Thread: Strictly, we know absolutely nothing, even the former sentence

Originally Posted by elucid

It is a bit hard to explain, so I will try my best.

Try harder. I still have no idea what your argument is really saying. I suspect that I'm not alone.

Originally Posted by DuB

Try harder. I still have no idea what your argument is really saying. I suspect that I'm not alone.

Ok, wish me luck. Here I go.

Basically, in the "story", the man is arguing that since the other person did not know that a reason could exist that proves the color to not be yellow, therefore, he could not have known the color to be yellow.

Basically, if you do not know that a reason exists which will refute your view, you then can not take that view.



Does that help?

But certain things can be proven. And if you delve into microcosmosia, then nothing will ever be true or false, and that gets us nowhere. We have to base our perceptions on something, deductive reasoning.

But the very thread title shows that it's self contradictory. You cannot possibly prove that this is true, because if you did, you would know it is true, which contradicts the proposition.

Originally Posted by Pheenix

But certain things can be proven. And if you delve into microcosmosia, then nothing will ever be true or false, and that gets us nowhere. We have to base our perceptions on something, deductive reasoning.

Of course, for practical reasons, we go based off assumptions. I am mentioning this for philosophical purpose.

But the very thread title shows that it's self contradictory. You cannot possibly prove that this is true, because if you did, you would know it is true, which contradicts the proposition.

Exactly, but I had to say it somehow, lol.

Are we talking qualia here? Illustrate your reasoning with an example that doesn't involve such.

For you can't prove, without recourse to similar biology, that what I see when remarking yellow, is what you see.

This sort of goes back to the allegory of the cave, or Plato's cave. We can't know if anything is true, we can't be sure of anything. Philosophically it is sort of interesting, but practically it has no real meaning, apart from producing some great movies (The Matrix, Thirteenth Floor, Inception).

I'm not sure that I understand. Is yellow being defined as how one perceives the color, or by it's physical characteristics (in that a color exists as a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation)?

Originally Posted by Invader

I'm not sure that I understand. Is yellow being defined as how one perceives the color, or by it's physical characteristics (in that a color exists as a particular frequency of electromagnetic radiation)?

No, the yellow part of the story is not that the main focus, it is the reasoning of the man that if he "does not know" wether a reason exists or could exist that would prove him wrong, therefore he could not say the color was yellow.

I don't mean this as an insult to you elucid, you're a smart member; I was just wondering why people are still talking about the intricacies of an argument which is demonstrably wrong.

Ooh ooh, I know (heh) this one!

You're talking about cartesian doubt? If we take "knowing X" to be "being certain that X is true", then we can't "know" much at all, because it could always be the case that we are insane, or some demon is manipulating our brain/senses to make it look like X is true, even if it isn't. Thus we can never be completely certain of X and hence can't really "know" anything.

But.. this is kind of silly, because there's still very much a way to know things. It's called probability. It's perfectly valid to be 99% sure that a 100-sided die won't land 17-side-up, and this really isn't much affected by the possibility of being a brain in a vat. The world keeps on turning when you disregard certainty.

(As for the "doubt" argument being contradictory, well... You can't prove it to be certainly true, that's established by the argument itself. That doesn't stop its conclusion from actually being true though, any more than the fact you can't prove the sky to be blue means it's actually red. I'd give the argument a [vastly] greater than 99.999% probability of being correct.)

The only way we can answer things like this is if we had a 100% effective/universal means of communicating them. There's a lot of semantics, taking words out of how they're used normally and put them in an estranged philosophical (often personal) definition.

Sure, ultimately we don't know anything for 100% sure. For all intent and purposes however, it is effective enough to say that we know it, in the sense that it tends to prove true/reliable in what we call this "waking world/reality." (It could also be argued that there's a presupposition that logic has any real proving power at all. Again, this can be broken down to semantics, and it's understanding correlates with how one interprets or "reads" into it's meanings.)

I do believe that philosophy has no real proving abilities (it's ironic because in the same way these arguments dismantle reality/knowledge and the like, they also dismantle themselves), however the insights and understandings derived from following the logic for arguments such as these, and pondering their various consequences are highly valuable. For instance, the argument here, once understood (or at least how I understand, which is also questionable) teaches one the importance of open-mindedness, and how nothing is for certain. There's always the possibility, and nothing is worth complete disregard.

Do you also think things like 'I think therefore I am' and 'we cannot know that we know nothing' are also questionable?

Yes. As with Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum," the major flaws in his argument of doubting away all his preconceived misconceptions is that he did not doubt that he was truly doubting. If he had truly doubted away that he was sitting in a chair by his fireplace, in reality he would have jumped out of the chair for fear of falling and landing on his ass =P . He would have no longer been able to function as a human if he truly doubted all these things in our world. Our thoughts could be a deception as well, or perhaps a simulation in a sense. (again, for all practical purposes I assume that we are here and I exist, however ultimately, I find this to be true) Besides, our existing at all is a paradox IMO, but that's another argument..

And as to the second, yes. That is also questionable. We COULD be right and know these things. And yes, I know my answer to that in regard to the statement leads to a logical paradox, but again, logic itself is also questionable to a degree.

I don't think Cartesian doubt really needs to come into cognito ergo sum. It stands as something separate.

The point is that our existence is taken to be self evident from even the question 'do I exist?' itself, because a question requires a questioner. In the same way, deceptions require somebody to be deceived.

Well, his doubting was what led to Cogito ergo sum. He tried to doubt away everything that he could doubt away, and his conclusion, the final thing that he said he could not doubt away was that he was doubting. Either way, I see the point you're making.

However, does not a questioner require a question? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are we a question in corporeal form then, the inevitable result of an unanswerable question? It's ultimately paradoxical as I understand it. When it gets down to it, the only constant is nothingness, which in itself is a paradox. (That, or it's a problem with language, as Wittgenstein said. )

I don't think we need to consider if a question requires a questioner... just that, whenever we ask the question 'does nothing exist', it's already impossible, because we are asking the question 'does nothing exist'. Whenever the question is asked it is false.

Ah, I fell into pondering a different aspect of this altogether.

But still that's again assuming that logic itself is infallible. Logically, yes, you're completely right; It follows that we must exist for precisely that reason. But that argument assumes the operating system for arguments themselves (logic and reasoning) is perfect to begin with, which we don't know for 100% certain. For any philosophical argument at all to be placed it must either follow or disregard logic. Thus, in regard to the OP, we strictly can't state anything for 100% certain.

Our logic could be convoluted, yet we may perceive it that it is true. (Lets say in the case of the "philosophical demon" that is constantly deceiving us)

Edit: I know the paradox is there, but that in itself proves the point. IE logic itself is flawed, and can not reach the 100% truth. Any argument for or against anything has some uncertainty.

It's really a futile argument (irony again) as logic is the only tool we have, yet logic itself presents us with this very argument. Thus, practically, we've little choice but to go with it.

Re-edit: I think another, better way of stating this is that arguments follow Logic/Reason. This is the only available tool we have for proving anything. When all we have is that one tool, we have nothing with which to compare it against in order to test it's validity, and therefore, we can't prove anything. (sorry for the jumble, I've yet to ever put this into words, but I've pondered it alot)

Also, regarding the existence question, the only thing that I can prove in your case is that I exist. And I'm presented with that same problem. I'm unable to "step outside" of my own perceptions to test the validity of my knowledge, for example that "that color is yellow"

Originally Posted by Alucinor XIII

Thus, in regard to the OP, we strictly can't state anything for 100% certain.

....but you're allowed to. Why not us?

Okay fine, you got me. Bad wording. :F

Even my statement that we can't know anything for certain can't be said for 100% certain, true. Which is why it appears we can't know anything for certain. We COULD be correct on something, but again, we really don't know of our means works, and don't have a way to check it. Therefore we may say that we can't (reasonably, again with reason) state anything for certain.

Or perhaps I have something misunderstood. This whole idea really makes sense to me, but it's incredibly hard to word due to it's paradoxical nature.

Originally Posted by Alucinor XIII

Okay fine, you got me. Bad wording. :F

Even my statement that we can't know anything for certain can't be said for 100% certain, true. Which is why it appears we can't know anything for certain. We COULD be correct on something, but again, we really don't know of our means works, and don't have a way to check it. Therefore we may say that we can't (reasonably, again with reason) state anything for certain.

Or perhaps I have something misunderstood. This whole idea really makes sense to me, but it's incredibly hard to word due to it's paradoxical nature.

Wtf......

I'll put in the effort to bring clarity in your statements, because you were rude not to do so yourself.

Interpretation:
1. My self-denying statement cannot be said with certainty.
2. |It appears| we cannot know anything for certain.
3. We could be correct about something.
4. We don't know our way of means.
5. We don't have a way to check our way of means.
6. Therefore, we may say that we reasonably can't state anything for certain.

Wtf.......

How'd you go fom this:

Ah, I fell into pondering a different aspect of this altogether.

But still that's again assuming that logic itself is infallible. Logically, yes, you're completely right; It follows that we must exist for precisely that reason. But that argument assumes the operating system for arguments themselves (logic and reasoning) is perfect to begin with, which we don't know for 100% certain. For any philosophical argument at all to be placed it must either follow or disregard logic. Thus, in regard to the OP, we strictly can't state anything for 100% certain.

Our logic could be convoluted, yet we may perceive it that it is true. (Lets say in the case of the "philosophical demon" that is constantly deceiving us)

Edit: I know the paradox is there, but that in itself proves the point. IE logic itself is flawed, and can not reach the 100% truth. Any argument for or against anything has some uncertainty.

It's really a futile argument (irony again) as logic is the only tool we have, yet logic itself presents us with this very argument. Thus, practically, we've little choice but to go with it.

Re-edit: I think another, better way of stating this is that arguments follow Logic/Reason. This is the only available tool we have for proving anything. When all we have is that one tool, we have nothing with which to compare it against in order to test it's validity, and therefore, we can't prove anything. (sorry for the jumble, I've yet to ever put this into words, but I've pondered it alot)

Also, regarding the existence question, the only thing that I can prove in your case is that I exist. And I'm presented with that same problem. I'm unable to "step outside" of my own perceptions to test the validity of my knowledge, for example that "that color is yellow"

..to the more recent cow crap you just fed me/us!? The above quote is also nonsensical, in its reasoning, but at least it's coherent enough to comprehend.

Kidding, but really

Forget it. It's an incredible abstract idea, I recognize that, even being able to follow it.

I wasn't trying to be rude at all, just seeing if I could better explain the idea, which I realize I can't, I can't find the wording for it, so never mind it if you're going to be abrasive.

OK.

elucid, perhaps you and should swap usernames then.

'Cause I'm not exactly afraid of such a notion these days, but it sounds like maybe you are...?

A better way to state that might be, for what reason is this important to you? [Not judging, just wondering.]