1. I didn't say you were weird. Not at all. You have to read more carefully.
2. Do I know infallibly and without even the barest possibility of error? Of course not. To err is human.
Do I know in the ordinary fallible sense of "know"? Of course I do. And so do you. We are conducting this conversation in English, aren't we?
Yes, I often know that I am not dreaming. And so do you.
How do I know? Well, it is very rare that the issue even comes up, so there is no positive reason to doubt I am awake and conscious. When there is (so rarely) I check in one way or another.
Can we, quantity and properties of unknown realms considered, be indisputably definite that anything is definitely impossible?
Sorry, I dont understand the question.
Sorry, I dont understand the question.
I am not saying that we ARE dreaming, only that we cannot prove that we are not dreaming. I have no reason, either, to doubt that I am actually awake.
But I cannot prove this, because my intelligence and perception are, indeed, fallible.
Thank you Ken, fare well.
I am not. I would be a lot sorrier if you understood the question.
---------- Post added 05-15-2010 at 10:03 AM ----------
If your reason for not being able to prove that you are not dreaming is that your intelligence and perception are fallible, then I would suppose that you cannot prove anything else either. For example, that you were born, or that you had patents.
It seems to me that the consequence of that would be that your not being able to prove you are no dreaming is not such a big deal. After all, what is that inability to prove compared with your inability to prove you were born, or that you had parents? Nothing much. Furthermore, what I would take away from your inability to prove that you aren't dreaming, just as your inability to prove anything else for the reasons you just gave (intelligence and perception are fallible) is that one can know things he cannot prove. Since it seems to me that I am far surer I know that I was born, or I had parents, or, for that matter, that I am not dreaming when I am awake, than I could possibly be sure that I don't know and that I need to prove these things to know them.
See what I have in mind,? If your argument is that I don't know because I cannot prove, then my counter-argument is that since I do know, and since I cannot prove, I don't have to prove in order to know. Notice, however, that for the sake of argument, that I am agreeing with you that we can neither prove that we were born, nor that we had parents, nor that when we are awake that we are not dreaming.
what kind of response you would consider to be an answer, etc.
If you are going to talk of uncertainty as an all-encompassing description, then never mind.
I see your point - To Know, is not to have proof, but to accept knowledge is acceptable, even without proof. And ultimately "knowledge" proves nothing.
If knowledge proves "nothing" though? Nothing exists??? But it doesn't!
Great chatting Ken, be well sir.
I"Logic is logic, that's all I can say" Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Deacon's Masterpiece
How do you know that logic is, indeed, logic, or even logical, come to think of it?
"One man's logical is another man's irrational"
Is this obsevation logical or irrational???
Thank you Ken, and fruit ye greatly.
Is "silly" a choice? How about, "irrelevant", since it has nothing whatever to do with the issue?
I disagree. To what I am attempting to achieve by this thread, it is crucial.
If you think it is silly? well, that's your prerogative.
I think it is sound.
Or maybe you feel the need to disregard what you fail to understand? I don't know - and couldn,t be certain if I did know, even if I did.
One thing I do know though - Knowing is not certain! And I say this with no certainty whatsoever.
Thank you Ken, and be merry.
Logic is a method that requires presuppositions. Possible universal laws are not, as far as we know, 'thinking things'. we provide the presupposition that something cannot be X and not X at the same time. It is an arbitrary logical law based on limited experience, limited extrapolation, limited preceptive ability etc... In short we are imposing an arbitrary judgment about certainty based on a series of unknowable presuppositions, when we say that we can't be certain that there is no certainty.
Aside from this: certainty itself requires a set of presuppositions to make it certain. We can be logically certain of anything given we begin with the appropriate presuppositions.
I don't know what it means to say that logic is a method. Logic is a study of the rules of how we ought to think. .