The big misunderstanding about “I”

[Terrapin Station]

Terrapin, is it so difficult to extend the meaning of a dream? For example, whenever we behave according to false information, we are like in a dream. I put my keys in the locker of a car and after a few seconds I realize that it isn’t my car, but another one identical to mine. Life gives me a lot of money, so I think that I’m better than other people, but actually it’s just my selfishness. I think that the existence has no meaning, but later I realize that it was just because some unpleasant things had happened to me. Aren’t these dreams? Anything we think about is conditioned by our body, our personal history, culture, language, biology. Don’t these things makes us living in dreams? A woman looks at herself and she thinks she’s beautiful, but later she realized it was just her need making her think this way. We can make billions of example showing that our entire existence is made by dreams, it is a dream.
Is there anything you can say about “No, this isn’t a dream, this isn’t conditioned by anything in my mind”?

You're bringing up like 20 different issues here, at least, which makes classifying all of this under the term "dream" murkier than it was.

In a nutshell, the theme here, though, is basically just "Can we get beliefs wrong?" And the answer is, "Yes, of course we can."

But, the only way that we can have any inkling of getting a belief wrong is via being able to also get beliefs right. Otherwise we'd never have grounds for saying we got any belief wrong. So that necessarily implies that we get beliefs right, too. Otherwise this whole line of thinking is a non-starter.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't know what any of this sketchy retelling of why people are easily seduced into general ontological antirealism (upon a lack of critical analysis of what's an attractively unusual/novel way of thinking to folks just getting into philosophy) has to do with why you consider it a mistake to parse self/"I" as an object, by the way, which is what I was really curious about.

[Angelo Cannata]

But, the only way that we can have any inkling of getting a belief wrong is via being able to also get beliefs right. Otherwise we'd never have grounds for saying we got any belief wrong. So that necessarily implies that we get beliefs right, too. Otherwise this whole line of thinking is a non-starter.

I don’t think so. You are considering right and wrong, so ignoring another category, that is much more powerful: doubt. This is what is impossible to destroy: doubt. Since it is impossible to destroy, this has as a consequence that the categories of right and wrong just don’t exist, they are just illusions, because they are unable to resist any doubt. Doubt is the irresistible machine that has the power to demolish anything; nothing and nobody is able to definitely destroy the doubt.

This is the dream we are in and we have no way to exit from.

[Skepdick]

I don’t think so. You are considering right and wrong, so ignoring another category, that is much more powerful: doubt. This is what is impossible to destroy: doubt. Since it is impossible to destroy, this has as a consequence that the categories of right and wrong just don’t exist, they are just illusions, because they are unable to resist any doubt. Doubt is the irresistible machine that has the power to demolish anything; nothing and nobody is able to definitely destroy the doubt.

This is the dream we are in and we have no way to exit from.

The trivial way to destroy doubt is the question: Do you doubt that you doubt?

[Angelo Cannata]

It doesn’t destroy doubt, because it is a doubt itself. Doubting about doubting is still doubting and doesn’t add any possibility to reach any certainty. If if say: “May be certainty exists”, this doesn’t create any certainty, it just confirms doubting. I doubt that I doubt, but this just confirms that I doubt. Doubting about doubting doesn’t work the same way like doubting about certainty. If I doubt about certainty, I destroy certainty and I obtain doubt. But, if I doubt about doubting, the result is not destroying doubt.

It’s like dirt and cleanliness: if you apply dirt to cleanliness, you destroy cleanliness and you have dirt, but the same doesn’t work if you want to use the same formula to destroy dirt: trying to destroy dirt by using dirt will have even more dirt as a result.

[Skepdick]

It doesn’t destroy doubt, because it is a doubt itself.

Doubting about doubting is still doubting and doesn’t add any possibility to reach any certainty.

It's a doubt with an answer. Which is no doubt at all.

If if say: “May be certainty exists”, this doesn’t create any certainty, it just confirms doubting.

Are you certain that you are uncertain. Yes.

I doubt that I doubt, but this just confirms that I doubt.

Do I doubt that I doubt? Yes.

Doubting about doubting doesn’t work the same way like doubting about certainty. If I doubt about certainty, I destroy certainty and I obtain doubt. But, if I doubt about doubting, the result is not destroying doubt.

That's just equivocation. What's the difference between doubt and uncertainty? They are the same epistemic phenomenon as far as I can tell. English synonyms with no practical difference.

It’s like dirt and cleanliness: if you apply dirt to cleanliness, you destroy cleanliness and you have dirt, but the same doesn’t work if you want to use the same formula to destroy dirt: trying to destroy dirt by using dirt will have even more dirt as a result.

No idea how this applies.

[Angelo Cannata]

It’s not possible to be certain of being uncertain: if you are certain of being uncertain, the final result is that you are uncertain and, as consequence, you are uncertain even of being uncertain. We can’t give proof of our being uncertain. This situation of impossibility to give proof of our uncertainty makes uncertainty something general, total, all including, from which we have no way to escape.

[Angelo Cannata]

The correct answers to your questions are:

Are you certain that you are uncertain? May be, I don’t know.

Do I doubt that I doubt? I’m not sure. Who knows?

[Skepdick]

It’s not possible to be certain of being uncertain: if you are certain of being uncertain, the final result is that you are uncertain.

Of course it is possible. You are recognising your own doubt and uncertainty. You are absolutely certain that you are doubting/being uncertain.

and, as consequence, you are uncertain even of being uncertain.

If that were true, then surely you would say something like "I am neither certain nor uncertain" or "I am undecided on whether I am certain or uncertain"

But you are not undecided. You have decidedly said that you are uncertain.

We can’t give proof of our being uncertain.

Nobody is asking for any.

This situation of impossibility to give proof of our uncertainty makes uncertainty something general, total, all including, from which we have no way to escape.

I have just given you a way. Choice.

You could arrive at the conclusion that you are uncertain. You can arrive at the conclusion that you are certain.

Both interpretations are possible. You've chosen the other one.

[Skepdick]

Do I doubt that I doubt? I’m not sure. Who knows?

Exactly. If you were uncertain/doubtful you would've answered "Yes, absolutely!"

You must at least understand/recognize what doubt/uncertainty is within yourself. Otherwise - what are you even talking about?

The correct answers to your questions are:

"Correct"? Lol. No! A set of possible answers.

You can always choose a different hermeneutic.

[Angelo Cannata]

We can’t give proof of our being uncertain.

Nobody is asking for any.

If you can’t give proof, either to me or to yourself, of being uncertain, how can you say that you are certain of being uncertain?

[Skepdick]

If you can’t give proof, either to me or to yourself, of being uncertain, how can you say that you are certain of being uncertain?

Well what proof did you provide to yourself that you are uncertain?

If the proof is insufficient then you are neither certain nor uncertain. You just don't know!

How could you say that you are uncertain then?

[Angelo Cannata]

Actually I haven’t said “I’m certain that I'm incertain”. I said “I’m uncertain”. Saying “I’m uncertain” does not imply that I’m certain of being uncertain, because we are talking philosophically, not like computers; philosophically means that statements are supposed to be able to be applied to themselves. When you do this in a computer, you obtain a loop, the computer hangs or starts working more and more, until it reaches the maximum of its possibilities and the result is the same: it hangs.
I’m not at all sure that I’m uncertain. But this just tells me once more that I’m uncertain. “Once more” does not mean that now I’m certain of being uncertain. “Once more” means that I see an infinite process of uncertainty that continuously confirms and reinforces itself, without ever reaching any definite conclusion. “I’m certain that I’m uncertain” is a conclusion. “I’m uncertain” is not a conclusion, it is a process, a never ending process, because we are talking philosophically.
Obviously, you can decide to intepret it in a static way, as a conclusion, but the philosophical meaning that is in my intention when I say “I’m uncertain” is a process, not a conclusion. If it were a conclusion, it would be a certainty.
If you decide to treat it as a conclusive statement, then we are talking on different levels, we can’t understand each other.
I’m not treating my words in a mathematical, computerized, mechanical way, but in a philosophical way. Computers can’t be philosophers.

[Skepdick]

Actually I haven’t said “I’m certain that I'm incertain”. I said “I’m uncertain”. Saying “I’m uncertain” does not imply that I’m certain of being uncertain, because we are talking philosophically, not like computers

I have no idea what "talking Philosophically" means. The very fact that you are speaking about "I" is an act of computation.

Self-reference/recursion.

; philosophically means that statements are supposed to be able to be applied to themselves.

That's computational, not philosophical.

When you do this in a computer, you obtain a loop, the computer hangs or starts working more and more, until it reaches the maximum of its possibilities and the result is the same: it hangs.

That's not always true. It depends on many things. Your algorithm. Your programming language. Your runtime etc.

But none of this matters. You are not behaving like an infinite loop. You have produces a result/answer - your algorithm (whatever it was) halted.

I’m not at all sure that I’m uncertain. But this just tells me once more that I’m uncertain.

See! If you were stuck in an infinite loop it wouldn't have told you anything.

“Once more” does not mean that now I’m certain of being uncertain. “Once more” means that I see an infinite process of uncertainty that continuously confirms and reinforces itself, , without ever reaching any definite conclusion.

For an infinite loop you sure produce a lot of output.

“I’m certain that I’m uncertain” is a conclusion. “I’m uncertain” is not a conclusion, it is a process, a never ending process, because we are talking philosophically.

It's a result. An infinite loop doesn't produce any - it just makes you wait. Until it arrives at a conclusion.

Obviously, you can decide to intepret it in a static way, as a conclusion, but the philosophical meaning that is in my intention when I say “I’m uncertain” is a process, not a conclusion. If it were a conclusion, it would be a certainty.

Again... for an infinite loop you sure have said a lot..

If you decide to treat it as a conclusive statement, then we are talking on different levels, we can’t understand each other.

Well, how different can it be? We already agree that we are both computers.

I am 100% certain of this. What makes me so certain? Infinite regress.

I’m not treating my words in a mathematical, computerized, mechanical way, but in a philosophical way. Computers can’t be philosophers.

You are 100% correct. I am not a philosopher - I have no idea what that even means.

But I am a computer/computer scientist. Of that I am 100% certain.

[Angelo Cannata]

I’m glad I found where the problem was. As I said, we can’t understand each other. I’m not using the way of reasoning used by computers.