How can you be certain of something before you think?
And if your not certain that you are certain then it would seem you simply aren’t certain.
Indeed, indeed.
How can you be certain you can’t be?
How can you be certain there is a “before you can think”?
That sounds like a conclusion of which to be certain.
Indeed it was. But I believe I was also thinking that something that could be recognized as 100% certain would seem it would have to be objectively true, or an absolute truth, and it would seem such a thing would be widely agreed with and thus more easily shown, though i imagine that is of course not the best logic either, considering that often times people won’t listen to the truth because it alters the way they must think or act to a way they at least think would be uncomfortable.
It is also an issue that it is hard to prove that a woman isn’t lieing about being raped.
And also an issue that because one judge is used in such cases there will be a likely hood for bias, towards one side given a male judge, the other side for a female judge, as such it would seem two judges would be best, but I do’t know that such would be accepted or work…
I do not love nor have an abnormally high degree of doubt considering that I recognize many things as being highly probable…Doubt to me is a matter of thinking something is unlikely…
I think there are different types of “certainty”.
More or less subconscious (or emotional) certainty, which is a sense of certainty.
It often comes in all or nothing, in absolute flavored way.
Presumptions and biases of different nature and origins may contribute to this.
And there is logical certainty coming from reasoning, which is conditional and depending on premises and logical system used and so on.
It’s supposed to be conditional, but I think we tend to mix this with emotional and absolute certainty.
And within subconscious/emotional certainty, I think there is more or less natural/naive sense of certainty coming from anything that captivate our attention and closely related with our sense of reality. For example, strong pain may captivate our attention and occupy most of our field of attention. And this produces strong sense of “reality” and “certainty”, in us, while our attention is captivated.
Things that made strong impression in our memory may give us the sense of “reality” and “certainty” because of the same mechanism when they are recalled.
Also, I think there is “artificial” certainty which is basically our beliefs we adopted, more or less consciously.
For example, someone may accept (willingly or unwillingly) some beliefs structure by repetition and by social pressure and other influences. Although the sense of certainty may not be present, at first, it may produce somewhat similar sensation as something that really captivate our attention. In case of religions, indoctrination might be done to associate more natural sense of certainty with desired beliefs so that we get better/stronger and more real impression of certainty.
I tend to think of this type of certainty as “fake” certainty.
But I guess most people end up adopting some sort of artificial certainty of moral/ethical/social/ideological/etc nature.
In addition to these, the sense of well being, safety, calmness, and so on seem to be associated with the sense of certainty. To be more precise, I think it’s the lack of insecurity that produces the sense of well being and calmness. And I guess we might interpret and see the lack of insecurity as the sense of certainty.
So, if someone is well composed, or calm, others may mistake that the person is sure of her/himself and with full of certainty. But it may simply meas the person is physically/emotionally/mentally well and probably her/his immediate needs satisfied.
Maybe there are more types/subtypes.
The effects of certainty is interesting, too.
If one has persistent and more or less absolute certainty about something, it mean the person is LIMITED about the matter. Certainty (at least in positive/affirmative manner) is to separate/divide something. And persistent and absolute certainty separate/divide things in persistent and absolute manner (at least for the person).
If someone has strong sense of certainty about something, usually the person can describe and talk about it (although it’s not always easy).
This is especially so if the certainty is conscious and conditional one and not mixed/confused with subconscious certainty.
However, as far as the artificial certainty goes, many people would manifest different form of evasion/denial when we ask about the certainty.
It’s probably because artificial certainty is often adopted for protecting/maintaining some perspectives important for some reason, and questioning may reveal that the boundary of separation/division isn’t clear/solid/accurate and it may cause the artificial certainty to fail.
So, artificial certainty may become “untouchable”, “no-thinking”, “sensitive”, “irritating” zone (or wall) for us.
And the relation between general inattentiveness and the perception of certainty may go along with this perspective.
We may see repetitive affirmation/declaration of the certainty contrasting near total lack of attention to how it can be said so, when we get near the artificial certainty of some person. I mean, the attention is fixed on the core of the certainty and zone around it, supporting thought/explanation/etc becomes “untouchable” or “no-thinking” zone.
I don’t think you could be.
That sounds like a conclusion of which to be certain.
[/quote]
Perhaps by some level of certainty, even you said “sounds like” rather than “is”.
In many religions, or systems of beliefs there is the idea of Faith, which suggests that it is not important to know with 100% certainty, but rather come to accept something at some point regardless.
It would seem to me, that regarding this definition of Faith, everything is a matter of Faith, for in order to believe anything we must at some point think that enough evidence has been shown for us to believe (not as in know 100%, but choose to recognize as most likely)
Are you certain of that?
As I said;
I would think that I believe it to be highly likely.
But are you certain that you believe that?
…or that you are certain that it is highly likely?
I think it would be best to say that with regards to anything I assert, or any probability necessary to assert, that I am most likely of a high level of certainty, at least at the time being, with regards to the given matter.
Are you certain of that?
Are you certain that you know what “highly likely” means?
Obviously, I can keep this going forever.
Until you accept certainty, you are highly likely trapped.
Of that, I am certain.
Lol my response responded appropriate to all recursive questions.
Like wise one can do the same to any person asserting 100% certainty in other words:
Are you 100% certain of that?
But your answer merely generates more of the same question; “begging the question” (a noted fallacy in logic).
And here is the difference;
Yes, I AM certain of that.
You can now ask “why” or “how”.
But at least we have made progress.
With your uncertainty principle, no progress can be made.
As it would seem can yours:
Are you 100% certain of that?
I already said that I am unless you are merely asking if I meant 100%.
Next subject… …?
I already made answers as well.
Are you 100% that you “already said that”?
Really what it comes down to is that apparently neither of us are willing to accept what seems logical to the other, as such it is improbable that anything else can be achieved.
But just to say that requires you to use what you say that you reject… Logic.
Without Logic, nothing can be achieved (or even exist).
But don’t think that logic is subjective. Either your Logic is correct, or it isn’t.
Logic is determined by “A ≡ A”, not just anyone’s opinion.
I didn’t say that I reject logic but rather suggested it was fallible, so as to suggest that things were rather a matter of speculation, though by means of logic as it seems to be the only means by which to achieve anything.
[/quote]
So I would think you think.
So it would seem you say.
So you think, though by probability one can seem to assert a higher likely hood of something being valid/good logic, and thus define an opinion as an idea of something regarding a thing for which there is no definite probability of a higher or lower quality, I.e. like 50/50: thus differing stances, (thoug hpersonaly I would think that the actuality leans to one side of the scale such that things are really always greater than or less than 50% likely.