[size=150]THAT is the thing of which you ARE 100% certain.[/size]
James I thought of this:
It would seem you are circumlocuting.
You seem to be saying that there is proof that something can be 100% certain because it is 100% certain that axiums are true…But wouldn’t you have to prove that 100% certainty exists outside of the assumption that it does before you could use that assumption to proove anything… In otherwords how can you say that axiums are 100% certain if you havn’t otherwise shown that a thing can be…without 100% certainty. But if you arrive at the conclusion that it is say 99.99999999999999999% possible that something is 100% certain, that doesn’t actually make it 100% certain, because it is still slightly possible that it is not 100% certain… as such it would seem that 100% certainty can’t really be…but who knows…
James…no I don’t think so… I am not 100 % certain of anything I say including this or that…
No.
I am saying that your condition is your own proof.
Of that you are certain.
In which you would be assuming that it is 100% certain that proofs exist…and 100% certain that a condition is or lead to a proof.
Did you not pay attention to this part: “I am not 100 % certain of [size=200]anything[/size] I say including this or that…”
If we mix certainties of different types and think in “flatland” (ignoring the structure/dimension), we can get confused or we can get the impression of paradox.
We may feel the certainty with the sensory input WHEN the signal level is strong and it’s captivating our attention. Maybe we can call it sensory certainty. And I think it’s just an impression we get because of signal strength/persistence.
We may feel the certainty with the emotional reaction when our emotion is well polarized and energized. So, it can be called emotional certainty. And it’s not usually very reliable nor systematic.
We may feel the certainty with our thought when we are thinking about well defined matter in pretty restrained system or when we are not aware of the nature/quality of our thought. So, it’s a conditional certainty or a naive certainty (belief/assumption).
Now, someone who’s awareness is centered on sensory signals and/or emotional reactions would have strong sense of certainty, time to time, and s/he would say there is 100% certainty, most probably
However, when we become aware of the conditions and limits associated with any system (and other factors) of thought as the center of awareness shifts up, I’d say that the certainty of conditions/limitations (with other factors) negates the absolute certainty of our thought, leading to the perception of uncertainty (or the lack of absolute certainty).
Loosing the impression of absoluteness and the absolute certainty associated with our thought is probably more or less natural course of event if one examine and understand how we think (and when we manage to do so without the strong bias for the positives and absolutes).
If we continue to be influenced by the positive/absolute bias, we may end up with a theory of absolute flavor that needs to be defended/protected.
And when the certainty is authentic, it’s like a strong faith and we don’t usually feel the need to protect it (fanatically). Defensiveness/protectiveness seems to be often associated with artificial (or self-hypnotizing) type of mental certainty.
Also, the lack of authentic certainty (or uncertainty) may manifest in demanding others to support it, just like the case of artificial and inadequate beliefs/faiths.
Are you certain that is what you said?
Are you certain that you are not certain?
I believe that was answered by that James…
Perhaps I should put it like this though:
I do not think I am 100% certain about anything that is a thing. (which would include anything that could be “considered”)
So you are uncertain?
So long as you mean more than 0% certain but less than 100% certain, I would think you are most likely correct.
Concerning some things like logic i am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain it is good.
That’s so weird. I’m only .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% certain that it’s good. We should really get together sometime for a chat.
Well if you mess with the scale I might could say that I am only .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% certain it is good, but .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% certain of other things…in other words I could say I am of that numerical certainty so long as most other things are less certain…(you know operating between a different set of numbers rather than 0 and 100)
But you have to be uncertain about your estimate of your certainty, and every step of the process you used to arrive at this (intuitive) estimate. And then uncertain about your memory of those steps. And uncertain about the semantics of each term. If you are not certain of anything - you would never get past fussing over axioms. But everyone here who says you cannot be certain has gone way past those early stages, IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY, people who are certian do.
ultimately i would think one would arrive at a base level of thought where everything seemed indeterminate…including indeterminacy and those resolve to consider things as indeterminate and also consider things as with regards to possibilities, and thus other such things…
I actually thought of putting an aside to that ( I shouldn’t say this or JSS will freak) but then I thought not to so as not to draw attention to it… 
I probably should of just said it was highly unlikely…but I was trying too hard to convince somebody of something i thought was likely and thus resorted to a suggestion of certainty, perhaps a lie…kinda hypocritical of me to say it that way, as i my self tend to lean towards the idea of being as accurate as possible with regards to my thought in trying to convince…In other words not telling “Nobel lies” to get someone to understand a perspective…but at the same time i don’t know that it is possible for me to always use a particular form of language and still be able to acceptably communicate to some…plus its an old habit
Isn’t this entire thread pointless?
From the (imaginary) absolute perspective (that does not depends/requires any specific perspective/context), everything is pointless, unless you presume an absolute point of reference of some sort, like religious belief or dogma or any absolute certainty about something.
More in the response to your “pointless discussion” thread.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175937#p2234376
If you already know it perhaps, but if you don’t then I would think it helps to realize how it can truly open the mind, and aid prevention of Absolutism.
‘Would?’ It’s ‘is’ I am thinking about. I don’t think people have a set of tentative ideas at root in their minds. I think they have axioms. And at a meta-level - epistemology, as the main example - these are considered self-evident, if they ever arise in consciousness.
I don’t think we should nor do I confuse what people say when they are directly asked about a particular belief. To be consistent they may very well say, Oh I don’t know for sure.
But that is not what is going on most of the time.