QED
March 29th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>putting all these definitions together, it is clear that you are
>>claiming that, from your set of premises, you deduce the skeptical
>>conclusion, Q: I have not proven by evidence based logical deduction
>>that I am not nothing.
but
>>Q -> -Q [Q implies its own negation] because any assertion of Q is in
>>violation of the First Law of Reality: nothing unreal is self-aware.
>left unaddressed and unquoted, my explicit argument against your first
>law of reality in my last post as well as two posts before that:
it’s your argument I’m contesting; so, it is up to *you* to state which
reality type(s) you are talking about. what is the reality type of that
which asserts the conclusion, ‘I have not proven by evidence based
logical deduction that I am not nothing’?
unless you are prepared to claim that ‘the Nothing’ as defined by
Heidegger can assert such a conclusion about itself, it is quite
legitimate for the I that can assert such a conclusion to say ‘it is a
fact that I have just asserted a skeptical conclusion about myself; and,
from that fact (which is evidence), I deduce that I am not nothing’.
>”If the “reality” here is not phenomenal, then yet again you have
>failed to provide any evidence for any such “reality.” But if the
>”reality” here is phenomenal, then you have still failed to provide any
>evidence of any identity within phenomenal “reality”.”
the attempt I make to assert that I have not proven by evidence based
logical deduction that I am not nothing *is* itself the evidence from
which I deduce that I am not nothing.
in knowing that I am not nothing, I know that I am real in some sense;
but, it doesn’t necessarily follow that I know the reality type that I
have.
>And as for your objection against the latter “identity” being a
>necessary condition, you once again failed to address the explicit
>argument that I gave in my last post as well as several posts before
>that:
I have shown that your set of premises leads to a conclusion that
implies its own negation, Q -> -Q. therefore, at least one of the
premises of your argument is false.
I am quite willing to help you locate the imposter(s); but, you will
first have to specify the reality type of the I that initially draws a
skeptical conclusion from your premises and subsequently concludes (from
the fact that the first conclusion is drawn) ‘I am not nothing’.
you keep alluding to Hume’s argument; but, it is clear that he was
talking about the I-3. are you?
you have illustrated the meaning of your ‘identity premise’ by saying
there must be an identity of reference between the I that says ‘I was
born’ and the I that says ‘I will die’. these might be taken as the
statements of a phenomenological reality or a physical reality or an
entity that was a composite of one of each. however, you seem to have
rejected the idea that you were talking about the I-1.
so, is it the I-2 that draws your skeptical conclusion about itself?
if not; then, what is the reality type (or mode of existence, etc) of
the I that does draw a skeptical conclusion about itself.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
