Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"This statement is not true." has the same structure as "This sentence has five words."  

I wouldn't say that. They have different syntax. The former is definite article-noun-verb-adverb-adjective. The later is definite article-noun-verb-delimiting adjective-noun. If we take both as propositions, the first is about the proposition as a proposition, whereas the second is a proposition about the form of its expression. I believe those differences are relevant.

[Excited Penguin]

Based upon what?  That you experience it?  You experience many other things as well....things which you are about to deny.  I asked this at the very begining. If experience stands as testament to the existence of the self, why does it not stand testament to the existence of the other stuff?

I do experience other things. And they do certainly exist. The question is not whether they exist or not. The question is how they exist. Do they exist as concepts in my own mind, or do they exist independently of me? I think the latter is a necessarily illogic way of putting it.


In a sense, we could argue, we don't know that our brains exist either. There I would agree with you. Every atom we experience, we can never tell for sure whether it exists or not. We can only ever tell that -something- exists. Call it whatever you like. Call it a process rather than an object. Not the self, but awareness. That is what is meant by the self, anyway, but I'm trying to walk you through it here. 

Awareness is real. Wouldn't you say? Even if you are a -zombie- with no conscience, R, you have to aknowledge awareness. If you don't, then we delve into utter nonsense. How are you typing right now if you're not aware? How do you respond to me if you're not there? Or is it that none of us is aware? What does it mean to be aware then, why do we have this idea? What does the concept describe? Does it describe it?


I can't quantify it, Rhythm. But it is there. You have to aknowledge that. Language can only go so far. I can't show you what is hiding behind the symbol of language. I can only refer to it and hope you're going to play this language game with me in the interest of ... it. Once again.

It comes up again and again. 

Are you with me?

[Excited Penguin]

It seems to me like you are attacking ontology on all fronts.

It seems to me like you're saying questions of existence are meaningless.

But then everything is meaningless, don't you see? We have to accept existence for its own sake, or there can be no further discussion of anything, whether properties, objects, or what have you. Existence has to be accepted in order to function intellectually. It's the equivalent of causality - for our minds. We have to accept it in order to be able to conceive of and refer to anything else.

You do accept it, simply by typing up a response, whether you formerly aknowledge it or not.


I would call it the one assumption that constitutes the whole foundation of knowledge itself. That there -is-.

[The Grand Nudger]

I do experience other things. And they do certainly exist. The question is not whether they exist or not. The question is how they exist. Do they exist as concepts in my own mind, or do they exist independently of me? I think the latter is a necessarily illogic way of putting it.

Okay, so we've determined that other things exist (?)....this is a problem though, if you insist on calling them other things but also that they are merely things in your mind.    If that were true, they aren't other things at all.  Just more of yourself, more of the same thing. If they are things, if things even exist.

Why do you think it's necessarily illogical to think that things exist independantly of you, and have you ever considered that the choice between "in my own mind" -or- "independently of me" is one you needn't make?  A false dilemma?  They could be both, no?  Very roughly, that's what people who take these things to be referent think.

In a sense, we could argue, we don't know that our brains exist either. There I would agree with you. Every atom we experience, we can never tell for sure whether it exists or not. We can only ever tell that -something- exists. Call it whatever you like. Call it a process rather than an object. Not the self, but awareness. That is what is meant by the self, anyway, but I'm trying to walk you through it here. 

What atoms, what brains?  What objects....what somethings?  In any case, we're taking about awareness, rather than self?  

Awareness is real. Wouldn't you say? Even if you are a -zombie- with no conscience, R, you have to aknowledge awareness. If you don't, then we delve into utter nonsense. How are you typing right now if you're not aware? How do you respond to me if you're not there? Or is it that none of us is aware? What does it mean to be aware then, why do we have this idea? What does the concept describe? Does it describe it?

Us?  We?  Typing?  On what...keyboards? You're just talking to yourself, within yourself, by yourself.  Aware of what, yourself?  

I can't quantify it, Rhythm. But it is there. You have to aknowledge that. Language can only go so far. I can't show you what is hiding behind the symbol of language. I can only refer to it and hope you're going to play this language game with me in the interest of ... it. Once again.

Rhythm?  There?  I;m sorry, what could you possibly be referring to?  This is just you, in you, talking to you.  

It comes up again and again. 

Are you with me?

How can I be, there is no me, only you?

[Edwardo Piet]

"This statement is false." and "This statement is not true." are not equivalent statements.

They are. The definition of "false" is "not true".

 The first may simply be neither false nor true, which is what you've been arguing, that the meaning is indeterminate.

No. I'm saying something is either true or it isn't.

 The latter statement, known as the strengthened liar is true even if the statement is incomplete, unless you are now arguing that incomplete statements have determinate meaning and are thus "true" which is opposite of everything you've claimed.

I'm saying that when you look at "this statement is not true" you're looking at an incomplete statement because "not true" adds nothing to "this statement is". "It is not true that I am happy" is equivalent to "I am not happy" but "this statement is not true" therefore would be equivalent to "this statement is not" which is an incomplete statement, unlike "I am not happy".

We are starting at an incomplete statement that says that it isn't true, and then we're looking at the truth that it isn't what it claims to be. We think we see a contradiction between truth and falsehood because the statement is telling the truth about being false.... but that's not a contradiction because "not true" just means "it's true that it's not the case". The truth is what represents reality, and that's all there is. Falsehood/non-truth is a concept regarding that which does not represent reality.... but that's just how we conceptualize our own mistakes regarding what doesn't fit with reality. Ultimately all there is is what corresponds to reality: truth. It's like how when we say something is "illogical" we are referring to something someone has said that is logically contradictory. They can say things that contradict reality, but reality itself can't be contradictory. "Illogical" is a funny word really because it means logically contradictory.

  If the latter statement is incomplete, then it's definitely "not true" despite your assertion of a deflationary theory of truth.

Neither "this statement is true" nor "this statement is not true" are complete because a statement has to have meaning before "true" or "not true" are added. "this statement is" can be true or not true? No.

[Edwardo Piet]

The self is not what is known; but rather, it is the means by which we know.

The self is a known knower. It's not the entirety of what we know but it's certainly part of it.

Identity, A=A, is what we know. Knowing ourselves is a subset of that because that's self-identity. We can't have "I think therefore I am" without "I am what I am" and "I think what I think" or A=A.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, so we've determined that other things exist (?)....this is a problem though, if you insist on calling them other things but also that they are merely things in your mind.   If that were true, they aren't other things at all.  Just more of yourself, more of the same thing. If they are things, if things even exist.

That's phenomenal reality as opposed to noumenal reality.

The world of phenomena, also known as--

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeworld

--is the only world science has to presuppose. Science works phenomenologically.

It's really all just one noumenal reality and thing-in-itself that is all one and connected.... but the aspects to that reality that is phenomenal are the only aspects that ever do, can and will matter to us.... because all we can ever care about is what we can experience. And the phenomenal world, Lifeworld, is by definition all we can ever experience.

My bold.

[Edwardo Piet]

Being-In-The-World is a little more extreme:

Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world. For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome, as is indicated by the root structure of Husserl and Brentano's concept of intentionality, i.e., that all consciousness is consciousness of something, that there is no consciousness, as such, cut off from an object (be it the matter of a thought or of a perception). Nor are there objects without some consciousness beholding or being involved with them.

The part I bolded I disagree with. The rest I agree with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heideggerian_terminology

[Neo-Scholastic]

"This statement is false." and "This statement is not true." are not equivalent statements.

They are. The definition of "false" is "not true".

She’s not talking about the definitions of “false” and “not true”. She’s talking about the statements as a whole. Take for example, “Pluto is a dog.” Pluto is also a celestial body. She’s leaving open the possibility that a statement can be both true in one sense and untrue in another without being definitively false. Which to my mind is a tangential side issue. The real issue is that any attempt to define the referent of the subject, "this statement", in the Lair Paradox starts an interminable series:

This statement is not true.
[This statement is not true] is not true.
[[This statement in not true] is not true] is not true.

The five word sentence doesn't have that problem.

[Excited Penguin]

I do experience other things. And they do certainly exist. The question is not whether they exist or not. The question is how they exist. Do they exist as concepts in my own mind, or do they exist independently of me? I think the latter is a necessarily illogic way of putting it.

Okay, so we've determined that other things exist (?)....this is a problem though, if you insist on calling them other things but also that they are merely things in your mind.    If that were true, they aren't other things at all.  Just more of yourself, more of the same thing. If they are things, if things even exist.

Why do you think it's necessarily illogical to think that things exist independantly of you, and have you ever considered that the choice between "in my own mind" -or- "independently of me" is one you needn't make?  A false dilemma?  They could be both, no?  Very roughly, that's what people who take these things to be referent think.

In a sense, we could argue, we don't know that our brains exist either. There I would agree with you. Every atom we experience, we can never tell for sure whether it exists or not. We can only ever tell that -something- exists. Call it whatever you like. Call it a process rather than an object. Not the self, but awareness. That is what is meant by the self, anyway, but I'm trying to walk you through it here. 

What atoms, what brains?  What objects....what somethings?  In any case, we're taking about awareness, rather than self?  

Awareness is real. Wouldn't you say? Even if you are a -zombie- with no conscience, R, you have to aknowledge awareness. If you don't, then we delve into utter nonsense. How are you typing right now if you're not aware? How do you respond to me if you're not there? Or is it that none of us is aware? What does it mean to be aware then, why do we have this idea? What does the concept describe? Does it describe it?

Us?  We?  Typing?  On what...keyboards? You're just talking to yourself, within yourself, by yourself.  Aware of what, yourself?  

I can't quantify it, Rhythm. But it is there. You have to aknowledge that. Language can only go so far. I can't show you what is hiding behind the symbol of language. I can only refer to it and hope you're going to play this language game with me in the interest of ... it. Once again.

Rhythm?  There?  I;m sorry, what could you possibly be referring to?  This is just you, in you, talking to you.  

It comes up again and again. 

Are you with me?

How can I be, there is no me, only you?

Things exist, yes. I have never doubted that.

Why is it a problem? They are only in my mind, but at the same time they are distinct to that which I call me, locally. Just because the whole world exists in one's mind, doesn't make it any less real.

But you're missing the point, really. Solipsism says that this is the only thing we can be sure of. And I agree with that. We are sure that there is something. We are aware of existence. I am, at least. And, presumably so are you. And this is where it gets further interesting. It is true that I will never be able to be absolutely sure of anything but of the fact that I am aware. But that doesn't mean the buck stops there. To function, we have to pretend like we are both just as aware, more or less. That we both exist. That the world does too. And we can do all the things we would've done anyway. This realization that nothing can be proven to be real, therefore to say tjat anything is, in an ultimate sense, is a mere qualitative statement, not a definite one, it is relative to something else, that is(e.g., this chair is more real than the one you are imagining, or at least it is for you, unless and until something disrupts that, such as some indication that you are, in fact, hallucinating that chair as well, albeit clearly more strongly so), doesn't have to affect you -too- much. It's merely about keeping all of your ducks in a row.


Definite knowledge there can be of only one sort. Self-referential.