Googliefest!

[Snowflake]

Now it's a good time to point out again that CyCon has (again!) two emperor prime functions. One in his location and one in his signature. Sounds like a prime function is really a hot position in CyCon.

[Maniac]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How do you know it is true what you see? You think that you see two prime functions, but you may see simply fictitious characters in a made up world. You think you see things, but maybe it is just some electrical current or something similar that makes you to feel that way. How could one be sure of anything?

[moomin]

Well, Maniac. All that relativist bull is fine and dandy, but even you (or should I say especially you ) will acknowledge that the +1 is an existing absolute!

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Maniac
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. How do you know it is true what you see? You think that you see two prime functions, but you may see simply fictitious characters in a made up world. You think you see things, but maybe it is just some electrical current or something similar that makes you to feel that way. How could one be sure of anything?

I would have to admit that I dreamed that I became an emperor prime function of the CyCon once, or was that an emperor prime function of the CyCon dreamed that he became me?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
which we can deny him.

Just try

Originally posted by HongHu
How do you know it is true that you exist? You think that you exist, but you may be simply a fictitious character in a made up world. You think you see things, hear things and feel things, but maybe it is just some electrical current or something similar that makes you to feel that way. How could one be sure of anything?

If I am a ficticious character, then I still exist in my world, as that is all I am aware of. Whether or not I exist as an absolute is not the issue. I live in my world, as we all do. If we did not exist, from our point of view, we would not be able to comprehend that we did not exist. It is not possible for you to not exist when talking from your point of view. If I am just an electrical current, then I still exist, as I exist in my world. An etherreal spirit still exists in its own world, even if it has no coporeal body.

Originally posted by Maniac
Drogue, even if you have lots of evidence of a certain phenomenon, you can never be a 100% sure something is "true". One can only work from the empirical data one has and make reasonable assumptions from that. But you can never be absolutely sure evidence to the contrary will appear. So it will always stay a belief. Absolute truths will never be known.

Well, I talk in practicalities. I exist. I am here, I can feel myself, therefore there is no existance that I could be aware of when I do not exist. If in absolute terms I do not exist, that is different, since I would not be aware of that. So to me, from my point of view, I know I exist, else I would not be able to think that. I did not make an absolute, I wrote from my point of view.

[Snowflake]

It is true that no matter if it is a dream, or a made up character, it is still a form of existence. In this sense, anything exists the second when you think of it. And god or gods may very well be a form of existence, regardless in which form, whether in a real heaven, or in the heaven of people's mind.

[Drogue]

That is not what I meant HongHu. What I meant was that I must exist to me. It is not possible for me to not exist but to be aware that I do not exist, as even soemthing that does not exist absolutely, must exist if it can be aware of it. I cannot make someone else exist, so whetehr I think of it or not, I cannot 'create' a God, however I must exist to be aware of my existance.

[Snowflake]

Wow that is very philosophical. So according to your logic, I can be sure that I exist because if I do not exist I wouldn't have been aware of my existance. However following the logic I cannot be sure that anything else exists, for only they themselves would be able to verify that they exist if they are able to be aware of their existance. What a pity that nobody could be sure if a tree exists because the tree itself cannot think and thus cannot verify that it exists.

[Corellion]

You can be 100% sure that something is true, however you must always qualify your positions. For example, I know with 100% certainty that the sum of the angles of a triangle are pi. However, this is based upon the axiom that two parallel lines will never meet. This I cannot be 100% certain of. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests (at least in Euclidan geometry) that this is so, but one cannot be 100% sure. The world is not entirely inductive... there are many deductive components. Whether these deductive components are actually part of our world, however, or merely an imaginary construction created by and for humans to help process the world better is another argument entirely.

[jtsisyoda]

Originally posted by Corellion
...this is based upon the axiom that two parallel lines will never meet. This I cannot be 100% certain of. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests (at least in Euclidan geometry) that this is so, but one cannot be 100% sure.

Actually, you can be certain two parallel lines never meet in Euclidean geometry. That's one of the fundamental definitions of the geometry. If the lines did intersect, it wouldn't be Euclidean geometry. That seems like cheating, though.

Is Euclidean geometry "real", or just a figment of intelligent beings' imagination? Maybe it's real because we imagine it. Do your thoughts have existence and certainty of existence equal to your own? I would think you'd have to say yes, since they are the only thing that lets you know you exist. If your thoughts are on shaky ground, so are you.

[Jamski]

For example, I know with 100% certainty that the sum of the angles of a triangle are pi.

So much for the logical CyCon

(180° perhaps?)

-Jam

[Maniac]

Drogue:

Well, I talk in practicalities. I exist. I am here, I can feel myself, therefore there is no existance that I could be aware of when I do not exist. If in absolute terms I do not exist, that is different, since I would not be aware of that. So to me, from my point of view, I know I exist, else I would not be able to think that. I did not make an absolute, I wrote from my point of view.

Well unlike HongHu I wasn't really responding to your quote that you know it to be true that you exist. I was rather responding to your claim that you know the existence of GooglieGod, something external of you, to be true.

As for your quote that you know sure of yourself to exist, well I can't really think of anything to refute IIRC Descartes' argument in your last post. We simply know too little about human consciousness to have more than a purely speculative philosophical discussion about it. However there are many well-accepted psychological theories of human development that say consciousness is formed by interacting with other humans and with the outer world. So since, when believing those theories, consciousness could not exist without the outer world, and since I guess we can't know for sure whether or not the outer world exists... you get the picture. j/k

Corellion:

You explain very well what I believe! Value-neutral or paradigma-free knowledge of reality is probably impossible. You can only be a 100% sure of something if you set certain base axioms yourself. But you can't know 100% sure if those axioms, upon which you base your scientific theories, have a good relation to reality.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Jamski


So much for the logical CyCon

(180° perhaps?)

-Jam

*cough* 2 Pi = 360 degrees

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
Actually, you can be certain two parallel lines never meet in Euclidean geometry.

Well they meet at point "infinite". Though I can no longer recall from my geometry classes if infinite was considered part of the Euclidean universe.

Is Euclidean geometry "real", or just a figment of intelligent beings' imagination? Maybe it's real because we imagine it.

Oh darn. I smell Plato.

Anyway, from what I remember of my (very) limited reading of quantum physics, it appears there is little resemblance between Euclidean geometry and "reality".

[Snowflake]

Dear Comrade Jamski, if you have not heard of something (a concept in this matter), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Maniac
You can only be a 100% sure of something if you set certain base axioms yourself. But you can't know 100% sure if those axioms, upon which you base your scientific theories, have a good relation to reality.

Very nicely said.