well, then, what does “my perspective” mean independently of “i”?
i can go on like this forever; each time you refer to yourself, you are assuming you exist.
S.M.
Look, I can only make it so easy to understand.
Suppose you percieve that at least one perception exists.
That’s the content of a perception.
However, being the content of a perception, there must be at least one perception. The one that it’s the content of, for example.
Once you take “C) My perceptions seem to exist.” as an assumption, from it you can prove that perceptions do indeed exist. This is so painfully obvious I can’t comprehend how you manage not to get it.
Most of your protests are of this variety.
There is one that is actually a decent question. Sort of.
Simple: I don’t. However, there is at least one separately definable thing that is aware of what I’m aware of. Each thing that is aware of these perceptions can say, “I exist”, and each thing would be right. They would not necessarily be the same thing, but each would distinctly exist. This is because while perceptions are sharable, the act of awareness is personal. It’s called being a verb.
“My Perceptions” designates the subset of perceptions of which awareness is available from the set of all theoretically possible perceptions. “My”, therefore, is a term based on the specific criteria just described. Are you listening, Ramanujan? The definition of “my” is based on an independent criteria. From there, I define “I”.
Realiability, yes. Existence, NO.
I’m glad you noticed.
[quote]
There seems to be perceptions (thoughts, etc)
“Seems to be” implies the existence of an observer.
That would be me.
So I am.
[quote]
Check.
At least one observer is justified. Exactly one has awareness that I can know about. There is no way to know about any others, one way or the other.
Check, and not misleading. I is defined clearly as that which is aware of the things mentioned in the first line. It should be painfully obvious by now that I am not packing extra meaning into it.
Check, and not misleading. The definition is the same as in the third line.
S.M.
Bizzarely slow/failing posting going on. :mad:
I meant to correct the line to
“Most of your protests (in your previous post) are of this variety.”
I didn’t mean to levy a general volley at your protesting style, just to cover the half-dozen one-line quotes in your last offer in one fairly applicable response (given their interrelatedness).
Sorry for any confusion or insult you might feel/have felt.
You don’t even need to accept assumption © for that. As I noted earlier, it is quite possible to accept the existence of perceptions from a more minimal set of axioms.
What rubbish.
Just a few hours ago I reminded you in very explicit terms that I do indeed accept axiomatically the existence of perceptions. The list of things that you cannot comprehend is quite long enough already without your needing to add in false attributions of my position.
Can you really be such an incompetent reader that you failed to understand the sentence: “You see, I make it quite plain that I am accepting axiomatically that perceptions vary and that this variance implies existence.”
Apparently so.
Once again, any conclusions this suggests about your intelligence or your integrity are consequences of your post, not my notice.
Not even one of my protests was of the variety “we cannot prove the existence of perceptions”. Is it really so very difficult for you to respond to what I actually post instead of the scarecrows of your imagination?
how, exactly (yes, I mean that), do we know that this POV exists?
So “my” designates “that exist”. And you think that this is in accord with the standard English definition of the word.
Independent of what?
Yes, that is why I used the word reliability not the word existence. You see! If you try really hard you can actually associuate words with meanings and then respond to the meaning presented by the words rather than the meaning presented by your imagination.
In this case, for instance, my use of the word reliability rather than the word existence might have served as yet another clue that I was not questioning the existence of perceptions. Thus, even after you failed to understand the simple sentence: I make it quite plain that I am accepting axiomatically that perceptions vary and that this variance implies existence. you had yet another chance to demonstrate that you were not such a poor reader and reasoner as to imagine that I managed to “not get” the basis for accepting the existence of perceptions.
Alas, poor Begbert2, we know you well.
Now, since you have accepted that perceptions are not reliable, though they exist, can we safely assume that you will stop trying to support your argument with statements about the content of what you perceive and analogies about self-revealing Sasquatch prints? Probably not, but I thought I’d throw it out there anyway.
I did notice. I also noticed that you significantly failed to respond to this demonstration that “I think” and :I do not think" are equally meaningless under your proposed model of existence.
Are you glad of that, too?
As noted above, you have failed utterly to demonstrate the understanding necessary to lend credence to your categorization.
:rolleyes:
What, you’re disappointed that I don’t lambast you at random? Of course I’ve gone at you with some nonzero fraction of the venom that you’ve used on me from the start. However, that particular statement, as first posted, could easily be read more aggressively than I intended. So, I corrected. Okay, so retracting potentially offensive comments with the intent of more accurately stating my intention earns an eye-roll from you; I’m not surprised.
Hell, man, the last time I attributed an idea to you you called me a liar about it for like three pages. (Not to mention that refusal to accept that perceptions exist was your best way out of this without resorting to denying word meanings, of all things.)
I’m happy that you’re willing to accept that perceptions exist. Now that we’re clear on that, we will move on to the next obvious steps that follow from it, until we reach my conclusion or you provide me with compelling reason to think my conclusion cannot be reached via this method.
That is most certainly not what I meant, and you surely know it. Unless you’re willing to say that it is absolutely impossible beyond any doubt that any perceptions exist anywhere that you’re not aware of? I hope not. That’s an unprovable claim which seems pretty unlikely, since you claim to have perspectives that I don’t have (like that of Descartes’s argument being shaped like a hula hoop).
But EVEN IF I am aware of all that there is to be aware of, so long as I don’t know this, in the interest of accuracy I have little choice but to apply a different term that unambiguously describes those things within my awareness, if I want to use a single term at all.
I choose, “my”. It seems to fit. Look it up in a dictionary if you like, but I’m perfectly happy with it. And your attempt to assign “that exists” to the term implies to me that you know as well that its real meaning as commonly used is perfectly acceptible for this use. [Insert vehement denial here]
You really don’t know what I’m talking about, do you? For far from the last time, I don’t give a two-toed tinker’s left-handed compliment about the content of perceptions. It’s in bold. Would you like a larger font? That’s, the contents of any perceptions, now that we’ve accepted existence. Don’t need to even mention that silly content any more.
I’m glad you noticed that I’m using a definition for the word existence. Most people do, though not a strongly worded one. My argument will work fine as long as 1) we are still aware of those perceptions (wether or not they exist) and 2) awareness of things implies that the observer exists. That’s all I need. And from what I can tell, the common usage of the word provides that easily.
Negative characteristics (like not-thinks, and not-exists) are rather obviously not guaranteed indicative of existence by any reasonable definition of existence. But, tell ya what, you use your own definition of existence. It doesn’t matter so long as it’s close enough to the common usage to satisfy my two requirements.
Oh, fine, I’ll answer your little one-liners. Though there was no point in doing it then and less point in doing it now.
- Suppose you read this and wonder why I don’t bother reading your examples. You’re explicitly refusing to consider mine!
- No, I haven’t.
- No, it’s not.
- No, it’s undoubtable. As was demonstrated.
- No, i don’t. You just lack either the awareness or the honesty to acknowledge that fact.
- Look, who would know what I’m referring to, you or I? And no, failing to answer ever repetitive little detail is not a lack of intellectual integrity, particularly when a post is a mile long. You want every point answered, bring 'em up one at a time. Like I specifically requested when I presented the current argument, in the hopes of having a simple and clear debate.
- Still nope. How can you fault me for failing to accept what you imply inside other arguments if you flatly deny that I’ve said what I say in clear, complete sentences?
- worthless sack o’ shit comment.
- That’s exactly what I said! Except, of course, you’re still hanging onto that plurality of percievers gig, even though my offered guess at your position allowed for that too. Perhaps you’ve forgotten where you found those perceptions that are proving the “observer(s)”? If they transparently share minds, they can be counted as one observer you know.
- Oh no it fucking isn’t; how can that be just a perception? It’s a known fact based on the fact that they get as far as being in the argument! And you ask for rigor, even as you try to remove all definitons. How’s this, again, the POV is a generally applicable term to any set of mechnisms by which the perceptions could have gotten as far as being in the argument! Hpow can you say you accept their undoubtable existence and hold the position you’re not aware of them???
11)I actually already answered these. And any damned thing you want can be the content of a perception! DUH; we’ve lumped thoughts into the set of perceptions! But it should be obvious to a quick-thinking person such as yourself that merely because an idea is inside a doubtable perception does not mean that they cannot be otherwise verified! - Demonstrably in that you’re admitting their existence, (since things only in the awareness of other separate entities would obviously not make it into our proof). And how many fucking times to I have to tell you this before it penetrates your skull and you actually can go back and read my statements without that asinine assumption of yours screwing up your understanding, I make no reference to the content of any perceptions!!!
- It’s trivial, as in easy; so why don’t you understand me yet??? “I” is not in a premise!!
- And it doesn’t take a wise man to notice that I make no reference to the content of any perceptions!!!
- Oh, yeah, this thing. The bit where you’re offended I defined existence. :roll eyes: Bring your own model, it’ll break too.
- And the finale. This was so sufficiently close to decent argument that I answered it the first time around.
God, 16 separate “points” in one post?? And you want me to answer everything you put in every post, or lose my, what was it, “rigor and integrity in debate.” Yeah, right.
If the increasing intensity of restatement, in one post, where you certainly didn’t have a chance to reply betwixt, seems stupid… refer to the previous post.
If anything in this post seems rude, fine. Sorting through your endless post gave me a headache. So be offended if you like, if it makes you happier.
In the interest of maintaining “rigor and integrity in debate,” DON’T respond to every line of this thing. If you have points to make, make one of them, and I’ll assume you have more for after, 'cause you always have more. There isn’t a need to make single-post denial-of-service attacks.
Waiting to hear what you’ll undefine next… :roll eyes:
Not at all, why would you imagine that I am disappointed? For the same reason that you imagine it requires venom to point out the many times that you have lied, I suppose. Neither is true.
Frankly, I have no standard response for situations in which a demonstrated liar swings back and forth between spewing insults and expressing exaggerated concerns that my feelings might be wounded. It isn’t a scenario that comes up very often. :rolleyes: seemed to be a succint expression of exactly how much value I placed in your words.
Which time was that? Was that the time you spent three pages pretending that I must have meant to argue some point because teh characters all appeared in a post next to my name? It’s hard to be certain, since you have dotted this thread with so many falsehoods.
Sure, if I was an unprincipled liar who would falsify my stated positions in order to obtain a potential rhetorical advantage. I am not. Once again, you make a faulty generalization from your personal behavior.
Yes. So happy, in fact, that I established it axiomatically several pages back. So happy, in fact, that I had quoted the relevant section of that post for you earlier today when you first raised the specter of the unreliable existence of perceptions. So happy, in fact, that I quoted it for you AGAIN (in nice big letters, even) when you demonstrated once again the absurd carelessness with which you approach the written record of our exchange.
But let’s all just pretend that this is a new agreement and you haven’t been sufferering from Begebert’s disease for the past several posts, eh?
“that exist” was unclear, I apologize. I should have specified “that can be known to exist”.
Here, of course, you are using “my” to indicate a possessive relationship to awareness. This is not justified by your axiomatic structure. If you wish to apply such a concept, you should include it within your explicit axioms.
Of course you are, because you like to use equivocation to pull menings into your proof that are not justified by your axioms. For my part, I like to point out the occassions when you do so.
So you say. You also say things like:
[ul][li]The unity of my POV is obvious; if I am aware of it, it is in my POV.[/li][li]The thing is, I do seem to have perceptions. It was typed as it was because that is the way I see it. [/li][li]Thus, we can use the awareness of reality to argue for the existence of my necessary existence.[/li][/ul]
All of the listed items (and many more throughout your posts) are contents of perceptions that you have used to support/develop your argument.
If only you would be as good as your word.
I didn’t say that they were. I said that using your model of existence neither negative nor positive characteristics can be asserted of non-existant things. Thus ramanujan is correct to point out that “I think” is not a meaningful sentence (or proposition) when “I” does not exist.
It is a side issue, really, since your analogy fails on other grounds as well.
[ol]
[li]I strive to find examples which do not presuppose my conclusions. Perhaps you should do the same.[/li][li]Yes, you have. Repeatedly.[/li][li]Yes, axiomatic is more precise than self-proving to describe a datum which is asserted through axioms. I find it interesting that you would deny such a simple truth. Not really surprising, but interesting in a “can’t turn away from the trainwreck” kind of way.[/li][li]Your demonstration was a circle whose only entrance was the axiom that a perception exists. [/li][li]We disagree, but I am comfortable that the patterns of insight and honesty in this thread are running true to form. [/li][li]Well, if you were an insightful man who used language well, then it would be reasonable to assume that you would have a better understanding of what your argument relied upon than I. Even then, it would not be guaranteed, as even honest and insightful men are sometimes blind to the weaknesses of their arguments. Since you have not demonstrated either of teh above qualities, and since you have further complicated the issue with repeated examples of dishonesty, I see no alternative but to draw conclusions from the actual structure of your arguments rather than your description of them.[/li][li]I do not deny that you have said things like: I do not rely upon the content of perceptions. I simply point out the plain truth that such a statement does not accurately describe teh arguments you have made, which are rife with conclusions drawn from the subjective experience of your perceptions.[/li]
How can I fault you? Because you are responsible for what you post. It is not my fault that you fail to read well, nor is it my fault that when your errors are made plain you lack the simple integrity required to acknowledge your mistake. Those faults are yours, and I have no trouble placing them where they belong.
As an example, in this very response you pretend that I merely implied an acceptance of the existence of perceptions, when in fact I have not only stated it clearly but I have requoted the statement for you multiple times. These contortions of truth in defense of ego are also yours to bear. I am simply the messenger.
[li]“Worthless sack of shit.” shrug[/li][li]It is not exactly what you said. If you look carefully, you might find several words in your conclusion that are absent in my own. Try to imagine that those words have meaning. [/li][li]Yes. I am aware of . . . is the content of a perception. “It’s a known fact based upon the perceptions being in the argument” is one of the sillier things that you have posted. Perceptions are in the argument because we have each (in different form) asserted axiomatically that perceptions exist. That’s how proofs work. No further truths can be deduced simply from the act of asserting an axiom.[/li]
As to how I can accept the existence of perception without accepting the “known fact” that I am aware of perceptions: because one has been asserted axiomatically and one has not. Again, that’s how proofs work. If you would like to assert axiomatically that “I am aware of perceptions” then please feel free. It would make the triviality of your proof even more evident and save us all a bit of repetition.
[li]Certainly the contents of perceptions can be otherwise verified, once you have developed a structure for determining teh validity of a perception. It is difficult to apply such a structure, of course, when you start with the assertion that all perceptions may be taken to have meaningless content.[/li][li]You have yet to demonstrate the necessity for a single, unified POV absent that quality which you love to deny but seem unable to reason without: the content of perceptions. You may repeat your denials if you wish, but it would be more productive to actually try to develop an argument that studiously avoids any appeal to the content of a perception.[/li][li]“I” is not in a premise, but “my” is. And you have offered no definition of “I” that is independent of “my”. In fact, you have explicitly stated that the definition of “I” follows from “my”. I understand you quite well. You embrace trivia and call it gold. I am not buying.[/li][li]The reliability of “my” perceptions is entirely dependent upon the conclusion that “I” exist. Thus, relying upon the content of those perceptions, including the content that they are “mine”, in order to prove that “I” exist is not the tactic of a wise man. [/li][li]I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was offended that you had deined existence. I will chalk it up to yet another absurdly stupid misreading on your part. :rolleyes: indeed.[/li][/ol]
Not at all. I made a specific observation based upon your pattern of:
[ul][li]reading very poorly[/li][li]Posting a mistaken representation of my position[/li][li]Insulting me based explicitley on that mistaken representation[/li][li]and then failing to respond to demonstrations that your reading was clearly in error[/li][/ul]
It is a pattern that you have exhibited more that once, and I find it quite illustrative of your nature.
I make it a habit to always respond to salient points that seem addressed to me or to my arguments. I see no reason to break that habit because you get a headache if you read too many words at once.
I respond only to what you post. As I noted before, it often takes more words to combat ignorance that to demonstrate it.
Crikey, you guys can talk! My little posting seems so unworthy.
But…
Ooh! You are so wrong, not least because I said no such thing, I was just quoting Mangetout and providing a link to a nice story about two pigs, their evil keeper and a mind-reading machine.
Still, I deny you to refute as a human being and not a peddlar of predicate pedantry that I think I think therefore I think I am follows from I think therefore I am.
Really.
Hey, The Great Unwashed, I didn’t say that you made the poorly structured argument; I said that it was a poorly structured argument. There’s a bit of a difference.
Prove it as a human being? Okay. First, as a human being, you note that C(A) → B is not the same as… What?? Oh, fine, be that way.
As I thought I’d mentioned:
We’ll ignore for a moment that “I think therefore I am” isn’t the entire argument, and see what it is stating:
If I think, then I am. It’s an implication; an if statement. If you put in I thinks, you get I ams.
That was pretty easy. Now, what on earth does “I think I think” mean?
- I’m not really sure wether I think.
Well, in that case, I suppose that “I think I am”, follows, if the “I think” is just an announcement of your uncertainty. Kinda like “I think (I think therefore I am)”. Of course, this shouldn’t get within a hundred feet of any formal discussion of Descartes, since by the time we’re thinking logically, we simply go around doubting the premises or some such thing. (The term “I think” to mean uncertainty is a bit loaded of a phrase to use in this discussion, dontcha think?)
- I only have the thought that I have thoughts, I don’t really have thoughts, just the thought of thoughts. So, given that I don’t have thoughts, just the thought of thoughts, I can’t conclude that I exists, just that I have the thought that I exist, give or take the fact that I don’t have thoughts.
Okay, I wrote it, but still, what the heck?? If the extra “I think” is supposed to bear any resemblamce to the thoughts being discussed right in the argument, then to say that you can conclude “I think I think therefore I think I am” and deny that you can say “I think threfore I am” is nuts. If you think you think, then you think, if the extra “I think” is talking about literally thinking. And if this is how you’re using the I think, then “I think I am” doesn’t follow; now that we’re back in the ream of logic we can note that the implication that you’re starting with proves "I am"s. It doesn’t matter what you try to shove in the back, it’s only going to prove "I am"s, not the idea thereof. So, you can’t logically push the “I think” through it.
So, in conclusion, the only way “I think I think therefore I think I am” can be an accurate statement is if you’re merely using the extra “I think” to indocate a level of doubt about both premise and therefore conclusion. But, in an argument with the premise “I think”, don’t you think there’s better ways to indicate doubt than that? 
S.M.
Okay, ignore the slander that is, of course, only based on S.M.'s skewed perception of me. (And some very skewed renditions of previous events. I wonder if he really recalls them that way?)…
Okay, done.
Now, because I don’t feel like passing a 16 item list back and forth for eternity, ignore that too (it seemed like mostly defensive "did-not"s and "you’re-wrong"s anyway, and if the points are reasonable, they’ll turn up again)…
Okay, done.
Now, on to the argument:
Closer, but still not quite satisfying. Your phrasing (and phrasing obviously matters in this argument) uses the word “can”. Now, what could you mean by that? Allow me to speculate. (That means that at least one and probably both of these ideas is not what you’re thinking. Steel yourself for it.)
- There may be other perceptions, but those perceptions cannot be known to exist, period, to anybody, under any circumstances, and we are seeing all the rest.
I’m not buying this. Oh, I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I don’t have any reason to think that this is the case.
- There may other perceptions that I’m not aware of. There’s nothing magical about them, I’m just not aware of them.
This is the definition I’m using, pretty much. The problem is, from here, I can note that seeing some things and not other things is typically understood to being the condition of having a POV (in the more general, non-locational sense of the term, as I’ve been implicitly using it) that includes some things and not other things. And from that I choose the term “my”, since, having divided things into and out of the POV based on the condition of wether I am aware of them, this matches exactly with the common meaning of my.
And, you don’t seem to accept that. Now, I understand that we’re talking about the definition of a word that I brought up, and that the word “I” appears in the explanation. So, I offer it to you: how can you explain the distinction between that which I am aware of and that which may exist that I am not aware of, without referring to “I” or “POV” (or something equivalent in meaning)? Realizing that it is not certain that nothing else exists. And if you agree with the first half of 2 and claim that a POV doesn’t follow, please explain why?
Oh, and as to this:
and this:
I remind you of this:
We’re talking about the axioms. All this talk about “not being justified by the axioms” is a little smokescreeny, don’t you think? What we’re currently doing is trying to determine (or, rather, clarify) what the axioms mean, and wether axioms with those meanings are acceptible. The time for requiring things to be backed up by the ‘axiomatic structure’ is not now.
I assume you just got carried away and momentarily forgot this. No harm, no foul, but try to keep it on track, okay?
Awaiting your explanation for the selectivity of awareness that does not imply a POV…
whose perspective is referred to by “my”?
I make it a habit to include direct quotations whenever I make a charge of error in representation. That is only one of many distinctions between our methods.
What was that line again? “Very skewed renditions of previous events.” Check.
Yes, and the word “can” should be understood within the context of the proof. Thus, at the stage we are discussing (the first time that “my” enters the proof), “can” specifies all perceptions whose existencen can be demonstrated without further axioms. Once that meaning is set, we should not apply the term “My” to indicate anything else. If we do, then we will be guilty of equivocation.
Your options (1) and (2) both reach outside the information in the proof in order to bind the application of the label “My”. This is not generally the best way to specify how a label should be applied within a proof.
Well, at least now you seem to have abandoned the preference for “self-proving” over axiomatic.
This is no smokescreen; it’s a fine example of the problem with imprecise use of language. I remind you of this:
This is subtle, so do try to read carefully:
[ol][li]“My perceptions exist is your axiom”.[/li][li]“My” is stated to be a label for those perceptions of which awareness is available.[/li][li]But, you have (correctly, if one does not rely upon the content of perceptions as meaningful) explicitely allowed for the possibility that the perception of awareness might be mistaken.[/li][li]By (3), the label “My” might thus be applied to either perceptions of which no awareness was available (example: a false memory) or not applied to perceptions that are available. (example: an unconscious perception.)[/li][li]By (4), it is clear that the application of the label “My” cannot be relied upon to actually represent the true subset of perceptions of which awareness is available. (This is intuitively satisfying, since we attach no meaning to the content of perceptions.)[/li][li]Also by (3), it is clear that asserting that a single POV must necessarily be designated by the label “My” is problematic. In the first place, one must be explicit in designating whether the set of perceptions referenced by “My” is a true description of the perceptions available or a perceived description of the perceptions available. In the second place, (4) shows that if “My” indicates a “true designation” then we cannot conclude that a single awareness actually maps to that POV. Conversely, if “My” indicates the “perceived designation” then we have no basis upon which to even speculate a single POV, since that is simply the content of a perception.[/li][/ol]
As I said, your use of “My” indicates a possessive relationship between a unified POV and a set of perceptions that is not justified given your axiomatic structure.
Jeez, you guys are getting me dizzy!
Instead of going with …I think therefore I am…, try this:
I’m going through a root canal therefore I damn well am
AvidReader, I will most certainly grant that root canals are not the most conduscive situations for metaphysical meditations…
…depending, of course, on what medication they have you on. (Are you sure it’s us making you dizzy? :p)
Okay, S.M., I must say I like your 6-point list; it gives a solid base to work from.
- Actually, my axiom is “My perceptions seem to exist.” This is a not inconsiderable distinction.
My focus is on the awareness going on. The perceptions seem to exist, meaning that I am aware of them, or something that seems to be them. Now, heck, I could be wrong about what they are; maybe only one big perception exists that I am aware of different aspects of, or maybe an uncountable pheloria of purely perceptions exist, of which I am aware of a constantly shifting random subset, and I only think that I have a coherent worldview and memory because at this instant those things that I am aware of seem to be a coherent worldview and memory.
Perhaps part of the problem is this word, “perception”. I have been understanding it to be “The thing on the other end of an awareness”, whatever that might really be. A memory, ocular proof, whatever. When I have been speaking of “having perceptions”, I have generally meant, “Having an awareness of perceptions”. This bit of terminology should be stated explicitly, in bold even: Within my proof, “to have a perception” means “to be aware of [that] perception.” Again, I’ve been talking this way because “perception” has a strong hint of “observer” in its english use.
If you’ve been thinking of perceptions as independent things like lead weights (as you seem to have been), then you very easily might have missed the “awareness” aspect of my argument, or separated it far enough from “having” perceptions to alter my intended meaning. I dont blame you, my phrasing has been at best ambiguous, and before I started seriously considering the “awareness” angle, I referred to them that way as well. I shall attempt to address the points you’ve made regarding billiard-ball perceptions, applied to the meanings I have so far failed to get across, and see if that way I can’t answer some of your justifieable questions in advance.
Well, back to the list.
-
That it has.
(Hey, I had to smile. We’ve clarified a definition and thus gotten that much closer to accurate communication! We’ve actually agreed on something! Whoopee!) -
Whoa. “Perception of awareness” and “awareness” are two different things. (By any definition.) If I happen to “have” (be aware of) a perception “I am aware of this perception”, then even while I am technically doubting the content of the perception, that does not remove the awareness of that perception. I maintain that the content of perceptions is entirely doubtable, but the awareness of them is not. I dunno what I’m aware of, but I’m aware of something.
-
Okay, at this point my clarified word use starts having significant effect. The way I use it, the set of perceptions that you are aware of is all that there is. It’s your POV. You cannot meaningfully be “having” thoughts that you are not aware of, or be imagining “having” a perception, because being aware of it is as far as it gets. In short, I consider conscious thought, including whimsy, to be within the set of things I am aware of (“perceptions”), and if I’m really unaware I am “having” that unconscous thought, then I’m not really “having” it, by my definition.
-
Well, your 4 is not currently in effect, so this can’t stand as written. I’m simply aware of what I’m aware of. Of course, just because I’m aware of it, doesn’t mean I can trust my awareness to actually deliver accurate (much less objectively “true”) information to me, so the emotional satisfaction should be intact.
-
This is based on two numbers which I have re-written. Suffice to say, since by the new 4 the awareness is what the awareness is, the notion of a POV survives, based on it.
Actually, the notion that your POV could in fact be divided amongst several distinct observers has always seemed a bit, well, impossible to me. That would imply separate entities, and if the entities are not acting in concert to compose a single, aware entity (as we suspect out eyes/brains/molecules of doing, physically) then how would all of those separate entities’ awarenesses enter the inspection of the argument? I could have the ability to read their minds, but then that would mean that I would indirectly have awareness of the perceptions within their awareness, which still leaves me with my own set (POV) of awarenesses belonging to me, the collector of the awarenesses that made it into the argument.
It should probably be noted that at no time can I say exactly what perceptions actually are in my POV. Any accounting would require me to refer to that perception of awareness you keep mentioning. (as in, maybe “I am perceiving all this stuff” is just one single doubtable perception.) However, I can know that my POV isn’t empty, because I seem to be percieving an awful lot of variety, which is not possible if no awareness at all exists. That’s about all I can know about the awareness/perceptions, though.
As I have noted, my argument as stated relies upon an apparently not (yet) generally accepted use of the phrase “have a perception”. Let the fault for many disputes to this point be mine for lack of clarity in this.
…Out of curiousity, if I were to say that the following was a sound and valid argument, would you agree?
Assumptions:
X: I am aware of ???
Y: That which is aware of anything must exist
Conclusion:
:. I exist
It’s rather short, but it wraps up the essential part of the whole perception/awareness thing into one easy premise (the acceptance of which, of course, requires the entire perception/awareness discussion before it can be accepted. :))
Note: If you want, after we’ve wrapped up the necessary existence/Descartes discussion, we can talk about wether or not either of us has a biased view of previous events. If you really want to. But I don’t care to, and for the moment, I’d like to stay on-topic.
True (though it is perhaps not an insurmountable one, either, since we have both agreed that a variance implies an existenet thing.) Nevertheless, the seem was not intentionally omitted. It was a compositional error.
Here, again, you find yourself unable to avoid the language of subject. Is it possible for you to address this issue without framing arguments from a perspective of personal existence?
And how do you define an awareness?
I have not been thinking of perceptions as independent things. I consider perceptions as events within a context. For the purposes of this proof, that is all the explanation required, since I at no time attempt to argue from additional meanings of perception. If you require the additional element of awareness, then you shoudl do 2 things:
[ol][li]Define the term as it will be used in your argument.[/li][li]Explicitely include it within your axiomatic structure.[/ol][/li]
This comes close to (2) above, but it suffers from 2 flaws:
[ol][li]It adds no meaning (yet) since “to be aware of” remains undefined in your proof.[/li][li]As noted by you above, your proof does not contain the element “to have a perception”, it contains the element “to seem to have a perception”. You will have to bridge that gap in order to have your newly stated terminology take effect.[/ol][/li]
Are they? It is difficult to discuss this until you offer your definition of awareness. For myself, I see no way that you can be aware independent of perception. In fact, I generally consider an awareness to be a perception regarding an internal state. But I will wait to see how you define it (hopefully not as “the thing on the other end of a perception.” ;))
You obviously require a definition of awareness which is fully independent of perception i order to make such assertions. I will wait until you provide that definition to respond.
Really, so awareness is perfectly reliable. That is another element that you should make explicit in your axiomization.
I am curious, though, how do you account for things like false memories? A person with a false memory is aware of having had a perception, thus that perception (and the memory of having had teh perception) would be a members of your set of “all that there is”. But, in fact, that perception never happened. So it cannot be an element of your set (though the memory of having had the perception can be).
On the flip side, how do you account for perceptions that are below the threshold of conscious awareness. I sometimes find myself half way to work without being aware of the process of having driven from my house. In your model of awareness/perception do you assert that no perceptions occured during that part of my trip?
Many things hinge upon your definition of “aware”, obviously.
You offer a tautology, here. You use awareness to define the boundaries of POV and POV to define the boundaries of awareness. (Perhaps this, too, will change when you offer an explicit and specific definition of “awareness”.)
So no perceptions occur during those driving moments, eh? Or is it that no perceptions are available to me now, though they may have been available to me then?
You dismiss the later points as dependent upon (4), which you dismiss because you find awareness to be perfectly reliable. I will await your further definions and axioms.
Or maybe not . . .
This seems to directly contradict such statements as: I’m simply aware of what I’m aware of. (a reliable definition of a set of perceptions)
Really? What happened to: **simply aware of what I’m aware of. ** Are these apparent contradictions somehow resolved in your definition of awareness? I begin to suspect that you are not using a consistent definition of the term at all. In some places you seem to use “aware” to inject an epistemological verity. In others you seem to bind no epistemological content at all.
Well, you can know this if you ever manage to get “I” into your argument in a rigorous and well-defined manner. The more you refine your position, the closer you seem to get to “something(s) exists”.
Okay, but it’s hard to know whether any such confusion actually exists until you define “the other end of the perception”.
Sound and valid? No. Trivial and begs the question and is valid, certainly.
Forget perception/awareness. Accepting any premise of the form “I am . . .” begs the question of whether “I exist”. "I am . . . " is a statement of existential identity. Would find this alternative to be sound and valid?
Assumptions:
X: I sing Christmas carols
Y: That which carols must sing
Conclusion:
:. I sing.
I think it is immediately obvious that we each have biased views from and about our interactions in this thread. The only real question is how closely either of those views fits the objective record. Luckily, the objective record remains open for review.
I feel no great need to delve into it again. I am satisfied that in each case I was quite explicit in pointing out what statements of yours led me to my conclusions. I am also satisfied that those conclusions were accurate. I will revisit any particular instance/exchange upon request, but I have already said everything that I felt necessary at the time.
As you wish.
Your compositional error is, as always, forgiven. Your bogus claims of triviality and begging the question are not.
It’s valid. And, if assumption X is demonstrable, sound. And, it doesn’t beg the question, either. It’s a very basic argument, and one of the premises, that that “caroling” implies singing, can be drawn from a definition, but that isn’t the same as begging the question. If it did, any argument that was understood by the audience would beg the question, because after understanding the argument, all of the premises are part of the arguer’s knowledge base.
Consider this argument (it may seem familiar):
P1: Socrates was human.
P2: All humans are mortal,
C3: Socrates was mortal.
If you don’t understand how this whole “logic thing” works, you might say that this begs the question, because P2 is an obvious tenant of knowledge and “It’s obvious that Socrates is mortal, because he’s human.”
But “begging the question” is an accusation of debate, not logic. It’s a charge designed to prevent an argument from saying something we already know and claiming to have been brilliant. In logic it’s called “doing it right”, because we’re not taking anything for granted, including humans being mortal, “sing carols” being a kind of, what did you call it, “sing”, and awareness being the exclusive right of things that exist.
By levying the charge of “begging the question”, you are implicitly claiming that this argument is at a high level, like debating wether we were right to charge into Iraq or not. Such an argument might include a few questions of definitions, but not every single damned word. And after claiming that my definition of existence, by which we know that awareness is an indicator, isn’t certain, you the turn around and want to use it to claim I’m begging the question??
Oh, wait, I forgot, you’re using a partial textual extraction from the premise to claim that it means the conclusion. By which we can see that “I am nonexistent” proves “I exist”. That’s just brilliant. There’s a reason we don’t do textual games in real logic; it’s because they’re bad logic.
Claims of circularity, if true are of course reason to dismiss an argument. (True as in, the conclusion appears as a premise. The entire conclusion is exactly one of the premises.) But the minute formal logic approaches, begging the question goes out the window. Even when you incorrectly call it “circularity”. (That’s for anybody left out there doing that; if S.M.'s done that, I don’t recall it.) Begging the question isn’t a meaningful term in formal logic, or any form of “debate” where every baby step of logic must be considered. If I have to define existence, awareness, and POV for you, then you can’t cll begging. Get used to it. Oh, and in logic, “trivial” is a good thing. The more trivialer the argument, the more likely that the rubes will understand it. I’d be thanking you for the compliment if I didnt know that you were in a continual state of believing that we were debating the morality of capital punishment or something. In an argument where every stinking word is important, nothing is trivial.
As you can tell, I’m a little frustrated by this little “debate trick”. It’s petty, stupid, intellectually dishonset, and blatantly incorrect. Let me give you a bit of instruction on how to refute an argument that is so nitpicky that no assumption can be taken for granted (which is exactly what an accusation of begging the question requires of the accuser):
Deny the certainty of one or more premises.
That’s all it takes, and you have done so, by denying understanding of most or all of the english language. Awareness means awareness. Standard definiton. Meaning as is generally understood. Simple.
Claiming that I have overextended a definition is possible. But basing the bulk of a post on the fact that I didn’t define an English word for you, without even considering the usual definition, is silly. Come on.
Then there are just a few more gross misunderstandings of my statements, which are unsurprising but correctable, maybe. Let’s try a few.
No, that concept that you’re attributing to me is not what I meant. Specifically, the implication that I said or meant that “awareness is perfectly reliable”, which I certainly did not. Note that when I accidentally attributed to you a statement you did not mean, you called me a liar perpetually for a long time thereafter. Horrible sin. I’ll let it slide.
Now, what I was trying to say there was, “If you are aware of it, then you are aware of it. If you are not aware of it, then you are not aware of it.” This is not rocket science. If, at the moment of proof, you’re not aware of it, then you’re not aware of it at the moment of proof. I don’t care if you later have the epephany and decide that you were thinking it at the moment of truth. If you were aware of it, you were; if you weren’t you weren’t. This isn’t all that hard. Your 4 didn’t seem to accept this idea, which is why I reworked it, on the assumption that you were divorcing the perceptions from awareness of them (which seemed reasonable to believe since you were offering 4, which required such a divorce).
Having allowed percpetions to exist without a perciever, there is no longer a 1:1 correlation. You can be aware of one perception more than once, and without excessive trust in the contents of perceptions, you can’t tell. For all you know, all that you are aware of one false perception, which you are mistaking for reality due to the unreliability of the object of awareness (which is the same idea as doubting the contents of perceptions).
How about “POV = the boundaries of awareness”, as in “my POV is defines what is in my view.” What did you think it meant? “People Of Village”? Unless otherwise stated, I’m using standard definitions. And usually then too.
The more you ignore terms like “POV” (which introduces the “I” in place of the “something”) and stuff like the entire long assertion that distributed awareness/perceptions are impossible (which kills the (s)), the closer I seem to get to "something(s) exists. My position hasn’t been changing much since I put forth this little independent argument for existence (even the “awareness/perception” assessment was for your benefit, not mine); all that’s been changing is your comprehension of it. Keep it changing and maybe you’ll synch up with what I mean someday.
Now you’re gonna be all outraged and stuff that I impunged on your intellectual honesty about that ridiculous claim of begging the question and triviality. If/when you can manage to consider and debate the argument (which is to say, consider and debate the acceptibility of the premises) rather than your impunged honor, feel free to respond.
It’s late; see you later.
It has also occured to me to wonder, is it intellectually honest to say an argument is both “begging the question” AND “trivial”? The two claims are similar in substance, complaining that the argument isn’t complicated enough, with one critical difference: the former accusation is only true if the premise under attack is FALSE, and the latter claim is only true when that same premise is TRUE. So which is it? Is “I am aware” true or false? Both? Neither?
Those sorts of claims really bug me. They are petty attempts to ignore the argument, and not honest debate.
Well, it didn’t take you long to revert to form, did it?
That’s an awful lot of garbage to spew just to cover the apparent fact that you have no good definition to offer for “awareness”.
A bit rushed now. I will return later to examine the Begbert2 definition od honest debate.
Yeah, you’re not quite back in form; you have to start calling me a liar first. Let it now be officially known that we’re both annoyed with the other. And then maybe we can take the time to figure out what the heck we mean by the words “perception” and “awareness”, and “POV”, and if necessary, “I” “think”, “therefore”, and “am”. (I’m pretty sure that most of these have been under dispute at one time or another.)
A starter on that:
Can a perception exist and not be being observed by anything at the time?
do you have a good definition of whose perspective you mean by “my” yet?
it seems like i’ve been waiting a while.
for bonus points, does “my” have a definition independent of “i”?
I’m sorry I haven’t kept up my end yet, I’ve been sorta busy lately and haven’t had time to delve into Descartes, but I have been keeping up with the thread. Quick comment.
Circular arguments are a specific instance of the more general form of the begged question. I even posted a link and quote outlining it earlier. A begged question is an argument whose assumptions are as questionable as the conclusion reached. Obviously if we question the circular argument, it must be a begged question, as the conclusion is the assumption, and so their questionableness is equal. In our case, though, since we aren’t dealing with formal logic, the charges of circularity focus on the necessary requirements for knowing that “I think”, or knowing that there is a POV (and of course a point of view requires a viewer :p).
begbert, you do realize that we cannot necessarily take the entire English language for granted, right? For where did you learn its meaning from? And what are you denying the necessary truth of through hyperbolic doubt? So when you ask us to listen to your word, we do and want to listen, but you must consider that by being in a system of hyperbolic doubt, the meaning-boundries of key terms and the estimation of the correctness of their application needs explicit mention and definition. No one is asking you to define the word “the” each and every time it occurs in your proof; rather, we find it useful for you to uncover the definition of something like “awareness” so you can show us how the “everyday” definition can meaningfully apply in the disjointed instant of hyperbolic doubt, and how we can trust its use.
I know how I learned the everyday definition of awareness. Do you suppose that if I rely on that definition in my proof in the face of hyperbolic doubt that I might have some hidden assumptions or questionable premises? You want our doubt unrestricted and yet want to casually restrict the use of words which imply the conclusion of your proof without obvious justification for doing so. You want us to rely on a POV without explaining how we would determine the correct instance of the concept without appealing to the content of a perception. Is the notion of a POV not the content of a perception? Then where did it come from and what are the necessary requirements for using it correctly?
You might see why these are important questions, and you might even see why we feel you have not addressed them.