Do you think 1=1? Can you prove it? This is a religious question.

what do you mean can i prove it? one is one. my computer is my computer.

1=1 is proof in itelf.

there is no need to prove what is already a complete, correct statement of fact.

and yes, things can be proven with evidence. evidence establishes proof. the burden of proof is always with the positive. that means that the aim must be written without negatives, as you cannot prove a negative without first proving the posiative.

this boils down to-

you say "prove god does not exist" as you cannot do so wihtout knowing everything.

it must be "prove god does exist".

if there is overwhelming evidence to support the positive then it is for all intents proven. it does not have to be 100%, but to borrow from law, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

1=1 is proof in itelf.

there is no need to prove what is already a complete, correct statement of fact.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" works for the law, but 1=1 would seem to be different. I don't think scientists work on that basis to prove things. Is that the definition of proof, that something is agreed upon by reasonable persons? I don't think so.

My challenge is that we are operating upon assumptions. We think that things are proven because they seem to work most of the time. But can you really show that it works all of the time. How do you prove something? Can anything be proven? How?

You say "1=1 is proof in itself". Then what keeps me from claiming that "God exists" is proof "in itself", or that "God doesn't exist" is proof in itself? Whats the difference? Show me the difference other than your claim that 1=1.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

what do you mean can i prove it? one is one. my computer is my computer.

Prove it. You're just repeating yourself. Prove one of these things. Can anything be proven?

1=1

Change 1 to anything and the result will always remain the same "=".

human=human

shit=shit

spam=spam

God exists=God exists

God doesn't exist=God doesn't exist

I can't see the point in proving something that doesn't need to be proved.

nothing is ever 100%. scientists work on probabilites, theories and ideas. acceptable error etc.

and the definition of the equals sign seems to elude you.

In Mathematics and Science, there is no such thing as "proof", their is evidence, It is your burden to refute it.

For example, the statement:

" X^2 = n, will always produce a positive number. "

I cannot prove that statement as their are an infinite amount of numbers. That statement can only be refuted by replacing X with a number and producing a negative number.

The statement therefore must be taken as true unless refuted.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

I can't see the point in proving something that doesn't need to be proved.



You believe that 1=1. That is your faith. You won't question your belief or try to defend it. You don't think it needs to be proved. You have belief without proof.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

nothing is ever 100%. scientists work on probabilites, theories and ideas. acceptable error etc.

and the definition of the equals sign seems to elude you.

I agree with you about scientists. This is actually like admitting that they know nothing for certain.

How much error is acceptable? Where do you draw the line?

The equal sign is a representation of our beliefs about certain things that we don't want to ask further questions about.

Let us see:

<A HREF="http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/21/algorithm.gif">http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/21/algorithm.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/21/algorithm.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

Let us call "1" variable "n".

1. start;

//then we set n="1"

2. n="1";

//now we compare:

3. 1==1?true

//we repeat the action, entering the new n

4. n="15";

5. 15==15?true

//and so on, continue the cycle till you get n==n?false, namely - never. In this example I used numbers, but it will apply to words ort statements as well, because there is only one variable "n", and it will always mean "n", or "self" in other words.

It is not because I believe in it, but it is because it is what it is.

P.S. - I wanted to postr that scheme, but spaces mess the post, so I made a screenshot.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

In Mathematics and Science, there is no such thing as "proof", their is evidence,...

We say 1=1 because it seems to be born out by our experience and by averageing out our many experiences, and we come up with a generalization that expresses that average experience. But when we look closely and question the generalization, such as 1=1, we find can't really prove it for any one case. It is just a useful generalization that doesn't completely accurately describe any one reality. Its like the concept of two lines that are approaching each other but never exactly meet. We know the concept but it never actually occurs. One thing never actually equals another thing. It is a description that is never actually true. We can speak about it, and it makes sense to us, but then we actually forget that its not really true. That's why you can't prove it.

quote:It is your burden to refute it.

I don't need to refute something that is never really established.

quote:For example, the statement:

" X^2 = n, will always produce a positive number. "

I cannot prove that statement as their are an infinite amount of numbers. That statement can only be refuted by replacing X with a number and producing a negative number.

The statement therefore must be taken as true unless refuted.

This is not a direct answer to that, and I haven't thought this out, but do you know what a negative number is? That is an even more blatant example of a description of something that can't be proved, or doesn't seem to even exist at all. Have you experienced a negative number?

But I'm not saying this to imply that the concept of negative numbers has no value. It does. Just don't mistake it as absolutely true.

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-29-2004).]

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-29-2004).]

The only thing you can truly know is yourself. Everything else is a logical conclusion arrived at through reason and evidence. Except religion. Religion is a conclusion arrived at through baseless guesses and wishful thinking.

Also, 1=1 because everything is what it is. You're an idiot for using 1=1 as an example. If 1 does exist, it is 1. If it is in fact 2, then it's two. That doesn't mean that 1=2, it means that 2=2. And 1 still equals 1.

[This message has been edited by GlitterPunk112358 (edited 07-29-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

Let us see:

Let us call "1" variable "n".

1. start;

//then we set n="1"

2. n="1";



"n=1" brings into question many things that could be questioned and should probably be left alone for now. It can be seen anyway as derivative question of "1=1".



[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 07-29-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

The only thing you can truly know is yourself.

Questionable

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

"n=1" brings into question many things that could be questioned and should probably be left alone for now. It can be seen anyway as derivative question of "1=1".



We don't claim n=1, we set the value of n="1 "in order for the variable to work.

Put 1 instead of n and proceed, you will see yourself. If you can of course.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Questionable



It's stupid to question that you are. You are. ...well, I am. I don't know about you. But you should know about you. Maybe not about me, but I've got that one covered. I reason therefore I exist. Or I think therefore I am. I may not be what I think I am, but I am. I may be a fat black man, but I am.

I believe that you are. You may not be a human. You may be a dog who can type, or perhaps a computer program. But you are something. Something is posting here on totse. Because totse is. My computer is. My room is. My house is. The Earth is. I believe these things because I know that I am. I see, hear, touch, smell, and taste everything else. Or at least see/hear about the experiences of others who have experienced the rest of it. So I consider that I know these things. That they are pretty much proven, even though I know nothing for sure. Nothing is proven, but I believe a lot of things based on evidence. And so do you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

Nothing is proven, but I believe a lot of things based on evidence.

That's the topic I'm questioning with the "1=1" example. And I'm saying that all the things you believe based on evidence can all be questioned and shown to have doubt because, as you say, nothing is proven. Therefore you may be mistaken to believe them as unconditionally true.

Here's a better one:

<A HREF="http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/23/algorithm244774.gif">http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/23/algorithm244774.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://img2.imgspot.com/u/04/210/23/algorithm244774.gif" width="90" height="90)</A>

In our case n="1", so:

1. start;

2. n="1";

3. 1&gt;1?false;

4. 1&lt;1?false;

5. 1=1;

6. bkc is wrong;

7. end.

"bkc is wrong" means that you'r 1=1 isn't necessary 1=1 statement is wrong.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

1=1 is proof in itelf.

there is no need to prove what is already a complete, correct statement of fact.

This is not a fact. A fact is something which has happened and therefore cannot be doubted or disproven.

What Is Is, which a capitol "I".

That's all.

My god this is pretentious...

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

For example, the statement:

" X^2 = n, will always produce a positive number. "

I cannot prove that statement as their are an infinite amount of numbers.

If examining all possible instances of x^2 = n were the only possible method, then you couldn't possibly prove it ; but there are certainly other methods in mathematics of proving or disproving something.

One should really be bored to question if 1=1...

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

We say 1=1 because it seems to be born out by our experience and by averageing out our many experiences, and we come up with a generalization that expresses that average experience. But when we look closely and question the generalization, such as 1=1, we find can't really prove it for any one case. It is just a useful generalization that doesn't completely accurately describe any one reality. Its like the concept of two lines that are approaching each other but never exactly meet. We know the concept but it never actually occurs. One thing never actually equals another thing. It is a description that is never actually true. We can speak about it, and it makes sense to us, but then we actually forget that its not really true. That's why you can't prove it.



No. It can't be proved because it ultimately could say 1=1 is wrong "because you say so". Ultimately is rest on your willingness to accept it.

But once again, those statements must be taken as true until they are proven otherwise.



Oh, and can you prove thay "it's not really true" ... You made the claim, now prove it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:I don't need to refute something that is never really established.

Of course you do. That is, if you made the claim that 'its not true'. Which you did.

Moreover, like I said the statement cannot be "proved", it can only be refuted, hence any conversation dealing with the "truthfulness" of the statement must deal with refuting it.

quote:

This is not a direct answer to that, and I haven't thought this out, but do you know what a negative number is? That is an even more blatant example of a description of something that can't be proved, or doesn't seem to even exist at all. Have you experienced a negative number?

If you mean, "dealt with a negative number", then yes. A negative number is the lack of an amount.

It is also a position on a plane or a line, relative to a point.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Oh, and can you prove thay "it's not really true" ... You made the claim, now prove it.

The only thing I can prove is that I can't prove anything else. That said, I would explain in another way that only one thing is completely, absolutely, 100% true. Everything else, such as "1=1", is only conditionally true, based upon qualifying assumptions that are being made at the time you question or examine the idea or material thing. And everytime you reexamine, the qualifiers change slightly, even if you wish they wouldn't.

So I could agree with you that "1=1", but it would be a conditional agreement.

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

What Is Is, which a capitol "I"....My god this is pretentious...

I appreciate your reaction. Often a strong dislike is the outer reflection of an inner attraction.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

The only thing I can prove is that I can't prove anything else.



Err.. surely you must be able to prove that you can prove something. Therefore you could prove something else, in effect refuting that statement.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B]...in effect refuting that statement.B]

I don't think you read the statement carefully enough.

He never does.

Better get used to it.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

I don't think you read the statement carefully enough.



Fair enough, could you point to me what it is you think I misinterpreted?

---

I'll explain myself better, maybe that will help:

Your statement, in other words means, that the only thing you can prove is that you can prove nothing else.

Well, wouldn't you have to prove that you can prove "nothing" else?

To simplify it:

You can only prove X. You must be able to prove that you can prove X, to be able to prove X in the first place.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He never does.

Better get used to it.

Ahhh... I can feel the hate. Very Christian of you.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Your statement, in other words means, that the only thing you can prove is that you can prove nothing else.



Let me just resay it (I'm confused now!): I can prove one thing only; that the only thing that is true is that all other questions or investigations will turn up more than one answer. There are no statements that are 100% true beyond this knowledge.

The problem is as soon as you constrain the possibilities, you create other new possibilities.

For your new statement to be true, these statements must be true as well:

1. That you can prove something.

2. That other investigations will turn up more than one answer

3. That other questions will turn up more than one answer.

4. That you or I exist.

...

If any of the above is in doubt, then your original statement is in doubt as well. If your original statement is taken to be 100% correct, then we must take the above as 100% correct as well, thus in effect refuting it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).]

This is good thinking. I'm looking at it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The problem is as soon as you constrain the possibilities, you create other new possibilities.

What possibilities did I constrain?

quote:For your new statement to be true, these statements must be true as well:

1. That you can prove something.

I admit that I can prove something, but only one thing.

quote:2. That other investigations will turn up more than one answer

3. That other questions will turn up more than one answer.

Yes they will. What's the problem with that?

quote:4. That you or I exist.

We don't have to exist to question. It may be that the questions that we ask from some point of view were never asked. That from some point of view we are not here.

...

quote:If any of the above is in doubt, then your original statement is in doubt as well. If your original statement is taken to be 100% correct, then we must take the above as 100% correct as well, thus in effect refuting it.

Sounds all right to me.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

What possibilities did I constrain?



You said that you could only prove one thing. Thus constraining the possibilities of the things you can prove.

quote:I admit that I can prove something, but only one thing.

You said that you can only prove one thing, correct. I don't believe that. See below.

quote:Yes they will. What's the problem with that?





That, if your argument is to be 100% proved, you must be able to prove this individually as well. Therefore, proving more than one thing.

quote:We don't have to exist to question. It may be that the questions that we ask from some point of view were never asked. That from some point of view we are not here.

Of course you do. For your statement to be correct you must refute "cogito ergo sum" which you have not. You can't. And if I remember correctly you've tried numerous times.

Someone must exist in order to question. You yourself may be a figment of my imagination, which would mean you are actually me. In other words, me speaking to myself. Hence, I exist anyway.



quote:Sounds all right to me.

No because that would mean that you can prove more than 1 thing, thus refuting your original statement.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Ahhh... I can feel the hate. Very Christian of you.



That is so typical.

I don't hate you, Rust. I don't care enough about you to hate you.

I just can't tolerate your ignorance. That is the human side of me, which does still allow for sin.

I won't give up hope for you, though...and as pretentious as it may sound, I will pray for you.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

So you are whining about my ignorance by saying I'm ignorant, but not pointing out where... thus furthering my ignorance? Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

does god exist? if he exists then there must be proof. therefore you can prove he exists. if you can only prove one thing than by your logic god cannot, and does not exist.

so, either there is no god or your full of crap. choose either way, it has little effect on me.

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

does god exist? if he exists then there must be proof. therefore you can prove he exists. if you can only prove one thing than by your logic god cannot, and does not exist.

so, either there is no god or your full of crap. choose either way, it has little effect on me.

You would be right except that proving that God is true and proving this one thing that I'm talking about, are the same thing. This whole thing I'm doing here, its about God.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

So you are whining about my ignorance by saying I'm ignorant, but not pointing out where... thus furthering my ignorance? Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Hmmm...babbling won't exonerate you.

I don't need to point it out. You make it pretty obvious.

I don't know what your definition of whining is, but I am certainly not doing that.

And thanks for the compliment...I wouldn't necessarily say BRILLIANT, but I am close. *winks*

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

(that was a joke, by the way...your humor is "Rust"-y, so I thought I'd make it clear for you)

quote:Originally posted by RAOVQ:

does god exist? if he exists then there must be proof. therefore you can prove he exists. if you can only prove one thing than by your logic god cannot, and does not exist.

so, either there is no god or your full of crap. choose either way, it has little effect on me.

Why must there be proof ? Because your human intellect demands that there be ?

*tsk*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hmmm...babbling won't exonerate you.

I don't need to point it out. You make it pretty obvious.

I don't know what your definition of whining is, but I am certainly not doing that.

And thanks for the compliment...I wouldn't necessarily say BRILLIANT, but I am close. *winks*

(that was a joke, by the way...your humor is "Rust"-y, so I thought I'd make it clear for you)

Whining: To complain or protest in a childish fashion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=whining)

Yup. Fits you perfectly. Bringing back 3 day old threads to complain, de-railing this thread with useless nonsense? The prime example of whining.

Now, could you please point out to me where I have been 'ignorant' or do us all a favor shut up? This thread was doing perfectly fine before you showed up.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-30-2004).]

quote:Of course you do. For your statement to be correct you must refute "cogito ergo sum" which you have not. You can't. And if I remember correctly you've tried numerous times.

Someone must exist in order to question. You yourself may be a figment of my imagination, which would mean you are actually me. In other words, me speaking to myself. Hence, I exist anyway.



I forgot that this is your main belief and that you think it is irrefutable. I'm not convinced, as you are not convinced by my main idea.

You believe that because you think, you therefore exist. I believe that the only thing you know, is that you can't know any other thing.

I can raise doubts about your belief. You can't raise doubts about my belief, because my belief is made of doubt.



[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 08-07-2004).]

This isn't a question of "doubts" its a question of it being refuted or not.

You say: "I believe that the only thing you know, is that you can't know any other thing."

I would have to know that I know "something". I would also have to know that I know 'that I can't know any other thing'... I would therefore know 2 things... thus refuting your belief.

Essentially the same thing as you previously had stated.

quote:I can raise doubts about your belief. You can't raise doubts about my belief, because my belief is made of doubt.





I can and I just did.

Where have 'raised doubts' about the cogito argument?

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Do you think 1=1? Can you prove it? This is a religious question.



ok, I have a piece of paper (1), that is a piece of paper (1). Your saying, "how do you know it's a piece of paper?"

in which I would proceed to tell you that I can test it for tree fibers, etc.

In which you would say, "how do you know that the test wasn't flawed, or, test the test then"

You could proceed to use this questioning into oblivion, in which we would have to agree that you cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt prove anything.

However, that is plain dumb and you are just biting Descartes you unoriginal little prick.

This is an interesting conversation.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

This isn't a question of "doubts" its a question of it being refuted or not.Where have [you]'raised doubts' about the cogito argument?

For you to know something, you have to exist. And you can't prove that you exist, unless you know something, since you are equating knowing with existence, that being your entire argument.

quote:Originally posted by AvtomatoR:

This is an interesting conversation.

In what respect?

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

In which you would say, "how do you know that the test wasn't flawed, or, test the test then" You could proceed to use this questioning into oblivion, in which we would have to agree that you cannot beyond a shadow of a doubt prove anything.

You are demonstrating a good understanding of the process here. You are exactly right, you cannot prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt except for the idea in this sentence that precedes the word "except".

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

For you to know something, you have to exist. And you can't prove that you exist, unless you know something, since you are equating knowing with existence, that being your entire argument.

You don't need to know something to exist. You need to know something in order to prove it. Therefore, I'm equating the 'proof of my existence' with 'knowledge', not existence itself.

But, how does this bring about a doubt? As soon as I know something, I can prove I exist. I don't see how this simple realization brings a doubt into the argument...

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You don't need to know something to exist. You need to know something in order to prove it. Therefore, I'm equating the 'proof of my existence' with 'knowledge', not existence itself.

But, how does this bring about a doubt? As soon as I know something, I can prove I exist. I don't see how this simple realization brings a doubt into the argument...



What I'm saying is that your supposed proof of your existence, is that you think, or have knowledge, or think that you can prove something. So, in essence, the only thing that makes you exist is that you think; "I think, therefore I am". Equating existence with thinking, even though you are denying it. You think of existence and thinking as different in your mind, but I don't see how you could prove it, other than insisting upon it.

Its equating proof of existence with thinking. Not existence itself.

"I think therefore I am" does not translate to, 'I exist because I think' ... You could very well exist without thinking, you just can't prove it to yourself.

quote:You think of existence and thinking as different in your mind, but I don't see how you could prove it, other than insisting upon it.

Are you saying that existing and thinking are the same thing? I really don't understand what you mean... Could you explain with more depth?



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-07-2004).]

Take one blade of grass, tear it in half. 2, 2 blades of grass... But that doesn't work with everything. Most of the time its .5, yet somethings equal 2. So yes, and no. A slice of pie is still a slice of pie yes.

I come to think of an old Persian proverb:

To test that which has been tested is ignorance.

...and its Sufi continuation:

To try to test something without the means of testing is even worse.

FoxLeonard equaling FoxLeonard

quote:Its equating proof of existence with thinking. Not existence itself.

I understand that is your thought, but I'm thinking that in effect the "cogito" deal may as well be saying they are the same since there is no "proof", just the claim that thinking is proof of existence.

quote:You could very well exist without thinking, you just can't prove it to yourself.

You could exist without thinking.

You could exist with thinking.

You could not exist without thinking.

You could not exist with thinking.

I think the last one is interesting. How would that be? Really, ask about the one before it, "Can some one not exist?" Or really, does everyone actually exist, even those that don't seem to have any being?



quote:Are you saying that existing and thinking are the same thing? I really don't understand what you mean... Could you explain with more depth?

Could you explain in more depth what it means to prove existence? I'm not trying to be facetious, but trying to question things.

quote:Originally posted by AI:

Take one blade of grass, tear it in half. 2, 2 blades of grass... But that doesn't work with everything. Most of the time its .5, yet somethings equal 2. So yes, and no. A slice of pie is still a slice of pie yes.

Right. There is always a "yes answer" and always a "no answer". A slice of pie is still a slice of pie, even though it is not.

quote:Originally posted by FoxLeonard:

FoxLeonard equaling FoxLeonard

You don't seem to be yourself today.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

I understand that is your thought, but I'm thinking that in effect the "cogito" deal may as well be saying they are the same since there is no "proof", just the claim that thinking is proof of existence.

You claim it is not proof? Then refute the claim.

Like I've asked you in all other threads dealing with 'cogito ergo sum', please tell me a scenario where one could think without existing. You have yet to do so... ever.

quote:You could exist without thinking.

You could exist with thinking.

You could not exist without thinking.

You could not exist with thinking.

I think the last one is interesting. How would that be? Really, ask about the one before it, "Can some one not exist?" Or really, does everyone actually exist, even those that don't seem to have any being?



You can't think and not exist, period. If you think otherwise then make a logical argument supporting that claim and tell us... I don't have to 'think about it'... you do.



quote:

Could you explain in more depth what it means to prove existence? I'm not trying to be facetious, but trying to question things.



You may not be trying to be facetious, but you're proving to be fastidious [ http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)]; this line or arguing will have the same fate as arguing with a child that always asks "why?"...

What is to 'prove existence'? In the case of the "cogito", it is the knowledge that as soon as you think, you must also exist.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-09-2004).]

quote: You claim it is not proof? Then refute the claim.

Like I've asked you in all other threads dealing with 'cogito ergo sum', please tell me a scenario where one could think without existing. You have yet to do so... ever.





It can't be proved that one exists, or that one doesn't exist. You can't prove it either way. You both exist and don't exist, depending on the point of view. If I tried to prove anything then I would be agreeing with you that something, other than the exception, can be proved. My belief is not consistent with trying to prove anything, unequivicolly(sp?). And the exception seems to be only be proved by default, in other words that you, or anyone, can't find anything that can be proved.

I am refuting your claim. It is nothing more than a claim that sounds reasonable, but how do you demonstrate unassailably that anything exists, or that 1=1? Your foundation has no foundation. I understand your argument, and it is reasonable by current standards of thought.

The scenario could be that you don't exist and your thoughts don't exist because, for instance, they produce no permanent demonstrable results. You could find a measurement that says they do, but someone else could find a measurement that says they don't. Look at physics. From one point of view nothing has been established for certain.

What have you established with your reasonable claim of "cogito"? There is no end to "reasonable" ideas. And they can all be found to be lacking. That's all you can depend upon.

You could have spared the trouble of writing all that and written: I can't. But hell, I knew that from the beginning!

Now, for why the cogito works:

Just as 1=1 argument, it must be taken as true unless otherwise refuted. You have yet to refute it. How could you refute it? Making an argument to show how one could think without existing, you can't. Much like you can't create a scenario where something is "hot", but doesn't have thermal energy.

The very existence of "hotness" already precludes the non-existence of thermal energy. The very action of thinking already precludes non-existence.

quote:The scenario could be that you don't exist and your thoughts don't exist because, for instance, they produce no permanent demonstrable results. You could find a measurement that says they do, but someone else could find a measurement that says they don't. Look at physics. From one point of view nothing has been established for certain.

That is not a valid scenario as the have an effect to me. Once again, its proof to oneself. Not proof to you.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-09-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

it must be taken as true unless otherwise refuted.

A rule you have made up that is also true?

Shall we all live by this rule? Does it apply in all situations?

What did I tell you? Just like the little child that always asks "why?"...

Why? Because that's how the scientific method works. When a concept has evidence supporting it, and no evidence refuting it, it is taken as true until it is refuted.

I actually, don't even have to use this line of reasoning. Like I said, 'thinking' already precludes non-existence. The moment you think, you exist. Thinking is an action, and you must exist to perform an action.

It is you who have to refute it and you haven't. It's irrefutable.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B] 'thinking' already precludes non-existence. The moment you think, you exist./B]

Merely your assertion that you are unwilling to question. What is existence? When does it begin? Is it the same as life? When does that begin, or end? Step out of your box.

You know what's the mark of a pseudo-intellectual? It's thinking that we're in a box, and that somehow asking questions is thinking outside the box... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

----

"What is existence?"

I have already answered this to you numerous times.

Being part of something; mentally, physically and/or spitirually.

"When does it begin?"

When you begin to be part of something, either mentally, physically and/or spiritually.



"Is it the same as life?"

No.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Do you think 1=1? Can you prove it? This is a religious question.

The concept of equality is that two items have the same value. Now, if you have one item, even if it is simply conceptualized (non existent), that 'concept' IS that 'concept'. It could also happen to be neurological impulses, perhaps the actions of a soul, perhaps something nobody has even thought of as a possibility; however, every object, whether real or imagined, IS that object. 1=1 because it is itself. There is no metaphysical thinking beyond that point. The symbols used are meaningless; all the statement asserts is that 'it is it'. You can keep arguing into a hole and questioning the validity of the human constructs that are words, numbers, symbols, and such, but it does not change the REALITY that whether something is real, imagined, or outright inexistent, it is itself.

Now, being as you're an arrogant prick who thinks I'm inside some sort of box, I'm going to assume you'll pull another ad hoc rationalization out of your ass and tell me to open my mind, or tell me I'm not seeing this, but trust me, I am. YOU are the one stuck inside of a box; the ego has filled the box to the fucking limits.

[This message has been edited by Optimus Prime (edited 08-09-2004).]

By a mathematical law (one of the laws of algebra, which applies to arithmatic) x=y and equivilantly y=x, in this case both y and x are 1. Now mathematics may not be a concise prediction of nature but it does have its own set of rules and laws. As you have asked a question regarding mathematics (which whether maths is correct or not) these laws must be obeyed and thus 1 does equal 1. Ok, yes, you may take this "rule" at a whim and interperit as you feel saying that 1 does not equal 1. However maths is not a reality and, although you may take the physical meaning behind a solution or equation differently to someone else, the correct end result remains the same because these rules are obeyed during calculation.

The apparant "proof" of a fact is based upon the subjective analysis and observation taken from a physical process. Being subjective thus makes this "fact" an opinion. If the evidence for a process is of such magnitude to direct someone to a conclusion it may be considered to be a fact. However this evidence can not proove this to be a fact, only support it, as the conclusion is made by a falible (human) being and the thought processes of this being are subjective.

Some people like to say, with little thought, that "science prooves such and such". Science does not claim to proove anything only to theorise how "such and such" happens or that "such and such" exists. No scientist holds precisely the same opinion on reality as another; some like to think that string-theory is bullshit, others don't and some interprit as they wish.

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

It's stupid to question that you are. You are. ...well, I am. I don't know about you. But you should know about you. Maybe not about me, but I've got that one covered. I reason therefore I exist. Or I think therefore I am. I may not be what I think I am, but I am. I may be a fat black man, but I am.

I believe that you are. You may not be a human. You may be a dog who can type, or perhaps a computer program. But you are something. Something is posting here on totse. Because totse is. My computer is. My room is. My house is. The Earth is. I believe these things because I know that I am. I see, hear, touch, smell, and taste everything else. Or at least see/hear about the experiences of others who have experienced the rest of it. So I consider that I know these things. That they are pretty much proven, even though I know nothing for sure. Nothing is proven, but I believe a lot of things based on evidence. And so do you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here.

Glitter let the big boys play big boy games. Go back to Sex and Affection. You contradict yourself. Since your self is the only thing that can be proven, how can you insinuate that other's beliefs (religion) are baseless? Duh.

Anyway. 1=1. Sniper put it very well.

1 &gt; 1 = false

1 &lt; 1 = false

1 /= 1 = false

so therefore

1 == 1

But it proves nothing besides that a representation is a representation. Aristotle's law of identity, I believe it is.

"A is A". It just proves the identity, not the existence. You're saying the same thing twice. It's like a one dimensional point.

I don't think anything can really be proven, if you consider that you would need an infinite amount of time to prove anything 100 per cent. You could say "gravity is proven", but you would need an infinite amount of time and an infinitely large universe to prove it.

Get it?

We can make almost 100% true assumptions, but never 100./

quote:You know what's the mark of a pseudo-intellectual?

The name calling doesn't strengthen your argument. Just stick to the topics if you please.

quote:I have already answered this to you numerous times. Being part of something; mentally, physically and/or spitirually.

When you begin to be part of something, either mentally, physically and/or spiritually.

This is a nice, concise definition. I respect that. So the thing to do is apply this definition and see if it always works, or has a breaking point.

I guess you would say from this definition that an embryo does not exist, since it is not aware of being part of something mentally, physically or spiritually? "I think, therefore I exist"? Correct?

This might be getting back in the "cogito" stuff somewhat.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

The name calling doesn't strengthen your argument. Just stick to the topics if you please.

1. Who said anything about calling you a pseudo-intellectual?

2. As if saying "think outside the box" was 'sticking to the topics'...

quote:

This is a nice, concise definition. I respect that. So the thing to do is apply this definition and see if it always works, or has a breaking point.

I guess you would say from this definition that an embryo does not exist, since it is not aware of being part of something mentally, physically or spiritually? "I think, therefore I exist"? Correct?

Its being part of something phisically mentally, or spiritually. You don't have to be aware that you're phisically, mentally, or spiritually part of something to actually exist.

The embryo is physically part of something, therefore it exists.

The cogito is, in other words, "I think, therefore I know I exist". Once again, you can exist without thinking.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

The concept of equality is that two items have the same value. Now, if you have one item, even if it is simply conceptualized (non existent), that 'concept' IS that 'concept'.

I understand this concept.

Where you use the phrase "simply conceptualized", you could maybe substitute the word "ideally" for "simply". Or maybe these words are redundant and are an inherent part of the word "conceptualized".

And I have no argument that you can conceptualize identity. You can also conceptualize "God", for one example, but that doesn't make God true, or existent. (Not that I'm arguing for or against God at this time, but just using the example).

Would you say that God is true because you can conceptualize "him"? How would you prove that God is true?

So we can conceptualize "identity". So what? Is it true? Give me an example of it. But don't give me another example of the concept (unless you just want to).

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The cogito is, in other words, "I think, therefore I know I exist". Once again, you can exist without thinking.

So you know you exist, because you think that you do, or just think, and I guess a rock exists because you think that it does. But a rock does't know that it exists because it doesn't think. Or does a rock think? Do you think a rock might think?

So you could exist without thinking? So you could say "I think, therefore I am" or you could say "I think, therefore you, or it, is." I'm confused. What is the purpose of the cogito?

And if your awareness establishes your existence, what estatblishes your awareness's existence?

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

...; however, every object, whether real or imagined, IS that object. 1=1 because it is itself.



This isn't really saying anything though. I thought we were talking about two things being equal.

But even so, say you are equal to you. Thats a concept, and you can say it is true, but so what? Do you mean the you of right now, or the you of ten minutes ago?

So even though you have this concept, does it ever really happen? What value are these thoughts that you have if they aren't tied to experience?

I mean you do have them tied to some of your experiences, the ones that that support your idea.

quote:Originally posted by Optimus Prime:

...and such, but it does not change the REALITY that whether something is real, imagined, or outright inexistent, it is itself.

What is the value of this thought? It says something that makes no difference that I can see.

I take that back. It is useful for math to use this idea, even though it is an idea that never really happens. Really what math is saying in 1=1 is that one thing is so close to another thing, that we are going to call them the "same", even though this never really happens, and is never absolutely true.

And so all math formulas are wrong, even though they are close approximations. But it is important to realize this little detail, that they are not absolutely correct.

And what you are calling "Reality" above never happens...in reality. It only happens in concept, or ideality.

Two things are never equal. One thing equals itself, but only as a concept, and it has no translation into reality.

quote:Originally posted by icantthinkofaname:

By a mathematical law (one of the laws of algebra, which applies to arithmatic) x=y and equivilantly y=x, in this case both y and x are 1. Now mathematics may not be a concise prediction of nature but it does have its own set of rules and laws. As you have asked a question regarding mathematics (which whether maths is correct or not) these laws must be obeyed and thus 1 does equal 1. Ok, yes, you may take this "rule" at a whim and interperit as you feel saying that 1 does not equal 1. However maths is not a reality and, although you may take the physical meaning behind a solution or equation differently to someone else, the correct end result remains the same because these rules are obeyed during calculation.

The apparant "proof" of a fact is based upon the subjective analysis and observation taken from a physical process. Being subjective thus makes this "fact" an opinion. If the evidence for a process is of such magnitude to direct someone to a conclusion it may be considered to be a fact. However this evidence can not proove this to be a fact, only support it, as the conclusion is made by a falible (human) being and the thought processes of this being are subjective.

Some people like to say, with little thought, that "science prooves such and such". Science does not claim to proove anything only to theorise how "such and such" happens or that "such and such" exists. No scientist holds precisely the same opinion on reality as another; some like to think that string-theory is bullshit, others don't and some interprit as they wish.



This is really a very honest and fair description of math/science/knowledge. I think most people think of these things you are talking about as true though. That isn't a big problem when we are dealing with mundane problems, but it becomes a huge problem when trying to understand absolute truth, or God.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

"A is A". It just proves the identity, not the existence. You're saying the same thing twice. It's like a one dimensional point.

I don't think anything can really be proven, if you consider that you would need an infinite amount of time to prove anything 100 per cent. You could say "gravity is proven", but you would need an infinite amount of time and an infinitely large universe to prove it.

This also seems to be a coherent statement.

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

So you know you exist, because you think that you do, or just think,

Because I think, not because "I think that I do".

quote:

and I guess a rock exists because you think that it does.

It either exists because it is physically. part of the world, or it does not exist because it is an illusion of my brain.

quote:But a rock does't know that it exists because it doesn't think. Or does a rock think? Do you think a rock might think?

I don't know and I don't care.

quote:So you could exist without thinking? So you could say "I think, therefore I am" or you could say "I think, therefore you, or it, is." I'm confused. What is the purpose of the cogito?

You could exist. You could be part of the world, physically and not think, like a rock for example. The 'scientific verdict' on a rock is that it does not think. It still exists.

The purpose of the 'cogito' is to show that only one thing in the world cannot be doubted, that is, your own existence. The moment you doubt it, you are existing.

It can also be used to prove your own existence to yourself.

quote:

And if your awareness establishes your existence, what estatblishes your awareness's existence?

Once again, my awareness establishes nothing. It is just the only way to know I truly exist.

If I am part of something, mentally, then I myself am my awareness.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-16-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:It either exists because it is physically. part of the world, or it does not exist because it is an illusion of my brain.

Could an illusion of your brain also think that you exist because of your thinking?

I guess this is really no different than asking if you could be mistaken, but trying to ask it in a way that accents your fallibility, which you deny regarding this question. Of course you could level the same charge at me, but I don't think my claim hinges on my infallibility, since my belief requires that I am wrong, in some perspective, no matter what I say.



quote: Once again, my awareness establishes nothing. It is just the only way to know I truly exist.

If I am part of something, mentally, then I myself am my awareness.

Again I ask, what establishes your awareness's existence, since it is the only way to know you exist? Can something prove itself?

[This message has been edited by bkc (edited 08-21-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by bkc:

Could an illusion of your brain also think that you exist because of your thinking?

Huh? Could you be more clear?

...Would an illusion, my illusion, think? That's the question?

Then there are two possible answers, it either can't and therefore doesn't exist, or can and therefore exists in my brain.

The existence of the illusion is contrained to the realm of my brain or consiousness. I don't see the problem...



quote:I guess this is really no different than asking if you could be mistaken, but trying to ask it in a way that accents your fallibility, which you deny regarding this question. Of course you could level the same charge at me, but I don't think my claim hinges on my infallibility, since my belief requires that I am wrong, in some perspective, no matter what I say.



I deny it because you've yet to refute it!

quote:

Again I ask, what establishes your awareness's existence, since it is the only way to know you exist? Can something prove itself?

I'm my awareness! You keep cataloging it as a different entity, when it is not.

Great! Another Nihilist.

Me? Nope.