#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
On Certainty
This is certain
Side Score: 85
|
 |
Nothing is certain
Side Score: 81
|
|
Yes , it may be certain is it 100 per cent certain though ? ..... A little snippet from wiki .... It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, This is in large part due to the power of David Hume's problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that "total security from error" is impossible in practice, and a complete "lack of doubt" is undesirable). Side: This is certain
Certainty is the lack of doubt. So to say that you are 100% certain is redundant. If you say you are 90% certain, then you are not certain, you have doubt. When you experience, you are (redundantly) 100% certain of it. If you are 10% in doubt of it, then you are experiencing 90% certainty that you are experiencing while you experience 10% doubt that you are experiencing. Experience accounts for 100% of the certainty/doubt in question. Anything outside of this parameter does not exist. The snippet from wiki is a commentary on the sorry state of philosophy and thought today. Nothing more. Side: This is certain
How do you demonstrate 100 per cent certainty as that is what you claimecd you experienced ? Are there levels of certainty as in when doses certainty become uncertainty ? The snippet from wiki is more than a commentary on the sorry state of philosophy . Side: Nothing is certain
How do you demonstrate 100 per cent certainty as that is what you claimed you experienced ? 100 percent certainty is simply 0% doubt. I demonstrated it by illustrating a situation without alternatives. With no possible alternatives to a given situation, there is no possible doubt. when doses certainty become uncertainty ? The moment there is any doubt, you cannot claim certainty. There is no doubt when I experience that I am experiencing. It is not possible. The snippet from wiki is more than a commentary on the sorry state of philosophy Your opinion of their opinion notwithstanding, an appeal to authority is only valid if the opinion of the authority is also valid. If I tell you that your disagreement with me is illusory, that you actually agree with me, and then I say it must be true because Einstein said that disagreement doesn't exist, it still wouldn't be true. If 500 philosophers agreed that disagreement is impossible, it wouldn't be true. It would say more about them then it would about the subject at hand. Side: This is certain
No , you didn't demonstrate it you made a statement regarding it how is this a demonstration of 100 per cent certainty ? Correction the moment there is any doubt you cannot claim absolute certainty , but you can claim certainty . Wow there please , I never appealed to authority if so show me where I made this appeal ? I was giving a link to show where this topic may lead , how that's an appeal to authority is beyond me as why do you assume I would bolster my point by posting arguments in favour of me ? Do you not think the link posted does not also include differing viewpoints or as it seems you're merely making an assumption . Side: Nothing is certain
Do you not think the link posted does not also include differing viewpoints or as it seems you're merely making an assumption You didn't post a link, you posted a quote, so yes I made assumptions.. I don't know what other things may be offered, but I'm not particularly interested. If anyone tries to claim that things are not what they are, then I will use that same anti-logic to claim that their disagreement is not a disagreement. you didn't demonstrate it you made a statement regarding it how is this a demonstration of 100 per cent certainty ? I presented a situation wherein doubt is impossible. If doubt is impossible, 100% certainty is the only alternative. Side: This is certain
2
points
I’m certain that I exist, not because I think, but because I identify the subject of my thought inside the only environment I qualify as existing. Thus my existence is not intrinsically defined as an axiom of my unique, isolated perception, but as a part of something else, that also exists. I exist because something else exists as well. Without something else, there wouldn’t be any manner/reason to corroborate or deny any existence, so I certainly must exist. Side: This is certain
I am certain that I experience. I cannot doubt this for then I would be experiencing doubt, which requires experience. Though the nature of self may change over time, the fact of experience in any given moment cannot be doubted. I can be uncertain about the nature or accuracy of my experience (relative to reality), but I cannot be uncertain about the fact of experience. Experience is a fundamental axiomatic condition. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
Are you certain of your gender? Are you certain about your nationality? Are you certain who your parents are? No? Get a DNA test. Are you certain your children are yours? Are you certain you are the legal owner of your house? etc There are other things you cannot be certain of. Like when you are into something, a career, judgement etc . Where the doubt arises if you are taking the right or left step. I didn't choose the other side because it contains 'nothing'. Side: This is certain
@Amarel Therein lies the internal contradiction with the sentiment that nothing is certain. Can you doubt that you doubt? Do you ultimately think Philosophy of this sort is useful or rather counterproductive and a hindrance to intellectual progress? I often go back and forth in regards to the value of Philosophy of this type Side: This is certain
Like anything, it can be useful to a point, and then becomes absurd. This debate started because I was astounded that people believe they can doubt the fact that they experience. It’s useful to doubt what should be doubted to the extent it should be doubted, but doubt itself shouldn’t be worshipped. When a contradiction lies at the root of a particular belief, it is not useful in itself. Tracing the foundations of beliefs and ideas in order to discover their foundational consistency or contradiction is useful. And so there is still value in bad ideas, such as the worship of doubt. Side: This is certain
Like anything, it can be useful to a point, and then becomes absurd... Tracing the foundations of beliefs and ideas in order to discover their foundational consistency or contradiction is useful. Right. I see this occurring with many "big" topic areas in certain aspects of Philosophy. That is, it can be good to reflect about fundamental or "given"/trivial propositions in order to determine whether in fact they are actually "given"/trivial. However, it seems that there is no way to definitively determine this using the tools of Philosophy and therefore one can be caught up in an endless, non-productive loop of reasoning and counter-reasoning (even when concerning trivial postulates--that could potentially still be explored/not settled even 1000 years from now also). Side: This is certain
1
point
|
2
points
Not beforehand, coincidental with. "I think" in philosophical terms is akin to "I experience" which is why I used that quote. You cannot experience without simultaneously existing. If you experience, you cannot doubt it. That would require the experience of doubt. Thus, if you experience, you exist..I think therefore I am. The certainty of experience is axiomatic. As is existence. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
My certainty is internally consistent and the opposite of random. It is only self-deception if it is incorrect. No one here has been able to show that it is. You even pointed out the internal contradiction with the notion that nothing is certain. If that's true then you can't be certain of it, which leaves room for the possibility that I am correct. If it is true because certainty is impossible, then you can be certain of it, thus invalidating the assertion itself. Side: This is certain
1
point
You even pointed out the internal contradiction with the notion that nothing is certain We made no contradiction. You're asking for some, but I didn't make any. That's why it is the person claiming certainty to establish beyond any possible doubt his position. If you try reversing it, then you can certainly boast of having achieved "certainty". Side: Nothing is certain
It’s not that you made a contradiction, you pointed it out earlier when you said “how you can say with 100% certainty that you can't say anything with 100% certainty”. That’s where you point out one problem with the statement. I merely expanded on it. You later pointed out another issue with the statement when you said “I can say with absolute certainty that a tautology is always true”. I stated that tautologies provide us with logical certainty while experience provides us with metaphysical certainty. Dermot confused my use of the philosophy of metaphysics with a religious statement and I didn’t bring it up again. My point here, is that even if you don’t think you exist, you have been agreeing with me. Side: This is certain
1
point
you have been agreeing with me. I haven't, really, but my disagreement extends much beyond that. It is about the nature of Logic and a priori knowledge - we can't say with certainty that we have them right. After all, we probably didn't evolve to be objectively skilled at Logic, so we might be entirely wrong on it. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
Proving that "I" don't exist is impossible. You can prove that "I" as in you do not have a mind (subjective experience) but only by being a robot of sorts. You cannot prove that I as in me does not have experience when clearly I do. I would have to experience the proof of the matter for it to be proved which would disprove it. Side: This is certain
Also, proving that is not possible. I don't actually believe that disagreement is an illusion. It was a baseless assertion. It was meant as an example of your line of argument being consistently applied. How can you say that we've gotten it all right? You can doubt logic itself, but that is necessarily illogical. Philosophical skepticism improperly puts intrinsic value in doubt. You can say that you doubt everything, even when there is no reason to doubt; but ultimately, with the nature of experience it becomes impossible. This would lead a logical person to the primacy of existence, upon which certainty is built, rather than the primacy of doubt upon which nothing is built. Side: This is certain
1
point
I don't actually believe that disagreement is an illusion. It was a baseless assertion. It was meant as an example of your line of argument being consistently applied. What? You can doubt logic itself, but that is necessarily illogical. Philosophical skepticism improperly puts intrinsic value in doubt. You can say that you doubt everything, even when there is no reason to doubt; but ultimately, with the nature of experience it becomes impossible. This would lead a logical person to the primacy of existence, upon which certainty is built, rather than the primacy of doubt upon which nothing is built. Trying to discredit doubt by saying that nothing can be built on it? Your position is then much more illogical than what you are criticising. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
It's a bit boring to give arguments for such little things. Still... Your sole criticism of the nature of doubt is that it provides no certainty on beliefs. Because, obviously, without doubt your beliefs can feel absolutely certain to yourself. But that isn't any logical a position, either. Then there's been some vague references to the inductive logic, which itself you can not prove at all, as the basis of your certainty. Side: Nothing is certain
Your sole criticism of the nature of doubt is that it provides no certainty on beliefs. I've never made that criticism. I said that to doubt as much as possible leads you to the point where doubt becomes impossible. Where experience meets existence. This would lead one to the primacy of existence rather than doubt. My criticism is that to express doubt beyond the point of possibility is to become absurd. To doubt logic, rationality, and reason is necessarily illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. If I adopt this line of argumentation, I would say that to demand proof is itself unreasonable because you cannot prove the validity of proof as such. It's absurd Side: This is certain
1
point
Well, yes, in any case, at least something intelligent has to exist, even if we are all just part of its imagination. That's the point where doubt becomes impossible. To doubt logic, rationality, and reason is necessarily illogical, irrational, and unreasonable. To deny them without justification is necessarily illogical, irrational, and unreasonable, but I see no reason why to doubt them is. To not doubt your beliefs that aren't absolutely certain is also illogical, irrational, and unreasonable, after all. Side: Nothing is certain
Well, yes, in any case, at least something intelligent has to exist, even if we are all just part of its imagination Even if we are just imagined the case remains that "we are". This is why the fact that we experience cannot be denied, regardless of the nature of that which experiences. To deny them without justification is necessarily illogical, irrational, and unreasonable, but I see no reason why to doubt them is This implies the primacy of doubt, which has already been dispelled. The only way to remove doubt would be to step outside of logic etc for proof of the validity thereof. It is this perspective from outside of logic that is illogical. Side: This is certain
1
point
Even if we are just imagined the case remains that "we are". This is why the fact that we experience cannot be denied, regardless of the nature of that which experiences. With no certainty at all of the nature of experience or existence, that isn't even a claim any more than a suggestion. The only way to remove doubt would be to step outside of logic etc for proof of the validity thereof. It is this perspective from outside of logic that is illogical. You seem to love equivocations. Anyway, it's been known, rather concretely, since about the early 20th century, that such an attempt at proving logic ought to be fruitless. The proof was presented in formal logic by Kurt Godël. Side: Nothing is certain
No , I never said that , again to correct you ( getting tiring ) you're the 'mental shy giant ' as in your 4? or is it 5 ? unpublished theories which will change the world 🌎 😱 Do you want the other destruction of your precious Cogito ? New balls please ....🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾 Side: This is certain
You got it maybe get someone to help you with it ? Let's have a look at this statement of yours it's a beauty .... Thoughts devoid of a thinker are not thoughts, they are undiscovered information New balls please 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾USA 0 Republic of Ireland 3? ... 4? ...... 👏👏👏👏👏🏅🏅🏆🏆🏆 👏👏👏👏👏👏 Side: Nothing is certain
No you made an assertion and you gave your opinion , your destruction came earlier as in . .... Even if we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing . Even this goes to far Rene should not have used the words ' I think ' if he was consistent with his approach , he should have said ' there are thoughts ' Work through the steps again and the penny may drop , alternative facts would be a good tool for you .... New balls please 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾� Side: Nothing is certain
Even if we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing An experiencing thing is all that is necessary for that thing to be certain that it experiences. This is the point you cannot, and have not refuted. Even this goes to far Rene should not have used the words ' I think ' if he was consistent with his approach This assertion fails to recognize that his approach was strictly introspective, as it necessarily would be. This is the other point you can't seem to grasp, that extrospective evidence is not necessary for introspective certainty. This is now simply an exercise in composition for me. I do not believe you are capable of working through the steps. For you, no penny will drop. Side: This is certain
I keep saying thoughts could exist independently of a thinker which leads us to believe even thought needs a thinker . The 'I ' in ' I think ' may be the same kind as the 'It ' in 'It is raining ' , which does not refer to anything Again more sarcasm you're not capable of debating as you always have to resort to insult or sarcasm , why can you not make a point without a barbed remark ? I enjoy debating once it's fair you always go the one way force your points and mock or deride any counter arguments , I see you're doing likewise with another debate , honest enquiry pisses you off whys that ? Jesus help anyone who has ever has the nerve to disagree with you , you're a throughly nasty prick . Side: Nothing is certain
Again more sarcasm you're not capable of debating as you always have to resort to insult or sarcasm This is rich coming from you. I keep saying thoughts could exist independently of a thinker No, you've just said it now, finally. Can you describe thought without a thinker an any form other than unperceived information? The 'I ' in ' I think ' may be the same kind as the 'It ' in 'It is raining ' , which does not refer to anything Sometimes "it" is a manner of speech and does not refer to anything. I is never a manner of speech that does not refer to anything. "I" is only ever used in a truly non-referential way if it is merely in the form of information (thought without a thinker which is not thought) such as a recording that says "I think". "I" cannot be used to connote "nothing" when attributed to/from a given subject. There cannot be an experience without an experiencer, whether the experiencer refers to itself or not. The existence of qualia cannot be doubted by that to which it applies. Jesus help anyone who has ever has the nerve to disagree with you , you're a throughly nasty prick If they are correct, they should be able to provide a reasoned alternative to my view. This is a debate website, why would you come here to seek agreement? Side: This is certain
This is the impass. If a person does not understand reason. Or cannot fathom the reason of another's argument, they will often perceive the other argument to be unreasonable. The mentally handicapped cannot understand the explanations of other more capable people. They must rely solely on trust in whatever given authority they decided they feel safe with. They will repeat the assertions of those authorities they have chosen, without the understanding necessary to recognize what they assert. One of us is in the position of relatively less understanding. Neither of us can convince the other, just as a handicapped child cannot be reasoned with, but neither can the child reason. I have not appealed to authority, the way you have. Not even to those in history who have agreed, to whatever degree, with my outlook. I have not done so because I have not needed to. This situation speaks for itself. I do not say this for your benefit or detriment. I say it as an exercise in composition, and an example to any who is capable. Side: This is certain
You see there you go if a racist or anti Irish remark doesn't fit you resort to making comparisons to one afflicted with a mental handicap proving once and for all what a thouroghly nasty fuck you truly are . Maybe you can go a step lower as a only a bastard like you can , your failure to comprehend the written word is because you are caught up in your own inane ramblings as in your re -definition of what thought is and your abysmal refusal to look at the linguistics employed in the cogito , I never appealed to authority you lying prick I said I would let Nietzche destroy your ramblings in a different way as you're to dim to understand the most basic commentary on your precious cogito it would be a cruelty to much to inflict the man on your besieged ego . So you're a bully , a racist , and a cheap slag who mocks the handicapped for a cheap laugh , you're just a cheap rag lower than a snakes belly ... Hey your luck might be in gather the mob get boozed up and slag off a couple of handicapped people , you can use you mild insult defence of earlier and have a good old laugh .. All good fun isn't it ? . Side: Nothing is certain
I didn't mean to mock the handicapped, though I can see how my comparison of them to you may be insulting to them. I'll try not to do that again. I just needed clear example which could be found in them. So far you have challenged my position by arguing against the persistence of self. I showed the fault in this line of reasoning, which you were convinced by. Then you read another argument which takes issue with the use of "I". This is a semantic argument that is eliminated with the understanding that "it" and "I" are not equivilant. Finally we arrive at Dermot the victim. You haven't yet read another argument to use against my position, or you do not yet know which part of a given argument will actually apply, so all you can do is mope. When someone else provides you with a new old argument against me, I'll be happy to address the flaws therein. Side: This is certain
1
point
Thank you Jatin that's precisely what I'm getting at all Amarel does is scream , shout and fire of insults instead of admitting what he is stating is flawed ..... Here it is .....If we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing . Even this is a step too far , Descartes was wrong to have used the words ' I think ' , he should have said ' there are thoughts '. His error was that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is open to doubt . Prehaps thoughts could live independently of thinkers , it could be the way our language is structured that makes us assume every thought needs a thinker . Regards the ' I ' and 'it ' , the 'I ' in 'I think ' may be of the same kind as the 'it ' in ' it is raining ', which refers to nothing . This to me is a reasonable position to take but apparently Amarel thinks I have a lower mentality than someone unfortunate enough to be handicapped all this for pointing out the flaws in the cogito Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
instead of admitting what he is stating is flawed If I did it would be a lie. If we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing That's all that is required to establish certainty, which you may have forgotten is the point. he should have said ' there are thoughts ' That would have altered the meaning of his argument. "There are qualia" retains the meaning. His error was that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is open to doubt No it isn't. By there very nature, there cannot be thoughts without a thinker. That would just be information. There also cannot be verbs without an executor of said verb. Rain is not a verb, so it can rain outside. all this for pointing out the flaws in the cogito You have pointed out the flaws in your understanding, hence my estimate of you. You have not found flaws in my position. Side: This is certain
How else should I regard someone who responds to a logical argument with pictures of shit? You don't command any respect Dermot. You certainly don't deserve any from me. You have given up altogether on the pursuit of debate. If you don't return to posting things with at least an element of substance, I'll have to ban you. I much prefer argumentation, even if someone else comes up with it for you. Side: This is certain
When you learn to stop throwing insults I shall do so also is that not fair ? You do not command any respect when you compare my earlier commentary on your piece to the thoughts of a handicapped person , so why should I respect you ? If you play fair I play fair , if not well then it's back to insults . Yes I see that's what you do as in ban on your debates when anyone provides a counter to your arguments ,whys that ? And as usual your closing comment another insult ...as in .... I much prefer argumentation, even if someone else comes up with it for you ... sore loser Amarel You really mean another person pointed out what you were failing to comprehend in my destruction of your argument . If you play nice and apologise and no insults I will prove you wrong again ... Side: Nothing is certain
When you learn to stop throwing insults I shall do so also is that not fair ? It would be fair if you didn't feel insulted at any and every observation. Take the following: And as usual your closing comment another insult ...as in .... I much prefer argumentation, even if someone else comes up with it for you This is not an insult. I don't care if you have to quote Nietzsche or if you need to phone a friend. All I care about is the substance, or lack thereof, of the argument you post. I don't even care if it's not yours. You really mean another person pointed out what you were failing to comprehend in my destruction of your argument I failed to comprehend nothing about your position, which you have not refuted. I don't mind at all being proved wrong, because that means I have learned. I do mind absurdities being presented as points to consider (they aren't). I mind willful misunderstanding, which is dishonest. And if your misunderstanding of logic and language is not willful, then my estimate remains. Side: This is certain
No , wrong again I'm actually jealous of all the people that haven't met you yet , don't go taking offence now I didn't quote Nietzsche or phone a friend if you need your ' minder ' to assist you go for it , I know you burned the midnight oil looking for a way out of your humiliation ...... you still havnt found it . You do actually mind being proved wrong as your sulking like a child here over your thrashing and your response is the usual ' I will ban you if you disagree ' You're captain bullshit 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩 Don't feel insulted at every observation 🖕🖕 Side: Nothing is certain
I very very rarely ban people. There is no substance to this particular post so I will probably ban you soon, though it pains me. As I said, I much prefer argument. Before I do though, Let’s take a look at somequotes from you: "If we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing" Do you accept the fact that experience proves that one exists? It's not exactly the topic, but do you? "I'm still asking you repeatedly how you can prove your claim of 100 per cent certainty to anyone but yourself" This implies it can be proved to ones self. Do you still believe this? "It's a debate site you retard what you mean is ... you only want to talk ..." You said this. Not me. "What you're trying to say eludes me , also I'm not a thing I'm a person" People don't refer to themselves as "it". Unless they are actually retarded and can't properly express their thoughts. "I find your reasoning excellent and you've provivded much food for thought" This was part of your concession speech. You later said it was a lie. So when I refer to you as dishonest, don't be offended. It's merely an observation. Side: This is certain
Hello 👋 see you're still fuming 😡 you really got to work on those anger issues 🙀No you ban when you're thrashed ( seen your other debates) 🙀 Your recent whipping had you sweating 😰 the books all night 🌙 and still no defence 😫 ? Last option copy ,paste and edit and the ' concession ' was sarcasm 🙀🙀 You can now get the rabble to defend you if you wish 🙀No one is really interested in you inane rants I'm using liddle pics for you as I know the books you posses come with a large box of crayons 👏👏👏 I see also you're taking several whippings elsewhere 😱and a fellow debater has kindly offered yet more clarity on where you're going wrong on the cogito as we realise ....some people drink from the fountain of knowledge you merely gargled 😂👏👏👏👏 it's gotta hurt 😂😂 So let's see you've tried threats , bullying and insults and you're still .... wrong 😫😫😫 Try your usual method 🐃🐃🐃🐃💩💩💩💩💩� Amarel says .. " The first part of the party of the first part shall be known in this dialogue as the first part of the party of the first part which shall be known in part as part of the party of the part that's part of the second party , independent of the first part of the second part which is dependant on the independence clause of the second part of the party . " 🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀� New balls please 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾� Side: Nothing is certain
This discussion of experience and existence has all been with the goal of proving the existence of certainty. You have lost on both logical grounds and on metaphysical grounds. Your friend JatinNagpal has agreed with me and even re-stated my points: ”Of course, an experiencer, by definition, has to experience something. But, I can reject qualia (in fact, I already do, as a materialist)” As you can see, he accepts the logic of my statement, while rejecting the implications thereof strictly as a matter of faith (in materialism), not based on reason. He further proves certainty when he says “I can say with absolute certainty that a tautology is always true. And all the other tautologies”. This logical proof supports the metaphysical assertion that I have made in the form of a tautology. Finally, he has pointed out the internal inconsistency with absolute skepticism when he said “how you can say with 100% certainty that you can't say anything with 100% certainty”. Another way to illustrate this internal contradiction is to say, you cannot doubt that you doubt. Now I have provided all the various ways in which you have thoroughly lost this debate (rather than just saying it). You have extended your dishonesty to claim that what you previously said was a lie and a trap, was simply sarcasm. No one would believe that, and I certainly don’t. You have further lied by actually posting quotes for things that I never said. I was probably already going to ban you, but this has solidified the decision. Despicable would be a compliment. Side: This is certain
pronouns that refer to things which don't exist, what your argument was based on My argument is not based on interchangeable pronoun. This fallacy borders on dishonest. My argument is based on introspection and subjectivity. I have explained at least twice that the experiencing thing need not even use a self referential term, but so long as the term we use is “I” then it conveys my point. To bring it back to Descartes rough equivalent of my argument, when he says “I think”, and you claim he should have said “there are thoughts” you attempt to change his meaning altogether while simoultaniously confusing yourself about the nature of thoughts. He could say “there is qualia” and his meaning would be maintained because only subjective experience tells us that there is qualia. Thus the “I” which is a required element, would be implicit rather than explicit. So lets recap (The term “you” will be collective”): 1-The first challenge was temporal; That the self cannot persist over time. I showed that this would not be a relevant factor even if it were true. This convinced Dermot to concede. 2-The second challenge was to logic itself; That we can doubt the veracity thereof. I showed that, since logic is fundamental to reality and to understanding, we can only doubt logic by being illogical. By looking for proof of the veracity of logic outside of logic. I assert that this is absurd, not baselessly, but because proof itself relies on logic, so that to prove the veracity of logic we need to be illogical and provide something other than proof. 3-The third challenge was to the language we use. This has been the most dishonest challenge so far, though it has caused me to select my words somewhat more accurately. You first claim that the self is an illusion. This baseless assertion I countered by a similarly baseless assertion that disagreement is an illusion, thus you actually agree with me. This is an apparent falsehood as was your counter assertion. - You then go on to say, in the same spirit, that “I” and “it” are interchangeable. You further assert that thoughts need not have a thinker. I explained that a thought without a thinker is not thought, but information. Even so, expressing my position in terms of qualia eliminates confusion over the word “I” by removing it explicitly while retaining the conceptual necessity thereof. Qualia also eliminates confusion about the difference between thought and information or which one I am referring to. My original assertion was that an experiencer cannot doubt the fact that they experience. All evidence and logic indicate this. The only way to prove it wrong is to show how an experiencer can experience without experiencing in any way. You have consistently avoided the only possible counter argument. All the rest of this has been an attack on Descartes language of expressing the same sentiment. An effective distraction, but still not an effective counter-argument. Side: This is certain
1
point
But, I can reject qualia (in fact, I already do, as a materialist) This is a rejection based on faith in materialism rather than observation or reason. How can matter give rise to "subjective experiences"? That's a good question. We need not know how a thing occurs to know that it occurs. We need not know how we experience to know that we experience. Do you deny my summary of this debate thus far? If so, what part? Side: This is certain
1
point
This is a rejection based on faith in materialism rather than observation or reason. You aren't sitting in the chair of the Skeptic. Even though materialism is true, it does not need my justification right now. After all, I'm not 100% certain. We need not know how a thing occurs to know that it occurs. If that sentence is a valid argument, then give me something that can not be proved. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
A tautology is always true - it carries the proof within itself. Seems you have been incorrectly posting on the "nothing is certain" side all along. You have also previously said that an experience requires an experiencer. Where exactly is your disagreement? Side: This is certain
1
point
You have also previously said that an experience requires an experiencer. Where exactly is your disagreement? In that there is any experience or experiencer at all. If you doubt my position, try reading my arguments again with that in mind, and it will probably become clear. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
I see that it is missing something. In that there is any immaterial experience or experiencer at all. Yes, now that's right. I'm denying your dualist claims rather than the existence-in-itself. And your assertion of cogito ergo sum doesn't seem to work in a materialistic viewpoint. Side: This is certain
Your view a materialism becomes mystical. This is why I said your argument is based on your faith in it. Only faith or dishonesty can cause a person to have the experience of claiming they do not experience. I would think that your understanding that knowledge is limited would lead you to the conclusion that there is a material explanation yet to be discovered, for the fact of experience, rather than to absurdly claim that experience is impossible. Side: This is certain
1
point
I hope that I don't need to replace the things and copy the whole thing to raise the same doubts against you. I don't know what this is referring to. Why do you rarely respond to what I actually post? Why doesn't your understanding of the limitation of knowledge lead you to believe that the material source of your experience is not yet discovered? Why do you choose absurdity? Side: This is certain
1
point
Ah. Not that smart, I see. Your view a dualism becomes mystical. This is why I said your argument is based on your faith in it. Only faith or dishonesty can cause a person to have the claim that they experience. I would think that your understanding that knowledge is limited would lead you to the conclusion that there is an immaterial explanation yet to be discovered, for the claim of experience, rather than to absurdly claim that not-experience is impossible. Side: Nothing is certain
Ah. Not that smart, I see Impressive given you've never experienced even the illusion of sight. Every time I call you out on making a baseless assertion, you forego providing a basis. This is reasonable only if my call is correct. The difference between my comment and your mimicry of it is that I am defending an axiomatic condition while you are asserting the opposite without cause. You can take what I say, and say the opposite, but as with any contradiction, truth favors one side and not the other. Given my side is based on the evidence of undeniable experience, while your side is based on verbally denying that which is logically undeniable, I'll go ahead and call it a settled matter. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
But, anyway, that does not reflect well on someone claiming certainty to need to end it disgracefully. Who said that I believe anything? Is that credible enough to necessarily be the truth? You have no certainty to claim whether I believe anything or not. Side: Nothing is certain
If someone says that 1 does not equal 1, all you can do is inform them they are wrong. They can deny the undeniable. They can say 1 does not equal 1 and they can demand that you prove that it does. You cannot prove it, neither can you deny the truth if it. There is no disgrace in stating the case and calling it settled. It's the only reasonable option. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
Oh dear 😂😂You say ....... I didn't mean to mock the handicapped, though I can see how my comparison of them to you may be insulting to them. I'll try not to do that again. I just needed clear example which could be found in them..... Ah , now you've gone and hurt my feelings just when we were getting on so well 😭😭😭 this coming from a man who is barely brainier than Kurt Cobain's garage wall 😂😂👏👏👏 You are really upset you mad cunt aren't you ? You stated yesterday that you wouldn't attempt to argue with a handicapped person but yet you would with someone you deem lower in intelligence ? You see that's why you keep losing that pesky logic fucks you up every time , excellent demonstration of your insanity in print 🖕 It's gotta hurt 😭😭 Your misunderstanding of basic English is due to the fact that you are a human with a camels 🐪 brain residing in your skull 😂😂👏👏👏 No oddly enough I don't feel like a victim 🖕unlike you who are so upset at their recent thrashing that they posted up and withdrew a debate topic last night attempting to get the rabble to say " hey Amarel is a winner " go ahead , go for it , words do not upset me the way they obviously drive you over the edge 😂 You need to cool down and reflect on your thrashing, your problems unfortunately are logic and linguistics which I've addressed and if you ever come up with an old / new argument I would take delight in addressing the flaws that would be inevitably there . I see you also posted up what you really want to get of your chest another Evolution debate don't worry the rabble will support you as I've already caned you in that one also; a second debate followed on AI , I put that one to bed last year 🖕 The only people you don't mock are transgenders and you fly into a hissy fit if anyone else does ; do you want to share , I'm here for ya 😱😱 I see you're getting a sound whipping elsewhere 😭😭 I may drop by later and correct your views on free will or I may ( first time ever ) ban you 😱😱 Good luck with the Evolution , AI and god proof debates 🖕🖕🖕 Side: Nothing is certain
With no certainty at all of the nature of experience or existence, that isn't even a claim any more than a suggestion You don't need to know the nature of gravity to know that you aren't floating away. Similarly, you do not need to know the nature of experience to actually have experience. When you have it, you know at least that it exists as does the subject of the experience. You seem to love equivocations You seem to love baseless assertions. Where is the equivocation here? Anyway, it's been known, rather concretely, since about the early 20th century, that such an attempt at proving logic ought to be fruitless. Not that it ought to be fruitless, it is impossible. I have stated it several different ways already. Side: This is certain
1
point
You seem to love baseless assertions. Where is the equivocation here? No, none in that sentence. Still, The only way to remove doubt would be to step outside of logic etc for proof of the validity thereof. It is this perspective from outside of logic that is illogical. Can you make a more logical derivation to how outside of logic = illogical in the given context? Not that it ought to be fruitless, it is impossible. That's what it means, but is just a bit more logical, as in the attempts aren't impossible. You don't need to know the nature of gravity to know that you aren't floating away. That's because gravity isn't a part of the experience in floating away. That's too random an example to be of use. Side: Nothing is certain
Can you make a more logical derivation to how outside of logic = illogical in the given context? Proof is itself based on logic. If you use logic to prove the validity of logic, you may commit whatever error you suppose is internal to logic itself. Thus, you cannot use logic in your proof. Any evidence cannot be logically connected to a conclusion derived therefrom lest said evidence include a given error. So you must refrain from logic in order to prove logic. Since proof is a logical construct, even that must be abandoned. So for logic, seeking evidence thereof is illogical, and doubting its veracity is baseless and absurd. That's because gravity isn't a part of the experience in floating away. That's too random an example to be of use. Neither is experience part of the qualia of non-experience. The example works fine. Side: This is certain
1
point
Since proof is a logical construct, even that must be abandoned. So for logic, seeking evidence thereof is illogical, and doubting its veracity is baseless and absurd. Still, all I see is the assertion that it is illogical, baseless and absurd. I already granted that the proof is outside of logic for you to derive that, with the meanings entirely limited to the given contexts. But, you just derived that followed by your same assertion. Neither is experience part of the qualia of non-experience. And what can you do with qualia of non experience? That's like saying that you don't need to know how to make tea to understand that one side of the moon is never seen from Earth. Side: Nothing is certain
I already granted that the proof is outside of logic for you to derive that, with the meanings entirely limited to the given contexts This is not clear. I explained why we cannot logically doubt logic. I further explained that proof itself relies on logic. One of the challenges to my position is that logic should be doubted. In the context of this debate, doubting logic is as illogical as it is in any other context. And what can you do with qualia of non experience? It doesn’t exist. I specifically stated a contradiction in terms. It is the contradiction your camp must prove for my camp to be wrong. Side: This is certain
1
point
This is not clear. I explained why we cannot logically doubt logic. I further explained that proof itself relies on logic. One of the challenges to my position is that logic should be doubted. In the context of this debate, doubting logic is as illogical as it is in any other context. Let's see... I can do some of the work for you. If we are to prove logic, then our attempt would have to be meta-logical, which would necessarily lie outside of (or beyond) logic. But, something is illogical when it contradicts the rules of logic. Now connect the two. Though I'm fairly certain that it was originally an equivocation. Side: Nothing is certain
If we are to prove logic, then our attempt would have to be meta-logical, which would necessarily lie outside of (or beyond) logic. If you are taking issue with my use of the word "illogical", fine. To prove logic would invoke meta-logic. Something that is not logical. Because logic is inherent to proof, the attempt to prove logic is not logical on two fronts. To prove logic one must refrain from proof as well as logic. This is not logical. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
When I have talked about proving the veracity of logic, I am talking about the actual subject, not the study of the subject (Logic). I have mixed no meanings. If I talk about geometry, I am talking about the nature of shapes, not the discipline of studying shapes. Proof relies on logic. This is not an equivocation. It's an accurate statement concerning the nature of proof and the nature of logic. Side: This is certain
1
point
1
point
1
point
How can you lead from some experiences and thoughts to your existence? How is a triangle a triangle and not a circle? The experience is immediate and apparent. The existence of experience necessitates the EXISTENCE of experience. If you claim that the fact of experience is not apparent but in doubt, then you are EXPERIENCING doubt which necessitates the EXISTENCE of doubt. What if we don't grant you to simply assume that "you" think? That which is self-evident does not depend on what other "grant". You can assume that I do not think or experience. This will not alter the fact of my experience, only your ignorance thereof. Side: This is certain
1
point
You don't get it, do you? You first have to prove the 'I' to claim that "I think". Or any other such things from where you want to get circular. Also, as other part, how do you think? But, I'd guess that you can't answer it right now. There are even things that are contradictory for you. A fetus doesn't think. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
I will only be led to a conclusion through by reason. To counter a point where I claim a thing is impossible, you merely need to provide an example wherein the thing is possible. It's that simple. So far all I have gotten is a counter-assertion backed up by a repeat of the counter-assertion and supported by incredulity and confusion over definitions. An actual argument would be a simpler prospect. Side: This is certain
When I said "Try to show a circumstance wherein one could doubt that they are currently experiencing. Please try." your response was "You haven't got perfect knowledge how can you claim to have perfect knowledge ?" I really wish you would stop avoiding this, as it is what my argument hinges on. I think you know that, hence the avoidance. I will lay out your path to victory, that way it is clear to all. -The claim of perfect knowledge is not irrational in and of itself. -To argue that a claim of perfect knowledge is irrational, you must show that perfect knowledge is impossible. -Since my claim is that perfect knowledge is not impossible, I must provide an example wherein perfect knowledge would be possible. I have done so. -Simply claiming you are still right is not sufficient. You must now show that I have not done so by showing how you can doubt the existence of experience. I know you won't, but I wish you would try. Side: This is certain
First of all if you want to debate fine , if you want to indulge in personal insults I want to ask you why ? You said ...I apologize if that is somewhat unintelligible to you, given your apparent vocabulary...... No , the problem for you is you're making very little sense except to yourself , and there is no problem with my understanding of vocabulary , in fact it's you who fails to understand the written word as you keep demonstrating . 1: You claim 100 per cent certainty which is perfect knowledge which you say you have demonstrated by merely stating it 2: Perfect knowledge is normally attributed to a god Descartes had this in mind when he phrased his ..I think .. therefore .. I am 3: You are claiming 100 per cent cetainty .. perfect knowledge which is irrational unless you are indeed a god . Yet you keep muddying the waters by merely using the term experience wihtout also referring back to your 100 per cent certainty claim , which is nonsense 2: Definitions are important that is why you avoid giving them as in describing what the 'I ' actually is for you and how it affects your assertions , definitions don't seem that important to you as your arguments crumble if you have to give them Incidentally I'm not going chasing all the other threads in this debate as it's getting confusing doing so ; also thank you for pointing me on a path where you claim my victory may be thus implying you already know your position is lost . But I do not need your ' steps ' as your commentary on your own argument is equally weak ; I have several arguments that do the job nicely . 1: Your avoidance of defining the ' I ' was from the start was very telling and I suspect you knew where this would lead thus the avoidance and time wasting on your part . When you claim you exist you are speaking of your body and mind , in order to doubt your existence we must call into doubt body and mind ; the body is made up of physical parts the mind impressions , ideas , thoughts ; a body is nothing but a set of parts near each other the mind a set of ideas and impressions ... There is no "I" to exist Maybe you came into existence this instant with al, your memories and you will disappear in the next instant . Perhaps there are hundreds of others that are having the same impressions and idea that you are . How then are they yours ? There is no view that seems to offer a satisfactory explanation of personal identity i. Until a view has met the burden of proof for personal identity , there is no need to include persons or minds . I asked you several times about something being self evident which you avoided , the "I think " requires a number of assumptions that are never justified by the originator , the main one being that the subject " I " actually exists , this is begging the question . If you wish you may go through Renes famous statement word by word I can do that and destroy it , or if you wish for yet another destruction of your argument I will let Nietzsche do it for me as he does it beautifully . Side: Nothing is certain
First of all if you want to debate fine , if you want to indulge in personal insults I want to ask you why ? My apologies. 1: You claim 100 per cent certainty which is perfect knowledge which you say you have demonstrated by merely stating it I have claimed certainty and provided the thought experiment on experience. You refuse to even acknowledge the thought experiment, so you act like I have stopped at a mere statement. 2: Perfect knowledge is normally attributed to a god Descartes had this in mind when he phrased his ..I think .. therefore .. I am Which is very similar to the thought experiment I presented. One cannot experience without being certain that they experience. It’s similar because experience is known to process neurologically as thought and because experience presupposes existence. 3: You are claiming 100 per cent cetainty .. perfect knowledge which is irrational unless you are indeed a god Well, I have demonstrated it in my thought experiment, and I am no god, so this statement is incorrect. Yet you keep muddying the waters by merely using the term experience wihtout also referring back to your 100 per cent certainty claim , which is nonsense Imagine you have just asked me what a triangle is. I have drawn a triangle on a piece of paper and said “Here, look at this paper”. To which you respond, “No! What is a triange”. “I am trying to show you, look at the paper”. “STOP REFERING TO PAPER AND ANSWER THE QUESTION” It is very frustrating for me. 2: Definitions are important that is why you avoid giving them as in describing what the 'I ' actually is for you and how it affects your assertions , definitions don't seem that important to you as your arguments crumble if you have to give them They are important to me as well, which is why I referred to commonly accepted definitions of webster. I went further and illustrated what I mean by “I”. When you say “I asked you” what you mean by “you” is the same entity that I mean when I say “I”. thank you for pointing me on a path where you claim my victory It was as though I said, “To claim victory, you must defeat the opponent, rather than just claim victory”. But if it helped, you’re welcome. But I do not need your ' steps ' If you choose not to demonstrate my position to be irrational, while continuing to make the claim, you will now fall into actual dishonesty, rather than just confusion. 1: Your avoidance of defining the ' I ' was from the start was very telling and I suspect you knew where this would lead thus the avoidance and time wasting on your part How is reffering to a dictionary at all like avoiding a definition? It seems to be the opposite. How can you say “I suspect” while claiming confusion about the term? When you claim you exist you are speaking of your body and mind , in order to doubt your existence we must call into doubt body and mind ; the body is made up of physical parts the mind impressions , ideas , thoughts ; a body is nothing but a set of parts near each other the mind a set of ideas and impressions If a floating concept, devoid of physical traits were to somehow have an experience, there would be no doubt that it experiences. You’re are invoking more than what I said so that you can defeat that which you invoke. This is called a straw man. There is no "I" to exist I can’t speak for you. Whatever entity experiences cannot doubt that it experiences, and must first exist. It doesn’t matter if the entity refers to itself at all let alone refers to itself as “I”. But if I am the entity, and I experience, it cannot be doubted. By “I” I mean what you mean by “you” when referring to me. But when you say there is no I to exist, I might as easily claim there is no disagreement to exist. That’s why you have been agreeing with me all along. It’s nonsense, but I can say it just as easily as the nonsense you stated above. Maybe you came into existence this instant with al, your memories and you will disappear in the next instant If the AI that I am has an experience, I cannot doubt it. If I am a computer that is programmed to say “I have an experience” then I haven’t actually had an experience and the thought experiment doesn’t apply. If I am gone in the next instant has no bearing on the instant wherein I experience, whether robot or not. Perhaps there are hundreds of others that are having the same impressions and idea that you are If they experience, can they doubt it? Should I ask what you mean by “others”? How then are they yours ? Only the singular experience that I have can I claim to be mine. Identical experiences belong to whomever has them. I have a number of spoons in my drawer. The fact that they are mass produced and identical to others has no bearing on who they belong to. There is no view that seems to offer a satisfactory explanation of personal identity i It is how an entity refers to itself. This is what is meant by “subjective”. No one can say with certainty that another person has subjective experience, but only that they personally do. They only way you cannot know it with certainty is if there is no experience. But that’s the point you have always avoided. Until a view has met the burden of proof for personal identity , there is no need to include persons or minds Proof presupposes a mind that exists to perceive the proof. Otherwise proof is just an arrangement of information waiting to be understood by a mind. Proof depends on mind, mind does not depend on proof. I asked you several times about something being self evident which you avoided , the "I think " requires a number of assumptions that are never justified by the originator , the main one being that the subject " I " actually exists , this is begging the question If you consider that Descartes could not say that anyone else existed, you can assume that he was talking to himself, the only mind he could say for certain was present. If I say “You think”, I cannot know it. If I say “I think” it can be known only to me. His statement isn’t meant as a proof for others, but an example of a proof to oneself, which is the only person who can know the subjective world. If you wish you may go through Renes famous statement word by word I can do that and destroy it If it will make you feel better about not addressing my statement on experience, then go right ahead. But until you do, my argument wins on rationality and your avoidance is as a retreat. or if you wish for yet another destruction of your argument I will let Nietzsche do it for me as he does it beautifully If you cannot do it, that’s fine. If you think Nietzsche can, please present his argument. It will be one more thing you are wrong about. Also, you cannot be certain that there can be no certainty. It contradicts itself. Side: This is certain
You don't get it, do you? Yes I do. Do you? You first have to prove the 'I' to claim that "I think". To be certain of a thing, I don’t have to prove anything. To prove that certainty is possible (the actual subject at hand), all I need to do is provide a situation wherein alternatives are impossible. I have provided several. If you wish to successfully counter my point, all you need to do is show that an alternative is possible. That a person can be aware without being aware. That a person can have an experience that they do not experience. That A = -A There are even things that are contradictory for you. A fetus doesn't think. There is not contradiction here. I explained that the philosophical use for "think" is akin to "experience". Which is reasonable since both thoughts and experiences are physically represented by the firing of neurons. I said that there is a reasonable conclusion (given experiments) that a fetus experiences. But I appreciate your attempt to find a flaw in my reasoning. If you do, please address it. Side: This is certain
1
point
That a person can have an experience that they do not experience. That A = -A That's absurdly simple, though. A "self" does not exist, so if there were no "person", then they don't experience even if they seem to. If negative numbers wasn't even a concept, then A would be equal to -A. For your brain, it'd need to be simpler than that, though. Such as a negative of 0 isn't even a concept. And both are similar arguments. I explained that the philosophical use for "think" is akin to "experience". Where? I could certainly dispute such an explanation. Side: Nothing is certain
1
point
They would be those who think that they're having experiences There can be no experience without an entity to have it, as your sentence demonstrates. Your sentence refers to a "they" that "thinks". They experience thought. Even if it were all an illusion, including the experience, one cannot doubt THAT they experience, only WHAT they experience. When you cannot argue against a concept without simultaneously using the concept, it may be axiomatic. Side: This is certain
1
point
You don't have to feel restricted to acknowledge that: There can be no experience without an entity to have it. Your sentence refers to a "they" that "thinks". They experience thought. Or to address what I have actually been saying; Even if it were all an illusion, including the experience, one cannot doubt THAT they experience, only WHAT they experience Side: This is certain
0
points
1
point
I'm not surprised that you don't believe you've ever experienced thought. I believe I said thought and experience are different things, not that I have never experienced thought. In all future "debates" with you, I shall purposefully distort everything you say, since you seem to believe this is the objective anyway. I scarcely believe you have. I am not surprised that your thoughts are scarce. Side: Nothing is certain
I can think about winning the lottery without ever having the experience of winning the lottery Right. What you have is the experience of that thought. If you win the lottery, you will have the thoughts and emotions associated with it, and that will be experience. All experience that we know of is a neuronal process. Thus, experience is akin to thought. I have never witnessed you being right about anything. It explains your bitter manner. In all future "debates" with you, I shall purposefully distort everything you say I don't need a reminder that you will stay the course. However, your statement of intent is enough for me to be done with you here tough guy. Side: This is certain
0
points
Right. What you have is the experience of that thought. Which isn't experience of winning the lottery. If you win the lottery, you will have the thoughts and emotions associated with it I don't need to think about winning the lottery to win the lottery. and that will be experience If I win the lottery I will have experience of winning the lottery. All experience that we know of is a neuronal process. False. Experience takes place in the world, not in the mind. You are confusing experience with memory. For example, were Quantumhead to punch you in the face for completely rewriting your original reply and then banning him before he can point out that you are a dishonest little retard incapable of genuine debate, then that would not take place in the mind. The broken nose would be a very real experience for you. Side: Nothing is certain
Experience takes place in the world Only insofar as the entity that experiences is in the world. Were I to break your nose, I would not experience the broken nose, you would. A broken nose has occurred in the world, and you have experienced it. Your experience of it is a neuronal event, which is why a broken nose of the mannequin is not experienced by the mannequin. I'm not surprised that a wannabe tough guy uses his fantasy of physical violence as an example, so I went with it. No doubt you know that a threat would be pathetic, but you had to find a way to put The notion out there. Very scary stuff. Off you go tough guy. Side: This is certain
Of course it's necessary as the person making the claim is not the same person so from minute to minute it's a different person . You say .. the lapse of time and its effects on an individual are not relevant ... but they are as it's not the same person 100 per cent making the claim . You're not 100 per cent experiencing as in 'I ' because the 'I ' you speak of is illusory .. and that 99 .9 per cent certain Your assumption that a person does not persist through time is dubious. Nonetheless I will accept this assertion for the sake of argument in order to demonstrate that it does not affect the fact that experience is a certainty. First, a person need not make a claim of certainty for them to actually be certain. Thus I don't need to tell you that I am certain that I experience in order for me to actually be certain. I don't need to prove it or provide evidence. It is self-evident and immediate. If I did take the time to claim that I am certain that I experience, it wouldn't matter what moment I am referring to because the "moment" itself is ongoing. As is my experience. A thing need not persist over time for it to still be at any given moment. I am, regardless if I was or if I will be. The I that "is" experiences, regardless of whether the person I am in that moment changes or not. So I am certain that I experience. If I immediately change into someone else, then the person I have changed into will be certain that they are experiencing. The experience will have changed as well, but will not have become any less of a certainty. Thus, the certainty of experience does not depend on the passage of time or the persistence of self. Experience is a prerequisite for certainty, it is also a prerequisite for doubt. So try doubting that you experience and you will be experiencing doubt. This is true whether you are you from one moment to the next or not. You are exactly who you are in that moment. Incidentally, one cannot experience without also being certain that existence is a thing that exists. the 'I ' you speak of is illusory Who said that? Side: Nothing is certain
I did not claim a person does not persist through time I said it was not 100 per cent the same person that is a fact . Yes if you say you are 100 certain and indeed you keep that claim to yourself well TO YOU your claim is correct , but to me it's not how can it be ? You still don't get it , it's not the same person making the claim of certainty If so how ? Do you not change and are changing as we speak ? You are never the same person having the experience . Your last point brings up a whole new can of worms about existence which may be for the future . I say , the I you speak of is illusory .. when you say" I make a claim " what is the I you refer to how do you define it ? Side: This is certain
I did not claim a person does not persist through time I said it was not 100 per cent the same person that is a fact Then my point is made stronger. It wouldn’t matter if you were 100% a different person from one moment to the next. Yes if you say you are 100 certain and indeed you keep that claim to yourself well TO YOU your claim is correct , but to me it's not how can it be ? That which is self-evident need not be presented to another in order for it to be true. I need not convince you of the fact that I experience, you need only consider your own situation. The fact that you consider, necessitates experience, of that you must be certain. To demonstrate this point, imagine doubting that you experience, and then describe what that is like. Solipsism is the condition wherein you are not certain of the existence of experience in another, it does not preclude the the certainty of experience within oneself at any given moment. You still don't get it , it's not the same person making the claim of certainty If so how ? Do you not change and are changing as we speak ? It seems you don't get it, it need not be the same person. If it is a different person, then the claim of certainty applies to the new person in the new moment. If I say that I am certain that I experience, but then I am shot dead, I may not be experiencing anymore, but my new condition does not make my previous statement false at the time I said it. Likewise, if I am a different person from the start of the statement to the end of the statement, the concept conveyed by the sentence persists just as the ever changing moment persists, just as experience persists. You are never the same person having the experience It is never the same experience being had. You seem to think that a dynamic universe precludes the persistence of self. This is like claiming that water is not water because it is fluid. The self must change or there would be no experience, there would be no self. The ever changing “I” doesn’t literally make me a different person. Change is a necessary element for the human identity. This can be demonstrated by imagining a person who literally does not change. For this to be possible, there would necessarily be no passing moment, no change in experience, which would mean no experiene. That would not be a person, that would be a photograph. And photographs don’t refer to “I”. Side: This is certain
You say .....Then my point is made stronger. It wouldn’t matter if you were 100% a different person from one moment to the next.... It does matter because the entity that was ' I' making the claim is no longer 100 per cent the same 'I ' so cannot rationally say " I am the same person 100 per cent who made that claim yesterday " How can you either way claim 100 per cent certainty how is it different to 90 per cent certainty ? I'm not denying your personal experience and what you hold ias true for you, I said as much earlier ; but when you tell me of your thoughts I'm going to challenge the 100 per cent certainty of your claim . Yes I get it about the persistence of experience but I'm challenging the very notion of the ' I ' that claims experience . No again I'm not saying water is not water , I'm saying it's not the same water from nanosecond to nanosecond the same way none of us are the same entity from nanosecond to nanosecond . You seem to be totally missing what I keep saying which is I accept that as a person you experience and much of what that entails , what I'm questioning is the 100 per cent certainty you claim which cannot be proven can it ? Side: Nothing is certain
You seem to be totally missing what I keep saying I believe you keep saying it (repeating the same thing) because you are missing the meaning of my response to it. So lets go point by point. Explain how you understand my position, and how it fails to address what you have said. 1. Experience is a prerequisite for certainty, it is also a prerequisite for doubt. a. To question whether you experience is to experience the concept of questioning. b. If there is any aspect of you that is not experiencing, you cannot be aware of it, you do not experience it. 2. A person need not make a claim of certainty for them to actually be certain a. Certainty does not require proof for it to exist. Reality is, whether you can be convinced of it or not. 3. A thing need not persist over time for it to still be (exist) at any given moment a. You are exactly who you are when you are. Even if you aren’t who you were or will be b. You are always you, even if who you are is not the same from moment to moment. c. Though the nature of self may change over time, the fact of experience in any given moment cannot be doubted. The above three points have already thoroughly address your objections. If you disagree, indicate what specifically you take issue with. Don’t simply repeat yourself and say I am missing the point. Side: This is certain
1: I'm talking about 100 per cent certainty which is what you're claiming . 2: refer to above 3: what is a ' thing ' ? What constitutes a thing and how can it be the same thing if it ages or loses parts ? A: no you're not ' exactly ' how can you be 'exactly ' if there are changes however minuscule ? B: You haven't defined ' you ' or 'I ' but are you saying the ever changing you is still you but with changes ? C: The fact if experience may be true but how does that apply to 100 per cent certainty ? What you're claiming is 100 certainty which is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt , which to me is irrational . I'm only repeating in different ways as I don't know how many other ways I can say what I'm saying ; and I actually think you are also repeating yourself . Side: Nothing is certain
I asked you not to repeat yourself to which you responded by repeating yourself. I will list what I said followed by your response. If your response indicates relevance to what I said, I will expand on it in parentheses (). 1. Experience is a prerequisite for certainty, it is also a prerequisite for doubt You: I'm talking about 100 per cent certainty which is what you're claiming 2. A person need not make a claim of certainty for them to actually be certain You: I'm talking about 100 per cent certainty which is what you're claiming 3. A thing need not persist over time for it to still be (exist) at any given moment You: what is a ' thing ' ? What constitutes a thing and how can it be the same thing if it ages or loses parts ? (When you ask a question such as this, I will refer you to Webster or some other reputable dictionary. An accurate definition will not alter the my assertion which you have herein not yet addressed) a. You are exactly who you are when you are. Even if you aren’t who you were or will be You: : no you're not ' exactly ' how can you be 'exactly '. if there are changes however minuscule ? (Change occurs over time, not simultaneous with a given moment. You are ‘exactly’ what you are in any given moment. If you are different from what you are, then what you are is different, and you are exactly the different thing that you are. If you are a thing that changes, then you are exactly a thing that changes. It is an undeniable tautology that A = A. You = You. The changes you are referring to happen over time (however miniscule). But then you are still you, even if it isn’t who you were a miniscule moment ago. You have changed. Your experience has changed as well. The fact that you experience has not) b. You are always you, even if who you are is not the same from moment to moment. You: You haven't defined ' you ' or 'I ' but are you saying the ever changing you is still you but with changes ? (See Webster. Whatever definition you find, it will not change the fact that X = X and if X changes to X-1, then that means X-1 = X-1. This situation changes, but “you” cannot be anything other than “you” in the same place/time/respect. c. Though the nature of self may change over time, the fact of experience in any given moment cannot be doubted. You: The fact if experience may be true but how does that apply to 100 per cent certainty ? What you're claiming is 100 certainty which is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt , which to me is irrational . (If a fact cannot be doubted, then one can have certainty concerning it. I am stating with perfect knowledge that experience can never be thought to be anything other than experience. I am saying that A = A, that A cannot be anything other than A without being something other than A. This is the epitome of rational.. If you find the nature of reality to be irrational, then you are either confused about reality, or the nature of rationality). Try to show a circumstance wherein one could doubt that they are currently experiencing. Please try. Side: This is certain
interesting as I feel that's exactly what you're doing repeating yourself .... You're going around in circles let's cut to the chase at the finish you say ....... 1. Experience is a prerequisite for certainty, it is also a prerequisite for doubt You: I'm talking about 100 per cent certainty which is what you're claiming What you're claiming is 100 certainty which is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt , which to me is irrational . You say : (If a fact cannot be doubted, then one can have certainty concerning it. I am stating with perfect knowledge that experience can never be thought to be anything other than experience. I am saying that A = A, that A cannot be anything other than A without being something other than A. This is the epitome of rational.. If you find the nature of reality to be irrational, then you are either confused about reality, or the nature of rationality). Try to show a circumstance wherein one could doubt that they are currently experiencing. Please try. You haven't got perfect knowledge how can you claim to have perfect knowledge ? I'm still asking you repeatedly how you can prove your claim of 100 per cent certainty to anyone but yourself , as I keep saying you can claim 100 per cent certainty but I can and do claim it's iirrational to hold this view . Side: Nothing is certain
I'm still asking you repeatedly how you can prove your claim of 100 per cent certainty to anyone but yourself As stated previously, a person need not make a claim of certainty for them to actually be certain. One doesn't prove the self-evident. The self-evident is the structure upon which proof is possible. I cannot provide evidence that A is A, it simply is what it is. Everything is what it is, regardless of your knowledge of it. The impossibility of proof for this does not change the fact. So I can only refer you to examine your own experience, which you cannot logically doubt the existence of, for that itself would be an experience as well. So far your only actual criticism of my position is your own incredulity. You simply can't believe a person would claim 100% certainty. You are incredulous despite being unable to deny your own 100% certainty of the fact of experience. I have given various examples. Please give a counter-example. If my position is in fact irrational (not just a feeling you have), then it should not be hard to demonstrate this. Please provide a circumstance wherein a person can actually have a conscious experience that they cannot know in that moment that they are having. Side: This is certain
I know what you keep saying , let me try again and ask How can you claim perfect knowledge which is what 100 per cent certainty is ? Perfection can only come from perfection , the 100 per cent certainty is irrational , I have not got 100 per cent certainty in anything so I don't claim perfect knowledge of a conscious experience . Also it did not escape my attention that you avoided explaining what the ' I ' was one uses to describe one self ? Is the statement ' I think ' self evident ? Does that statement not require a number of assumptions ? Do you really think a dictionary explanation for the term 'I ' and 'You ' suffices ? Side: Nothing is certain
Do you really think a dictionary explanation for the term 'I ' and 'You ' suffices ? Yes. If you wish to use a different definition, then present it. If it is accurate then it will also suffice. Also it did not escape my attention that you avoided explaining what the ' I ' was one uses to describe one self ? See Webster I have not got 100 per cent certainty in anything so I don't claim perfect knowledge of a conscious experience The only way to not know you have experience is to not experience. Is it possible to have an experience without experiencing it? Perhaps your lack of certainty concerning everything, including the lack of certainty, leaves room for the possibility of 100% certainty. If 100% certainty is not possible, then you can be certain of that. Are you? How can you claim perfect knowledge which is what 100 per cent certainty is ? I claim 100% certainty of a matter by showing that there are no possible alternatives, as I have done. If you wish to counter my argument, show the alternative to the situation I claim has no alternative. Show how the experience of doubting your experience is not an experience. But please, articulate the argument, don’t simply assert the opposite of what I have said. Side: This is certain
You say ....Yes. If you wish to use a different definition, then present it. If it is accurate then it will also suffice.... No , Again for the fifth time I asked you to describe in your words how you define the 'I ' you speak of , bet you will avoid it yet again . There you go back to Webster Again I never said it was not possible to have an experience without experiencing , where did I say that ? You are the one CLAIMING 100 per cent certainty but again you're trying to evade what I asked . Yes I know you claim 100 per cent certainty which is perfect knowledge which makes your position irrational , I have asked you repeatedly to address my points but you avoid them which I'm sure you will do again . I have a feeling you may be a theist as Rene certainly was and I have a sense of where this might be leading Let's try again ...when you say " I think " is it self evident ? Do you not believe it requires several assumptions ? The main assumption being that the subject "I " actually exists ? If a thought occurs , it is I who think it rather than it ( the thought itself ) Side: Nothing is certain
No , Again for the fifth time I asked you to describe in your words how you define the 'I ' you speak of , bet you will avoid it yet again When you say “I asked you” and then require me to explain what “I” means, I have to doubt your sincerity. Your confusion about language is not a valid argument, that’s why I refer you to Webster, to spare you. Nonetheless, in my own words. When you say “I asked you” what you mean by “you” is the same entity that I mean when I say “I”. I apologize if that is somewhat unintelligible to you, given your apparent vocabulary. You are the one CLAIMING 100 per cent certainty but again you're trying to evade what I asked I actually went point by point. It’s the reason you are focusing on definitions now rather than time lapse. I haven’t avoided. You haven’t understood. Let's try again ...when you say " I think " is it self evident ? I don’t know, is it? When I say it it certainly is. I can’t speak for you. I don’t know if you are robot. The main assumption being that the subject "I " actually exists ? There cannot be an experience without an entity to have the experience. If that entity that experiences is capable of speech, and labels the entity that experiences “I”, then “I” exists is the entity that coexists with it’s experience. Without language the entity cannot convey the fact of experience to others. And even with language, there will be those who do not understand since experience is necessarily subjective. The fundamental truths on which everything depends, will not have any evidence of their truth. Evidence itself depends on these truths, not the other way around. Side: This is certain
First of all if you want to debate fine , if you want to indulge in personal insults I want to ask you why ? You said ...I apologize if that is somewhat unintelligible to you, given your apparent vocabulary...... No , the problem for you is you're making very little sense except to yourself , and there is no problem with my understanding of vocabulary , in fact it's you who fails to understand the written word as you keep demonstrating . 1: You claim 100 per cent certainty which is perfect knowledge which you say you have demonstrated by merely stating it 2: Perfect knowledge is normally attributed to a god Descartes had this in mind when he phrased his ..I think .. therefore .. I am 3: You are claiming 100 per cent cetainty .. perfect knowledge which is irrational unless you are indeed a god . Yet you keep muddying the waters by merely using the term experience wihtout also referring back to your 100 per cent certainty claim , which is nonsense 2: Definitions are important that is why you avoid giving them as in describing what the 'I ' actually is for you and how it affects your assertions , definitions don't seem that important to you as your arguments crumble if you have to give them Incidentally I'm not going chasing all the other threads in this debate as it's getting confusing doing so ; also thank you for pointing me on a path where you claim my victory may be thus implying you already know your position is lost . But I do not need your ' steps ' as your commentary on your own argument is equally weak ; I have several arguments that do the job nicely . 1: Your avoidance of defining the ' I ' was from the start was very telling and I suspect you knew where this would lead thus the avoidance and time wasting on your part . When you claim you exist you are speaking of your body and mind , in order to doubt your existence we must call into doubt body and mind ; the body is made up of physical parts the mind impressions , ideas , thoughts ; a body is nothing but a set of parts near each other the mind a set of ideas and impressions ... There is no "I" to exist Maybe you came into existence this instant with al, your memories and you will disappear in the next instant . Perhaps there are hundreds of others that are having the same impressions and idea that you are . How then are they yours ? There is no view that seems to offer a satisfactory explanation of personal identity i. Until a view has met the burden of proof for personal identity , there is no need to include persons or minds . I asked you several times about something being self evident which you avoided , the "I think " requires a number of assumptions that are never justified by the originator , the main one being that the subject " I " actually exists , this is begging the question . If you wish you may go through Renes famous statement word by word I can do that and destroy it , or if you wish for yet another destruction of your argument I will let Nietzsche do it for me as he does it beautifully . Side: Nothing is certain
I came across a word which describes Donald beautifully ..... trumpery ˈtrʌmp(ə)ri/ archaic noun 1. attractive articles of little value or use. "None of your woollen drapery, nor linen drapery, nor any of your frippery or trumpery. I hate ostentation" synonyms: trinkets, baubles, cheap finery, knick-knacks, ornaments, bibelots, gewgaws, gimcracks "tables piled with all sorts of trumpery" adjective 1. showy but worthless. "trumpery jewellery" Well all true except the 'attractive ' part :) Side: Nothing is certain
The proposition "I think, therefore I am" asserts without evidencing the concepts of a self, thinking, and abstract ontology. We have no hard proof of any of this, with the possible exception of a general ontology which is so highly abstracted as to be effectively meaningless as knowledge. Side: Nothing is certain
The proposition was meant to be relevant to a somewhat different conversation about certainty. The quote is close enough to my assertion that when one experiences, there is no doubt of it (thoughts and feeling being neurologically indistinguishable. One may doubt what they experience, but not that they experience. Even if immediately forgotten, there is no doubt at the time. I expect your post still applies, I just wanted to clarify. Experience presupposes existence, at minimum the existence of the experience. There is no experience without existence. By definition, there is no experience without an entity to have it. An entity doesn't have experience without being aware of it, that would not be an experience. Thus, if there is an experience, then the thing that experiences can know it's own coexistence with at least the experience. Whether this information is articulated or not, it is fundamentally doubtless. Fundamental concepts are not so abstract so as to be meaningless, they are so basic they provide the background to meaning itself. Existence isn't based on evidence, evidence is based on existence. Evidence isn't a given, provided to the void. Evidence is an understood arrangement that requires an understanding thing, or else it isn't evidence. Side: This is certain
What you say has an intuitive appeal to it, certainly, but it nevertheless presumes the veracity of our intuitions about experience, existence, semantics, and logic. None of these can be proven beyond a doubt, in no small part because we seem evidently incapable of stepping beyond our intuitions on things which seem too evident. That we cannot conceive of them being unsound, though, does not mean that they are sound. Beyond that, I'll say that I don't believe that experience necessitates a persistent self or consciousness. If by "the thing which experiences" you mean something akin to a persistent self, then, I would disagree. But tbh, I'm not entirely clear what your overall position is... Side: Nothing is certain
but it nevertheless presumes the veracity of our intuitions about experience, existence, semantics, and logic. Unless you are using the word “intuition” differently than the most common definitions (which specifically eliminate reason), intuition does not play a role in our modern conceptions of logic, existence etc... None of these can be proven beyond a doubt Fundamental concepts cannot be proven at all. There cannot even be evidence for their veracity. This is because evidence, proof, and veracity rely on fundamental concepts such as logic, experience, existence, etc. Thus, no logical connection can be used to doubt logic. You can choose to doubt logic, but doing so is necessarily illogical. I don't believe that experience necessitates a persistent self or consciousness “The thing which experiences” need not have a persistent existence. My formulation does not depend on a thing maintaining identity any longer than it’s coexistence with experience, however long or short. The persistence of self, which I have no reason to doubt, is a separate debate. Side: This is certain
|
