o. I already made this point. Both are assumed.
— Tom Storm
... & you’ve yet to define what disqualifies a thing from being “assumed” or an “assumption.” When I first asked you, this was your response...
It's not about what I think assumption means.
— Tom Storm
This may be one of the least philosophical things that I think that I’ve ever heard (no disrespect is meant here, truly). Of course what you think a word means within your argument is significant. If it’s meaningless to you, how am I ever to grasp your meaning?
The salient point is that there may not a straight forward 'I am' as the Cogito suggests. The experience of thought insertion leads some folk to doubt that they are a self and that their thinking may not be their own.
— Tom Storm
Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs
So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? What makes it that the latter isn’t but the former is? — ItIsWhatItIs
there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm
Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs
If 'I' does not really exist then does dualism, determinism and no free will, then not follow?
I currently don't find any arguments for any of these 3 proposals, convincing, do you? — universeness
My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness
And the answer to this is, fucked if I know. — Tom Storm
I would not assign any aspect or concept of knowledge as ever being outside of the reach of doubt or skepticism. I am deeply comforted by that, as it means I am immune to accepting proposals like god/perfection/infinity etc as truth.Are you convinced by the cogito as a foundation for certain knowledge that can withstand doubt and skepticism? — Tom Storm
Knowledge is not green either, and was never meant to be. Was it ever meant to be "perfect, complete or absolute"? — Banno
You mean one time in every ten thousand you act as if you're omniscient? — Isaac
Indeed. And now what?Go you! — Isaac
My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness
Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits?Do you mean relations between the smallest possible things? — Janus
A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’”But the absolute is thought as the polar opposite to the relative. — Janus
Sorry, but, no. I mean exactly what I asked: according to you, is there a relation wherein the number of members can’t possibly decrease, i.e., a “smallest possible relation”? If so, how many things comprise it, i.e., is it in the single, double, or however many, digits? — ItIsWhatItIs
A lot of this turns what you mean precisely by “polar opposite,” & yet that’s ultimately unimportant, so allow me to ask you: does the definition of “x” include “not-‘x?’” — ItIsWhatItIs
In fact, it's hard to imagine you don't understand it since you used the same word in the same way as me when you wrote this: — Tom Storm
L.o.l.,, why won’t you just (simply) define “assumption”? It’s actually quite funny that you won’t & avoid it by referring to a single reader for the purpose, such as myself.What have I missed? You seemed to have grasped my point rather well for someone who doesn't understand how assumption was being used. And it remains curious that you missed me saying this: — Tom Storm
You literally just said that both the thinker & the idea of thinking are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs
the next is or was: what do you mean by “assumption,”i.e., what makes something an “assumption” — ItIsWhatItIs
It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem.Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but the question is incoherent to me: I cannot get any conceptual grasp on it. — Janus
So, you’re saying that the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree?From memory and roughly paraphrased, Hegel said something like "every determination is a determinate negation". So a tree, for example, is defined as much by what it is not as what it is. It is not a shrub, or a mountain, a river, or an animal. This is how the game of "twenty questions" proceeds. — Janus
It’s quite simple actually... do multiple things make up a relation? If so, what’s the fewest amount of things that can form a relation? If you don’t get the question now, then, yeah, I think that you’re just being difficult, l.o.l.. Yet that’s no problem. — ItIsWhatItIs
So, you’re saying thar the definition of “x” includes “not-‘x,’” or the definition of tree includes not-tree? — ItIsWhatItIs
So that means that you accept that “x = not-x,” or “a tree = not-a-tree.” I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction to absurdity than that, being led to say that a thing is not what it is.Yes — Janus
So that means that you accept that x = not-x, or a tree = not-a-tree. I’m sorry but there’s no greater reduction than that, saying that a thing is not what it is. — ItIsWhatItIs
You mean one time in every ten thousand you act as if you're omniscient? — Isaac
Very possibly - doesn't everyone? — Vera Mont
So, you didn’t say...
No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs
Nietzsche also argued that there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm
The evidence that currently exists which refutes and/or falsifies the claim that "your brain functions separately/independently from mine" is the very words you used. Language bridges the gap between your brains. It connects them. Connected things are neither separate nor independent. — creativesoul
Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring." — Tom Storm
Pretty indicative of occurring, I should think. — Mww
thinking is occurring and not also the latter part therefore I am. — Tom Storm
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.