I don't think there are. If the objective of Universal Doubt is to establish the foundational truths (or, that which is incontrovertibly true) about reality from our limited point of view, they all involve one or two things:

- Cogito ergo sum, as mentioned--the ability to ponder one's own circumstances establishing the existence of a "one"
- The Socratic paradox--or the knowledge that you know nothing else on an absolute, epistemological level

in other words, the only thing that is certain is that nothing else has certainty

This takes me back to solipsism--if you take both these foundational truths at face value, and nothing else, you've essentially found yourself a type of nihilism that cannot be refuted by logic. Am I the only thing that exists? How could you possibly prove it one way or another?

If everything in the universe except for your own self is virtual, then you can merely claim that any arguments against solipsism are virtually-constructed, or that logic itself (like in the Evil Demon scenario, in a more abstract sense) is working against you as a means of tricking you into "falling for the illusion," so to speak--and therefore don't hold water. Or something along those lines.

The possibility of such a scenario, though absurd, is still logically undeniable, as far as I can tell.

I dunno--I'll have to think about it more, but I don't think there are any foundational truths beyond the ones mentioned.

opinion descarted

literally philosophy 101 guys

literally philosophy 101 guys

Can you teach me, senpai?

opinion descarted

Mordo pls.

philosophy should be taught as a compulsory course in school tbh

Quote from: Eli on February 12, 2016, 06:50:34 PM

philosophy should be taught as a compulsory course in school tbh

Nah, I had more important things to learn than the ramblings of senile syphilitic men... like how to lay out a rafter or frame a stairwell.

why can't you do both?

critical thought emphasised by the study of philosophy is more important than... virtually anything else you could possibly learn in the first 12 years of school

I still am not particularly convinced by I think therefor I am.

The conclusion is made using reasoning that is only as concrete as we can observe it to be, which in this context all observation is put in question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if reality isn't as we observe it now, that it still abides by the same bounds of logic we observe.

Question: can I doubt something if I don't exist? This is, of course, defining "I" as any thought relative to a form of mass, not necessarily "me".

therefor

the way you spell this word triggers me

Quote from: eggsalad on February 12, 2016, 09:03:29 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 12, 2016, 08:52:47 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 12, 2016, 08:04:55 PM

I still am not particularly convinced by I think therefor I am.

The conclusion is made using reasoning that is only as concrete as we can observe it to be, which in this context all observation is put in question. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that if reality isn't as we observe it now, that it still abides by the same bounds of logic we observe.

Question: can I doubt something if I don't exist? This is, of course, defining "I" as any thought relative to a form of mass, not necessarily "me".

If all of human observation and knowledge is suspect, then there's no way to conclude whether you can or can't.
Which I thought the whole point of "I think therefor I am" is meant that despite all doubt or delusion, one can be sure they are a thing that exists.

But I'd say it isn't sound to assume that the logic that works as we can observe in the "virtual" reality is what applies to the "actual" reality. There's no reason someone could deduce that.

Cogito Ergo Sum is the conclusion; to see if it's sound, you first have to see if the logic of the argument itself is valid.

Quote

1. I think ::= Tj
2. Everything that thinks, exists ::= (∀x)(Tx > (∃y)x=y)
C. I exist ::= (∃x)j=x

Alternatively, dubito, ergo cognito, ergo sum: "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." Doubt is evidence of thought; thought is evidence of an existence.

What I think you're getting caught up on is the I part of the equation; the substitute, "something doubts, therefore something thinks, therefore something exists" is an equivalent without the linguistic issue.

If you're still having reservations, think of it as, "I don't exist, therefore I don't think" or refer to the idea in Decartes' own words:

Quote

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, "I am, I exist," is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17).

Thought is necessary for his existence (as it can only proven from the first-person) in his argument; if one thinks, one exists.

Actually what I am getting caught on is the premise that "Everything that thinks, exists".
That is a conclusion derived from worldly observations and worldly logic, which in this context have no authority.
There is absolutely no reason to say that outside our hypothetically false reality, "everything that thinks, exists".

philosophy should be taught as a compulsory course in school tbh

LOL how funny that philosophers have said the complete opposite. Truly a testament to your stupidity that Verbatim talks about (but I don't know you).

You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.

From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.

Quote from: eggsalad on February 13, 2016, 04:00:26 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 12:21:28 AM

You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.

From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.

Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.

What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.

Quote from: eggsalad on February 13, 2016, 05:17:22 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 05:01:51 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 13, 2016, 04:00:26 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 12:21:28 AM

You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.

From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.

Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.

What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.

a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.

um how can you prove that without observation?

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 05:26:24 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 13, 2016, 05:17:22 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 05:01:51 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on February 13, 2016, 04:00:26 PM

Quote from: Prime Multivac on February 13, 2016, 12:21:28 AM

You cannot be tricked into thinking that you're thinking (because that means you're already thinking). Thinking inherently requires the capability of thought. If a being is thinks, then in can think; if it thinks, then it exists.

From what observation can you derive this if we have established that all observation we can make of this world is unreliable.

Thought it not perceived through the senses. In what way can one be manipulated into thinking without thinking in the first place? Thought, as the most basic rationality, cannot be deceived like touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing.

if this is all a dream, you cannot rely on your five senses to seek knowledge. You can "see" green where green may not truly be; this is the basis of illusion. You cannot think where there is not the capability of thought because the existence of thought presumes thought. Thinking requires the ability to think.

What is thought without external stimuli? I can't envision thought ever being independent of external influences.

a + b = b + a, regardless of if we can see, hear, smell, taste, or touch. Thought is an entirely separate thing from the senses.

um how can you prove that without observation?

Well, for starters, it's an axiom. It's unquestionable.

Second, our concept of a number represented by a and a number represented by b is just that: conceptual. Numbers are not things seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. They are thoughts.