The 'if' shows it is only an assumption. And conclusion is therefore also conditional on the assumptions. So at the end, we have only restated all the assumptions that were in the premises. We have not discovered that our assumptions, and therefore our conclusion, represent a fact.RJG wrote: You failed miserably! - you failed to see the "If" in this if/then statement.
And as I have said before, there is no claim that the assumption is the equivalent to some fact about the world; we are equally free to assume it has the value 'not/false' instead.
'Exists' meaning what? What is the test for whether something exists or not, such that 'experience' passed? If we say something 'exists' in normal speech our meaning depends on what sort of thing it is. For example 'dreams exist' (in a sense) and 'London exists' (in a sense) and 'triangles exist' (in a sense) and Oliver Twist exists (in a sense). Whether our claim is true or not depends on that sense. But here there is no sense. It is only 'indisputable' because there is no meaning we can fix on.I'll say it again -- "Experiencing exists" is the (certain) starting premise. Descartes got stuck on "I think…" as his starting premise. He did not go back (reduce) far enough. This is Descartes famous error.
If we attempted to say anything about the experiencing's existence , for example 'it is an experience of an external object X', or 'it is the experience of a continuous subject' we need additional assumptions. So saying 'experience exists' does not assert anything. It is the equivalent of saying 'experience experience.
I think poor old Descartes should be safe from ad hominems by now. I do not know what you think Descartes famous error is supposed to be, so I cannot comment on that. Is it:In all fairness to Descartes, and all the other "great thinkers". They are all handicapped; they are all psychologically unable to deny the very thing that makes them 'great'.
As I understand it, the senses; eyes, ears etc. can deceive us, whereas pure thought in the sense of geometry etc. cannot. (Although that depends on a beneficent God, whose existence Descartes proves separately). So I think it is rather that he is distinguishing between what can be known for certain and those things about which we can be in error. The things about which we can be in error include both our interpretation of sensations and also the organs that give rise to these sensations.Yes. All Descartes can truly un-doubt-ably know is that "experiencing exists". ...Descartes "experienced thoughts" and then falsely assumed "I think…". This led to Descartes flawed conclusion that res cogitans (mind) and res extensa (body) are two independent entities. This dichotomy is the foundation of Descartes's [flawed] dualism.
A seed needs water and nutrients, otherwise it remains just a seed. And a seed that has no possibility of growth is not even a seed, it is just a lump of matter. I think 'experiencing exits' is like that.Not so. There can only be ONE 'starting seed'.
As I said above, what is it that we are certain of? What is it true about? Otherwise all it is saying is something like 'if a thing is a thing then it is that thing (but I don't know what makes a thing a thing)'.An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.
What is wrong is that things, including experience, do not take place in a series of 'instants'. Time is measured against events, so if an observer chooses to distinguish and give labels to parts of something as distinct events, then you will put them in a relationship that involves time - but that is something you have done. There is no reason why they should be divided at all, or be divided in that particular way. Also, time is not some third entity, that gets consumed'.Yes, good idea, let us stay on topic. If we wish to discuss Descartes, or other interesting topics, then we probably should start a new topic/thread. Below is the simple logic related to this particular CTD topic/thread. Do you agree with it or not? If there is flaw in this logic, then please 'specifically' point out the flaw.
- P1. “Instantaneous” detection/sensing is not logically (nor scientifically) possible. This includes human conscious experiences (sensing/detecting). A ‘time delay’ is an unavoidable fact.
P2. None of our conscious processes are ‘exempt’ from this ‘time delay’, as ALL processes consume time.
C. Therefore, our ‘present’ conscious experience(s) are of ‘past’ events, and our ‘future’ (next) conscious experiences have already happened, (...we just don’t ‘know’ it yet!).
We could do the same with extension; if I distinguish between two objects, then they will have different locations. But again, that is a function of my choice - to distinguish them at all, and to distinguish them in that way. Suppose I do this; suppose I distinguish two objects in space. Now they are 1 metre away from each other, but the distance: 1 metre has not come into existence. It is certainly not a quantity of 'length' that has been 'consumed'.
Well, I can't just ignore claims that some assertion about truth is 'logically derived'.I also go further in this thread and make the logical assertion that if CTD exists then "concious causation" does not. (...please note the "if" word, and then the "then" word), And if you disagree with any of this logic, then again be specific and point out the flaw. (...instead of 'lecturing' me on logic!)