Taking the statement "flimflam's trousers are blue" that statement is unknown to you but false to me (if we slip into ternary logic for a moment).
Okay.
So unknown is demonstrably not a universal truth value, since it differs according to the point of view.
That's like saying true isnt a truth value either because some people believe that God is true and others God is false.
That statement is objectively false, it can't be objectively unknown.
It could be objectively unknown to everyone in the world but you.
What do I look like? Does anyone here know?
(psst...quite handsome)
We all have unknowns just as much as we have truths and falsities. It doesnt matter at first WHAT we consider to be T, F, or M, the fact is, we all have those values relative to us as individuals and relative to us as a species. We have shared unknowns and unique unknowns. Shared truths and personal truths. What is true today is not true tommorow, yet 'true' remains regardless.
So questions can be "ideas" too. So "flimflam's trousers are blue" and "are flimflam's trousers blue?" are both ideas? Muy confusing Bubbster.
Yes, I understand you are confused, that's why I'm here to help. Of course questions are ideas, what else would they be? They have a unique quality, the ? to the !, another coupling that distinguishes ideas into two basic distinctions.
Questions in and of themselves of course are unknowns, that is why they are questions, questions seek to find what is known or understood and are queries that 'presupposes' an unknown relative to the querent.
THINK. It's not that hard.
Firstly it's "the cogito" not "the cognito" since it is "cogito ergo sum".
But you know what I am reffering to, right? Let's just call it 'C'
Secondly, it's incomplete?
Yes, it's incomplete.
Possibly the best known philosophical argument in history that has been debated for hundreds of years by some of the greatest minds we have ever known is incomplete, and your system has completed it?
Yes, but I hardly doubt OS 012 is the first one to complete it.
If I didn't already think that you were wildly delusional Bubb, this would just about put the tin lid on it.
WHy dont you try arguing my claim instead of appealing to authority and using ad hom?
That is the point of the cogito Bubb, that my thinking is proof of my (and only "my") existence.
But it's NOT your proof, your proof is your 'being'. Your being is an experience that transcends thinking. You just need the thinking to acknowledge that in language and meaning, which you arrive at with others.
The fact that it is summed up in "cogito ergo sum" is nice but in many ways it's a surprise that nobody came up with it before Descartes.
That's how I feel about OS 012, I cant believe no one came up with it yet.
No Bubb, you have clearly missed the point here. To quote from the link that I posted (which I'm not convinced you've read):
"First, a first-person formulation is essential to the certainty of the cogito. Third-person claims, such as “Icarus thinks,” or “Descartes thinks,” are not unshakably certain—not for me, at any rate; only the occurrence of my thought has a chance of resisting hyperbolic doubt."
Right, got that the first time. It's FLAT OUT WRONG. It's not fully considered. I stated my argument, and then you just repeated your same argument over. That's not how it works, you have to then refute my refutation with ANOTHER argument. Copy and pasting the same argument I already contradicted wont keep you afloat in this discussion.
So I do not have the same level of certainty of your existence as I do of my own.
You have enough juice of your own existence to know that I too exist. If I dont exist, then you are a solo mind, and you are the universe. If your too afraid to make that leap in your philosophy, then your philosophy is stuck in your mind.
A quick thought experiment: Imagine that I do not actually exist.
Been there;-)
Imagine that I am merely an alien brain in a jar and all my perceptions, experiences and feelings are produced by some all-powerful being manipulating the brain. That hypothesis explains everything (yes, everything) that I feel, experience and think just as well as the hypothesis that I am a homo sapien male sat in front of a computer on Earth.
well, it explains everything to you, but your easy and dont question reality much. Why dont you consider more than one hypothesis? If you consider more than one hypothesis, you dont have many to choose from, there is either mutual existence or there isnt. If there isnt, then you can come to make certain predictions that may or may not come true, and vice versa.
My entire perception of reality including this discussion and any conversation that I might get into could all be a feature of that simulation.
Not to me it isnt. For your hypothesis to be objectively true, then I must be apart of your simulation, your brain. So therefore I can argue for the contrary hypothesis, and then someone else can argue for YOUR hypothesis, and then you can watch our argument. try to explain that one to yourself after awhile, and see how many contradictions start to fly.
So dialectic, in as much as it involves communication between two parties is no proof of the nature of objective reality since it cannot be proved that the communication, nor the parties involved, actually exist
huh? all parties can verify thier own existence to themselves. If your insane, I probably cant prove to you I exist, but that hardly makes for a philosophical impact. Often, irrational people can't comprehend rationality, just because they dont comprehend it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Then you have not understood that the cogito implies a complete level of certainty beyond what you feel here.
The 'C' is dull and archaic. Try upgrading to 21st century philosophy.
Nope, because the point of view with which you exchange points of view could conceivably be a construct of a simulation by some cruel omnipotent being.
a omnipotent being is not a rational possibility in either a simulation or a reality, so you might as well be arguing for elves and fairies to prop up your philosophy as well.
The knowledge of language is just another part of the simulation by the cruel omnipotent being.
So only you and this omipotent being exist, how do you know your not being imagined by the omnipotent being?
My knowledge of self exists only in that I think, and by the very act of thinking, I prove to myself that I (the thing that thinks) exist.
Your knowledge of self exists in your thinking, yes, but not your EXPERIENCE of being. That has nothing to do with thinking, that has to do with FEELING, and that's where it all begins.
Learn to distinguish, please. EXPERIENCE and THINKING. They are not the same thing. And while your at it, distinguish KNOWLEDGE from UNDERSTANDING. See, you can understand you exist long before you can think you exist, dig?
If he has a solid refutation for the cogito I'd be interested to hear it, but this really doesn't sound like one. Any conversation that I have and any answer that I get to any question that I put could simply be part of the simulation. Have you never had a conversation in a dream?
Sure, but it is a specific conversation where you apply RATIONAL THINKING founded in the experience of your own being.
I cannot know who I am without you. You cannot know who you are without me. Without each other, none of us exist.
As you would say: a claim; not an argument. In this case it is a completely nonsensical claim too.
It's a more intuitive and expressive way of communicating something, I thought you stiffs could use a bit more of an intuitive expression to help you 'feel' it.
What a bunch of stiffs. So I guess intuition plays no role in our philosophies, eh? Even though our intuitions lead us to so many truths day in day out with the natural understanding that we exist with others, you stiffs are still trying to negate the neccesity of your own personal truth values for the sake of a dull philosophical argument from the 17th century.
Only a dualistic of bivalent philosophy would be so crude as to choose one over the other. The full expression of human being is found both in thinking and feeling, experiencing and percieving, knowledge and understanding.
