Certain Knowledge

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:07 pm

-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
Also, the necessary existence of three dimensional space is undeniable.
There's nothing necessary about three-dimensional space and it is very much deniable.
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
I think, therefore I am. And my thought exists, too. Two existences for the price of one.
No, just one. Descartes is very explicit about the "I" being his thoughts
.
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
Logic exists.
Following Descartes, I would say that either by "logic" you mean our sense of logic and then it's already included in the "I", or you mean something outside our mind and then we can't say we know that at all.
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
And then there is a whole world of tautologies out there, each one of which is necessarily true, so they form knowledge. "I am a man or I am not a man." "Julia is a name for women, or Julia is not a name for women."
As tautologies, they are part of the "I". You only know them whenever you think them. And you don't know them whenever you're thinking about your loved ones, your childhood, you next meal, the theory of relativity, whatever.
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
Also, venn diagrams, truth trees, logic flow diagrams, and conceptual statistical methods, as well as nth degree of freedom matrix equations cumulative to rational number systems, is in existence.
Again, no. Either you know these as thoughts, and then only when you think them, our you don't know them at all.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
A real simple exercise in observing the "certainty" of knowledge can be observed through the application of geometry...the "point" as a never changing object is in itself "certain" and one of the true objective axioms we hold of reality.
I don't think we know of any point existing out there. Personally, all I seem to know is the idea of the point. So, yes I know the idea of the point, but I can't be said to know any actual point.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a zero dimensional structure we can observe the line as a 1 dimensional extension of it which forms all "reality" we observe.
Observe? We can't observe zero or one-dimensional things so we certainly are unable to assert their existence.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a one dimensional structure (directed inwards towards itself) we can observe the line as a -1 dimensional extension which simultaneously forms all "reality" we observe.
This sounds meaningless to me.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
The duality of one and zero manifests the point as a trinitarian element which is both stable (1 dimensionality inwards exist as a stabilization as movement inwards is no movement at all) and moving (zero dimensionality exists as a divisory/multiplicative role equivalent in form and function to "propagation" or "movement")
This seems meaningless to me.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:31 pm

Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 pm
Accept what is self-evident. Free-will, other-minds, the first-person authority we have over our mental happenings, the existence of a Intelligent Designer, and so on. None of these can be denied without some sort of self-denial of what is obvious and necessarily follows from our existence. There is your certain knowledge.
All these things can be very easily dismissed as possible illusions or delusions. So, no, they're definitely not certain knowledge.

The only self-evidence for me is my own existence, i.e. the existence of the "I" in the sense of Descartes' Cogito.

And then there's nothing that would follow from the knowledge of my own existence, not even that there should be some efficient cause to my existence.
EB

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
A real simple exercise in observing the "certainty" of knowledge can be observed through the application of geometry...the "point" as a never changing object is in itself "certain" and one of the true objective axioms we hold of reality.
I don't think we know of any point existing out there. Personally, all I seem to know is the idea of the point. So, yes I know the idea of the point, but I can't be said to know any actual point.

Considering the point is infinite in nature everywhere we observe, and everything we observe, is composed of points as point.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a zero dimensional structure we can observe the line as a 1 dimensional extension of it which forms all "reality" we observe.
Observe? We can't observe zero or one-dimensional things so we certainly are unable to assert their existence.

We observe them abstractly, and through the concept of measurement in regards to empirical realities.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a one dimensional structure (directed inwards towards itself) we can observe the line as a -1 dimensional extension which simultaneously forms all "reality" we observe.
This sounds meaningless to me.

Skepticism is meanlingless when it is not skeptical of itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
The duality of one and zero manifests the point as a trinitarian element which is both stable (1 dimensionality inwards exist as a stabilization as movement inwards is no movement at all) and moving (zero dimensionality exists as a divisory/multiplicative role equivalent in form and function to "propagation" or "movement")
This seems meaningless to me.
EB
If this and other statements are without meaning then tell me what meaning is exactly since you know so much about it.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm

I would define free will as a condition that has a power-beyond-itself in that conditions in one timeline, a ball bouncing on the floor, will be a condition in another time-line where the ball doesn't or does bounce on the floor. The option itself in the alternative time-line is what defines free-will, as it is beyond conditions, and opens up cause-and-effect to where an cause is without an effect due to the 'choice', but not an effect without a cause due to 'actualization' of the choice through the will making a condition.

Therefore, when one tries to deny free-will through determinism, it is the fact that there is a cause without an effect, and not an effect without a cause, that both occur due to choice and action respectively, which the former of which denies determinism in the two time-lines, of which the second is free-will and the former determinism. The second of which is a contradiction in terms of determinism, QED.
Last edited by Viveka on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:54 pm

We know certain knowledge exists because we are "certain" of "certain".

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:02 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:31 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 pm
Accept what is self-evident. Free-will, other-minds, the first-person authority we have over our mental happenings, the existence of a Intelligent Designer, and so on. None of these can be denied without some sort of self-denial of what is obvious and necessarily follows from our existence. There is your certain knowledge.
All these things can be very easily dismissed as possible illusions or delusions. So, no, they're definitely not certain knowledge.

The only self-evidence for me is my own existence, i.e. the existence of the "I" in the sense of Descartes' Cogito.

And then there's nothing that would follow from the knowledge of my own existence, not even that there should be some efficient cause to my existence.
EB
They cannot be dismissed as delusions. A true delusion is thinking that when your arm moves behind your head it ceases to exist, or that other people are masquerades of your own mind whenever they have a brain and express just as much value and behavior as you do. A true delusion is thinking you have no choice other than what you are programmed to whenever you can choose to move your arm over and over again.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:07 pm
No, just one. Descartes is very explicit about the "I" being his thoughts
EB
No, two. Count them: He, and his thought. How many do you see there? I see two. If you see one, then you are capable of becoming a true Christian. (Who will insist that 3-1=0.)

I don't know what else Descartes said. Whether he said implicitly or explicitly that he himself is his thought. I beg to differ. His thoughts are not HIM. If you say he is his thoughts, then it's like saying he is his chair, he is his clothes, he is his drink. He is not his chair. He is not his thoughts.

You must not pay that close attention to everything everyone says and then accept it as truth, EB. You must exercise your own critical analysis. Without that you are not a philosopher, but a parrot.

Why would it matter anyhow, what Descartes said beyond "cogito ergo sum"? Can't you draw your own conclusions from that? I am not writing a treatise on Descartes' and his philosophy; I am writing a treatise on "cogito ergo sum" and its ensuing corollaries. If you must doggonedly insist that it's not what Descartes said, then you are darn right. If you are incapable of independent thought, or appreciate one when you see one, then you are again, a parrot, who accepts authority like crazy.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:37 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:07 pm
As tautologies, they are part of the "I". You only know them whenever you think them. And you don't know them whenever you're thinking about your loved ones, your childhood, you next meal, the theory of relativity, whatever.
-1- wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:41 am
Also, venn diagrams, truth trees, logic flow diagrams, and conceptual statistical methods, as well as nth degree of freedom matrix equations cumulative to rational number systems, is in existence.
Again, no. Either you know these as thoughts, and then only when you think them, our you don't know them at all.
EB
You seem to be stuck in a rut, EB. To you everything is "I". I think you are stuck in a rut, and you haven't noticed it yet.

Yes, my thoughts, tautologies (if I were the only person in the world **) and tautologies exist, and they are not me, or part of me, but they are temporal, and they do depend on me for their existence. But that is not to say they are part of me. That is a faulty way of seeing it.

There are things other than "I". For instance, my thoughts. And tautologies. And other stuff. Get out of your ego, EB, there is a whole world out there other than "I". It just can't be proven that they exist; but some things can be proven to exist, such as "I", thoughts, tautologies, logic.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:40 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:31 pm
Viveka wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 8:48 pm
Accept what is self-evident. Free-will, other-minds, the first-person authority we have over our mental happenings, the existence of a Intelligent Designer, and so on. None of these can be denied without some sort of self-denial of what is obvious and necessarily follows from our existence. There is your certain knowledge.
All these things can be very easily dismissed as possible illusions or delusions. So, no, they're definitely not certain knowledge.

The only self-evidence for me is my own existence, i.e. the existence of the "I" in the sense of Descartes' Cogito.

And then there's nothing that would follow from the knowledge of my own existence, not even that there should be some efficient cause to my existence.
EB
Here I almost agree with you, EB, except for your denying that thoughts also exist (albeit temporarily).

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by -1- » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:48 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:23 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
A real simple exercise in observing the "certainty" of knowledge can be observed through the application of geometry...the "point" as a never changing object is in itself "certain" and one of the true objective axioms we hold of reality.
I don't think we know of any point existing out there. Personally, all I seem to know is the idea of the point. So, yes I know the idea of the point, but I can't be said to know any actual point.

Considering the point is infinite in nature everywhere we observe, and everything we observe, is composed of points as point.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a zero dimensional structure we can observe the line as a 1 dimensional extension of it which forms all "reality" we observe.
Observe? We can't observe zero or one-dimensional things so we certainly are unable to assert their existence.

We observe them abstractly, and through the concept of measurement in regards to empirical realities.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
As a one dimensional structure (directed inwards towards itself) we can observe the line as a -1 dimensional extension which simultaneously forms all "reality" we observe.
This sounds meaningless to me.

Skepticism is meanlingless when it is not skeptical of itself.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:19 pm
The duality of one and zero manifests the point as a trinitarian element which is both stable (1 dimensionality inwards exist as a stabilization as movement inwards is no movement at all) and moving (zero dimensionality exists as a divisory/multiplicative role equivalent in form and function to "propagation" or "movement")
This seems meaningless to me.
EB
If this and other statements are without meaning then tell me what meaning is exactly since you know so much about it.
EB, once I asked JohnDoe7 to explain his theories in laymen's terms, and he did, and he made sense. His claims don't make sense without an explanation, that much I grant. EB, you are free to ask JohnDoe7 to explain his point, and he will do a good job at it. JohnDoe, I think you would be much better off on this site if you did not talk over our heads but gave better explanations. What you write absolutely makes no sense, because you assume that your readers are familiar with your short-cuts, short forms, and contracted concepts. But we are not familiar with them, and without a patient explanation, sorry, your theories sound gibberish. Not that they are, (as seen after an explanation is given by you), but at first reading they are gibberish.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Considering the point is infinite in nature everywhere we observe, and everything we observe, is composed of points as point.
We don't observe any point at all and we have absolutely no necessary reason to take whatever it is we observe as composed of points.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
We observe them abstractly
In other words, we don't observe them. We only have the idea of points.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
Skepticism is meanlingless when it is not skeptical of itself.
Skepticism that's not skeptical?! Sorry, you just lost me.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm
If this and other statements are without meaning then tell me what meaning is exactly since you know so much about it.
Meaning is whatever idea you think is specifically expressed by a particular expression.

That what you said is meaningless to me just signals that I don't have any coherent idea as to what your are trying to say. I also suspect that nobody but you does.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:04 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:02 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:31 pm
All these things can be very easily dismissed as possible illusions or delusions.
They cannot be dismissed as delusions. A true delusion is thinking that when your arm moves behind your head it ceases to exist, or that other people are masquerades of your own mind whenever they have a brain and express just as much value and behavior as you do. A true delusion is thinking you have no choice other than what you are programmed to whenever you can choose to move your arm over and over again.
No, a delusion is just something you believe is real when it's not.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:29 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am
Speakpigeon wrote:
Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:07 pm
No, just one. Descartes is very explicit about the "I" being his thoughts
EB
No, two. Count them: He, and his thought.
Again, no.

He was definitely not talking about himself as a public persona or a physical organism. He was talking about the 'I' and only the 'I', and he explained very carefully that by the 'I' he meant his thoughts, and more precisely only the thought he had on the moment.
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am
I don't know what else Descartes said. Whether he said implicitly or explicitly that he himself is his thought. I beg to differ. His thoughts are not HIM. If you say he is his thoughts, then it's like saying he is his chair, he is his clothes, he is his drink. He is not his chair. He is not his thoughts.
He was using the word 'I' in the context of the Cogito and he defined it as the thought he had on the moment.
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am
You must not pay that close attention to everything everyone says and then accept it as truth, EB. You must exercise your own critical analysis. Without that you are not a philosopher, but a parrot.
First, I wasn't arguing that Cogito was true. You shouldn't let you imagination take control.

My point was about what Descartes said and what we can infer as to what he meant. You're welcome to argue on this basis.
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am
Why would it matter anyhow, what Descartes said beyond "cogito ergo sum"?
It matters a lot because the Cogito can very easily be misunderstood and Descartes himself took great care explaining it at length.

To ignore his explanations is to be intellectually fraudulent.
-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:30 am
Can't you draw your own conclusions from that? I am not writing a treatise on Descartes' and his philosophy; I am writing a treatise on "cogito ergo sum" and its ensuing corollaries. If you must doggonedly insist that it's not what Descartes said, then you are darn right. If you are incapable of independent thought, or appreciate one when you see one, then you are again, a parrot, who accepts authority like crazy.
You know nothing about me and yet you draw drastic conclusions?! Bravo!

You're all wrong, though.

And if you want to use Descartes' Cogito in a different way than he did then you better make clear to your reader that's what you're doing.
EB

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm

Re: Certain Knowledge

Post by Speakpigeon » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:40 am

-1- wrote:
Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:37 am
You seem to be stuck in a rut, EB. To you everything is "I". I think you are stuck in a rut, and you haven't noticed it yet.

Yes, my thoughts, tautologies (if I were the only person in the world **) and tautologies exist, and they are not me, or part of me, but they are temporal, and they do depend on me for their existence. But that is not to say they are part of me. That is a faulty way of seeing it.

There are things other than "I". For instance, my thoughts. And tautologies. And other stuff. Get out of your ego, EB, there is a whole world out there other than "I". It just can't be proven that they exist; but some things can be proven to exist, such as "I", thoughts, tautologies, logic.
You're absolutely free to believe what you like.

I was arguing from the point of view of Descartes' Cogito and what Descartes said.

I don't know that tautologies exist at all beyond my idea of tautologies and then my idea is definitely a thought. So I know the tautology as a thought, and I'm absolutely sure the thought exist, but from that I cannot infer that tautologies exist somehow outside of my thoughts.

Again, you free to believe what you like. Me, I was making a rational argument.

And, I didn't say I didn't believe there was a world out there either. My point was that I don't know there is one, and to reply to the OP, that the only certain knowledge I have is my own existence as thought (or subjective experience, or consciousness).
EB

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest