First we would have to define certainty. I'm afraid if you set the bar at Descartes we'll have no certainties (practically).
Second: that god does not exist; if he existed he could not be known and if he was known he could not be expressed. It's not much use.

To "know" is to "believe" with justification, while justification is fraught with problems. Hence, the better question is: what do you believe for sure? I believe for sure that if you do not have a strong pillar for your beliefs, that you will end up believing whatever. I am sure of that.

Yes. I’d say you don’t have true knowledge unless there’s absolutely no way for that belief to be false.

We can know with certainty that very few things can be known with certainty. Most of the things that are regarded as being known for certain (outside of mathematical conventions) are probably not known for certain.

As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

For instance:

"I 'believe' (in) God"...is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess is that at least one god exists."

"I 'believe' there are no gods" is the way most people say, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

The only thing that anyone can be sure of is that there is something. But they can't be sure what it is, where it is, or how it came to exist.

Most of the things that are regarded as being known for certain (outside of mathematical conventions) are probably not known for certain. — Frank Apisa

In mathematics these certainties are known for certain inside their universe ("model"), which is never the physical universe but an abstract, Platonic construction. Hence, mathematics also does not offer certainties about the real world.

As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence." — Frank Apisa

According to its standard definition, knowledge is itself also a belief:

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

* P is true
* S believes that P P is true, and
* S is justified in believing that P is true — Wikipedia on 'Justified true belief' (JTB)

The only thing we know for certain is there is at least one conscious mind. Everything else is speculation with no justifiable foundation. The reality we experience is equally compatible with theism/atheism/materialism/dualism/idealism.

The only thing we know for certain is there is at least one conscious mind. Everything else is speculation with no justifiable foundation.

We can't claim to know what it is that exists. Our experience and knowledge of conscious minds may be naive, mistaken, or a fabrication.

We can't claim to know what it is that exists. Our experience and knowledge of conscious minds may be naive, mistaken, or a fabrication.

You can't be mistaken that you're conscious and have a mind. You could be wrong about the properties of your own mind, or about what, exactly, consciousness is, but you can't be wrong about the salient points: you have a conscious mind. Unless you want to torture the definitions of "consciousness" and "mind" into something that doesn't even resemble what anyone thinks of when they think of their conscious mind.

Philosophy often goes in that direction. You couldn't find one person in a thousand who cares about Goodman's new riddle of induction. It's mental masturbation. Much of philosophy is.

I’d say you don’t have true knowledge unless there’s absolutely no way for that belief to be false. — rikes

That is the definition of an unfalsifiable proposition, that is, without empirical meaning. Empty.

Descartes spoke of a proposition whose opposite was contradictory. For example: I think therefore I am. The problem is that, admitting that it is not a tautology, he could not go further. Well, he went further, but by cheating.

Therefore I supposed it was better to look for a less strong concept of indubitable. I don't know if it's possible. In practice, we consider it absolutely true that if you put your hand in boiling water you get burned. What makes that proposition unquestionable in practice?

You can't be mistaken that you're conscious and have a mind. You could be wrong about the properties of your own mind, or about what, exactly, consciousness is, but you can't be wrong about the salient points: you have a conscious mind.

Yes I agree that one, apparently, can't be mistaken that one is conscious and has a mind and that as an explanation it is generally sufficient. But this thread is about certainty.

So when it comes to certainty, one has to consider alternatives to that certainty, however irrational they may be. Merely their possibility means they negate that certainty.

In reality the human mind finds itself existing in a place surrounded and built upon impenetrable unknowns, including circumstances where logic fails us too. This being the case your assumption that consciousness and mind exist as we experience them and that this is certainly the case is vulnerable to criticism of the extent and relevance of human knowledge to reality.

I'd argue that nothing tangible can be known with the same certainty as something in pure mathematics.

However, every view is predicated or based on some knowable axiom or another.

(e.x. Even epistemological nihilism asserts that the only thing that can be "known" is that nothing can be known, so this is oxymoronic if you ask me).

I’m not saying that it is an absolute truth. What I’m saying is that right now there is no possibility that the belief is false. Being a thinking thing is not necessarily an absolute truth because when you die you will cease to think.

Yes I agree that one, apparently, can't be mistaken that one is conscious and has a mind and that as an explanation it is generally sufficient. But this thread is about certainty.

If you can't be mistaken about something, doesn't that entail certainty?

So when it comes to certainty, one has to consider alternatives to that certainty, however irrational they may be. Merely their possibility means they negate that certainty.

Sure, but nobody's come up with anything since Descartes. I think he's right about this: we can't be wrong that we're thinking beings. I think that's an axiom we can safely hang our hats on.

In reality the human mind finds itself existing in a place surrounded and built upon impenetrable unknowns, including circumstances where logic fails us too. This being the case your assumption that consciousness and mind exist as we experience them and that this is certainly the case is vulnerable to criticism of the extent and relevance of human knowledge to reality.

It's not an assumption. How can I wrong about being conscious? Or having a mind? As Descartes points out, you need a mind in the first place to doubt you have one. And as far as consciousness goes, it seems obvious to me that that is also immune from doubt. Any philosophical argument that claims "you're not conscious" is a non-starter.

Being a thinking thing is not necessarily an absolute truth because when you die you will cease to think. — rikes

The undoubted truth is that if you think now you are "something" that thinks now. What happened before and what will come after are no longer undoubted truths.

But this is a philosophical problem that has long been overcome. It was an obsession of classical rationalism. What I propose is to understand the undoubted truths in terms of modern empiricism. Something less radical, but more useful.

I would say:

• We exist in some capacity
• Our experiences exist
• Things that aren't our personal experiences exist (e.g. whatever produces your experiences)

From your experience, you can know a lot of things. Thoughts exist. Symbolic thought exists. Language exists. Math exists. Logic exists.

Any deductive argument you know leads to a necessary truth.

You know that you come across characters (e.g. human beings). And that they can respond to you and can do things you cannot predict. You know they come from somewhere. You know they can have intellectual conversations with you, even if it's just a character in a dream. You know the world you explore appears to be full of characters and history that you have to discover to know. You experience complex interactions with the world you perceive.

That’s what certainty is: If there is no way you could be mistaken about your belief, then that belief is certainly true, e.g. ”I think, therefore I am”.

The problem is that we can't be certain about what we think we are certain about. Or what it is, or what is real and what isnt real.

For example, we don't know what consciousness is, or at least how it comes to exist. We do know with certainty that we have an experience, which we call consciousness. Also we don't really know what I am, what, or who, is having the experience.

So we are certain of something, but there is little certainty of what exactly we are certain of.

”I think, therefore I am”.

I prefer "I think therefore there is something". Because it can be debatable what "I am" means.

Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum — rikes

This might be the only thing we can take as properly basic, though I'd be open to considering other things.

However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot. — rikes

The 17th century enlightenment helped with the problem of our inherent irrationality by giving us a new epistemology to investigate the universe.

According to its standard definition, knowledge is itself also a belief:

Justified true belief is a definition of knowledge that gained approval during the Enlightenment. The concept of justified true belief states that in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, an agent S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

* P is true
* S believes that P P is true, and
* S is justified in believing that P is true — alcontali

Dictionaries do not actually "define" words. They merely tell us how they are used.

I stand by my comment: "As for "belief"...mostly that is bullshit. "Belief" and "believe" are words people use to disguise "guess"...especially in the area of "the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.

The traditional JTB definition cannot guarantee knowledge, only reasonably true knowledge. Just because you’re justified in believing something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true.

If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

JtB -- knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief -- is a long story. Epistemology in general, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is a long story ...

alcontali
1.3k
If you suppose me to be wrong...we can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa

JtB -- knowledge as a Justified (true) Belief -- is a long story. Epistemology in general, i.e. the theory of knowledge, is a long story ... — alcontali

Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.

When someone uses "I believe..." in a post to me...I usually ask what they mean by it. The nonsense that comes up is mind-boggling. And some people use it several times in one paragraph.

If you are saying, "My opinion is..." or "My guess is..." or "I want to insist that..." or "I estimate that..." or "My absolutely blind guess is..."...

...why not just say it that way...rather than disguise it with, "I believe...?"

Huh?

Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century. — Frank Apisa

It is much older than that:

In the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so.[17] — Wikipedia on where JtB comes from

The more precise date is 369 BCE:

The Theaetetus (/ˌθiːɪˈtiːtəs/; Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge, written circa 369 BCE. — Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue

alcontali
1.3k
Oh...that justified true belief shit is so 19th and 20th century.
— Frank Apisa

It is much older than that:

In the Theaetetus, Socrates considers a number of theories as to what knowledge is, the last being that knowledge is true belief "with an account" (meaning explained or defined in some way). According to the theory that knowledge is justified true belief, to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but also have a good reason for doing so.[17]
— Wikipedia on where JtB comes from

The more precise date is 369 BCE:

The Theaetetus (/ˌθiːɪˈtiːtəs/; Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge, written circa 369 BCE.
— Wikipedia on the Theaetetus dialogue — alcontali

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe.

In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.

The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."

The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.

Really think about it...and you will see I am correct.

In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.

The more honest version of "I 'believe' (in) God"...is, "It is my blind guess that at least one god exists...and that god is the GOD I worship."

The more honest version of "I believe there are no gods"...is, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist.

Really think about it...and you will see I am correct. — Frank Apisa

I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming text

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa

, that is without qualitifications. Perhaps the trick is to not say I believe, but just tell people how things are. Then one has evaded the categorizing of one's statements.

Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, thought the Earth was a pancake flat object at the very center of the universe. — Frank Apisa

and here we have, it seems, a kind of dismissal of people's thinking in two decades. Like, well, that means we can dismiss their thinking, case closed. Her implied.

So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.

So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.

In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.

Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.

So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.

Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.

I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that.

I don't know, you wanna get rid of people using the word belief, but you write a lot of absolutely certain seeming text
Yeah...the people of the 19th and 20th century still bought into the teachings of people who, for the most part, — Coben

Doesn't sound all that absolutely certain to me.

Perhaps you've got that "someone on the Internet is wrong" disease.

I"m told it is very bothersome. Is it?

, that is without qualitifications. — Coben

"for the most part" is a qualification.

Perhaps you meant to write, "Without qualifications that meet MY standards."

So another strategy is, don't use 'I believe', but rather imply an argument and dismiss a couple of hundred years of thinking.

So, the two strategies, here at least, to avoid using the potentially misleading I believe, is to just state things are the case and to imply vast swathes of conclusions without supporting them.

In both strategies we avoid the word believe, so all is peachy.

Of course, people are often quite correct. They believe what they are saying, whether it is based on guesses or a significant batch of evidence. And they are kind enough, those who know the distinction, to be making it clear they do not 'know' what they are asserting is the case. But, yes, it is what they think is the case. And this correct use of the word is bad, since people have different epistemologies for arriving at beliefs, for some reason.

So they start off a conversation with what is likely a true statement: a belief they have about some facet or purported facet of reality. From there one can ask them 'on what grounds'? We all know that people believe things that are not the case or are believed in on what we consider the wrong grounds. But now we know their position.

Is there anyone who hears the phrase 'I believe' and assume that what comes next must be strongly supported information? I don't think so. I am never misled by this beginning, unless they are lying about what they believe - but that would hold for 'guesses' also, as a possibility. I don't feel like I have been told the slightest bit about the rigor of their epistemology in general or in this particular case. I do feel informed about what they believe. What they think is the case. And this is useful information. Or, if it isn't, it doesn't become more useful if they use the suggested alternative phrases.

I certainly don't feel compelled to bow down to the solidity of their epistemology because they used the word 'believe'. And they don't when encountering other beliefs, positions, opinions. It's letting us know what they have decided is the case. If I want to know the grounds, well, now we have a conversation on that. — Coben

Here is how I originally wanted to respond to this argument, if that is what it is:

Ahhh...okay. Ummm...yes. Or if you really do not like that...no.

I am willing to offer, maybe, if you prefer that.

That would have been smarmy...so I will forego it.

Instead...

...Coben...what are you saying?

My statement was: "In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess."

Are you saying that is wrong; are you saying it is right; are you saying you agree or disagree.

What?

In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

Well, you would first have to be familiar with the discussion that has been going on for at least since 369 BCE. Socrates was certainly asking all the right questions. He became even famous for that. In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief.

alcontali
1.3k
In the context of a discussion about the unknown...the word "belief" is used to disguise a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

Well, you would first have to be familiar with the discussion that has been going on for at least since 369 BCE. Socrates was certainly asking all the right questions. He became even famous for that. In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali

Bullshit.

Knowledge and "belief" are two different things. And I am becoming more and more convinced that the words "believe" and "belief" should be banned in intelligent discussions.

In any case, it appears as though I am never going to get an answer to the question I have asked in several different forms.

Lemme know when you decide to answer it.