lg-I lean towards the idea that there is no acceptable proof of anything. All things are based on assumption, therefore, no things can be said to be true or false, and all possibilities are equally valid.
How can we base our existence on thought?
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
I'm not sure what you mean here.
This is not correct.
Validity is a function of form, having nothing to do with whatever 'might be the case' (some people here might say 'reality'). Truth, is a function of validity, so, you can see how this is contingent upon form.
You note that all things are based upon assumption, and, this is correct, to a degree. But you see, this degree makes all the difference. Inductively, we can derive a very high degree of probability that certain things will be true. The problem is that people tend to misunderstand (and/or misapply) concepts like 'truth', 'certain', etc.
Glaucon-So then, it is not possible for, say, one person to win the high value lottery 5 weeks in a row, because it is highly improbable? To me, all levels of probability, at some point, become a simple binary function, or a yes/no.
The sun will rise in the east this morning? Yes/no
The Earth will fall into the sun today? Yes/no
The probability of these are defined from experiernce and mathematical theory, but in the end, they will or will not occur.
So, the possibility that nothing exists is as "true" as the possibility that much more than we can readily perceive exists. One escape is to introduce something as concrete, a priori that exists no matter what. I'm not calling this escape "the" way out of facing the "truth" of non-existence, but "a" way out.
Personally, I believe that all, to include deity, may exist without me existing. They may be "real". I must face, though, that I cannot be sure that they do, I can only assume, because I must make some assumption of my own existence and functionality to be able to make assumptions about anything else's functionality.
The sun will rise in the east this morning? Yes/no
The Earth will fall into the sun today? Yes/no
The probability of these are defined from experiernce and mathematical theory, but in the end, they will or will not occur.
So, the possibility that nothing exists is as "true" as the possibility that much more than we can readily perceive exists. One escape is to introduce something as concrete, a priori that exists no matter what. I'm not calling this escape "the" way out of facing the "truth" of non-existence, but "a" way out.
Personally, I believe that all, to include deity, may exist without me existing. They may be "real". I must face, though, that I cannot be sure that they do, I can only assume, because I must make some assumption of my own existence and functionality to be able to make assumptions about anything else's functionality.
I'm disappointed. Someone tell me, in simple terms, what the fallacy is in my statements that makes it difficult to respond to.
Mr. Ham,
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I can comment on this one bit however:
Incorrect.
Probability only becomes a simple binary function post hoc, that is: after the fact.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I can comment on this one bit however:
Incorrect.
Probability only becomes a simple binary function post hoc, that is: after the fact.
No, Glaucon, it becomes a binary function at the time of the event, not after.
Minor edit: It is not after because once after has occured the binary function has become extant data. It is or is not. This data is the result of the binary function of "will x happen? yes/no".
Minor edit: It is not after because once after has occured the binary function has become extant data. It is or is not. This data is the result of the binary function of "will x happen? yes/no".
If you're strictly talking about the case: "will x happen?", then of course you're right. But that's obvious, and vacuous (i.e. tautologous).
You were talking about probabilities, which is not analogous to the above case.
A probability case is more akin to: " will x happen or will y happen?" (a gross oversimplification, as a more accurate description would be a lengthy disjunctive series).
Note that even in this scenario, your above scenario still can be applied, but it would look more like: "will one of the set A (which is x or y or z, etc.) happen or not?".
Probability is always undecided; only after the fact can anything be said of a probabilistic event with certainty.
Regardless, I honestly don't see how this applies to the original thrust of your OP....(which I am interested in).
You're right, this is quibbling about a minor issue.
My main point: Descartes' error lies in accepting anything as real. All things are possible, oth to exist and not to exist. Reality is the result of millions of unnoticed assumptions we make that things are this way or that. Belief is reality for the believer, and all individual believers are seperate, they just sometime agree. This gives birth to things like "normal" and "valid", when those things are just illusory labels alone.
My main point: Descartes' error lies in accepting anything as real. All things are possible, oth to exist and not to exist. Reality is the result of millions of unnoticed assumptions we make that things are this way or that. Belief is reality for the believer, and all individual believers are seperate, they just sometime agree. This gives birth to things like "normal" and "valid", when those things are just illusory labels alone.
Excellent.
I agree with your observations here.
The only thing that Descartes found himself forced to accept was the fact that he was doubting, i.e. the very act of questioning could not be dismissed as anything but certain. As I said earlier, Rene's ultimate support for this is the invocation of an a priori, God in his case.
That is the position of the good Mr. Descartes. Suffice it to say that you would not be alone if you found his argument to be dis-satisfactory.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
This made me think that you can be a total skeptic, perhaps, but the moment you start defending it as a position, you will contradict yourself.
I realize Descartes was not a total skeptic. He stopped at his apriori.
I liked him, though... He was probably a little nervous of being branded a heretic at the time.
So, should I define myself as a skeptic, then? Why is the defense of skepticism guarantee contradiction? I don't understand.
So, should I define myself as a skeptic, then? Why is the defense of skepticism guarantee contradiction? I don't understand.
I'm hoping when you say "you" here, you were meaning it as "one", and not specifically referring to me...
In any case, I agree with what you say here SA.
Descartes was a very smart guy; I suspect he saw where his methodology was driving him and chose therefore, to invoke God, so as to avoid the natural logical conclusion he was heading for.
As to whether or not we might accept Descartes' resultant Rationalist epistemology....... well.. that's another question in and of itself.
(Though it does appear that the good Mr.Hamtastic is heading that way....)
<sigh> Ok... I'll go look up your giantastic words. Rationalist... Episiotomy...
We have the middle ground, think about it from your christian stand points.
You see right and wrong, if you see more right (righteous) than any other.
So the more direct path in which you insist on going, is the chosen.
...I'm just saying, take it or leave it.
feel free to ask more If you have questions or something.
and assumption is based on what?
(aka - "the mind")
And what would be the assumption that underlies that all things are based on it?
PS - not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that all possibilities are equally valid, since its the very nature of the mind to fracture and diversify ... at the very least, I am sure you can think of a few valid reasons why you place money in your own bank account and not mine.
wtf?
driving where?
heading where
a postulate of non existence?
by a non existent ham?
/spits
ahh
pardon
doubt everything except that which does the doubting
regress if bored
Very few will disagree with personal awareness of manifest evidence of oneself as being sufficient to conclude personal existence. Of corse a lot of people balk at I exist therefore god exists.
Personal awareness can't be externally achieved. Even if you post you are being externally influenced, it still requires a you to be influenced.
The whole point of Descartes is we do have an infallable first assumption: our own personal existence.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Yes, 'one'. You are not a total skeptic or at least not an honest one.