Citing Descartes is somewhat ironic, as his most famous claim is based around his incapacity to doubt the existence of himself as a doubter. Descartes is the one that established the foundational certainty here.
"While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought."
-Linked Article
"whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."
-Excerpt from English Translation of Descartes writings
@StairC
I know. That was why I citied Descartes, in that if you want to go with his ideas, then logic isn't absolute because Descartes didn't think so.
Citation please. Because he says pretty clearly there:
"I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."
"he concludes that we cannot doubt studies based on simple things, like arithmetic and geometry....
On further reflection, the Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted." (from Wikipedia)
Closest quote reference I could find easily.
Another reference: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdlkvD7wDXbK1XjUdXh9dut
Neither of these things addresses his fundamantal assertion. The one I specifically quoted which he says can be accepted without scruple - unshakable by any ground of doubt from the skeptics.
Some simple things can be doubted. This cannot. The very act of attempting to doubt it proves its validity.
@StairC
The second link does. And anyway, I was supporting the claim that Descartes doubted logic (though he used the Cogito to support it).
EDIT: I'll just add that I have no problem with accepting the Cogito Sum as absolutely true, I'm just not quite confident enough in it to have done so yet.
If he's using the Cogito to support it, then the argument you're citing falls apart if you're doubting the Cogito.
Descartes transparently and plainly said the opposite of what you're claiming regarding the doubting of doubt. That doesn't affect the truth of your claim of course, but citing him undermines your point. He did absolutely believe that some things could be accepted without scruple and were impervious to doubt. After all, if someone is doubting then it's possible to doubt. Done and done.
@StairC
I don't get what you mean with the first part.
As to the second: I have already said, I am not citing Descartes to support my point, I am citing to Descartes to support that logic is not absolutely true.
In order to KNOW that you feel cold, you need to have processed the information, which takes time. By the time you realize you are feeling cold, it is no longer "now," it was one iteration ago.
You can't even say "I now realize I feel cold." Because, by the time you REALIZE you realized, it's already passed the time you first realized you felt cold. Because of the processing time of the brain, every time you try to make an accurate statement about your current mental state, you will be one iteration ahead.
You could say "I now realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a lie, you haven't realize it yet. And, lies can't be truths.
You could say "I will realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a guess about the future. You don't yet know if it's true.
And, by the time you realize it's true, it won't be.
@Taylor
Feeling cold is not a single experience, nor is it an isolated one. It is made of a series of distinct responses initiated continuously for as long as the cold persists. The realisation by the brain is part of how the experience is generated in the first place. In fact, the realisation is really the only part relevant here, as the rest of the process is established by fallible sensory investigation and not by warrant of itself as perception is being claimed as. When your body actually receive the information of a low temperature, there is no aware perception, it's not evident to you at all. It is ONLY once you are consciously aware of it that IS. So, it is accurate to say that you 'know' you feel cold right now (provided of course you accept the argument actually being made).
I would also like to note that you make an argument against one that is based on a claim to absolute knowledge using clearly non-absolute knowledge that is dependent on the very sort of phenomena that is being argued as absolutely true. Notably, you haven't proven anything absolutely false but ultimately have only validly argued that the answer isn't absolutely knowable by presenting non-absolute argument against it. A non-absolute claim cannot absolutely disprove another claim. For all you really know, time, or the processes of conscious could be quite different (unless you'd like to argue why a certain aspect or form of either is absolutely true).
@Taylor
Feeling cold is not a single experience, nor is it an isolated one. It is made of a series of distinct responses initiated continuously for as long as the cold persists. The realisation by the brain is part of how the experience is generated in the first place. In fact, the realisation is really the only part relevant here, as the rest of the process is established by fallible sensory investigation and not by warrant of itself as perception is being claimed as. When your body actually receive the information of a low temperature, there is no aware perception, it's not evident to you at all. It is ONLY once you are consciously aware of it that IS. So, it is accurate to say that you 'know' you feel cold right now (provided of course you accept the argument actually being made).
I would also like to note that you make an argument against one that is based on a claim to absolute knowledge using clearly non-absolute knowledge that is dependent on the very sort of phenomena that is being argued as absolutely true. Notably, you haven't proven anything absolutely false but ultimately have only validly argued that the answer isn't absolutely knowable by presenting non-absolute argument against it. A non-absolute claim cannot absolutely disprove another claim. For all you really know, time, or the processes of conscious could be quite different (unless you'd like to argue why a certain aspect or form of either is absolutely true).
""People can't multitask very well, and when people say they can, they're deluding themselves," said neuroscientist Earl Miller. And, he said, "The brain is very good at deluding itself." Miller, a Picower professor of neuroscience at MIT, says that for the most part, we simply can't focus on more than one thing at a time."[1]
But DJK3654 -apparently- you don't believe any of what you say is true.
So, if even you don't think what you say is true, why should I care? I shouldn't, literally no one agrees with it.
If you're not making any meaningful counterclaims, then I don't need to rebuttal.
@Taylor
The quote you provided is irrelevant.
As for the second part, just because I suspend all absolute judgement, doesn't mean I can't make any sort of judgement at all. I can, for example, still claim that something seems to be true (not as a truth claim) or make judgements on arguments.
And why should anyone listen to you when you have faith in science? Is your belief in science anymore justified than any other random belief one might have? How about your belief in rationality? Is that justified?
I can, for example, still claim that something seems to be true (not as a truth claim) or make judgements on arguments.
No, you can't.
You can't even claim it's "not a truth claim," because to claim it's "not a truth claim" you have to assert that it is TRUE it's 'not a truth claim.' So -again- this is something beyond your ability.
You've stated time and time again you don't assert anything is true. Therefor, you can't -in fact- claim anything at all.
You don't think that's true, and neither do I. Thus, I don't need to take it seriously. It's not a counterclaim. It's a suggestion utterly devoid of anything approaching conviction. This is Debate, not the Watercooler.
You make no assertions, therefore everything you say in a debate is irrelevant.
@Taylor
And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.
I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.
I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.
Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.
@Taylor
And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.
I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.
I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.
Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.
I will take you at your word from earlier posts on this thread and agree your posts contain no claims, assertions, counterclaims, statements, assumptions, proclamations, declarations, hypotheses, facts, or otherwise truths of any sort.
Naaahhh, changed my mind. I hate giving up on people, and I think -rereading that last bit in post #143- we are making progress.
But, in order to continue at all, we have to agree to go back on things we have earlier claimed. Indeed, we have to reevaluate based on new information, thoughts, and ideas. This should not be seen as a weakness, but as a strength. A stubborn adherence to dogma should be seen as a weakness, not changing one's mind when given new information. Moving forward, I will demonstrate good faith by doing it first. I will go back on my statement to not rebuttal. I do this because I want to help you understand. But -in saying that- I know I've put myself in an adversarial position, and -in doing so- have made you less inclined to see what I'm trying to say.
So, again, in good faith -and in the spirit of moving forward- I will ask you to accept my apology for being a dick.
And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.
I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.
Part if this is part of what you'll have to take back if you do genuinely wish to move forward. Yet, it's not as self-contradictory as some of the other stuff you've said so far.
You can, as you say, "deny logic and reason." There is no 'rule' against doing so. But, if you do, the discussion is stillborn. We need logic and reason for the same reason we need a common language: To communicate at all. This is leading us to the first step in any discussion: Agreed upon definitions.
We have to agree on something, like -for example- that the English letters 't' 'r' 'u' 'e' when put together in that order means 'true,' which represents something other than the darkened pixels you are looking at. This is something we do without really thinking about it, agree on definitions, but it's still something we have to do.
I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.
Here we run headlong into the Münchhausen-Trilemma. I really do recommend you taking a look at it's wiki page if you get a chance. Because, the trilemma more or less states part of what you attempt here.
If we can agree on definitions, the next step to having a sensible discussion is agreeing on a starting point. Yet, the 'starting point' is really what a debate on 'faith' is all about, which is why we have been running into problems at this step. Since this step is literally the second thing you MUST do before having a sensible discussion, we've not been getting very far.
This 'where to start' has been the sticking point for this thread. In the above quote, you use a regressive argument as a starting point (one of the 3 from the trillama). A regressive argument -as you seem to be realizing- normally presents a problem as a starting point. Of the 3 in the trillama, people normally use an axiomatic argument as their starting point.
They agree on 'assumed truths' in order to have a sensible discussion. Like agreeing on definitions, people normally do this without thinking. This can often cause problems because people can have different 'assumed truths.' This happens often when people have different mindsets and results in people 'talking past each other.' An axiomatic discussion can only really happen sensibly if people have roughly the same axioms.
As a side-note, when I debate to convince, I try to 'feel out' where the other person is 'coming from' and work from there. I have noted most people have about the same underlying axioms, but oftentimes they're trusting misinformation. This is something we all do, but it doesn't mean all information should always be mistrusted. Axioms cannot be justified. Thus, someone with a little more info than me might come in to tell me what I'm saying about them is wrong. And, they might be right. However, I am also pretty confident any such sensible debater has long abandoned this thread. (which should give you some insight into my opinion of myself)
Anyway,
Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.
Here -at last- you seem to agree an axiomatic argument would be a good starting point. But, -sadly- because this is a debate on 'faith,' what axioms to use are the debate. Yet, axioms -by their very nature- cannot be justified and -therefore- debated.
Currently, there are two systems being proposed:
One is our senses are assumed as the best way to find truths, as StairC and most others seem to be agreeing on.
The other is where one assumes the scientific method is the best way to find truths.
These might seem like basically identical systems, but they're not. Certainly -at this base level of reasoning we're at- they're not.
They're not, because the scientific method claims the human brain is very very diluted. One only needs to read down a list of cognitive biases to know the scientific method claims the human brain is even very proficient at diluting itself on how good it is at diluting itself.
So, which do we trust? Well, if we trust the scientific method, then we have to question our own minds. We have to admit WE are flawed and -therefor- can't really be trusted. Many people would have trouble admitting... well.... I let Sam Harris say it: "The human mind, therefore, is like a ship that has been built and rebuilt, plank by plank, on the open sea. Changes have been made to her sails, keel, and rudder even as the waves battered every inch of her hull. And much of our behavior and cognition, even much that now seems essential to our humanity, has not been selected for at all." -The Moral Landscape
Thus, if I am choosing to trust the scientific method (as I am), I must do it over my very thoughts. I can't justify my choice, it is axiomatic. So, I must end the discussion where I started it:
@Taylor
Relying on the sense leads us to the scientific method. It is an over-simplistic and narrow view to think that because we are relying on our senses, we cannot be critical of our senses. Science relies on the senses. If it happens that the senses are broadly inaccurate, then science is likely going to be wrong about a bunch of things. We I am suggesting is that we use the total of our experience to determine the best ideas, not that all experience is considered equal. If, for example, I was to normally and commonly observe the phenomena of things falling to the ground, as I do, but suddenly, the opposite appears to happen for a moment, without any recording of the event other than my own observation, I would conclude that it is the most useful explanation and therefore best explanation that I was mistaken in some manner in my observation and not that the typical and consistent case had been suddenly and mysteriously radically altered. The very way that we have identified such weaknesses in our perception and conception is through inconsistencies of our experience. At the heart of the argument I have been using, and why the idea of absolute truth is important to the argument, is that really the systemn I am proposing is one that we have been using all along. There is not a single idea ever conceived that could not be related to experience, all ideas that we make, all decisions, all models, are based on experience. Experience is our only option. Everything we can understand we can understand because of our experience. Logic is based on our experience with the consistency and determinability of reality, the arts is based on experience with aesthetics and emotion as well as philosophical ideas expressed thereby, maths is based on the discreteness of things as meaningfully distinct components of a larger system, it goes on. I challenge you to tell me of a concrete idea which is not related to an understanding based on experience.
The point of my argument is to justify the selection of axioms, which is done in a subjective and indeterminite, but perfectly satisfactory and reasonable manner. The goal is not to determine the answers to metaphysical questions, but instead to determine the best understanding of reality that we can make, where the 'best' is decided to be the most useful in terms of practical consequence ins sense experience.
Here is a progressive form of what the argument is
Absolute truth is problematic to determine and limited in use
We have a clear conception of reason and thinking, and cannot understand anything outside this.
We must rely on our thinking if we are to make any decision.
It is abstractly possible that our decisions are meaningful
If we act on our decisions being meaningful, we have something that we might gain in that of a positive experience.
If we do not, we seek to gain very little if anything though this inaction.
Information that seems to be provided by our experience might be able to be used to predict our future experience
Therefore, by analysing the information of our experience using the principles of out thinking we can determine useful ideas as guides for determining action
If we are agreeing to use logic, then we must follow the Law of Non-Contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
This is not to say you should never trust the other one, but it is to say when they fall in opposition, you have to trust one over the other.
If your thoughts and the scientific method are at odds, logically you must believe one over the other. Thus, they can't both be axiomatic.
The point of my argument is to justify the selection of axioms
Then we have to regress back to step 0: Agree on definitions.
Because, "An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."[1] is how I define the word 'axiom.'
Thus, if I am choosing to trust the scientific method (as I am), I must do it over my very thoughts. I can't justify my choice, it is axiomatic.
I disagree that trust in the scientific method is axiomatic, or that it cannot be justified. The scientific method is the best way mankind has demonstrated for finding truth, and its effectiveness has been displayed thousands of times throughout human history.
I disagree that trust in the scientific method is axiomatic, or that it cannot be justified. The scientific method is the best way mankind has demonstrated for finding truth, and its effectiveness has been displayed thousands of times throughout human history.
No one says you have to agree with what I am putting forward as axiomatic for me. But,
What do you -currently- believe over the scientific method?
And, what do you believe over that?
Ask this question until you have no better answer, and -then- you'll have yours.
@Taylor
Accepted without controversy=/=accepted without justification.
Axioms are not justified by other axioms but they are justified by sheer reasoned thought- intuitive sense mostly. They aren't chosen for no reason. My theory provides a broad principle that can adds meaning to axioms chosen.
@Taylor
More stuff-
Science is not an axiom under my system. It is the result of the axioms. Science is consistent with the principle of practical consequences within sense experience- simply science's record of success is something, and it's compatibility with rationality systems of logic and reasoned argument. Just because following science requires me to suspect inaccuracies in my thinking, doesn't mean I can't use my thinking. It is my thinking that allowed me to conclude that my thinking is not completely accurate, if it wasn't, then nobody could do it. As a result of such inaccuracies, I can aim to maximise the components of my thinking that are reliable. Using my experience as a guide means that I have to accept some experiences as unreliable, simply because they contradict other parts of my experience. Science suffers from no contradictions that outweight it, it has proven to be capable of withstanding contradictions from other areas.
Accepted without controversy=/=accepted without justification.
Those two things are equivalent by my definitions of those words. To further define things: "Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification."[1] "Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems."[2] "Basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs or core beliefs) are, under the epistemological view called foundationalism, the axioms of a belief system."[3]
Now, you can use a metasystem to justify your axioms in the first system, but then your metasystem would necessarily (by the theorems already cited in my other posts) contain unjustified axioms.
Science is not an axiom under my system. It is the result of the axioms.
Ok, so we still toggle between 'step 0' and the 'starting point step.' If "science is not an axiom" under your system, then what is the starting point?
What are the axioms it is a result of?
It sounds like (unlike how it sounds in post #147 where you say if the scientific method disagrees with your senses, you would take it over them) you're going with StairC's system and trusting your thoughts and feelings over the scientific method. Which is fine.
I can no more tell you your wrong with your choice than you can tell me with mine. But, I don't think we've progressed to the point were I should be making that statement. Since we need to get past the definitional and starting point stages before we can even sensibly "agree to disagree."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
"While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought."
-Linked Article
"whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."
-Excerpt from English Translation of Descartes writings
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I know. That was why I citied Descartes, in that if you want to go with his ideas, then logic isn't absolute because Descartes didn't think so.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"I think, therefore I am,[c] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search."
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
On further reflection, the Meditator realizes that even simple things can be doubted." (from Wikipedia)
Closest quote reference I could find easily.
Another reference: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTdlkvD7wDXbK1XjUdXh9dut
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Some simple things can be doubted. This cannot. The very act of attempting to doubt it proves its validity.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The second link does. And anyway, I was supporting the claim that Descartes doubted logic (though he used the Cogito to support it).
EDIT: I'll just add that I have no problem with accepting the Cogito Sum as absolutely true, I'm just not quite confident enough in it to have done so yet.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Descartes transparently and plainly said the opposite of what you're claiming regarding the doubting of doubt. That doesn't affect the truth of your claim of course, but citing him undermines your point. He did absolutely believe that some things could be accepted without scruple and were impervious to doubt. After all, if someone is doubting then it's possible to doubt. Done and done.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I don't get what you mean with the first part.
As to the second: I have already said, I am not citing Descartes to support my point, I am citing to Descartes to support that logic is not absolutely true.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
In order to KNOW that you feel cold, you need to have processed the information, which takes time. By the time you realize you are feeling cold, it is no longer "now," it was one iteration ago.
You can't even say "I now realize I feel cold." Because, by the time you REALIZE you realized, it's already passed the time you first realized you felt cold. Because of the processing time of the brain, every time you try to make an accurate statement about your current mental state, you will be one iteration ahead.
You could say "I now realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a lie, you haven't realize it yet. And, lies can't be truths.
You could say "I will realize I realized I feel cold," when you're still on the first realization, but it would be a guess about the future. You don't yet know if it's true.
And, by the time you realize it's true, it won't be.
Feeling cold is not a single experience, nor is it an isolated one. It is made of a series of distinct responses initiated continuously for as long as the cold persists. The realisation by the brain is part of how the experience is generated in the first place. In fact, the realisation is really the only part relevant here, as the rest of the process is established by fallible sensory investigation and not by warrant of itself as perception is being claimed as. When your body actually receive the information of a low temperature, there is no aware perception, it's not evident to you at all. It is ONLY once you are consciously aware of it that IS. So, it is accurate to say that you 'know' you feel cold right now (provided of course you accept the argument actually being made).
I would also like to note that you make an argument against one that is based on a claim to absolute knowledge using clearly non-absolute knowledge that is dependent on the very sort of phenomena that is being argued as absolutely true. Notably, you haven't proven anything absolutely false but ultimately have only validly argued that the answer isn't absolutely knowable by presenting non-absolute argument against it. A non-absolute claim cannot absolutely disprove another claim. For all you really know, time, or the processes of conscious could be quite different (unless you'd like to argue why a certain aspect or form of either is absolutely true).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
But DJK3654 -apparently- you don't believe any of what you say is true.
So, if even you don't think what you say is true, why should I care? I shouldn't, literally no one agrees with it.
If you're not making any meaningful counterclaims, then I don't need to rebuttal.
The quote you provided is irrelevant.
As for the second part, just because I suspend all absolute judgement, doesn't mean I can't make any sort of judgement at all. I can, for example, still claim that something seems to be true (not as a truth claim) or make judgements on arguments.
And why should anyone listen to you when you have faith in science? Is your belief in science anymore justified than any other random belief one might have? How about your belief in rationality? Is that justified?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You can't even claim it's "not a truth claim," because to claim it's "not a truth claim" you have to assert that it is TRUE it's 'not a truth claim.' So -again- this is something beyond your ability.
You've stated time and time again you don't assert anything is true. Therefor, you can't -in fact- claim anything at all.
You don't think that's true, and neither do I. Thus, I don't need to take it seriously. It's not a counterclaim. It's a suggestion utterly devoid of anything approaching conviction. This is Debate, not the Watercooler.
You make no assertions, therefore everything you say in a debate is irrelevant.
And you have no definite understanding of reality, and therefore could be wrong about virtually anything. You assume reason, logic and investigation, you assume science, by your admission, out of faith, and therefore your opinion is nothing more than a opinion and has no shred of objective strength. All of your statements become greatly subjective in the absolute, and can be ignored by dismissing reason itself without justification because you assume it without justification. I could, just as fairly as you do put faith in science, put faith in me always being right- 'therefore, I win'. That's essentially the position you're coming from, one that is not based on argument. If you'd like to justify belief in science, reason and logic, go ahead, but until you provide a through justification, it's hypocritical of you to say that my opinions can be easily ignored.
I like how you continue to ignore my criticisms of your position and yet you have no problem criticising mine, quite aggressively, despite my request that you do both in the light of the thread being a general one on knowledge specifically as it relates, and not about the position I am advocating. If you don't respond to this quite reasonable request by at least acknowledging it, I'm going to start ignoring you.
I can make claims, as long as those claims are relative. 'It seems to be true that it seems to be true that it seems to...' is no less valid of an argument than 'it is true that it is true that it is true that it...'. By their very nature, justifications are regressive. In both cases, the regress is self-forming by the establishment of earlier repetitions implying the later. The form of 'seems to be' is merely weaker and requires a more elaborate reasoning to support than the simple 'truth' version.
Perhaps, in order to avoid having to argue this same difficult point, it is best that we go off StairC's variation where 'perceptions exist' is taken as absolutely true for ease of making the most important point about practicality as justification and not this less important one about absolute truth as it pertains to argument. As long as absolute truth is problematic, the important part of the argument stands, it need not be that absolute truth is entirely problematic. But, if you really want we can keep going, it's just that it's a hard conversation to have given how counter-intuitive the point I'm making is, and I'd rather talk about the more central point.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Therefore, there is nothing to rebut.
So, -I'll stop wasting both our time- and not.
Disappointing. Apparently, you're not interested in debate. Very well.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
But, in order to continue at all, we have to agree to go back on things we have earlier claimed. Indeed, we have to reevaluate based on new information, thoughts, and ideas. This should not be seen as a weakness, but as a strength. A stubborn adherence to dogma should be seen as a weakness, not changing one's mind when given new information. Moving forward, I will demonstrate good faith by doing it first. I will go back on my statement to not rebuttal. I do this because I want to help you understand. But -in saying that- I know I've put myself in an adversarial position, and -in doing so- have made you less inclined to see what I'm trying to say.
So, again, in good faith -and in the spirit of moving forward- I will ask you to accept my apology for being a dick.
Part if this is part of what you'll have to take back if you do genuinely wish to move forward. Yet, it's not as self-contradictory as some of the other stuff you've said so far.
You can, as you say, "deny logic and reason." There is no 'rule' against doing so. But, if you do, the discussion is stillborn. We need logic and reason for the same reason we need a common language: To communicate at all. This is leading us to the first step in any discussion: Agreed upon definitions.
We have to agree on something, like -for example- that the English letters 't' 'r' 'u' 'e' when put together in that order means 'true,' which represents something other than the darkened pixels you are looking at. This is something we do without really thinking about it, agree on definitions, but it's still something we have to do.
Here we run headlong into the Münchhausen-Trilemma. I really do recommend you taking a look at it's wiki page if you get a chance. Because, the trilemma more or less states part of what you attempt here.
If we can agree on definitions, the next step to having a sensible discussion is agreeing on a starting point. Yet, the 'starting point' is really what a debate on 'faith' is all about, which is why we have been running into problems at this step. Since this step is literally the second thing you MUST do before having a sensible discussion, we've not been getting very far.
This 'where to start' has been the sticking point for this thread. In the above quote, you use a regressive argument as a starting point (one of the 3 from the trillama). A regressive argument -as you seem to be realizing- normally presents a problem as a starting point. Of the 3 in the trillama, people normally use an axiomatic argument as their starting point.
They agree on 'assumed truths' in order to have a sensible discussion. Like agreeing on definitions, people normally do this without thinking. This can often cause problems because people can have different 'assumed truths.' This happens often when people have different mindsets and results in people 'talking past each other.' An axiomatic discussion can only really happen sensibly if people have roughly the same axioms.
As a side-note, when I debate to convince, I try to 'feel out' where the other person is 'coming from' and work from there. I have noted most people have about the same underlying axioms, but oftentimes they're trusting misinformation. This is something we all do, but it doesn't mean all information should always be mistrusted. Axioms cannot be justified. Thus, someone with a little more info than me might come in to tell me what I'm saying about them is wrong. And, they might be right. However, I am also pretty confident any such sensible debater has long abandoned this thread. (which should give you some insight into my opinion of myself)
Anyway,
Here -at last- you seem to agree an axiomatic argument would be a good starting point. But, -sadly- because this is a debate on 'faith,' what axioms to use are the debate. Yet, axioms -by their very nature- cannot be justified and -therefore- debated.
Currently, there are two systems being proposed:
One is our senses are assumed as the best way to find truths, as StairC and most others seem to be agreeing on.
The other is where one assumes the scientific method is the best way to find truths.
These might seem like basically identical systems, but they're not. Certainly -at this base level of reasoning we're at- they're not.
They're not, because the scientific method claims the human brain is very very diluted. One only needs to read down a list of cognitive biases to know the scientific method claims the human brain is even very proficient at diluting itself on how good it is at diluting itself.
So, which do we trust? Well, if we trust the scientific method, then we have to question our own minds. We have to admit WE are flawed and -therefor- can't really be trusted. Many people would have trouble admitting... well.... I let Sam Harris say it: "The human mind, therefore, is like a ship that has been built and rebuilt, plank by plank, on the open sea. Changes have been made to her sails, keel, and rudder even as the waves battered every inch of her hull. And much of our behavior and cognition, even much that now seems essential to our humanity, has not been selected for at all." -The Moral Landscape
Thus, if I am choosing to trust the scientific method (as I am), I must do it over my very thoughts. I can't justify my choice, it is axiomatic. So, I must end the discussion where I started it:
Relying on the sense leads us to the scientific method. It is an over-simplistic and narrow view to think that because we are relying on our senses, we cannot be critical of our senses. Science relies on the senses. If it happens that the senses are broadly inaccurate, then science is likely going to be wrong about a bunch of things. We I am suggesting is that we use the total of our experience to determine the best ideas, not that all experience is considered equal. If, for example, I was to normally and commonly observe the phenomena of things falling to the ground, as I do, but suddenly, the opposite appears to happen for a moment, without any recording of the event other than my own observation, I would conclude that it is the most useful explanation and therefore best explanation that I was mistaken in some manner in my observation and not that the typical and consistent case had been suddenly and mysteriously radically altered. The very way that we have identified such weaknesses in our perception and conception is through inconsistencies of our experience. At the heart of the argument I have been using, and why the idea of absolute truth is important to the argument, is that really the systemn I am proposing is one that we have been using all along. There is not a single idea ever conceived that could not be related to experience, all ideas that we make, all decisions, all models, are based on experience. Experience is our only option. Everything we can understand we can understand because of our experience. Logic is based on our experience with the consistency and determinability of reality, the arts is based on experience with aesthetics and emotion as well as philosophical ideas expressed thereby, maths is based on the discreteness of things as meaningfully distinct components of a larger system, it goes on. I challenge you to tell me of a concrete idea which is not related to an understanding based on experience.
The point of my argument is to justify the selection of axioms, which is done in a subjective and indeterminite, but perfectly satisfactory and reasonable manner. The goal is not to determine the answers to metaphysical questions, but instead to determine the best understanding of reality that we can make, where the 'best' is decided to be the most useful in terms of practical consequence ins sense experience.
Here is a progressive form of what the argument is
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If we are agreeing to use logic, then we must follow the Law of Non-Contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be.'
This is not to say you should never trust the other one, but it is to say when they fall in opposition, you have to trust one over the other.
If your thoughts and the scientific method are at odds, logically you must believe one over the other. Thus, they can't both be axiomatic.
Then we have to regress back to step 0: Agree on definitions.
Because, "An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."[1] is how I define the word 'axiom.'
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
What do you -currently- believe over the scientific method?
And, what do you believe over that?
Ask this question until you have no better answer, and -then- you'll have yours.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Accepted without controversy=/=accepted without justification.
Axioms are not justified by other axioms but they are justified by sheer reasoned thought- intuitive sense mostly. They aren't chosen for no reason. My theory provides a broad principle that can adds meaning to axioms chosen.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
More stuff-
Science is not an axiom under my system. It is the result of the axioms. Science is consistent with the principle of practical consequences within sense experience- simply science's record of success is something, and it's compatibility with rationality systems of logic and reasoned argument. Just because following science requires me to suspect inaccuracies in my thinking, doesn't mean I can't use my thinking. It is my thinking that allowed me to conclude that my thinking is not completely accurate, if it wasn't, then nobody could do it. As a result of such inaccuracies, I can aim to maximise the components of my thinking that are reliable. Using my experience as a guide means that I have to accept some experiences as unreliable, simply because they contradict other parts of my experience. Science suffers from no contradictions that outweight it, it has proven to be capable of withstanding contradictions from other areas.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
Because, if the answer is 'nothing,' then your trust in it would be axiomatic, by definition. Those two things are equivalent by my definitions of those words. To further define things:
"Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification."[1]
"Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems."[2]
"Basic beliefs (also commonly called foundational beliefs or core beliefs) are, under the epistemological view called foundationalism, the axioms of a belief system."[3]
Now, you can use a metasystem to justify your axioms in the first system, but then your metasystem would necessarily (by the theorems already cited in my other posts) contain unjustified axioms.
So, we're still stuck at 'step 0' here.
Ok, so we still toggle between 'step 0' and the 'starting point step.' If "science is not an axiom" under your system, then what is the starting point?
What are the axioms it is a result of?
It sounds like (unlike how it sounds in post #147 where you say if the scientific method disagrees with your senses, you would take it over them) you're going with StairC's system and trusting your thoughts and feelings over the scientific method. Which is fine.
I can no more tell you your wrong with your choice than you can tell me with mine. But, I don't think we've progressed to the point were I should be making that statement. Since we need to get past the definitional and starting point stages before we can even sensibly "agree to disagree."