Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: hamdani yusuf on 13/11/2021 06:39:04
-
If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.
Better to start with observations.
The only thing we can be sure of is our own existence. Any other things can be deceiving, including our observations.
An assumption is necessary if it can somehow be related to our existence.
-
Cogito ergo sum - or even sum - is actually an axiom since it can't be proved or derived from observation.
-
Cogito ergo sum - or even sum - is actually an axiom since it can't be proved or derived from observation.
You can't be aware of your own existence while not existing. That's why this assumption is necessary.
-
An assumption is necessary if it can somehow be related to our existence.
I'll try to elaborate this. Some of us might think that many assumptions in math don't seem to be related to our existence, and think that it would counter my assertion above.
But in many situations like war, the accuracy of our calculation based on correct mathematical assumptions can determine between winning and losing, between life and death. Hence they are necessary assumptions.
-
If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.
Better to start with observations.
The only thing we can be sure of is our own existence. Any other things can be deceiving, including our observations.
An assumption is necessary if it can somehow be related to our existence.
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
-
An assumption is only necessary if your argument or calculation can't proceed without it and you have no actual data. It's very important to label assumptions and question them if your observations don't match up to your expectations.
In war the only safe assumption is that the enemy is as clever as you are, and knows all your secrets.
Cogito ergo sum is essentially circular or axiomatic, but is not necessary if you base your arguments on observations.
-
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
Cogito ergo sum.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
-
An assumption is only necessary if your argument or calculation can't proceed without it and you have no actual data.
You assume that your data is actual.
-
Cogito ergo sum is essentially circular or axiomatic, but is not necessary if you base your arguments on observations.
You interpret your observations using assumptions. You assume you're not hallucinating. You assume your instrumentations haven't changed significantly since last calibration, etc.
-
Doesn't matter, as long as the results are consistent. The sun always rises in the east, so I can deduce a consistent cosmology with no untestable assumptions. The day it doesn't, I'll review my cosmology, because in science the model is less important than the observation.
-
Doesn't matter, as long as the results are consistent. The sun always rises in the east, so I can deduce a consistent cosmology with no untestable assumptions. The day it doesn't, I'll review my cosmology, because in science the model is less important than the observation.
Testable or not, true or false, you must make assumptions. You assume that the future universe will work the same way as it was in the past, and your current understanding about it is correct.
-
No, I predict that it will work the same tomorrow as today, and if it doesn't, I know my current understanding is incorrect. That's how science works.
-
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
Cogito ergo sum.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
What if we are in a simulation and we have only the illusion of existence and thinking?
-
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
Cogito ergo sum.
The cogito part begs the existence, a fallacy. The ergo sum part is a non-sequitur, also fallicious.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
Which is sort of like asking if 3+5 is actually equal to 8, or only if 3 and 5 exist.
The point is mostly off topic. A universal moral standard need not 'exist' if it is a standard for a universe whose existence isn't distinct from its nonexistence. I deny such a standard, but that stance isn't a function of my stance on the existence of things. And besides, I probably have a different definition of 'being' than does Descartes. I go more along with Rovelli's definition, which is relational. Rovelli showed that one cannot collapse ones own wave function, therefore 'ergo sum' falls apart.
-
No, I predict that it will work the same tomorrow as today, and if it doesn't, I know my current understanding is incorrect. That's how science works.
You assume that your current model of reality is the most correct one. There might be some observations that it can't explain, but no other model can do it better. So you stick to the current one.
In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.
This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.
— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97
Informally, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".
Planck's quote has been used by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and others to argue that scientific revolutions are non-rational, rather than spreading through "mere force of truth and fact".[2][3][4][5] It has been described as Darwinian rather than Lamarckian conceptual evolution.[6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
-
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
Cogito ergo sum.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
What if we are in a simulation and we have only the illusion of existence and thinking?
It means that we exist in the simulation. It requires the assumption that the simulation exists, and implies that someone has built and run it. Those are unnecessary assumptions to explain observations, which can be explained more simply. It means we should discard the idea, according to Occam's razor.
-
The cogito part begs the existence, a fallacy. The ergo sum part is a non-sequitur, also fallicious.
Any reasoning must start somewhere, which is the basic assumption. Otherwise, it would lead to infinite regress. It would prevent us from making rational decisions in a finite amount of time.
Why use reason?
We end up with capacity-circularity, which can't be a flaw in an argument, because it's not a property of arguments in themselves.
The capacity to reason isn't a premise or a rule, so the argument for its legitimacy need not be premise-circular or rule-circular.
This argument is closely related to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum, which I've mentioned before.
-
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
Cogito ergo sum.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
What if we are in a simulation and we have only the illusion of existence and thinking?
It means that we exist in the simulation. It requires the assumption that the simulation exists, and someone has built and run it. Those are unnecessary assumptions to explain observations, which can be explained more simply. It means we should discard the idea, according to Occam's razor.
I'd like to believe in it very much. But if we are really in the simulation, then the creators of the simulation exist (and even then not exactly), and we do not exist, because we are illusory.
-
Which is sort of like asking if 3+5 is actually equal to 8, or only if 3 and 5 exist.
I think this is a false equivalence. Can those numbers have subjective experience?
-
I'd like to believe in it very much. But if we are really in the simulation, then the creators of the simulation exist (and even then not exactly), and we do not exist, because we are illusory.
Even if we live in a simulation, it doesn't deny our existence. It just means that our forms and parts/components are not what we usually think they are.
Anyone who still exist now act as if they are living in a real world. Those who start to act otherwise won't last for long.
-
I separated this diversion from the mother thread. If you want me to discuss your existence, I’m not going to do it buried thousands of posts in a topic that has long since lost its focus on a completely different subject.
If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.
Better to start with observations.
Totally agree. I also agree with marklivin, at least on the ontology points.
The only thing we can be sure of is our own existence.
You seem to contradict yourself very quickly on this point:
Any reasoning must start somewhere, which is the basic assumption.
That's why this assumption is necessary.
If it’s an assumption, then it must be because it cannot be demonstrated. So how can you be so sure of something for which there is no empirical evidence, necessitating this assumption?
Which is sort of like asking if 3+5 is actually equal to 8, or only if 3 and 5 exist.
I think this is a false equivalence. Can those numbers have subjective experience?
I never said anything about 3+5 having subjective experience. I said that their property of existence or lack of it has no bearing on whether their sum is 8 or not. That’s the premise that I hold, because I cannot prove or disprove it.
Perhaps it would be best to actually give your definition of existence, to prevent us from talking past each other. It’s so important in topics like this, but is typically omitted by the naive poster. My own definition is doubtless quite different from yours, but I’m not using my definition, only guessing at yours.
You can't be aware of your own existence while not existing.
Nonsense. Any illusion is by definition the awareness of something that isn’t there. Your property of existence (probably, depending on definition) has no bearing on your awareness of it, since there’s no empirical test for such a property.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
Again, depends on your definition, and in this case, it seems to require a definition based on consciousness, which is bordering on idealism.
-
If it’s an assumption, then it must be because it cannot be demonstrated. So how can you be so sure of something for which there is no empirical evidence, necessitating this assumption?
Any theory starts with assumptions or axioms. Euclid's Element, Newton's Principia, and Einstein's Relativity theories state them explicitly, while some others use them implicitly.
Cogito ergo sum is necessarily true because it's negation leads to contradiction.
-
I never said anything about 3+5 having subjective experience. I said that their property of existence or lack of it has no bearing on whether their sum is 8 or not. That’s the premise that I hold, because I cannot prove or disprove it.
A conscious agent can only be sure about its own existence. It can't be sure about the consciousness of other things. It It can only conclude about them through observations, which may or may not be correct. Someone seeing a marionette in action may think that it's conscious.
-
Perhaps it would be best to actually give your definition of existence, to prevent us from talking past each other. It’s so important in topics like this, but is typically omitted by the naive poster. My own definition is doubtless quite different from yours, but I’m not using my definition, only guessing at yours.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist
Definition of exist
intransitive verb
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
//did unicorns exist
//the largest galaxy known to exist
b: to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions
//strange ideas existed in his mind
2: to continue to be
//racism still exists in society
Thinking alone can only guarantee the existence in definition #1b. The conscious agent can turn out to be a brain in a vat or a computer simulation.
For definition #1a, especially the material portion, more evidences are required to demonstrate that the agent exists in objective reality. The conclusion can be made as a Bayesian inference.
-
The emergence of consciousness can be observed in a process with manageable time span, like the growth of a zygote into a normal/average adult human. Most of us agree that a zygote is unconscious, while a normal/average adult human is conscious. It shows that consciousness is not a binary function. Otherwise, there would be a day when someone switches from non-conscious state to become conscious.
-
You assume that your current model of reality is the most correct one.
Until proven otherwise by observation. It's what distinguishes scientists from believers.
-
What if we are in a simulation
A simulation of what?
-
You assume that your current model of reality is the most correct one.
Until proven otherwise by observation. It's what distinguishes scientists from believers.
What makes scientists disagree with each other?
-
Different interpretations of data, or more often, failure to appreciate the differences between data sets.
A good example is [mod edit: Not dragging your personal climate change agenda into yet another thread]
-
You see my point! I don't have an agenda, just lots of data and respect for the laws of physics and the opinions of others.
Phlogiston and a flat earth are harmless interpretations of partial data, but the thing I'm not allowed to discuss is causing a lot of harm.
-
Cogito ergo sum is necessarily true because it's negation leads to contradiction.
If that were true, it wouldn’t need to be an assumption, so you’re contradicting yourself yet again. Kindly show (without begging any other assertions) how its negation (I think and not I am) leads to a contradiction.
I never said anything about 3+5 having subjective experience. I said that their property of existence or lack of it has no bearing on whether their sum is 8 or not. That’s the premise that I hold, because I cannot prove or disprove it.
A conscious agent can only be sure about its own existence. It can't be sure about the consciousness of other things. It It can only conclude about them through observations, which may or may not be correct. Someone seeing a marionette in action may think that it's conscious.
Yet again, I was not talking about consciousness when bringing up the sum of 3+5. You persist in giving irrelevant replies to what I feel is an important point to the topic at hand.
I’m not asking if 3 or 5 ‘knows’ that their sum is 8. Please answer the actual question: Does the property of existence or lack of it have any bearing on whether the sum of 3+5 is 8 or not.
Perhaps it would be best to actually give your definition of existence, to prevent us from talking past each other. It’s so important in topics like this, but is typically omitted by the naive poster. My own definition is doubtless quite different from yours, but I’m not using my definition, only guessing at yours.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exist
1a: to have real being whether material or spiritual
//did unicorns exist
//the largest galaxy known to exist
b: to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions
//strange ideas existed in his mind
Thinking alone can only guarantee the existence in definition #1b. The conscious agent can turn out to be a brain in a vat or a computer simulation.
For definition #1a, especially the material portion, more evidences are required to demonstrate that the agent exists in objective reality. The conclusion can be made as a Bayesian inference.
OK, you’re essentially quoting the everyday language definition of ‘exist’, which is in short: “Is (currently) part of our universe”. I was speaking more of the metaphysical existence that Descartes was trying to doubt.
I will agree that the everyday definition isn’t very deep, and that everything nearby exists in that sense.
You said that things in simulations exist, so if you see the cup, the cup must be part of the simulation (or part of the experience feed into the BIV), and so the cup exists just as much as do you.
The everyday definition is very classical, and falls apart at the quantum level. Does a given photon exist? It seems not. It might be measured, but once measured, it’s no longer in existence, and until measured, there’s no way to show that it has any sort of classical existence like position or something. But this is well beyond the classical definition you gave, and even beyond that for which Descartes was reaching since the QM implications were completely unknown at that time.
but the thing I'm not allowed to discuss is causing a lot of harm.
You can discuss it all you want in relevant topics. Don't derail unrelated ones.
-
If that were true, it wouldn’t need to be an assumption, so you’re contradicting yourself yet again. Kindly show (without begging any other assertions) how its negation (I think and not I am) leads to a contradiction.
Do you doubt your own existence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum
The Latin cogito, ergo sum,(a) usually translated into English as "I think, therefore I am",(b) is a philosophical statement that was made by René Descartes. The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his 1637 Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed.[1] It appeared in Latin in his later Principles of Philosophy, and a similar phrase also featured prominently in his Meditations on First Philosophy. The dictum is also sometimes referred to as the cogito.[2] As Descartes explained it, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes' intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am").[c][d]
Descartes's statement became a fundamental element of Western philosophy, as it purported to provide a certain foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt. While other knowledge could be a figment of imagination, deception, or mistake, Descartes asserted that the very act of doubting one's own existence served—at minimum—as proof of the reality of one's own mind; there must be a thinking entity—in this case the self—for there to be a thought.
One common critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".[3]
While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge,- I think, therefore I am,[e] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.[p]
-
Does the property of existence or lack of it have any bearing on whether the sum of 3+5 is 8 or not.
Evaluating the sum 3+5=8 requires the existence of their respectable concepts, i.e. the numbers 3, 5, 8, also operators of sum and equality. If they are not well defined, the evaluation process is meaningless.
-
They are fully defined in "elementary"* arithmetic, but cardinal numbers are essentially adjectives, not nouns, so "existence" is not a required quality for them to be useful.
*i.e. advanced number theory - the elements of arithmetic - not the arithmetic that is taught in elementary schools!
-
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 16:35:44
but the thing I'm not allowed to discuss is causing a lot of harm.
You can discuss it all you want in relevant topics. Don't derail unrelated ones.
OK, let's consider phlogiston. You heat glass in air, it loses weight and you can see the moisture being driven off. You heat a metal in air and it gets heavier. Therefore heat is driving off something invisible, with negative weight. Massive consensus based on uncritical observation of a correlation. Sun rises in the east every day, therefore it goes round the earth: ditto.
People have been vilified and even killed for suggesting that there might be a better explanation.
-
They are fully defined in "elementary"* arithmetic, but cardinal numbers are essentially adjectives, not nouns, so "existence" is not a required quality for them to be useful.
Online dictionaries say that they are nouns. Did they make a common mistake?
-
Ordinal numbers have the property of nouns, but cardinals are counting numbers which define the property of a set - how many eggs in the basket. A word that describes something is an adjective.
To amalgamate sets with similar contents we can add their cardinals: {eggs, two} + {eggs, three} = {eggs, five}
You can create a superset by amalgamating sets with dissimilar contents {apples, 10} + {oranges, 15} = {fruits, 25}
The word "number" is a noun, but that's not the point! "Color" is a noun, but "blue" (or any color) is an adjective.
-
As Descartes explained it, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt."
I do not believe this was his axiom, but if it is, then all you need to do to doubt it is to not posit this premise.
A fuller version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas, aptly captures Descartes' intent: dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am").
…
One common critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking.
I also don’t think that this was his base assertion, since as I recall it was something more along the lines of “there is doubt, therefore there is something to instantiate the doubt”, and only later on was the “I” concluded and Descartes makes his famous ‘cogito ergo sum’ conclusion. I could be wrong, but a base premise rarely has a 'therefore' in it.
Point is that if ‘there is thinking’ as metaphysical axiom (as opposed to the everyday language definition that you are using), then he’s alreaady begging his conclusion. I do not accept the bold statement above if the metaphysical existence of the doubt is exactly what is in question. That would be completely fallacious reasoning.
Does the property of existence or lack of it have any bearing on whether the sum of 3+5 is 8 or not.
Evaluating the sum 3+5=8 requires ...
I’m not talking about requirements of its evaluation.
Actually, the discussion has delved into the mathematical definition of ‘exists’, and all of 3, 5, and 8 exist (mathematical sense) as integers, and that’s enough for the sum of the first two to be the other. No evaluation, process, awareness, or physical instantiation is required for this to be true. Those things are only required to show or realize that this is true, but I’m not talking about that part.
The implications of this are very relevant to the topic at hand, which is why I’ve been stressing this point.
Online dictionaries say that they are nouns. Did they make a common mistake?
Online dictionaries tend not to give mathematical, metaphysical, or physics definition of words that have everyday meaning. Some do. Your webster quote gave none of these.
Do you doubt your own existence?
To be honest, the answer isn’t short.
I am well aware of there being multiple components (processes if you will) to my thinking and beliefs. I have a pragmatic part and a rational one, and they don’t always agree with each other. The pragmatic side believes that “I exist” in the dictionary sense. I am part of the universe. So that’s simple. That side has little use for more than that, and it is in charge.
The rational side however requires all the words to be redefined to make any sense since the English language has too many naive assumptions built in for the question as worded to even make sense. So instead of using first person A-series language that the pragmatic side uses, the question needs to be answered in third-person B-series to be expressed properly.
The metaphysical definition of “exist” used is a relation, as described by Rovelli. System X exists in relation to system Y if Y has measured X. So if an event X (a system at a specific time) is hamdani yusuf that posted post 2 of this thread (designated HY2) is system X, then HY2 exists to Halc20 because Halc20 has measured HY2 by being in a state of having read that post and replying to it, but neither HY21 nor Halc30 exists to Halc20 because Halc20 has not measured either of them.
Per Rovelli, a given system can measure its parts, but cannot meaningfully measure itself (the system). This is illustrated by Schrodinger’s can not being able to collapse its own wave function while in the box. The cat is still in superposition relative to Schrodinger on the outside of the box. The live cat state is simply in a coherent state as is the dead cat state.
Thus, it is meaningless to ask if I doubt my own existence because that requires a self-reference. Yes, Halc30 (of whom the question was asked) does exist to Halc37 (the answerer of the question). Halc (no number, the identity that the pragmatic side cares about) does not define anything that logically obeys the law of identity, so the rational side does not believe that Halc exists.
Also, while part of the universe may well exist relative to Halc37, Halc37 does not exist relative to the universe except as a superposition of multiple states.
You didn’t answer this question (or retract your assertion):
Cogito ergo sum is necessarily true because it's negation leads to contradiction.
Kindly show (without begging any other assertions) how its negation (I think and not I am) leads to a contradiction.
I think your attempt was to quote the thing in bold at the top of this post, but that’s exactly the begging assertion I was talking about. Apparently you agree that Descartes' statement is not necessarily true since its negation only contradicts assertions that are equally not necessarily true.
-
I also don’t think that this was his base assertion, since as I recall it was something more along the lines of “there is doubt, therefore there is something to instantiate the doubt”, and only later on was the “I” concluded and Descartes makes his famous ‘cogito ergo sum’ conclusion. I could be wrong, but a base premise rarely has a 'therefore' in it.
Point is that if ‘there is thinking’ as metaphysical axiom (as opposed to the everyday language definition that you are using), then he’s alreaady begging his conclusion. I do not accept the bold statement above if the metaphysical existence of the doubt is exactly what is in question. That would be completely fallacious reasoning.
Any new knowledge starts with inductive reasoning, in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. That's exactly what Descartes did. He said:
Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something; And as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am,[e] was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the Sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.[h]
Keppler formulated his laws from observational results of planets appearance positions through out many years. Newton formulated his universal gravitation from observing a falling apple and compared it to the moon orbiting the earth. Einstein postulated his constancy of speed of light from other scientists' experimental results.
Once a general principle is obtained, it can be used as the basis to make predictions using deductive reasoning. Follow up observations can be done to check if the predictions are correct. If they turn out to produce deviations, the previous general principle might be rejected or modified, like the case of MOND.
The 'therefore' you found in Descartes' writing can be seen as the result of further reasoning, testing the obtained basic assumption which ends up as confirmation of previous result. It's comparable to discovery of Neptune as confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory.
The something in bold above doesn't have to be a brain inside a complete human body. It doesn't have to be biological, nor even carbon based. It just cannot be nothing at all. IMO, it must involve some information processing. It reminds me of the movie Free Guy.
-
The word "number" is a noun, but that's not the point! "Color" is a noun, but "blue" (or any color) is an adjective.
You're right. Blue is primarily classified as adjective, although some sentences can treat it as noun or verb.
Interestingly, the word "three" is primarily classified as number, although it can be treated as noun. But Google's dictionary doesn't say that it can be an adjective. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster primarily classified it as noun, although it can also be used as adjective and pronoun.
The word "half" is primarily classified as noun. Although it can also be used as adjective and adverb.
-
Descartes seems to be toying with idealism at first, up until the ‘observation’.
Any new knowledge starts with inductive reasoning, in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. That's exactly what Descartes did:
Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us; And because some men err in reasoning, and fall into Paralogisms, even on the simplest matters of Geometry, I, convinced that I was as open to error as any other, rejected as false all the reasonings I had hitherto taken for Demonstrations; And finally, when I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams. But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be something;
None of the preceding text seems relevant. He’s questioning the reality of noumena, and then he just asserts this statement you’ve bolded. It just doesn’t follow from the preceding text (non-sequitur fallacy) and he asserts it to be ‘absolutely necessary’ without explanation (begging conclusion fallacy). Granted, he got away with the declaration because back in those days, it really was not the sort of thing you questioned, but calling it absolutely necessary is going too far since I’ve given counterexamples (to which you’ve not responded, so the example must be sound).
I notice Descartes also eventually concluded God and soul, exactly as he was striving for since one was not really permitted to conclude otherwise back then. Sorry, I don’t have a strong opinion of philosophy from the era when the church had a stranglehold on all thinking.
Keppler formulated his laws from observational results of planets appearance positions through out many years. Newton formulated his universal gravitation from observing a falling apple and compared it to the moon orbiting the earth. Einstein postulated his constancy of speed of light from other scientists' experimental results.
You’re comparing philosophy with science. All these people made testable predictions. Descartes did not. Well, he sort of did, but they all fell completely flat, and were scoffed at even in his time. Read the bit about the pineal gland, probably selected due to its immunity from investigation at the time.
-
None of the preceding text seems relevant.
Rejecting Descartes' conclusion means that we must doubt everything, including our own existence. It also means that we accept the possibility that we don't exist while we are doubting something.
-
I notice Descartes also eventually concluded God and soul, exactly as he was striving for since one was not really permitted to conclude otherwise back then. Sorry, I don’t have a strong opinion of philosophy from the era when the church had a stranglehold on all thinking.
We don't reject someone's assertion just because he made mistakes somewhere else. We still widely use Cartesian coordinate, for instance.
-
Read the bit about the pineal gland, probably selected due to its immunity from investigation at the time.
How do you think it is related to our topic?
-
Rejecting Descartes' conclusion means that we must doubt everything, including our own existence.
That doesn't follow. You are free to not doubt it if you want. I cannot think of a philosophical assertion that is necessarily true. By definition, they wouldn't be philosophy if they were. That does not mean that we must all be radical skeptics. You choose your beliefs typically to conform to your comfort. But that doesn't give you any right to assert that your beliefs are necessarily true.
So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.
We don't reject someone's assertion just because he made mistakes somewhere else.
That's right. We reject them because they're demonstrably wrong. I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.
If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.
-
That doesn't follow. You are free to not doubt it if you want. I cannot think of a philosophical assertion that is necessarily true. By definition, they wouldn't be philosophy if they were. That does not mean that we must all be radical skeptics. You choose your beliefs typically to conform to your comfort. But that doesn't give you any right to assert that your beliefs are necessarily true.
It does. Which definition of philosophy are you using?
Not being a radical skeptic means that there is at least one thing that we are sure of. Is there something that you are more sure of than your own existence?
Here is the interpretation of cogito ergo sum which may be useful in this discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Interpretation
As put succinctly by Krauth (1872), "That cannot doubt which does not think, and that cannot think which does not exist. I doubt, I think, I exist."[33]
The phrase cogito, ergo sum is not used in Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy but the term "the cogito" is used to refer to an argument from it. In the Meditations, Descartes phrases the conclusion of the argument as "that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind" (Meditation II).
At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt—his argument from the existence of a deceiving god—Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence, he finds that it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon), one's belief in their own existence would be secure, for there is no way one could be deceived unless one existed in order to be deceived.
But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)[y]
There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he claims only the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view — he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he does not say that his existence is necessary; he says that if he thinks, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) or on empirical induction but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition. Descartes does not use this first certainty, the cogito, as a foundation upon which to build further knowledge; rather, it is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he works to discover further truths.[40] As he puts it:
Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable. (AT VII 24; CSM II 16)[y]
According to many Descartes specialists, including Étienne Gilson, the goal of Descartes in establishing this first truth is to demonstrate the capacity of his criterion — the immediate clarity and distinctiveness of self-evident propositions — to establish true and justified propositions despite having adopted a method of generalized doubt. As a consequence of this demonstration, Descartes considers science and mathematics to be justified to the extent that their proposals are established on a similarly immediate clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence that presents itself to the mind. The originality of Descartes's thinking, therefore, is not so much in expressing the cogito—a feat accomplished by other predecessors, as we shall see—but on using the cogito as demonstrating the most fundamental epistemological principle, that science and mathematics are justified by relying on clarity, distinctiveness, and self-evidence. Baruch Spinoza in "Principia philosophiae cartesianae" at its Prolegomenon identified "cogito ergo sum" the "ego sum cogitans" (I am a thinking being) as the thinking substance with his ontological interpretation.
-
So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.
I think Descartes has demonstrated it pretty clearly. You are free to disagree, though.
-
I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.
If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.
Are you referring to the number summation? Since we are not those numbers, we can doubt their existence. I can doubt your existence too. The only thing that I can't doubt is my own existence. On the other hand, the only thing that you can't doubt is your own existence.
-
Speaking about radical skepticism,
Further thoughts on Zen skepticism
-
The only thing that I can't doubt is my own existence.
What evidence do you have for it?
-
The only thing that I can't doubt is my own existence.
What evidence do you have for it?
Any evidence relies on more fundamental axioms. If there is no such thing as the most fundamental assumption, then any evidence will lead to infinite regress and end up as indefinite suspension of judgment. It would defeat the purpose of evidence in the first place.
-
Wrong! Evidence and axioms are quite different. Evidence is what happens, axioms are the assumptions we make to model the evidence.
-
Wrong! Evidence and axioms are quite different. Evidence is what happens, axioms are the assumptions we make to model the evidence.
Wrong! What happens are called fact. It may or may not be related to the assertion. Only if it does, it's called evidence, either for or against. But it depends on the model we use, which in turn relies on the basic assumptions that we choose.
-
OK - pedant pendant pending! Evidence is a subset of what happens.
But things go horribly wrong if you base that subset on an axiom rather than apply a test of relevance. Ask Galileo, Bruno, Einstein, Lavoisier, or the boy who said the emperor had no clothes.
-
The exact same fact can be used to support or deny a model.
Light rain falls slower than heavy rain. Dust falls slower than sand, slower than stones. Those observation lead ancient people, including Aristoteles, to conclude that heavy things fall faster than lighter things. They didn't seem to consider air friction.
Apparent planets position against fixed stars can be used to support geocentric as well as heliocentric models. It depends on the axioms used to build the models, such as epicycles, perfection of circular motion, etc.
-
I know that I'm here. I just don't know for certain what "I" am.
I may just be an isolated thought somewhere but that thought exists and it's alt least part of me.
-
Galileo challenged Aristotle's gravity model by asking what happens if you attach a light object to a heavy one. Does the light object slow down the heavy one, or does the heavy one accelerate the light one? If your model can't give you an unequivocal answer, it's a crap model.
Aha, if you attach a parachute to a rock, it falls slower than the rock but faster than a parachute with a lighter rock. So Aristotle was right?
But only if the parachute is open. Packed in its bag, or wrapped tightly around a rock, it falls pretty much as fast as a rock. So maybe it's something to do with shape rather than mass? Now we are getting somewhere.
-
Galileo challenged Aristotle's gravity model by asking what happens if you attach a light object to a heavy one.
Galileo did it by doubting Aristoteles' conclusion, which seem to be obvious that time. That's what was done by Descartes : doubting every assertion. He just found that he can't doubt his own existence while doubting.
-
Galileo didn't present his argument as beginning with a doubt, but asking "what if" - the scientific test of a hypothesis. Sometimes we get the answer by experiment, but occasionally (as in this case) the question reveals an inconsistency that demands explanation or a variation of the hypothesis.
-
Galileo didn't present his argument as beginning with a doubt, but asking "what if" - the scientific test of a hypothesis. Sometimes we get the answer by experiment, but occasionally (as in this case) the question reveals an inconsistency that demands explanation or a variation of the hypothesis.
It's called doubt. He acknowledged that Aristoteles' conclusion can be false. Otherwise he won't bother to test it.
-
Difference between having a doubt, which is what distinguishes scientists from lemmings, and expressing a doubt, which can get you into serious trouble. So Galileo did the diplomatic thing and published a hypothetical discussion. Still got him into trouble, but less so than Bruno who was burned at the stake by a merciful and compassionate church for suggesting that distant stars might have orbiting planets.
-
Having a doubt is adequate to be sure of our own existence, even when it's not expressed.
-
Having a doubt is adequate to be sure of our own existence
Being sure about something means the complete lack of doubt about it, so you defeat yourself with this self-contradictory statement.
It is very trivial to disprove a strong statement such as "X is necessarily true" by simply finding a counterexample, which I have done. Far better to use the weaker form: "I presume X to be true" which just makes it a premise, not a necessary thing. Such a statement cannot be falsified by mere counterexample.
This topic is 60 posts in and you still don't seem to get that logic.
So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.
I think Descartes has demonstrated it pretty clearly. You are free to disagree, though.
That you think he has is irrelevant. He hasn't, and all you have shown is repeated assertions of same, not any kind of demonstration of necessity of it. As I said, I have shown a counterexample, which not only puts the necessity of the assertion in doubt, but actually disproves it.
I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.
If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.
Are you referring to the number summation?
No, I'm talking about your assertion of the necessity of the existence of a doubter.
Here's another example:
Thinking is a process, and thus doubt is the result of a process. A process can take place despite the lack of existence of a 'thing' implementing the process.
So for instance, evolution is similarly a process, and a rabbit is an evolved creature, despite no rabbit having ever 'evolved'. There was never a creature that suddenly became more evolved (more rabbitty?) than it had been the day before. The process takes place between a rabbit and its ancestors. Now and then some creature had a descendant that was more rabbitty than the parent despite neither the creature nor the descendant actually doing any evolving.
Hence the process (evolution, thinking) does not necessarily require the existence of a specific thing implementing the process. But despite these counterexamples, you and your friend assert the impossibility of a process occurring without a unified 'thing' in which the process is implemented.
And yes, my first example demonstrates why what is naively referred to as "I" in the human language does not necessarily correspond to a temporally extended unified thing which would have otherwise have qualified as this thinker. But of course you just glaze over that because it demonstrates your position to be false, and hence must be discarded. That's how rationalization works. Answer comes first, then gather only evidence that supports it.
A thought experiment, closer to the point under consideration:
We do the Schrodinger's cat thing, except we stuff Halc in the box, legendary doubter of existence. The quantum event is measured and Halc is put into a superposition of being dead or being alive. The alive Halc is doubting his existence, which is thinking, which necessarily requires existence according to you. Schrodinger opens the box to find a dead Halc. It seems that the doubt was thinking being done by a nonexistent Halc (at least by some interpretations of QM), and since no valid interpretation can be falsified, the doubt is justified.
Descartes could not have considered such a situation since QM was unknown at the time, and it opened up a whole new arena of things to doubt, all of which were axiomatically true at the time and even presumed necessarily true. History was to demonstrate otherwise in coming centuries.
-
Being sure about something means the complete lack of doubt about it, so you defeat yourself with this self-contradictory statement.
So you think you can doubt your own existence.
-
It is very trivial to disprove a strong statement such as "X is necessarily true" by simply finding a counterexample, which I have done. Far better to use the weaker form: "I presume X to be true" which just makes it a premise, not a necessary thing. Such a statement cannot be falsified by mere counterexample.
Do you conclude that nothing is necessarily true?
-
Here's another example:
Thinking is a process, and thus doubt is the result of a process. A process can take place despite the lack of existence of a 'thing' implementing the process.
So for instance, evolution is similarly a process, and a rabbit is an evolved creature, despite no rabbit having ever 'evolved'. There was never a creature that suddenly became more evolved (more rabbitty?) than it had been the day before. The process takes place between a rabbit and its ancestors. Now and then some creature had a descendant that was more rabbitty than the parent despite neither the creature nor the descendant actually doing any evolving.
Rabbitness is not a well defined attribute. We can pick thousands of rabbits randomly from around the world. There is no consensus to pick the most representative of a rabbit among them.
-
A thought experiment, closer to the point under consideration:
We do the Schrodinger's cat thing, except we stuff Halc in the box, legendary doubter of existence. The quantum event is measured and Halc is put into a superposition of being dead or being alive. The alive Halc is doubting his existence, which is thinking, which necessarily requires existence according to you. Schrodinger opens the box to find a dead Halc. It seems that the doubt was thinking being done by a nonexistent Halc (at least by some interpretations of QM), and since no valid interpretation can be falsified, the doubt is justified.
Descartes could not have considered such a situation since QM was unknown at the time, and it opened up a whole new arena of things to doubt, all of which were axiomatically true at the time and even presumed necessarily true. History was to demonstrate otherwise in coming centuries.
I find it weird that you trust QM more than your own existence. How well do you understand it?
-
So for instance, evolution is similarly a process, and a rabbit is an evolved creature, despite no rabbit having ever 'evolved'. There was never a creature that suddenly became more evolved (more rabbitty?) than it had been the day before. The process takes place between a rabbit and its ancestors. Now and then some creature had a descendant that was more rabbitty than the parent despite neither the creature nor the descendant actually doing any evolving.
Rather a lot of entangled selfcontradictions here. Evolution is an observation, not a conscious or even individual action. The fact that you don't look exactly like both of your parents (which is obviously impossible) is summarised by saying you have evolved from them. You can observe differentiation of species as random genetic mutations get filtered by environmental stress, and you can indeed define an aristotype of any species - it's the essence of judging dog breeding and country shows!
-
So you think you can doubt your own existence.
What I choose to believe or doubt is entirely irrelevant to the necessity of your assertion.
Do you conclude that nothing is necessarily true?
Also irrelevant, but since you asked, the laws of thought seem necessary, and for the reasons Alan gave in post 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought#The_three_traditional_laws
They cannot be proven, but by definition, it seems that no falsification of them is possible either.
Rabbitness is not a well defined attribute.
Not claiming otherwise, but you must agree that any rabbit is more rabbity than the 480-million-year-ago fish from which it (and you) evolved. That didn't happen in one generation. It was a process. My point again with that counterexample (since both you as always, and Alan, missed it) was that a process (thought, evolution) doesn't necessitate a specific object implementing the process (thinker, evolver).
Alan attempts to actually address my evolution example, but Alan also seems to be reading-comprehension impaired. You've not found any fault at all with any of my counterexamples demonstrating your assertions to be wrong.
Rather a lot of entangled selfcontradictions here.
None identified I see. All I see are strawman claims of what you apparently thought my point was. I was agreeing with your contributions to this topic until now.
Evolution is an observation, not a conscious or even individual action.
I called it a process, never suggesting it to be a conscious or individual action. As a matter of fact, it was my point that process need not occur in any individual processor, a counterexample to HY's assertion that it is necessarily otherwise. So you seem to be reinforcing my point rather than pointing out any 'self-contradiction'.
While we're at it, evolution isn't an observation. Our knowledge of it may be due to observation, but the process itself is not, nor does it require, observation.
The fact that you don't look exactly like both of your parents (which is obviously impossible) is summarised by saying you have evolved from them.
I didn't make any such summary, but a creature not looking identical to its immediate ancestors is definitely part of what makes it fit, an advantage that first made the Eukaryotes far more fit than their predecessors which tended to produce nearly identical copies when reproducing.
-
Our knowledge of it may be due to observation, but the process itself is not, nor does it require, observation.
But we have never (until very recently) observed the process, only the outcome. Darwin and his predecessors had no means of sequencing a genome, much less editing one to see what happens. So the word "evolution", which had indeed been used before Darwin, must denote an observation or at most a presumed process.
Happy to wear the Pedant Pendant on this one!
I didn't make any such summary,
nor did I credit it to you! It's my own riposte to Creationists, and has slaughtered many such infidels.
-
What I choose to believe or doubt is entirely irrelevant to the necessity of your assertion.
You are free to choose actions, but you are not free to choose the consequences.
Here's how our discussion went.
Having a doubt is adequate to be sure of our own existence, even when it's not expressed.
Being sure about something means the complete lack of doubt about it, so you defeat yourself with this self-contradictory statement.
So you think you can doubt your own existence.
The bolded term is meant for everything else, except our own existence at the time of doubting. We can't be sure about our own existence before nor after the doubting.