Is the self all that can be known to exist?

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you think is real, if anything, and why?

Everything, really (  ).  

Why, a much trickier question in the general, eh?  My inability to think otherwise, perhaps.

[The Grand Nudger]

It doesn't really get interesting until you step out of solipsism and invoke concepts and things that would argue against that famed lack of certainty.  Things like me.  Things like "other things".  Atoms.  Typing, keyboards, disparate localities, etc.

I dunno, dude.  If you have to "invoke" ideas in order to lay a foundation for reality,

Not much of a problem for me in the context above, I'm not a solipsist, I'm free to play with as many ideas that refer to something other than my self as I wish.  The moment a solipsist "steps out", however, they begin to argue against the premise of solipsism. In effect, reducing it to triviality even if true.

you're probably just making philosophical assumptions.

I don't consider the things my senses tell me to be assumptions, though I make many assumptions about them.

[Excited Penguin]

We can be certain of the law of identity and self-identity. Self-identity includes both our own thoughts and all our experiences and qualia. We can be certain of A=A and we can be certain of the phenomenal world. A=A applies to all possible worlds.

 

Not sure what you're claiming here, though, if anything. Are you perhaps saying that identity is commensurate to... what, exactly?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm saying the self isn't the only thing we know exists because we also know that everything is what it is even if we were not to exist. And, in fact, we can't even know our own existence without knowing that. We can't have knowledge of self-identity without knowledge of identity. "I think therefore I am" presupposes "I think=I think" and "I am=I am".

[Angrboda]

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

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

Only within the confines of specific logical systems. English is not such a system. Is a meaningless sentence not true? Yes it is. Is a meaningless sentence thereby false? No, it isn't. Because "not true" can refer to other states than false. So, no they aren't equivalent.

 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.

Below you are arguing that very thing. Regardless, saying something is either true or it isn't ignores whole classes of logics for a "classical logic only" stance. You can't support such a stance because it's purely arbitrary.

 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".

Your deflationary account of truth is noted. Even if I accepted your conjecture that the "not true" adds nothing to the statement, "This statement is," is a perfectly logical and whole statement asserting that the statement exists. However, "This statement is," is not equivalent to "This statement is not true," no matter how deflationary you get. One is a statement about existence, the other is a statement about a self-referential proposition.

"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".

Your example only works because you're assuming that happiness is a boolean state, so all you've done is restate your initial assertion that something either is or isn't true, only using happiness as your boolean variable. That's begging the question. No matter how many times you assert that something is either true or it's false (*using your equivalence) it won't make it so just because you said so. There are many logics in the world and none of them are less valid simply for disagreeing with you.

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.

And here you are asserting a correspondence theory of truth as if your mere assertion is enough to close it. I don't know if you're intentionally denying other theories of truth, or if you're just ignorant to the fact that there are alternative theories. You're on a little firmer ground with respect to theories of truth because they are not as arbitrary as systems of logic, but not by much. Simply asserting your favorite theory of truth doesn't make it so.

  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.

It can be either. Your blindness to anything outside your ersatz logical realism has blinded you to the fact that it is a complete statement. Regardless, your point is moot because if we apply it to your earlier example, "I am not happy," then not happy can't modify "I am" on the same grounds. In short, all you're trying to do with this "completeness rule" is eliminate all self-referential statements as being meaningful. That's a high price to pay for a rule that you just pulled out of your ass. I for one will not pay it, and it's an arbitrary and dictatorial imposition upon natural language. What are you going to exclude next, pronouns?

[Angrboda]

"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.

It's a question of how you partition it. Regardless, substituting the sentence, "This sentence is not long," obviates your objection and my point holds.

[Edwardo Piet]

Only within the confines of specific logical systems.  English is not such a system.  Is a meaningless sentence not true?  Yes it is.  Is a meaningless sentence thereby false?  No, it isn't.  Because "not true" can refer to other states than false.  So, no they aren't equivalent.

The word "true" emphasizes that something is something, the word "false" emphasises that something isn't something... when added to a statement without any meaning already it doesn't add anything to the statement. "A=A is true" just means "A=A"... if we apply that to "this statement is" then the question is what are you talking about? What does "This statement is" represent? We know "A" represents an unspecified thing.

The fact that it only happens in specific logical systems is proving my point about equivocation. All you can do is change the system and redefine the logical absolutes, it doesn't stop them being logical absolutes because you have to presuppose them in your very redefining of them.

Below you are arguing that very thing.  Regardless, saying something is either true or it isn't ignores whole classes of logics for a "classical logic only" stance.  You can't support such a stance because it's purely arbitrary.

I'm not arguing in favor of any system of logic, I'm saying all systems of logic are just interpretations of the logical absolutes which don't need justification. Everything is what it is and isn't what it isn't... A=A and Not A= Not A. You can redefine things so based on a new logical system something can be both true and false, but that's equivocating and playing with language... you still have to assume that something is what it is and isn't what it isn't, A=A and not A= not A for a theory like dialetheism to even work. The liar's paradox has to assume the logical absolutes for the illusion to even occur.

Your deflationary account of truth is noted.  Even if I accepted your conjecture that the "not true" adds nothing to the statement, "This statement is," is a perfectly logical and whole statement asserting that the statement exists.  However, "This statement is," is not equivalent to "This statement is not true," no matter how deflationary you get.  One is a statement about existence, the other is a statement about a self-referential proposition.

If you define "this statement is" as "this statement exists" then adding "not true" to "this statement exists" is meaningless. "This statement exists not true" is meaningless.

Let's do it this way:

"The statement "this statement exists" is not true."

See how the problem disappears now?

Your example only works because you're assuming that happiness is a boolean state, so all you've done is restate your initial assertion that something either is or isn't true, only using happiness as your boolean variable.  That's begging the question.  No matter how many times you assert that something is either true or it's false (*using your equivalence) it won't make it so just because you said so.  There are many logics in the world and none of them are less valid simply for disagreeing with you.

If we define "false" to mean "not true" then something indeed is either true or not true. That's a true dichotomy. I can't be wrong starting from the premise that something is either true or not.

People can redefine things so that things can be true and false at the same time and "false" doesn't mean "not true".... but that's just messing about with labels. Messing about with alternative logical systems and with logic doesn't change the logical absolutes. It doesn't change the fact that A=A and !A=!A

The point is that you have to assume that something is either true or not true and the logical absolutes to even change, redefine or relabel the system. To mess about with language is always self-defeating. You can't have something that is both true and false at the same time without presupposing that what you're saying is either true or not, you can't redefine "false" to be different from "not true" without presupposing the logical absolutes.

If we're talking logical systems, we're not addressing the logical absolutes. The systems are built upon the logical absolutes which apply to all universes, you can't redefine things without presupposing the truth of them.

And here you are asserting a correspondence theory of truth as if your mere assertion is enough to close it.  I don't know if you're intentionally denying other theories of truth, or if you're just ignorant to the fact that there are alternative theories.  You're on a little firmer ground with respect to theories of truth because they are not as arbitrary as systems of logic, but not by much.   Simply asserting your favorite theory of truth doesn't make it so.

I'm stating how I define truth because that makes most sense to me but the point is that it doesn't matter how you define things... definitions themselves are built upon the logical absolutes.

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.

It can be either.  Your blindness to anything outside your ersatz logical realism has blinded you to the fact that it is a complete statement.  Regardless, your point is moot because if we apply it to your earlier example, "I am not happy," then not happy can't modify "I am" on the same grounds.  In short, all you're trying to do with this "completeness rule" is eliminate all self-referential statements as being meaningful.  That's a high price to pay for a rule that you just pulled out of your ass.  I for one will not pay it, and it's an arbitrary and dictatorial imposition upon natural language.  What are you going to exclude next, pronouns?

That's a false analogy because "not happy" adds meaning to "I am". "not true" does not.

"I am not happy" makes sense. "It is true that I am not happy" makes sense. "I am" does not make sense. "I am happy" makes sense. "I am true" doesn't make sense. "I am not true" doesn't make sense. "true" and "not true" have to add themselves onto something that already makes sense without them. You can't confirm or deny the meaning of a statement that is meaningless before you confirm or deny it. "This is a statement." Has a meaning. The statement "this is a statement" is true, has a meaning. "this statement is" does not have a meaning. "this statement is true" does not have any more meaning than the prior one. Redefining "this statement is" to mean "this statement exists" just demonstrates the equivocation and messing about with language that I'm talking about. And "this statement exists not true" makes no sense. You have to say "the statement "this statement exists" is not true" and then the paradox disappears.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a question of how you partition it.  Regardless, substituting the sentence, "This sentence is not long," obviates your objection and my point holds.

"This sentence is not long" already makes sense without "true" or "not true". That's my point. "this statement is" does not. The fact you have to redefine "this statement is" to mean "this statement exists" (when "is" doesn't mean "exists") demonstrates my point about equivocation being the only (fallacious) escape route.

[UnLocal]

From neural activity perspective, everything takes place in your consciousness, there is no external so yes, everything you experience is what you call the self

[Angrboda]

It's a question of how you partition it.  Regardless, substituting the sentence, "This sentence is not long," obviates your objection and my point holds.

"This sentence is not long" already makes sense without "true" or "not true". That's my point. "this statement is" does not. The fact you have to redefine "this statement is" to mean "this statement exists" (when "is" doesn't mean "exists") demonstrates my point about equivocation being the only (fallacious) escape route.

I was substituting mutatis mutandis. In the case of "This sentence is not long" the clause "not long" takes the place of "not true". Both sentences are meaningful, you just choose to take exception to the "not true" sentence for reasons that appear wholly personal to you. And I did not redefine anything. The verb 'to be' asserts existence of the subject. And I am through. You believe in logical absolutes and have made several specious arguments for them having to do with language and realism. You keep asserting the same things. At this point it has become more of a shouting match than a discussion. Therefore, I am done.