there" just after it's named. The very thinking of the existence of a being makes the being "be" in some sense. However, all these beings are "forbidden" within Aristotelian logic (and I wasn't the one who made this logical system).

Entity D "can't exist" within Aristotelian logic. I don't say it doesn't exist but it isn't allowed to "be" within this system. If Descartes is an "instance" of entity D then he "can't be" within the system he's chosen to work in.

No, you are wrong here. By naming the entity, the one doing the naming has assumed it's existence.

And Descartes "later" attempt in concluding his existence from "his true proof" was in vain, because he defeated his own purpose (that's to remain within the bounds of Aristotelian logic).

This "later attempt" was not really an attempt to prove that Q was true, it was an attempt to show that one cannot question Q's truth in the manner that the Demon had attempted to (I've said this before, haven't I?).

How do you know that?

The bond between the doer and the deed is "an empirical pattern" (and one from the scientific Universe). It isn't "allowed" for use in logical debates.

I know that because his existence is a sub-premise of all of the statements of the form "he was [bleep]" (you can substitute "doubting", "hesitant", or whatever else you want for "[bleep]", but it remains the same). This has already been explained, and is in fact the reason that you said that "I think therefore I am" = "I am therefore I am".

Got to go now, sorry. Please think about this, and await the rest of my response.
 
  • #143
Philosophers never make good points. Their points are invalid. Their only purpose is a moment of emotional feelings. Philosophy has no purpose in reality. It's a Pseudo-System.
 
  • #144
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophers never make good points. Their points are invalid. Their only purpose is a moment of emotional feelings. Philosophy has no purpose in reality. It's a Pseudo-System.

Try an name a system of learning that is not a sub-set of Philosophy. Philosophy is the mother of all systems of learning, and thus deserves a little more respect.
 
  • #145
Please forgive the delay in finishing my response, I just couldn't find the time...

Originally Posted By Manuel_Silvio:
It is. Descartes' statement is non-informative because it's "circular reasoning," it's a loop. And a loop isn't allowed "even in that context," for part of the context to Evil Demon scenario is compliance to Aristotelian logic.

A loop must never ever appear in Descartes' statements because he himself has chosen to work bound to Aristotelian logic.

And this choice denies the very feasibility of the Demon's challenge. Yes, there may be something wrong with the statement that Descartes used, but he was merely using a problematic statement to demonstrate the problem with the Demon's challenge. IOW, Descartes was saying that there is no need to argue the topic of his existence, because any attempt that the Demon made to disprove it, merely further validated it.

But that someone was his own creation, what if he couldn't create that someone? What if he wasn't Descartes and hadn't made the Evil Demon scenario?

Perfectly reaonable "what if"s but nothing more. The fact was that Descartes really did invent this Demon, and the Demon really did attempt to convince him that he didn't exist.

It can't be "both." It's only an "empirical pattern."

I say "I discuss" and you break this statement into two: "I am" and "I discuss." How can you break that statement into two sub-premises (as you call them)? This is by "pre-supposing" that "if there's a discussion then there's someone who discusses."

You say the two sub-premises are contained in "I discuss." Where does this claim of yours come from? It comes from pre-supposing Causality, based on your mental patterns.

Yes and no. You see, Logic allows for the use of premises, but almost every premise has sub-premises. In order to say that "Entity D did [bleep]" I have to assume both the sub-premise of their being an "Entity D", and then I have to assume that "the aforementioned entity did something".

The restriction on loops is an axiom of Aristotelian logic. Descartes chose this system to work out his proof and I've countered his proof within the system of his own choice.

It doesn't matter. Don't you get it yet? The Demon lost before the war could even start. Descartes' statement was irrelevant, as the Demon had commited the sin of trying to disprove Q, after having assumed that P was true (you yourself have shown that this is paradoxical, and cannot be done).
 
  • #146
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Did I say the purpose of a number is intrinsic to that number?

I said there's a value associated with every attribute. We have the attribute (for example, height) and its value (for example, 666.13). Does this mean that 666.13 is intrinsic to height values? Or that all height values are 666.13? Or that 666.13 can only be a height value? No. None of these is contained in my words.

Sometimes you make such "big" mistakes and make me think you don't read what you're objecting.

Gee, thanks. No, I read what you said. You said "666.13 is a value of the attribute: height". The point I was making was that Uncertainty doesn't allow one to assume the truth of anything. We cannot assume the truth of assigning 666.13 to height, any more than we can assume that there is such a thing as "height" or "numbers".

Yes and no, but you say "fairness = paradoxical" and throw the concept away.

You say my definition is paradoxical like there's a non-paradoxical definition. If the concept of "fairness" (that seems to be so important to Philosophy) is paradoxical then I must be right in saying that Paradox is one facet of the most basic point in Philosophy, don't you agree?

Yes and no. I agree that there is a paradox, when one tries to find "fairness"; but I don't agree that it's all that important to Philosophy.

I've been talking of Uncertainty as a manner of thought. As a way to approach "fairness" that is unreachable because of its paradoxical nature.

You are trying to reach the unreachable. Might one ask, why?

And I've been talking of doubt, as being generally applicable to every statement and supposition. This is what I mean with Uncertainty. Its basic rule that says "nothing is certain" is derived from the basic rule of uncertainty that says "most of things are uncertain." It's unreachable, like "fairness" is, but I tend to like it and "try in vain" to reach for it.

Uncertainty cannot be derived from uncertainty. "Nothing is certain" directly contradicts assuming that "some things are uncertain".

You oppose me because of the paradoxical nature of Uncertainty and that it's unreachable. You say it's "unusable."

Actually though, it (or at least, trying to reach for it) has got two uses:

00. Try in vain to achieve it and you've tried your best to achieve fairness. That best effort will give you the clearest possible human view point.

Oh, bull! No offense, but I can't see how you can actually believe that trying to do something, while your effort is entirely in vain, can actually give you any clearer of a view.

01. It's an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?" Answering a question is a use after all. Isn't it?

If it is useful, then it is not an answer to the question "what can be unusable".

No, it doesn't suffice. The question "how do we move from not-knowing to knowing?," which is a question of this "transition," is a historical question.

It's been discussed since Plato and his "Meno" dialogue (where Plato contemplates the acquisition of "virtue," in fact). It's been answered many times and by many individuals.

If someone claims that this transition occurs or even that it's possible, that someone has to say "how it occurs," "why it occurs" and "why it doesn't occur in some other manner."

This debate must have taken place in "Knowledge?" thread but you came in and you were "sure" of "something" so I first had to "cure" this "certainty" .

Very funny.

Anyway, I don't care that it's been debated for so long (that's something that Wuliheron loves to bring up too, and it doesn't do him any good either), I just care that I have moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" numerous times in my life, and thus know (from experience) that it happens.

How does it happen? Through many different media, but always through the use of the processing capabilities of my brain.

Why does it happen? Because that's how humans are made: to be intelligent.

When I make a paradoxical and/or self-referential statement you tell me I'm being irrational. You can understand if I'm being rational or not by checking my statements for Paradox and Self-reference.

You don't want to call them, "borders." What do you call them instead (if you were to call them something, anyway)?

I call them dead-ends.

There's never an absence of these so there's no irrationality, right?

Oh there's an absence of these things. Typically this absence is found in Paradox and Loops, but there are other ways of finding it.

We've chosen to be "rational ones." Why have we chosen to be "rational ones?"

I don't know.

I give up. You were right with your interpretation even though I didn't mean what you understood. I made a bad sentence.

Alright then.

Anyway, your "uncertainty" is either incomplete or inconsistent: incomplete if its rule doesn't apply to itself, inconsistent if its rule is applied to itself.

Then it's incomplete, like any other system. However, (IMO) it's "fairer".

I surrender :smile:. Uncertainty can't be achieved, it's unreachable, agreed?

I've been saying that since we started discussing it. Yes, agreed!

Did I say I "needn't" move to a new house? I said it isn't easy (even though I really "needn't" do so).

There, you've just said that you "needn't" do so.

You mean you don't get the "new house" metaphor or something like that? "The new house" means "another paradigm."

These dead-ends are "true" dead-ends, there's nothing beyond them "within their respective paradigm." And for someone within a paradigm "there's nothing there" where "there's nothing there only within that paradigm" even though "there may be anything there viewed from another paradigm."

From within a paradigm, there's "really" nothing beyond these dead-ends but "the reality" itself is twisted, if not entirely incomprehensible, within "every paradigm."

As I thought. You are trying to say that jumping to the use of another paradigm is a way to get around the dead-end. This is exactly what I was telling you: A paradox is just a sign that you should abandon your current line of reasoning, and use another to achieve the desired result.

\
By the way, you've made a loop in defining "usefulness" using the phrase "being used," an understanding of which can only be gained by first understanding "usefulness."

Not really. I could give you examples (and yes they can be used in defining, they do it in dictionaries all the time), and I could demonstrate it (if you were physically near me).

Neither deductive nor inductive method suggest such a manner.

By deductive method you have to prove it. And you haven't.

By inductive method you have to find as many instances as possible, a reasonable statistical community. And you haven't.

Why do you want to keep this belief is it hasn't been proven superior?

Nonetheless, you can keep it and I can agree with you :smile:.

Well, that what's important (though it is perfectly allowable (IMO) that I should make a proposition that you can later test inductively, if you so choose).

Human history from a Blue Whale's point of view hasn't been anything but a few lethal or friendly encounters with Homo Sapiens.

Human history from Carnivora Canidae Canis genus of living beings' point of view has been the course of speciation of a new species, Canis Familiaris.

Human history from a Homo Sapiens's point of view is an entirely different thing.

We human beings associate "meaning," "order" and "incidence" with the events we experience. Other living beings do this their own way. In fact, these differ from individual to individual, from observer to observer. What we perceive as World War II and classify as a distinct era won't seem much different from the entire 20th century for a tortoise living around a pond somewhere in England.

It doesn't matter, as these are just examples of viewpoint. Viewpoint is not the same as actuality - although they are much more closely related than was originally thought (before Relativity theories).
 
  • #147
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post
I know, but it’s challenge that toughens the reason, am I right?

Yes, but when one gets hard-headed about it, there is no progress.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I admire Wuliheron as much as any other person, but he has his flaws, as do we all.

Why aren't our ideas equally creditable?

'Cause mines usable and yours aint.

You see, I found two "uses" for Uncertainty.

NO YOU DIDN'T. Let me make this perfectly clear: You found uses for the concept of Uncertainty, not Uncertainty itself. The "concept of Uncertainty" doesn't even conform to the premise of "Uncertainty" and is thus not only a distinct entity, but is at odds with "Uncertainty".

Even if I couldn't find those uses, what is there to distinguish usable ideas from unsusable ones? What gives the usable ones the significance you claim for them?

Their usability. Think about this for a moment: I give you an idea that is unusable, and what are you going to do with it? You cannot get more ideas through it. You cannot make any progress in your knowledge.

One more question is: are there any "unusable" ideas at all?

Sure, but there are none that are "complete" or "fair".

Science isn't independent of language because it's expressed in terms of language and the limits (if there are any) to language limit the expression of Science.

It isn't always expressed in language. It can be expressed in mathematics, or it can be expressed through physical demonstration.

And Language's definition has been a matter of hard debate for many years. There're many definitions for Language, all made by renown linguists. It's still a hot spot.

That's a subject for another thread.
 
  • #148
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:
Yes, but there is no logical flaw in trying to prove that you do exist, while I have already shown the logical flaw in trying to prove that you don't.
There is a logical flaw in that attempt and that's the making of a loop. A loop (in Descartes' statement) and a paradox (in Demon's statement) are equally illogical.
No you haven't proven that. You have proven that deriving Q's truth from the truth of P is logically problematic. There's a difference.
I have proven that for sure. I showed and you accepted that Descartes' statement is a loop (eg, it's of Q=>Q form).

Descartes' statement is a loop so Descartes has violated the rules of the logical system in which he was working just like the Demon had first violated those rules.

The Demon has gone wrong in making a paradox which is forbidden by Aristotelian logic. Descartes, too, has gone wrong in making a loop which is equally prohibited by Aristotelian logic.
Do you still not realize there was not real battle going on, since the Demon commited a logical fallicy in "starting the fight" right to begin with. Therefore, the whole argument would have no basis, since what started it was logically problematic.
Let's clear this once and end it. I don't want and accept anymore of these "you don't realize" phrases because they themselves betray your own false realization of the problem.

The Demon comes in and claims Q = F, Descartes counters, saying that "claiming Q = F is logically problematic." Until now Descartes is right, then he proceeds and says "since claiming Q = F logically problematic I conclude that Q = T."

The problem lies in this second act of scenario. The first act invalidates Demon's claim about Descartes' non-existence and that's true. In the second act we have Descartes concluding his existence from disproving the Demon's claim. And this isn't true because his means of disproving the Demon is just as illogical as the Demon's claim.

If the second act isn't performed then Descartes' work is all right but there in the second part lies the crucial part of his (and your) claim that "I exist." Claiming "I think therefore I exist" is just as illogical as claiming "I think even though I don't exist."

This is no proof of existence like it's no proof of non-existence. Existence is subject to uncertainty in this scenario.

I'm being quite clear and there's no way to escape this conclusion. This is the end to this line of discussion.
You are not going to wiggle out that way, Manuel , I have already shown that assuming one's capacity to think also assumes the existence of that one, and you agreed.
You haven't shown, you have assumed and I have agreed.

Yet I can question our agreement logically whenever necessary (surely not when I myself have used it in my proof). If I question that agreement my own proof won't be valid anymore but it isn't necessary when the agreement is questioned.

My proof can be used as long as I'm bound to our agreement.
Silvio: I think you mean that talking about "entity D" at the very moment the entity is named is equal to pre-supposing the entity's existence.

A subtle point is made here, very subtle indeed. If naming "entity D" is equal to pre-supposing its existence then "entity D" is defined by one of those "being that is" (remember the monk story) beings. You know, every being "is there" just after it's named. The very thinking of the existence of a being makes the being "be" in some sense. However, all these beings are "forbidden" within Aristotelian logic (and I wasn't the one who made this logical system).

Entity D "can't exist" within Aristotelian logic. I don't say it doesn't exist but it isn't allowed to "be" within this system. If Descartes is an "instance" of entity D then he "can't be" within the system he's chosen to work in.


Mentat: No, you are wrong here. By naming the entity, the one doing the naming has assumed it's existence.
Well, how does this relate to the sentences you'd quoted?

I was saying that Entity D is a being defined by a "being that is" definition and such entity isn't allowed inbound Aristotelian logic. Put it by the door when you come in!

The one who's naming Entity D should better know she/he isn't working inbound Aristotelian logic. Didn't you call upon Entity D, Rene Descartes? You described Entity D and said that Descartes is an instance of these beings. I deduced upon your description of Entity D and claimed it's a "being that is" type being. If you have anything in oppostion it must be done in showing that Entity D isn't of "being that is" type.
This "later attempt" was not really an attempt to prove that Q was true, it was an attempt to show that one cannot question Q's truth in the manner that the Demon had attempted to (I've said this before, haven't I?).
Since it wasn't an attempt to prove Q = T, it will never result in Q = T. And you and Descartes are wrong in thinking that Q is necessarily T, that you necessarily exist and have found a proof for that.

This is your wrong step.
Yes, there may be something wrong with the statement that Descartes used, but he was merely using a problematic statement to demonstrate the problem with the Demon's challenge. IOW, Descartes was saying that there is no need to argue the topic of his existence, because any attempt that the Demon made to disprove it, merely further validated it.
There "may" be something wrong with Descartes' statement? You have accepted that it's a loop and that is "definitely wrong within Aristotelian logic."

Using a problematic statement to demonstrate another problem? Using a broken bowl to drink the hemlock?

Descartes was free to say whatever he liked but in order to prove something inbound Aristotelian logic he had to follow the rules. He violated the rules to show another violation. This manner can't be tolerated.

The Demon made a paradox. Descartes made a loop. Both wrong. Existence uncertain!
Perfectly reaonable "what if"s but nothing more. The fact was that Descartes really did invent this Demon, and the Demon really did attempt to convince him that he didn't exist.
The fact? How do you know what is a fact if you don't know and can't know and can't prove whether or not you exist?
Yes and no. You see, Logic allows for the use of premises, but almost every premise has sub-premises. In order to say that "Entity D did [bleep]" I have to assume both the sub-premise of their being an "Entity D", and then I have to assume that "the aforementioned entity did something".
This is another line of discussion where our agreement is questioned.

Every premise is its own sub-premise like every set is its own subset. Thus there's no problem in saying, for every statement S, S = S.

However, premises must be broken into their sub-premises using the "rules of the logical system." You break the premise, "I think," into sub-premises "I am" and "I think." What can validate your action other than another premise saying "if there's an I thinking then there must be an I?"

This other premise is a form of Causality, "if there's a deed there's a doer." You aren't using the rules of Aristotelian logic to break the premise into its sub-premises, these sub-premises aren't logical sub-premises. They appear when you incorporate Causality in your deduction.

Causality has absolutely no place in deduction and it must never be used there. Hence, your breaking of that premise into its sub-premises is illogical.
It doesn't matter. Don't you get it yet? The Demon lost before the war could even start. Descartes' statement was irrelevant, as the Demon had commited the sin of trying to disprove Q, after having assumed that P was true (you yourself have shown that this is paradoxical, and cannot be done).
It "does" matter how you defeat your opponent. And the war starts whenever two opposing claims are put up. There was indeed a war for the Demon and Descartes faced each other. There was indeed a loss but there wasn't a winner and a loser, there were two losers.

You can't win a logical debate by committing the same fallacies you're accusing your opponent of. This isn't the way logic goes.
Yes and no. I agree that there is a paradox, when one tries to find "fairness"; but I don't agree that it's all that important to Philosophy.
I thought "fair" judgment and "clear" understanding were the heart of Philosophy. Have I been wrong all the time?
You are trying to reach the unreachable. Might one ask, why?
For in that effort lies "fairness" and "clarity."
Oh, bull! No offense, but I can't see how you can actually believe that trying to do something, while your effort is entirely in vain, can actually give you any clearer of a view.
Because it does. Trying to be Uncertain is trying to doubt everything. One will never be able to doubt "everything" but in trying that one will doubt as much as possible.

By doubting and trying to answer the doubts one will see as "fair" and "clear" as possible. By being aware of the unachievable Uncertainty one will know that absolute fairness is unachievable, too. And one won't take oneself too serious.
If it is useful, then it is not an answer to the question "what can be unusable".
This is paradoxical because of the vagueness of your "usability" concept. I've said it's vague many times before.

continued on the next post...
 
  • #149
... continued from the previous post

Here's a diagnosis of your "usability" criterion:

00. Assume there's the idea A.
01. By you claim, this A is either "usable" or "unusable."
02. If it's "usable" there's no problem.
03. But you claim A's "unusable."
04. If you say A's "unusable" then A must be an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?"
05. Being the answer to some question is a "use," considering the broad range you've included in its definition.
06. You'd said A's "unusable" but following your claim we've come to a "use" for A.
07. Hence, your "usability" criterion is paradoxical, if something is claimed to be "unusable." Everything "must" be considered "usable" in order to avoid paradox (and that's your tendency).

Don't counter me easily on this subject. I won't stand a single word of vague opposition for it's all so clear. If you have something in opposition, don't tell me that I don't get it or something, "reason" instead. Case dismissed!
Very funny.

Anyway, I don't care that it's been debated for so long (that's something that Wuliheron loves to bring up too, and it doesn't do him any good either), I just care that I have moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" numerous times in my life, and thus know (from experience) that it happens.

How does it happen? Through many different media, but always through the use of the processing capabilities of my brain.

Why does it happen? Because that's how humans are made: to be intelligent.
You can't simply get away with this question. It's been a crucial one and it's still a crucial one. It can't be treated carelessly.

You say you "know" you've moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" but then this is another piece of knowledge. How do "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing how you know" to "knowing how you know?"

The "knowledge" we're talking about isn't associated with brain. Brain and its artifacts are members of the scientific Universe which is a subset of human knowledge, Summa Gnaritas. This subset can't contain the whole and can't explain the process happening at layers beyond its power and duty.

Of course, you can reduce the whole to this subset (notice, this isn't a holist-reductionist debate, I'm not opposing analysis of systems). Many have tried to do so, but haven't questioned themselves if the motive to their action lied within the scientific Universe or another much more basic piece of knowledge. I guess the answer to this question will reveal their position.
Oh there's an absence of these things. Typically this absence is found in Paradox and Loops, but there are other ways of finding it.
You counted these things as: thinking, distinguishing, etc. Is there ever an absence of distinguishing? Such absence can never be, thus irrationality can never be.

In realization of a paradox or a loop one thinks and distinguishes.

Besides, rules of invalidity for paradoxes and loops exist only within logical systems that postulate these rules. Are you going to limit the possible logical systems to this group? It isn't simple to throw away countless possible logical systems.

Irrationality must be independent of logical systems and existent for all of them. You sometimes call others "irrational." There must be a meaning to that word regardless of the logical system these people are working in, otherwise you've called them "irrational" not even knowing if irrationality has a meaning in their respective systems.

This independence must be gained through the exclusion of irrationality from properties peculiar to a certain group of logical systems.
Silvio: We've chosen to be "rational ones." Why have we chosen to be "rational ones?"

Mentat: I don't know.
This isn't a question asked of you. It's asked of rational thinking. Since rational thinking claims to have an answer to every "why" question, this one should be answered, too. If this one isn't answered, you'll see the incompleteness in rational thinking, the crack in the wall.

And rational thinking "can't" have the answer to this "why" question. If it has an answer to this question then it must be considered self-sufficient (because it explains its own existence that way) and necessarily including self-reference.
As I thought. You are trying to say that jumping to the use of another paradigm is a way to get around the dead-end. This is exactly what I was telling you: A paradox is just a sign that you should abandon your current line of reasoning, and use another to achieve the desired result.
I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."

Another paradigm is not just another line of reasoning, not just another way in the same field. It's a whole new Universe. In this new Universe everything changes, everything is twisted to correspond to the new paradigm, like it was twisted before to correspond to the previous paradigm.

Another paradigm may use entirely different methods to approach a problem. It may use no methods at all. It may even prohibit an approach. It may even deny such problem. The problem itself may vanish in the paradigm shift. There's no telling what will happen after a paradigm shift, even if "happening" and "incidence," let alone coincidence, are existent in the new paradigm. Existence itself may vary or even disappear after a paradigm shift. The new paradigm may be incapable or inert towards abstractions like existence or it may be all about such abstractions.
Not really. I could give you examples (and yes they can be used in defining, they do it in dictionaries all the time), and I could demonstrate it (if you were physically near me).
Dictionaries aren't written for philosophical use. Dictionaries even define colors, they say "red like a rose." There's no "red" and no "rose" for Philosophy. You can even find a "dictionary definition" for "point," "ruler," "volume," "space" and "existence." They aren't written to really "define" something, they're written to give clues about what you already "intuitively" know, no further than that. And that's why a totally stranger to English language (or some jargon) can't use an English-English dictionary (or a technology cookbook); because she/he has no initial clues to the English language (or that field of technology).

Philosophy doesn't work on "demonstrations" in scientific Universe. It's got a different story.

Even if I accepted your "demonstration," could you then "demonstrate" the "use" of much of modern Cosmology? There's no "use" in it but answering highly abstracted questions and this "use" can't be demonstrated like the use of a hammer is shown.

A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete. It must include all instances of the type it's defining and exclude all other things. It must perform its task using agreed-upon keywords. It must be precise and clear. It must be able to withstand debate and analysis. It must act in top-to-bottom manner, in other words, it must be a general idea applied to beings to include them in or exclude them from a certain category. Consequently, it must be not a statistical bottom-to-top generalization (eg, inductive) but a definitive generalization (eg, deductive).
It doesn't matter, as these are just examples of viewpoint. Viewpoint is not the same as actuality - although they are much more closely related than was originally thought (before Relativity theories).
"Actuality" itself may be different for every observer.

The external reality is supposed to be independent of the internal reality, as matter is put in opposition to mind. The great divide is supposed to tear apart the Universe into two: the self and the rest, the inside and the outside. This supposition is no more creditable than other possible suppositions.
Yes, but when one gets hard-headed about it, there is no progress.

Anyway, suffice it to say that I admire Wuliheron as much as any other person, but he has his flaws, as do we all.
Hard-headed ones can reside on both sides, if we assume the presence of sides .
NO YOU DIDN'T. Let me make this perfectly clear: You found uses for the concept of Uncertainty, not Uncertainty itself. The "concept of Uncertainty" doesn't even conform to the premise of "Uncertainty" and is thus not only a distinct entity, but is at odds with "Uncertainty".
Now it's no more important. I've proven your "usability" criterion flawed.
It isn't always expressed in language. It can be expressed in mathematics, or it can be expressed through physical demonstration.
Langauge is a general term. It includes a wide range of possible ways of expression that all abide certain criteria. Although Linguists aren't in agreement about Language's definition, most of definitions apply to many means of expression and classify them all as Language; Mathematics included. Langauge doesn’t exclusively mean "natural" human languages, not to mention means of expression used by other living or non-living beings.

Certain structural and functional properties of these systems let them be classified as Language.
 
  • #150
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio


1. For Mentat:
There is a logical flaw in that attempt and that's the making of a loop. A loop (in Descartes' statement) and a paradox (in Demon's statement) are equally illogical.

But the second one that you mentioned preceded the first one that you mentioned, and was the basis for the argument. The Demon's case was problematic from the start, and Descartes was merely pointing it out to the Demon.

Remember, Descartes' reasoning is only problematic when it is used to prove one's existence, not when it is used to show the problematic nature of trying to prove one's non-existence.

I have proven that for sure. I showed and you accepted that Descartes' statement is a loop (eg, it's of Q=>Q form).

Descartes' statement is a loop so Descartes has violated the rules of the logical system in which he was working just like the Demon had first violated those rules.

The Demon has gone wrong in making a paradox which is forbidden by Aristotelian logic. Descartes, too, has gone wrong in making a loop which is equally prohibited by Aristotelian logic.

(See above.)

Let's clear this once and end it. I don't want and accept anymore of these "you don't realize" phrases because they themselves betray your own false realization of the problem.

Fine, I will never use that kind of phrase again. I only used it because I couldn't stand how obvious something seemed to me, while you utterly denied it. I apologize if this upset you, but remember that you have done it as well, by telling me that I don't understand the proof. I tried to get you to understand the difference between not understanding and disagreeing, but you didn't seem to even pay attention, so I left it alone.

The Demon comes in and claims Q = F, Descartes counters, saying that "claiming Q = F is logically problematic." Until now Descartes is right, then he proceeds and says "since claiming Q = F logically problematic I conclude that Q = T."

The problem lies in this second act of scenario. The first act invalidates Demon's claim about Descartes' non-existence and that's true. In the second act we have Descartes concluding his existence from disproving the Demon's claim. And this isn't true because his means of disproving the Demon is just as illogical as the Demon's claim.

I disagree with this interpretation. Descartes did counter with "claiming Q=F is problematic", but his second "statement" was "it is problematic because it only further validates Q's truth (since it assumes the truth of P)".

I'm being quite clear and there's no way to escape this conclusion. This is the end to this line of discussion.

No it's not. If you wish to leave, you go ahead, but that will only prove that you cannot counter the reasoning I have stated (above). Please, read what I said above and show me the flaw.

You haven't shown, you have assumed and I have agreed.

Yet I can question our agreement logically whenever necessary (surely not when I myself have used it in my proof). If I question that agreement my own proof won't be valid anymore but it isn't necessary when the agreement is questioned.

My proof can be used as long as I'm bound to our agreement.

I don't want to argue this point, so I will just say that the agreement can't be questioned without your losing the only argument you have in the "I think therefore I am" discussion.

Well, how does this relate to the sentences you'd quoted?

I was saying that Entity D is a being defined by a "being that is" definition and such entity isn't allowed inbound Aristotelian logic. Put it by the door when you come in!

The one who's naming Entity D should better know she/he isn't working inbound Aristotelian logic. Didn't you call upon Entity D, Rene Descartes? You described Entity D and said that Descartes is an instance of these beings. I deduced upon your description of Entity D and claimed it's a "being that is" type being. If you have anything in oppostion it must be done in showing that Entity D isn't of "being that is" type.

Listen to yourself. You are trying to say that there is a being who does not fit the criteria of "a being that is".

Since it wasn't an attempt to prove Q = T, it will never result in Q = T. And you and Descartes are wrong in thinking that Q is necessarily T, that you necessarily exist and have found a proof for that.

This is your wrong step.

Is this your final assumption? :wink:

There "may" be something wrong with Descartes' statement? You have accepted that it's a loop and that is "definitely wrong within Aristotelian logic."

Using a problematic statement to demonstrate another problem? Using a broken bowl to drink the hemlock?

Descartes was free to say whatever he liked but in order to prove something inbound Aristotelian logic he had to follow the rules. He violated the rules to show another violation. This manner can't be tolerated.

The Demon made a paradox. Descartes made a loop. Both wrong.

(See first response)

The fact? How do you know what is a fact if you don't know and can't know and can't prove whether or not you exist?

I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that no one can prove that I don't (without assuming that I do), and Descartes was equally satisfied.

This is another line of discussion where our agreement is questioned.

Every premise is its own sub-premise like every set is its own subset. Thus there's no problem in saying, for every statement S, S = S.

However, premises must be broken into their sub-premises using the "rules of the logical system." You break the premise, "I think," into sub-premises "I am" and "I think." What can validate your action other than another premise saying "if there's an I thinking then there must be an I?"

Yeah, so? Read your sentence again. You said "if there's an I thinking". Remove the word "thinking" (as it could be replaced by any verb anyway), and you have "if there's an I".

It "does" matter how you defeat your opponent. And the war starts whenever two opposing claims are put up. There was indeed a war for the Demon and Descartes faced each other. There was indeed a loss but there wasn't a winner and a loser, there were two losers.

(See first response please.)

You can't win a logical debate by committing the same fallacies you're accusing your opponent of. This isn't the way logic goes.

Descartes didn't commit the same fallacy, as I've already shown (see first response). Descartes only pointed out the flaw in the Demon's reasoning.

I thought "fair" judgment and "clear" understanding were the heart of Philosophy. Have I been wrong all the time?

"Clear understanding" is at it's heart, but that has nothing to do with it's being "fair". I can have a "clear understanding" of the universe, from my own PoV even if that PoV is perfectly irrational and goes against all logic. It would still be Philosophy, because it's my way of "pursuing wisdom".

For in that effort lies "fairness" and "clarity."

In the effort to reach "fairness" lies "fairness" itself? I doubt this very much.

Because it does. Trying to be Uncertain is trying to doubt everything. One will never be able to doubt "everything" but in trying that one will doubt as much as possible.

By doubting and trying to answer the doubts one will see as "fair" and "clear" as possible. By being aware of the unachievable Uncertainty one will know that absolute fairness is unachievable, too. And one won't take oneself too serious.

No, in trying to doubt everything, one will get nowhere. One "doubts as much as possible" by trying to "doubt as much as possible".

This is paradoxical because of the vagueness of your "usability" concept. I've said it's vague many times before.

You haven't proven that assumption yet, have you?
 
  • #151
Mentat - You just tore him a new one! Alas, it isn't worth it.
 
  • #152
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
... continued from the previous post

Here's a diagnosis of your "usability" criterion:

00. Assume there's the idea A.
01. By you claim, this A is either "usable" or "unusable."
02. If it's "usable" there's no problem.
03. But you claim A's "unusable."
04. If you say A's "unusable" then A must be an answer to the question "what on Earth can be unusable?"

Stop right here for a second, if you please. The question of "what on Earth is unusable" is not answered by idea A (unless idea A is usable, of course), but is answered by the concept of A. IOW, if A existed, it would be unusable.

Don't counter me easily on this subject. I won't stand a single word of vague opposition for it's all so clear. If you have something in opposition, don't tell me that I don't get it or something, "reason" instead.

I don't intend to be vague. I intend to "reason". I hope you don't construe my (above) answer as "vague" in any sense, because it wasn't intended to be.

You can't simply get away with this question. It's been a crucial one and it's still a crucial one. It can't be treated carelessly.

You say you "know" you've moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" but then this is another piece of knowledge. How do "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing how you know" to "knowing how you know?"

The same way I moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" in the first instance.

The "knowledge" we're talking about isn't associated with brain. Brain and its artifacts are members of the scientific Universe which is a subset of human knowledge, Summa Gnaritas. This subset can't contain the whole and can't explain the process happening at layers beyond its power and duty.

I disagree with this entirely. The Universe is not a sub-set of human knowledge, it is what is studied by the sub-set of human knowledge, Science. Yes, this may be an assumption of Science, but that doesn't mean that the Universe (should it be assumed to exist) is itself part of our reasoning processes.

You counted these things as: thinking, distinguishing, etc. Is there ever an absence of distinguishing? Such absence can never be, thus irrationality can never be.

Yes the absence of this can exist, and it is rather closed-minded to assume that it can't (if you'll forgive my saying so).

In realization of a paradox or a loop one thinks and distinguishes.

Yes, and I've already told you that - while paradoxes and loops, themselves, lie within the realm of irrationality - their realization lies in the realm of rationality.

Irrationality must be independent of logical systems and existent for all of them. You sometimes call others "irrational." There must be a meaning to that word regardless of the logical system these people are working in, otherwise you've called them "irrational" not even knowing if irrationality has a meaning in their respective systems.

No, no, no, I've called people irrational simply because their reasoning (at the time) didn't fit into any kind of reasoning.

This isn't a question asked of you. It's asked of rational thinking. Since rational thinking claims to have an answer to every "why" question, this one should be answered, too. If this one isn't answered, you'll see the incompleteness in rational thinking, the crack in the wall.

And rational thinking "can't" have the answer to this "why" question. If it has an answer to this question then it must be considered self-sufficient (because it explains its own existence that way) and necessarily including self-reference.

You mean to say that rational thinking can't have an answer for why we have chosen it? How can you possibly know that? Also, how can you use a rational approach to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality?

I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."

I thought we were going to dispense with the use of such statements.

Another paradigm is not just another line of reasoning, not just another way in the same field. It's a whole new Universe. In this new Universe everything changes, everything is twisted to correspond to the new paradigm, like it was twisted before to correspond to the previous paradigm.

Then it makes no sense to say that you move into this "new Universe" as a result of running into a dead-end, as the dead-end doesn't even exist in another "paradigm".

Dictionaries aren't written for philosophical use. Dictionaries even define colors, they say "red like a rose." There's no "red" and no "rose" for Philosophy. You can even find a "dictionary definition" for "point," "ruler," "volume," "space" and "existence." They aren't written to really "define" something, they're written to give clues about what you already "intuitively" know, no further than that.

Yes, but isn't Philosophy the pursuit of Wisdom? If so, then that which one "intuitively" takes for granted may be very useful to Philosophy.

Philosophy doesn't work on "demonstrations" in scientific Universe. It's got a different story.

Even if I accepted your "demonstration," could you then "demonstrate" the "use" of much of modern Cosmology? There's no "use" in it but answering highly abstracted questions and this "use" can't be demonstrated like the use of a hammer is shown.

Very true, but after I have demonstrated all of the basic things, that most human children have come to understand, we could build up to abstracts, could we not?

A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete.

So now mathematics is hard as concrete?

It must include all instances of the type it's defining and exclude all other things. It must perform its task using agreed-upon keywords. It must be precise and clear. It must be able to withstand debate and analysis. It must act in top-to-bottom manner, in other words, it must be a general idea applied to beings to include them in or exclude them from a certain category.

This is all your definition of "appropriate definition", isn't it? Do you see the paradoxical nature of such an undertaking? If you do, then you will quickly realize that yours is no more reliable than my definition of "appropriate definition".

"Actuality" itself may be different for every observer.

The external reality is supposed to be independent of the internal reality, as matter is put in opposition to mind. The great divide is supposed to tear apart the Universe into two: the self and the rest, the inside and the outside. This supposition is no more creditable than other possible suppositions.

Fine, but this reasoning is just as unprovable (and unfalsifiable, for that matter) as the Scientific Approach.

Hard-headed ones can reside on both sides, if we assume the presence of sides .

If we assume the presence of sides, we have already chosen which one we are on.

Now it's no more important. I've proven your "usability" criterion flawed.

Not yet you haven't (see above).
 
  • #153
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Apologies for the delay.
Remember, Descartes' reasoning is only problematic when it is used to prove one's existence, not when it is used to show the problematic nature of trying to prove one's non-existence.
Let's sum it all up. We have the Demon claiming something and Descartes proving that claim problematic. That's all right.

The Demon may not say that Descartes doesn't exist (inbound Aristotelian logic, of course).

Descartes' proof, however, can't be used as a proof for his existence but as a disproof of a claim against his existence.

Descartes can't be claimed "non-existent." The same way he can't be claimed "existent," for that claim would result in a similar fallacy.

A judgment of Descartes' existence or non-existence (eg, whether or not he is) isn't the outcome of this scenario. If the scenario is confined to disproving Demon's claim it's all right, and I agree.

There remains one thing: you claimed you're "sure" of your existence. This is equal to "claiming Q = T." You referenced me to this scenario but then this scenario isn't meant to prove Q = T, it's only an objection to a claim expressed as Q = F, so you can no more be "sure" of your existence.

No one can claim that you "aren't" because that would be a paradoxical statement. The same way, no one can claim that you "are" because that would be a circular statement.

You can be "sure" that no one can claim your "non-existence," but by the same intensity you "have to be sure" that no one (including yourself) can claim your "existence." That first assurance is accompanied with the second. Take both or none.

Now, are we in agreement?
I don't want to argue this point, so I will just say that the agreement can't be questioned without your losing the only argument you have in the "I think therefore I am" discussion.
"My only argument" as long as we're bound to that agreement. Outbound I have my other ways (and we can take a look at them, too, if you like).
Listen to yourself. You are trying to say that there is a being who does not fit the criteria of "a being that is".
Entity D category is, in fact, all-encompassing. All beings fall in that category but you can see it's forbidden by Aristotelian logic, the most prominent logical system. There's no being that isn't an instance of Entity D.

There lies the major opposition to Aristotelian logic. It's been used for so long while it's hidden in its heart the most bizarre paradox of all, that it doesn't allow for existence in its most primitive and purified form.

This is another expression of Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" (or at least, I think so). You did notice how much debate this concept raised. You know why? For it was poking at a sore spot in Aristotelian logic, a logical system woven into our everyday lives. An opposition to this system feels like an opposition to our lives, a threat to our comfort. Interesting is that PoE is dependent of this logical system but this logical system seems so elementary to everyone that they feel PoE is an opposition to all of their options. This is the power of habit, habit of thinking the Aristotelian way.

Yet, this sore spot isn't present in all possible logical systems. Other systems may "work" (to their own measures, of course, just like Aristotelian logic works well against our current measures that have evolved along with it) much better and eliminate such discrepancies.

As long as Aristotelian logic is thought of as the one and only manner of deduction, PoE will be present as a discrepancy. When presence of countless other logical systems, all equally creditable, is accepted and understood PoE will show up as a form of uncertainty, caused by the relativity of deduction. Since there will be countless ways of deducing there would be countless results, all equally creditable, that will in turn be incompatible with each other yet in conformity to their respective frameworks. These countless results will present the PoE at a higher level of abstraction.
I'm perfectly satisfied with the fact that no one can prove that I don't (without assuming that I do), and Descartes was equally satisfied.
You mean your source of satisfaction is only that you can't be proven non-existent? And you don't care that you can't be proven existent, either?

If that's all of it, I can agree.
Yeah, so? Read your sentence again. You said "if there's an I thinking". Remove the word "thinking" (as it could be replaced by any verb anyway), and you have "if there's an I".
And what would give me that right to "remove" that single word? There should be an assumption to do so.

"If there's an I thinking" means "thinking is happening" and "this is done by I," when it's analyzed. You’re asserting the equality of "this is done by I" and "there's an I;" More generally that of "this is done by a doer" and "there is a doer."

It would seem strange (even insane) not to equal these two but their equality is actually not necessary. This equality is necessitated by Causality (or some other assumption).

If a sentence is analyzed there should be rules to that analysis; rules that sometimes encourage and sometimes inhibit a certain step in analysis. These rules must have their root somewhere. In your case their root is Causality.
"Clear understanding" is at it's heart, but that has nothing to do with it's being "fair". I can have a "clear understanding" of the universe, from my own PoV even if that PoV is perfectly irrational and goes against all logic. It would still be Philosophy, because it's my way of "pursuing wisdom".
"Fairness" isn't associated with ration. "Fairness" is just being as close to irrationality as one is to rationality.

"Fair" judgment is avoidance from all biases (or as many as possible), be these "rational" or "irrational." If Philosophy is going to study and compare various points of view, it must be unbiased. Otherwise it will act in favor whatever point of view towards which it's biased.

In "pursuing wisdom" (and I have to say how meaningless this phrase seems to me) there need be "fairness" to gain "wisdom" that isn't twisted in favor of something.

Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?
In the effort to reach "fairness" lies "fairness" itself? I doubt this very much.
In the effort to reach "absolute fairness," which is unreachable, lies "relative fairness," which can be used to avoid as many biases as possible.
No, in trying to doubt everything, one will get nowhere. One "doubts as much as possible" by trying to "doubt as much as possible".
In trying to achieve "all human knowledge," we achieve "as much as possible." We strive for the ultimate and we get the most possible.

By doubting everything one doubts as much as "possible" because where doubting is "impossible," well, it won't happen for it's "impossible."

You can't set a definite limit to what can or may be doubted, but trial-and-error will show what can be doubted and what can't. In my experience I haven't faced anything that is so firm not to be shaken with doubt and there's been much for me in doubting.

I doubted my existence, my attributes, my way of life, my significance, my rights, my understanding, my knowledge, my surroundings and got much in knowing how meaningless could this "my" be. I haven't been brave enough to change when I understood this but I've at least tried to fathom the unfathomable. And I'm still trying...
Stop right here for a second, if you please. The question of "what on Earth is unusable" is not answered by idea A (unless idea A is usable, of course), but is answered by the concept of A. IOW, if A existed, it would be unusable.
I guess this is a word game. We have to undo the ties one by one. We have idea A claimed to be "unusable." And we have a question: "what on Earth can be unusable?" Doesn't from these follow that A is an answer to that question?

Assume we have the idea "Ostrich." You give this idea a characteristic, you say it's "Struthionidae." And we have the question: "what on Earth is Struthionidae?" Clearly enough, an answer to this question is "Ostrich."

The same way we have the idea A (existent or non-existent, it doesn't matter). You give it a characteristic, "unusable." Clearly enough, idea A "must" be an answer to "what on Earth can be unusable?"

You say there's idea A and concept of idea A. What does "concept of idea A" mean? What's its difference with idea A itself?

And you give the "unusable-ness" characteristic to "idea A" and not to "concept of idea A." So the answer to that question must be "idea A" itself and not the "concept of idea A," for the question asks for something unusable and you yourself have said "idea A is unusable."

If idea A is unusable it "must" have the characteristic of "unusable-ness" and it "must" be an answer to that question. It doesn't matter that it doesn’t exist, or that its existence is postponed.

I say "object A is green" (object A may be existent or non-existent). You ask "what is green?" An answer to your question is "object A" and not "the concept of object A." Regardless of object A's status quo, I myself have assigned it the characteristic of "green-ness" and I can't deny it. I didn't say "the concept of object A is green" (even though I may have meant that, but that's out of question), I said "object A is green."

I could've said: "the flying Ostrich is green." There's no "flying Ostrich" but that doesn't matter because I have said that it's green. I've postulated its "green-ness" for the scope of this debate.

There's no escape from this unless you want to assert what is obviously paradoxical and elongate a debate that is already ended.

continued on the next post...
 
  • #154
... continued from the previous post

A similar case is with a statement like: "through every two points passes one and only one line." This is an axiom of Euclidian geometry and perfectly logical. It doesn't matter that there's no definition for a "point" and a "line." And it doesn't matter that there's no "point" and no "line" in the vast expanse of Universe. This statement postulates something and defines one part of the framework of Euclidian geometry. The only important thing is not to violate this axiom. Now if one asks "how many lines pass through two points?" There's an obvious answer defined by this axiom, that is "one line." And there's no debate about the existence of "point" and "line." No one says "the answer to this question is not one line but the concept of one line."
The same way I moved from "not-knowing" to "knowing" in the first instance.
And how do you "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing this" to "knowing this?"

I want to emphasize one thing, again: those questions are historical. They aren't to be taken easy. They've cost thousands of years of abstract thinking and they're likely to do so for many more years to come. If you wish to answer them, beware of their depth, please!
... The Universe is not a sub-set of human knowledge, it is what is studied by the sub-set of human knowledge, Science...
Universe, as it is known by us, is part of our knowledge because, after all, it's that which is known to us. What isn't known dwells in the Unknown and the Unknown isn't our possession.

The Universe does exist where it has to exist, in our knowledge. If all our records of Universe are erased, there wouldn't be any Universe, as we "know" it, because there would be nothing "known." If there's no trace of something, that thing is neither existent nor non-existent, it's living its "primeval innocence" before "the original sin," before it becomes "known" :wink:.

It's worth noting that Science itself has performed this form of mass cleansing against Religion. Science has ignored what is claimed to be intangible for a long time. It ignored deities, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits, fairies, elves and an army of other things for they were said to be undetectable by scientific devices. Now its time for Science to give up its "intangible" possession, that which isn't yet "known."

The scientific Universe is a record of what has become known under the rule of Science. Where do these "known" things originate from? No one knows. We perform the wizardry of Science, we apply the scientific method and things show up and become "known." Where and how have they been before becoming "known?" No one knows for they were "unknown" then.

The knowledge is all that is available to us. Existence of an external Universe (not to mention the existence of exterior and interior and the existence of existence itself) is just another part of our knowledge, an assumption taken for the sake of unknown purposes.

Beyond "the knowledge" we only "don't know." But then where does this stream of new knowledge come from? We "don't know" that for "the Known" emerges from "the Unknown" and "the Unknown" is simply "unknown."
Yes the absence of this can exist, and it is rather closed-minded to assume that it can't (if you'll forgive my saying so).
I don't care what you call me but I do care what I'm called to. You're hurling a big claim (believe me, it's very big) at me.

You say there can be an absence of distinguishing. Do you know what this means? An absence of distinguishing means "direct perception," that's when one's mental processes of selection, categorization and extraction are stopped. This experience means direct exposition to the Universe. It's facing the Universe without any shields to save one of its unimaginable greatness.

I think you remember when I wrote of distortions introduced into the input stream for a being, on the "Knowledge?" thread. I said these distortions can identify every being. These distortions (in fact, the pre-processing of input stream) are the humanity of a human being. Without them, directly exposed to the Universe, one is no more human. One is the "cosmic observer," the universal observer. One puts away one's last bias, one's humanity. What remains can't be described but it can be said to have achieved "absolute fairness" and "absolute clarity." The "cosmic observer" views the Universe from the "absolute viewpoint." This observer is no more subject to relativity for it observes the Universe "as is."

No one in entire human history has been able to prove or disprove the existence of such experience. Now you come in and simply say "it's narrow-mindedness to count this experience out."

I was jumping over this abyss, this long-lasting debate. Do you want to give it a try by diving into it? You can but you first have to deal with most of our knowledge of cognition and its processes (that I know nothing of).
No, no, no, I've called people irrational simply because their reasoning (at the time) didn't fit into any kind of reasoning.
"Any" kind of reasoning? There are countless logical systems. You call someone "irrational" because of their statement, name it S.

Now if statement S, no matter how "irrational" it seems to you, is an axiom of their logical system then they can't be called irrational for postulating it because axioms can be chosen at will.

For every statement S there's at least one logical system (there may be more) where it's perfectly logical. That logical system is one with S postulated as its only axiom. And there is absolutely no restriction on axioms for a logical system.
You mean to say that rational thinking can't have an answer for why we have chosen it? How can you possibly know that? Also, how can you use a rational approach to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality?
You're getting the hang of it. You're using the other edge of the double-edged sword (I don't mean Uncertainty).

You see, I've used rationality to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality. I've mistaken but I couldn't have done it another way. If you use ration to rationalize the ration itself you get a problem. This means that rationality (like other axiomatic systems) is either incomplete (when you skip the question) or inconsistent (when you try to answer the question but find the crack). This is an application of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

Every universal rule (be it Uncertainty or Rationality or whatever) fails either in completeness (when it isn't applied to itself, thus becoming non-universal) or in consistency (when it's applied to itself but is unable to explain for its own existence).
Silvio: I guess you have no idea of "another paradigm."

Mentat: I thought we were going to dispense with the use of such statements.
I apologize :smile:.
Then it makes no sense to say that you move into this "new Universe" as a result of running into a dead-end, as the dead-end doesn't even exist in another "paradigm".
You don't "move" into a new Universe. You will either "be moved" or "decide to move" after a dead-end is encountered.

The dead-end isn't a portal to somewhere else, it's an indication of a limit to the capabilities of your current paradigm. Since it's no more capable, it will alter in the course of a "paradigm shift." You will either know this and actively participate in the shift (and play a minor role in defining the new paradigm) or you will be passively taken to a new paradigm (that is totally out of you control). Either way, paradigm shifts are inevitable.
Yes, but isn't Philosophy the pursuit of Wisdom? If so, then that which one "intuitively" takes for granted may be very useful to Philosophy.
"Pursuit of Wisdom" is meaningless to me. What do you mean with that?

It seems more like a coined phrase from TV ads than a decent and humble reference to humanity's honorable yet worthless effort.
Very true, but after I have demonstrated all of the basic things, that most human children have come to understand, we could build up to abstracts, could we not?
No. We can't build up to abstracts "deductively." That's the trick with human understanding.

No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).

There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.

The one and only way is to define "use."
Silvio: A definition used in a logical debate must be mathematically formed and hard as concrete.

Mentat: So now mathematics is hard as concrete?
Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning. Even though my previous words didn't contain such meaning. I said "mathematically formed" and "hard as concrete."

If I describe someone or something as "fast" and "furious," does it mean that "speed" is "fury?"
This is all your definition of "appropriate definition", isn't it? Do you see the paradoxical nature of such an undertaking? If you do, then you will quickly realize that yours is no more reliable than my definition of "appropriate definition".
Well, what can I do? You want me to use "your" definition of an "appropriate definition?"

How can we know if a definition is healthy or defective?
Fine, but this reasoning is just as unprovable (and unfalsifiable, for that matter) as the Scientific Approach.
This applies to all human statements. This is the reign of relativity and "uncertainty" (or Uncertainty).

The main point here is not to prefer or choose a view point over others. It's to realize the equality and understand the symmetry.
 
  • #155
Hey Mentat, where are you? Are you alright?

I'm waiting...
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Hey Mentat, where are you? Are you alright?

I'm waiting...

I'm sorry for the delay, I just don't seem to get to this thread until it's too late. I will read your posts, and reply, now.
 
  • #157
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:

Apologies for the delay.
Let's sum it all up. We have the Demon claiming something and Descartes proving that claim problematic. That's all right.

The Demon may not say that Descartes doesn't exist (inbound Aristotelian logic, of course).

Descartes' proof, however, can't be used as a proof for his existence but as a disproof of a claim against his existence.


This is pretty much right. We should also remember that the reason it was problematic was that the Demon had assumed Descartes' existence. In fact, the Demon had further validated Descartes' existence, by challenging it. Thus, while Descartes' reasoning cannot be used to prove his existence, it can be used to prove that any claim to the contrary is wrong and that trying to prove the contrary merely further validates the belief in his existence.

There remains one thing: you claimed you're "sure" of your existence. This is equal to "claiming Q = T." You referenced me to this scenario but then this scenario isn't meant to prove Q = T, it's only an objection to a claim expressed as Q = F, so you can no more be "sure" of your existence.

Well actually, you said that in Boolean Logic there were only two choices (T or F). If this is so, then by proving that Q = F is problematic, I have eliminated all choices but one: that Q = T.

No one can claim that you "aren't" because that would be a paradoxical statement. The same way, no one can claim that you "are" because that would be a circular statement.

Also not entirely true. If one claims any thing about "me", then they are claiming that I "am", and there's nothing wrong with this, is there? It is merely deducing your existence from the fact that you are doing something that is problematic. So, I can't deduce my existence from the fact that I am doing something, but one does have to assume my existence, if they are to speak of me as doing something.

"My only argument" as long as we're bound to that agreement. Outbound I have my other ways (and we can take a look at them, too, if you like).

After we come to a more complete agreement on the aforementioned, I would be glad to discuss your "other ways".

Entity D category is, in fact, all-encompassing. All beings fall in that category but you can see it's forbidden by Aristotelian logic, the most prominent logical system. There's no being that isn't an instance of Entity D.

There lies the major opposition to Aristotelian logic. It's been used for so long while it's hidden in its heart the most bizarre paradox of all, that it doesn't allow for existence in its most primitive and purified form.

Aristotelian Logic really denies that anything can exist?

This is another expression of Wuliheron's "Paradox of Existence" (or at least, I think so). You did notice how much debate this concept raised. You know why? For it was poking at a sore spot in Aristotelian logic, a logical system woven into our everyday lives. An opposition to this system feels like an opposition to our lives, a threat to our comfort. Interesting is that PoE is dependent of this logical system but this logical system seems so elementary to everyone that they feel PoE is an opposition to all of their options. This is the power of habit, habit of thinking the Aristotelian way.

Of course you must realize that the Paradox of Existence doesn't allow for it's own existence, and is thus as unusable as Uncertainty.

You mean your source of satisfaction is only that you can't be proven non-existent? And you don't care that you can't be proven existent, either?

If that's all of it, I can agree.

(See above).

And what would give me that right to "remove" that single word? There should be an assumption to do so.

"If there's an I thinking" means "thinking is happening" and "this is done by I," when it's analyzed. You’re asserting the equality of "this is done by I" and "there's an I;" More generally that of "this is done by a doer" and "there is a doer."

"this is done by I" has "there's an I" as one of it's sub-premises. It's sub-premises are "something is being done" and "it's being done by I" (this is just the same way of "analysis" that you used on "If there's an I thinking", so it should be obvious to you. But, maybe there's a flaw in my reasoning...)

"Fairness" isn't associated with ration. "Fairness" is just being as close to irrationality as one is to rationality.

Something is either rational or irrational. "Fairness" cannot exist, as we have already rationally deduced.

"Fair" judgment is avoidance from all biases (or as many as possible), be these "rational" or "irrational." If Philosophy is going to study and compare various points of view, it must be unbiased. Otherwise it will act in favor whatever point of view towards which it's biased.

No. Philosophy is a rational system. Irrationality doesn't allow for the pursuit of wisdom.

In "pursuing wisdom" (and I have to say how meaningless this phrase seems to me) there need be "fairness" to gain "wisdom" that isn't twisted in favor of something.

This is your opinion, and I disagree - as rationality is a necessity to the pursuit of wisdom.

Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?

No (see above).

In the effort to reach "absolute fairness," which is unreachable, lies "relative fairness," which can be used to avoid as many biases as possible.

The attempt to reach "absolute fairness" requires a bias (toward reaching absolute fairness), and is thus no better a way of reaching "relative fairness" as any other. Also, when one reaches "relative fairness" by trying to reach something else ("absolute fairness", in this case), one is reaching it by accident, and might just as easily miss it. However, if one is striving for "relative fairness", then one has a worthy, reasonable, and possible goal.

By doubting everything one doubts as much as "possible" because where doubting is "impossible," well, it won't happen for it's "impossible."

And you don't "doubt" this belief of yours? Besides, trying to doubt everything is not the way toward doubting most things.

I guess this is a word game. We have to undo the ties one by one. We have idea A claimed to be "unusable." And we have a question: "what on Earth can be unusable?" Doesn't from these follow that A is an answer to that question?

No, the concept of "idea A" is unusable, the actual "idea A" doesn't exist.

Assume we have the idea "Ostrich." You give this idea a characteristic, you say it's "Struthionidae." And we have the question: "what on Earth is Struthionidae?" Clearly enough, an answer to this question is "Ostrich."

Yes, but "Ostrich" would then be referring merely to the concept that you have invented, not to an actual Ostrich.

The same way we have the idea A (existent or non-existent, it doesn't matter).

Oh yes it does, it's the whole point! We don't "have the idea A" unless there is such a thing as the "idea A". Unless it exists, you may have the concept of the "idea A", but you don't actually have "idea A".

You say there's idea A and concept of idea A. What does "concept of idea A" mean? What's its difference with idea A itself?

The difference is this: I may say that "if 'idea A' existed, it would be unusable, but there is no such thing as idea A"; and in saying this, I have made reference to the "concept of 'idea A'", but never to the actual "idea A", because that doesn't exist.

I say "object A is green" (object A may be existent or non-existent). You ask "what is green?" An answer to your question is "object A" and not "the concept of object A." Regardless of object A's status quo, I myself have assigned it the characteristic of "green-ness" and I can't deny it. I didn't say "the concept of object A is green" (even though I may have meant that, but that's out of question), I said "object A is green."

This is not a good comparison, as an ideas existence is determined the very moment you refer to it, while an ideas color is free for speculation.
 
  • #158
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
A similar case is with a statement like: "through every two points passes one and only one line." This is an axiom of Euclidian geometry and perfectly logical. It doesn't matter that there's no definition for a "point" and a "line." And it doesn't matter that there's no "point" and no "line" in the vast expanse of Universe. This statement postulates something and defines one part of the framework of Euclidian geometry. The only important thing is not to violate this axiom. Now if one asks "how many lines pass through two points?" There's an obvious answer defined by this axiom, that is "one line." And there's no debate about the existence of "point" and "line." No one says "the answer to this question is not one line but the concept of one line."

No one says it, but that doesn't mean that it's not so.

And how do you "know" this? How did you move from "not-knowing this" to "knowing this?"

I don't understand, are you asking me how I moved from not knowing that I moved from not-knowing to knowing, to knowing that I moved from not-knowing to knowing? By the same process that I moved from knowing to not-knowing in the first instance, I deduced it.

I want to emphasize one thing, again: those questions are historical. They aren't to be taken easy. They've cost thousands of years of abstract thinking and they're likely to do so for many more years to come. If you wish to answer them, beware of their depth, please!

This is a little personality quirk of mine: age is irrelevant to me. I don't think that an older person's ideas are any more important than a younger one's (or that they are necessarily more "deep"). And I don't think that an older idea is any more deep than one presented today. However, I am aware of this particular question depth, even if it doesn't show (since I'm trying to get across the point that it's age is irrelevant to me. Again, a personality quirk ).

It's worth noting that Science itself has performed this form of mass cleansing against Religion. Science has ignored what is claimed to be intangible for a long time. It ignored deities, ghosts, souls, angels, spirits, fairies, elves and an army of other things for they were said to be undetectable by scientific devices. Now its time for Science to give up its "intangible" possession, that which isn't yet "known."

The scientific Universe is a record of what has become known under the rule of Science. Where do these "known" things originate from? No one knows. We perform the wizardry of Science, we apply the scientific method and things show up and become "known." Where and how have they been before becoming "known?" No one knows for they were "unknown" then.

Alright, this is just a debate on the merit of Science, and it's most out-of-place, don't you think?

Beyond "the knowledge" we only "don't know." But then where does this stream of new knowledge come from? We "don't know" that for "the Known" emerges from "the Unknown" and "the Unknown" is simply "unknown."

This, OTOH, is a good point.

I don't care what you call me but I do care what I'm called to. You're hurling a big claim (believe me, it's very big) at me.

You say there can be an absence of distinguishing. Do you know what this means? An absence of distinguishing means "direct perception," that's when one's mental processes of selection, categorization and extraction are stopped. This experience means direct exposition to the Universe. It's facing the Universe without any shields to save one of its unimaginable greatness.

Stop here please. You are distorting what I said, and making it sound like a good thing. This is exactly what you tried to do with Uncertainty. So, let me expose the flaw in this idea, before you go any further into this speculation (that's not to say that you won't speculate further, but I will at least have pointed out it's inherent flaw): To be facing the Universe without shields, is to be distinguished from those that aren't facing it in this way. It is also to be able to distinguish between shields and their absence, and between bounds and their absence.

I think you remember when I wrote of distortions introduced into the input stream for a being, on the "Knowledge?" thread. I said these distortions can identify every being. These distortions (in fact, the pre-processing of input stream) are the humanity of a human being. Without them, directly exposed to the Universe, one is no more human. One is the "cosmic observer," the universal observer.

One is no such thing, unless they can be distinguished as such.

One puts away one's last bias, one's humanity.

It's not possible to put away your last bias, without being biased toward removing bias (it's as impossible as Uncertainty).

You're getting the hang of it. You're using the other edge of the double-edged sword (I don't mean Uncertainty).



You see, I've used rationality to show the "crack in the wall" of rationality. I've mistaken but I couldn't have done it another way. If you use ration to rationalize the ration itself you get a problem. This means that rationality (like other axiomatic systems) is either incomplete (when you skip the question) or inconsistent (when you try to answer the question but find the crack). This is an application of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

Every universal rule (be it Uncertainty or Rationality or whatever) fails either in completeness (when it isn't applied to itself, thus becoming non-universal) or in consistency (when it's applied to itself but is unable to explain for its own existence).

Yes, I don't deny that rationality is incomplete, although the deduction of it's incompleteness has been done by a rationalistic appraoch, which cannot be done, so... I guess I'll just have to say that rationality is "undetermined" .

I apologize :smile:.

Quite alright - I've caught myself making exactly the same statements, and then erased them and re-worded the sentence.

You don't "move" into a new Universe. You will either "be moved" or "decide to move" after a dead-end is encountered.

The dead-end isn't a portal to somewhere else, it's an indication of a limit to the capabilities of your current paradigm. Since it's no more capable, it will alter in the course of a "paradigm shift." You will either know this and actively participate in the shift (and play a minor role in defining the new paradigm) or you will be passively taken to a new paradigm (that is totally out of you control). Either way, paradigm shifts are inevitable.

I'm sorry, I you are using such keywords as "paradigm shift", and I'm getting a little confused. I don't get what you mean by the paradigm's "shifting". What does it mean? And what requires that this must happen?

"Pursuit of Wisdom" is meaningless to me. What do you mean with that?

I mean to purse wisdom. It can't be any more plain than that. I have take for granted that there is such a thing as "wisdom" and that it is possible to "pursue" it, but that is the nature of Philosophy.

No. We can't build up to abstracts "deductively." That's the trick with human understanding.

This sounds like a good "thread-starter". You should start a thread on this.

No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).

There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.

Actually, there is. It is to make use of the human faculty which we don't understand :smile:.

Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning.

You believe this, without a doubt?

Even though my previous words didn't contain such meaning. I said "mathematically formed" and "hard as concrete."

If I describe someone or something as "fast" and "furious," does it mean that "speed" is "fury?"

Actually, if you said that something "must be fast and furious", then that thing must be able to be both fast and furious, at the same time. In essence, you are saying that speed and fury can co-exist, and that they must in a certain circumstance. It is the same with saying that something must be "mathematically defined and hard as concrete". Unless mathematics is "hard as concrete" - at least in some instances - it is impossible for both to co-exist as you "believe" they must.

Well, what can I do? You want me to use "your" definition of an "appropriate definition?"

Why are you trying to find a "useful" definition of "appropriate definition"? :wink:

How can we know if a definition is healthy or defective?

Conventional "wisdom" (an oxymoron, if you ask me) dictates that one can do so by putting that definition to the test, in actual practice. But, since none of these "keywords" are rigorously defined, we are going to have to stick to the knowledge that definitions (and language itself) are not as perfect as "common sense" would have one think.
 
  • #159
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:
... In fact, the Demon had further validated Descartes' existence, by challenging it... merely further validates the belief in his existence.
All right but for the usage of the phrase "further validates" which is a reference to an illogical background. It sounds like Descartes' existence had been validated before and the Demon's challenge has only "further" validated it, while this isn't true for the Demon's challenge is the only place Descartes' existence is ever validated (except for similar scenarios).
Well actually, you said that in Boolean Logic there were only two choices (T or F). If this is so, then by proving that Q = F is problematic, I have eliminated all choices but one: that Q = T.
That's what I've been trying to say with my proof. Here is where Aristotelian logic becomes defective.

With my proof I showed that "claiming Q = T," what you're doing, is as illogical as "claiming Q = F." For that would make a loop, regarding the premise essential to this scenario's actual aim which is to prove that "claiming Q = F" is problematic.

Aristotelian logic leaves no way out for this scenario. And this is what I've been trying to convey all the time, that in spite of this logical system's assertion that "if Q is not false then it's true," its own tools of deduction show that Q can be neither F nor T for both states lead into forbidden areas.
Aristotelian Logic really denies that anything can exist?
You're swinging between acceptance and denial, would you please stop amidst only once?

Aristotelian logic doesn't deny, it doesn't allow. You would say "what's the difference?" The difference can be understood after realizing that you can't fit everything into one of True/False states, that Aristotelian logic is "incomplete."

This logical system denies existence, as much as it denies non-existence. It has at its heart a statement (eg, "object A exists") which can't be fit into either of the two states it proposes. Existence can't be proved or disproved, hence it remains uncertain.
Of course you must realize that the Paradox of Existence doesn't allow for it's own existence, and is thus as unusable as Uncertainty.
Paradox of Existence (to my understanding) is neither denial nor acceptance of existence. It doesn't say "nothing exists," so it can't be said to deny its own existence. It doesn't say "everything exists" as well, to be said to be making a loop in affirming its own existence.

It's a situation. You encounter it when you're studying existence under Aristotelian logic.

You separate this situation from Aristotelian logic and direct your blames at the situation without ever re-thinking the source of this situation. What is to blame is the incapability of Aristotelian logic in including in itself the primary knowledge of things, their existence/non-existence.
"this is done by I" has "there's an I" as one of it's sub-premises. It's sub-premises are "something is being done" and "it's being done by I" (this is just the same way of "analysis" that you used on "If there's an I thinking", so it should be obvious to you. But, maybe there's a flaw in my reasoning...)
You say we have "this is done by I" and its sub-premises "something is being done" and "it's done by I." Then you say one of its sub-premises is "there's an I."

By this, you're implying that "it's done by I" is equivalent to "there's an I." You're right but I'd like to draw your attention to what is actually said in saying "it's done by I:" this statement contains a reference to Causality because it describes the bond between and "I" and "I's deed."

Now if Causality is put aside in favor of another way of explaining the coincidence of phenomena, one that is equally creditable, then every statement referencing Causality will become invalid, including "it's done by I."

Simply put, "this is done by I" and its sub-premises and results are all supported by Causality. And Causality can be replaced at any moment with an equally creditable substitute which invalidates all that is referenced to Causality unless these references can be re-shaped to become compatible to the new manner.

Causality is the basis for a premise essential to the Evil Demon scenario. Yet Causality itself isn't firm enough, it's got substitutes which no more support that premise.
Something is either rational or irrational. "Fairness" cannot exist, as we have already rationally deduced.
What can't exist is "absolute fairness," exactly because of its paradoxical nature.
No. Philosophy is a rational system. Irrationality doesn't allow for the pursuit of wisdom.

This is your opinion, and I disagree - as rationality is a necessity to the pursuit of wisdom.

Silvio: Hence, "fair" judgment is the most important rule of conduct to Philosophy. All right?

Mentat: No (see above).
We're still discussing the existence of irrationality and you haven't still shown its existence.

Rationality itself is an attempt to fairness, even though it may sometimes act against this. Rationality is made to be "fair" in the sense that it behaves with integrity against all that it's given for analysis. Its integral and inseparable axiom is to treat all statements similarly and to compare all of them to similar criteria. This is exactly what is expected from "fairness."

What is lacking here is that Rationality can't behave with the same integrity against questions and statements about its own existence and characteristics. And it doesn't qualify for judging "irrationality" because they're peers and have equal ranks of credibility. Hence, there need be a "manner of higher order" to judge among these systems. This manner of higher order is called "fairness."
The attempt to reach "absolute fairness" requires a bias (toward reaching absolute fairness), and is thus no better a way of reaching "relative fairness" as any other...
That's exactly why "absolute fairness" is unachievable.

Suppose I agree with you on this point. What other way of achieving relative fairness do you propose?
And you don't "doubt" this belief of yours? Besides, trying to doubt everything is not the way toward doubting most things.
I had to doubt it, and I did so. Haven't you noticed how many seemingly certain statements I use?

I understand how doubt eliminates every chance of having the slightest certainty, yet I also understand there's much in doubting what many others don't dare doubting. I guess you do, too.

How would you harmonize these two incompatible understandings? How would you take something temporarily or permanently for granted yet remain ready to put it away when the time comes? How would you be "fair" while you're constrained by your human constraints? How would you push your thoughts to the limits of human thinking?
The difference is this: I may say that "if 'idea A' existed, it would be unusable, but there is no such thing as idea A"; and in saying this, I have made reference to the "concept of 'idea A'", but never to the actual "idea A", because that doesn't exist.
I think "idea A" itself is a "concept." What is non-existent is that which "idea A" hints at.

Let "idea A" be "a flying Ostrich." "A flying Ostrich" is existent as a concept while it may be non-existent as an entity. "Idea A" is a thought and it can't be non-existent but it may be non-manifest.

The "concept of idea A" is one level of abstraction higher. It's an instance of "thoughts about thoughts."

Moreover, there's a difference between usefulness and existence. You have to separate these two. A magic wand would be useful, very useful, if it was existent. Don't you agree with this? If yes then I can say "idea A would be useful, for at least one use, if it was existent." Since "idea A" is an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" it would be useful if it existed.

Back to what you said: "Uncertainty is unusable." If you're still saying this then Uncertainty "must" be an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" You yourself say this.

You either claim that "Uncertainty is unusable" or you don't claim that. If you do you're claiming something paradoxical, if you don't then Uncertainty must be useful even though non-existent.
No one says it, but that doesn't mean that it's not so.
It means, however, that you're breaking a rule of the game.
... I don't think that an older person's ideas are any more important than a younger one's (or that they are necessarily more "deep"). And I don't think that an older idea is any more deep than one presented today...
We're not talking of an "idea" but of a "question," one that isn't answered so far.

Age won't give it credibility or significance but reveals its resistance against being answered. The passing of years hasn't given rise to a human mind able to cope with this question satisfactorily (or to convey the result, if any). Every approach to such question is an act of arrogance.

Arrogance is a property of every free thinker yet it can blind every free thinker if it isn't used dexterously, no matter how powerful she/he is. To step into the battle arena you have to have an estimate of the magnitude of your undertaking. Otherwise you won't go even as far as others have gone.
Alright, this is just a debate on the merit of Science, and it's most out-of-place, don't you think?
I would say it's a debate on the characteristics of Science but not its merit.

Knowledge bodies, including Science, are equally creditable for they're all knowledge. None can be said to be of more or less merit.

Furthermore, Science can be studied as an example of a knowledge body and some of its more basic characteristics may be found to be global characteristics of knowledge bodies.

continued on the next post...
 
  • #160
… continued from the previous post
Stop here please. You are distorting what I said, and making it sound like a good thing. This is exactly what you tried to do with Uncertainty. So, let me expose the flaw in this idea, before you go any further into this speculation (that's not to say that you won't speculate further, but I will at least have pointed out it's inherent flaw): To be facing the Universe without shields, is to be distinguished from those that aren't facing it in this way. It is also to be able to distinguish between shields and their absence, and between bounds and their absence.
Stop right there, please :wink:. First, who is associating "goodness" with what I said?

I, personally, would be happy if "absence of distinguishing" could be proven existent or non-existent but don't associate my "happiness" with "goodness," "truth," "righteousness" or else.

Then, you're mismatching the observers. The distinguishing you talk about belongs to the observer who is observing the cosmic observer. The cosmic observer won't distinguish its past from its present and its future, it won't distinguish itself from the rest, and it won't distinguish its previous state from its current state. These are all the corollaries of "absence of distinguishing" which was your claim.

It was your claim that "absence of distinguishing" is possible. I only described the consequences and the magnitude of your claim.

The one who distinguishes between the presence and absence of shields is you and that distinguishing is one of the shields that prevent you (and every other human being) from becoming the (exemplary) cosmic observer.

Once again, you're challenging a historical question without being aware of its depth (or at least, it doesn't show ). This question is noway a new one. Many of the ways you go are the ways of those gone before you. You're only echoing claims that have been discarded long ago.
One is no such thing, unless they can be distinguished as such.
"Absence of distinguishing" is the state of the "cosmic observer" while the distinguishing of the "cosmic observer" from "other observers" is attributed to an observer speculating about the "cosmic observer."

When one becomes the cosmic observer all distinguishing is stopped for one but others still distinguish and they'll find the cosmic observer different from all they've ever observed. The cosmic observer itself won't distinguish the absence of distinguishing from its presence.
... I don't get what you mean by the paradigm's "shifting". What does it mean? And what requires that this must happen?
Let's first see a definition for the term "paradigm" (to admit something, I was surprised to see this dictionary using the phrase "body of knowledge," I thought it was my invention).
Web Dictionary of Cybernetics and Systems:

Paradigm:

I. An outstandingly clear or typical example or archetype.(Webster's)

II. The total pattern of perceiving, conceptualizing, acting, validating, and valuing associated with a particular image of reality that prevails in a science or a branch of science. (Kuhn)

III. A theoretical model to explain a type of social behavior. (Dictionary of Anthropology)

---------------------------------------------------------

The pattern underlying the process of constructing theories and explanations and thereby affecting the form of the body of knowledge within a social domain, eg, within 18th century science. Paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence. Kuhn describes the history of Science as a succession of paradigms, transitions resulting not only from the emergence of empirical phenomena an existing paradigm is unable to explain but also from socio-political interests within the scientific communities. (Krippendorff)
My use of this term refers to a generalized form of what this dictionary says in (II) along with its following description. I say "generalized" for my usage of paradigm embraces all knowledge bodies (ie, not only Science or a branch of it as described in this dictionary).

A "paradigm shift" is what is called a "succession of paradigms" in this dictionary, except for that it isn't "necessarily progressive." It's only the transition from one paradigm to the other (and it's a well-known term).

Every change in one's understanding is towards a "paradigm shift." The accumulation of changes will finally alter the paradigm to such an extent that it can be called a new paradigm and be considered distinct from the previous one.

Since changes to one's understanding happen all the time, a "paradigm shift" will sooner or later happen as the consequence of their accumulation.
I mean to purse wisdom. It can't be any more plain than that. I have take for granted that there is such a thing as "wisdom" and that it is possible to "pursue" it, but that is the nature of Philosophy.
These are obscure to me. What is Wisdom? And why should one pursue it?
Silvio: No one yet knows exactly how Homo Sapiens of Primate order gets to understand abstractions as complex as Wave equation from its childhood simplicity when it can't distinguish its own reflection in a mirror (at very young age).

There's no way (or at least, an easy way) to "demonstrate" the "use" of modern Cosmology by "deducing" it from the "use" of a hammer.

Mentat: Actually, there is. It is to make use of the human faculty which we don't understand.
You know you're making a big claim, again?

Re-reading what you wrote: "a human faculty which we don't understand." Such faculties aren't allowed in a philosophical debate for they can be created and destroyed at will.

Here's a scenario based upon "a human faculty which we don't understand:" (all the credit is yours)

00. Priest comes to Atheist and says: "See, you got a human faculty to perceive the imperceptible."
01. Atheist responds: "But I don't feel like this, how do you know it?"
02. Priest says, soothingly: "Turn inside, keep calm and wait."
03. Atheist feels uneasy: "I've got much to do and I can't feel anything like what you're saying."
04. Priest is still calm: "Don't try to understand it. Feel it! Feel the spirit within!"

If something is not to be understood it'd better not be put in the way of understanding. I can tell you of a zillion faculties within that "we can't understand." Do you want to take care of all of them?

You have to either define "use" clearly or give up "using" this term as a core concept to your argument, even though you still can "use" it like other words.
Silvio: Yes, it is for it's a rigorous system of analysis, the ultimate tool of reasoning.

Mentat: You believe this, without a doubt?
Mathematics is made to be that way. Whatever that works that way, as the tool of reasoning, is gathered under one word, Mathematics.

This isn't a belief, it's a reference to the usual definition of Mathematics.
Actually, if you said that something "must be fast and furious", then that thing must be able to be both fast and furious, at the same time. In essence, you are saying that speed and fury can co-exist, and that they must in a certain circumstance. It is the same with saying that something must be "mathematically defined and hard as concrete". Unless mathematics is "hard as concrete" - at least in some instances - it is impossible for both to co-exist as you "believe" they must.
I said "mathematically formed" and not "mathematically defined." And yes, a mathematical formation is hard as concrete because it's ought to be "clear" and "precise." That's my understanding of hardness.
Why are you trying to find a "useful" definition of "appropriate definition"?
For I may be as human as you are.
Conventional "wisdom" (an oxymoron, if you ask me) dictates that one can do so by putting that definition to the test, in actual practice. But, since none of these "keywords" are rigorously defined, we are going to have to stick to the knowledge that definitions (and language itself) are not as perfect as "common sense" would have one think.
How can we then agree on "your" concept of "use" and its significance? How can I show that "your" definition is defective? How do "you" talk of "existence" when it’s not even clearly defined? What are we doing here?
 
  • #161
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
All right but for the usage of the phrase "further validates" which is a reference to an illogical background. It sounds like Descartes' existence had been validated before and the Demon's challenge has only "further" validated it, while this isn't true for the Demon's challenge is the only place Descartes' existence is ever validated (except for similar scenarios).

Well, the belief that Descartes existed already existed in Descartes' own mind, and in the minds of most (if not all) of the people that he interacted with. Thus, the Demon merely further validated, that which Descartes - and many others - already believed.

That's what I've been trying to say with my proof. Here is where Aristotelian logic becomes defective.

With my proof I showed that "claiming Q = T," what you're doing, is as illogical as "claiming Q = F." For that would make a loop, regarding the premise essential to this scenario's actual aim which is to prove that "claiming Q = F" is problematic.

Aristotelian logic leaves no way out for this scenario. And this is what I've been trying to convey all the time, that in spite of this logical system's assertion that "if Q is not false then it's true," its own tools of deduction show that Q can be neither F nor T for both states lead into forbidden areas.

Actually, didn't the paradox of assuming Q = F arise from the fact that you must first assume that P is true? You showed that it is problematic (and, indeed, paradoxical) to assume that P = T while Q = F. The same was the case with assuming Q = T, because you had to already assume P = T in order to assume Q = T.

However, if I just assume that Q = T, then I am merely making an assumption, and not trying to deduce it's truth at all. Is this still problematic?

Aristotelian logic doesn't deny, it doesn't allow. You would say "what's the difference?" The difference can be understood after realizing that you can't fit everything into one of True/False states, that Aristotelian logic is "incomplete."

This logical system denies existence, as much as it denies non-existence. It has at its heart a statement (eg, "object A exists") which can't be fit into either of the two states it proposes.

No, you said that the problematic statement was "the existent entity A...". This means that it is not problematic to assume that A exists (merely unfounded), but it is problematic to try to deduce the truth of A's existence, right?

Existence can't be proved or disproved, hence it remains uncertain.
Paradox of Existence (to my understanding) is neither denial nor acceptance of existence.

The Paradox of Existence (by it's very name, as well as it's teaching) requires that you accept existence. You merely cannot prove it - or anything else, for that matter.

You say we have "this is done by I" and its sub-premises "something is being done" and "it's done by I." Then you say one of its sub-premises is "there's an I."

By this, you're implying that "it's done by I" is equivalent to "there's an I." You're right but I'd like to draw your attention to what is actually said in saying "it's done by I:" this statement contains a reference to Causality because it describes the bond between and "I" and "I's deed."

Yes, but - as can be deduced from just your previous (quoted above) statement - this means that Causality is at the heart of every statement of the form "this is done by I", right? Though this would seem obvious (given the nature of this sentence, as seen even from the standpoint of common sense), it is (IMO) an important point - because it shows that, if one would deny Causality, one would never be able to use statements such as "I think".

.
What can't exist is "absolute fairness," exactly because of its paradoxical nature. We're still discussing the existence of irrationality and you haven't still shown its existence.

I haven't shown the existence of irrationality? Well, I would have to rationally deduce that such a thing must exist, as anything that does exist (including rationality itself) exists instead of it's own non-existence. IOW, if rationality exists, then that means that there is at least the concept of rationality's not existing.

Rationality itself is an attempt to fairness, even though it may sometimes act against this. Rationality is made to be "fair" in the sense that it behaves with integrity against all that it's given for analysis. Its integral and inseparable axiom is to treat all statements similarly and to compare all of them to similar criteria. This is exactly what is expected from "fairness."

What is lacking here is that Rationality can't behave with the same integrity against questions and statements about its own existence and characteristics. And it doesn't qualify for judging "irrationality" because they're peers and have equal ranks of credibility. Hence, there need be a "manner of higher order" to judge among these systems. This manner of higher order is called "fairness."

I think you already realize this, but it seems like so much fun to point out, that I will do so: Everything you have just deduced about the incompleteness of rationality has been done from a rational standpoint, and is thus entirely invalid, according to very reasoning you were trying to use .

Suppose I agree with you on this point. What other way of achieving relative fairness do you propose?

By striving for it. As I've said, the way toward relative fairness is not to be found in trying to achieve something else, but "stumbling upon" relative fairness on the way. This is a hit-or-miss way of achieving it, and might not work. However, if one strive directly for relative fairness, it is not out of their grasp - and they needn't rely on an accident.

I understand how doubt eliminates every chance of having the slightest certainty, yet I also understand there's much in doubting what many others don't dare doubting. I guess you do, too.

How would you harmonize these two incompatible understandings?

You mean harmonize "ultimate doubt is impossible" and "one should doubt as much as they can, because they are missing out if they don't"? I'd say, "doubt what you can, while knowing your limits". Or, IOW, "continue to doubt everything you learn, but do so with a view to later eliminating that doubt - no matter how long that happens to take you".

How would you be "fair" while you're constrained by your human constraints? How would you push your thoughts to the limits of human thinking?

Good questions. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm smart enough to answer them. After all, I'm nowhere near the limits of human thinking. In fact, the very attempt to reach the limits of human thinking is concocted from human thinking .

I think "idea A" itself is a "concept." What is non-existent is that which "idea A" hints at.

This is a fair re-phrasing of what I meant.

Let "idea A" be "a flying Ostrich." "A flying Ostrich" is existent as a concept while it may be non-existent as an entity. "Idea A" is a thought and it can't be non-existent but it may be non-manifest.

I like that.

The "concept of idea A" is one level of abstraction higher. It's an instance of "thoughts about thoughts."

Sort of a "meta-thought", eh?

Moreover, there's a difference between usefulness and existence. You have to separate these two. A magic wand would be useful, very useful, if it was existent. Don't you agree with this? If yes then I can say "idea A would be useful, for at least one use, if it was existent." Since "idea A" is an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" it would be useful if it existed.

"It would be useful, if 'it' existed" is contradictory. You are probably already aware of this. I only point it out because one shouldn't think that "idea A" doesn't exist (as you yourself have already agreed), it does exist, and is useful. What is unuseable and non-existent is that which "idea A" represents: namely, nothing at all :wink:.

Back to what you said: "Uncertainty is unusable." If you're still saying this then Uncertainty "must" be an answer to "what on Earth is unusable?" You yourself say this.

No. When I said "Uncertainty is unusable" I was using the word "Uncertainty" to represent absolutely nothing at all. IOW, there is no such thing as that which "Uncertainty" is supposed to represent, and thus the concept of "Uncertainty" (and the concept does exist, btw) is usable, while that which it represents isn't. Does that make sense, or should I reword it?

Age won't give it credibility or significance but reveals its resistance against being answered. The passing of years hasn't given rise to a human mind able to cope with this question satisfactorily (or to convey the result, if any). Every approach to such question is an act of arrogance.

Arrogance is a property of every free thinker yet it can blind every free thinker if it isn't used dexterously, no matter how powerful she/he is. To step into the battle arena you have to have an estimate of the magnitude of your undertaking. Otherwise you won't go even as far as others have gone.

I agree with you here. You make a very good point. However, one must also be aware of the fact that a new idea can be just as powerful as an old one, they just can inductively prove it.

Response continued on the next post...
 
  • #162
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I would say it's a debate on the characteristics of Science but not its merit.

Knowledge bodies, including Science, are equally creditable for they're all knowledge. None can be said to be of more or less merit.

This is true, and I've incorporated this line of thinking, in all of my time on the PFs (by giving everyone's opinion as equal an amount of merit, in my mind, as anyone else's).

Response continued on the next post...
 
  • #163
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Stop right there, please :wink:. First, who is associating "goodness" with what I said?

I, personally, would be happy if "absence of distinguishing" could be proven existent or non-existent but don't associate my "happiness" with "goodness," "truth," "righteousness" or else.

Why not? If you make something sound like it would be a grand acheivement, it implies that you think it would be "good".

Then, you're mismatching the observers. The distinguishing you talk about belongs to the observer who is observing the cosmic observer. The cosmic observer won't distinguish its past from its present and its future, it won't distinguish itself from the rest, and it won't distinguish its previous state from its current state.

It doesn't matter that the "cosmic observer" wouldn't distinguish between these things. Unless there truly is no difference between the "cosmic observer" and the rest of reality (in which case, the "cosmic observer" would not have the ability to "observe" anything), we have yet to reach the state of true irrationality.

It was your claim that "absence of distinguishing" is possible. I only described the consequences and the magnitude of your claim.

No, you made your own claim, based on the possibility of the existence of irrationality. You just didn't go as far as I did, in not allowing that there be an distinction between "observer" and "observed".

The one who distinguishes between the presence and absence of shields is you and that distinguishing is one of the shields that prevent you (and every other human being) from becoming the (exemplary) cosmic observer.

And being classified as a "cosmic observer" is a shield to reaching true irrationality. Remember, all I said was that irrationality existed. I didn't say it could be understood, except to think of it as an absence of all of the things that exist in the rational universe. This means that debating what "irrationality" is, in a rational way, is entirely useless (or, at least, will never reach the desired result).

"Absence of distinguishing" is the state of the "cosmic observer" while the distinguishing of the "cosmic observer" from "other observers" is attributed to an observer speculating about the "cosmic observer."

Wrong. If the "cosmic observer" would actually "observe" something, they must already have distinguished between the "observed" and the "observer".

Let's first see a definition for the term "paradigm" (to admit something, I was surprised to see this dictionary using the phrase "body of knowledge," I thought it was my invention).

My use of this term refers to a generalized form of what this dictionary says in (II) along with its following description. I say "generalized" for my usage of paradigm embraces all knowledge bodies (ie, not only Science or a branch of it as described in this dictionary).

A "paradigm shift" is what is called a "succession of paradigms" in this dictionary, except for that it isn't "necessarily progressive." It's only the transition from one paradigm to the other (and it's a well-known term).

Alright then, thanks for explaining "paradigm shift". I have another question though: you said that the "paradigm shift" is not necessarily progressive. Why would you say that? Didn't you say that paradigm shifts occur when one abandons a line of reasoning for another? If so, then one would obviously be seeking a "better" paradigm, would they not? Also, wouldn't this search be a "paradigm" of it's own?

Every change in one's understanding is towards a "paradigm shift." The accumulation of changes will finally alter the paradigm to such an extent that it can be called a new paradigm and be considered distinct from the previous one.

From what stanpoint? How can I distinguish between paradigms, unless I, myself, am bound to one (a distinguishing one)? Oh well, this is just back to the discussion of irrationality and "fairness", isn't it?

These are obscure to me. What is Wisdom? And why should one pursue it?

When you asked these questions, you were pursuing Wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. I think most people have different reasons for pursuing it, and I think I'd like to know your reason (after all, your (quoted) questions are in the pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge).

You know you're making a big claim, again?

Re-reading what you wrote: "a human faculty which we don't understand." Such faculties aren't allowed in a philosophical debate for they can be created and destroyed at will.

So? Does Philosophy really limit itself so? Personal (and thus empirical) experience has shown me that there is such a thing as consciousness, and I don't like the idea that consciousness is not allowed for in Philosophy, merely because we do not yet understand it.

Here's a scenario based upon "a human faculty which we don't understand:" (all the credit is yours)

00. Priest comes to Atheist and says: "See, you got a human faculty to perceive the imperceptible."
01. Atheist responds: "But I don't feel like this, how do you know it?"
02. Priest says, soothingly: "Turn inside, keep calm and wait."
03. Atheist feels uneasy: "I've got much to do and I can't feel anything like what you're saying."
04. Priest is still calm: "Don't try to understand it. Feel it! Feel the spirit within!"

If something is not to be understood it'd better not be put in the way of understanding. I can tell you of a zillion faculties within that "we can't understand." Do you want to take care of all of them?

No. I'd say you have a point, though I disagree with applying this to consciousness - as consciousness can be empirically (and thus, Scientifically) shown to exist.

You have to either define "use" clearly or give up "using" this term as a core concept to your argument, even though you still can "use" it like other words.

Again, you are trying to make use of the word "use" or to deny that it has "use". You are making the same assumptions that I am.

I said "mathematically formed" and not "mathematically defined." And yes, a mathematical formation is hard as concrete because it's ought to be "clear" and "precise." That's my understanding of hardness.

And you (much like Descartes, in his second Rule for the Direction of the Mind) believe that all ideas should be as well defined as mathematics, otherwise they are not useful?

For I may be as human as you are.

You most certainly are as human as I am, and demonstrate it most succinctly in your attempts to escape that limitation :smile:.

How can we then agree on "your" concept of "use" and its significance?

What I'm telling you is that, unless you think that significance is "useful", there is no point in debating the meaning or significance of "use". It is better to simply take for granted the usual human use of the word.

How can I show that "your" definition is defective?

By making "use" of a line of reasoning (an obviously paradoxical attempt).

How do "you" talk of "existence" when it’s not even clearly defined?

I'm human, I can do that.

What are we doing here?

I don't know about you, but I was enjoying the philosophical sparring :smile:.
 
  • #164
Greetz,

1. For Mentat:
... the belief that Descartes existed already existed in Descartes' own mind, and in the minds of most (if not all) of the people that he interacted with...
I see, but then don't you mean Descartes, and his mates, were somehow biased right from the start? :wink:

I'm kidding. It's all right; you can have "further" there if you like it.
However, if I just assume that Q = T, then I am merely making an assumption, and not trying to deduce it's truth at all. Is this still problematic?
No, there's no problem with "pre-assuming" Q = T. That's the process of postulation. You can postulate whatever statement you like and go on with it.

This freedom in choosing axioms has some notable aspects, as far as I can see:

00. Since axioms are to be chosen at will, they can be replaced anytime by anyone with any other statements thus invalidating everything based upon them, unless there's an agreement about remaining bound to a certain set of axioms.

01. Even though one can postulate freely (for example, one can postulate eternity of human beings), there seem to be many agents affecting an individual that act out of their control, which at the same time may be in conflict with axioms (for example, death may be imposed on everyone even those who've postulated eternity).

02. Despite what stated in (01), existence of such factors can also be another set of axioms (eg, pre-assumptions in our mind) that have been accepted unconsciously. Hence, one may be able to break them somehow, as has been claimed by many but never proven (or proven but not in terms of truth that are required by our axioms).

03. Considering (00)-(02), every statement should be considered relative and uncertain, yet open for discussion.

04. Interestingly, (00)-(04) are all subject to the same relativity and uncertainty stated in (03). Paradoxical!
No, you said that the problematic statement was "the existent entity A...". This means that it is not problematic to assume that A exists (merely unfounded), but it is problematic to try to deduce the truth of A's existence, right?
Right but not complete. You've explained only one part of the problem.

I wrote that even the statement "object A exists" (ie, not only "the existent entity A exists") is subject to such problem. This was a result of our former discussion about Entity D category of beings. Entity D is a being of type "being that is."

You said that Entity D is actually assumed existent right when it's named. I added that Entity D is the category to which all beings belong (eg, every being is a "being that is"). Now, in saying "object A exists," object A is named, so it belongs to Entity D category. And we know any instance of Entity D has been forbidden inbound Aristotelian logic.

This isn't the "incapability of object A" for being but "Aristotelian logic's incapability" for expressing the most basic state of "object A," its existence, in a plain statement like "object A exists."
... this means that Causality is at the heart of every statement of the form "this is done by I", right? Though this would seem obvious... it is (IMO) an important point - because it shows that, if one would deny Causality, one would never be able to use statements such as "I think".
Right. For that purpose, however, one can simply re-define the use of "verbs" (and perhaps other language functions) to correspond to the substitute chosen for Causality.

In case of Pre-established Harmony, for example, one can re-define "I [beep]" (eg, "I think") as "there is the monadic I and there is the monadic [beep] and there is a coincidence of I and [beep] at this monadic space-time locality," in which "merely coincidence" is stated and not a bond or a guarantee of situation's repeatability.

So whenever "I [beep]" is faced it will be interpreted with its new definition which no more incorporates Causality.

There's even more to the depth of Causality's role in human languages. Causality has opened its way right to the heart of human languages, to the very basic statements like "I think," "I do," "I eat," etc.

That's why a "perfectly logical" opposition to taking Causality too serious seems so strange (sometimes, at least).
... As I've said, the way toward relative fairness is not to be found in trying to achieve something else, but "stumbling upon" relative fairness on the way...

... I'd say, "doubt what you can, while knowing your limits". Or, IOW, "continue to doubt everything you learn, but do so with a view to later eliminating that doubt - no matter how long that happens to take you".
Good points! thanks :smile:.
After all, I'm nowhere near the limits of human thinking. In fact, the very attempt to reach the limits of human thinking is concocted from human thinking.
Interesting. More interesting is that you've simply found a limit to human thinking by this.

You, thinking the human way, think that limits of human thinking are themselves known by thinking and that wouldn't do. Isn't that a limit to human thinking? You're already on the brink of human thinking, like all the individuals who try to think of limits of human thinking.
... I only point it out because one shouldn't think that "idea A" doesn't exist (as you yourself have already agreed), it does exist, and is useful. What is unuseable and non-existent is that which "idea A" represents: namely, nothing at all...

... Does that make sense, or should I reword it?
Let me see, you say "what is unusable is what is represented by idea A, that is nothing at all."

To re-word your words I'd say:

00. What is unusable is nothing at all.
01. What is unusable is nothing.
02. Nothing is what is unusable.
03. Nothing is unusable.

Isn't that what I claimed at the very start, by which I claimed your "usability" criterion defective when "something" (eg, something can't be nothing) is claimed "unusable?"

When "something" is "something," be it a "concept" or an "entity." Be it a thought or a manifestation, it is "usable." What is unusable is non-existent, so it can't be "something," it's simply "nothing at all."

Idea A, as a concept, is always "usable" for at least one use and it would be paradoxical to call it "unusable." The reason is that that "idea A" is always existent.

Idea A's manifestation, as an entity, may be non-existent and "unusable." Its "unusable" nature is the inseparable companion of its non-existence. It is "unusable" because it can't be "used" because it can't even be reached, let alone "be used."

However, what is meant with "idea A" is clearly "idea A" itself and not its manifestation.

Uncertainty is apparently an idea.

Uncertainty, as a concept, as the perspective of a state of mind, is usable.

Uncertainty's manifestation, as an entity, as a state of mind, is non-existent thus unusable.

To sum it up: you may say "there's no implementation of Uncertainty" and conclude that "one should better not strive for an implementation of Uncertainty for it's non-existent thus unusable."

On the other hand, you may not say "there's no such thing as Uncertainty" and you may not conclude that "one should better not think of Uncertainty for it's unusable." For Uncertainty, as a concept, is existent and usable even though it has no manifestation.

This resolves the debate about the credibility of "ideas," "thoughts," "logical systems" and "viewpoints." All of these are usable for at least for one use because they're conceptual beings even though some of them may have no manifestation (or otherwise called, implementation), which would make their manifestation non-existent thus unusable. The usability criterion approves all of them. Consequently, the usability criterion can't be used to prefer one of these over others or to isolate one of them with a label like "unusable."

All right?
I agree with you here. You make a very good point. However, one must also be aware of the fact that a new idea can be just as powerful as an old one, they just can inductively prove it.
A lethal mistake here: "inductive proof." There's no "inductive" proof of any strength.

Inductive method relies on statistical hopes. A result of inductive method is not a proof but a hypothesis. Observation of phenomena on large scale may give concordant results which in turn can give us a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be later verified to become a theory.

A proof is a closed case after it's checked thoroughly for errors and found fully compliant with the logical system in which it's proposed.

A theory, in contrast, is an ever-open case. Science, mainly relying on empirical evidence and theories based on them, is always revising its theories, producing new ones, comparing them to scientific criteria and discarding problematic ones. A theory has to work in favor of both empirical evidence and other theoretical restrictions of higher credibility. For example, a theory about heat transfer has to, first, satisfy observations and predict the results of new ones and, second, avoid violating the principle of conservation of energy.

Theories of highest credibility can later be used to "deduce" and the results of deduction have to be compared to empirical evidence, again. For example, the principle of conservation of energy can be used to deduce the total amount of dispersed heat after a moving body is stopped because of friction; the result must be carefully checked with precise measurements of the speed of the body and the dispersed heat in a very carefully isolated environment. If the result is in agreement with the measurement then we have another empirical evidence for the principle of conservation of energy and a new way of knowing the dispersed heat in our problem.

continued on the next post...
 
  • #165
... continued from the previous post

Deductive method gives "proofs." Inductive method gives "theories."
This is true, and I've incorporated this line of thinking, in all of my time on the PFs (by giving everyone's opinion as equal an amount of merit, in my mind, as anyone else's).
That's indeed a characteristic of a free thinker.
Why not? If you make something sound like it would be a grand acheivement, it implies that you think it would be "good".
For "good" is still a reserved keyword for many. "Goodness" as an absolute quality still prevails in many human minds and one would better save oneself from their anger .
It doesn't matter that the "cosmic observer" wouldn't distinguish between these things. Unless there truly is no difference between the "cosmic observer" and the rest of reality (in which case, the "cosmic observer" would not have the ability to "observe" anything), we have yet to reach the state of true irrationality.
"Absence of distinguishing" isn't equal to "absence of difference." "Absence of distinguishing" doesn't level everything to one thing but it levels everything to what "they are" and not what "they are perceived as."

A "cosmic observer" experiences the difference but not in terms of superiority/inferiority, only sheer difference.

A human observer is biased in many ways. That leads her/him into understanding the difference in terms of "more/less" of the qualities. Cosmic observer, on the other hand, has no biases, so it won't experiences the "more/less" of qualities but it will experience qualities "as is."

Distinguishing is the process that "selectively" and "contextually" alters the input stream into the observer. When this process is stopped the input stream will be fed in raw, without alteration. The difference will be apparent because the input stream changes but it won't be interpreted, it will only be accepted.

Simply put, cosmic observer isn't human in any respect. Understanding, which is usually expected of a human observer, is a task of interpretation and interpretation will lead into distinguishing. In absence of distinguishing, understanding will be absent as well as interpretation.
No, you made your own claim, based on the possibility of the existence of irrationality. You just didn't go as far as I did, in not allowing that there be an distinction between "observer" and "observed".
You said irrationality is in "absence of distinguishing." I said that "absence of distinguishing" is the subject of a historical question, and I described what happens in "absence of distinguishing." Since the question hasn't been answered, the existence of irrationality remains a question.

Now, you can do one of the following:

00. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is possible, with all its consequences kept in mind. So that you can claim there's a "manifestation of irrationality." And that there are individuals who can be called "irrational." Then determine exactly who are subject to the "absence of distinguishing" and the title, "irrational."
01. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is impossible, readily accepting that "an implementation of irrationality" doesn't exist.
02. Accept to put aside this debate of "irrationality" and to avoid calling others "irrational."
04. Change the case of irrationality's existence from "absence of distinguishing" to something else.
03. Whatever else you like.

Without all this hassle, I agree that irrationality is existent, "as a concept," if that's all you want but if you claim an "implementation of irrationality" existent, see above. Notice that an "irrational individual" is an "implementation of irrationality."
... This means that debating what "irrationality" is, in a rational way, is entirely useless (or, at least, will never reach the desired result).
So how do you call someone else "irrational" while you're still "rational? "

If "irrationality" can't be understood rationally then its symptoms, too, can't be understood and detected rationally.
Wrong. If the "cosmic observer" would actually "observe" something, they must already have distinguished between the "observed" and the "observer".
Cosmic observer is a human name for something totally alien.

It's more of an anthropomorphic analogy: the cosmic observer watches everything from far away, from the vacuum where no biases can be found, where no atmosphere distorts the view, where no dependencies mislead reception. And it watches at universal scale.
... Everything you have just deduced about the incompleteness of rationality has been done from a rational standpoint, and is thus entirely invalid, according to very reasoning you were trying to use.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Sort of a "meta-thought", eh?

-------------------------------------------------------------

... I have another question though: you said that the "paradigm shift" is not necessarily progressive. Why would you say that? Didn't you say that paradigm shifts occur when one abandons a line of reasoning for another? If so, then one would obviously be seeking a "better" paradigm, would they not? Also, wouldn't this search be a "paradigm" of it's own?

-------------------------------------------------------------

From what stanpoint? How can I distinguish between paradigms, unless I, myself, am bound to one (a distinguishing one)? Oh well, this is just back to the discussion of irrationality and "fairness", isn't it?
These quoted parts of your post are closely related and very interesting (to me, at least). I need your very keen attention here.

How did Kurt Gödel come to his Incompleteness Theorem? He used a tool named "Meta-mathematics" that was designed to analyze mathematical structures. Meta-mathematics works out and beyond mathematics itself, though still rationally.

How does Science come to choose among various theories explaining the same phenomenon? It compares them to scientific criteria. These criteria are intra-scientific yet meta-theoretic. They are chosen to judge among theories so they're independent of theories: the scientific criteria are valid inside Science but out and beyond every scientific theory. Science has meta-theories for judging theories.

How does an individual come to choose among "paradigms," "viewpoints," "systems of thought" and "ways of life?" Here is the critical point.

Paradigm shifts occur inevitably. The inhabitant of the paradigm has a minor but effective role in the direction of the shift. Ways of life are always changing, new ways come in, old ways are revived, some prevail, some fade out. Systems of thought have varying populations, varying side-effects and varying consequences. The third question is one of the most notable questions one can ask.

This third question has no clear answer, in my knowledge, at least. Obviously one will choose what seems "better" to them but then what is "better?" What are the criteria for judging "paradigms?" How can we know if an "animist shaman's" paradigm is "better" or that of a "medieval priest" or that of a "scientist?" (this is my favorite example)

My very first topic on PF was named: "Meta-paradigm?" I asked (and still ask) for meta-paradigms, a set of criteria for choosing among paradigms. The only PF member to post a reply and start a discussion was Wuliheron. She/he did it really well: no answer but an invaluable discussion.

Have in mind this phrase from the definition of a paradigm: "... paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence..."

The source of justification in a paradigm is exactly the set of criteria by which "better/worse" is determined. A paradigm is self-sufficient. If one living inside a paradigm has pre-set the most basic criteria of preference and pre-set them to the current paradigm, how can one ever choose between one's current paradigm and any other paradigm "fairly?"

Wouldn't the outcome of such comparison always be in favor of one's current paradigm?

A paradigm contains its own source of justification. Good/bad, better/worse, best/worst, right/wrong, true/false, all opposites, all comparatives and superlatives of preference point at the same paradigm.

This provides the internal consistency of a paradigm. An "animist shaman," a "medieval priest," and a "scientist" find themselves satisfied and justified by their paradigm. That's the reason for individual and social inertia. Paradigm shifts are dangerous, bizarre, and unpredictable. Even small changes are critical. Who knows if anything will remain there, if "remaining" has any meaning in the new paradigm, in the new paradigm? Why would the satisfied beast move unless it's forced or excited?

The free thinker, however, has come willing for danger and for reward. She/he has come to change to better, to gain more, to know more, to understand more, to do more and to wield her/his newly gained power. The free thinker is the wolf, hungering for more. What do we have here to offer them?

She/he will learn the relativity of "more." And she/he will know the human situation. She/he will be faced with the last of barriers to total human power. If this last barrier is passed, if the paradigm is modified at will, impossible will become possible. Possibility itself will twist. Universes will bend under her/his power. She/he will bid farewell to humanity (and possibly go beyond she/he :wink:, not to lose the comedy of situation and the dear memory of Douglas Adams).

Alas, I know no meta-paradigms. They may be non-existent. Yet, the topic is still open for discussion. Someone I know was brave enough to claim there are meta-paradigms, but she/he hasn't yet told me what they are. And many more questions, more abstract, can be asked.

continued on the next post...
 
  • #166
... continued from the previous post

Some of these many questions:

00. If the paradigm is all that is available to a human observer, where does common experience of human observers come from? Is there anything independent of observers?
01. Could it be that common experience comes from one source? Or that it emerges from multiple synchronized sources? Or mutual observation with similar results is only another paradigmic twist that may vanish during the next paradigm shift?
02. How does the paradigm handle the interaction of distinct observers?
03. Are there distinct observers?
04. How real is reality? How solid is the solid wall?
05. What if two conflicting paradigms happen to incorporate the same experience? For example, we have paradigm A that has no such thing as "death" inside and paradigm B which has "death" as an event occurring after certain events. A and B are identical in other respects including that they both incorporate the Universe known to us (or better said, to me) through our (or better said, my) current experience. Individual A lives in paradigm A and individual B lives in paradigm B. Individual A is ran over by a car at 200 km/h. Paradigm A has no "death" inside, so "death" won't occur to A. Individual B observes individual A while A is ran over. Paradigm B judges the event as "lethal" and must report a "death." What has happened to individual A? What does A experience? What is "actually" happening?
06. What is "Actuality" when the only things available are "paradigms?" Paradigms which at best twist one or more "actualities" to correspond to the paradigmic content and at worst are "actualities" themselves without any "actual" "Actuality" (in other words, "the" reality) being "actually" anywhere.
07. If an individual is considered a "distinct being" what happens to her/him in a paradigm which has no such things as "distinction" and "existence?" What is handed over from one paradigm to the next during paradigm shifts?
08. Our knowledge of paradigms must have come from "outside" paradigms because it’s a generalization over all paradigms. How could have we known anything about paradigms from "outside" without ever being "outside" a paradigm? Could it be all "in vain?"
09. Do we "lose" something living in a paradigm and not living in another? What's the meaning of "loss?" Are there measures present in all paradigms? Is there a universal measure of utility for the individual? Wouldn't that be a meta-paradigm at last?
10. How could one use or even think of meta-paradigms without being able to go "beyond and out" of one's current paradigm?
11. Could it be that study of paradigms is just another twist of our (or better said, my) current paradigm? What fixates the necessity of such study and what defines its goals?

At last, a critical question:

What do I do now?

This "I" isn't only my "I." Think about it, please!
When you asked these questions, you were pursuing Wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. I think most people have different reasons for pursuing it, and I think I'd like to know your reason (after all, your (quoted) questions are in the pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge).
Isn't that another loop? Shouldn't Wisdom have a meaning independent of me questioning it?

Wisdom is the "application" of knowledge? Its application to what? And for what purpose?

I myself don't know why I ask questions. Do you know? Is it enjoyment, necessity, or something totally different? I don't know.
So? Does Philosophy really limit itself so? Personal (and thus empirical) experience has shown me that there is such a thing as consciousness, and I don't like the idea that consciousness is not allowed for in Philosophy, merely because we do not yet understand it.
Consciousness is "discussed" under Philosophy until its known and understood, to some extent at least, then it's "used" in debates.

Before an understanding of Consciousness is achieved it won't be used as a basis for understanding other things.

In defining "use," you have to offer everyone something they can understand or something based on what they already understand. That's why I say you can't make a definition out of a "human faculty that we don't understand." The purpose of a definition is to convey meaning. This purpose won't be fulfilled if a definition contains an unresolved reference, a term that isn't understood (or isn't "yet" understood).

How can I know what you mean with "use" if I don't understand it? And how can I criticize or discuss it if I can't learn it?
And you (much like Descartes, in his second Rule for the Direction of the Mind) believe that all ideas should be as well defined as mathematics, otherwise they are not useful?

What I'm telling you is that, unless you think that significance is "useful", there is no point in debating the meaning or significance of "use". It is better to simply take for granted the usual human use of the word.
What I need is "precision" and "clarity" and these can be found in Mathematics (I don't know any other places they may be found).

I think critique is possible after knowing and understanding and these can be gained with precision and clarity. This precision and clarity can't be found in common usage of words so I demand a rigorous definition.

Please tell me if you have another way.
By making "use" of a line of reasoning (an obviously paradoxical attempt).
Paradoxes again, and Loops are all I see. Then you say they aren't the most basic .
I'm human, I can do that.
You're indeed human but how do you "know" this? You can indeed do it, but how did you "learn" this?
 
  • #167
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
I see, but then don't you mean Descartes, and his mates, were somehow biased right from the start? :wink:

I'm kidding. It's all right; you can have "further" there if you like it.

Alrighty then. One problem, I can't deduce from this (quoted) whether you were agreeing with me or not.

03. Considering (00)-(02), every statement should be considered relative and uncertain, yet open for discussion.

Including this (quoted) statement, right?

04. Interestingly, (00)-(04) are all subject to the same relativity and uncertainty stated in (03). Paradoxical!

Ah, I see that you are one step ahead of me. Kudos.

Right but not complete. You've explained only one part of the problem.

I wrote that even the statement "object A exists" (ie, not only "the existent entity A exists") is subject to such problem. This was a result of our former discussion about Entity D category of beings. Entity D is a being of type "being that is."

You said that Entity D is actually assumed existent right when it's named. I added that Entity D is the category to which all beings belong (eg, every being is a "being that is"). Now, in saying "object A exists," object A is named, so it belongs to Entity D category. And we know any instance of Entity D has been forbidden inbound Aristotelian logic.

This isn't the "incapability of object A" for being but "Aristotelian logic's incapability" for expressing the most basic state of "object A," its existence, in a plain statement like "object A exists."

But you haven't quite answered my question. I have understood what you are saying, but I still don't know for sure whether it's the claiming of something's being existent that is wrong, or if it's the trying to deduce "object A"'s existence that is wrong.

Right. For that purpose, however, one can simply re-define the use of "verbs" (and perhaps other language functions) to correspond to the substitute chosen for Causality.

In case of Pre-established Harmony, for example, one can re-define "I [beep]" (eg, "I think") as "there is the monadic I and there is the monadic [beep] and there is a coincidence of I and [beep] at this monadic space-time locality," in which "merely coincidence" is stated and not a bond or a guarantee of situation's repeatability.

So whenever "I [beep]" is faced it will be interpreted with its new definition which no more incorporates Causality.

There's even more to the depth of Causality's role in human languages. Causality has opened its way right to the heart of human languages, to the very basic statements like "I think," "I do," "I eat," etc.

That's why a "perfectly logical" opposition to taking Causality too serious seems so strange (sometimes, at least).

Very interesting. It does seem rather exhaustive to use Pre-Established Harmony's notation, instead of Causality's, doesn't it? Also, I believe there is a flaw (or rather, and assumption of Causality) in assuming that Pre-Established Harmony [beeps] differently (whether "[beep]" be replaced by "speaks", "explains", "sounds", "reasons", or any other verb).

Interesting. More interesting is that you've simply found a limit to human thinking by this.

You, thinking the human way, think that limits of human thinking are themselves known by thinking and that wouldn't do. Isn't that a limit to human thinking? You're already on the brink of human thinking, like all the individuals who try to think of limits of human thinking.

I guess that makes sense.

Let me see, you say "what is unusable is what is represented by idea A, that is nothing at all."

To re-word your words I'd say:

00. What is unusable is nothing at all.
01. What is unusable is nothing.
02. Nothing is what is unusable.
03. Nothing is unusable.

Isn't that what I claimed at the very start, by which I claimed your "usability" criterion defective when "something" (eg, something can't be nothing) is claimed "unusable?"

I see what you mean, however, what I am pointing at is a very deep flaw in human reasoning: Namely, we can refer to that which doesn't exist. So, while we are not really referring to anything, we are still refering, and thus can say that that which we are referring to is unusable (and, really, non-existent).

Thus, when one speaks of "Uncertainty", one isn't referring to anything at all, but one is still refering, and thus can say that that which s/he is referring to is unusable (and, really, non-existent). Does that make sense?

I'm sorry, but I must go now. I will finish my response tomorrow. Please await it's completion, before responding.
 
  • #168
I

Maybe we should try an other angle of attack on this problem of "i". Much of the problems with the concept of "i" stem from the idea of ownership of "i" ( in that this "i" that I speak of is 'mine' )It is the idea that thought, or thinking, is the product of ONE, SINGLE, *INDIVIDUALIZED authoritive entity (namely "i")that somehow uses a *THING called reason (logic) for its production. Human thought is by no means singular, continuous, individualized, or hireacahely orgainized( In fact it is quite impossible to distinguish between enviormental influencaces (body) and mental processeics (mind)) nor is logic a thing to be used. I intend to demonstrate how human personality has little to do with indipendant existence, and of the pittfalls in trying to use thinking as a meauring tool to define and prove ourselfs as persons and individuals...

'i think therefore i am'

I agree with miguel that this statement presupposes that to think one needs to have "i". In most case's yes but not all. If I program an AI engine to think in the same way that I do following a set of predefined formulations I have provided it who is the one thinking, me or the AI? Does the AI's thinking prove its existence or mine? More fundamentally, when the AI says "i am", is that the AI's "i", or mine? The only logical escape is to say that we both have "i", but in that sense our "i's" would be one and the same. Yet in that case, our thinking will declare to be the same "i", in which case my and the AI's definition of "i" are unsolvabe! I make another AI engine but this time was lazy and didnt make it a copy of myself, but instead made it much simpler. So much simpler in fact that it has lost its qualites as an idividual. But still it thinks!? Thinking to itself it can never say "i think...i am" if it does not exist as an "i" in the frist place, this AI has no "i" to speak of no matter how much it thinks. Therefore thinking does not need an "i". Now what if another AI engine is made that is smart engouh to be an individual but not a clone of me?...Let me get back to this later in my post...

I agree with Mentat that people are miss reading Descrates. When he says "i" he refers to an OBJECTIVE entity. When this entity does ANYTHING, it exist.If it diplayed ABSOULUTLY no output then it could be said that it doesn't exist at all. Unfortunately "we" are not such entities ("we" are far too 'subjective'). What could I possiblely mean by all this?

Yes there exist an "i", but this "i" has ABSOLUTLY nothing to do with "me", as a person, as Emanuel Wazar, or as an individual. Take the case of an AI conviecned of its its individuality. What can its thinking prove? At frist you might say it can prove "itself". But then what is "itself"? The AI shouldn't make the mistake to think that's its output (eg. actions, emotions, feelings) ARE its "i" (namely because it is only output). This AI "i" is a set of formulated rules that generate it's many certain outputs. Its thinking only proves that there are rules (logic)to its output, its thinking implies the presance of logic in its design, its thinking proves the reality of its own objective existence, but its thinking does not nesaccarly imply the existence of what the AI at first would define as its own "i", its individuality (eg. actions, emotions, feelings).

There is thought therefore there is logic.

(logic, wrong or right, because to think IS to use logic. To think does not imply that YOU thought about it.) logic is not a THING,...logic is an inherant property of the universe which is taken advantage of by nature ( in humans in particular) to futher biological surviaval (but it is not the only property and so can't be used to handle ALL situations. --therefore the universe in some case is irrational, and uncertatain. As for humans there is no such thing as rational human thought without the use of logic!) So we can prove the real exitance of logic but that doesn't nesaccerly imply a proof of "us"


'...when the deamon takes everything away from you,(eg. actions, emotions, feelings, and even your memories) "you" (the individual) DO NOT exist anymore!

so to summarize here is what I posulate.

1.That which we call personality and Logic thought process are completely differnt things.
2.That they can exist independant of each other.
3.Thinking(any aciton) proves(implies) existence, but it does not prove(imply) PERSONAL existence.
4.The universe need not be fundamentally rational.
5.Decartes "I" may be said to be his soul, but that soul has nothing to do with Decartes the person.
6.Therfore, I AS IN EXISTANCE CAN BE PROVEN, I AS IN PERSON CAN NEVER BE PROVEN BASED MEARLY ON THE FACT THAT I THINK.

***there well very well be such a thing as I as in person, its just that it can't be proved or disproved.

God bless Gobels.

Feel free to critic.This is my frist post.

(you just got to love the avatar...fits me like a glove)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
When "something" is "something," be it a "concept" or an "entity." Be it a thought or a manifestation, it is "usable." What is unusable is non-existent, so it can't be "something," it's simply "nothing at all."

Idea A, as a concept, is always "usable" for at least one use and it would be paradoxical to call it "unusable." The reason is that that "idea A" is always existent.

Idea A's manifestation, as an entity, may be non-existent and "unusable." Its "unusable" nature is the inseparable companion of its non-existence. It is "unusable" because it can't be "used" because it can't even be reached, let alone "be used."

However, what is meant with "idea A" is clearly "idea A" itself and not its manifestation.

Uncertainty is apparently an idea.

Uncertainty, as a concept, as the perspective of a state of mind, is usable.

Uncertainty's manifestation, as an entity, as a state of mind, is non-existent thus unusable.

To sum it up: you may say "there's no implementation of Uncertainty" and conclude that "one should better not strive for an implementation of Uncertainty for it's non-existent thus unusable."

On the other hand, you may not say "there's no such thing as Uncertainty" and you may not conclude that "one should better not think of Uncertainty for it's unusable." For Uncertainty, as a concept, is existent and usable even though it has no manifestation.

Please see my previous post, for my reasoning on this matter.

A lethal mistake here: "inductive proof." There's no "inductive" proof of any strength.

Inductive method relies on statistical hopes. A result of inductive method is not a proof but a hypothesis. Observation of phenomena on large scale may give concordant results which in turn can give us a hypothesis. A hypothesis can be later verified to become a theory.

So, basically, inductive reasoning can lead to theory, but never any farther? Well, in that case, Science is based on inductive reasoning (which is rather obvious, as it relies rather heavily on empirical patterns).

Response Continued On Next Post...
 
  • #170
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Deductive method gives "proofs." Inductive method gives "theories."

Point taken

That's indeed a characteristic of a free thinker.

Thank you.

"Absence of distinguishing" isn't equal to "absence of difference." "Absence of distinguishing" doesn't level everything to one thing but it levels everything to what "they are" and not what "they are perceived as."

A "cosmic observer" experiences the difference but not in terms of superiority/inferiority, only sheer difference.

But to experience difference is to distinguish.

Distinguishing is the process that "selectively" and "contextually" alters the input stream into the observer. When this process is stopped the input stream will be fed in raw, without alteration. The difference will be apparent because the input stream changes but it won't be interpreted, it will only be accepted.

And yet, one cannot pursue this, without first distinguishing it as a better course.

Simply put, cosmic observer isn't human in any respect.

Does the cosmic observer know this? :wink:

Understanding, which is usually expected of a human observer, is a task of interpretation and interpretation will lead into distinguishing. In absence of distinguishing, understanding will be absent as well as interpretation.

That means that the cosmic observer is doesn't understand anything that it observes.

Now, you can do one of the following:

00. Prove that "absence of distinguishing" is possible, with all its consequences kept in mind. So that you can claim there's a "manifestation of irrationality." And that there are individuals who can be called "irrational." Then determine exactly who are subject to the "absence of distinguishing" and the title, "irrational."

I've already shown that rational thought allows for the existence of "irrationality". However, after having discussed this with you, I see that it is never really correct to consider a human being "irrational".

Cosmic observer is a human name for something totally alien.

It's more of an anthropomorphic analogy: the cosmic observer watches everything from far away, from the vacuum where no biases can be found, where no atmosphere distorts the view, where no dependencies mislead reception. And it watches at universal scale.

And yet all these absences are as much an obstruction (in that they are distinguishing marks) as the presence of "atmosphere", "dependencies", etc, aren't they?

These quoted parts of your post are closely related and very interesting (to me, at least). I need your very keen attention here.

Know that you have my attention, and that I read everything that you posted. Alas, I must delete some of it, from my response, and I cannot respond to all of it. But most of it doesn't call for a response anyway.

Paradigm shifts occur inevitably. The inhabitant of the paradigm has a minor but effective role in the direction of the shift. Ways of life are always changing, new ways come in, old ways are revived, some prevail, some fade out. Systems of thought have varying populations, varying side-effects and varying consequences. The third question is one of the most notable questions one can ask.

This third question has no clear answer, in my knowledge, at least. Obviously one will choose what seems "better" to them but then what is "better?" What are the criteria for judging "paradigms?"

Exactly. You see, you have attempted (quoted above) to define the limits of paradigms. However, trying to define the limits of a paradigm requires stepping into another paradigm.

My very first topic on PF was named: "Meta-paradigm?" I asked (and still ask) for meta-paradigms, a set of criteria for choosing among paradigms. The only PF member to post a reply and start a discussion was Wuliheron. She/he did it really well: no answer but an invaluable discussion.

You should revive that thread.

Have in mind this phrase from the definition of a paradigm: "... paradigms carry their own source of justification and are therefore less obviously related to or challenged by empirical evidence..."

Of course, this is a way of defining the limits of paradigms, and is thus only "true" within it's own paradigm. However, my analysis of it only exists within my current paradigm, and my analysis of my analysis exists within it's own paradigm, and so on and so on...

But I understand what you are trying to say.

The source of justification in a paradigm is exactly the set of criteria by which "better/worse" is determined. A paradigm is self-sufficient.

Very interesting (and important (IMO)) point.

If one living inside a paradigm has pre-set the most basic criteria of preference and pre-set them to the current paradigm, how can one ever choose between one's current paradigm and any other paradigm "fairly?"

Very true, however the preference of treating paradigms "fairly" is also part of a paradigm, is it not?

Paradigm shifts are dangerous, bizarre, and unpredictable. Even small changes are critical. Who knows if anything will remain there, if "remaining" has any meaning in the new paradigm, in the new paradigm? Why would the satisfied beast move unless it's forced or excited?

Interesting enough; just remember that all of your analysis on the nature of paradigms, and paradigm shifts, is within it's own paradigm, and is thus not necessarily true within other paradigms. IOW, unless you claim to have found the meta-paradigm (which I know is not your claim), your analysis of paradigms is subject to uncertainty.

However, for what it's worth, I agree with you, and I am fascinated by the very idea.

If this last barrier is passed, if the paradigm is modified at will, impossible will become possible. Possibility itself will twist. Universes will bend under her/his power. She/he will bid farewell to humanity...

Perhaps that's what God really is .

Response Continued On Next Post...
 
  • #171
Originally posted by Manuel_Silvio
Some of these many questions:

00. If the paradigm is all that is available to a human observer, where does common experience of human observers come from? Is there anything independent of observers?

I was going to ask that question! I'm glad we're on the same frequency. I really have no idea why humans seem to share such similar paradigms. Of course, if there is one paradigm that is "absolute", then this coincidence would be understandable. However, the determination of an "absolute" paradigm requires the use of another paradigm, doesn't it?

02. How does the paradigm handle the interaction of distinct observers?

03. Are there distinct observers?

Well, if the answer to #03 is "no", then the answer to #02 is obvious. However, if "yes", then one truly has a conundrum, as the paradigms of different people should be (according to the paradigm that I have somehow settled in) completely different.

05. What if two conflicting paradigms happen to incorporate the same experience? For example, we have paradigm A that has no such thing as "death" inside and paradigm B which has "death" as an event occurring after certain events. A and B are identical in other respects including that they both incorporate the Universe known to us (or better said, to me) through our (or better said, my) current experience. Individual A lives in paradigm A and individual B lives in paradigm B. Individual A is ran over by a car at 200 km/h. Paradigm A has no "death" inside, so "death" won't occur to A. Individual B observes individual A while A is ran over. Paradigm B judges the event as "lethal" and must report a "death." What has happened to individual A? What does A experience? What is "actually" happening?

Ah, now I understand (one needs to read the whole of that (quoted) piece, in order to understand the point you're getting at). I guess I don't know.

What we should remember is that it appears (only appears, mind you) that humans always share some things, in their respective paradigms. One of them is death.

07. If an individual is considered a "distinct being" what happens to her/him in a paradigm which has no such things as "distinction" and "existence?" What is handed over from one paradigm to the next during paradigm shifts?

One would deal with that when it came, I suppose. After all, a distinct being cannot move into a paradigm where there is no such thing as distinct beings. Thus, they would have to lose their individuality, in the paradigm where they actually had it, before moving into one without it. (But, of course, this raises all kinds of questions - such as, how can they move into another paradigm, once they've ceased existing as a distinct being?)

08. Our knowledge of paradigms must have come from "outside" paradigms because it’s a generalization over all paradigms. How could have we known anything about paradigms from "outside" without ever being "outside" a paradigm? Could it be all "in vain?"

That's what I've been trying to say - it could very well all be in vain (as any analysis of paradigms resides in it's own paradigm). Of course, we have to realize that the belief that one must step outside of a paradigm, in order to analyze it, also resides in it's own paradigm.

09. Do we "lose" something living in a paradigm and not living in another? What's the meaning of "loss?" Are there measures present in all paradigms? Is there a universal measure of utility for the individual? Wouldn't that be a meta-paradigm at last?

Yes, but it probably doesn't exist. Also, in response to your other questions (about "loss" and whether we are experiencing "loss", by being in one paradigm, instead of another), I just don't know.

10. How could one use or even think of meta-paradigms without being able to go "beyond and out" of one's current paradigm?

The "concept" of a meta-paradigm could exist in one's paradigm. Remember, the "concept" of a non-existent entity exists, even though it isn't really the concept of anything.

11. Could it be that study of paradigms is just another twist of our (or better said, my) current paradigm? What fixates the necessity of such study and what defines its goals?

This is a restating of one of my main points, in the last few posts: to try to understand paradigms, is to reside in the paradigm of trying to understand paradigms. It appears to defeat it's own purpose. And yet, my analysis here should also exist in it's own paradigm, and is thus not absolute.

At last, a critical question:

What do I do now?

This "I" isn't only my "I." Think about it, please!

It is possible that there is no "should". In my paradigm, I must assume that this could drive one crazy if one continued to think about it for long periods of time (I know I'm starting to "lose it", according to the typical human paradigm - if such a thing can be said to exist, or if saying it exists is "fair" to the paradigm where it doesn't exist...

Isn't that another loop? Shouldn't Wisdom have a meaning independent of me questioning it?

Does anything really have a meaning, if it's meaning isn't questioned?

Wisdom is the "application" of knowledge? Its application to what? And for what purpose?

Whatever purpose one can find (though it's rather strange to see that you seem to be seeking purpose in something, when you're not even certain about what purpose is).

I myself don't know why I ask questions. Do you know? Is it enjoyment, necessity, or something totally different? I don't know.

It's the human condition.

Think of this (as I think it's a very important point):
Trying to understand meta-paradigms and questioning the meaning of everything is an inevitable result of a mind that is conditioned so as to never actually find the answers.

This must be why Wuliheron chooses acceptance.

Consciousness is "discussed" under Philosophy until its known and understood, to some extent at least, then it's "used" in debates.

Before an understanding of Consciousness is achieved it won't be used as a basis for understanding other things.

Our consciousness has been being used for understanding everything that we have ever understood.

In defining "use," you have to offer everyone something they can understand or something based on what they already understand.

Again, the human condition allows you to "understand" "use", but it doesn't allow you to question it.

That's why I say you can't make a definition out of a "human faculty that we don't understand." The purpose of a definition is to convey meaning. This purpose won't be fulfilled if a definition contains an unresolved reference, a term that isn't understood (or isn't "yet" understood).

No, it can be understood, it merely cannot be analyzed. Langauge itself (our only means of communication, as humans) cannot be fully analyzed, but even an infant can "understand" it.

*Sudden Thought*: what if one needs to return to the mind-state of an infant, in order to understand how we understood such unexplainable things, in the first place?

What I need is "precision" and "clarity" and these can be found in Mathematics (I don't know any other places they may be found).

Why do you need this "precision" and "clarity"?

I think critique is possible after knowing and understanding and these can be gained with precision and clarity. This precision and clarity can't be found in common usage of words so I demand a rigorous definition.

But you demand it by using words, do you not? Thus, you are not making a specific enough demand, and will have to settle for a purely human response.

Paradoxes again, and Loops are all I see. Then you say they aren't the most basic .

They aren't basic. Drag has helped me understand what it really is (maybe, nothing's really certain anymore, but this is possible): Concepts that are basic may defy definiton.

You're indeed human but how do you "know" this? You can indeed do it, but how did you "learn" this?

This cannot be understood without stepping outside of the human condition.

However, in closing, once one is outside of the human condition, does one really have any ambition toward finding the answers that they had asked while in the human condition (this is reminiscent of my question about a paradigm shift, into a paradigm where there is no such thing as individuality)?
 
  • #172
Greetz,

1. For Preator Fenix:

I guess you're a bit late for this thread but anyway you're welcome. I got problems reading your post but I managed to get something out of it.

For the part where you addressed me, I think, you're making a mistake in thinking that an AI entity can be "made to think like its creator." Any entity capable of human thinking is too complex to be said to have "deterministic" behavior.

You set up your AI entity and set its initial conditions to your own conditions. Then you start it. You expect it to follow the same ways of thought that you're following but it won't necessarily do so.

Since it’s a complex system, the sequence of states it will follow can't be predicted by knowing its initial conditions and its internal structure. You and your AI entity won't be identical.

For other parts of your post, I leave it to Mentat. Will you take it please, Mentat?

2. For Mentat:
Alrighty then. One problem, I can't deduce from this (quoted) whether you were agreeing with me or not.
I'm in agreement. Descartes thought he existed before he started thinking about it, so the Demon's challenge "further" validated his thoughts.
... but I still don't know for sure whether it's the claiming of something's being existent that is wrong, or if it's the trying to deduce "object A"'s existence that is wrong.
What is wrong here is violation of the rules of a logical system, one that we've chosen to abide. In this case we've chosen Aristotelian logic as the logical system.

One of its rules says that loops are forbidden. Anywhere we find a loop, we have to run away and avoid it. The problem is that these loops sometimes occur at the most basic statements, where we expected the logical system to be the most efficient and the most decisive.

We've studied two of these loops:

00. The loop in "I think therefore I am," when there's a premise saying "I's thinking is in undeniable relationship with I's being." When one tries to deduce one's existence by using that premise, one encounters a loop. In order to remain bound to the chosen logical system, one has to avoid making such loop, to avoid that deduction.

01. The loop in "object A exists." You invented the Entity D category of beings. I described this category as every being that can be said to be a "being that is." Then we agreed that this category is all-encompassing, that every being is an instance of Entity D. "Object A" in an Entity D, too. Aristotelian logic, however, forbids definitions that include a being's existence (eg, "being that is") and does this because of the restriction put on loops (eg, "being that is" itself is a loop for it's the logical equivalent of "that which exists, exists"). So the statement "object A exists" is a problem within Aristotelian logic for it declares "object A" existent while it's pre-assumed the existence of "object A" right when it named "object A."

These two loops are to be avoided if one's going to remain bound to this logical system, yet they're dealing with the most basic aspect of a being, it's "being." There lies Aristotelian logic's deficiency.
Very interesting. It does seem rather exhaustive to use Pre-Established Harmony's notation, instead of Causality's, doesn't it? Also, I believe there is a flaw (or rather, and assumption of Causality) in assuming that Pre-Established Harmony [beeps] differently (whether "[beep]" be replaced by "speaks", "explains", "sounds", "reasons", or any other verb).
It seems exhaustive because we're used to Causality. Causality has become dominant and has found its way into language functions. When these functions are re-defined to correspond to a substitute for Causality, there's no need to repeat the definition every time. After re-defining "I [beep]," one can simply use "I [beep]." The same process has happened, though at a slower pace, for Causality. Current language functions have been gradually re-shaped to correspond to Causality but this shape isn't stuck to them. That "I [beep]" implies Causality is part of our current condition, not an innate property of "I [beep]," for it can be re-defined at will and it will function with its new definition just as it would function with its previous definition.

Besides, it would be equally exhaustive to re-define language functions to correspond to Causality, again. For example, "I [beep]" can be re-defined as "there's I and there's [beep] and I and [beep] are bound through certain means which will guarantee this bond for a hopefully long stretch of time."
... what I am pointing at is a very deep flaw in human reasoning: Namely, we can refer to that which doesn't exist. So, while we are not really referring to anything, we are still refering, and thus can say that that which we are referring to is unusable (and, really, non-existent).
I think you're right but then aren't you "reasoning" right now? This "reasoning" suffers the same flaw. You're pointing at a flaw which, by its paradoxical nature, ought to be non-existent, but you're still referring, and what you're referring to is another "nothing at all."

Even though human reasoning is "cracked" only "somewhere," it will "sink" as "whole." And we're all on board .

You see, Loop and Paradox can be found everywhere. And they're double-edged swords, as you know.
Thus, when one speaks of "Uncertainty", one isn't referring to anything at all, but one is still refering, and thus can say that that which s/he is referring to is unusable (and, really, non-existent). Does that make sense?
I would say Uncertainty, as a concept, is usable and existent but Uncertainty, as an entity, is unusable and non-existent.

Uncertainty, as an entity, is what is referred to by Uncertainty, as a concept. The reference itself is usable and existent while the entity referred to is unusable and non-existent.

Are we in agreement?
So, basically, inductive reasoning can lead to theory, but never any farther? Well, in that case, Science is based on inductive reasoning (which is rather obvious, as it relies rather heavily on empirical patterns).
Yes, Science is based on inductive method. That's why theoretical and empirical revision is Science's main concern.
But to experience difference is to distinguish.

And yet, one cannot pursue this, without first distinguishing it as a better course.

Does the cosmic observer know this?

That means that the cosmic observer is doesn't understand anything that it observes.
That isn't right for "sheer difference."

A traffic light, for example, is "distinguished" by human observer. A human observer distinguishes it by "structure" and by "function." Its "red" light isn't merely a "wavelength," it has a "meaning" associated with the "wavelength;" the same for the "green" light. This is the basis of distinguishing "red" and "green."

A cosmic observer "perceives" the "wavelengths" but not the "meaning." It won't associate "meaning" with "red" and "green." Here the difference is "sheer," "red" and "green" aren't anything but two wavelengths. "Red" won't be distinguished from "green," as much as it won't be distinguished from "the traffic light."

Suppose you have an exceptional particle which "exists" without "interaction" with anything (you know, such particle won't be perceived by anyone for it doesn't "interact" with them). What this particle is able of is to be "affected." It can "be acted on" but it can't "act on." One side of "interaction" lacks in it. This particle is a "cosmic observer." It receives everything, it has an input stream but it doesn't affect anything. For this particle "sheer difference" can be said to be the changes in the input stream but there's no distinguishing because the particle doesn't "participate" in its own input stream, it won't alter the stream. It's only a "receiver," nothing more.

This exceptional particle doesn't even "intend" to be the way it is. For "intention" would arise from distinguishing. Perhaps this is a reason for the non-existence of such particle. "No intention" and "intention" don't seem to be compatible.

And it won't even "understand" in human sense. For human beings, "understanding" occurs when the input stream is pre-processed and then processed until it’s expressible as their "knowledge." A cosmic observer is merely "affected" by everything else. This is the meaning of "direct perception."
I've already shown that rational thought allows for the existence of "irrationality". However, after having discussed this with you, I see that it is never really correct to consider a human being "irrational".
I like this manner.
And yet all these absences are as much an obstruction (in that they are distinguishing marks) as the presence of "atmosphere", "dependencies", etc, aren't they?
Right. I said before, "this is a human name for something totally alien."
Know that you have my attention, and that I read everything that you posted. Alas, I must delete some of it, from my response, and I cannot respond to all of it. But most of it doesn't call for a response anyway.
Thanks. I really didn't mean you don't read them, I only wanted to call for high sensitivity. And the call was successful, judging by your response, as it was brilliantly responsive.

You're intelligent and I'm in envy. Be proud! :smile:
You should revive that thread.
You know, nothing is left for me beyond this thread :wink:.
... the preference of treating paradigms "fairly" is also part of a paradigm, is it not?

... Why do you need this "precision" and "clarity"?
These two questions point at the same thing. I learned about paradigms after spending some time thinking "more anthropomorphically" (I think every human thought is "anthropomorphic," anyway).

continued on the next post...
 
  • #173
... continued from the previous post

"Fairness," "precision and "clarity," all my criteria of preference, are part of my current paradigm, and the remnant of my previous ways.

I know that I'll always be biased someway, why not determine part of my biases consciously. Most individuals are satisfied this way but I know you're clever and you'll ask, "Why consciously? Why do you prefer it?" And I have no answer. After all, relativity is everywhere, even in relativity itself.
I was going to ask that question! I'm glad we're on the same frequency... Of course, if there is one paradigm that is "absolute", then this coincidence would be understandable. However, the determination of an "absolute" paradigm requires the use of another paradigm, doesn't it?... to try to understand paradigms, is to reside in the paradigm of trying to understand paradigms. It appears to defeat it's own purpose. And yet, my analysis here should also exist in it's own paradigm, and is thus not absolute.
Your answers are the best I could think of even though I can't tell you more about them. I don't know the answers. I don't even know if the questions are eligible. No one can tell others of right and wrong when they've reached this balance.

There are countless questions which may never be answered.
The "concept" of a meta-paradigm could exist in one's paradigm. Remember, the "concept" of a non-existent entity exists, even though it isn't really the concept of anything.
"Existence" itself is part of your current paradigm, "concept" as well.
What we should remember is that it appears (only appears, mind you) that humans always share some things, in their respective paradigms. One of them is death.
These things can be explained for in other ways as well. They needn't be result of "a shared part of individual paradigms." These other ways are equally creditable.

Suppose you have two appliances and you want to connect them. One has a free port of type A, the other has a free port of type B. In order to connect them using one line your have to choose a line that is able of translating A to B and B to A. Now the two appliances are able of talking to each other. Appliance 1 produces a message, M1, that is put on the line by its port of type A, the line translates A to B and Appliance 2 reads a message, M2, from its port of type B. M1 and M2 aren't identical, even worse they may be of different natures, for example, M1 may be a mechanical movement while M2 is an electrical pulse. The two appliances can talk continuously without noticing inconsistency as if they were connected without any translator in between. Although the two appliances are totally different and may experience totally different experiences they can "share" these experiences. They may even "cooperate" on this basis as long as they follow an innate protocol on interpreting each other's messages. Their only chance of getting notified of the situation is when one of them tries to "understand" the other's messages as if they were its own messages. Now, the messages may seem totally absurd and the pondering appliance will get confused.
One would deal with that when it came, I suppose. After all, a distinct being cannot move into a paradigm where there is no such thing as distinct beings.
Hasn't it come? Are we still "distinct beings?"

An interesting aspect of a paradigm is its interaction with its inhabitant. The inhabitant is characterized by its paradigm for its image of itself has been gained through the same paradigm. Its entire actualities and potentials lie somewhere in the paradigm. In a sense, it "knows" all that can become "known" to it for the paradigm determines all that "is" and all that "can be" and the bearer of a paradigm realizes its paradigm.

Nevertheless, analysis of paradigms is only part of my current paradigm, like you said.
Does anything really have a meaning, if it's meaning isn't questioned?
I don't know.
Trying to understand meta-paradigms and questioning the meaning of everything is an inevitable result of a mind that is conditioned so as to never actually find the answers.
Brilliant! Yet like an arrow in the darkness...

You have it there, it's the human situation.
Our consciousness has been being used for understanding everything that we have ever understood.
That's an assumption you have to prove "consciously." I guess there's no way out.
Again, the human condition allows you to "understand" "use", but it doesn't allow you to question it.
Or it forces "you" into putting restrictions where there needn't be restrictions :wink:.
*Sudden Thought*: what if one needs to return to the mind-state of an infant, in order to understand how we understood such unexplainable things, in the first place?
Perhaps, who knows!

Something from Tao-te Ching (not to be taken too seriously):

20. 1. When we renounce learning we have no troubles.
The (ready) 'yes,' and (flattering) 'yea;'--
Small is the difference they display.
But mark their issues, good and ill;--
What space the gulf between shall fill?

What all men fear is indeed to be feared; but how wide and without end is the range of questions (asking to be discussed)!

2. The multitude of men look satisfied and pleased; as if enjoying a full banquet, as if mounted on a tower in spring. I alone seem listless and still, my desires having as yet given no indication of their presence. I am like an infant which has not yet smiled. I look dejected and forlorn, as if I had no home to go to. The multitude of men all have enough and to spare. I alone seem to have lost everything. My mind is that of a stupid man; I am in a state of chaos.

Ordinary men look bright and intelligent, while I alone seem to be benighted. They look full of discrimination, while I alone am dull and confused. I seem to be carried about as on the sea, drifting as if I had nowhere to rest. All men have their spheres of action, while
I alone seem dull and incapable, like a rude borderer. (Thus) I alone am different from other men, but I value the nursing-mother (the Tao).
They aren't basic. Drag has helped me understand what it really is (maybe, nothing's really certain anymore, but this is possible): Concepts that are basic may defy definiton.
Well said. And what concept doesn't defy definition?
However, in closing, once one is outside of the human condition, does one really have any ambition toward finding the answers that they had asked while in the human condition (this is reminiscent of my question about a paradigm shift, into a paradigm where there is no such thing as individuality)?
Good question. Very good indeed. Alas, I have no answer for it... like countless other questions.

I like to end this post differently. You know, there's a film by Ridley Scott, "Blade Runner." Vangelis composed and performed the film score. The soundtrack was later released. One of the pieces it contained was "Tears In Rain," that had someone talking on the music. Here's the text and it's most descriptive of how this situation feels:

[Tears In Rain]

[Roy:]
"I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe, hmmm,
... attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion,
I've watched C Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate,
All those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain..."
["... time to die ..."]

All the moments of brilliance, all the greatness of a human being, will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Welcome to the Total Perspective Vortex (remember Douglas Adams?) .
 
  • #174
Hey Mentat ! :smile:
I saw this thread when you enitially posted
it and it's really grown since then !
I did not vote niether then nor now and
I have a question for you - How come you didn't
add a third choice - "I don't understand the question" ?!
That one would surely get my vote. :wink:

Peace and long life.
 
  • #175
Ooops... Wait !
It says that I did vote at the top, weird !
I can't remember doing that nor do I remember that
I ever preferred any of the answers.
Maybe I just said no enitialy because I wanted it
to mean that Descartes was wrong because the
question doesn't make sense, not because of whatever
sense some people might attribute to it.
Sorry again. :frown:
 

Similar threads

Descartes: I Think Therefore I Am
2
Replies
56
Views
30K
Proving Existence Beyond Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum
Replies
14
Views
4K
Hi think, therefore Hi am. An introduction to 'Descartes'
Replies
10
Views
672
Why am I so obsessed with a girl who may never accept me?
Replies
4
Views
5K
Can I save anything in my greenhouse from frost damage?
Replies
11
Views
2K
Philosophy Playing Cards Design: Looking for Feedback
Replies
15
Views
6K
Finding My Passion: A Scientist's Journey Through All Subjects
Replies
2
Views
409
The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
Explore Hegel's Dialectic & Its Impact on Modern Philosophy
Replies
12
Views
13K
Having extremely hard time letting go (serious viewers only)
Replies
14
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top