From Wiki on Descartes.

>      Many philosophical skeptics and particularly radical skeptics would
> say that indubitable knowledge does not exist, is impossible, or has not
> been found yet, and would apply this criticism to the assertion that the
> "cogito" is beyond doubt.

       This is of course nuts.

       "Indubitable knowledge does not exist, INDUBITABLY!"

       Certainty that certainty is impossible or does not exist is absurd.


       Uncertainty exists.


       Certainty is different than uncertainty.


       A nothing could not wonder if it was a nothing or something.

       I doubt I am, therefore I am.

       It seems to be fashionable amongst the intellectually effete, to
claim that "I doubt everything."

       One then asks them, do you doubt that?

       They will answer yes.  Which of course means maybe they do not
doubt everything.  Certainly.  So the issue then is to spot those
possible perfect certainties, and determine 'how would I know if they
were perfect certainties,' precious and few that they are.

       But they will say that doubting everything, including doubting
whether they doubt everything, is at least consistent.  Are they

       Be that as it may, illogical consistency is not a mental virtue and
ends up in death and disaster if applied to actual existence which
certainly is and certainly is not is not.

       In the end such self denying arguments pretend to say something 
deep, everything is doubtable, but in the end merely state self denying 
propositions, like "this statement is false."

       If I say "All dogs are animals, Joey is a dog, but Joey is not an
animal," then what have I said?  Nothing.  No information or knowledge
is conveyed.  CERTAINLY.

      Logic is King, logic is the ethics of language, thought and all
knowledge, even the subject of logiclessness.

      For if you say 'Such and so *IS* logicless' you have invoked
the logic of IS and IS NOT to say so.

      So let's cut the crap.

      A mind that lives with self denying propositions is a mind that
does not work and is not in contact with actuality which is as it is and
isn't as it isn't.

      It is the certainly perceived nature of personal agency, existence
and our direct perception of conscious color form around us that GIVES
us the idea of what IS means and a complete and only description of it,
because the first quality of consciousness is that it IS.  That
description of IS, which we perceive in our conscious isness, is:

       IS means IS
       IS does not mean IS NOT
       IS NOT means IS NOT
       IS NOT does not mean IS

        Or put another way

        IS is IS
        IS is not IS NOT
        IS NOT is IS NOT
        IS NOT is not IS

      And that is *ALL* there is to logic and what is says and is about.

      Only true actual existences follow the above rules, and
consciousness and self awareness is one of those actual existences.

      Certainty of OTHER consciousnesses other than our own is frought as
other's consciousness can not be directly perceived as we can directly
perceive our own consciousness.

      Any knowledge learned by indirect perception is merely a theory
based on evidence and model.

       Indirect perception means learning about A by looking at B under
the assumption that B is causally related to A and therefore may
theoretically convey some data about A if one studies B enough.

       For more on Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness, see

       The Proof at http://www.lightlink.com/theproof


Thu Oct 24 17:02:02 EDT 2013
Tue Nov 18 20:14:13 EST 2014