Re: KuJomu - the writing

Or to look at it another way...

I cannot prove to you that I exist.  I cannot prove to you that you exist.
But if I try to prove to myself that I exist, I can be sure of one thing.
That such an attempt is being made.  Whether I am the thing attempting to
make the proof, or there is something else acting through my consciousness,
I know that something is doing this action, and that I am conscious of
trying to act.  Descartes had it in a much simpler form, I admit.

But Muke's analogy is I think the best at the moment, and worth some
thought.

"Even if you put down all the wrong answers, we still know the test was
taken, because we have the filled-out form in our hands."

Joe Fatula



----- Original Message -----
From: "Muke Tever" <mktvr@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: KuJomu - the writing


> From: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@...>
> > >From: "Florian Rivoal" <florian@...>
> > >> I can not explain, because i am saying that those questions may be
> > >> (i don't say they are, just they may be) impossible to understand for
> > >> a human mind. I mean our mind may not be capable of thinking
accuratly.
> > >
> > >It doesn't have to, but whether it is thinking accurately or not it has
to
> exist
> > >in order to do that thinking.
> > You reach this conclusion using your reason. As you admit reason may be
> fallible,
> > how can you be so sure of the result?
>
> If I can reach this conclusion using my reason, then by necessity my
reason must
> exist for me to do so.  Are you missing this?
>
> > >> Don't ask me what definition of exist could match this. i did not say
> > >> descartes was not inteligent enough to find it though i am, i say
human
> > >> mind may be unable to understand. So to me, any philosophical
> > >> demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think that..., but it
can
> > >> not concluded : i prooved that... Nothing is prooved since you have a
> > >> least use one postulate: reason is unfailable.
> > >
> > >You may be right there but the issue is that whether you can say it is
> fallible
> > >or not it must be there to have that quality.   *From* that point you
can go
> on
> > >to demonstrate things 'it is reasonable to think'.
> >
> > Our reasonable way of thinking tells us we must exist to think, and even
> doubting
> > your existene is a proof that you exist, since you doubt. I understand
> perfectly
> > the point. But "Our reasonable way of thinking" tells us.
>
> How can "our reasonable way of thinking" tell us, if it doesn't exist?
>
> > So if reason is "wrong", what is this assertment worth?
>
> It tells us that some assertion is being made!
>
> Even if you put down all the wrong answers, we still know the test was
taken,
> because we have the filled-out form in our hands.
>
>
>     *Muke!
> --
> http://www.frath.net/