|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 3rd, 2004, 9:30pm Have you guys ever been plunged in your thoughts or an occasional daydreaming? It is interesting to notice that when we daydream or contemplate, we always come out as winners... Let's say you have an upcoming interview - prior to it you imagine yourself as a virtuous accomplisher. However, when real-world revealed – we are, on the contrary, not as in retrospect envisioned. To continue my thought: We sometimes lose in a so-called "Thought-world", but do we really? ... We still win; it just another way to add a colour to it. The idea or a response I am trying to bring about is how the dream world should be managed in order not to have the terminal dissonance when surreal and real MEET. I still remember as a kid to sleep with toy guns, and imagining my bed as some kind super-duper ship left by aliens.... What do you guys think about this? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Dec 4th, 2004, 5:37pm We imagine ourselves in various situations as a sort of internal training session. By going through the daydream, we explore possible situations and how we could respond to them. By dreaming of being successful, we bolster our confidence, and train ourselves to make the best responses (at least, the ones we think are best). This makes it more likely we will behave that way when dealing with real situations. Of course, this is not our conscious purpose for daydreaming, but I believe this is why the activity developed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 4th, 2004, 10:28pm Actually, it is widely perceived that effects are quite opposite at times. Daydreaming induces stress, depression, etc., by realization that all these things we want are not so easily obtained or in the scope of our capital. Especially the cost involved supersedes the resources, and that shuts down a person completely. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Dec 5th, 2004, 8:32am on 12/03/04 at 21:30:19, puzzlecracker wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 5th, 2004, 12:15pm well you case might be classified into 'dreaddreaming' set :o |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Dec 5th, 2004, 12:33pm I didn't say the effects of daydreaming are all positive. That is just my theory on why we daydream. But like any other activity we engage in, we have a tendency to "abuse" it. That is, to perform it in ways that do not serve the purposes for which it developed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 5th, 2004, 8:46pm An interesting thought Icarus... the real question is how to turn this innate trait into something positive something that will ensue progress, efficiency, etc., and in turn to minimize or nullify side effects. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 14th, 2004, 8:10pm By the way, ignoring the subject line as an authoritative and subjective constant, is there a way to actually prove the veracity of human existentiality? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Dec 15th, 2004, 12:43am What is existentiality? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 15th, 2004, 8:14am Of, relating to, or dealing with existence. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Dec 15th, 2004, 10:49am And you want the 'relating to' or 'dealing with' proved? It doesn't sound like something which proving can apply to. If you want prove of human existence, that's simple. If you consider yourself human, at least one human exists (otherwise you couldn't consider yourself anything). If you don't consider yourself human, you still exist, but we can't say anything definite about humans. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on Dec 16th, 2004, 11:09am I've said it before (elsewhere), but while "Cogito Ergo Sum" is a massive leap forwards from not knowing anything, it actually has very little content - all it says is that something with some degree of self-awareness exists - an "I". It says absolutely nothing about what "I" am, or what the universe around me is like (or even if there is one). At some point you have to make the leap and just conclude that the universe you appear to perceive is remarkably self-consistent, so you might as well accept it as existing (another way of looking at the same thing is to say that the word "exist" actually refers to what we believe the universe we perceive to do). The alternative is to reject "reality" and find yourself denying that you're in a nice padded cell... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on Dec 18th, 2004, 8:33am Having had extensive teaching on Descartes "Meditations" (which features the famous "Cogito"), if you really want I could go into detail about the arguments Descartes puts forwards, how well they work, and just what we think he was trying to do with them. However, not at this juncture. Suffice to say, rmsgrey's point does a reasonable summation, although Descartes put in a bit more detail... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 19th, 2004, 1:32pm Well, I've read Meditation couple of times over the last few years, unfortunately every argument set forth there can easily be disproved... I like this line though - "Infinite regression doesn’t in fact imply the existence of God" Also like the initial example with forest... Descartes says a lot but proves nothing (to perceive this you need to explore further-- first reading gives erroneous impressions!!!) ..cracker |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Dec 19th, 2004, 2:59pm How do you disprove the concept that existance of thought implies existance of the thinker? That one seems rather obvious to me. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Dec 19th, 2004, 3:34pm I am not sure if I'm really qualified to disprove it (why would you give weight to [perhaps my] argument not based on experience, as educational for instance, but simply on ruminations?). Furthermore, I think that the burden of prove is on you to juxtapose the thought with 'am'? Doesn’t the line go as: "I think therefore I am" or " 'Cogito ergo spud'" - it is not a proven theory, but a hypothesis or hypothetical building block that caters to the rest of the argument. I don’t really disagree with it, and yes – intuitively it makes sense. But is it possible to qualitatively justify it? ...cracker. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Dec 19th, 2004, 7:40pm You are the one who said "every argument set forth there can easily be disproved". Having made this claim, the onus is on you to back it up. Not on me. However, the proof is obvious: if there is the thought, then there must be, by definition, the thinker. As rmsgrey has said, this is not a strong statement. It makes no claim beyond simple existance. It does not even claim anything about the form of the thinker, or whether the thinker has any existance beyond the thought. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by THUDandBLUNDER on Dec 20th, 2004, 3:36am on 12/19/04 at 15:34:54, puzzlecracker wrote:
Yeah, 'Cogito ergo spud (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spud)', intoned the couch potato knowingly. :D on 12/19/04 at 15:34:54, puzzlecracker wrote:
Well, an audacious attempt has recently been made to improve on it... on 12/17/04 at 18:28:50, Icarus wrote:
...albeit unsuccessfully. ;D ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on Dec 20th, 2004, 5:09am Puzzlecracker, Descartes wrote 6 Meditations, published together. Hence why I refer to his "Meditations". You also seemed to assume that I was implying that the arguments worked absolutely, which I agree, they do not. Aside from the "Cogito", which supplies the basis for the knowledge that something exists in order to think, but not necessarily what the nature of that thinker is, the arguments do not need to be accepted by the reader - they can be shown as not being necessarily true. However, that presumes that Descartes was looking to present a necessarily true argument... Given that Descartes response to one of Arnauld's objection, which is now famously known as the "Cartesian Circle", was very dismissive of there being a problem, this suggests that, as Descartes was not a fool, he was not looking to present an anlytical argument. Also, the majority of his writing is based on the concept of "clear and distinct ideas", which are generally interpreted as meaning "ideas which, once conceived of, cannot be conceived as being false by the thinker". This has led several modern commentators to suggest that the Meditations were intended to be a process the reader should engage with, and as a guide to thought so that various clear and distinct ideas are first recognised as such, and then allow the reader to figure out how to recognise an idea as clear and distinct. Hence, Descartes' argument is not so much looking to prove as to convince - something which has apparently failed in some cases ::) So, yes, the arguments can be disproved. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't rational to accept, which is what Descartes was trying to achieve. It is also interesting to note that the portrayal of scepticism that Descartes creates is far stronger than any sceptical argument previously was. Most sceptics were happy to accept that they existed, and that what they thought internally was safe from doubt. It was just the sensory data of the external world that they doubted. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on Dec 20th, 2004, 5:30am on 12/19/04 at 13:32:50, puzzlecracker wrote:
That is a very strong assertion - not only that Descartes went through the entire publication without ever once being right, but that one can prove him wrong in every instance, and furthermore, do so easily. This, despite the fact that, as far as I know, "I think therefore I am" is the only provable truth anyone's come up with in 6000 years or trying... Even "necessary existence is a necessary attribute of a perfect being" is too much of a stretch. Anything else is based on the (unstated) universal assumption of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) - that our senses are largely reliable. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Dec 20th, 2004, 4:37pm on 12/20/04 at 03:36:50, THUDandBLUNDER wrote:
I had already precisely defined the concept you were suggesting was not well-defined. If you have a problem with the definition, you should point it out (in that thread, of course)! |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by sheep on Oct 10th, 2005, 8:56pm ive noticed that when daydreaming, i usually wander off topic... well, i'd start with worrying for an exam or about forgetting my key but since i dont like to think about the consequences and the bad parts, i will usually magically find my key on my desk or manage to get inside by climbing a tree or something. no one wants to think about the unpleasant so they avoid it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Monkeysea Monkeydo on Nov 21st, 2005, 5:13pm Never gave it much thought. Anybody ever wonder why we need to pass wind? Are we in some sort of race with wind? Who's win(?)ing? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) Smile! |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Define I Post by puzzlecracker on Apr 30th, 2006, 10:33pm Topic: Who are we? define I? Initially, I wanted to start a new topic, but found this thread as good start for the following TRUTH: "I think therefore I am" - this classical statement allegedly stating existential properties of human nature. But I am concerned with the definitive ones. Let me elaborate with an example. X encounter a random person Y. Through communication, actions, evens personal experiences, etc., X forms an opinion about person Y. He states person Y is .... and ...! The real questions are "What gives an X power to define Y?", "What criteria should X use to define why Y?" "Can Y be really be defined and how subjective can it be?" In literature, there two conflicting metrics used to define a person. a. based what a person does (did) b. what person aspires , really wanted to do. How should a person be define??? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 1st, 2006, 12:38am There is also the social role a person fullfills. Environment is part of what defines a person. One can't be a mother without there being a child. One can't be teacher without there being students. People are embedded entities. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: Define I Post by Icarus on May 1st, 2006, 3:02pm on 04/30/06 at 22:33:04, puzzlecracker wrote:
X does not define Y for all people, but only for himself. As to why and how he has that power, it is simply because no other can define anything for X. X alone makes his definitions, which he must make in order to come to any sort of understanding of the world around him. X may communicate his definitions to others, but it is up to them whether or not they make any use of his definitions in creating or adapting their own. Quote:
That is for X to decide. His definitions are again his way of interpreting his environment. How he does this is not something anyone else can impress upon him. Quote:
Neither the definitions of X, or of any other, or even of Y himself, determine what Y really is. That exists beyond any "definition". |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on May 1st, 2006, 8:03pm Iracus, your answer are very relative to X - his ideas, moral value, environments, etc. But how can Y be universally defined....What can Y says about Y (himself)??? and be to orignal statement - who is the person, who is I? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 2nd, 2006, 3:10pm I don't believe in the possibility of a "universal definition". Each individual makes their own definitions, and those definitions always vary from individual to individual. We can (and do) obtain some uniformity by communicating with each other, but it is never universal. And I don't believe that we can completely "define" anyone, either, not even individually. No matter what X comes up with, it does not include all that Y is. And this is true even when X = Y. Indeed, our definitions of people - both others and ourselves - are never completely accurate in what they do encompass. Everybody has beliefs about how they would behave in certain situations, but when those situations actually occur, they behave differently. As for the moral aspect, this becomes a religious question. And therefore how you answer this will depend on your religious beliefs (and by the way, everyone has religious beliefs). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on May 2nd, 2006, 3:51pm on 05/02/06 at 15:10:48, Icarus wrote:
I disagree with this. But we may have different interpretation "religion". |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 3rd, 2006, 5:45pm Belief that there is no god is a religious belief. Belief that it is impossible or at least hard to discover the existance or non-existance of god is also a religious belief. To me, the only sensible definition of "religion" is something like "a collection of beliefs used to interpret the world around us". The restriction of "religion" to mean "belief in god(s)" is mainly a way for those who don't believe in gods to pretend that their own religious bigotry isn't religious bigotry. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 4th, 2006, 1:04am So scientific beliefs are also religious beliefs? I would at least put in something about giving life 'meaning'. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 4th, 2006, 6:50am I'd want to qualify it with something about the distinction between faith and reason - to my mind, religious beliefs are the ones that transcend reason - they're the ones you take as axioms because they don't have evidence to support them. And, yes, belief in the scientific method as a reliable means of uncovering truths would count as religious to me. On the other hand, the "truths" arrived at by following the scientific method count as supported by reason rather than pure faith |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 4th, 2006, 7:56pm on 05/04/06 at 06:50:22, rmsgrey wrote:
I can't agree with that at all. It presupposes that the things people call religion are without evidence, and by implication, false. In fact, I see a lot of evidence in favor of my own religious beliefs. If I didn't, I would have never adopted them in the first place. Faith is taking your belief beyond the evidence, not against the evidence. As for science and religion, I'll put it this way: The belief that the sun rose this morning is science. The belief that it will rise tomorrow morning is both science and religion. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 5th, 2006, 7:39am on 05/04/06 at 19:56:33, Icarus wrote:
I'd say that science considers the reason for the sun to rise; religion considers the purpose for which the sun rises... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on May 6th, 2006, 9:35pm We can also say that science and religion are, in fact, interchangeable. Any scientific proof goes through a thorough stage of verification and validation before acceptance (and possible future rejection). However, any scientific fact/theory - be it Newton’s Laws or Einstein’s relativity theory – is true, because it relies on certain elements of life, as a major building blocksl likewise, false if it contradicts In effect, these very blocks are grounds religious beliefs in divine. For instance, why most prevalent scientists believe in God nowadays, given that absolute proof does not exist? Because, it is likely that God does it exists, than the opposite. It stupid to believe in something that is likely to be not true. Interestingly, in 70’s most scientists rejected the idea of God, and afterlife. The big bang theory takes new forms, new revelations. When a person walks in a desert, and he finds a golden watch. He surely will NOT think that it is existed here eternally. He would presuppose that someone created it, made it. Similar argument can be put forth about our universe: seeing its awesome beauty and complexity, no one in his right mind, can say that it’s always existed… On the contrary, it implies and assumes a creator (and it's 10000000000000 times more complex than watch, where latter is accepted due to common knowledge). Back to the actual topic… in this system with perfect science tighten with religious scholarship, how can one be defined? I want a definition. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 7th, 2006, 5:55am on 05/06/06 at 21:35:22, puzzlecracker wrote:
Some people find that argument more convincing than others do. If you wake up in the morning and find that your windows are covered in fantastic patterns, do you assume someone spent the night with a paintbrush decorating your window? We see a watch and assume it's manufactured because we have encountered manufactured watches before. We see an apple, or a frost picture, and assume it grew naturally, because that's our experience of apples and frost pictures. We don't have a lot of prior knowledge of how universes develop, so there's no strong reason to decide either way based on that complexity... And even if there is a God, then what stops the same "design" argument from applying to Him? After all, if the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, and the existence of a universe implies a God, then why does not the existence of a God imply a meta-God? But then the same process also implies a meta-meta-God, etc... So either there's an infinite chain, or at some point you come to some complex thing that just exists in and of itself, in which case why could it not be the universe we see around us? Science can sketch out a rough picture of how a near-point ball of energy can evolve to give rise to humans under the influence of a handful of rules. It seems more likely for those initial conditions to spontaneously occur than for an entire deity to pop out of nothing and then create us... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 7th, 2006, 7:15am on 05/07/06 at 05:55:38, rmsgrey wrote:
You have a 'first cause' problem in both cases. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on May 8th, 2006, 10:09pm do yo have a sound or plausable (re)solution? ??? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Jul 22nd, 2006, 9:38am Given the longevity of the discussion, it is worthwhile to culminate in ultimate question of life and its purpose. Herein, we have exchanged ideas, opinions about existential nature and its causes that spurred the beginning. However, we had not touched the subject of “why we are alive and what is the purpose in life? Or is there a purpose?” Given ultimate beauty of the universe and life in general, it tickles to ask or ponder as to why, what is the point? I frequently hear various opinions, some with a great justification realm, such as life has no purpose, live it and have fun doing it. Or, inherently we live to better ourselves, become better people. In academia, a popular conception is to explore life and learn whole lot of it. In effect, different environments, moral values, culture, etc., presuppose and ascribe a different interpretation for life. But maybe there is one ultimate goal everyone is converging to? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jul 22nd, 2006, 1:20pm on 07/22/06 at 09:38:27, puzzlecracker wrote:
For one thing, we don't know whether there's alien inteligences converging to the same goal, or another. Besides which, ideas can in a sense strive for dominance just like physical traits can. If people start agreeing on a prupose of life, that may just be conformity, rather then reaching truth. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by anonymous on Jul 30th, 2006, 11:09am Quote:
To live life. However this doesn't mean that everyone is agreeing on one purpose of life. Life is what you make of it, and your purpose in life differs from person to person. Quote:
Are you trying to ask what makes us "people people" and not "animal people"?? If so, then the answer is our personhood which is our: 1. sense of time 2. self-awareness 3. capability of relating to others 4. curiousity 5. ability to create ideas 6. changeability 7. conscience 8. ability to be in love and to fall in love [9. learning from experience (this is a controversial point, so I've put it in brackets)] Quote:
That truth is undefinable. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jul 30th, 2006, 11:49am If everyone's goal is to live life, why do so many kill themselves? And why do some willingly put themselves in harm's way (even when death is certain)? As for truth being undefinable: "undefinable" is not the same as "non-existant". If you try to define every concept in terms of "previously defined" ones, you discover that you have to start with a certain set of concepts that are used as the source of all your other definitions. This is what it means to be undefinable: everything you could use to define it is already defined in terms of it. If you try to define what is meant by "truth", you effectively have to do so in terms of equivalent concepts, so indeed, we may as well view "truth" as being undefinable. But this does not mean that "truth" is meaningless, or is in some way contrived (far from that: if it were contrived, it would be easily definable!). Rather, its meaning is given by its usage in relation to other concepts. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by anonymous on Jul 30th, 2006, 12:15pm Quote:
There is a difference between merely living your life till death, and truly living life. Why do people many people kill themselves? Many reasons. I'm sure you know them already. One of them is depression, and depression can be overwhelming. Suicide is a sad way to end the suffering within that appeared to be never-ending. Quote:
To divert their sorrows to physical pain. (not sure though) Quote:
True. But in that sentence how would you define it?? I belive that the "truth" there is undefinable. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jul 30th, 2006, 2:17pm on 07/30/06 at 12:15:24, anonymous wrote:
And what do you mean by living life? To enjoy it? But is that not the same as saying everyone's goal is to be happy? Quote:
I was speaking here of those who give their lives for the sake of something - either others that they love, or to do their duty (such as soldiers, who are occasionally commanded to put themselves in extreme danger), or for the sake of a cause. If "life" were their goal, or even "living life", this would make no sense. Yet people do it regularly. Quote:
I just said it is a basic concept, not definable in terms of other concepts, so no, I cannot give you a definition of it. But it still has meaning, a meaning that I understand. In mathematics, the terms "set", "equal", "implies", are all undefinable (depending on the particular theory you are working in), yet mathematicians are all aware of what they mean. Instead of defining them in terms of other words, instead we describe how they relate to each other, and this serves as their "definition". "Truth" is a fundamental concept. 1=1 is true, 1=2 is not. Events that actually occured are true history, events that people made up are not, no matter how meaningful the stories are to anybody. We may not be able to establish what is true and what is not for a particular situation, but there is a truth out there that is independent of our knowledge of it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by anonymous on Jul 31st, 2006, 1:00am Living life - Making your life not worthless. Knowing that when you die, you will be remembered. Does it make sense now? Quote:
Theoretically. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jul 31st, 2006, 1:15am on 07/30/06 at 14:17:06, Icarus wrote:
Quote:
We only have a small window on the truth, and no idea how it distorts it. 1 = 2 (mod 1) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jul 31st, 2006, 5:42pm on 07/31/06 at 01:00:49, anonymous wrote:
Now I know what you are saying. But, alas, now I can say I don't agree that this is a goal that everyone has, or that humanity is moving towards. Many have little concern about how and if they will be remembered after they are gone. They rightly point out that being remembered after your death does not change your life in any way. So they develop the attitude "why should I care?". If anything, I would say that this attitude is more prevalent now than it was in past generations. It may be something we should move towards, but that is a far different matter. Quote:
Of course! Anything beyond our direct knowledge is theoretical, including the supposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. I judge theories based on how much collaborating evidence I find for them. Since I now have "on record" more than 10,000 direct observations supporting the theory that "the sun will rise tomorrow" plus indirect evidence of billions more cases where this theory has been sucessful, I have complete confidence that it will occur again. Similarly, the evidence of for the existence of "truth" is overwhelming in my estimation. on 07/31/06 at 01:15:53, towr wrote:
Mayhap, but I still find the concept of "meaningful life" too slippery to be able find much meaning in the statement. I know I am being contrary here with both of you, but I am hoping that by pushing like this, I'll drive you to clarify your own thinking. Quote:
Indeed, there isn't in the real world. The only place where we can find absolute, unrefutable, truth is in the constructs of our own minds - i.e., in mathematics. (I am not exaggerating with that statement - any concept sufficently defined so as to be definitely true automatically falls within the realm of mathematics.) Even there, the nature of what the actual truth is, is hidden in the way we normally speak of it. For instance, when I said "1=1" is true, what I am really saying is that under the axioms and definitions of commonly accepted set theory, the statement "1=1" is derivable from the axioms. Thus your counter-example to "1=2" being false, that 1=2 (mod 1), does not actually counter my statement at all, as you are refering to a different concept, which is "coincidentally" denoted with the same symbols. But my point in my previous post was that I believe truth exists, not that any particular "real world" statement was true, and certainly not that it could be dependably found. Where I have problems is when people say things like "you have your truth, I have mine". When two beliefs contradict, we can say with absolute certainty that at least one of them is false. Which ones are false may be (and almost always is) up to debate, but at least one is. Hence the concept that everyone can have their own equally valid truth is ridiculous. The only way that contradicting statements can be equally valid is if they are both false. I have heard many people argue that only by accepting all beliefs as equally valid can we be "tolerant". Instead, I see this as the ultimate in intolerance. They are demanding that people must believe as they do about this and accept their twisted logic. Real tolerance is accepting that other people disagree with you and have every right to do so, and living in peace with them despite the disagreement. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Aug 1st, 2006, 4:30am on 07/31/06 at 17:42:49, Icarus wrote:
Some concepts of meaningfull survive the times better, new ones are created, old ones wither and die. Quote:
It was simply an illustration of how truth of a statement depends on assumptions (including component concepts), and how different assumptions can make a seemingly untrue statement true (and vice versa). It shows that in fact 1=2 is not a complete statement; we're left to fill in the assumptions ourselves. Quote:
Quote:
And unfortunately most people don't have the gift mathematicians do (in maths) to be able to peek into a different world of assumptions. Quote:
I would agree that simply accepting all beliefs as equally valid isn't tolerant (but wouldn't you just tolerate it if I disagreed?), because firstly they're demonstrably not. Some beliefs are internally inconsistent, and others may be inconsistent with observation. And then there's the whole behaviour/belief inconsistency. What is important imo, is not to dismiss all beliefs other than your own as invalid a priori. You should know what you disagree with. One of the first thing they tought me in philosophy classes is, "find out whether you're actually talking about the same thing". And generally, people don't; slightly different interpretations of a word can make a world of difference, and keep people arguing for days even though they'd agree if they agreed upon an interpretation. And in general I'd say it is worthwhile to explore other people's world view, so you can better understand them, the world, and your own world view. Without a measure of understanding, tolerance doesn't mean much anyway. You just end up living past each other. Quote:
Can you tolerate intolerance? Up to a point perhaps, but it has to come from both sides. (At least if the playing field is somewhat even.) If you want to live in the same society, same world, then you have to agree on enough things. You can't simply agree to disagree on whether gratuitous murder is ok, and whether laws regarding it should be obeyed. Agreeing to disagree whether Gouda cheese is complimented well by a bordeaux, sure. But there's a grey area between trivialities of the latter kind and serious issues like the former. There have to be limits to tolerance, otherwise it's just ignoring reality. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by anonymous on Aug 11th, 2006, 11:53am on 07/31/06 at 17:42:49, Icarus wrote:
Quite true. However, that attitude is a mere barrier covering up the deeper issue(s). Quote:
Care to share some of the evidence? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Aug 11th, 2006, 3:23pm Try opening your eyes. It is all around you. Or don't open your eyes: just examine what you really believe about knowledge. If you are honest with yourself, you will recognize that in fact you believe large numbers of of statements are absolutely true. I am sure of this, because you would be unable to communicate, or even function, if you did not. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Aug 12th, 2006, 5:00am on 08/11/06 at 15:23:55, Icarus wrote:
e.g. I know I can't believe my eyes; I've seen plenty of optical illusions proving they just make things up. However, even knowing that basicly everything I 'see' is an illusion, it doesn't bother my functioning. Because I also know that pragmatically speaking it's an illusion I can live with (you can live a life in the matrix). Of course, in daily live I don't even question the truth, falsity or pragmatics of it. It wouldn't be practical to overthink everything. I don't assume the ground won't give way when I walk over it, I just walk. I'll start thinking it over if I sink through (and my initial instinct don't help me out) So do I really believe the ground is solid? I hadn't given it much thought. But in the illusion, or reality, whatever the case may be, it seems to be dependable enough. It's a good working assumption; but I wouldn't say I believe it's true. I believe believing otherwise would make life difficult (but you can disbelief one thing without believing the opposite). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Feb 11th, 2007, 10:32pm on 08/12/06 at 05:00:42, towr wrote:
Few interesting ideas relevant to subject and to TRUTH! 1)Quantum Mechanics: the double slit experiment – when not observed there is a wave-like pattern of [square root of] probability. When observed there is a particle. [So it behave like a particle and a wave under the identical conditions.] The state of each thing that interacts with the probability splits up into probabilities also. Measurement "collapses the probabilities" and recovers the particle. The problem: The measurement apparatus – machine or human/machine – is also just more particles which ought to split up! How does measurement collapse the split? John Wheeler, David Mermin, David Albert: consciousness of the effect cuases the collapse – and that consciousness must not be physical! [Other "solutions": heat, gravity, many worlds….] 4. Philosophy of mathematics: knowledge and reference seem to require interaction with the object of knowledge. Mathematical objects are abstract – non-physical. How can there be interaction with them? Godel: we "perceive" mathematical objects in a non-physical way. [Math not a generalization from experience, not "true by definition". Wigner: the unreasonable applicability of mathematics.] 5. John Searle, Rationality in Action: The reasons for a decision are experienced as not a sufficient cause for the decision. We act on the reasons, we carry them out in action. [We do not just wait to see what happens.] There is a gap in the causation between the reasons and the action. The responsibility for the action is due to a continuing conscious self that makes the choice and experiences the results. If the underlying neuro-physiology is deterministic, then the experience of the gap is an illusion, then the conscious response to the gap has no real effect on the action – it is a systematic property of the brain as a whole that is an "epiphenomenon". Evolution would not have produced that. So the underlying neuro-physiology must be indeterministic. [So far Searle.] But given #2, since this self must be conscious, it cannot be reduced to the brain…. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Feb 12th, 2007, 2:54am on 02/11/07 at 22:32:11, puzzlecracker wrote:
There's a real problem with people reifying interpretations of theories; also for example the many worlds ideas, it's a way of explaining, not an actual suggesting those many worlds exist. Likewise I would say the 'observing' does not depend on a sentience to do the observing, but that it's just a form of physical interaction that causes the collapse. Quote:
Quote:
Of course, like usual it probably returns to the innate desire to place humans in a special category. Being ourselves does not suffice, apparantly. Quote:
Besides, to have a rational consciousness, the mental substance (if it exists in itself) has to be deterministic; otherwise reasons could not lead to action, it would all be random. Mental causation implies, at least a measure, of mental determinancy. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by CowsRUs on Feb 12th, 2007, 9:06am I love off-topic comments ! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ima1trkpny on May 23rd, 2007, 5:41pm Please comment more on this guys! I find this discussion most interesting! I would have to say that the "universal truth" is that there may well be no universal truth. People make their own definitions of themselves and everything around them and the singular perspective disallows for anyone to see the whole picture (if there is one) and so they cannot accurately define something whose limits they cannot comprehend. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things for one to have a "reason for living" or is that something we delude ourselves into creating in order to justify our lives as significant? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by JP05 on May 23rd, 2007, 6:12pm Surely universal truth requires universal acceptance? So, really isn't the problem at hand *acceptance* instead of truth? After all, if I can get you to accept my way of thinking I stand a pretty good chance of convincing of of tons of BS. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 23rd, 2007, 8:00pm Alright. I guess I should answer something said long ago: on 08/11/06 at 15:23:55, Icarus wrote:
on 08/12/06 at 05:00:42, towr wrote:
"I disagree" - I.e. you believe that my statement is false - or stated another way, that the negation of the statement is true. "True," - caught red-handed here!;) "I don't believe" - i.e. you believe the negation is true. "In fact," - red-handed again. "I know" and again! Lots of statements about things you believe to be true here, and I've only covered the first three sentences of this one post. I don't see how it would even be possible to think without the concept of some things being true and others false. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by JiNbOtAk on May 23rd, 2007, 9:17pm Gather round ppl !! Battle of the admins !! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 24th, 2007, 1:07am on 05/23/07 at 18:12:47, JP05 wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 24th, 2007, 1:23am on 05/23/07 at 20:00:11, Icarus wrote:
It simply means to say that I don't find your argument convincing. Quote:
Quote:
That I don't know whether the Riemann hypothesis is true does not mean I know that it is not true. Belief works in the same way. You might go as far as to say you can't at the same time believe one thing and it's opposite (although people appear wonderfully inconsistent in these things), but to believe neither is a very consistent position. [etc] Quote:
Quote:
Although people do it much more implicitly. Whether my basic assumption or true or not doesn't even come to mind. When I walk the street I have no belief about gravity, I just walk. As long as move from A to B I needn't concern myself with the truth of some deep implicit assumption, I'll consider whether gravity is true or not when I find myself floating above the ground, or when some other event call for it. (I really hate having to continue discussions months after they were left..) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 24th, 2007, 7:12am on 05/23/07 at 20:00:11, Icarus wrote:
I've just tossed a coin. Do you believe it came up heads? If not, do you believe the negation is true? Or do you believe you have insufficient evidence to decide? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 24th, 2007, 3:36pm on 05/24/07 at 01:23:46, towr wrote:
on 05/24/07 at 07:12:13, rmsgrey wrote:
This is sophistry. "I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true. Whether this means you consider the statement false or undecidable or some other variation from true is immaterial: This still represents a statement of your belief of something being true. Namely, the lack of truth in the previous statement. on 05/24/07 at 01:23:46, towr wrote:
??? ??? This is entirely in line with my statements. It confirms what I said, not contradict! "Assume" means you are taking it to be true. That is, this entire idea requires a concept of things being true or false. Quote:
The value of true or false may be in question, but once again, the idea that the statement has some value of true or false (or undecidable or contradictory, or some other logical value) is required to think about it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on May 24th, 2007, 5:06pm On re-reading this reply, I don't seem to be directly disageeing with anyone; just adding my thoughts... on 05/24/07 at 15:36:49, Icarus wrote:
'I don't believe' literally means you do not believe; it doesn't necessarily mean you believe in the negation (although in normal conversation this is usually implicit, when trying to converse accurately the distinction should be made). In an environment such as this, where accurate statements are required to convey what you mean, I try to use statements such as 'I believe in no God' as a strong assertion. Statements such as 'I do not believe in God' are weaker, making no assertion about a particular belief. I suppose I'm directly addressing a statement you made in a previous reply, Icarus: Quote:
From the context it seems towr disagreed with your argument. This is clearly vital in his belief of your conclusion. So he lacks a belief one way or the other with respect to the issue -- he is not convinved. Apologies for putting words in your mouth, towr! Statements in general can be taken either literally or using their colloquial meanings, making it easy to see how confusion can arise. With respect to rmsgrey's questions: I do not believe it came up heads, but I also do not believe that it didn't come up heads. In my opinion, the important distinction in this kind of example is what I've described above. Until some kind of evidence is presented beyond the (almost) 50/50 knowledge of coin flips, it makes no sense to form a belief regarding a destinct outcome. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 24th, 2007, 6:35pm Umm... Why did you post that first quote if you were going to entirely ignore what it said to argue against the misinterpretation of the second quote that I was trying to set straight in the first? The one thing that is definite from towr's post is that he considers my previous statement to not be true. Whatever else he believes about those statements, this "lack of truth", however he wants to interpret it, is something he states a belief in, even if he does so using negative language. Is gravity real? Sure, you don't think about it all the time, but you believe it non-the-less. Is the ground solid? You don't consider it as you walk, but the very fact that you try to walk and expect to get somewhere shows that you do indeed believe it to be true. The point of my comments to which towr took exception was to say that evidence in the concept of "truth" is strong (follow the thread back, and you will see that anonymous requested such evidence). I have lived my entire life under the assumption that "true" and "false" are real concepts - that there are statements that are true and others that are false, and have never encountered anything that suggested otherwise. Let me ask this instead: who out there doubts the existence of "true" and "false", and why do you? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Iceman on May 24th, 2007, 7:04pm I think, therefore I am. When I sleep, I don't think, therefore I am not. When I die, I will not think, therefore I will not be. When I was a baby, I didn't think, I just sucked my thumb, therefore I was not. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on May 25th, 2007, 4:43am on 05/24/07 at 18:35:47, Icarus wrote:
'I don't believe X' doesn't mean 'I believe X is not true'. That's the point I'm trying to make. There is no belief relevant to first statement being asserted. (You could argue that not believing in X necessarily implies that you believe that you don't believe in X, but this is irrelevant.) You say in the first quote I quoted of yours that what towr says implies a belief. I disagree. The reason I brought up the issue of speaking accurately or speaking colloquially changes this conclusion. Quote:
I don't doubt the existence of true or false. I've not said anything like that. 'I don't believe X' is simply not asserting a belief one way or the other; it does not follow that I doubt whether X has a truth value or not. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 25th, 2007, 6:48am Example time: I calculate the motion of a satellite using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Do I believe that Newtonian gravity is the absolute truth? No, I just believe that it is close enough to the truth to be useful. I walk, expecting not to fall through the floor. Does that mean I believe the floor is solid? Well, that depends a lot on how you define solid, but considering the floor is mostly "empty space", and the "surface" is bouncing around chaotically, I don't consider that to be absolute truth either. I type a post in English, expecting people to understand it. Does that mean that I believe everyone understands the exact same things by the words I use? Not at all - again, I treat the words as a useful approximation to the meaning I intend to convey, and trust that other people's understandings will be close enough to my own. Absolute truth is a very demanding standard, and pretty much the whole of the world we think we live in is made up of little stories that are close enough to absolute truth to be useful, but simple enough to be comprehensible... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ima1trkpny on May 25th, 2007, 12:38pm good point... :) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 25th, 2007, 3:36pm on 05/25/07 at 04:43:08, Ulkesh wrote:
To the contrary, if it does not indicate a belief of towr's, then what does it mean? How can you assign any reasonable meaning to this phrase at all, with implying some sort of belief of towr's? I don't believe that towr is babbling meaninglessly here. Nor am I with that last sentence. It has a definite meaning, which is something I believe to be true. (By the way, since everything I am trying to say recently seems to subjected to the most extreme interpretations: that belief is not unshakable, I do not mean this is something I am thoroughly and completely convinced of - what I mean is that simply right now, this is what I think is true.) on 05/25/07 at 06:48:57, rmsgrey wrote:
An examination of the context of my "absolutely true" remark should make it clear that I meant "true without regard to the context of who is considering it", not "completely and utterly exact and irrefutable", as you are defining it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on May 26th, 2007, 9:11am on 05/25/07 at 15:36:29, Icarus wrote:
What is the difference between an agnostic and an atheist? Neither claims to believe in God, and so I guess by your claim, Icarus, there is no difference between the two... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 26th, 2007, 1:01pm That is ENTIRELY against what I just said!!! PLEASE try to understand! The atheist BELIEVES there is no god. The agnostic BELIEVES that (s)he does not have sufficient knowledge to decide. To "not believe" something is to believe something else. YOU are the ones who keep insisting that obviously that this would always mean believing in the exact opposite of what is "not believed". I did not intend this idea at all. Now I remember why I dropped this before. Everything I say keeps getting ridiculous interpretations put on it. And even when I explain that is not what I meant, people keep ignoring my explanations to put their ridiculous interpretations back in my mouth! |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 26th, 2007, 5:05pm on 05/26/07 at 13:01:37, Icarus wrote:
And yet you said: ""I don't believe" is a clear statement that you consider the statement in question to not be true." which I translate as: "~B(X)" implies B(~X) (using quotes to denote saying something, and B(X) to be belief in the truth of X) So when the agnostic says "I don't believe God exists" that implies he believes God does not exist... ["~B(G)" implies B(~G)] Quote:
Maybe we believe the words you are using mean something different than what you believe them to mean? I have, somewhere in the back of my mind a set of assumptions that I treat as "common assumptions" - ideas I assume are shared widely (like the meanings of English words, or the tendency of heavy objects to fall, or that 2+2=4). Some I treat as more universal than others, and there are some that would be painful to adjust because so much depends on them, but there's no sharp division between "the Joker counts as the 9 of Diamonds" (which is only a shared assumption within a fairly narrow context) and "the sun will rise within the next 4 or 5 hours" (which is as close to a universal truth as I get outside of logical constructions) Mathematical truths have their own category because they're explicitly conditional - "2+2=4" holds because of the way the symbols are defined, and is valid as long as the symbols fit the assumptions used to define them. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on May 26th, 2007, 8:36pm on 05/26/07 at 17:05:13, rmsgrey wrote:
This isn't a well-defined mathematical theory in a strict two-valued logic system. This discussion is going on using natural english. Natural language allows statements that are neither true nor false. Natural language also allows a much broader interpretation of the phrase "not true" than "its logical negation is true". towr has expressed this broader interpretation: on 05/24/07 at 01:23:46, towr wrote:
Ulkesh has expressed this broader interpretation: on 05/24/07 at 17:06:24, Ulkesh wrote:
You yourself have expressed this broader interpretation: on 05/24/07 at 07:12:13, rmsgrey wrote:
Furthermore, IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE in my post after the one which you are harping on, what did I say? on 05/24/07 at 15:36:49, Icarus wrote:
Clearly stated that I did NOT mean he had to believe in the logical negation of my statement. Yet you chose to ignore this sentence, and demand an interpretation of the sentence before that contradicts it. Furthermore, you actually add this bit: on 05/26/07 at 17:05:13, rmsgrey wrote:
even though you KNOW better than that. You cannot tell me you were unaware that english allows other interpretations than strict 2-valued logic. Even if you were somehow unaware of this, YOUR OWN POST earlier and this atheist vs agnostic example should have made it abundantly clear to you that such interpretations exist and are quite natural. Yes, I am mad. I admit that my phrasing here was bad: on 05/23/07 at 20:00:11, Icarus wrote:
It does say something other than what I intended at the time. I was aware when I posted that it was strictly wrong, but I foolishly thought that people would consider the argument long enough to realize how it was true (or at least, why I believe it to be true) instead of stopping at the obvious false interpretation. If I had been less lazy, it would have avoided some of these problems. Thus, while I was frustrated by towr's and your replies, the failure there was on my part. But everything beyond my reply quoted above that still demands this interpretation is unjustifiable. If you had simply missed the explanation, that would be one thing. But the fact that I have repeatedly pointed it out, only to have this repeatedly ignored is revolting. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ThudanBlunder on May 27th, 2007, 5:38am on 05/26/07 at 20:36:21, Icarus wrote:
And what is so bad about revolting from time to time? :P |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ima1trkpny on May 27th, 2007, 10:58am Calm down Icarus, I see your point. Don't let it frustrate you because it is enivitable that someone will always disagree with you no matter what, instead keep enlightening us because people were bringing up some very interesting points in regard to the nature of our existance. Keep up the good work! ;D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on May 27th, 2007, 11:59am Edit: It's clear from towr's replies below that I'm using his name to argue a point to which he does not necessarily subscribe. Apologies again for this. Consider it a part of wu::forums celebrity! Also, my definition of 'belief' is different from his. I hope the differences in intended meaning are clear in the context. on 05/25/07 at 15:36:29, Icarus wrote:
towr does not believe in X. That's what it asserts. This (in my opinion) does not imply that towr believes X is false. I'll try (and have been trying!) to be as clear is possible: Let's say X is either true or false (forget undecidable for the time being). Now, does towr have to have a belief about whether X is true or false? Let's say towr has never heard of the experiment for which X is one of two outcomes. The answer is clearly 'no' (I don't need to ask him a question to know this). Now imagine I've told towr of the experiment's existence, and that there are two possible outcomes. Does towr believe in one particular outcome over the other? With no knowledge of the probability distribution, how could he justify one belief over the other? Therefore towr is justified in saying 'I do not believe in X'. He is also justified in saying 'I do not believe in Y' (the other outcome). Correct me if I'm wrong, Icarus, but are you saying that towr can't honestly and consistently hold to those two statements at the same time? Once towr knows something about the experiment, perhaps he feels he can predict the outcome, and can form a belief about it. 'I believe in X.' He then cannot honestly say 'I do not believe in X', or, indeed, 'I believe in Y'. I'd like to make clear that this experiment has two possibly outcomes, but towr has three possible mind-states regarding it: belief in neither, X or Y. As such, 'I do not believe in X' does not necessarily mean 'I believe in no X'. the first falls into the believing in neither category or the belief in Y category, the second falls only into the belief in Y category. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 27th, 2007, 1:11pm on 05/24/07 at 15:36:49, Icarus wrote:
The thing I stated of that I did not believe it, was that my many assumptions in life are all absolutely true. Quote:
Quote:
... Look, take it as you will. But the way I see it, having real beliefs of something implies that you believe the opposite is not possible (otherwise you would have some doubt, and thus not really believe). Since I consider many things ( (very) remotely) possible, despite how I may experience the world (or think I do), I thus don't have real believe in them. Granted, it might surprise me if things turn out to be different, because I do attach different probabilities to how things are/could be. If I even stand still to consider things, I reason based on what I think is most likely; but many day-to-day things are automatic. Therefore I see no reason why one should attribute sh*tloads of absolute beliefs to people which they supposedly must have to get on in life. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 27th, 2007, 1:26pm on 05/24/07 at 18:35:47, Icarus wrote:
That isn't something I disagreed with. I agreed truth exists. However I disagreed that you can really know it (other than definitional truths) Going way back -- on 07/31/06 at 01:15:53, towr wrote:
And I continued not to disagree with that. on 08/01/06 at 04:30:45, towr wrote:
What I did, and still do, disagree with is something else, namely: on 08/11/06 at 15:23:55, Icarus wrote:
There is very little I believe, and less still that I believe absolutely. Much, however, that I take as working assumption because I consider (if I consider anything at all) alternatives unlikely. Considering alternatives impossible, though, goes too far for me in almost every case. Note that, yes, you can grasp at this straw and point out that I don't believe it's impossible I am wrong on this point; but in my defense I do consider it qualitatively unlikely (having some experience being me). And my working assumption in everyday life is that I'm right. Except when circumstances show I'm not. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on May 28th, 2007, 5:44am on 05/26/07 at 20:36:21, Icarus wrote:
OK, we appear to be using different interpretations of the ~ operator, which may well be my fault. I was intending ~X to mean simply "X is not true", rather than "X is false" - in a 2-valued logic, the two are equivalent, while in fuzzier situations, there's a difference. However, you still seem to be talking about deducing a belief that X is not true from an expression of a lack of belief that X is true. And it is this with which I take exception. For example, currently: I do not believe it is sunny outside (with perfect timing, the sun came out while I was typing, but I'll continue based on the state of the weather when I started...) and I believe it is not sunny outside (I can see that through my window) I also do not believe it is raining outside, however before deciding to go out without an umbrella, I would go outside to check because I also do not believe it is not raining outside. I do believe it is not raining heavily outside (I can detect heavy rain through my window) but I have sufficient experience of how light rain is hard to detect to not form a belief either way on the question. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on May 28th, 2007, 6:48am [theoretical interlude] With regard to a logical interpretation of statements of belief and knowledge, I tend towards modal logics, rather than propositional logic. They reflect many aspects of it better (even though they still remain in other ways unsatisfactory in accurately modelling their natural counterparts). For knowledge the typical axioms are K x -> x : if you know something it must be true Kx -> K K x : if you know something, then you know that you know it ~ K x -> K ~ Kx : if you don't know something you know that you don't know it. These axioms are take together with the basic axioms of modal logic If x then K x : you know all propositional tautologies K(x -> y) -> (Kx -> Ky) : if you know x implies y, then knowing x means you know y. And for inference we have modus ponens, and anything else from propositional logic. (Note that modal logic is still strictly two-valued) In the case of belief (taking B instead of K as modal operator), we substitute the first axiom with ~ B false : what you believe is consistent When considering humans I tend to argue against the validity of this axiom, in part because most people don't necessarily believe the consequences of what they believe. It really needs a smidgen of temporal logic thrown in.. and a dash of dynamic logic.. a tablespoon of probabilistic logic.. maybe a sprinkling of default logic. And before long we have a recipe for disaster. (Or at least a near incomprehensible logic with too many modal operators to shake a stick at.) You can do some sensible things with it though. Like solve puzzles :P [/interlude] |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on May 28th, 2007, 9:20am OK, on closer re-reading I can see where I mis-interpreted your argument Icarus - the main thing that was getting me a bit confused and hence why I asked (albeit in a rather roundabout and easy-to-take-as-an-attack way) for clarification. Hence I apologise for not picking up on it sooner, and causing unnecessary stress/anger through a lack of observation on my part. I guess this is part of the reason I'm generally a little reticent to chime in much on online debates - it tends to be far too easy (at least for me) to miss some of the finer points of what someone is saying, and so get the wrong end of the stick. A lack of other cues to pick up on makes the communication of ideas a lot harder to manage, and I'm not always concentrating as hard as I should on these boards when trying to follow what's going on. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 3rd, 2007, 12:36pm I decided after that last post of mine that if I was getting upset about this, I had clearly lost all perspective on the matter. This is the reason you haven't heard from me in a week. I decided to simply stay away for awhile until I could approach matters rationally again. I apologize for losing my temper. I still stand by the basic content of my post, but its delivery leaves much to be desired. I have not read through your replies yet, but I thought that I should apologize now and let you know that I'm not intentionally ignoring you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ThudanBlunder on Jun 3rd, 2007, 3:16pm on 06/03/07 at 12:36:22, Icarus wrote:
Glad you have not been sulking in your tent. ;) on 06/03/07 at 12:36:22, Icarus wrote:
Better to have you are on the inside peeing out than on the outside peeing in. :D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 5th, 2007, 3:30pm At least I have the ability to recognize when I've behaved badly, and take steps to correct it. The world would be a better place if more people could do that. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ima1trkpny on Jun 5th, 2007, 3:55pm Sorry you got upset Icarus :'( we didn't mean to make you flustered. Feeling better after your vacation from us? ThudanBlunder... that was more than a little rude. >:( |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 5th, 2007, 4:17pm on 06/05/07 at 15:55:26, ima1trkpny wrote:
Getting upset was my own fault. It was not caused by anyone else. It wasn't a vacation from you I needed, but a break from my own focus so that I could put things in perspective. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:04pm on 05/27/07 at 13:11:36, towr wrote:
Which was my point. You rejected my argument because you believe it to be faulty. Quote:
3 points: First I never said they were absolutely true - only that you believe them to be. Second, I didn't say all of them, just that there are many things that you do believe in. Thirdly, I really should have said "universally", rather than "absolutely", since if you look at the context, that was what we were discussing. My point was that everyone has things that they consider to be true, and not just "true for them", but true for everyone, even if others don't believe it. However, I also think that there are a number of things that you believe to be absolutely true by the meaning you are using. Or perhaps you reserve some doubts about whether 1 = 1? (Please don't give more examples of how with other interpretations, this could be considered false. You know what interpretation is meant here. That a different false idea can be expressed with the same symbols does not refute the statement 1 = 1.) Quote:
Again, I never said you have to believe in assumptions to work with them. What I said is simply that there are things you believe. No more, no less. Quote:
Recall, please, that I was offering evidence for the existence of truth: on 07/31/06 at 17:42:49, Icarus wrote:
on 08/11/06 at 11:53:50, anonymous wrote:
I never claimed you needed to assign a truth value to a statement to think about it. I did not even imply that all statements must be true or false. That idea is easily demonstrated to be false. My point was that you think about statements with the idea that they can be true or false. This is evidence towards the existence of "truth". Quote:
I'm not sure how you get this. Perhaps your native language works differently from English. In English when someone asks me something, and I reply "I believe that is so", I am not making an absolute authoritative statement of it's truth. By saying "I believe", I am actually hedging my bets - acknowledging that I could be wrong. "Believe" just means that you think it is true, not that you are completely and totally convinced of it. Quote:
Who's attributing any beliefs to anyone? I just said people have beliefs. I never said anything about what those beliefs are, and certainly not about what they must be! on 05/27/07 at 13:26:51, towr wrote:
And all of this was something that I agree with as well, and never spoke against. Quote:
Which still admits that there may be things you do believe absolutely, which is all I claimed (and more, since I had intended "absolutely" with a much weaker interpretation than you are giving it). |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:10pm on 05/27/07 at 11:59:26, Ulkesh wrote:
But it does imply that he believes my argument in favor of X is faulty. This too is a belief. Quote:
You are wrong. I did not say that, and did not mean in any sense to imply that. This is what I have been trying to make clear. What I am saying is that he rejected my argument for reasons of his own. Those reasons, not truth or falsity of my statement, are the things he believes. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on Jun 5th, 2007, 5:47pm on 06/05/07 at 17:10:20, Icarus wrote:
Fair enough. When disagreeing with you, this does indeed imply that he believes your argument is faulty. I suppose it can be separated from my point like this: - Icarus proposes X is true - If towr replies, 'I do not believe X to be true' then the point in my previous post holds. This is not a strong a statement as 'I disagree'. - If towr replies 'I disagree' then assuming the common usage of this expression, then he is asserting a belief that X is false. It'd be very strange to say 'I disagree' and then to claim not to have formed a belief one way or the other about X. I suppose 'I disagree that X is true' could also mean you believe it is neither true nor false, but I don't think anyone meant that. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jun 5th, 2007, 8:30pm on 05/28/07 at 05:44:36, rmsgrey wrote:
I'm re-iterating what I've said in my previous two posts, but again, this misinterprets what I was saying. He doesn't find my argument convincing. This does not come out of nowhere. He has reasons for rejecting the argument (and rejecting the argument does not mean he accepts the opposite or anything else - just that he does not find it convincing). Those reasons are something he does believe in. So by saying he does not believe my statement, he is still indicating a belief in something. In fact the very statement that he does not find my argument convincing is a statement of his belief. on 06/05/07 at 17:47:41, Ulkesh wrote:
As I've just explained to rmsgrey, though, this still indicates a belief on towr's part. The only difference is the exact nature of what he does believe. on 05/28/07 at 09:20:20, Three Hands wrote:
Thank you, but the real fault was my own, and not due to you. So it is I who owe an apology. Quote:
Communication is always fraught with pitfalls and given to errors, but if people are patient and keep their cool ::), and willing to listen and understand, they can be overcome. In my opinion, the worst thing one can do is stop sharing ideas and participating positively in conversations. If you are willing to share your ideas, they get challenged. If you are honestly trying to listen as well as talk, then one of two things will happen: either you will discover that your idea is erroneous, or else in defending your idea, your own thinking and conception of it will be sharpened, and you will find yourself with a better understanding after. If you don't share, decide to keep your "knowledge" to yourself, then your ideas never get challenged, so you never discover the weak points, never correct them, possibly never learn that the idea is false. Instead, you just sit back and feel smug over "knowing something" others don't, when the truth is, you don't really know it at all. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jun 6th, 2007, 12:20am on 06/05/07 at 17:04:21, Icarus wrote:
Quote:
What I agitate against is this post: on 08/11/06 at 15:23:55, Icarus wrote:
The other two tie in with the next part Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jun 6th, 2007, 12:25am on 06/05/07 at 17:10:20, Icarus wrote:
on 06/05/07 at 20:30:13, Icarus wrote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jun 6th, 2007, 2:11am Having lost all faith in this discussion, I might as well throw something else in. Now, without sneakily calculating it. Who here believes 1113 mod 17 is prime? Who here believes 1317 mod 19 is prime? Who here believes 1719 mod 23 is prime? Who here believes 1923 mod 29 is prime? Now, I'm sure most of you believe the basics of number theory that would allow you to find out the answer; and once you've found out what the answer is, you'll probably believe it. But isn't it safe to say you don't actually believe everything that follows from what you believe? Not untill you actually deduce it? So how much do we believe, really? I'd posit you don't believe any statements you haven't considered. e.g Before I asked, did you believe it would be odd to have a penguin running across your desk? You probably do now, though. Added to that, one can wonder how long a belief can hold. I did calculate the answer to those 4 mathematical questions a few minutes ago; but frankly I already forgot which result goes with which. I briefly held beliefs to their veracity, and already lost those beliefs (and by golly, they were absolute beliefs too). I still have some beliefs with regards to them, I'm pretty sure two were true and two weren't. But how much can I believe at any one time, really? Do I really have beliefs with regards to things I'm not considering at the moment? I suppose perhaps to things that might come immediately to mind, but all in all not much. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on Jun 6th, 2007, 4:22am on 06/05/07 at 20:30:13, Icarus wrote:
Hmm... In the context of the discussion, if you state 'I believe X is true' and towr replies 'I do not believe X is true' I suppose it's fair to assume he has looked at your argument for X being true and therefore has to have formed a belief about it. This belief could either be that your argument is erroneous or simply unconvincing. Taking the wording of the reply strictly, though, it's not necessary that he has analysed your argument; he may be just giving his position on X. I do agree, though, that if he has analysed your argument, a belief must be formed. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Ulkesh on Jun 6th, 2007, 4:51am on 06/06/07 at 02:11:40, towr wrote:
I suppose this depends on your defintion of 'belief'. It's clear to me right now that I believe a penguin running across my desk would be odd. But as soon as this thought leaves my (conscious) mind do I still believe it? Do I believe it's odd before I even initially consider it? I think it's fair to say that the answer to my second question is that the belief is encoded in some form in the brain, even before it is considered (In a similar way to how a sculpture exists in a lump of stone). I wouldn't call this a belief in itself, though, or this allows for all sorts of definitions. Once it is considered and forgotten, the memory of your thought process during consideration is easy to recall. The belief in this instance doesn't need to be formed as such as it already exists; your conscious mind just needs to access the correct part of your brain. I think this is where the definition of holding a belief is unclear: do you have to hold it in your conscious mind to believe it or does it simply have to sit in an easily accessible box in your mind? With the maths questions above, it's not easy to form distinct boxes regarding the properties of a lot of similar-looking numbers. So the beliefs are formed by the conscious mind and then kind of slip away. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by puzzlecracker on Jul 17th, 2007, 7:47am adopted from Dovid Gottlieb: The Torah presents itself as a system with a variety of virtues: It is beautiful, inspiring, challenging, moral, profound, sensitizing, et cetera; and it is also true. Here I am going to deal only with truth. All the rest is correct, but I'm not going to deal with that. The responsibility to investigate truth is one by which we are bound. Here I am going to try to fulfill that responsibility. First of all, when I talk about the Torah being true, I am limiting myself to the descriptive parts of the Torah, that is to say, the portion of the Torah which describes facts: This is how the world came into being; these historical events took place including perhaps miraculous historical events, prophecy, revelation, wars, famines, migrations; this is the nature of the human being; this is the nature of the soul; these are the predictions for the future, e.g. the coming of the Messiah, what happens after death; these are the forces that affect human history; this is the way in which G-d interacts with man and so on. These are all statements which are presented as descriptions of facts. Our question will be: What reasons are there to accept them as being true? However, experience has taught me that to start an investigation into the truth of a religion is fruitless without agreeing first on our standards for evaluating such reasons. If I present considerations, evidence, arguments, and justifications, and we don't agree upon the standards by which those arguments should be evaluated, we end up arguing at cross purposes to one another. What standards should we have for evaluating the evidence? There is a standard due to Descartes that is subject to much discussion, a standard for knowing anything. Descartes said that to know something means to be able to refute absolutely any conceivable alternative. If I claim that I know A, to substantiate my claim to know A I have to be able to defeat any alternative absolutely. So that if I claim to know A, you can defeat my claim to know A if you can propose another alternative B. B needs only to be possible. If I can't eliminate B, and eliminate it absolutely, then I should withdraw my claim to know A. That is the Cartesian standard. Now, I am going to reject that standard and I'm going to reject it on two grounds. This will be very important because all of us have to a certain extent absorbed the Cartesian standard almost as a matter of instinct. When someone claims to know something and offers an argument to support his claim, the natural response is to try to defeat it based on the Cartesian standard. ("But isn't it still possible that something else is true?") So, it is important for us to agree at the outset that we are rejecting the Cartesian standard. The first reason for rejecting the Cartesian standard is that if you really live by that standard, you don't know anything! Any claim to knowledge can be defeated by using the strict Cartesian standard. Descartes himself worried about this. How do you know that you are not dreaming at the present moment? What could you do to prove to yourself, absolutely, that you are not dreaming right now? Pinch yourself? Couldn't you pinch yourself in a dream? Could you prove to yourself that in three minutes you won't wake up and find yourself in the twenty-first century saying to yourself: "Ah, that's what I get for reading historical books. I dreamt myself back one hundred years to some crazy place with inadequate air conditioning," and so on. Now according to the Cartesian standard you don't know that you are awake because here is an alternative, a conceivable alternative, that you are really sleeping. You cannot eliminate it absolutely and therefore you do not know that you are awake. [Of course, Descartes thought he could prove that (most of the time) we are really not sleeping. But today no one credits his proof - we cannot prove that we are not sleeping.] Bertrand Russell's example was to ask whether you know that the Universe is really more than five minutes old. Five minutes old. So you say, well of course I remember what happened to me yesterday. But, the suggestion is that you came into existence five minutes ago with those memories programmed into your brain. So you say: "Well look, I have a tape of the concert of the Grateful Dead, and this is a forty-five minute tape, so there must have been at least a forty-five minute concert from which it was taped." The answer is that the world came into existence five minutes ago with the tape and its magnetic impressions already on it. "But look, there are partially decayed deposits of Uranium, and next to the Uranium itself are the standard decay products in the normal proportions." Again, the suggestion is that this happened five minutes ago with the decay products placed next to the Uranium with the correct proportions. So, here is a conceivable alternative. You think the universe is millions, or billions of years old. The conceivable alternative that the universe is only five minutes old, having come into existence with all those features which you think are evidence of greater age. You can't eliminate it absolutely. So, according to Descartes then, you don't know that the universe is more than five minutes old! You can go on with just about everything that you believe, and if you have a good enough imagination, you can think up some alternative which you can't eliminate absolutely, and you can defeat every claim to knowledge. So, the Cartesian standard to knowledge is fruitless. It is hopeless. It deprives us of everything that we think we know. Since Descartes started this game, for the last 350 years people have been trying to think up a different standard, a different criterion for knowledge. There is no accepted answer to Descartes except the judgment that he is surely wrong, and that we will someday find an acceptable standard. That is one reason for rejecting the Cartesian standard of knowledge. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on Jul 17th, 2007, 8:03am As a precursor to what I'm about to write, let me say that I find what puzzlecracker has done here very upsetting. Puzzlecracker: First, you have blatantly copied a passage of someone else's writing (http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2051) without mentioning their name, their intention, or any way in which it relates to the current conversation. Second, you have changed the fundamental basis for his argument, the Torah, to an entirely different text, again without mention. Third, you have presented this passage, adapted for your own usage, as your own idea. Plagiarism is one thing. Deliberate plagiarism while subtly changing the original author's thoughts is... to avoid saying anything harsh... something else. This post comes on the heels of a similarly unsettling post in another topic detailing some of your actions with your girlfriend. If you really feel the need to continue this, I suggest you seek some kind of counseling to cope with this compulsion. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ThudanBlunder on Jul 17th, 2007, 8:06am You should stick to trash-talking your sexual partners, puzzlecracker. http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2051 Edit: Ah, I see I wasn't first in the queue. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ima1trkpny on Jul 17th, 2007, 10:18am Amen... and I might add that all his trash-talk, seduction posts reek of romance and seduction novels... and seeing as he has now proved it doesn't bother him to steal the work of others, I have a feeling those other disturbing posts are just things he has read about and has no actual experience with. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by shasta on Jan 21st, 2008, 10:21pm I'm going to ignore everything about this thread, (which I haven't read), except it's title. Hopefully you all won't hate me for doing so. ;D In response to the question in the title I will ask another question. I reason circularly, therefore I reason? I absolutely despise, (beyond what it reasonable I admit), the IMO completely moronic DesCartes saying "I think therefore I am". Substitute any other verb and the circular reasoning becomes obvious. "I run therefore I am". "I run" assumes I exist, just like "I think" does. When your conclusion is a necessary part of your premises you are using circular reasoning. I've always felt that "I think therefore I am" should have been heralded through the ages as an example of how not to be logical, not as the words of a "great" philosopher. This is not the only example of ridiculously obvious circular reasoning in DesCartes "proofs", his proof of the existence of God also contains one, (which starts with the assumption that God is good), and I believe I've seen another one although I can't recall it at the moment. That he is heralded as a great philosopher is nothing but an indictment of the mental abilities of the masses. Yes, he was a good mathematician, perhaps even a great mathematician. But come on, "I think therefore I am"? Is there anyone here who can defend this ludicrous proof of one's existence? |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by ThudanBlunder on Jan 21st, 2008, 11:09pm on 01/21/08 at 22:21:25, shasta wrote:
Cogito ergo sum is so 17th century. Icarus has since improved upon it: on 12/17/04 at 18:28:50, Icarus wrote:
;D |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by rmsgrey on Jan 22nd, 2008, 10:32am on 01/21/08 at 22:21:25, shasta wrote:
Descartes started with the same problem that had defeated philosophers for over 2000 years - how can you know anything for sure? Anything you think you know is based on your potentially fallible memory and your potentially fallible sense-impressions. The only sane solution, and the one the vast majority applies, whatever philosophical positions they may profess, is to take the world as it seems, except where it appears to be self-contradictory. Even so, it seems kinda unsatisfactory to have to say "we can't really prove anything, so we'll just go with our best guess" so philosophers spent a lot of time looking for any sort of provable truth and either came up with some theory that another philosopher came along to poke holes in, or else came to the conclusion that all a philosopher can really do is question everything. Then along came Descartes, who followed the same path to the same apparent dead end and concluded that all he could do was doubt everything. But then he came to the insight that escaped generations of philosophers before him: in doubting everything, he was doing something. Because he knew he was doing something, he knew he existed. In other words, what you view as the flaw in the argument, is in fact the whole point of it - in order to think, to doubt, to question, you have to exist, so, knowing that you are wondering whether you exist, you know that you must exist in order to wonder. Yes, it's blindingly obvious once it's pointed out, but thousands of years of philosophers missed it, and it's still the only thing any philosopher has managed to prove absolutely. Of course, it's also an incredibly weak result - it says nothing about me beyond the mere fact of my existence. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by SMQ on Jan 22nd, 2008, 11:19am on 01/22/08 at 10:32:37, rmsgrey wrote:
Well, it says slightly more than that; it also shows that your nature is such that you are capable of positing your own existence. --SMQ |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on Jan 22nd, 2008, 11:46am Well, subsequent critics have suggested that it would be more correct to say "There is thought, therefore something exists", in order to avoid the implications brought in by "I". However, that seems to me to be taking things to extremes. Suffice to say that, yes Descartes could have opted for "I [verb], therefore I am", with "doubt" being the safest bet at the time, but he was still the first person creditted with actually pointing it out. In terms of the issues of circular arguments within Descartes' works, I would guess that you are thinking of the issue of how Descartes can prove the existence of God through pure reason when he requires the existence of God to guarantee the validity of his reasoning. Here, apologists for Descartes turn to his use of "clear and distinct" ideas, suggesting that by this he meant ideas which he was unable to doubt. This leads towards the interpretation of the Meditations as a guide for a thought process Descartes had undergone, and believed others would experience similar results if they attempted the same - namely to try to doubt everything, and challenge how they could know anything. Eventually, it seems he could not doubt the validity of some of his thoughts - the "clear and distinct" ideas - and developed his arguments from there. Also keep in mind that Descartes was the first of what are viewed as the "Modern Philosophers". Yes, it's fairly easy to argue against a lot of what they have written, but then, there's been a few centuries' worth of thought gone in to analysing what Descartes has produced, and so the context of the society he was writing for and in has been lost. Claiming Descartes to have been a fool for not working all of this out for himself is akin to claiming Newton was an idiot for not coming up with Relativity instead of his laws of motion... |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by shasta on Jan 23rd, 2008, 9:06am "But then he came to the insight that escaped generations of philosophers before him: in doubting everything, he was doing something." That's still a circular argument. "I doubt therefore I am" presumes it's conclusion in it's premiss. If you allow as a presumption that the three headed elephant in my backyard doubts it's existence, from that I can prove to you there is a three headed elephant in my backyard. "There is thought, therefore something exists" That's yet another circular argument. "There is" is being used as a synonym for "there exists" in this case, and "There exists X therefore something exists" is obviously circular. In my opinion, these problems are the result of feeling there is a need to prove things without allowing for any assumptions. I don't believe this is possible, however that doesn't mean there aren't some things we can treat as absolutely true. The way in which I handle it goes like this. Certain things must be true in order for the statement I am thinking rationally to ever be possible. If these things are not true and it is not possible for me to think rationally, it hardly matters what I think at all, if indeed I exist and am capable of thought. Thus, simply to be rational, I must assume the following things whether they can be proven or not. I am thinking rationally 1. I exist. 2. There exists at least one trait, that of rationality. 3. It is possible for me to have that trait. I think we can all agree that these three things are necessary conditions for me to ever be able to accurately say "I am thinking rationally". Working from them, I believe we can infer the following. 4. I have free will. The reason is because free will is a requirement for rationality. If an object without free will performs an action, I do not believe that action can't be said to be a rational action, only the result of various stimuli acting on it. If my thoughts are only the result of outside stimuli and I have no control over them, then I came up with this assumption as the result of such stimuli and determinism forces me to assume it anyway. ;) Here's another base assumption that I find useful. 5. The degree to which it is possible for me to rationally interpret something is directly proportionate to my ability to acquire accurate information about it. This applies to everything in the universe, including itself. Of course, not all of the information I've gained about the universe is accurate, but I act as though enough of it is for me to interpret it largely rationally. I'm still justifying it with the "If it's true then I should use the information I've gained to attempt to interpret the universe. If it's not true then any guesses I make seem as likely as any others. So I might as well hedge my bets and treat it as true." viewpoint that I've been using all along here. This is as far as I've taken my "base assumptions" to date. In my model of the universe, these are at the top of the knowledge tree, (think binary tree, without the requirement for each branch to split exactly 2 times. The name of this kind of tree escapes me at the moment). The next level down on the tree for me would be those conclusions which I've inductively drawn directly as the results of the information I've gained and heard others agree they've gained about the universe. These I do not treat as being required assumptions for my rationality, but as things which I'll usually assume freely. An example would be if I see something, it's there. I know this isn't always necessarily true, and am willing to examine something like this if I have reason to doubt it, but normally I just assume it is true. From here, proceeding down the tree ideally involves using proofs that take the upper levels of the tree as their assumptions and doesn't add anything to them. I don't always achieve this ideal, but it's what I aim for. "Claiming Descartes to have been a fool" Well my condemnation isn't really so much aimed at Descartes himself, (I do believe he was intelligent and respect his work in the field of mathematics). It was intended to be aimed at the obviously circular arguments he presented which are still largely hailed as brilliant. "akin to claiming Newton was an idiot for not coming up with Relativity instead of his laws of motion..." I think it would be more akin to condemning Newton for having come up with astrology, (had he done so), perhaps a bit harshly due to frustration from living in a society that still thought of astrology as praiseworthy science, (again if it did so); while acknowledging his great work in physics. But again, the criticism is aimed at the argument, not the man. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Three Hands on Jan 23rd, 2008, 1:10pm on 01/23/08 at 09:06:58, shasta wrote:
OK, circularity is not necessarily a bad thing. It might appear simplistic, and generally not very insightful, but the fact remains that, if you accept the premise (like "I think" or "There is thought"), the conclusion MUST be true. This is what is known as a "sound argument" - an argument may be sound without the conclusion being true. Since Descartes found reasonably irrefutable evidence for the existence of doubt, this showed that the initial premise holds, and thus the conclusion ("I am" or "Something exists") must also be true. Granted, the conclusion may not seem particularly profound, but it still counts as a breakthrough against solipsistic philosophies. By proving that there is at least something in existence by the mere existence of the thought, claims that "nothing is real" take a fairly heavy blow. Granted, Descartes' attempts to prove the rest of reality through a similar process run into much stronger criticism, and justifiably so. But the damage done to solipsism, which was generally the popular philosophy of the day, is still not to be understated. Also, as you have suggested, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to actually say anything is true without some assumptions being made. Descartes' efforts are probably the most famous attempt to do so, largely because it has largely stood up to attempts to knock it down completely much better than most others. It may not appear that profound, and open to accusations of stating the blindingly obvious, but it is still robust. on 01/23/08 at 09:06:58, shasta wrote:
First of all, I'd suggest that an action can be rational without being brought about by an act of will. Causality, I think, is perfectly rational - the reason for the effect is contained within the cause and the nature of the causal relationship. However, that's purely semantics. I believe the real problem for this argument you are smuggling the capacity to think into the capacity to act. There's a difference between being able to think and to be able to affect change in the world. Rational thought can exist impotently, but it would be impossible to prove that an object were thinking rationally without some outward action to show the thought. However, the basis for your argument have been based in introspective thought, rather than relating to outside actions, and as you could quite conceivably have rational thought without the ability to act on it, the claim does not follow. on 01/23/08 at 09:06:58, shasta wrote:
You might appreciate one of the conclusions Hume came to when considering the problem of induction. Essentially, it boils down to "OK, we can't prove it to be true, but since we're going to believe it is true anyway, we might as well take it as a given." |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by Icarus on Jan 23rd, 2008, 7:17pm on 01/23/08 at 09:06:58, shasta wrote:
No, it is not circular. Instead, it is a tautology. If X exists, then something indeed does exist. It is the statement (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/exists.gifx) http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/bigto.gif(http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/YaBBImages/symbols/exists.gifx). The premise of this statement is not proven by itself, but rather by the existence of the statement. If the statement were false, then there would not be a statement to be false. And this discussion would not exist either. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title: Re: we think therefore we are? Post by towr on Jan 24th, 2008, 7:35am on 01/23/08 at 09:06:58, shasta wrote:
Thinking entails existence. Therefore, if I think, I must also exist. That I think, is something I can observe/know; and by that know I exist. There is nothing circular about the argument A&B -> B A&B therefore B And in many circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to leave A&B -> B implicit |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4! Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board |