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."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muke Tever" <mktvr@...>
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 thinkingaccuratly.
> > >
> > >It doesn't have to, but whether it is thinking accurately or not it hasto
> > >in order to do that thinking.
> > You reach this conclusion using your reason. As you admit reason may be
> > how can you be so sure of the result?
> If I can reach this conclusion using my reason, then by necessity myreason 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 sayhuman
> > >> mind may be unable to understand. So to me, any philosophical
> > >> demonstration can concluded : it is reasable to think that..., but itcan
> > >> 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
> > >or not it must be there to have that quality. *From* that point youcan go
> > >to demonstrate things 'it is reasonable to think'.
> > Our reasonable way of thinking tells us we must exist to think, and even
> > your existene is a proof that you exist, since you doubt. I understand
> > 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 wastaken,