However, I do not think relations are strictly fundamental in the sense that they depend on variety while the opposite I think is not logical — Daniel

Could you explain that a little more? You mean that as relations to exist, it first presupposes "things" to exist as to get related? That's why you think variety of things more fundamental?

For me, certainty in a rational sense should leave no room for doubt (like a properly constructed logical argument for instance) and since we have two possibilities it might not be true, I wouldn't commit to it. — Benkei

Yeah it is at best a very good speculation, but still that doesn't make it certainty.

Our brains clearly can't match up to the task at hand — Agent Smith

So you think that we are condemned to uncertainty about the general picture? I don't want to admit it but it might probably be the case.

So you think that we are condemned to uncertainty about the general picture? I don't want to admit it but it might probably be the case. — dimosthenis9

Truth is I haven't really done my homework on the subject to make any definitive claims; so cum grano salis with regard to my statements. Agrippa's/Münchhausen's trilemma are knockout punches to any and all forms of dogmatism. I'll leave it at that for now. Still working on it; all in good time I suppose!

I would like to hear the facts/things/ideas/rules(name it whatever you want) that you think that apply in universe/cosmos and that we (as humans) can be sure about them. — dimosthenis9

What you do matters.

What you do matters. — Pantagruel

You mean in relation with others as society or that our actions matter even in universal function? If yes in what way?

I mean in the context of a comprehensive naturalism. Consciousness is part of a universal feedback system. The effects of your choices are real.

Ok got it now where you stand.I can't say that I m in agreement with your statement, though consciousness fascinates me the most.It is a great mystery and as to be honest I would really wish consciousness to play some universal feedback role as you mention.
I have thought about that too and it's my "secret hope" but I have to be honest with myself and admit that there isn't any evidence at all for that. So far at least. So it's far from considering it as a sure thing.

have thought about that too and it's my "secret hope" but I have to be honest with myself and admit that there isn't any evidence at all for that. — dimosthenis9

If there is "evidence" for anything (i.e. evidence has a cognitive and empirical value) then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness....

So you think that we are condemned to uncertainty about the general picture? I don't want to admit it but it might probably be the case. — dimosthenis9

Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown? I wonder how you live if that's the case. Are you God, or perhaps a good friend of His, to invoke absolutes?

Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown? — Ciceronianus

That is the case indeed, either you like it or not.

I wonder how you live if that's the case. Are you God, or perhaps a good friend of His, to invoke absolutes? — Ciceronianus

I just try to learn how to swim into chaos.That's all. Not easy though.
Or else I would have to grab tightly from a lie, which I don't want to do so, nor developing any close relationship with God and His friends is in my plans either.

then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness — Pantagruel

Yet still though isn't an evidence for its universal feedback role.

At most, IME, Descartes only "proved" cogitatio fit, ergo cogitatio est, not that "I exist". — 180 Proof

I think, therefore my thought exists (Is that right?)
If my thought exists, I exist
Cogito ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum
If a person with Cotard's syndrome doubts she exists, she thinks
Therefore, if I think I don't exist, I exist.

The curious thing to me about the cogito, which is somewhat inferred in my answer, is the observation that our senses can be deceived. Firstly, doesn't that presuppose that we know something, that reality can differ from our perception? But more importantly, I question why this deception disproves all but the mind's existence. In the case of a mirage, for instance, even if there is no oasis, there's still something producing the illusion of the oasis. So it seems to me that, while we can't know if what our senses are producing are the reality or an illusion, we can at least be sure that there is something eluding us (I think that's the wrong word but oh well).

But consider the idea that our experience might be illusory, that is, everything we know about the world we live in isn't reality proper (for example a hologram or mischievous devil or whatnot). Does that mean we don't know anything, what we experience is false or that nothing truly does exist besides our minds? I don't think so. Even if that's all true, I think that the very fact that we experience the illusion makes the illusion as real as any other reality. I'll suffice to say that it's because existence isn't isolated to one notion of ultimate reality, but baked into the relationships between things. So the very fact that there is an illusion I experience makes us "real".

That's kind of a mouthful, so I'll stop before my reasoning becomes (more?) convoluted.

1. There are no Absolute Truths
2. There are no Absolute Truths

So it seems to me that, while we can't know if what our senses are producing are the reality or an illusion, we can at least be sure that there is something eluding us — Jerry

Yeah we might not know for sure what is the exact form of what is presented to us by our senses but we can be sure St least that there is "something" indeed.
The form that this something is presented to us is one of the forms indeed that it can be presented. But what other forms it can take or what is the actual form of it (if there is only one) or if there is something more in it, we can never be sure about it.

There are no Absolute Truths — Alkis Piskas

No? Are you really sure?
I think death is an absolute truth. Sooner or later it comes to us and is unstoppable. So, we can consider the act of born, live and die as absolute truths.

Fair enough. Though it could also count for an absolute truth itself

What's an absolute truth? :chin:

Something that can't be doubted. That is an undeniable fact and can be totally sure about it. But cause such kind of truths with universal application are extremely debatable. I wanna know what each person individually consider as "absolute truths".

An absolute truth is a thought that accords with reality. I guess a solipsist wouldn't have truth, but if there is more than oneself, truth is when you know something about it. I guess it's also true that truth about yourself, even if you are sovereign, and all alone, is possible in that the thought would accurately understand the self, instead of having a delusion of some sort

If someone is evil, he can be sure about that even if he tries to hide it from himself. Sartre on bad faith

Instinctually he knows it indeed. I agree.

Yet still though isn't an evidence for its universal feedback role. — dimosthenis9

See, and I thought that is exactly what my statement describes.

Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown?
— Ciceronianus

That is the case indeed, either you like it or not. — dimosthenis9

So you doubted you were posting your response to my post when you responded? You were unsure you were doing so--perhaps because you were uncertain you were typing on or using whatever device you used? Or is the fact you responded, and used whatever you used to do so, examples of absolute truths?

Do you doubt you're reading this, or that there is something to be read?

what each person individually consider as "absolute truths". — dimosthenis9

Isn't that kinda shooting yourself in the foot?

The negation of there are no truths is an absolute truth! :snicker:

So you doubted you were posting your response to my post when you responded? You were unsure you were doing so--perhaps because you were uncertain you were typing on or using whatever device you used? Or is the fact you responded, and used whatever you used to do so, examples of absolute truths?

Do you doubt you're reading this, or that there is something to be read? — Ciceronianus

No I don't doubt at all to any of all these you mentioned and I wonder how you get that idea. Weird. All these though are human concepts that have nothing to do with universal function.

I just doubt that we can have any kind of certainty so far about the function of the universe. And if we ever be able to actually see the bigger picture.
All of what is stated already from the very first post of that thread.

Are you really sure? — javi2541997

Would I have claimed it otherwise? :grin:

I think death is an absolute truth. — javi2541997

Right. You think. Isn't that subjective? An "absolute truth" --if it existed-- would be objective, wouldn't it? "Truths" are created by humans. Hence they are always subjective. Even if most people agree to something, i.e. there is a consensus, a common agreement abiut it, this something will still be subjective, simply because it has been created someone.

Yet, there's a paradox in my previous reply. Can you find what? (It's easy now that I have pointed it out,)

No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others.