Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith and so on

[Astrophile]

For example for what the universe is and if that is known and so on, there are a lot of possible answers that include a lot of words in different combinations.

One example - it is known as true with reasonable certainty that the universe is...

I would have said 'expanding' or 'infinite' or '13.8 billion years old',

So what is your own worldview for what knowledge and all those other concepts are? And please include other concepts than those I listed if relevant.

but you appear to be asking a different question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would have said 'expanding' or 'infinite' or '13.8 billion years old',

but you appear to be asking a different question.

Thanks. But I only gave the universe as an example.
You could also answer in regards to say morality if you like. Or religion. The universe was only an example.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Useful is subjective. However it's better to not have to be hunter/gatherers.

There's the case of people who don't have a functional hippocampus whom are not able to form new memories. It seems all the important functions of consciousness go through the brain. No brain, and what does the spirit world mean?

Why is it better not to be hunter/gatherers? Do you think aboriginal peoples in Australia and Brazil, for example, are happy to have recently lost that way of life?

There are correlations between aspects of thought, and electro magnetic activity in the brain, sure. We can certainly say that mind and brain are interdependent.

As for the spiritual aspect of our nature, this is something which can be experienced, by those willing and open minded enough to try.

 

[an anarchist]

Then please reference the answer Descartes gave to the problem of the evil demon. Not "I think, therefore I am". We are talking about the external world as real.

While it's true that Descartes introduced the concept of the "Evil Demon" to question the verifiability of our perceptions and beliefs, it's important to understand the purpose behind this thought experiment. Descartes wasn't arguing that existence is unverifiable; rather, he used the Evil Demon as a method to strip away all beliefs that could be doubted, leaving only those that are absolutely certain.

The core outcome of this radical doubt was the realization that, regardless of how powerful the deception might be, the very act of thinking itself cannot be doubted. Hence, "I think, therefore I am" becomes the foundational truth—an indubitable proof of existence. Even in a scenario where an Evil Demon is deceiving us about everything, the fact that we are being deceived proves that we exist as thinking beings.

From this foundation, one can extrapolate further. If we accept that our thinking self exists, then we can start to rebuild knowledge from this point, including our experiences of the universe. The very fact that we can experience thought, and engage in a coherent reality where thought is possible, suggests that the universe in which this occurs has a form of reality. While the nature of this reality might be up for debate, the existence of a universe that we can think about and experience through thought gives us a strong basis to argue that it is real in a meaningful sense.

In summary, Descartes used the Evil Demon to strip away what is doubtful, not to deny existence but to find the most basic truth that cannot be doubted. From there, we can start to reestablish our understanding of reality, starting with the certainty of our own existence and extending outward to the universe we experience through thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

While it's true that Descartes introduced the concept of the "Evil Demon" to question the verifiability of our perceptions and beliefs, it's important to understand the purpose behind this thought experiment. Descartes wasn't arguing that existence is unverifiable; rather, he used the Evil Demon as a method to strip away all beliefs that could be doubted, leaving only those that are absolutely certain.

The core outcome of this radical doubt was the realization that, regardless of how powerful the deception might be, the very act of thinking itself cannot be doubted. Hence, "I think, therefore I am" becomes the foundational truth—an indubitable proof of existence. Even in a scenario where an Evil Demon is deceiving us about everything, the fact that we are being deceived proves that we exist as thinking beings.

...

No, there is no we in "I think, therefore I am".
Please reference Descartes for the we. You have made the positive claim of a we, so you have the burden of proof in regards to the texts of Descartes.

 

[an anarchist]

No, there is no we in "I think, therefore I am".
Please reference Descartes for the we. You have made the positive claim of a we, so you have the burden of proof in regards to the texts of Descartes.

Well, I think you are talking about when I brought up how we both think. Do you deny that you think?

I certainly think. If you can verify that you think as well, then we have two thinkers at least. Then I can verify that you are real and vice versa.

 

[an anarchist]

No

Yes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I think you are talking about when I brought up how we both think. Do you deny that you think?

I certainly think. If you can verify that you think as well, then we have two thinkers at least. Then I can verify that you are real and vice versa.

Yeah, then you don't understand the evil demon. I am external to you and it is not certain that I am here in reference to you, as you could be deceived by the evil demon.

 

[an anarchist]

Yeah, then you don't understand the evil demon. I am external to you and it is not certain that I am here in reference to you, as you could be deceived by the evil demon.

It seems that you're focusing on a specific application of Descartes' Evil Demon—how it calls into question the existence of anything external to the self. While this is an important aspect, it’s only one part of the broader picture.

My understanding of the Evil Demon includes this, but I also recognize that Descartes used it to ultimately find a foundation of certainty. The Evil Demon can make us doubt the external world, but it cannot make us doubt the fact that we are thinking. "I think, therefore I am" is Descartes’ way of establishing that, even in the face of extreme skepticism, we can verify our own existence as thinking beings.

So, let me ask you: Are you a thoughtless projection of the Evil Demon? I know that I’m not. If you can verify that you think—just as I can verify that I think—then you exist just as I do. The confirmation of your own thinking is entirely within your capabilities. Once we establish that, we can start to explore the implications together.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems that you're focusing on a specific application of Descartes' Evil Demon—how it calls into question the existence of anything external to the self. While this is an important aspect, it’s only one part of the broader picture.

My understanding of the Evil Demon includes this, but I also recognize that Descartes used it to ultimately find a foundation of certainty. The Evil Demon can make us doubt the external world, but it cannot make us doubt the fact that we are thinking. "I think, therefore I am" is Descartes’ way of establishing that, even in the face of extreme skepticism, we can verify our own existence as thinking beings.

So, let me ask you: Are you a thoughtless projection of the Evil Demon? I know that I’m not. If you can verify that you think—just as I can verify that I think—then yo exist just as I do. The confirmation of your own thinking is entirely within your capabilities. Once we establish that, we can start to explore the implications together.

I have faith in the universe and believe that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable.

Descartes solution was that God would never allow the evil demon to deceive us. Have you actually read the relevant text?
Well, here is a google search on: What was Rene Descartes' solution to the evil demon?
"He proves by ontological argument that God definitely exists. And if god exists he will not make us suffer because of a such a powerful demon. So, the demon actually does not exists in reality."

What was Rene Descartes' solution to the evil demon? - Google Search

 

[an anarchist]

I have faith in the universe and believe that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable.

Descartes solution was that God would never allow the evil demon to deceive us. Have you actually read the relevant text?
Well, here is a google search on: What was Rene Descartes' solution to the evil demon?
"He proves by ontological argument that God definitely exists. And if god exists he will not make us suffer because of a such a powerful demon. So, the demon actually does not exists in reality."

What was Rene Descartes' solution to the evil demon? - Google Search

So you are saying that you in fact do think?

It seems it's important to clarify that my argument isn't about proving the existence of God or using God as a solution to the Evil Demon problem. Descartes indeed used the concept of God to further reinforce his conclusions about the reliability of our perceptions, but that's a separate issue from the core point we're discussing.

The central point of "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I am"—is that even in the face of radical doubt, the existence of oneself as a thinking entity is undeniable. Whether or not God exists, or whether God would prevent an Evil Demon from deceiving us, doesn't change the fundamental certainty that if you can think, then you must exist.

So, the mention of God as Descartes’ solution to the Evil Demon is irrelevant to the basic argument that thinking proves existence. I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God; I'm simply pointing out that the ability to think is the undeniable proof of your existence, just as it is of mine.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you are saying that you in fact do think?

It seems it's important to clarify that my argument isn't about proving the existence of God or using God as a solution to the Evil Demon problem. Descartes indeed used the concept of God to further reinforce his conclusions about the reliability of our perceptions, but that's a separate issue from the core point we're discussing.

The central point of "Cogito, ergo sum"—"I think, therefore I am"—is that even in the face of radical doubt, the existence of oneself as a thinking entity is undeniable. Whether or not God exists, or whether God would prevent an Evil Demon from deceiving us, doesn't change the fundamental certainty that if you can think, then you must exist.

So, the mention of God as Descartes’ solution to the Evil Demon is irrelevant to the basic argument that thinking proves existence. I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God; I'm simply pointing out that the ability to think is the undeniable proof of your existence, just as it is of mine.

I is not the same as you. You don't know I exist and I don't know that you exist.
So the "I think..." is for the actual first person person doing that and not 2nd or 3rd person.

So if I as an you to you say I think, then you must show that the evil demon is not deceiving you about me as a part of the external world to you.

 

[Native]

So here is mine as a skeptic. Since I can't know what objective reality is in itself, I act with faith and belief in that the universe is epistemologically fair, real, orderly and knowable. But I accept that other belief systems are possible.

As for debate. Well, what is truth and are there only one form or many? The same for other concepts and it connects to universal versus relative.

It´s only a question of searching for the natural and common frames of references.

 

[an anarchist]

I is not the same as you. You don't know I exist and I don't know that you exist.
So the "I think..." is for the actual first person person doing that and not 2nd or 3rd person.

So if I as an you to you say I think, then you must show that the evil demon is not deceiving you about me as a part of the external world to you.

Lets focus on the core issue: the concept of "I think" is inherently first-person. You, as the person experiencing thought, must determine whether you can think. When I ask if you can think, I’m not asking you to prove anything about me or the external world; I’m asking you to verify your own experience.

You are the first person in your own context, just as I am in mine. So, when you say "I think," it’s not about me or anyone else—it’s about your direct experience of thinking. For the third time, I’m asking you to confirm your own thoughts.

Do you think?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets focus on the core issue: the concept of "I think" is inherently first-person. You, as the person experiencing thought, must determine whether you can think. When I ask if you can think, I’m not asking you to prove anything about me or the external world; I’m asking you to verify your own experience.

You are the first person in your own context, just as I am in mine. So, when you say "I think," it’s not about me or anyone else—it’s about your direct experience of thinking. For the third time, I’m asking you to confirm your own thoughts.

Do you think?

But I am in the external world to you and thus the problem of the evil demon apply. So how do you know that I think?

 

[an anarchist]

@mikkel_the_dane , I trust that you wouldn't be lying if you were to say "Yes, I think". I don't think you are a thoughtless projection of an evil demon.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It´s only a question of searching for the natural and common frames of references.

Can you expand on that, please?

 

[an anarchist]

So how do you know that I think?

YOU CAN TELL ME!!!!!!!!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane , I trust that you wouldn't be lying if you were to say "Yes, I think". I don't think you are a thoughtless projection of an evil demon.

Yeah, you haven't solved the problem. Because what you think, doesn't decide if you are in the real world or being deceived by the evil demon.

 

[an anarchist]

So how do you know that I think?

Hmm, on second thought, maybe you can't think

I've never explored or studied this topic myself. I just felt like playing Devil's Advocate this morning.

But I am unconvinced that we can't be sure the universe is real. I feel the arguments I have presented in this thread have been valid. As a "layman" I disagree with your stance.