Summary of Arguments against the Experientio
November 8th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: Experientio :: The Forensic Inference within the Experientio :: Heideggerian Neologisms :: Does Heidegger Deny the Reality of the Physical Universe?
I’d like to summarize the positions expressed in the past couple months
in response to my posts concerning the Experientio (I experience;
therefore, I am) and its immediate consequence, the Confession of
Partial Ignorance or CPI (I know that I am; but, not what I am).
1: Syntactic Arguments
it’s been alleged that the use of ‘I am’ in the Experientio and the CPI
is invalid because the copular ‘is/am’ requires a *explicit* complement.
however, this argument fails because, even in common useage, when the
complement to the copular is/am is not explicit, it is understood to be
implicit.
1.1: Which Complement is Implicit?
in some contexts, particularly when a question has been asked, the
implicit copular complement is easily identifiable; but, in more
philosophically oriented discourse, one wonders *which* complement is
implicit.
reference is made to Axiom 0: (E P)(Ax)(Px)
translation: there is a predicate, P, such that, for any x, x is P.
Axiom 0, only says that there is (at least) one predicate P which is
attributable to any x that is. I call any predicate which meets that
criteria a ‘root predicate’.
since Axiom 0 does not specifiy which predicate is the root predicate,
it is really an axiom schema from which one may generate logical systems
based on a substitution instances of a ‘P’. mathematicians use one such
substitution as the definition of the null set in axiomatic set theory:
{} = (Ax)(x !
