Very, very, close, but not quite. This statement relies on though being sufficient to demonstrate truth. Problem is, it's impossible to justify that when thought is what you would have to use to do so. We could be completely insane- incapable of realising that we are mistaken about this. While it seems impossible for it to wrong, we don't know that it is impossible. It's just that it being wrong would be so far out of our possible understanding of anything that it's not a possibility worth giving much thought.
This is the problem with knowledge- how to absolutely prove anything when in order to do so you have to absolutely prove that you as the investigator CAN actually prove anything absolutely, and of course, you can't prove yourself capable.
But regardless, it's still justified to act on the basis that our decisions are meaningful and our sense are broadly accurate, because we have something to gain if they are, are nothing to lose if they aren't.
EDIT: same argument applies against definitional truths- in fact being even easier as we would have to show the law of non-contradiction to be true (reality might be highly subjective or something like that, so that two contradictory things are both true), so there's two breaking points.
Yes, we do know it's impossible to be wrong in this situation. There is no possible situation where someone can not be feeling what they are feeling. The only possibility would be that their sensory process is broken, but that would mean they aren't feeling it in the first place. The fact that I am indeed feeling something is indisputable. I feel cold right now. I am also seeing words appear on my screen as I type them. This is certain. Whether I'm in the matrix is irrelevant. I still feel and see what I feel and see.
You're trying to apply the common skepticism of reality to internal experiences and definitions. It doesn't work. The repeated "how do we know" only goes as far as questioning the validity of your senses. It becomes a nonsense statement when applied here. By retreating to experiences and definitions, we're on firm ground. It is impossible to not be feeling what you're feeling. The feeling is evidence for itself.
@StairC
How do you know that it's impossible? Because you thought about it, and couldn't conceive of any possible way it could be wrong. Problem: how do you know you didn't miss something? Something, perhaps, that you aren't even capable of understanding? You don't know, because you can't know.
Make no mistake, StairC, it's a very reasonable thing to think that one is actually perceiving something, but you can't prove it absolutely. In order to prove something, you need a method of proof. In order for a method of proof to work, it has to have a principle upon which it is based, and that principle has to be proven- and so an infinite regress is created. In this case, the method of proof is conception of thoughts, and to use this method we must prove that our thought is accurate, but it's all we'e got. Simply, the only reason it fails is because asking for absolute truth is a naive quest.
I know I'm experiencing something because I'm experiencing it. I'm simply reporting the definition of what I am experiencing. Experience is self-defining.
You might as well try to doubt the existence of thoughts. Doubting requires a thought process. Your very ability to doubt proves that thoughts do exist. Or try doubting whether you're able to have doubts. Doesn't work.
I know what you're trying to do, doubt everything by acknowledging the possibility that there may be knowledge beyond the scope of your understanding, but it doesn't work in this situation.
@StaiC
You haven't really addressed the argument I made. Yes, it certainty seems impossible, I absolutely agree that it does, but how do we know that it's impossible? You have to demonstrate it, and doing so conclusively is impossible. Your demonstrations continue to rely on your ability to recognise possibilities, but that's not a given. And as long as it isn't, perceptions are not absolutely true. But instead something we could perhaps call 'essentially indubitable': not actually absolutely certain, but so hard to seriously doubt that doing so is unreasonable. Same is true for thoughts, and doubts. It's not a leap that we need make to say that is absolutely true. We have a way of otherwise justifying it without going so far as saying that it's absolutely true.
EDIT: Okay, thinking about this whole matter deeply is starting to make my head hurt.
You haven't really addressed the argument I made. Yes, it certainty seems impossible, I absolutely agree that it does, but how do we know that it's impossible?
Because the premise is self-evident. The doubting example is perhaps the clearest and least muddied by wording. When you try to doubt that doubting can happen, you just end up proving the premise. The moment you recognize that you are feeling something, you've proved that you are feeling something. The sensory thing isn't even a product of conscious thought, it's a sensory experience.
EDIT: Okay, thinking about this whole matter deeply is starting to make my head hurt.
Let me know what you come up with when the headache goes away. Because until you figure out how to doubt that doubting exists, you're just going to keep going in circles with this argument.
@StairC
The doubt is not on whether doubting, thinking and perception are possible or exist, but whether I am actually doing them. It seems like you get this, but just so we are clear.
Anyway, this whole thread has drifted somewhat from the topic in the OP, so I'd rather get back to the general point, and not spend too much time on whether perception is absolutely indubitable or just essentially indubitable.
@StairC
The doubt is not on whether doubting is possible, but whether I am actually doing it.
So you accept that an absolute certainty would be that, "doubting is possible"?
Anyway, this whole thread has drifted somewhat from the topic in the OP, so I'd rather get back to the general point, and not spend too much time on whether perception is absolutely indubitable or just essentially indubitable.
Okay. Thanks for the conversation. Mind addressing that last point though? The one above in this post?
That doubting is possible. With absolute certainty. You doubted. It's possible. If you don't doubt that doubting is possible, then we're already in agreement.
@StairC
No. It seems to me that I doubted, but it's very vaguely possible that somehow I didn't really. We essentially agree, I'm just less in confident in the power of reason.
Yet "it's not a definite statement" IS a definite statement. You are definitely stating it's not a definite statement. You are definitively claiming you believe you don't definitively claim things.
I don't consider anything to be true, because I consider truth (when it's an absolute) to be a flawed notion.
So, then you think it's true that you consider....
..
DJK3654, I'm done.
I've tried my best to show you that you're making truth claims every time you claim you don't make truth claims. You can't assert your uncertain without ASSERTING your uncertain. Because -even if you're unsure that you're unsure- you'd still have to be sure that you're unsure that you're unsure. A person CANNOT argue about ANYTHING -even their own ignorance- without claiming they know something, even if what they're claiming to know is that they know nothing.
You can't state anything without stating something.
Additionally, -whether you and Stairic know it or not- you are stating you are using your perception to justify your perception. Which, as I said way back in post #8, is circular. Unsurprisingly, there are physically proven flaws in using your perception to justify your perception.
You're brain can't process information instantly. It takes finite time to process something, and more time to process that it's processed something. What you're feeling isn't being cold 'right now,' it's AFTER your brain has processed the feeling. You THINK it's 'right now,' but it's really your feeling from the recent past.
So, not only isn't it 'absolutely true,' it's not even true.
Well, actually I would tell you to apologize to Taylor for calling him a waste of time, because you clearly cannot throw stones, but as to this debate... I mean, if you're going to tl;dr a 4 page debate, that rather speaks volumes of you.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd rather he apologized to Gödel, since he clearly didn't even click on the link before talking about his theorem.
But, I think this is enough internet for me for a while. If I have to read one more self-contradictory statement... well, I don't think it will be good...
You're brain can't process information instantly. What you're feeling isn't being cold 'right now,' it's AFTER your brain has processed the feeling. You THINK it's 'right now,' but it's really your feeling from the recent past.
So, not only isn't it 'absolutely true,' it's not even true.
Wow. Of all the meaningless quibbling over definitions in this thread, despite what people obviously mean in the context, this has to be the most impressive one so far.
Wow. Of all the meaningless quibbling over definitions in this thread, despite what people obviously mean in the context, this has to be the most impressive one so far.
Sorry, I didn't know you had used your perception to calculate how much time-lag you have in the processing of your perception, and had included that margin of error in your absolute truth statement about 'right now.' (ignoring that absolute truths can't -by definition- have ANY margin of error...)
What is that number BTW? How long does it take you to feel cold, and then how long does it take from there to realize you feel cold? And, I'm sure you got this number from the base principal of your perception. You didn't use anything unreliable to find out how unreliable your...
Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
A = A
A ≠ ¬A
A = B is either a true statement or a false statement.
If we are at the point of not accepting these presuppositions, then there is literally no reason to have any discussion at all about absolutely anything inside or outside of reality as we experience it or otherwise.
It's clear at this point that you don't have any way to meaningfully back up the initial assertion I'm challenging.
I have stated that in this case, proof means "that which is proven," as in 100%. Moreover, I have already stated that I have stated this. I am now stating that I have stated that I have stated this.
DJK, I think an appropriate response to your post would take more time, so will be back with one, but responding to a specific question, Stairc is correct, DJK, Stairc knows he is experiencing something. He cannot know truly that he IS cold, but he can know that he feels cold.
The only possibility would be that their sensory process is broken, but that would mean they aren't feeling it in the first place.
Moreover, would not matter anyway. Your senses could very well be broken - people can hallucinate sensations of temperature drop when the temperature is constant - but that does not mean you are not feeling cold. You cannot, after all, feel cold and not feel cold. That's illogical.
And on the subject of logic, Lithl is also correct. We can also logically prove certain things to be true, such as A = A.
We can prove very little to be correct with absolute certainty. As I understand, that's pretty much it. But these we can be certain to be true.
Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
How do you know this?
Quote from HR »
Moreover, would not matter anyway. Your senses could very well be broken - people can hallucinate sensations of temperature drop when the temperature is constant - but that does not mean you are not feeling cold. You cannot, after all, feel cold and not feel cold. That's illogical.
Whether or not this is an illusion is irrelevant. I still feel cold. Whether or not my body is actually on fire and I'm insane, I still feel cold. Whether I'm a computer program or not, I still feel an experience that I call "cold".
Now here's my question: this being true, can you, from this, prove definitively that you exist?
Now here's my question: this being true, can you, from this, prove definitively that you exist?
Depends what you mean by "you" and "exist". But under the words as I believe most fair to use them, yep - you absolutely can. No matter if you're the product of a computer program or not - there is SOMETHING doing the feeling. And you are connected to that something in some way.
Basically a roundabout version of the classic "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."
EDIT - Fittingly, such a fundamental expression of axiomatic truth has earned me the title "Immortal One".
I'm a twice a year Christian. Basically the only reason I'm not an atheist is because I cannot believe in Magic or "Uncaused Events" as some call it.
Radioactive decay is an uncaused event (or depending on how nitpicky you want to get, it is caused by an uncaused event) which scientists witness on a regular basis.
The uncertainty principle indicates that quantum events are uncaused, period, but I figure radioactive decay specifically is a stronger argument for the existence of uncaused events since it's so much more familiar.
Yet "it's not a definite statement" IS a definite statement. You are definitely stating it's not a definite statement. You are definitively claiming you believe you don't definitively claim things.
I wasn’t claiming I don't definitely claim anything, I'm claiming that particular statement was not definite. I am not definite when I comes to truth, that doesn’t mean I can’t be definite in my opinions in anyway.
I guess you just don't know what "are and always will be" means?
No, you can believe in whatever other absolute notion, but you shouldn't believe in an absolute truth specifically. No, I don’t know it’s the absolute truth that you shouldn’t, it’s an opinion based on perception formulated through an argument- for the whateverth time.
I don't consider anything to be true, because I consider truth (when it's an absolute) to be a flawed notion.
So, then you think it's true that you consider....
..
No- I don’t know whether it’s true and that’s going to be my answer every other time you ask this question.
Seriously, what's hard to get about "I'm not stating truths, I'm stating what's evident"- it’s the whole point of the idea, of course it’s going to be in the reasoning- that’s where the conclusion is going to come from. It's evident that I consider truth to be a flawed notion because it's evident to me that it is- but I don't know. If you ask whether “I think it’s true that...” again without arguing why it’s not possible to build a useful model of experience whilst not considering the absolute truth of anything, you will have wasted your time because I’m going to say thing I just said now. I’ve told you why these objections are invalid, and yet you keep making them- which would be fine if you would actually address my response to them.
I've tried my best to show you that you're making truth claims every time you claim you don't make truth claims. You can't assert your uncertain without ASSERTING your uncertain. Because -even if you're unsure that you're unsure- you'd still have to be sure that you're unsure that you're unsure. A person CANNOT argue about ANYTHING -even their own ignorance- without claiming they know something, even if what they're claiming to know is that they know nothing.
No, your argument really fell apart here. I would assert I am unsure of everything- but not with certainty. It's possible to be unsure of EVERYTHING. Go ahead and have that fight with the straight-up Pyrrhonists because this is an idea that's been around for a long, long time. Such statements as "Nothing can be known, not even this" are literally ANCIENT. It's a long history and it hasn't died out. It's going to take more than saying you can't say it to show that you can't say it.
You can't state anything without stating something.
Stating something doesn't require an absolute standard. I can think something, I can act according to something, I can argue something- but that doesn't mean I need to be convinced of that something.
Additionally, -whether you and Stairic know it or not- you are stating you are using your perception to justify your perception. Which, as I said way back in post #8, is circular. Unsurprisingly, there are physically proven flaws in using your perception to justify your perception.
No, I'm assuming (in the thinking of decision making, not in the belief of truth) my perception is broadly correct in order to gain a potential benefit. Perception is not being justified as true, it’s being justified as useful. Read my last response to Highroller where I use an analogy/example to explain, in perhaps the most comprehensible way, the point.
And to make it, all I have to do is twofold:
- Convincingly show that absolute truth is highly problematic
- Convincingly show why practical consequences in sensory experience is a meaningful arbiter of the value of ideas.
Address a point here, and you’ll be guaranteed to be on topic.
-
So you know, your last bit about what StairC was saying doesn’t concern me because I don’t agree with StairC that perceptions in-and-of-themselves are absolutely true.
-
I notice that you completely ignored the part where I criticised your ideas. Doesn’t seem very fair to sit there picking at my ideas, which I have gone to a lot of effort to try to explain, while you have done virtually nothing to argue any alternatives despite the point of the thread being specifically to explore different people’s ideas and clearly not just about me offering my ideas. If you want me to continue to listen to your objections to my ideas, you’ll have to put some effort into listening to my objections to your ideas.
And you maintain a condescending attitude even after I said that it was off-putting. Come on, be a little more respectful- I’m not trying to sell you magic woo rocks or something, I’m talking about a serious philosophical idea. If you don’t think my ideas are worthy of respect, then stop wasting both our times and leave so I can talk to someone who genuinely cares about my opinion. Hopefully, however, you do though because I do want to resolve this. Besides, it’s a lot easier to be wrong about something if you don’t give it much thought.
It's clear at this point that you don't have any way to meaningfully back up the initial assertion I'm challenging.
I have stated that in this case, proof means "that which is proven," as in 100%.
The problem we're running up against is that very few people use "proof" to mean "absolute certainty" in actual usage. If you want to define proof to mean that, fine, but we need another word to express the idea that people normally express with the word proof.
I'm a twice a year Christian. Basically the only reason I'm not an atheist is because I cannot believe in Magic or "Uncaused Events" as some call it.
Radioactive decay is an uncaused event (or depending on how nitpicky you want to get, it is caused by an uncaused event) which scientists witness on a regular basis.
The uncertainty principle indicates that quantum events are uncaused, period, but I figure radioactive decay specifically is a stronger argument for the existence of uncaused events since it's so much more familiar.
So you telling me magic is real?
If you want to relabel actual, physical, observed processes as "magic", then sure.
@StairC, Highroller and Lithl
I'm not sure. As I said, it seems impossible, but I'm not confident how we can know that as a result it definitely is. Logic doesn't come into it, because logic is more fallible than perception, Decartes realised this when he wrote about he subject.
Name something that you know to be true. Really, absolutely true. You can't.
How do you know this?
I don't. In fact, I don't need to even say this is a somewhat trivial 'because I don't know anything' way, there are things that I'm not sure whether they are absolutely true- such as perception itself. But, that said, I'm still doubtful about them because as long as it seems even in the most vaguest way ppossible, I can't really say it's absolute Have a link
-
Anyway, such notions of absolute truth do not damage the position significantly at all even if they are in fact confirmed, as all line up with working assumptions the model makes anyway.
Very, very, close, but not quite. This statement relies on though being sufficient to demonstrate truth. Problem is, it's impossible to justify that when thought is what you would have to use to do so. We could be completely insane- incapable of realising that we are mistaken about this. While it seems impossible for it to wrong, we don't know that it is impossible. It's just that it being wrong would be so far out of our possible understanding of anything that it's not a possibility worth giving much thought.
This is the problem with knowledge- how to absolutely prove anything when in order to do so you have to absolutely prove that you as the investigator CAN actually prove anything absolutely, and of course, you can't prove yourself capable.
But regardless, it's still justified to act on the basis that our decisions are meaningful and our sense are broadly accurate, because we have something to gain if they are, are nothing to lose if they aren't.
EDIT: same argument applies against definitional truths- in fact being even easier as we would have to show the law of non-contradiction to be true (reality might be highly subjective or something like that, so that two contradictory things are both true), so there's two breaking points.
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're trying to apply the common skepticism of reality to internal experiences and definitions. It doesn't work. The repeated "how do we know" only goes as far as questioning the validity of your senses. It becomes a nonsense statement when applied here. By retreating to experiences and definitions, we're on firm ground. It is impossible to not be feeling what you're feeling. The feeling is evidence for itself.
So yes, we can be absolutely certain about this.
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
How do you know that it's impossible? Because you thought about it, and couldn't conceive of any possible way it could be wrong. Problem: how do you know you didn't miss something? Something, perhaps, that you aren't even capable of understanding? You don't know, because you can't know.
Make no mistake, StairC, it's a very reasonable thing to think that one is actually perceiving something, but you can't prove it absolutely. In order to prove something, you need a method of proof. In order for a method of proof to work, it has to have a principle upon which it is based, and that principle has to be proven- and so an infinite regress is created. In this case, the method of proof is conception of thoughts, and to use this method we must prove that our thought is accurate, but it's all we'e got. Simply, the only reason it fails is because asking for absolute truth is a naive quest.
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 might as well try to doubt the existence of thoughts. Doubting requires a thought process. Your very ability to doubt proves that thoughts do exist. Or try doubting whether you're able to have doubts. Doesn't work.
I know what you're trying to do, doubt everything by acknowledging the possibility that there may be knowledge beyond the scope of your understanding, but it doesn't work in this situation.
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
You haven't really addressed the argument I made. Yes, it certainty seems impossible, I absolutely agree that it does, but how do we know that it's impossible? You have to demonstrate it, and doing so conclusively is impossible. Your demonstrations continue to rely on your ability to recognise possibilities, but that's not a given. And as long as it isn't, perceptions are not absolutely true. But instead something we could perhaps call 'essentially indubitable': not actually absolutely certain, but so hard to seriously doubt that doing so is unreasonable. Same is true for thoughts, and doubts. It's not a leap that we need make to say that is absolutely true. We have a way of otherwise justifying it without going so far as saying that it's absolutely true.
EDIT: Okay, thinking about this whole matter deeply is starting to make my head hurt.
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
Because the premise is self-evident. The doubting example is perhaps the clearest and least muddied by wording. When you try to doubt that doubting can happen, you just end up proving the premise. The moment you recognize that you are feeling something, you've proved that you are feeling something. The sensory thing isn't even a product of conscious thought, it's a sensory experience.
Let me know what you come up with when the headache goes away. Because until you figure out how to doubt that doubting exists, you're just going to keep going in circles with this argument.
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 doubt is not on whether doubting, thinking and perception are possible or exist, but whether I am actually doing them. It seems like you get this, but just so we are clear.
Anyway, this whole thread has drifted somewhat from the topic in the OP, so I'd rather get back to the general point, and not spend too much time on whether perception is absolutely indubitable or just essentially indubitable.
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
So you accept that an absolute certainty would be that, "doubting is possible"?
Okay. Thanks for the conversation. Mind addressing that last point though? The one above in this post?
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
No
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
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
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
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
No. It seems to me that I doubted, but it's very vaguely possible that somehow I didn't really. We essentially agree, I'm just less in confident in the power of reason.
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
Yet "it's not a definite statement" IS a definite statement. You are definitely stating it's not a definite statement. You are definitively claiming you believe you don't definitively claim things.
I guess you just don't know what "are and always will be" means? So, then you think it's true that you consider....
..
DJK3654, I'm done.
I've tried my best to show you that you're making truth claims every time you claim you don't make truth claims. You can't assert your uncertain without ASSERTING your uncertain. Because -even if you're unsure that you're unsure- you'd still have to be sure that you're unsure that you're unsure. A person CANNOT argue about ANYTHING -even their own ignorance- without claiming they know something, even if what they're claiming to know is that they know nothing.
You can't state anything without stating something.
Additionally, -whether you and Stairic know it or not- you are stating you are using your perception to justify your perception. Which, as I said way back in post #8, is circular. Unsurprisingly, there are physically proven flaws in using your perception to justify your perception.
Example:
You're brain can't process information instantly. It takes finite time to process something, and more time to process that it's processed something. What you're feeling isn't being cold 'right now,' it's AFTER your brain has processed the feeling. You THINK it's 'right now,' but it's really your feeling from the recent past.
So, not only isn't it 'absolutely true,' it's not even true.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'd rather he apologized to Gödel, since he clearly didn't even click on the link before talking about his theorem.
But, I think this is enough internet for me for a while. If I have to read one more self-contradictory statement... well, I don't think it will be good...
Wow. Of all the meaningless quibbling over definitions in this thread, despite what people obviously mean in the context, this has to be the most impressive one so far.
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
What is that number BTW? How long does it take you to feel cold, and then how long does it take from there to realize you feel cold? And, I'm sure you got this number from the base principal of your perception. You didn't use anything unreliable to find out how unreliable your...
...
...Yeah... I need to stop.
A ≠ ¬A
A = B is either a true statement or a false statement.
If we are at the point of not accepting these presuppositions, then there is literally no reason to have any discussion at all about absolutely anything inside or outside of reality as we experience it or otherwise.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
DJK, I think an appropriate response to your post would take more time, so will be back with one, but responding to a specific question, Stairc is correct, DJK, Stairc knows he is experiencing something. He cannot know truly that he IS cold, but he can know that he feels cold.
Moreover, would not matter anyway. Your senses could very well be broken - people can hallucinate sensations of temperature drop when the temperature is constant - but that does not mean you are not feeling cold. You cannot, after all, feel cold and not feel cold. That's illogical.
And on the subject of logic, Lithl is also correct. We can also logically prove certain things to be true, such as A = A.
We can prove very little to be correct with absolute certainty. As I understand, that's pretty much it. But these we can be certain to be true.
How do you know this?
Exactly.
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
Depends what you mean by "you" and "exist". But under the words as I believe most fair to use them, yep - you absolutely can. No matter if you're the product of a computer program or not - there is SOMETHING doing the feeling. And you are connected to that something in some way.
Basically a roundabout version of the classic "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."
EDIT - Fittingly, such a fundamental expression of axiomatic truth has earned me the title "Immortal One".
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
So you telling me magic is real?
I wasn’t claiming I don't definitely claim anything, I'm claiming that particular statement was not definite. I am not definite when I comes to truth, that doesn’t mean I can’t be definite in my opinions in anyway.
No, you can believe in whatever other absolute notion, but you shouldn't believe in an absolute truth specifically. No, I don’t know it’s the absolute truth that you shouldn’t, it’s an opinion based on perception formulated through an argument- for the whateverth time.
No- I don’t know whether it’s true and that’s going to be my answer every other time you ask this question.
Seriously, what's hard to get about "I'm not stating truths, I'm stating what's evident"- it’s the whole point of the idea, of course it’s going to be in the reasoning- that’s where the conclusion is going to come from. It's evident that I consider truth to be a flawed notion because it's evident to me that it is- but I don't know. If you ask whether “I think it’s true that...” again without arguing why it’s not possible to build a useful model of experience whilst not considering the absolute truth of anything, you will have wasted your time because I’m going to say thing I just said now. I’ve told you why these objections are invalid, and yet you keep making them- which would be fine if you would actually address my response to them.
No, your argument really fell apart here. I would assert I am unsure of everything- but not with certainty. It's possible to be unsure of EVERYTHING. Go ahead and have that fight with the straight-up Pyrrhonists because this is an idea that's been around for a long, long time. Such statements as "Nothing can be known, not even this" are literally ANCIENT. It's a long history and it hasn't died out. It's going to take more than saying you can't say it to show that you can't say it.
Stating something doesn't require an absolute standard. I can think something, I can act according to something, I can argue something- but that doesn't mean I need to be convinced of that something.
No, I'm assuming (in the thinking of decision making, not in the belief of truth) my perception is broadly correct in order to gain a potential benefit. Perception is not being justified as true, it’s being justified as useful. Read my last response to Highroller where I use an analogy/example to explain, in perhaps the most comprehensible way, the point.
And to make it, all I have to do is twofold:
- Convincingly show that absolute truth is highly problematic
- Convincingly show why practical consequences in sensory experience is a meaningful arbiter of the value of ideas.
Address a point here, and you’ll be guaranteed to be on topic.
-
So you know, your last bit about what StairC was saying doesn’t concern me because I don’t agree with StairC that perceptions in-and-of-themselves are absolutely true.
-
I notice that you completely ignored the part where I criticised your ideas. Doesn’t seem very fair to sit there picking at my ideas, which I have gone to a lot of effort to try to explain, while you have done virtually nothing to argue any alternatives despite the point of the thread being specifically to explore different people’s ideas and clearly not just about me offering my ideas. If you want me to continue to listen to your objections to my ideas, you’ll have to put some effort into listening to my objections to your ideas.
And you maintain a condescending attitude even after I said that it was off-putting. Come on, be a little more respectful- I’m not trying to sell you magic woo rocks or something, I’m talking about a serious philosophical idea. If you don’t think my ideas are worthy of respect, then stop wasting both our times and leave so I can talk to someone who genuinely cares about my opinion. Hopefully, however, you do though because I do want to resolve this. Besides, it’s a lot easier to be wrong about something if you don’t give it much thought.
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 you want to relabel actual, physical, observed processes as "magic", then sure.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I'm not sure. As I said, it seems impossible, but I'm not confident how we can know that as a result it definitely is. Logic doesn't come into it, because logic is more fallible than perception, Decartes realised this when he wrote about he subject.
I don't. In fact, I don't need to even say this is a somewhat trivial 'because I don't know anything' way, there are things that I'm not sure whether they are absolutely true- such as perception itself. But, that said, I'm still doubtful about them because as long as it seems even in the most vaguest way ppossible, I can't really say it's absolute
Have a link
-
Anyway, such notions of absolute truth do not damage the position significantly at all even if they are in fact confirmed, as all line up with working assumptions the model makes anyway.
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