Beginning with the posting that starts "No, the confusion arises because…"?
!!!
I gotta get me a bigger brain. No worries, I have some holidays due, I’ll read it all then.
No need to wade through that. If you click teh link above it should take you to a post that begins levels of skepticism,
but the part you asked for begins a few paragraphs in after the sentence:
Now for something meaty.
consider the statement:
i am alive.
one way of rewriting this statement would be
Ei.(i is alive).
Ei is an existential quantifier. a statement with a subject implies the existence (at least in the theoretical set semantically referenced in the sentence) of the subject.
is “not exhibiting any properties” a property?
does whoever says “i am not exhibiting any properties” have the property of speaking those words when he does?
“i am not exhibiting any properties” is another nonsensical statement. it is by definition neither true nor false. it contradicts itself. consider:
Ei.(i does not have any properties).
the () statement usually denotes the properties given to the quantified variable. you can come up with as many statements semantically devoid of content that you want, but none are counterexamples.
“i am lying” is a meaningless statement. i’m sure you’ve heard the liar’s paradox. in order for “i am nonexistent” to be meaningful, there must be some “i” who might meaningfully speak those words.
a cute and fatal attempt, yes.
are you daft? are you certain you want to make the claim that an object that lacks a specific property is equivalent in degree of meaning as an object lacking the property of existence? i’m certain neither Spritus nor i made any such claim.
it is equivalent to an “i am not” statement.
illogic is claiming that an object (“i”, for one) can in a valid semantic way have the property of not existing.
hello mr Unwashed. i think my position on the matter might be summed up as follows:
“i think therefore i am” is a circular argument if it is to be considered as proof of existence. i say this because it is quite clear to me that “i think” implicitly assumes “i exist”.
my claim (and if some people do some research, i’m sure they’ll find that it’s backed up) is that “i think” is semantically devoid of content in the absense of “i”'s existence.
another example of a meaningless statement is “i do not exist.” who could meaningfully speak those words?
i’ll put it another way, begbert2.
if nonexistence is a property of objects, then in order for an object to have that property, there must be no object which has that property.
thus saying “i do not exist” or “i is something which does not exist” is equivalent to saying “i is an object having the property of nonexistence.” your very own definition of nonexistence might show you that this sentence is nonsensical.
what we mean semantically when we say someting exists is that it has an extension. for example “dragons exist” is taken to mean “the set of dragonlike things is not empty.”
now you wish to say “the set of things possessing the properties of begbert2 is not empty.” i suggest if you wish to do that rigorously, you stop equivocating on what you mean by existence.
Ramanujan
If you haven’t run across it before, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has some pretty good articles on truth theories that relate to this semantic issue.
The deflationary theory of truth
The Revision Theory of truth
The Corrspondence Theory of truth
The Coherence Theory of truth
And, of course, the particular example that has Begbert2 upset involves not only issues of truth theory but also concerns with th epredication of existence
The method by which “I am aware” can be independently verified follows:
Assumption:
P1) Variation(s) occur.
Argument:
If P1 can be accepted, then we know that whatever is generating this argument is aware of the variations referenced in P1. It shall be called “I”, as that is the customary term for the source of an argument from within the argument. So, “I” is aware of the perceptions referenced in P1.
Normally, I would have included a premise like “Axy.( x is aware of y ) -> E(x)” but the use of such a premise would be called alternately “circularity”, “begging the question”, or “trivial”, depending on which definitions people are using for those words, and I probably would have hear about using existence as a predicate again. So, because I don’t need to hear all that, let me just point out that yes, since I’m aware of the variation(s), I must indeed exist.
Responses?
so there exists something generating the argument P1.
and how is that not axiomatic?
Actually, P1 is an assumption, not an argument, and it rather clearly makes no reference to itself. I will assume you meant the following argument, which is such a total rough draft stage that I didn’t even pretend it was itemized into bite-sized, labeled chunks. (Hence, no label for you to refer to.)
If the premise P1 (“Variation(s) occur.”) is accepted, then it must therefore be true that “whatever is generating this argument” is aware of the referenced variations (else, the premise could not have been accepted). The existence of this whatever is therefore confirmed, on the basis that the awareness of those variations has been confirmed. Simple.
As to the “axiomatic” call upon “I”, I would say that that was actually a pretty obvious appeal to definition. One of the various things that this discussion has been lacking so far is a good definition of “I”. I don’t have such a definition, any more than I have one for ‘existence’, but if this statement can be taken as a true statement: " ‘I’ is the customary term for the source of an argument from within the argument, " then the term can be used meaningfully as far as the argument requires it. I don’t pretend that this encapsulates all meanings of “I” or contexts where “I” is applicable; it doesn’t have to for my argument.
Arguments concluding in “something(s) exist” are ignoring the fact that, when a premise asserting awareness of something is accepted, that act on the argumentive level demonstrates that the source of the argument is (also) aware of something. If it weren’t, no such premises could be reasonably accepted. Thus, we have pinned down an observer that we can hang a name on. (Which instantly becomes the only one we can be sure of, since anything else is only known of as things which “I” is aware of, and such ‘perceptions’ have doubtable content.)
My draft argument isn’t formally laid out because I doubt I need all of it. Here’s a nifty ‘alternate version’ (or rather, a ‘similar is principle, different in everything else’ version) that I just thought up (what do y’all think?):
[ul][li]Assertion:[/li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.
[li]Conclusion:[/li]C12) I exist.
[/ul]This argument is only valid if it is sound, which is not only a cool trick, but an ironclad defense against “begging the question” and “circularity” claims: Validity would snap before such any such claim could settle in! 
you also reference assumptions that aren’t included in your “assumed” list (i.e. something notices those variations).
whatever is confirming those variations is left out of the proof, so how do you conclude that it is “i”?
then “i exist” by definition.
One of the various things that this discussion has been lacking so far is a good definition of “I”.
if “i” is the source of the argument, it is assumed to exist before the argument can be made.
that’s why the hidden assumption of existence is there. that’s also why quantifying arguments are made, to evade this sort of problem.
actually, its circular to apply the principles of logical proof to a logical proof about the principles of logical proofs. >8P
This proof is every bit as compelling as your previous efforts, and has the added benefit of brevity. I doubt that you shall ever improve upon it.
Just for fun, though:
[ul][li]What rule of Begbert2 logic requires one evaluating (or generating) an argument to have specific knowledge of the verity of a premise in order to accept the premise? [/li][li]How does that rule apply once you dig down to the axioms?[/ul][/li]
I predict, based upon past performance, that you will attempt to justify your argument with some variation on “I know that I am ____ because I am the one making/evaluating/doubting the argument.”
after a lunch break
Ah, so you now wish to treat the argument itself as an element of the context being evaluated. Fair enough.
Of course, you have now violated your so dearly held (though never accurate) claim that you apply no meaning to the contents of a perception.
You are correct, though, that the argument represented in (P11) -> (C12) is not circular. It is not, however, valid in a context of extreme doubt. It is only valid if you demonstrate that “I” accepts the premise, and your method of doing so is to accept meaning from the content of your perception.
This means that your argument, if accepted as valid, is trivial.
Having accepted that the contents of perceptions are meaningful. It is simpler ot just assert:
[list][li]I perceive myself.[/li]:. I exist.
Howdy, Ramanujan.
Yes, we agree that that was a “draft” quality argument.
If the premise is not accepted, then the argument need not even be examined, as it unsound. If the argument is not deemed unsound, then the observer accepts the truth of the premise; in this case, by acknowledging awareness of variation. Any debater that accepts P1 inserts himself into the proof by this method.
No, the definition alone isn’t sufficient. The ‘definition’ I provided only takes effect in the case where a context is referring to itself. No reference -> no “I”.
And (needless to repeat) i agree that we should all try and agree upon what “I” means.
How? It is required to exist before the argument can be made, but in what way is it assumed to exist before the argument is made? It would seem that the instant you start making an argument, you have proven your own existence, but just because the proof comes faster than you can speak of it does not mean that existence was assumed to be true before the argument started.
If existence was an assumption, upon which all arguments were based, you could accept no premises whatsoever as true without first accepting the assumption. However, even before I accept a single premise, I am aware of what appers to be reality, forcing me to accept P1, first.
This still seems like the dino->footprint situation to me. If there were no dinosaurs, there would be no footprints. If there was no me, then I would be aware of nothing. Yet, the footprint of awarenss of reality is there, and I am forced from that fact to accept my own existence.
It’s fairly straightforward; causal relationships generate reversed implications. Awareness is ‘caused’ (or rather ‘allowed for’) by existence, and so a discovery of awareness implies existence.
If a quantifying argument ignores the fact of the awareness being in “my” argument, and concludes that I cannot know to what the awareness is attributed, then it is equivocating.
That little number of mine isn’t a proof about the principles of logical proofs. What are you talking about?
Plus, evein if it were, it still wouldn’t be circular by any definition of circularity given yet. You have to be careful how you use these terms, there are people here who will try and discredit you for not using the “correct” (their) definion of a given term.
Ah, S.M. slips in via preview.
What is “specific knowledge of the verity of a premise” supposed to mean? Do you accept the premise or not?
- If you do, then you have accepted the premise
- If you don’t, then just skip the rest of the proof and start crowing “It begs the question!”, since that is the current term we use to refer to an unsound argument.
S.M., define I. I did. If you don’t like it, do better.
Since when?
Where did you get that idea? Look, pal, what part of the P11-P12 argument makes reference to a perception? Or the content of one?
Ehhh, if you don’t accept a premise, then an argument is, technically, unsound. What definition of the word “trivial” are you using today?
If you can’t agree among yourselves what flaws my argument has, perhaps that’s an indication that none of them apply. Either it’s sound or it’s not; if it’s sound, it’s valid, if it’s not, it’s not, but then who cares how valid an unsound argument is anyway?
If you want to remove the “invalid” angle, the argument can be expanded slightly to achieve complete formality. Personally, I think the conditional validity was cool. (Though I’m surprised nobody called me on “hidden axioms” about it.)
[ul][li]Assertions:[/li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.
[li]P11b) The premise P11 was accepted.[/li]
[li]Conclusion:[/li]C12) I exist. [by modus ponens on P11b and P11]
[/ul]
With this argument, it all comes down to soundness (so you can claim I “Begged the question” again if you like). You merely have to ask yourself exactly one question: Do you accept the premise P11 as true?
It referenced your next-to-last offered “proof”:
[ul][li]If P1 can be accepted, then we know that whatever is generating this argument is aware of the variations referenced in P1. It shall be called “I”, as that is the customary term for the source of an argument from within the argument. So, “I” is aware of the perceptions referenced in P1.[/ul][/li]this assumes that one can accept a premise only if one has a specific knowledge (“awareness”) that it is true. I took a moment to point out that this view is no supported in general logic and asked how it was supported in Begbert2 logic, specifically with respect to axioms.
You took a moment to misunderstand, though that is probably explained by the fact that you had offered yet another proof during the lunch break mentioned in my post and thougt that I was referencing your latest effort.
Do you imagine that something I said was attacking your definition of “I”? I do think that it would be good of you to establish a consistent definition in each of your offered proofs, since the terminology you use tends to shift as your aproach shifts, but that is entirely irrelevant to the quoted passage to which you are responding.
Learn to read.
I did better.
Your lack of substantive response is now stretching into its fifth page.
Since the instant that you assert an awareness that “I” accept the premise.
No part, which is why the argument is not valid. You might recall seeing these words: It is not, however, valid in a context of extreme doubt. It is only valid if you demonstrate that “I” accepts the premise
Or even these words: your method of doing so is to accept meaning from the content of your perception.
Learn to read.
The same definition as always. The acceptance of your premise can only occur in a context that no longer doubts your conclusion. Thus, the result is trivial.
“Hidden axioms”.
“Invalid as it stands”
You say to-may-to. I say pathetic repetition of the same errors.
Let’s see what you consider complete formality, shall we?
.[ul][li]Assertions:[/li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.
[li]P11b) The premise P11 was accepted.[/li]
[li]Conclusion:[/li]C12) I exist. [by modus ponens on P11b and P11]
[/ul]
Hmm. No subject “I” in P11.
Hmm. No subject “I” in P11b.
Hmm. Subject “I” in C12.
As I suspected; it isn’t a to-may-to.
You might try: P11b) I accept premise P11. Then again, that might make it clear even to yourself that you are again begging the question and . . .
[sub]wait for it[/sub]
. . . producing a trivial result if your premises are accepted.
Yes, but that’s the wrong question.
The right question is “how do I know whether I accept P11 as true”?
That is the question that neither you nor Descartes nor anyone else has ever been able to answer without relying upon the contents of a perception.
You speak of a distinction without a distinction. Or, are you saying that you don’t need sufficient reason to accept a premise? Hey, here’s a premise for you: “I have this bridge from florida to atlantis, that I’m selling for the low low price of 150 thousand dollars, and you need this bridge.” Since you don’t need reason to accept that as true, where’s my money?
…And in the argument you’re actually speaking of, the mere act of accepting P1 grants awareness of variation. But you needn’t pay attention to the facts. They might hurt your argument.
Better at what, providing a definition of “I”? My memory is poor, forgive me, but when have you provided a definition of anything relevant to the discussion? I easily might have missed your contribution, so feel free to provide a link and refresh my memory. Or, you could just tell me what the heck you’re talking about. (Or maybe you just beleive ‘anything you can do, I can do better; I can do anything better than you’…)
Well, I did it because to do so was required by the definition of existence. You seem to be arguing that suddenly we can’t engage in arguments anymore (because the concept of soundness need to be retained to bother with the argument).
S.M., It’s plain to me that you’re finished. I have finally found a way to get the self-awareness aspect of the meditation in plain sight without you being able to muddy the water. (Which, incidentally, leaves your flailings about “contents of perceptions” exposed as mere flailings.) I don’t know why you continue to writhe in this manner, but you completely fail to convey any point. It is as if you are so stupid that you can’t understand the reasoning behind the assignation of “I” even when it has just been plainly presented to you. I’m hard-pressed to make it simpler the obvious. Sorry, bub, but you’re just going to have to learn to read.
After I discover wether everyone else is as desperately and pathetically blind as you are pretending to be, I will proceed to attempt to address the issue wether Descartes’s arguments can be demonstrated to be mud-proof too. The way I read the passages so far delivered by erislover, he sure seems to be referring to “I” as the thing doing the meditating (and considering wether he was seeing real reality or being decieved about it).
The word you are ignoring is: axiom.
It’s hard to do logic without them.
Better at rigorously examining the epistemology of existence, including the meanings that can be bound to symbols given different axiomatic structures.
When asked. Follow the link I gave to The Great Unwashed.
"how do I know whether I accept P11 as true"?
That was the question. How does, “the definition of existence” supply an answer? Please be specific, if such a thing is within your capacity.
Actually, your latest equivocation (or as you label it ,“complete formality”) did not get “self” anything into plain sight. My rephrasing of P11b did so.
I find it amazing that you imagine that I have been trying to “muddy the water” on this issue. I have spent columes of bandwidth pointing out exactly where and how you “get self-awareness” into your proof.
You are the one who has been trying to obfuscate that issue.
Sure, if we define “flailings” as "objections that Begbert2 is unable to refute"
Under standard definitions, though, this is simply one more time that you are clealry wrong. I will add it to the ever-growing list.
We disagree. I think that I have made any number of points quite clearly in this thread.
That you fail to comprehend both those points and many other things is also clear; then again, that has been one of my points.
Q.E.D.
Disagreeing with Begbert2 hardly implies lack of understanding. In fact, statistical evidence argues for exactly the opposite conclusion.
If my understanding of logic is so tragically flawed, it should be simple for you to demonstrate that fact by finding contradictions between reputable logical references and the great number of statements regarding logic that I have made in this thread.
You cannot.
Ah, the “No I’m not, you are.” argument. Back to our playground roots, eh?
See, the way it works is that first you post a clear example that the other person has comically failed to parse a simple English sentence, for instance you asking me where your argument contains a reference to peceptions right after I had posted that it was invalid as it stod, but it could be made valid by a step that required accepting the content of perceptions.
Look back through this thread, you can find lots more examples of how this tactic can be used effectively.
It helps if the person you are addressing really has shown remarkable incompetence in parsing the English language, though, so perhaps you should practice it in a mirror for a while, first.
I have an idea. Instead of that, why don’t you answer the question:
"how do I know whether I accept P11 as true"?
Look, S.M., it doesn’t matter if I have been unclear or misunderstood you, of if you have been unclear or misunderstood me. (And I think you have not been as perfectly clear and/or accurate as you seem to think you have.) You can stroke your ego with the notion that I am always wrong and you are always right as long as you want, and even though it sure seems like an unsupportable position to me, you are welcome to it.
I am of the opinion that most of your recent statements are obviously false, ignoring what has previously been stated, or simply make no sense. And you spend far too much time departing from your argument in ad hominem attacks for me to think that your argument is of much value, even to you. That’s my opinion, and I’m stickin’ to it, as long as evidence seems to support it.
I am not going to waste my time answering every point, particularly not the ones that seem irrelevant, self-contradictory, or mere personal attack (which are also irrelevant). I will not ignore you completely, for a variety of reasons not entirely understood. Besides, you usually ask at least one reasonable question.
Instead of? Naw, before. No harm in reiteraing a point I had assumed to be obvious.
[ul][li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.[/ul]The ability to accept premises is a characteristic incompatible with non-existent things. Therefore, anything that accepts premises, exists.[/li]
The definition of existence is taken axiomatically; and from it we can directly infer P11. If you like, you can can accept P11 axiomatically. I wouldn’t because it’s acceptance is based on something else (the definition of existence). But, as we don’t appear to agree on the way logic works (is everything true an axiom?), you can term it however you want. Axioms have to be accepted like everything else.
[ul][li]P11c) I accept premise P11[/ul]That’s also a perfectly fine statement, which follows directly from the acceptance of P11. As previously explained, “I” is not inserted arbitrarily into the argument; it refers to whatever entitiy is considering the argument. If you like, it could be “P11sm) S.M. accepts premise P11” or “P11d) ‘Whatever is thinking about the argument’ accepts premise P11”; whichever. “I” seems like a simpler word with the same meaning, but which doesn’t pack around all the excess, unjustified meaning of assertions like P11sm does (like, your personal identity).[/li]
Simple. Responses?
Yes, and you like to throw out these opinions without specific support and then, when challenged, pretend that you are taking the high road and only wish to discuss the logical argument.
This pattern has been repeated frequently enough to become tiresome.
Well beyond that point, actually. Your ignorance on this matter has proven to be impervious to both evidence and shame.
Right, like those irrelevant bits where you are asked to defend personal attacks like: stupid and desperately and pathetically blind and flailing about.
I have noticed that when pressed you seldom care to take the time to answer such points. You are much more comfortable simply tossing them about without substantiation.
Why bother to repeat this? Do you imagine that I have disagreed with the premise? That would betray a remarkable lack of understanding on your part.
Which means, of course, that we cannot emilinate it as a possibility.
:rolleyes:
Repetition is sometimes an effective means of teaching tasks to animals and small children. It has worked for Begbert2 at least once (re: begging the question). So . . .
In other words, there is a distinction between how we accept an axiom and how we accept a premise. That distinction is directly relevant to aceptance of (P1). It is specifically pertinent to this discussion of your latest argument because you still have not managed to answer the question which I am going to have to repeat, again, at the end of this post.
Learn to read.
[ol][li]Axioms have to be accepted, in that they are like any other premise.[/li][li]Axioms have to be accepted in the same manner as any other premise.[/ol][/li]Clarity is important. Which of the two meanings above is the one you were trying to convey?
[ol][li]The correct one which is irrelevant to the distinction that I referenced[/li][li]The incorrect one which betrays a stunning ignorance of basic logical terminology[/ol][/li]
Well, if follows directly from “my” aceptance of (P11). Of course, demonstrating rigorously the truth of that acceptance is just a little bit central to the idea of “proving” that I exist, n’est ce pas?
As previously mentioned, binding it to the “I” of general understanding is something that your argument fails to do.
It still packs too many unjustified meanings and assumptions. The proper generic term as your conclusion stands now is: something(s).
How do I know whether I accept P11 as true?
- Axioms have to be accepted, in that they are like any other premise.
No, it doesn’t, particularly with my second, more strictly formulated argument. No reference is made to why or how the premise is accepted. Merely that the premise is accepted.
Just as a refresher, here is the currently evolved state of the argument which I am currently defending (on reflection P11c shouldn’t really be called an axiom):
[ul][li]Premise:[/li]P11) The acceptance of premises implies existence on the part of the accepter.
[li]Inference:[/li]P11c) I accept premise P11. [by the acceptance of P11]
[li]Conclusion:[/li]C12) I exist. [by modus ponens on P11c and P11]
[/ul]
“I” refers to that which is making/considering the argument. That is, to whatever is accepting the premise P11. That’s all it refers to.
An inference derives its truth upon the basis of the premise(s) and previous inferences that back it up. P11c is accepted conditionally based upon the acceptance of P11. That is, if the arguer accepts P11, they logically must also accept P11c.
And “something(s)” as a replacement for "I’ ignores two things, and by the assertion that “something(s)” is more appropriate a term that “I”, implies their opposite:
-
We have no reason at all to believe that there is more than one thing aware of the argument. None. The acceptance of the premise is a singular act by a singular arguer, indicating a singular conclusion. When I say “I accept premise P11”, this conveys that idea. Potentional plurality, while possible, is not supported by the acceptance of the premise P11, and therefore, does not enter into my argument or into my conclusion.
-
We know that the “something” that exists is the same something that is accepting the premise. This is a piece of knowledge, which is conveyed by using the word “I” (which explicitly referes to the entity that is making/considering the argument. That reference is all the meaning added by the choice of the word “I” over the word “something”. Claims that I is not appropriate and “something” implicitly deny the whole content pf P11c.
So, this argument does not prove “something(s) exists.” It proves “I exist”. Just as is claims.
Oh, and how do you know whether you accept P11 as true? (You may be retracting this now that P11c is explicitly stated as an inference; if so, carry on.)
An inference derives its truth upon the basis of the premise(s) and previous inferences that back it up. P11c is accepted conditionally based upon the acceptance of P11. That is, if the arguer accepts P11, they logically must also accept P11c.
Responses?
It just occured to me to note that my reasoning behind ‘2’ above (hmm, I forgot to renumber my premises) leaves too much doubt. let me make things clear.
- “something(s) exist” was acually developed as a destructive rewriting of the following conclusion: “Perception(s) exist, which are observed, therefore observer(s) exist” The reason that “observer(s) exist” had its meaning removed to say “something(s) exist” is unclear, unless some attempt was going to me made to switch the meaning of “something(s)” from “observer(s)” to “perception(s)”, and claim that since “something(s)” (perception(s)) were assumed axiomatically to exist, that I’m begging the question.
The thing to note is, there are no longer either “perception(s)” or “observer(s)” in the argument at the moment. There is one premise and one acceptance thereof. It’s all singular. The claim that the current argument supports that “something(s)” exist is flatly unsupportable, and utterly ignores the argument currently being presented.
There, that should squelch that line of misdirection.
So your inference is strictly circular. It asserts that “I accept the premise P11” because “I accept the premise P11”.
Yes, if one accepts as true that “I accept a premise” then one has accepted as true that “I exist”. This result is trivial. Descartes at least had the ambition to try and demonstrate something important.
one premise
one acceptance
** one complete line of bullshit from someone who has no grasp of how variables are bound.**
Let me spell it out for those capable of reading:
[ul][li]The only meaning you have bound to “I” is "that which is making/considering the argument.[/li][li]You have not provided a demonstration that the argument necessarily originates from a single unified consciousness[/li][li]You have not provided a demonstration that the acceptance necessarily originates from a single unified consiousness[/li][li]You have not, for that matter, demonstrated that consciousness is even required. Acceptance might be generated by a random decision-making algorithm.[/li][li]Thus, you have bound no meaning in the symbol “I” that would generally be associated with a personal subjective identity.[/li][li]Ergo, something(s) is a better term. It implies only what it clearly denotes, that no meaning beyond existence has been bound to the symbol in the proof. [/ul][/li]
HOW DO I KNOW WHETHER I ACCEPT P11 AS TRUE