On the fundamental axioms of existence

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:25 pm

There is some consideration among skeptics as to what we should "believe," even to the point of not using "belief," as a concept.

First, it is axiomatic that I exist. For the simple reason that if I did not exist, this conversation could not exist. In your case, substitute you for "I" and thus you exist and can join the conversation.

Any person who makes the ridiculous claim that they do not exist, must, by their own statement, shut up, propose no further theories, and die. You can't make a claim by using the other side's concepts. Once you open your mouth to say anything, you concede you exist and that language exists. It is entirely possible you are arguing with nothing at all, but you are arguing.

Now, second, it is axiomatic that the world around me exists. Because if it didn't, again, this conversation could not take place. Even if this world was simply a figment of my imagination, that thing supplying me with the sensations would exist in my brain as a separate "process" the way a web browser and a word processor run on a computer in separate processes.

The following two items are new, I didn't accept them until a couple of years ago when I made the connections.

Third, I reject the idea that my own consciousness could be simulating the world around me, because it would require that I, at the time I was instantiated, had the capacity to completely imagine the entire world around me lacking any sense data or other information necessary to imagine these things.

For this to be possible, I, as an entity, having no sense inputs and no knowledge of anything, be able to create an entire construct of a world around me, despite the fact I have no information about anything to do so. Thus I reject this hypothesis as not possible.

Fourth, for that reason I accept the world around me, and concede that, while my senses are not perfect and sometimes do give me false information, they are mostly accurate and the data given is sufficiently adequate as to be accepted as valid until other evidence proves otherwise.

I must also accept the world around me because I have no choice. Absent evidence that the world is not real, if I fail to act in compliance with its mandates, I will die. I cannot step in front of any moving conveyance and not expect to be struck and most likely injured, possibly killed. I cannot fail to eat, drink or breathe, or I would also die.

So, in summary, I exist, I exist in a world of other people, and this world is, for all intents and purposes, generally a valid representation of what it appears to be and that it is real and substantial.

These are the things I accept as proven axiomatically, and while potentially they may not be competely provable, I accept that they must, of necessity, be taken as proven for the reasons I have given.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:34 pm

loafergirl · Post by **loafergirl** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:30 am

Namaste Tdarcos

Billy Mays · Post by **Billy Mays** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:46 pm

BRAVO TDARCOS!!!!! ANOTHER AMAZING POST!!!!!!

Allow me, if you will, to summarize this masterpiece of yours:

"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:48 pm

Billy Mays wrote:BRAVO TDARCOS!!!!! ANOTHER AMAZING POST!!!!!!

Allow me, if you will, to summarize this masterpiece of yours:

"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes

Notice that the "I" is assumed to exist in the first part, so the second part begs the question.

Billy Mays · Post by **Billy Mays** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:39 pm

pinback wrote:
Billy Mays wrote:BRAVO TDARCOS!!!!! ANOTHER AMAZING POST!!!!!!

Allow me, if you will, to summarize this masterpiece of yours:

"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes
Notice that the "I" is assumed to exist in the first part, so the second part begs the question.

The experiences you are having are more than nothing, since you are experiencing something, what is causing those experiences? The lowest common denominator in this argument is that you are nothing more than a string of code in a larger machine. Do believe this is possible, or do you believe that that existence of something is identical to the absence of everything?

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:40 pm

Who/where is this "you" you (heh) keep talking about?

Billy Mays · Post by **Billy Mays** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:52 pm

pinback wrote:Who/where is this "you" you (heh) keep talking about?

Stop dodging the logic trap you set for yourself.

The "you" I was referring to is pinback. What I believe has no impact on the reality of your existence.

Using this information, please address the question I had previously asked.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:01 pm

Using this information, please address the question I had previously asked.

Sure thing, broski!

The experiences you are having are more than nothing, since you are experiencing something, what is causing those experiences?

I am having no experiences. There are experiences, but nobody is having them.

The lowest common denominator in this argument is that you are nothing more than a string of code in a larger machine.

No, there is no one here.

Do believe this is possible, or do you believe that that existence of something is identical to the absence of everything?

Huh?

This has been: Pinback answers Billy Mays' questions!

Billy Mays · Post by **Billy Mays** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:17 pm

pinback wrote:
The experiences you are having are more than nothing, since you are experiencing something, what is causing those experiences?
I am having no experiences. There are experiences, but nobody is having them.

Experiences are dependent on somebody or something experiencing them, otherwise they are not experiences, but rather an unobserved thing. The "have" is merely the possessive indicator of who or what is experiencing something. Therefore, experiences could not occur in the absence of somebody or something having them.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:18 pm

Billy Mays wrote:Experiences are dependent on somebody or something experiencing them

You're sure about that, now.

Billy Mays · Post by **Billy Mays** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:30 pm

pinback wrote:
Billy Mays wrote:Experiences are dependent on somebody or something experiencing them
You're sure about that, now.

Yes, and so are you.

You go from experiencing a dream state to experiencing waking up, to experiencing hunger, to experience cooking breakfast, to experiencing consuming your meal.

Not only are you experiencing these things, but your are acting in a way that is based off of those experiences that you are having.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:34 pm

Billy Mays wrote:
pinback wrote:
Billy Mays wrote:Experiences are dependent on somebody or something experiencing them
You're sure about that, now.
Yes

Well, okay.

If you'd be interested in a friendly back and forth which may end up challenging that assumption, let me know. I can't do it with Tdarcos because any time I say anything I get fifteen pages of text that he's already posted forty-three times, so nothing gets accomplished.

Nothing will get accomplished here either, but it might be entertaining for the kids.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:41 pm

Billy Mays wrote:BRAVO TDARCOS!!!!! ANOTHER AMAZING POST!!!!!!

Allow me, if you will, to summarize this masterpiece of yours:

"I think, therefore I am" -Rene Descartes

(Note, I have dropped the accented second e on "Rene" because the software on this BBS does not like it and if I left it in, would blank this post).

No, that's not a summary. That's where Descartes stopped and refused to go further. I have not only declared my existence to be axiomatic, but I argue the world around me is, for the opposite reason to Descartes.

While I think, I could not imagine the whole of reality out of wholecloth. I had to have input to do so, and thus, the intputs I receive are from the universe around me.

pinback · Post by **pinback** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 3:53 pm

"axiomatic": "self-evident or unquestionable"

That's some fine science you're doing, pal.

RealNC · Post by **RealNC** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:36 pm

Billy Mays wrote:BRAVO TDARCOS!!!!! ANOTHER AMAZING POST!!!!!!

Allow me, if you will, to summarize this masterpiece of yours:

"I think, therefore I am" -René Descartes

This can be abstracted further with:

"Why is there something rather than nothing." -No One In Particular

RealNC · Post by **RealNC** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:37 pm

pinback wrote:"axiomatic": "self-evident or unquestionable"

That's some fine science you're doing, pal.

Science is based on axioms. The trick is to have a bare minimum of them.

Tdarcos · Post by **Tdarcos** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 5:28 pm

RealNC wrote:
pinback wrote:"axiomatic": "self-evident or unquestionable"

That's some fine science you're doing, pal.
Science is based on axioms. The trick is to have a bare minimum of them.

Exactly! I have been very careful to limit myself to exactly 4, and this is a summary of what I said in the original article:

1. I exist.
2. There is a world around me.
3. That world is outside of me and is not simulated by some part of me.
4. That world has to be accepted as real in order for me to survive.

Everything else I accept as true is founded upon evidence and other proofs, these are the only things I accept as axiomatic, or as Pinback has noted, self-evident or unquestionable.

Ice Cream Jonsey · Post by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 6:30 pm

Tdarcos wrote:1. I exist.
2. There is a world around me.
3. That world is outside of me and is not simulated by some part of me.
4. That world has to be accepted as real in order for me to survive.

The pizza tracker has to be accepted as real for you to survive.

Jizaboz · Post by **Jizaboz** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 5:00 pm

Speaking of which, what do you want on your next pizza, paul?

Ha, PIZZA PAUL. If you ever open a pizza place, that should be the name.