On 11-12-29 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:
Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist.
That's a tough one.
Descartes's "proof" was defective, of course -- it proved only that I
do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not possibly not
exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules of inference
with which he was working are an assumption, akin to an axiom, and
can't be proven.
If you accept the causal nature of the universe
Ahem.
Correlation is not causality.
Repeated correlation is not proof of causality.
Causality can, in fact, never be proved for any real events, and the
existence of causality in our mental model of the universe is not proof
that causality plays a role in the universe itself.
then that which is not can not create that which is [not?]. If you
deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in anything,
especially logical philosophical discussion. The premises of logic do
not hold.
Well that was kind of the point -- the "premises" of logic are just
that, premises. They are something we assume. Assuming them turns ones
own existence into something of a tautology. If we don't assume them,
on the other hand, then we we can't conclude anything, including that
we, ourselves, exist.
Logical discussion is not possible.
I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my
creation then you agree with my existence.
These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^)
Do your words exist, or do I just think they do?
Do my thoughts exist, or am I merely confused?
Or am I?
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
<http://www.mtaonline.net/%7Ehheffner/>
