No thanks. It feels like you're determined to make this a never-ending rabbithole no matter what I say. You might want to go read some Descartes though.
I'm determined to make it a never-ending rabbithole because that's what it is. I have read a bit of Descartes. He never proves that he is doubting that he is doubting, so his proof doesn't work.
You cannot rely on your perception that you are doubting to prove that you are doubting. This is obviously flawed.
My perception is proof that I am percieving something. The fact you can't recognize this is your core issue. And like I predicted earlier, it's why the conversation might as well have ended at the beginning.
My perception is proof that I am percieving something. The fact you can't recognize this is your core issue. And like I predicted earlier, it's why the conversation might as well have ended at the beginning.
How do you know that you are perceiving something?
Repeat the first question: What justifies a proposition as true and how do we justify this method?
Repeat the first question: What justifies a proposition as true and how do we justify this method?
It is, of course, true that an epistemic theory can't self-justify, but it always amuses me that the epistemic skeptics seem to think they somehow have the non-skeptics over a barrel when they ask things like this. Once you become willing to throw out epistemic postulates, you can just as easily argue for one thing as another, your basis for discernment having been kicked out from underneath you.
After all, what basis is there for demanding justification in the first place? In order for a demand for justification to be regarded as proper in itself, there must be some true epistemic proposition of the form "X must be justified." So I ask you, DJK3654, how I may be assured of the truth of that proposition?
The skeptic is only a skeptic until he opens his mouth. Obviously. Language itself is a conveyor of logic and can't be used by anyone who doesn't accept some basic epistemic postulates.
That being said, there are deeper and more interesting problems that are inherent to logic itself. Goedel's theorems tell us that any epistemic system we set up will either be too weak to say anything interesting, or have a reach that exceeds its grasp: things can be written down which are forever outside the scope of the procedure that distinguishes truth from falsity. They also tell us that different systems have different collections of provable statements, so the idea of "absolute proof" is incoherent. Proof always happens within the context of a specific proof system which must be named in advance.
Another example (my favorite one) is Loeb's theorem, which (to a crude colloquial approximation) says:
In any system where Goedel's theorems are true, if I can prove, given that a proof of the proposition P exists, that the proposition P is true, then I can conclude that P is true categorically! In other words, it's strictly harder to prove that logic "works" on the proposition P, than it is to just go ahead and prove P. And this works for any P.
This theorem has some mind-blowing implications. One thing that falls out right away is that, within the confines of logic, there can be no such thing as an omniscient source of truth: if there were, then its assertion of P would be a proof of P's truth, for any P. Let P=Q and P=~Q in the preceding, and follow through the implication of Loeb's theorem. You get that Q is true categorically and ~Q is also true categorically - a contradiction! So the assumption that there is an omniscient source of truth must have been false.
Anyway, this is going far afield. The main point is that there is no good reason to favor epistemic skepticism over its alternative. Indeed, precisely the opposite. A truly committed epistemic skeptic would lead a very boring life, because he could never speak.
After all, what basis is there for demanding justification in the first place? In order for a demand for justification to be regarded as proper in itself, there must be some true epistemic proposition of the form "X must be justified." So I ask you, DJK3654, how I may be assured of the truth of that proposition?
You can't be. But if there is some truth that doesn't require justification, how can we identify it?
The skeptic is only a skeptic until he opens his mouth. Obviously. Language itself is a conveyor of logic and can't be used by anyone who doesn't accept some basic epistemic postulates.
Is everything you say a statement of your beliefs? Do you have to agree with an idea to talk about it? To say that a complete skeptic can't talk about things without being contradictory because language has a logic is silly for this reason. Also, complete skeptics don't believe the law of contradiction, so they can say that they believe something and they don't, though I don't know anyone who would.
Also, I do accept logic, in a sense. My scepticism is only in regards to the absolute truth. I do however, think there are other ways of constructing and analysing meaningful ideas.
They also tell us that different systems have different collections of provable statements, so the idea of "absolute proof" is incoherent. Proof always happens within the context of a specific proof system which must be named in advance.
Definitive proof is what I am after, absolute truth is a part of that, but absolute proof is not.
Anyway, this is going far afield. The main point is that there is no good reason to favor epistemic skepticism over its alternative. Indeed, precisely the opposite. A truly committed epistemic skeptic would lead a very boring life, because he could never speak.
The first point here is that saying a skeptic cannot speak (or think or act) because they don't believe is a very narrow minded view of what speaking is. I have very specifically created my own notion of thinking and acting based not on belief, so I have no problem living a 'normal' and productive life without forgoing scepticism.
The second point, is that for as much as you can say, without complete justification for your epistemology, you might as well believe anything. Why believe in modern epistemology rather than flying squirrel duck epistemology? If your answer is practicality, then I see no reason we have to disagree, you just go one step further and believe in the epistemology when I just live by it.
You can't be. But if there is some truth that doesn't require justification, how can we identify it?
The set of truths that don't require justification must include, at minimum, those truths which tell us when and how to justify things. Ideally, of course, it is no larger than that.
Is everything you say a statement of your beliefs?
No, but everything I say is a statement. Of logic.
Do you have to agree with an idea to talk about it?
Obviously not. What does this have to do with anything?
To say that a complete skeptic can't talk about things without being contradictory because language has a logic is silly for this reason.
No it isn't. The conveyance of information through language, even if the information being conveyed is not something you personally believe to be true, requires you and your interlocutor to agree on the common infrastructure of language in order for the semantic content to be conveyed between you.
Also, I do accept logic, in a sense.
Of course you do, otherwise you would never speak.
My scepticism is only in regards to the absolute truth. I do however, think there are other ways of constructing and analysing meaningful ideas.
What's a "meaningful idea?" How do you construct or analyze them without the appeal to truth?
Definitive proof is what I am after, absolute truth is a part of that, but absolute proof is not.
It is a famous result of Goedel that the consistency of arithmetic is unprovable using only the axioms of arithmetic. Later, Gentzen proved that the consistency of arithmetic is provable using the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.
Given this information, is the consistency of arithmetic "definitively provable" or "absolutely true" by your lights? There isn't a distinction to be made here.
The first point here is that saying a skeptic cannot speak (or think or act) because they don't believe is a very narrow minded view of what speaking is.
"Speaking" as I am using it here is when you convey information to someone else using language with the expectation that it will be mutually intelligible. If anything, this is more open-minded than the standard view of what constitutes speaking.
I have very specifically created my own notion of thinking and acting based not on belief, so I have no problem living a 'normal' and productive life without forgoing scepticism.
I mean no offense, but I can guarantee you that you have not created a notion of thinking and acting that is not based on belief that would not crumble to dust upon critical examination. I am sure you live a normal life, but you do so in spite of deep epistemic confusion. You are far from alone in this regard, and fortunately, questions like these are rarely relevant to the activities of a normal life.
The second point, is that for as much as you can say, without complete justification for your epistemology, you might as well believe anything. Why believe in modern epistemology rather than flying squirrel duck epistemology?
Strictly speaking, it's not correct to say I believe in one particular epistemic theory. I am willing to consider as viable any epistemic theory that is able to successfully explain the observations of the universe that have been collected by the human race thus far. Given multiple such theories, the one that requires fewer and/or less-overpowered unjustifiable assumptions wins out.
After applying that heuristic, I am aware of only a handful of such theories that remain, and they really only differ in unimportant details. If you want to call that set "modern epistemology," then, well, that's why I believe it.
If your answer is practicality, then I see no reason we have to disagree, you just go one step further and believe in the epistemology when I just live by it.
I don't understand what you think it means to believe something. Daniel Dennett gives an intentional account of belief which I apply here. Granting that you have a conscious mind, your beliefs are just the things that explain the way you behave in terms of states of your conscious mind. If you have consciously-directed behavior, as again you must if you are talking to people on a philosophy forum, then you have beliefs.
You can't be. But if there is some truth that doesn't require justification, how can we identify it?
The set of truths that don't require justification must include, at minimum, those truths which tell us when and how to justify things. Ideally, of course, it is no larger than that.
But which justification method do you choose? It's not like there is only one potential choice.
Do you have to agree with an idea to talk about it?
Obviously not. What does this have to do with anything?
So why do you have to believe in logic in order to speak in the first place? Yes, language is based on a certain logic, but what does that matter? I don't need to believe that I am walking in order to be walking, I don't need to believe that language related logic conventions are valid in order to talk. Belief simply has nothing to do with it.
To say that a complete skeptic can't talk about things without being contradictory because language has a logic is silly for this reason.
No it isn't. The conveyance of information through language, even if the information being conveyed is not something you personally believe to be true, requires you and your interlocutor to agree on the common infrastructure of language in order for the semantic content to be conveyed between you.
Using a system for communication=/=believing it.
Where does belief come into this?
What's a "meaningful idea?" How do you construct or analyze them without the appeal to truth?
Meaningful- serious, important, or worthwhile
Idea- a thought
Meaning relates more to desire than truth, and desire being subjective makes it an easy candidate for basing ideas on rather than truth. So, choose your desires and by following them you have a meaningful conception of reality.
Given this information, is the consistency of arithmetic "definitively" or "absolutely provable" by your lights?
Neither. Partially provable. All such proofs rely on naturally unproven axioms. In this way, they are not definitively, or completely in other words, proven because there is an assumption in the midst.
I mean no offense, but I can guarantee you that you have not created a notion of thinking and acting that is not based on belief that would not crumble to dust upon critical examination. I am sure you live a normal life, but you do so in spite of deep epistemic confusion. You are far from alone in this regard, and fortunately, questions like these are rarely relevant to the activities of a normal life.
My notion is ideas and thoughts are based upon practical consequence in sense experience allowing us to follow desires. It's an entirely optional, subjective and unnecessary principle by it's nature, so it's going to be very difficult to in anyway 'disprove' it.
Strictly speaking, it's not correct to say I believe in one particular epistemic theory. I am willing to consider as viable any epistemic theory that is able to successfully explain the observations of the universe that have been collected by the human race thus far. Given multiple such theories, the one that requires fewer and/or less-overpowered unjustifiable assumptions wins out.
However, I am aware of only a handful of such theories, and they really only differ in unimportant details. If you want to call that set "modern epistemology," then, well, that's why I believe it.
So you believe them because they seem to be the only well developed options? This is an arbitrary standard, though, in regards to truth. So then, everything you have to say about truth of any specific statements is ultimately arbitrary as well, resting entirely on whether others arbitrarily agree with you. This puts you on essentially the same footing as I. Neither of us can say the definitive truth of things, but both of us have a truth-arbitrary standard by which we have chosen to dictate our thinking.
I don't understand what you think it means to believe something. Daniel Dennett gives an intentional account of belief which I apply here. Granting that you have a conscious mind, your beliefs are just the things that explain the way you behave in terms of states of your conscious mind. If you have consciously-directed behavior, as again you must if you are talking to people on a philosophy forum, then you have beliefs.
That's far from the only definition of belief. The one I normally go of is simply 'a belief is an idea considered to be true by the person in question'. This of course depends on your definition of truth still as to whether I believe things or not, but using the most common (from what I know) definition of truth- the correspendance theory- truth is 'a description of proposition that describe the actual state of affairs'. Under these definitions, I don't believe anything.
But under Dennett's definition, then I guess I do.
@DJK: Slow down, mate. You're working yourself into a sophistic mess. This thread feels like a bunch of blind old men trying to punch each other. What you going around and around with is a matter of semantics, yet what you seem to be speaking of lies outside of that. I think you really need to clarify on what question you actually want answered. You appear to be bouncing around between a few different ideas of truth and doubt. We can equivocate on words all day long, but it won't be much of a discussion.
I'm not going to touch ontological truth at this point, because if we want to prattle on about whether or not we exist, then you probably just need to do some reading and come to terms with that yourself. Assuming this is more about abstract vs reality, I'll try to make the distinction. So to be clear, we're talking about a couple different concepts of truth: logical (abstract) truth and metaphysical (objective/universal) Truth.
Consider this: Can someone do perform a mathematics without some understanding of math? The procedural aspect of mathematics is likened to logic. The content of those operations? The numbers? They exist abstractly, but only relate to the world by way of our perception of it. I know what 1, 2, and 3 are abstractly. They are concepts of unitization. As a person thinking in terms of numbers and mathematics, you structuring your thoughts through a paradigm of abstract rules and concepts.
So too with language. Anything more than gibberish calls upon some level of abstractification and generally some reference to logic. That doesn't imply that we know the concepts we have created to differentiate and relate our perceptions are true when held to comparison with that unknowable absolute Truth of everything. In fact, as already mentioned, our very logic often fails us when it reaches limits of explanation or grasps too far and produces paradoxical contradictions. There is some sort of objective reality to be sure, but it is filtered by our perception and can only be limitedly understood though our machinations.
No thanks. It feels like you're determined to make this a never-ending rabbithole no matter what I say. This is not because it IS a never-ending rabbit-hole, but as we've seen with Typhoon, refusal to accept ideas and continued spiraling back to earlier points can artificially create one. You might want to go read some Descartes though.
Descartes is the guy who discovers and jumps into the rabbit hole, but his attempt to climb back out again is problematic at best. Step one is proving the existence of God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No thanks. It feels like you're determined to make this a never-ending rabbithole no matter what I say. This is not because it IS a never-ending rabbit-hole, but as we've seen with Typhoon, refusal to accept ideas and continued spiraling back to earlier points can artificially create one. You might want to go read some Descartes though.
Descartes is the guy who discovers and jumps into the rabbit hole, but his attempt to climb back out again is problematic at best. Step one is proving the existence of God.
Descartes proof that the world as we perceive it is true is awful.
But his proof that he (or something) exists is actually a stone-cold lock.
If a 'person' can have a thought process doubting they exist, then *something* exists - even if it isn't really having the thought process doubting it exists.
@BS - This thread isn't about how to climb out of the hole right now. It's whether the hole has a bottom. As far as I can tell, Descartes hit one when he jumped in.
@BS - This thread isn't about how to climb out of the hole right now. It's whether the hole has a bottom. As far as I can tell, Descartes hit one when he jumped in.
Descartes doesn't solve the regressive problem. Think about it, if you have a single proposition you are claiming as foundational truth either the truth he has 'proven' is not justified at all, or he is relying on something else that isn't in order to justify it- we cannot know of a justification that doesn't itself need justifying. What Descartes did was rely on the justification of thinking, as with all philosophy really. This is the breaking point- how do you know any proof you can provide is legitimate when the only method of checking it is the same one you used to create it? Descartes thought about it and could see no way of himself not existing in some sense, but that's just Descartes thinking about it. On what basis can we justify the notion that we are capable of considering all possibilities? This is far from a improbable notion, there is much evidence in everyday life that shows fallibilities of the human brain, so to ignore the possibility of more possibilities is highly assumptive.
This is the hard line, until we can prove that we can rely on our conception, I see no way of proving anything definitively.
How do you think without existing in some sense? Existence doesn't imply something corporeal. Not sure how you can argue with that portion of the proof. Because the proof doesn't rely on the thought even making any sense. The thought itself, the action of it, is the proof. This is rehash from a page back.
Perception and reality is a different question entirely. No, you can't prove that your perception is infallible. That indeed is the problem of epistemological skepticism isn't it? Yet pragmatically, it really makes little sense to go down that path, because you'll never be able to extracate yourself from that prosition. Because why even argue? Who really knows if logic actually works, eh? Who really knows if these abstract fabrications of my conception makes any sense, hmm? Basically a bunch of relativistic gobbledegook, which while not disprovable, it fairly useless for any proceeding discussion.
How do you think without existing in some sense? Existence doesn't imply something corporeal. Not sure how you can argue with that portion of the proof. Because the proof doesn't rely on the thought even making any sense. The thought itself, the action of it, is the proof. This is rehash from a page back.
How can you conclude that thought proves existence without having to think about it correctly? You can't create a proof without having to think about it correctly. If for whatever reason you can't, you can't make proofs. And as a result, until you can prove that you can consistently think correctly, you never know where and when you might go wrong.
Perception and reality is a different question entirely. No, you can't prove that your perception is infallible. That indeed is the problem of epistemological skepticism isn't it? Yet pragmatically, it really makes little sense to go down that path, because you'll never be able to extracate yourself from that prosition. Because why even argue? Who really knows if logic actually works, eh? Who really knows if these abstract fabrications of my conception makes any sense, hmm? Basically a bunch of relativistic gobbledegook, which while not disprovable, it fairly useless for any proceeding discussion.
I agree wholeheartedly. The point I am argue is against thinking in terms of absolute truth, not at all against thinking in terms of logic, reason and sense evidence.
Thought proving existence doesn't require justification in a logical or an argumentative sense. It is self-evident. The thought could be one long Gregorian chant or static on the line. It is because it is.
If you are arguing against this because you think proof of existence gives us Absolute Truth, then I think you misconstrue. Just as proving it requires nothing other than itself, existence is a Truth without reference. In order to get some traction on Absolutes, you have to go further, and start referencing something outside of the thought.
But to go back to my original post. Good luck with that, as it is a task many have failed at.
Thought proving existence doesn't require justification in a logical or an argumentative sense. It is self-evident.
Did you think about this? Well then, it's not definitively proven is it? As long as you have to think about it, nothing is definitively provable because you could be always be wrong and you can't know when you are wrong.
You cannot eliminate the possibility that nothing exists unless you can show that is impossible, and if your method of showing it is always the same potentially fallible process, you can't do that.
To make the point even more clear, if Descartes method of thinking about possibilities is sufficient to establish truth, then my thinking about the possibility that Descartes's thinking is not sufficient to establish truth is also sufficient to produce a terminal contradiction. As a result, default to suspension of belief. You cannot accept the proposition 'thinking about possibilities is sufficient to establish truth' without coming to the conclusion that thinking about possibilities might not be sufficient to establish truth and hence cannot continue to hold the original proposition.
If you are arguing against this because you think proof of existence gives us Absolute Truth, then I think you misconstrue.
It does if it's the kind of proof I am asking for. I am challenging those who think that things such as the Cogito ergo sum are absolute truths, and saying that the proof is not sufficient.
Just as proving it requires nothing other than itself
...which is circular reasoning.
You cannot prove existence with existence, that's not even logically possible- existence is not a method. What you would need to do is investigate it- using conception and perception, but of course, these are potentially fallible, so not sufficiently reliable to establish absolute truth.
existence is a Truth without reference.
So it's an absolute truth? How do you know it is? Cogito ergo sum is not sufficient as I already showed.
Good luck with that, as it is a task many have failed at.
With what, finding absolute truth? I am not concerned with it, because it seems to me to be impossible, or at the very least extremely problematic. I am concerned with the truth wholly as it relates to the perceptions and conceptions of my experience, because this matters to me, and it's workable.
Descartes showed that the fact of one's own existence does not need to be taken as an unjustified assumption, but can be derived from anterior facts using a set of logical postulates that most of us would call reasonable. I don't want to minimize that achievement, as it is likely the closest thing to an a priori piece of reasoning with a concrete metaphysical conclusion that any human being has ever obtained.
But he most certainly did not solve the issues being discussed here. In fact, the problem with his argument is so well-known that it has its own Wikipedia page.
Descartes admits from the outset that the apparatus of reasoning and sensation that he uses to bootstrap his initial conclusions may themselves be skeptically attacked. But patience, dear reader, he says -- pay me a little rope by granting me that this apparatus is reliable and I will resolve the problem in short order. He then uses this apparatus to (purportedly) derive the existence of God, and then (purportedly) shows that God stands as a guarantor that the apparatus is reliable.
This, of course, is circular reasoning: reliability of the apparatus => God exists => reliability of the apparatus.
So let's not beat people over the head with Descartes as if the answer is to be found in his writings. It isn't.
But he most certainly did not solve the issues being discussed here. In fact, the problem with his argument is so well-known that it has its own Wikipedia page.
...
So let's not beat people over the head with Descartes as if the answer is to be found in his writings. It isn't.
What issues are we discussing? If we are talking about the existence proof, then about the most you can fault Descartes for is assuming the "I". The Cartesian Circle doesn't come into play until when he tries to extrapolate further from there to the proof of God's existence. That leap from "I exist" to "my perceptions are true" is a non-sequitur to be sure. In fact, that's likely the primary reason he ends up with a circular argument to establish God. It is due to the very fact that the two cannot be connected. That's more or less what I've said and what I believe several others have also conveyed. The leap from "I exist" to "my perception is true" is the faith I elude to earlier.
This is a question that has plagued philosophers for centuries. Take Descartes, for example. "I think, therefore, I am." Descartes used the Self as the basis for his philosophies, and branched out from there. There was another philosopher (Hume, I think? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that used his sensory perception as the basis for his own philosophies. However, we know that the brain can be tricked. Our senses can betray us, and our perceptions, both sensory and mentally, can be misleading. Because of our inability to objectively view anything from a non-human standpoint, we're trapped in a self-fulfilling cycle of existentialist questioning as to whether or not the way we see the world is anywhere close to the way anyone or anything else sees it. Because we have assigned human-wrought names to phenomena and objects and even people, we're bound to that understanding of what we take in. Therefore, while I can't prove it's correct, I am forced to assume that my own perspective is the correct one and build from there. If I don't have a solid foundation in my Self, what can I possibly reasonably believe in?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Whether Descartes "ultimately proved" anything (whatever that means, and given my familiarity with 20th century logic, I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean anything) You seem to be on the affirmative position; that he did "ultimately prove" something. I disagree, and not just for Goedelian reasons, either.
(Though I should point out that I am not, in fact, a radical skeptic and I am willing to grant Descartes sufficient of his premises to conclude his existence -- with the express acknowledgement that I am granting him at least some unjustified premises.)
If we are talking about the existence proof, then about the most you can fault Descartes for is assuming the "I".
Well it seems like you've already given away the store just by saying this -- by those lights, he may already have failed to meet the challenge. But we can say something more general than that.
A proof is a sequence of grammatically-valid sentences where each line is either a presumed axiom, or follows from prior lines by an inference rule that is presumed to preserve truth. The bottom line of Descartes' proof is "I exist," which means that either he is merely assuming he exists (which he isn't) or his existence follows from some prior lines of a proof plus a reasoning process. We know it's from a reasoning process, because he said so. Well, unwind that reasoning process back to its premises. Then those are either axioms or follow from something prior.
Keep repeating this process and it must terminate after a finite length of time with a list of nothing but axioms and derivations from axioms. That list of axioms can't be empty, because if it were, you couldn't prove anything -- because every line of a proof is either an axiom or follows from axioms. Whatever those axioms are, we must grant them to Descartes.
Now Descartes never states his axioms explicitly, but at minimum they will include stuff about the mechanisms and reliability of logic, the notion of truth, and the notion of self. I am not a radical skeptic and I am perfectly happy to grant him those axioms -- but I will certainly not deny that I am doing so.
The Cartesian Circle doesn't come into play until when he tries to extrapolate further from there to the proof of God's existence.
This was Descartes' defense as well, but he's simply wrong about that. A logical system with no axioms has no proofs.
That leap from "I exist" to "my perceptions are true" is a non-sequitur to be sure. In fact, that's likely the primary reason he ends up with a circular argument to establish God. It is due to the very fact that the two cannot be connected. That's more or less what I've said and what I believe several others have also conveyed. The leap from "I exist" to "my perception is true" is the faith I elude to earlier.
But you don't follow all the way through with your swing. If "I exist" results from a reasoning process, then you can't simply evade questions about the reliability of that reasoning process. If it doesn't, well, then it's an unjustified assumption!
(As a meta-philosophical point, if people had called into question the reliability of reasoning processes sooner than they had instead of simply assuming it, we almost certainly would not have had to wait until the 20th century to learn some of the deeper details of logical systems.)
I second everything Crashing00 just said. It's very easy to simply call things 'self-evident' and say, 'well, there is no question about it, it cannot be wrong', but the fact is you have unknowingly already admitted that there can be question about it because you said it's 'evident'. 'Evident' means, by definition, that you have performed a method of investigation, by your thinking in this case, to determine that it is true. That automatically brings in the observer problem and you have destroyed all hope of a definitive proof because you are now relying on the notion 'my conception of possibilities is accurate'. If this is not already proven absolutely true, then the Cogito can't be. More so, without a proof of the proposition 'my conception of possibilities is accurate' we don't have any philosophy that we can call absolutely true because it is all reliant on our thinking in someway or another.
Before it comes up, this actually doesn't have anything to do with thinking, so whether you are thinking or not is actually irrelevant. The point is, what you are doing, whatever it is, unless that method can be proven reliable, then you can't use it to provide ultimate proof. So, actually, you also have to prove 'I am thinking' as well as 'my thinking is accurate'.
To answer Crashing00's question, 'ultimate', 'definitive' or 'complete' proof just means valid proof of absolute truth- that whatever has been proven is as a result unquestionably the case. The point here is to establish that while we may have developed a very 'sensible' and seemingly very useful idea of reality in the modern world, it ultimately breaks down to certain assumptions that we have made. Recognising this and consequently redirecting the goal of philosophy away from absolute truth gives us a more purposeful understanding. I support the notion that understanding practical experience rather than absolute truth is a better goal.
A bunch more propositions that the Cogito relies on:
Law of excluded middle: ⊤(A⋁┓A)
(it is true that for any proposition A, that proposition is either true or false (the negation of A is true))
This is relied upon in the sense that the Cogito asks us whether there is any way that 'thoughts exist' could be false to determine that it must be true
Law of identity: A>A
(for any proposition A, if that proposition is true, then it is true- each thing is the same with itself and different from another)
Without this law, Descartes' every word breaks apart into meaninglessness.
I'm determined to make it a never-ending rabbithole because that's what it is. I have read a bit of Descartes. He never proves that he is doubting that he is doubting, so his proof doesn't work.
You cannot rely on your perception that you are doubting to prove that you are doubting. This is obviously flawed.
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
How do you know that you are perceiving something?
Repeat the first question: What justifies a proposition as true and how do we justify this method?
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
It is, of course, true that an epistemic theory can't self-justify, but it always amuses me that the epistemic skeptics seem to think they somehow have the non-skeptics over a barrel when they ask things like this. Once you become willing to throw out epistemic postulates, you can just as easily argue for one thing as another, your basis for discernment having been kicked out from underneath you.
After all, what basis is there for demanding justification in the first place? In order for a demand for justification to be regarded as proper in itself, there must be some true epistemic proposition of the form "X must be justified." So I ask you, DJK3654, how I may be assured of the truth of that proposition?
The skeptic is only a skeptic until he opens his mouth. Obviously. Language itself is a conveyor of logic and can't be used by anyone who doesn't accept some basic epistemic postulates.
That being said, there are deeper and more interesting problems that are inherent to logic itself. Goedel's theorems tell us that any epistemic system we set up will either be too weak to say anything interesting, or have a reach that exceeds its grasp: things can be written down which are forever outside the scope of the procedure that distinguishes truth from falsity. They also tell us that different systems have different collections of provable statements, so the idea of "absolute proof" is incoherent. Proof always happens within the context of a specific proof system which must be named in advance.
Another example (my favorite one) is Loeb's theorem, which (to a crude colloquial approximation) says:
In any system where Goedel's theorems are true, if I can prove, given that a proof of the proposition P exists, that the proposition P is true, then I can conclude that P is true categorically! In other words, it's strictly harder to prove that logic "works" on the proposition P, than it is to just go ahead and prove P. And this works for any P.
This theorem has some mind-blowing implications. One thing that falls out right away is that, within the confines of logic, there can be no such thing as an omniscient source of truth: if there were, then its assertion of P would be a proof of P's truth, for any P. Let P=Q and P=~Q in the preceding, and follow through the implication of Loeb's theorem. You get that Q is true categorically and ~Q is also true categorically - a contradiction! So the assumption that there is an omniscient source of truth must have been false.
Anyway, this is going far afield. The main point is that there is no good reason to favor epistemic skepticism over its alternative. Indeed, precisely the opposite. A truly committed epistemic skeptic would lead a very boring life, because he could never speak.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
This. The thread reeks of Meditations on First Philosophy.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
You can't be. But if there is some truth that doesn't require justification, how can we identify it?
Is everything you say a statement of your beliefs? Do you have to agree with an idea to talk about it? To say that a complete skeptic can't talk about things without being contradictory because language has a logic is silly for this reason. Also, complete skeptics don't believe the law of contradiction, so they can say that they believe something and they don't, though I don't know anyone who would.
Also, I do accept logic, in a sense. My scepticism is only in regards to the absolute truth. I do however, think there are other ways of constructing and analysing meaningful ideas.
Definitive proof is what I am after, absolute truth is a part of that, but absolute proof is not.
The first point here is that saying a skeptic cannot speak (or think or act) because they don't believe is a very narrow minded view of what speaking is. I have very specifically created my own notion of thinking and acting based not on belief, so I have no problem living a 'normal' and productive life without forgoing scepticism.
The second point, is that for as much as you can say, without complete justification for your epistemology, you might as well believe anything. Why believe in modern epistemology rather than flying squirrel duck epistemology? If your answer is practicality, then I see no reason we have to disagree, you just go one step further and believe in the epistemology when I just live by it.
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
The set of truths that don't require justification must include, at minimum, those truths which tell us when and how to justify things. Ideally, of course, it is no larger than that.
No, but everything I say is a statement. Of logic.
Obviously not. What does this have to do with anything?
No it isn't. The conveyance of information through language, even if the information being conveyed is not something you personally believe to be true, requires you and your interlocutor to agree on the common infrastructure of language in order for the semantic content to be conveyed between you.
Of course you do, otherwise you would never speak.
What's a "meaningful idea?" How do you construct or analyze them without the appeal to truth?
It is a famous result of Goedel that the consistency of arithmetic is unprovable using only the axioms of arithmetic. Later, Gentzen proved that the consistency of arithmetic is provable using the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.
Given this information, is the consistency of arithmetic "definitively provable" or "absolutely true" by your lights? There isn't a distinction to be made here.
"Speaking" as I am using it here is when you convey information to someone else using language with the expectation that it will be mutually intelligible. If anything, this is more open-minded than the standard view of what constitutes speaking.
I mean no offense, but I can guarantee you that you have not created a notion of thinking and acting that is not based on belief that would not crumble to dust upon critical examination. I am sure you live a normal life, but you do so in spite of deep epistemic confusion. You are far from alone in this regard, and fortunately, questions like these are rarely relevant to the activities of a normal life.
Strictly speaking, it's not correct to say I believe in one particular epistemic theory. I am willing to consider as viable any epistemic theory that is able to successfully explain the observations of the universe that have been collected by the human race thus far. Given multiple such theories, the one that requires fewer and/or less-overpowered unjustifiable assumptions wins out.
After applying that heuristic, I am aware of only a handful of such theories that remain, and they really only differ in unimportant details. If you want to call that set "modern epistemology," then, well, that's why I believe it.
I don't understand what you think it means to believe something. Daniel Dennett gives an intentional account of belief which I apply here. Granting that you have a conscious mind, your beliefs are just the things that explain the way you behave in terms of states of your conscious mind. If you have consciously-directed behavior, as again you must if you are talking to people on a philosophy forum, then you have beliefs.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
But which justification method do you choose? It's not like there is only one potential choice.
So why do you have to believe in logic in order to speak in the first place? Yes, language is based on a certain logic, but what does that matter? I don't need to believe that I am walking in order to be walking, I don't need to believe that language related logic conventions are valid in order to talk. Belief simply has nothing to do with it.
Using a system for communication=/=believing it.
Where does belief come into this?
Meaningful- serious, important, or worthwhile
Idea- a thought
Meaning relates more to desire than truth, and desire being subjective makes it an easy candidate for basing ideas on rather than truth. So, choose your desires and by following them you have a meaningful conception of reality.
Neither. Partially provable. All such proofs rely on naturally unproven axioms. In this way, they are not definitively, or completely in other words, proven because there is an assumption in the midst.
My notion is ideas and thoughts are based upon practical consequence in sense experience allowing us to follow desires. It's an entirely optional, subjective and unnecessary principle by it's nature, so it's going to be very difficult to in anyway 'disprove' it.
So you believe them because they seem to be the only well developed options? This is an arbitrary standard, though, in regards to truth. So then, everything you have to say about truth of any specific statements is ultimately arbitrary as well, resting entirely on whether others arbitrarily agree with you. This puts you on essentially the same footing as I. Neither of us can say the definitive truth of things, but both of us have a truth-arbitrary standard by which we have chosen to dictate our thinking.
That's far from the only definition of belief. The one I normally go of is simply 'a belief is an idea considered to be true by the person in question'. This of course depends on your definition of truth still as to whether I believe things or not, but using the most common (from what I know) definition of truth- the correspendance theory- truth is 'a description of proposition that describe the actual state of affairs'. Under these definitions, I don't believe anything.
But under Dennett's definition, then I guess I do.
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'm not going to touch ontological truth at this point, because if we want to prattle on about whether or not we exist, then you probably just need to do some reading and come to terms with that yourself. Assuming this is more about abstract vs reality, I'll try to make the distinction. So to be clear, we're talking about a couple different concepts of truth: logical (abstract) truth and metaphysical (objective/universal) Truth.
Consider this: Can someone do perform a mathematics without some understanding of math? The procedural aspect of mathematics is likened to logic. The content of those operations? The numbers? They exist abstractly, but only relate to the world by way of our perception of it. I know what 1, 2, and 3 are abstractly. They are concepts of unitization. As a person thinking in terms of numbers and mathematics, you structuring your thoughts through a paradigm of abstract rules and concepts.
So too with language. Anything more than gibberish calls upon some level of abstractification and generally some reference to logic. That doesn't imply that we know the concepts we have created to differentiate and relate our perceptions are true when held to comparison with that unknowable absolute Truth of everything. In fact, as already mentioned, our very logic often fails us when it reaches limits of explanation or grasps too far and produces paradoxical contradictions. There is some sort of objective reality to be sure, but it is filtered by our perception and can only be limitedly understood though our machinations.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Descartes proof that the world as we perceive it is true is awful.
But his proof that he (or something) exists is actually a stone-cold lock.
If a 'person' can have a thought process doubting they exist, then *something* exists - even if it isn't really having the thought process doubting it exists.
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
Descartes doesn't solve the regressive problem. Think about it, if you have a single proposition you are claiming as foundational truth either the truth he has 'proven' is not justified at all, or he is relying on something else that isn't in order to justify it- we cannot know of a justification that doesn't itself need justifying. What Descartes did was rely on the justification of thinking, as with all philosophy really. This is the breaking point- how do you know any proof you can provide is legitimate when the only method of checking it is the same one you used to create it? Descartes thought about it and could see no way of himself not existing in some sense, but that's just Descartes thinking about it. On what basis can we justify the notion that we are capable of considering all possibilities? This is far from a improbable notion, there is much evidence in everyday life that shows fallibilities of the human brain, so to ignore the possibility of more possibilities is highly assumptive.
This is the hard line, until we can prove that we can rely on our conception, I see no way of proving anything definitively.
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
Perception and reality is a different question entirely. No, you can't prove that your perception is infallible. That indeed is the problem of epistemological skepticism isn't it? Yet pragmatically, it really makes little sense to go down that path, because you'll never be able to extracate yourself from that prosition. Because why even argue? Who really knows if logic actually works, eh? Who really knows if these abstract fabrications of my conception makes any sense, hmm? Basically a bunch of relativistic gobbledegook, which while not disprovable, it fairly useless for any proceeding discussion.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
How can you conclude that thought proves existence without having to think about it correctly? You can't create a proof without having to think about it correctly. If for whatever reason you can't, you can't make proofs. And as a result, until you can prove that you can consistently think correctly, you never know where and when you might go wrong.
I agree wholeheartedly. The point I am argue is against thinking in terms of absolute truth, not at all against thinking in terms of logic, reason and sense evidence.
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 are arguing against this because you think proof of existence gives us Absolute Truth, then I think you misconstrue. Just as proving it requires nothing other than itself, existence is a Truth without reference. In order to get some traction on Absolutes, you have to go further, and start referencing something outside of the thought.
But to go back to my original post. Good luck with that, as it is a task many have failed at.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Did you think about this? Well then, it's not definitively proven is it? As long as you have to think about it, nothing is definitively provable because you could be always be wrong and you can't know when you are wrong.
You cannot eliminate the possibility that nothing exists unless you can show that is impossible, and if your method of showing it is always the same potentially fallible process, you can't do that.
To make the point even more clear, if Descartes method of thinking about possibilities is sufficient to establish truth, then my thinking about the possibility that Descartes's thinking is not sufficient to establish truth is also sufficient to produce a terminal contradiction. As a result, default to suspension of belief. You cannot accept the proposition 'thinking about possibilities is sufficient to establish truth' without coming to the conclusion that thinking about possibilities might not be sufficient to establish truth and hence cannot continue to hold the original proposition.
It does if it's the kind of proof I am asking for. I am challenging those who think that things such as the Cogito ergo sum are absolute truths, and saying that the proof is not sufficient.
...which is circular reasoning.
You cannot prove existence with existence, that's not even logically possible- existence is not a method. What you would need to do is investigate it- using conception and perception, but of course, these are potentially fallible, so not sufficiently reliable to establish absolute truth.
So it's an absolute truth? How do you know it is? Cogito ergo sum is not sufficient as I already showed.
With what, finding absolute truth? I am not concerned with it, because it seems to me to be impossible, or at the very least extremely problematic. I am concerned with the truth wholly as it relates to the perceptions and conceptions of my experience, because this matters to me, and it's workable.
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
Yep. And proved my existence while doing so. Heh.
This rabbithole is only never ending if you want to equivocate on terms when you hit certain sticking points, like dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.
Anyways, given my previous post was already referencing my first, I think this is going nowhere quick.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
How did you determine this?
How do you know you are thinking?
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 he most certainly did not solve the issues being discussed here. In fact, the problem with his argument is so well-known that it has its own Wikipedia page.
Descartes admits from the outset that the apparatus of reasoning and sensation that he uses to bootstrap his initial conclusions may themselves be skeptically attacked. But patience, dear reader, he says -- pay me a little rope by granting me that this apparatus is reliable and I will resolve the problem in short order. He then uses this apparatus to (purportedly) derive the existence of God, and then (purportedly) shows that God stands as a guarantor that the apparatus is reliable.
This, of course, is circular reasoning: reliability of the apparatus => God exists => reliability of the apparatus.
So let's not beat people over the head with Descartes as if the answer is to be found in his writings. It isn't.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
What issues are we discussing? If we are talking about the existence proof, then about the most you can fault Descartes for is assuming the "I". The Cartesian Circle doesn't come into play until when he tries to extrapolate further from there to the proof of God's existence. That leap from "I exist" to "my perceptions are true" is a non-sequitur to be sure. In fact, that's likely the primary reason he ends up with a circular argument to establish God. It is due to the very fact that the two cannot be connected. That's more or less what I've said and what I believe several others have also conveyed. The leap from "I exist" to "my perception is true" is the faith I elude to earlier.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Whether Descartes "ultimately proved" anything (whatever that means, and given my familiarity with 20th century logic, I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean anything) You seem to be on the affirmative position; that he did "ultimately prove" something. I disagree, and not just for Goedelian reasons, either.
(Though I should point out that I am not, in fact, a radical skeptic and I am willing to grant Descartes sufficient of his premises to conclude his existence -- with the express acknowledgement that I am granting him at least some unjustified premises.)
Well it seems like you've already given away the store just by saying this -- by those lights, he may already have failed to meet the challenge. But we can say something more general than that.
A proof is a sequence of grammatically-valid sentences where each line is either a presumed axiom, or follows from prior lines by an inference rule that is presumed to preserve truth. The bottom line of Descartes' proof is "I exist," which means that either he is merely assuming he exists (which he isn't) or his existence follows from some prior lines of a proof plus a reasoning process. We know it's from a reasoning process, because he said so. Well, unwind that reasoning process back to its premises. Then those are either axioms or follow from something prior.
Keep repeating this process and it must terminate after a finite length of time with a list of nothing but axioms and derivations from axioms. That list of axioms can't be empty, because if it were, you couldn't prove anything -- because every line of a proof is either an axiom or follows from axioms. Whatever those axioms are, we must grant them to Descartes.
Now Descartes never states his axioms explicitly, but at minimum they will include stuff about the mechanisms and reliability of logic, the notion of truth, and the notion of self. I am not a radical skeptic and I am perfectly happy to grant him those axioms -- but I will certainly not deny that I am doing so.
This was Descartes' defense as well, but he's simply wrong about that. A logical system with no axioms has no proofs.
But you don't follow all the way through with your swing. If "I exist" results from a reasoning process, then you can't simply evade questions about the reliability of that reasoning process. If it doesn't, well, then it's an unjustified assumption!
(As a meta-philosophical point, if people had called into question the reliability of reasoning processes sooner than they had instead of simply assuming it, we almost certainly would not have had to wait until the 20th century to learn some of the deeper details of logical systems.)
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Before it comes up, this actually doesn't have anything to do with thinking, so whether you are thinking or not is actually irrelevant. The point is, what you are doing, whatever it is, unless that method can be proven reliable, then you can't use it to provide ultimate proof. So, actually, you also have to prove 'I am thinking' as well as 'my thinking is accurate'.
To answer Crashing00's question, 'ultimate', 'definitive' or 'complete' proof just means valid proof of absolute truth- that whatever has been proven is as a result unquestionably the case. The point here is to establish that while we may have developed a very 'sensible' and seemingly very useful idea of reality in the modern world, it ultimately breaks down to certain assumptions that we have made. Recognising this and consequently redirecting the goal of philosophy away from absolute truth gives us a more purposeful understanding. I support the notion that understanding practical experience rather than absolute truth is a better goal.
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
Law of excluded middle: ⊤(A⋁┓A)
(it is true that for any proposition A, that proposition is either true or false (the negation of A is true))
This is relied upon in the sense that the Cogito asks us whether there is any way that 'thoughts exist' could be false to determine that it must be true
Law of identity: A>A
(for any proposition A, if that proposition is true, then it is true- each thing is the same with itself and different from another)
Without this law, Descartes' every word breaks apart into meaninglessness.
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