John Page

To which half of my split brain were you addressing yourselves?

John Page

We're probably down to terminology here, its absolute relative to the mind which is one of those impossible situations. The absolute is redundant. Also I would like to re-quote the first part of your post:
"Yes just saying it doesn't make it so, but disagreeing doesn't disprove it either Primal."
Sensations are not absolutes, unless we redefine the word absolutes to refer to empirical data. "God" is not absolute - but that's for another forum.
Sorry I didn't read you correctly, I thought you were literally saying a "proposition was impossible". Please clarify whether you are now talking about the truth functional result of a proposition and if you take "impossible" to be the same as "false".
Quite, its all relative, isn't it?
What test?
I never said that! The case I posed is of a being that was unable to perceive of its own existence.
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?
Fine, please see above.
LOI does not apply in the commonly accepted notation for it in propositional logic. A=A is a contradiction. Taken literally we have two A's and they cannot be identical. If you say that the A's are merely symbols and refer to the same subject/value then the LOI is merely relative to that example instance of existence.
LNC, i.e. a proposition cannot be true and false at the same time, as my example has previously demonstrated the truth functional results of a proposition may change depending on the mind thinking it and the circumstances. Non-obedience of LNC is said to result in inconsistent outcomes (which is true!). LNC is therefore not universal but applies only to so-called consistent systems.
Not so in all systems of arithmetic. Again, the result is relative to the rules or conventions.
I have previously had from time to time something i would describe as sensations, but I have no idea whether they correlate to what you call sensations. BTW cats see in 4 colors, dogs see in B&W. They both have sensations that a relative to their specific physiology.
So, the man's truth changes over time and is not absolute after all?
Take the second person in my example, they realize they are incorrect over time. Truth is relative to the thought process that produces it, thats what truth *is* and how it is created.
Both display the apparent ability to say one thing and do another, how else am I to judge what they believe except by the contradiction of their ways?

Cheers, john

PS I skipped over the example of the xian because my response would have duplicated some of the effort above. Need to sleep.

Gurdur

*yawn*
I do not prove your point at all; you haven't made one, you've simply indulged in judgmental rhetoric and tried passing it off as philosophy ---- you commit the fallacies of begging the question, using your conclusion as your initial premise (circular argument), and several others as well.

I'll just repeat:
The belief process is far more complex than you assume.

You are adopting a simplistic ideological picture which does not fit or explain the pyschological facts, let alone explain anything philosophically.
Care to address this point ?

AnthonyAdams45

Indeed a lot more complex than many people around here assume.

Or do they assume? Is it perhaps the case that some persons posting on this board experience genuine ambiguity, feel truly ambivalent, have a multiplicity of reactions to the same events while others have simple, unmixed emotions only, have clear and distinct perceptions, see the world sharply and coherently?

What would that mean?

Primal

A redundant absolute is still an absolute, as is something only absolute to the self.
And relativism allows for NO ABSOLUTES meaning everything should be open to disproof at least in theory, which they cannot show.



I'm not redefining anything, I am defining absolute as "certain", perhaps changing and not universal but absolutely true and certain. That's pretty much the definition of "absolute."


I mean impossible=always false.



Which makes it inconsistent for a relativist to call something impossible.


What test?

Then it would be wrong about or able to disprove its existence would it?


I fail to see why it is necessary to define the words. Are they ambiguous or vague? 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".



Yes and you never answered my question. You never showed how you could disprove the notion "I exist." Basically you just try to change the subject.


Ok that's like saying: "Well to say 2 plus 2 equals 4 is absurd cause the number 4 clearly looks different then both of those 2's."

The symbols are made to represent a conceptual statement short-hand, not represent an actual empirical clam. A=A is really short-hand for A equals itself. Just like 2 plus 2 equals 4 really translates to 2 plus 2= 2 plus 2. Please realize these are symbols made to represent conceptual truths not empirical claims to be taken at face value.




Question begging. Like I said you can't really do anything but assume they are "subjective" from the get-go.



No, LNC applies to inconsistent systems as well.....it merely declares them false. Thus it remains universal.

Tell me a system of arithmatic that says 2 plus 2 does not equal 4? Also, show me a disproof. Don't just state "Well I CAN disagree" because that's not a refutation: that's merely a denial.



Again you are changing the subject: the question is can you deny your own sensations? I don't see how the statement is difficult to understand in any way. Whether a creature has more or less or different sensations then you has nothing to do with whether or not you have sensations at all.




Yes they his idea of what is true or not can change over time. I never said I was an absolutist......I believe most truths are provisional in fact.




Ok but the thoughts of the other person have nothing to do with whether the person in question is contradicting himself if he says "I believe X, but X isn't true." Saying "I believe" and "I believed" are different statements.



Testimony? Inference based on previous testimony? Perhaps they merely rationalize. Many xians for example say they believe in the Ten Commandments but steal all the time under the excuse that "Jesus forgives," Saying one thing and then doing another is very different from saying one thing and then saying the opposite in the same breath.

Primal

Philsophy is not psychology. Psychology is a science. In any event my statement had nothing to say concerning psychology or brain processes but about the epistemic status of statements like "My dog left the room, but I do not believe he did." Which is a much simpler subject then lets say "What influences your overall personality in life at the proximate and ultimate levels?"

You haven't a clue as to my view of psychology so don't pretend to. And quite changing the subject, this is a philosophical issue about claims: not about the procceses of the mind.

I admit, that a person can probably have inconsistent beliefs: but they are exactly that: inconsistent. Which I was claiming and which you admitted. Don't confuse this with the statement you seem to be attacking, which is: a person cannot hold more then one belief or must be fully consistent. That line of attack is rhetorical.

Keith Russell

John said:
"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?"

What is the 'I'?

Who is asking this question, and to whom should I address my answer?

Keith.

John Page

I meant your use of the word "absolute" was redundant. Please provide an example of soemthing that is absolute to the self.
Any such disproof would only be a relation to the theory in question, unless, of course, you can prove otherwise.
If soemthing is absolutely true, what's it true in relation to? Certain? Certain only under given circumstances, I suspect.
Tell me something that's "always false", and therefore absolutely untrue.
Why? Something "impossible" is a just a notion of something imaginary that does not exist outside the mind.
Huh? You said "Also are you then saying that the examples you gave of impossibility don't really stand the test of being impossible at all?" , to which I asked "What test?"

It seems that my use of the word "impossible" is more "defined such that it cannot exist" whereas yours is "always false". Anyway, I still don't know what test of impossibility you were refering to.
This in relation to a being that is unable to perceive of its own existence. Your use of the word "wrong" seems inappropriate. The being wouldn't posit its own existence or lack thereof, it simply wouldn't have the idea of "I exist". How could it disprove soemthing it couldn;t even comprehend?
If they are too basic to be defined, how am I supposed to understand what you mean by them? It could be considered like asking you to define "yellow" - can you do that? My definition runs like "yellow is a color perceived by human beings from light in the elctromagnetic spectrum wavelength range X to y etc." Yellow itself is relative, not only to the other colors but to the mind of the perceiver. e.g. dogs see in black and white.
See above, you can't even define the words you hold constitute, represent or otherwise convey an absolute truth!!!

You are the one trying to avoid the question - I looked in the previous posts and couldn't find where I'd failed to respond. Apologies if I missed it.
No its not, you're confusing math (manipulation of quantity) with logic (manipulation of truth values).
I still think you're confused. How does A equal itself? Please provide an example demonstrating that A=A and making clear what the two A's and the = symbol represent. For example, are you saying that one conceptual truth is as good as any other?
Thank you. One of the tenets of relativism, I believe.
You're flat wrong. In logic, systems that do not obey the LNC are defined as "inconsistent". Check out dialethism.
Flagrant misquote, I never said "Well I CAN disagree"!!! Try logarithms. My point is that the result is driven by the rules, the way you interpret reality.
My own sensations often turn out to be deceptive and not at all accurate in describing reality. Its not a question of me denying my own sensations, its a question of can they be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. I maintain sensations themselves are relations.
Thanks, truth is a product of the mind and therefore relative to the thoughts and circumstances of the mind. In this way I believe all truths are relative, their degree of reflection of reality being their provisionality.
Yes, but a single subject's mind changed over time, not an actual "simultaneous" contradiction, if I can call it that. However, how is it that we are able to argue with ourselves, surely this cannot occur unless we compare the contradictory positions, and we cannot compare them without holding them. That's why the question "what do you really believe makes sense.

Now you've got me thinking what the difference between absolute relativism and relative relativism is, if any.

Cheers, John

John Page

I think it likely that the human process of developing clear and concise theories requires us to go through a period of doubt, questioning and uncertainty. Is that clear now?

Cheers, John

Hugo Holbling

The group of three elements, {0,1,2}, with relation defined by addition modulo 3. Twice two is one.

Edit: I wrote the wrong Z-group!