Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: KuJomu - the writing

From:Joseph Fatula <fatula3@...>
Date:Friday, November 15, 2002, 13:15
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

"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
> > > > > >It doesn't have to, but whether it is thinking accurately or not it has
> 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
> > >> mind may be unable to understand. So to me, any philosophical > > >> demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think that..., but it
> > >> 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
> because we have the filled-out form in our hands. > > > *Muke! > -- >