you know something exists. There’s really much else to be said here. How about we discuss why you can’t know anything else? In my first post here I introduced a potent argument against most claims to knowledge.
Choose a particular thing then…
I believe I have found my answer in this post. Unless anyone disagrees with the logic.
For one, you’re using logic and comparing it to a mouse. We don’t know how much logic the mouse is actually capible of using because we are not the mouse. We can only observe the choices the mouse makes. And forget about the socrates quote, he does know something, that he is something. How do we know we even have the ability to use logic? It’s because we use it. I am something because I can think, even if this is all not real, I’m still something. This is all based on the simple fact that I’m thinking, even if what I’m thinking is all false. I’m still thinking, so I am something.
xilivia, all you have done is re-state what I have just disputed.
you keep saying “I think therefor, I am” I’m saying prove it. I disproved it as far as I can tell.
Ok, what the hell, I must be very bad at explaining things. What was your original question as to why we can’t be sure about us being something?
I can’t prove to you that I am thinking, and you haven’t disprovin anything.
That was stupid, I didn’t disprove it, I just put some doubt into the certainty of descartes famous saying. If that makes sense.
Doubt? How about misunderstanding. I’m probably not the best for argueing that we are something. But, let me ask you this. What is nothing?
Listen, man. You say you want to know whether we can know anything at all, and I’ve been telling you a bunch of times that we know that something exists. Something must exist, for there to be any pondering about knowledge. This proposition passes any test for knowledge one might conceive. One can argue that this something doesn’t exist as a definitive I, but this is irrelevant here to the issue at hand.
Is there anything we know? Yes. We know something exists. Next question.
we cannot know something exists because that is a conclusion reached with human logic. Human logic may be just as flawed as the logic of my dog in thinking that me touching their leash means “walk” sometimes I’m just moving it. It seems logical to them though. What is logical to us may not be the same to a being with higher intelligence. We cannot be certain our logic itself is not flawed and therefore cannot be certain of anything our logic shows us.
it may not be within human ability to comprehend nothing-ness. If forced I would, with no certainty, say nothing is the absence of something.
Nothing is the absence of everything. With that being said, that means that we can’t be nothing, because nothing lacks everything. Screw it, xzc is definatly beter at this than I, so I’m going to let him/her take over.
It is necessarily true that something exists whenever there is any thought at all. This is true regardless of the possibility that the logic with which this necessary connection is established is false. Indeed, even if one was engaged in bad logic, that would still indicate that bad logic exists. That there even exists an argument questioning whether the structure of some other argument is false automatically implies that something exists. It’s inescapable.
I don’t think we’re gonna get anywhere here. You seem to believe “I think, therefore I am” while I believe that something cannot prove it’s own existence. Apparently neither of us are able to convince the other, we’re just going in cirlces.
I’m saying I think therefore something exists. Big difference. I’m not trying to prove my own existence. Just the existence of something. I’m not saying I think, therefore my SELF exists. Just that somethingness must exist if any thinking or pondering is to exist.
What did you use to come to that conclusion? The logic we share as humans. We cannot perceive or even imagine anything outside of the 4 dimensions of time-space. Does that mean it doesn’t exist? I think you would agree that it does not mean that. Just because you and I can’t imagine thought without something existing doesn’t mean It Is not possible. Perhaps our way of looking at the universe is completely wrong. We have no way of telling.
I’m not saying I think therefore something must exist that produces this thought. Thinking itself exists. My assumption is that if there isn’t anything there, then thinking, being something, isn’t there either. The logic can’t be wrong here. Even if nothing is what produces thinking, then thinking still exists, and to existentially generalize here, something exists.