Well, reasoning requires language, and hence the other. Reasoning purely de se therefore involves a contradiction......there is something funny about de se reasoning that I think we haven't understood... — Snakes Alive
'Why am I this one, and not that one?' Not, 'Why is John John, but why am I John?' — Snakes Alive
Reasoning purely de se therefore involves a contradiction... — Banno
I am not sure you understand what de se reasoning actually is. If I state sincerely, "Peter wants to get elected" then that might be equivalent to stating sincerely "I believe that Peter wants to get elected", but in most cases, though not all, nothing is added or taken away by the choice that is made. If I were suffering from amnesia and was reading an account about what Peter had been doing I might also come to the conclusion that Peter wants to get elected, and I could say outright that I believe Peter wants to get elected, and be expressing the same thing. However, if my amnesia is cured, and I am Peter, I discover something new and express that discovery when I exclaim "I am Peter!". That is de se reasoning. I could also say "I believe I am Peter", but that would not add any extra de se characteristics to what I had already expressed. The puzzle some people see in de se reasoning is, on the one hand it seems that I have uncovered some substantive information when I discover that I am Peter, but on the other it is difficult to say anything more about what I have discovered other than that, quite simply, I am Peter.Ultimately, all reasoning is de se. Even for the de re sentence "Peter wants to get elected", the complete sentence is "I believe that Peter wants to get elected". A lot of language, when objectively describing the world, removes the "I", which is a mistake.
31. To view something, is to form a minimal connection with something.
32. Hence, to make a statement about a thing, then has to view that thing.
33. In a world, me has to view something to make a statement about that thing.
34. In a world, me is one of FPP [D.]
35. In a world, an FPP cannot view other distinct FPP.
36. In a world, me cannot make a statement about other distinct FPP. — bizso09
I don't disagree with this, but my lack of knowledge does not imply absence of these other FFP. — Echarmion
The puzzle some people see in de se reasoning is, on the one hand it seems that I have uncovered some substantive information when I discover that I am Peter, but on the other it is difficult to say anything more about what I have discovered other than that, quite simply, I am Peter. — jkg20
If being observed is a requirement for existing, what observes that unique first person perspective? — Daniel
You say:
K. There is one Me
L. In a world, Me is one of FPPs.
M. Hence in a world, Me is FPP_1
I say,
37. In a world, there is one Me
38. In a world, Me is one of FPPs
39. Hence, in a world, Me is FPP_2
40. In a world, FPP_1 and FPP_2 are two distinct FPPs
41. Hence, in a world, both FPP_1 and FPP_2 are Me — bizso09
If you conflate "me" and "you" and call it "me" you can put together some kind of argument for solipsism. But it's a simple - not to mention outlandish - mistake. It's obviously forced and sophistic. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Have you considered the idea that there is no such information? There is a distinction between ability based knowledge and factual knowledge, between knowing how to play a guitar and knowing the answers to a history test. Whilst the concept of information might be useful in analysis of having the latter kind of knowledge, and in the analysis of acquiring the former kind, that alone does not entail that all knowledge just is possession of information. De se reasoning may not involve gaining new information. At least, you have yet to argue that it must.So where does the information come from to select 3)?
Have you considered the idea that there is no such information? — jkg20
There is a distinction between ability based knowledge and factual knowledge, — jkg20
That needs arguing for, not just stating.Having no such information would entail me existing in some kind of weird superposition of all 3 choices.
That needs arguing for, not just stating.Ability or factual knowledge are just different encodings of information
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.