Primal

Asking for a theory of how the mind came to be as it is, or its underlying causal mechanisms: is very different then asking for how the Law of Identity came to be or principle of identification is justified.

Primal

That's a bit unwarranted, I myself prefer to think most or all as noun-verbs.

Logic and math count as specific absolute truths....you haven;t refuted that point yet.



How has the law of identity changed or the amount of mass in the universe? If by change you mean motion though, I agree everything is in motion. That however is not really consequential to epistemology.


It's consistent with a lot of theories, including rationalism(I'm being charitable here and assuming you mean mere motion by change.)

Who said you need a comparison to know anything? I imagine it'd be somewhat basic. That's like asking me whether I could know what ultra-violet is without knowing info-red, or I can know of sight without echo-location. If you mean [i] black as the opposite of white[/b] then your statement is a tautology. If you however mean black as an absence of pigment, the sensation etc, then I fail to see why this is so.

That's a rather large assumption on both fronts. This ignores exegentic mechanisms and instincts. The mind to work has to process sensations, and it will process them in certain ways according to certain tendencies. Also going from the statement "definitions are limited" to "all knowledge is from the senses" seems like a rather large leap.

Yes but it is unlikely that is the case.If it were half of science would have to be thrown out or reduced to bare empirical data. Abiogenesis, evolutionary theory, big bang theory, general relativity, would have to go as much of them is inferred or deduced and not based on raw empirical data. And there is no sensation for "inference" in the empiricist scheme of things. For example it is claimed that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but I cannot see this. If you bring up radio-metric dating I still fail to see a 4.5 billion year old earth, I simply see radio-metric dating. To go from such dating to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old requires inference, conceptual,not fully empirical reasoning.

Likewise such a stance cannot defend itself, from where can I see "empiricism"? Where can I see "comparison/detection theory"? Thus since I cannot see either they must not exist.



Understood.


Ah so you use axioms but they are verifiable? If so that means they are inferred and not really axioms at all as axioms are supposed to be noninferred(via "definition"/understanding of axiom).

Lastly I asked you to show how you can disprove my claims in theory. You have not done this, you have questioned my claims and asked for clarity and proposed your own epistemology but you have yet to to show how my "absolutes" concerning personal existence, LOI,LOC,the existence of sensations and mathematics can be disproven in any way. Not just doubted, not just rejected, not just questioned but disproven.

John Page

Thanks for your opinion.
I have shown how they are conventions relative to a particular way of thinking. Glad to see you put your absolutes as "absolutes" 'cos their only absolute to your frame of reference.
You're entitled to your opinion, its relative to your viewpoint.
You're entitled to your opinion, logic and math are fairly (but not completely) coherent systems relative to the adopter's viewpoint.
Oh yes it is!
Me (as opposed to not-me). You have to compare and distinguish me from the rest of reality to know that.
Opposites do not constitute a tautology.
I don't think so, can you tell me a means of perception that does not involve comparison in order to sense soemthing?
Red herring - this is about the human senses.
I can't see you - does it mean you don't exist?
How in Zeus's name do you conclude that verifiable axioms must be inferred? Take your "I exist" axiom (and erstwhile absolute truth), for example, which is can be agreed/disagreed depending upon your direct first person experience.

For something to be verified, it must be verified against some assumed standard and is not, therefore, absolute.

Cheers, John

John Page

Non sequitor.

Primal

John how was my statement a "non sequitur" if anything confusing a Philsophy of Mind with the law of identity is a non sequitur.

Primal

A declaration of what my origincal question was is just an opinion?



Not really John, to show this you must actually show how they can be disproven by another standard and (are hence relative) to that standard. All you have done is assume they are conventions from the get-go, or that they are questionable(which does not count as a possible disproof John.)

All you are doing now is simply declaring "They are conventions because they are."

I didn't ask you to show they were social conventions John, are you avoiding my challenge?


Or perhaps a matter better handled by linguists.....


Yes John that's my opinion(which is technically a belief) but it's an absolute opinion so far as I see.

How is logic or math at the basic level incoherent John? You still fail to show a possible disproof btw.


(In reference to whether motion is consequential to epistemology)

How so John?

Circular reasoning. More evidence that relativism degenerates into make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ism.

And I said they did when?

I said, that if you define black as "the opposite of white." Then it is tautology to say you cannot have black without white. That's not really saying an opposite=a tautology John. I'm saying a definition concerning an opposite is.


That does not involve comparison? Well inferring that we exist(there is literally nothing to compare that to.) The fact that I can feel pain or pleasure at all. The fact that all things are in motion. Also my sense of temperature(I know this exist but didn't have to live without it to know that.)



Yes and how limited an epistemology and science really is if based only on the traditional/basic five senses.


I guess you as a strict empricist must say "yes."


John because your verifying it via an earlier principle meaning its not the last word i.e. an axiom but an infferred statement. If it were really an axiom(something fundamental,end of the line in reasoning,non-inffered) how would you be able to verify it at all?

John that's because if your statement does not come from another earlier source, is not justified by it, then there really is no way to check out, how would you? There's nothing underlying it, if it conflicts with other axioms its then just one axioms vs another, and nothing is verified/disproven at all. To have it verfieid something must take authority over it/underly it, percede it directly. That makes the statement an inference.

In short John if the statement can be overturned its not really the end of the line in reasoning is it? And hence not axiomic.


Never said it was an axiom John, just said it was absolute, The two do not always coincide. (All axioms may be absolutes but all absolutes may not be axioms.)


And btw just because it can be disagreed with proves nothing. To disagree with it, you must first exist.

John Page

A fine statement given the dialog below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Primal John I am not talking about the details or overall picture of one's existence but the matter over whether one exists or not. Do not make my claim any broader then it really is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Page As before when people have suggested "I exist" as an absolute truth, I ask, what is the I and what do you mean by exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Primal Do you really not understand what I mean by "I" and "exist"? The words are too basic to be defined, that's like asking me to define the word "yellow".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are words too basic to be defined, eh? No point in talking about them, then.

i.e. Axioms don't need verification. They need to be tested for consistency along with the theorems they are associated with.

Well, if its your absolute opinion it will never change so further debate is pointless.:banghead:

Cheers, John

Primal

Well then you can't show how my claim is disproven in theory. Also John how does that argument work:

"The words of claim X cannot be defined."

"Hence there is no point in discussing a claim that contains those words."

This only works if a premise is added:"If the words are not defined they are meaningless." A claim yet to be proven and which strikes me as kind of avoiding the question.


And how do you test the noninffered John? That doesn't make sense.

Dictionary.com

The point is John axioms are supposed to be the grounds from which all other things are proven, the bottom line. If it is thus succeptible to criticism or testing from another source: then that means it is not the first or among the first basis for proof. John what you are proposing is an axiom that really isn't. If it is open to testing that means it is at some level "proven", as somethign open to disproof(testing) must be open to proof(again more testing) and hence isn't really axiomic.


Probably not, but you can always try and disprove my opinion John making it not so absolute after all. that's IF you can which it seems you can't.

John Page

I disagree and never made that claim. You have not provided ANY definition of the words "I" and "exist" in your claim of an absolute truth "I exist".

I don't see a need for a test. It seems to me you're claiming a "non-inferred axiom" is an absolute truth, the existence of the latter disproving my relativism. Unfortunately for your argument, though, there are no non-inferred axioms.

Supposed to be?? By whom? Axioms are a starting point, that's all. Why, "All leaves are green" could be an axiom in biology and you could build an ontology for biology based on that. Doesn't mean its absolutely true. Summary: axioms are not absolute truths, the may be "self-evident" to some but such views are subjective. Conclusion: Please go back and read the dictionary entries you yourself posted.

LOL. Please keep your opinion, it neither needs proving or disproving to remain entirely limited to you and, unless you are the mythical absolute being, it is not so absolute anyway.

Cheers, John

Primal

Yes and my point is, so what? Their meaning is attained via experience not definition.

Not the point John and I never said they did. You said they could be tested yet remain axioms and I'll quote you from a earlier post:


Okay I do think a noninferred axiom is a self-evident/absolute truth. However that was not my point on this matter, my point was that the idea of an "inffered" axiom i.e. one that is tested or verified does not make sense,i.e. is a contradiction in terms.

Basically by dictionaries and philosophers in general....


Yes but an noninferred(unproven) starting point.


I doubt it John as the claim seems to have many underlying assumptions to it, like that of generalization, sensation,inference etc, which makes the claim dependent on those assumptions and derrived from their application.


I did John and the definitions state that axioms are not "proven" meaning inferred or open to disproof. The claim that "all leaves are green" is obviously open to proof and disproof John. In any event, if a claim is verified or verifiable by an external standard it is obviously open to proof and disproof and hence not axiomic.


So either I'm a mythical absolute being like God or all my beliefs are completely relative? Sounds like a false dillema/straw man John.