Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement? » Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Is there a such thing as an undeniably true statement?

Baudin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 42

Posted 06/06/08 - 01:05 AM:	#76
On existence and it’s deduction Theory: Anything able to cause an effect exists. Motivation: If something is unable to cause an effect it is unable to participate in our perceivable reality. On Cause and effect: I have made the mistake of using the word causality and Hume in the same sentence. This automatically summons up a professor stating Hume’s opinions on the matter of cause and effect. What I want to say is that even though we can’t observe a causal relation (or any relation for that matter) we can however deduce that the chance of there being a relation is probable going on certain. On separate entities: An entity is something which has the potential to cause an effect. If we can trust our senses we should conclude that our senses can only perceive entities, we cannot perceive movement or relations between entities. On observation of entities: Lets define a property of an entity, this is just a random property called location or in other words an entity’s place in space. It would be out of scope to define space at this time and I think our intuition suits our purpose well enough to forgo a formal definition. Movement is defined as a change in location. The speed with which an entity moves is defined as its change in location in a certain amount of time. Time is again one of those concepts where intuition serves us well in defining it. Imagine two objects moving towards each other. This means that the space between them is getting less. Can we observe this? Yes we can. Our senses function within our space-time. We can observe entities and with this I mean we can observe certain properties of the entity. In this instance we can see the two entities displacing and the relative space between them is getting less. (Edit: Baudin) You can think of observing something as making a snapshot. You make 2 snepshots of the moving entities and conclude their relative distance is getting less. Can we observe all the properties of an entity? I don’t know, but I’m inclined to say “no we can’t”. What I can say is that the observation of an entity lodges a belief or idea of that entity in our mind, in our thoughts. It could never be the entire entity, but it is enough for us to be able to reference the idea of this entity when the need to think about it arises. (but I’m getting ahead of myself) On relations between entities: Imagine looking in a mirror, you will see an entity with almost all of the characteristics (read properties) of a human. How do we come to the conclusion that this human is you? We deduce this, this is either because every time we look in the mirror we see the same human, or because we have some sort of connection with the one staring back at us. For instance, I turn my head, the human staring back at me turns his head, etc. There is a relation between me and the human staring back. This relation is not observable, you can only deduce this by thinking about it. In other words, as the conclusion, “that is me looking back out of the mirror”, is a conclusion your senses can’t make. This is where thought comes in. (To elaborate with an example: A dog or a cat does not recognize the one looking back from the mirror as themselves. This is generally attributed to their lack of intelligence. Intelligence, or “your ability to conclude relations between entities” is what is defined by thought.) On thought: To think about something is to contemplate either properties of an entity in relation to that entity or to contemplate properties of an entity in relation to another entity. On existence: Our perceptions describe an entity for us, this description is than put into context by our mind, with our thoughts. We either except that which we’ve seen as real or we conclude its imaginary. When someone tells us about an entity the same process occurs. We get the information by reference. If I say: “I’ve met a human.” You get the image of a human in your mind, it is almost certain your mind-human looks nothing like mine. Now I say: “This human had blue eyes.” You immediately change your mind-human. This process continues until the speaker is satisfied and thinks you have the right mind-human to covey his message. Now, is this mind-human you have created real? Seeing how the speaker can’t have described all the properties it can’t be the same human as he has in his mind. But what is it then if not real? It is the representation of something of which the speaker thinks is real. This human he described might even have caused some effect on him. It all comes down to whether or not you believe it to be real. If you can relate the given entity in such a way to entities already being thought of as real by you, that you conclude the speaker is giving you a reference to another real entity. This brings us back to the main theory, if an entity can cause an effect it is real even though you cannot touch, see, hear, taste or smell the entity. We will have to conclude that we are not sure our references point to entities which are real. We can however believe they are real and the longer we observe and think about an entity the surer we are that it is either true or false. On the unicorn: What I’ve given the girl trough my story is a reference to a creature she has no reference of. She hasn’t seen anything which can either do what it can or looks like it does. So she has no reason to either doubt or confirm it’s existence. She goes out looking for the unicorn and until she finds it, it is not proven that the unicorn exists. But not finding it does not disprove its existence. Until the little girl stops believing in the unicorn the unicorn exists, even if it’s only for her. Edited by Baudin on 06/06/08 - 01:18 AM
“What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.” --Mahatma Gandhi

Baudin
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 42

Posted 06/06/08 - 06:57 AM:	#77
I have started a new thread called "On existence and it’s deduction" because I think this is too much off topic from the original post. I sorry for diverging the discussion, I hope it gets back on track because it is a very interresting topic.
“What do I think of Western civilisation? I think it would be a very good idea.” --Mahatma Gandhi

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/06/08 - 07:06 AM:	#78
Bronze wrote: Postmodern Beatnik wrote: There's no such thing as perception without a perceiver. Why? It's an a priori connection. The very concept of a perception is that it is something perceived by a perceiver. The concepts are too intertwined to separate. Bronze wrote: Postmodern Beatnik wrote: So if perception exists, some sort of perceiver exists. That something exists is plainly true so long as we understood what's meant by "something" and "exists." This is rather redundant though. If perception exists then it doesn't matter whether or not a perceiver exists because you've already established that something exists (perception). In the original context, you were doubting if granting the existence of perception was granting the existence of something. Obviously, you have come to see the problem with such a position. Even if we are granting the existence of perception, though, my statement isn't redundant so much as superfluous. But that it doesn't matter to the question of the OP doesn't mean it isn't true. Bronze wrote: Now, on the topic of perception existing, how do we know ABSOLUTELY that it is impossible for perception to not exist? The wording of the question is ambiguous. You could mean either "how can we be certain that perception must exist?" or "how can we be certain that perception does exist?" The first question is off-topic, so I assume it is not what you meant. Though to answer it in brief, we can't -- but I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. To answer the second question, that there is perception can be taken as a datum. The experience being had right now is perception, whether it's mine or not. That is simply what perceptual experience is. To think otherwise is to do violence to the concept itself. Bronze wrote: To you, it's not at all possible that an individual's account of perception doesn't actually exist, that we merely are misconstruing assumptions of what it means to 'exist'? I'm not quite sure I understand the question. If you read my posts, you'll see that I reject the cogito as a deductive argument for our individual existence. What I do believe can be established is that something is thinking/perceiving; therefore, something exists. I am not here making any assertions about the nature or identity of that thing.
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/06/08 - 07:08 AM:	#79
Sabinsfiredance wrote: You skipped over the best part of my post! Well, I skipped over your favorite part. Or really, I just didn't quote it. But that is not to say I didn't address it. Still, you went to the trouble of asking again, so I will respond again. Sabinsfiredance wrote: If you place your hand on a hot stove, your hand may hurt. If you drink too much alcohol, you may experience a hangover the next morning. If I may yet another post, you may again respond. I asked what causality is if it is not observable? You hinted that it involves "necessary connections" but what are they if not the three that have already been suggested? The question is how to rationally demonstrate that there are necessary connections between the events you have cited. It cannot be done by deduction: you do not know a priori that touching a hot stove will hurt. That's why our mothers slapped our hands and yelled at us whenever we were about to do so. Nor can it be done by induction without begging the question, because to reason from "it has always happened this way" to "it will always happen this way" is to assume that the future will be like the past (i.e. that there are necessary connections -- causality -- between these events). You cannot assume what you are trying to prove and end up with a reasonable argument. None of this is to say that causality does not exist or that we should stop believing in it. Hume himself argues that belief in causality is a habit given to us by nature and not to be scoffed at. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't call a spade a spade (or an assumption an assumption). Sabinsfiredance wrote: Why is it that you run, you get tired? Why is it that smoking cigarettes over the years may lead to cancer? Why is it that learning how to read may relate to a higher paying job? Causality. Causality. Causality. Assumption. Assumption. Assumption. You believe there are necessary connections between these temporally ordered events -- so do I; do did Hume -- but you cannot prove their existence. It is a natural habit, and one that we have no reason to give up. But it does not follow directly from reason or observation.
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/06/08 - 07:11 AM:	#80
Baudin wrote: Theory: Anything able to cause an effect exists. Motivation: If something is unable to cause an effect it is unable to participate in our perceivable reality. As I have stated previously, I have no objections to this theory. Baudin wrote: I have made the mistake of using the word causality and Hume in the same sentence. This automatically summons up a professor stating Hume’s opinions on the matter of cause and effect. Still, he's bound to come up in any conversation that is dealing with both causality and skepticism. Baudin wrote: What I want to say is that even though we can’t observe a causal relation (or any relation for that matter) we can however deduce that the chance of there being a relation is probable going on certain. No, we cannot deduce it. What we can say is that our belief in causality is a natural habit which we have absolutely no reason to doubt and can therefore treat it as a near certainty (even though it isn't). That is Hume's take on it, and I very much agree. Baudin wrote: An entity is something which has the potential to cause an effect. If we can trust our senses we should conclude that our senses can only perceive entities, we cannot perceive movement or relations between entities. On what grounds do you say we cannot perceive movement, given that we can trust our senses? And what sort of relations are you talking about? "Is taller than" is a relation, and one we can cetainly perceive if our senses are trustworthy. Baudin wrote: Can we observe all the properties of an entity? I don’t know, but I’m inclined to say “no we can’t”. What I can say is that the observation of an entity lodges a belief or idea of that entity in our mind, in our thoughts. It could never be the entire entity, but it is enough for us to be able to reference the idea of this entity when the need to think about it arises. That is all well and good, but it is worth noting that it would fallacious reasoning to go from "an entity lodges a belief or an idea of that entity in our mind" to "an idea of an entity in our mind was lodged by the entity itself." There are other sources of ideas. Baudin wrote: Imagine looking in a mirror, you will see an entity with almost all of the characteristics (read properties) of a human. How do we come to the conclusion that this human is you? We deduce this, this is either because every time we look in the mirror we see the same human, or because we have some sort of connection with the one staring back at us. Again, we don't deduce it. You do realize that "deduce" is not a synonym for "think," "reason," or "conclude," right? What we do is notice the constant conjunction of our movement and change in the mirror's image and thus conclude that the two are connected. We cannot, however, prove this connection by means of deduction or induction. Baudin wrote: To elaborate with an example: A dog or a cat does not recognize the one looking back from the mirror as themselves. This is generally attributed to their lack of intelligence. Intelligence, or “your ability to conclude relations between entities” is what is defined by thought. Animals don't lack intelligence, they lack certain cognitive functions. So do infants. This is not the same as saying they lack thought simpliciter. As such, "thought" and "[the] ability to conclude relations between entities" are not coextensive. Baudin wrote: To think about something is to contemplate either properties of an entity in relation to that entity or to contemplate properties of an entity in relation to another entity. I suppose it depends on how widely we want to think about this. I can think about my wife emotively and not focus on any of her specific properties. If we want to say the mere fact that I am thinking about "my wife" and that this is a relation to me is sufficient, that's fine as far as it goes. But it doesn't really get you much (certainly not anything that you've been arguing for). Baudin wrote: Our perceptions describe an entity for us, this description is than put into context by our mind, with our thoughts. We either except that which we’ve seen as real or we conclude its imaginary. When someone tells us about an entity the same process occurs. We get the information by reference. If I say: “I’ve met a human.” You get the image of a human in your mind, it is almost certain your mind-human looks nothing like mine. Now I say: “This human had blue eyes.” You immediately change your mind-human. This process continues until the speaker is satisfied and thinks you have the right mind-human to covey his message. Now, is this mind-human you have created real? Seeing how the speaker can’t have described all the properties it can’t be the same human as he has in his mind. But what is it then if not real? It is the representation of something of which the speaker thinks is real. This is a pretty standard account of description and I have no objection to it. Baudin wrote: It all comes down to whether or not you believe it to be real. If you can relate the given entity in such a way to entities already being thought of as real by you, that you conclude the speaker is giving you a reference to another real entity. This brings us back to the main theory, if an entity can cause an effect it is real even though you cannot touch, see, hear, taste or smell the entity. This is all fine, but it doesn't really say anything. None of this relates to whether or not the described person is actually real, only if you believe he is real. If I tell you over the phone or the internet that I am eating a bagel, and if you have no reason to doubt me, then you will believe there is a real bagel in my hand. But that doesn't mean there is a real bagel in my hand. I could by lying. Baudin wrote: We will have to conclude that we are not sure our references point to entities which are real. We can however believe they are real and the longer we observe and think about an entity the surer we are that it is either true or false. Of course we can believe they exist; but again, this says nothing about whether or not they actually exist. Baudin wrote: What I’ve given the girl through my story is a reference to a creature she has no reference of. She hasn’t seen anything which can either do what it can or looks like it does. So she has no reason to either doubt or confirm it’s existence. She goes out looking for the unicorn and until she finds it, it is not proven that the unicorn exists. But not finding it does not disprove its existence. No objections so far. Baudin wrote: Until the little girl stops believing in the unicorn the unicorn exists, even if it’s only for her. This is the non sequitur in your argument, and it is based on equivocation. Something cannot exist (in the sense relevant to this conversation) for one person only. Something either exists or it doesn't. Until the little girl stops believing in unicorns, what exists is an idea of a unicorn which has as part of its content "an existing creature." That is, she has a set of beliefs about unicorns, one of which is the (false) belief that unicorns exist.
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/06/08 - 07:12 AM:	#81
Baudin wrote: I have started a new thread called "On existence and it’s deduction" because I think this is too much off topic from the original post. I sorry for diverging the discussion, I hope it gets back on track because it is a very interesting topic. Oops, sorry! I didn't see this post until after I had submitted my various replies. I'll look for your new thread and maybe I'll join in.
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Bronze
Sexiest Nihilist Alive

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Location: Watertown, NY
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 101

Posted 06/06/08 - 06:42 PM:	#82
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: What I do believe can be established is that something is thinking/perceiving; That's my question, how do you know that anything is thinking or percieving? Trust me, I understand how silly or absurd that question sounds but when you really think about it, are you assuming that 'something' is experiencing perception as an axiom since it seems extremely unintuitive to imagine HOW it's possible that nothing is experiencing perception?
Why is the word 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If you need to know how to spell it, the word is right on the cover, if you need to know what the definition of 'dictionary' is, you wouldn't exactly know to look in a dictionary would you?

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/07/08 - 09:29 AM:	#83
I don't think it as an assumed axiom so much as an a priori relation of ideas. Now, I'm willing to grant the skeptic a lot of leeway. He can even reject logic if he wishes, though in my opinion that means taking himself out of the realm of philosophy. Of course, if he really wants to be that extreme in his skepticism, philosophy probably doesn't mean much to him to begin with and he won't mind removing himself from it. But even the global skeptic commits himself to a denial.
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 167

Posted 06/07/08 - 01:59 PM:	#84
Sometimes I feel like a blind gorilla wading into an argument between two grizzly bears. This is one of those times. Postmodern Beatnik wrote: I don't think it as an assumed axiom so much as an a priori relation of ideas. Now, I'm willing to grant the skeptic a lot of leeway. He can even reject logic if he wishes, though in my opinion that means taking himself out of the realm of philosophy. Of course, if he really wants to be that extreme in his skepticism, philosophy probably doesn't mean much to him to begin with and he won't mind removing himself from it. But even the global skeptic commits himself to a denial. What denial would that be? I may have come up with a statement I would accept as universally true, given a few assumptions. I'll assume that we are using contemporary English and that the statement is not required to remain true beyond any linguistic evolution: Either perception, or knowledge, or both, occur. I have obvious problems accepting that knowledge exists. Is there knowledge to begin with? Assuming that there is knowledge, does it exist, or does that require some sort of physical essence? Now the debate at hand, the argument over the necessity of perception existing. Same problem with the word exist. Perhaps instead of having perception, I am an omniscient god and all that I know, is. Knowledge may merely be posing as perception. I am accepting that there must be knowledge and/or perception because I am in some manner aware of them. In place of existance I use occur, in order to overcome the possibility that an individually known/perceived ephemeral thing doesn't really exist. If my perception/knowledge ceases (as in my death), the statement remains because though the perception/knowledge would probably no longer exist, it did occur. Edited by Absolutely Relative on 06/07/08 - 02:03 PM
It is what it is.

Postmodern Beatnik
Existential Hero

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005
Location: What Planet is This?
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 1618

Posted 06/08/08 - 05:57 AM:	#85
Absolutely Relative wrote: Sometimes I feel like a blind gorilla wading into an argument between two grizzly bears. This is one of those times. Absolutely Relative wrote: What denial would that be? The global skeptic denies affirmation. Absolutely Relative wrote: I may have come up with a statement I would accept as universally true, given a few assumptions. I'll assume that we are using contemporary English and that the statement is not required to remain true beyond any linguistic evolution: These are similar to the qualifications I set up earlier in the thread, and I accept them. Absolutely Relative wrote: Either perception, or knowledge, or both, occur. Being a disjunction, this statement is true on the basis of the truth of the first disjunct. Absolutely Relative wrote: Now the debate at hand, the argument over the necessity of perception existing. The debate isn't over whether or not perception exists necessarily, rather it is over whether or not the statement "there is perception" or "perception exists" is undeniably true. Perception could have failed to exist; the point is that it didn't. The mere fact of the present experience of anything (regardless of who or what it ultimately belongs to) is sufficient to demonstrate this point. Absolutely Relative wrote: Same problem with the word exist. Perhaps instead of having perception, I am an omniscient god and all that I know, is. Knowledge may merely be posing as perception. Perception is not something subject to imitators. If you have a sensation of something that may or may not be perception, it is perception because you are perceiving that something. (Perception is, of course, being used in a very wide sense on this thread. As is appropriate -- it's a rather widely-defined term to begin with).
"Whenever there are two groups of people that really hate each other, chances are that they’re wearing different types of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important." --George Carlin

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.