205 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

[Noesis]

Ialti, on 29 April 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

See, you just assumed an 'if.'

Never assume. It makes an ******* of u and me.

What's to say that I provide causes? That I have actions? Were I to not exist, how could I act toward a choice?
Perspective itself isn't necessarily a choice--and your assertion that it is hinges upon the belief that you yourself are not part of some fevered dream, locked away somewhere in the brain of a cosmic fish.

Case and point for the reason for the use of an "if", as I cannot qualify for someone else if they are an entity.

And your double negative of not existing and having no choice has to be meaningless as you say, so it isnt a qualifying argument. If anything the only potential logical conclusion you could attempt to draw is that you could only help to prove you exist if you observe the opposite surely?

However I will agree with your observations about perception and universal truth as opposed to personal truths:

Edited by Noesis, 06 May 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Here's

a mind blowing

double negative

for you

"I can't not exist"

[Voridan Atreides]

Did not blow my mind. That was a poor excuse for a xenophobic absolute term.

[Agent of Change]

what?

I don't think

those words

mean what

you think they do

[Voridan Atreides]

Oh I do Agent.

[Agent of Change]

I know you

think you do

and I'm telling

you you

don't

[Voridan Atreides]

Well now I am utterly confused. Oh hey, that reminds me. What do you call a cow that trys to jump over a barbed fence?

[Ialti]

Voridan Atreides, on 06 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Well now I am utterly confused. Oh hey, that reminds me. What do you call a cow that trys to jump over a barbed fence?

An udder catastrophe.

Noesis, on 06 May 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

Case and point for the reason for the use of an "if", as I cannot qualify for someone else if they are an entity.

And your double negative of not existing and having no choice has to be meaningless as you say, so it isnt a qualifying argument. If anything the only potential logical conclusion you could attempt to draw is that you could only help to prove you exist if you observe the opposite surely?

However I will agree with your observations about perception and universal truth as opposed to personal truths:

But it wasn't a double negative--it was a legitimate question. I didn't say 'I couldn't act toward choice,' I said 'how could I act toward choice?' There was even a question mark. Leading to less argument of facts, more argument about logic: assumptions = bad.

As to the rest, if we agree we agree. Can't let it ruin a good argument!

[Nathan Foxbane]

I am thinking maybe the confirmation from Garth was too lofty a goal. Should AoC perhaps try for confirmation from one of the Elder MODs that frequent these parts?

[Voridan Atreides]

Ialti, on 06 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

An udder catastrophe.

That was a good joke.

[Cubivorre]

[Ialti]

Agent of Change, on 06 May 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

Here's

a mind blowing

double negative

for you

"I can't not exist"

I can too!

[Noesis]

Ialti, on 06 May 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

An udder catastrophe.

But it wasn't a double negative--it was a legitimate question. I didn't say 'I couldn't act toward choice,' I said 'how could I act toward choice?' There was even a question mark. Leading to less argument of facts, more argument about logic: assumptions = bad.

As to the rest, if we agree we agree. Can't let it ruin a good argument!

Your right it isn't a double negative as a grammatical statement, but it is a "double negative elimination" from a logical conclusion since:

If choice = existence it doesn't necessarily mean that no choice = no existence or

existence = !(!Choice) is not a rational conclusion to infer from the proposed statement.

(i.e. by confirming what you had said logically I remarked we couldn't really derive meaning from anything other than a positive outcome. I was actually surmising your argument but extending it to suggest it wasn't conclusive an argument since the double negative didn't prove a positive.)

---

I'll try to qualify what I meant:

Your original assertion was that I assumed an "if" and that this was wrong to do. Yet by virtue of not being able to qualify another entities existence it is impossible for me to assert with any distinction as a result, so I have to leave it in the realms of supposition.

However for Agent to derive a conclusion he can use the following from an introspective point of view to confirm his own existence is what I believe.

So the idea being than that the absence of existence precludes the possibility of a choice in the first place. Thus the argument is irrelevant from a logical standpoint as only a positive affirmation of a resulting choice has any distinction which can only arise as a result of you existing. i.e. by having the opportunity to choose you have to exist as your perception denotes an experience which has to denote a reality. This is what I believe personally and as far as my own reality is concerned it helps me confirm it from my perspective, which fundamentally I think is all I have to work with in the conceptual values I can give to my existence.

Whether then it is an illusion or miss-perceived reality is immaterial also as by your perception of your "reality" the idea of having the choice within it still denotes you have to be an entity to do so, otherwise the existence of the choice could never logically be there in the first place. So anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false, since it is meaningless to begin with.

As much as nature and nurture can influence choice to certain subconscious goal orientated tasks and what the outcome can potentially be for a number of autonomous activities we take for granted in everyday thought, the important point of this is that the aspect of being able to make a choice that influences your reality on a conscious and perceived level has to give the logical conclusion that you exist.

My original comment then that was made very early on to Agent's original post was then all to do with whether you believe determinism or free will to be the active component of making a choice. But the aspect of having a choice, even if important to an entity and it's purposeful meaning in reality, it is possible to denote that existence does not need to have this debate for Agent to be an entity. However on a metaphysical level it is probably a more important question for an entity than just whether I'm here as it is then the transcendental ontology to existence as to the meaning for it.

Edited by Noesis, 06 May 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[Ialti]

Noesis, on 06 May 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

Your right it isn't a double negative as a grammatical statement, but it is a "double negative elimination" from a logical conclusion since:

If choice = existence it doesn't necessarily mean that no choice = no existence or

existence = !(!Choice) is not a rational conclusion to infer from the proposed statement.

(i.e. by confirming what you had said logically I remarked we couldn't really derive meaning from anything other than a positive outcome. I was actually surmising your argument but extending it to suggest it wasn't conclusive an argument since the double negative didn't prove a positive.)

---

I'll try to qualify what I meant:

Your original assertion was that I assumed an "if" and that this was wrong to do. Yet by virtue of not being able to qualify another entities existence it is impossible for me to assert with any distinction as a result, so I have to leave it in the realms of supposition.

However for Agent to derive a conclusion he can use the following from an introspective point of view to confirm his own existence is what I believe.

So the idea being than that the absence of existence precludes the possibility of a choice in the first place. Thus the argument is irrelevant from a logical standpoint as only a positive affirmation of a resulting choice has any distinction which can only arise as a result of you existing. i.e. by having the opportunity to choose you have to exist as your perception denotes an experience which has to denote a reality. This is what I believe personally and as far as my own reality is concerned it helps me confirm it from my perspective, which fundamentally I think is all I have to work with in the conceptual values I can give to my existence.

Whether then it is an illusion or miss-perceived reality is immaterial also as by your perception of your "reality" the idea of having the choice within it still denotes you have to be an entity to do so, otherwise the existence of the choice could never logically be there in the first place. So anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false, since it is meaningless to begin with.

As much as nature and nurture can influence choice to certain subconscious goal orientated tasks and what the outcome can potentially be for a number of autonomous activities we take for granted in everyday thought, the important point of this is that the aspect of being able to make a choice that influences your reality on a conscious and perceived level has to give the logical conclusion that you exist.

My original comment then that was made very early on to Agent's original post was then all to do with whether you believe determinism or free will to be the active component of making a choice. But the aspect of having a choice, even if important to an entity and it's purposeful meaning in reality, it is possible to denote that existence does not need to have this debate for Agent to be an entity. However on a metaphysical level it is probably a more important question for an entity than just whether I'm here as it is then the transcendental ontology to existence as to the meaning for it.

Your grammar. It makes me hurt, somewhere deep inside.

Alright, so you say:

Quote

the absence of existence precludes the possibility of a choice in the first place

Answer:
That's the assumption I'm talking about! I could very well be the fevered dream of a cosmic fish. And my challenge is to prove otherwise.

Your response:

Quote

So anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false, since it is meaningless to begin with.

Answer:
Negative, ghost-rider. What's meaningful does not have to be the same as what is. Claiming so is fallacious thinking, and you know it. ~wags finger~

You say:

Quote

As much as nature and nurture can influence choice to certain subconscious goal orientated tasks and what the outcome can potentially be for a number of autonomous activities we take for granted in everyday thought,

and then

Quote

the important point of this is that the aspect of being able to make a choice that influences your reality on a conscious and perceived level has to give the logical conclusion that you exist.

To which I respond:
The first bit didn't, in fact, prove the second bit. You asserted that it did, therefore making a false assertion. (hey look! syllogism!)

Your trains of thought collided in that last paragraph, but to sum it up:

Quote

However on a metaphysical level it is probably a more important question for an entity than just whether I'm here as it is then the transcendental ontology to existence as to the meaning for it.

My answer:
Meaning is not root. The two are separated, and I don't think we're quite ready to conclusively say that meaning comes from root or (as you would say) root comes from meaning.
Therefore my position is that we should go forward with meaning and root as non-interdependent quantities, which may be connected at some point, but not fundamentally so.

...And you still can't prove Descartes right!

[IceCase88]

Please stop. To answer the question... the robots you are "piloting" are not real.

[Ialti]

IceCase88, on 06 May 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

Please stop. To answer the question... the robots you are "piloting" are not real.

Never thought I'd see a PLJ argue against posting...

[Silentium]

The rules? they're more like guidelines.

I am still trying to figure out what stop this conversation is at, but it is difficult to do without going back...

[Noesis]

Lalti:

1) Based on the logical argument that if something doesn't exist it cant have a choice, I think my logic is sound based on the rational understanding of those terms at least by understood definitions. If not then any agreed truths with the use of a social narrative is clearly pointless with you as an attempt to communicate meaning as you might as well by the way you argue and freely throw in colourful metaphors of nonsense ask me how can you prove all the many things that don't exist? You are simply stating the impossible and using it incorrectly as an excuse to think you can argue with it logically. Where as I'm simply asserting that I can only rationally "attempt" to prove what does exist and offers a tangible reality to me. Also I'd love to see the legal system in your world, where it would appear that the burden of proof is based on imagination not facts.

2) My separation of the unconscious and conscious thought process is only relevant to make a distinction of how we recognise choice as a qualitative reaction to something. The intention was not to prove conscious choice at all, if anything my demarcation as a result was to treat them as separate issues with different operators for choice where the later is more readily identified as an aspect of individuation, which is helpful for a person to see as a clearer choice that can be made without significant influences that would bias reaction. Otherwise I wouldn't have left determinism as a separate subject for a person to consider from themselves as a personal issue in the first place would I? It is yourself who is incorrectly assuming otherwise.

3) I haven't asserted that meaning is or isn't root at all though I'm not entirely sure what you personally mean by it. But the emphasis of transcending these things as I stated should have given you a clue that the personal interpretive meaning for existence is in fact going beyond the foundations of it simply being there as an entity. How you presuppose I'm separating experiences as an individual within that as a result I don't understand at all.

As such the only real fallacy or "Strawman" seems to be the conjecture your placing on my representation of these things. But something tells me your doing it from a point of ensuring that we explore all the realms of possibilities, which is great as a thinking process in itself.

But if we are to have any commonality in understanding we have to use some form of shared reference in order to convey meaning for it with others. As such your denial to use some shared and accepted understandings will deny this occurring and therefore fruitless by discussion with others on the MWO forum. In all honesty however I have to allow you the personal opportunity to explore the realms of the very fabric of the universe and idealism in order for you to find your own personal truth that you are ultimately happy with of course.

As to the dogma of cosmic fish, I'd love to hear much more about that in all honesty as it is something I haven't explored in great detail. And it certainly sounds like a much more entertaining subject to potentially revise or help to confirm the subject of "nosce te ipsum" with.

[Ialti]

Noesis, on 06 May 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Lalti:

1) Based on the logical argument that if something doesn't exist it cant have a choice, I think my logic is sound based on the rational understanding of those terms at least by understood definitions. If not then any agreed truths with the use of a social narrative is clearly pointless with you as an attempt to communicate meaning as you might as well by the way you argue and freely throw in colourful metaphors of nonsense ask me how can you prove all the many things that don't exist? You are simply stating the impossible and using it incorrectly as an excuse to think you can argue with it logically. Where as I'm simply asserting that I can only rationally "attempt" to prove what does exist and offers a tangible reality to me. Also I'd love to see the legal system in your world, where it would appear that the burden of proof is based on imagination not facts.

2) My separation of the unconscious and conscious thought process is only relevant to make a distinction of how we recognise choice as a qualitative reaction to something. The intention was not to prove conscious choice at all, if anything my demarcation as a result was to treat them as separate issues with different operators for choice where the later is more readily identified as an aspect of individuation, which is helpful for a person to see as a clearer choice that can be made without significant influences that would bias reaction. Otherwise I wouldn't have left determinism as a separate subject for a person to consider from themselves as a personal issue in the first place would I? It is yourself who is incorrectly assuming otherwise.

3) I haven't asserted that meaning is or isn't root at all though I'm not entirely sure what you personally mean by it. But the emphasis of transcending these things as I stated should have given you a clue that the personal interpretive meaning for existence is in fact going beyond the foundations of it simply being there as an entity. How you presuppose I'm separating experiences as an individual within that as a result I don't understand at all.

As such the only real fallacy or "Strawman" seems to be the conjecture your placing on my representation of these things. But something tells me your doing it from a point of ensuring that we explore all the realms of possibilities, which is great as a thinking process in itself.

But if we are to have any commonality in understanding we have to use some form of shared reference in order to convey meaning for it with others. As such your denial to use some shared and accepted understandings will deny this occurring and therefore fruitless by discussion with others on the MWO forum. In all honesty however I have to allow you the personal opportunity to explore the realms of the very fabric of the universe and idealism in order for you to find your own personal truth that you are ultimately happy with of course.

As to the dogma of cosmic fish, I'd love to hear much more about that in all honesty as it is something I haven't explored in great detail. And it certainly sounds like a much more entertaining subject to potentially revise or help to confirm the subject of "nosce te ipsum" with.

Here we go kiddies,

You say:

Quote

You are simply stating the impossible and using it incorrectly as an excuse to think you can argue with it logically.

I respond:
The only thing I have said with any real certainty is that we can't be certain of the things you claim to be certain of. Assumption of "truth because I believe in it" does not reality make.

You resort to ad-hominem by saying:

Quote

Also I'd love to see the legal system in your world, where it would appear that the burden of proof is based on imagination not facts.

I respond:
No. Legal representation is determined socially, and that occurs at a different level of understanding that that of basic existence. Trying to mesh the two levels together as you have done is also, sadly, fallacious thinking. Say it with me: "fallacy!"

You say:

Quote

My separation of the unconscious and conscious thought process is only relevant to make a distinction of how we recognise choice as a qualitative reaction to something.The intention was not to prove conscious choice at all

To which I respond:
You wrote "the important point of this is that the aspect of being able to make a choice that influences your reality on a conscious and perceived level has to give the logical conclusion that you exist."
That, to my ears, means 'If you make a choice then you have to accept that you exist.' Because the phrase give the logical conclusion forces, well, logical conclusions. And if the logical conclusion of making choices is existence of an actor, then you are claiming that free agency = proof-of-existence. My counter statement was that you didn't support that claim. It had nothing to do with whether a person's choices are conscious or not, and everything to do with whether choice is proof of existence.

You claim:

Quote

I haven't asserted that meaning is or isn't root at all though I'm not entirely sure what you personally mean by it.

When earlier you said:

Quote

So anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false, since it is meaningless to begin with.

Now, call me crazy, but the above sentence has two parts, a cause and an effect. The effect is "anything other than a positive confirmation of existence due to a choice being present has to be false," while the cause is "since it is meaningless to begin with."
The clear implication is that meaning = existence. This is what you said. This is what I said was wrong.

You say:

Quote

As such the only real fallacy or "Strawman" seems to be the conjecture your placing on my representation of these things. But something tells me your doing it from a point of ensuring that we explore all the realms of possibilities, which is great as a thinking process in itself.

To which I respond:
As a matter of fact, the strawman fallacy is only one type of fallacy. There are others. But no, I do not believe I am constructing a strawman from your statements--it is my intent to directly clash with the one assumption I see in your argument, with which I disagree. Legitimate clash =/= strawman.
And yeah, it is nice to keep an open mind to the possibility of not existing, and that was very kind of you to say.
You say:

Quote

In all honesty however I have to allow you the personal opportunity to explore the realms of the very fabric of the universe and idealism in order for you to find your own personal truth that you are ultimately happy with of course.

To which I respond:
Thanks, of course, but I wasn't looking for personal revelation. I am not discussing personal belief or validation, I am discussing the logic of that horrible little question: how do I know I exist? I do not seek to prevent you from holding your beliefs, for I have personal beliefs of my own and would scarce abandon them. But when the question "do I exist?" comes up, I cannot rightly say that the Descartes' answer is correct. There is uncertainty beside the principle of thought-proves-existence.
You say:

Quote

As to the dogma of cosmic fish, I'd love to hear much more about that in all honesty as it is something I haven't explored in great detail. And it certainly sounds like a much more entertaining subject to potentially revise or help to confirm the subject of "nosce te ipsum" with.

To which I reply:

Alas, I do not have a dogma for cosmic fish. It could just as easily be cosmic antelope, or cosmic sentient-bricks. The point was that our thoughts do not necessarily mean that we exist.
I do agree though, 'know thyself' is a laudable goal.