"(1)
We can't (k)now -(who we are)
and (b)e -(who we are)
at the same time,
not (k) & (b) = false.
However, if (k) is a subset of (b) or simply put
Knowledge cannot abstract Being then
For all (k) there exists (b).
(2)
If (For all (k) there exists (b)) then
(For some(b) there exists (k)) therefore
it could be said that:
If we have knowledge of being we can be what we know.

Therefore:
Some knowledge is not empty."

Ken Bell December 16 1999

Response:

(1) Just because (k) may be a "subset" of (b), it does not follow that (k) exists in some(b). (k) may be a LIMITED subset of (b) or none at all. For example, the combination of our thought process and our fabrication of knowledge may produce thoughts themselves, which have a semblance of existence, but are empty of who we are. Another explanation is that there may be something other than life itself which created thoughts themselves.

(2) What "knowledge of being" do we have? Sure, the challenge claim asserts that we exist, and that there is a basis behind us. Though its proof is limited to what we reason, just as any other proof would be. So we have "knowledge of being," but only within the confines of what we reason. And the challenge proposition shows that we cannot really have knowledge of being itself.

Reply 1:

"1. (k) exists in some (b) because without (b) there can be
no (k). (b)'s only hard constraint is living or
existing. (k)'s 'ability to refute or prove a
proposition, using reason...' is encapsulated by 'our'
which implies collective existence, hence (b)eing
(K) cannot exist in (b)'s non-existence. Therefore...
(k) is a subset of (not (b)) = false (reducto).

2. Even though it "may be something other than life itself
which created thoughts themselves",
which incidentally, at present is unprovable, the
statement only affirms that 'something other than life'
exists.

3. I make no claim to have 'knowledge of being itself',
since (b) cannot be abstracted by (k).
The knowledge of being is constrained by (k)'s limits
which may contain some (b).

I think that, at this point, it may be important for us to
agree that we are not speaking of whole generalizations,
but are referring to instances. Though it may be that our
interaction with technology may lead to a degenerate
recursion loop, this is not necessarily so. It may
be possible to 'have our cake and eat it too' so long as we
don't overindulge."

Ken Bell December 17 1999

Response 1:

1. We don't know whether there would be no (k) itself without (b). Cases can be made either way. Though we believe the stronger case lies with (k) itself being a limited subset (b) itself because, for instance, we have no reasonable way of knowing who we are while being who we are.

2. Yes "our" implies a "collective existence", and yet, it also implies the limitation of our ability to express. Again, we return to the present dilemma of not knowing how much of (k) itself is part of (b) itself, if any at all. There are three main possibilites:
A. (k) itself is independent of (b) itself
B. (k) itself is a limited subset of (b) itself
C. (k) itself is a subset of (b) itself
Proposition A can be eliminated on grounds that there appears to be casual connection between our thoughts themselves and who we are. (For example, it appears that we invent the meaning of thoughts, and through our thought process, thoughts appear to have a limited existence).
Proposition C does not hold up because it appears impossible to know who we are and be who we are at the same time.
We are left with the middle one, proposition B, which states that (k) itself is connected to (b), but only in a casual way.

3. Yes, the proposition that there "may be something other than life itself which created thoughts themselves" is unprovable. But, you can say the same for any other proposition or claim.

4. We do not necessarily agree that our discussion refers to "instances" rather than "whole generalizations". For instance, the challenge proposition may be a whole generalization about our relationship to thoughts themselves from within the confines of our consciousness. Though we believe that from our perspective, there is no such thing as an absolute conscious whole.

5. Your reasoning that:
(b) cannot be abstracted by (k)
(k) may contain some (b)
implies that we can express who we are and be who we are at the same time. How?

6. How can we have "our cake and eat it too so long as we don't overindulge" when the essence of our existence through thoughts is in question? Moderating our use of technology would only SLOW DOWN the "degenerate recursion loop." We would still be heading to the same result.

7. We agree that "our interaction with technology, or conscious inventions, may not necessarily cause a degenerate recursion loop. However, according to what we know, it appears that we are in a loop. (Of course, we will have our own opinion. Though we are all guided by reason. Can we turn our backs on some things we reason, while we use reason to guide us? Can we keep on existing through reason, while knowing, from our perspective, that we are existing a contradiction? Can we be selective in what we believe through reason, and yet use reason to guide us?).

Reply 2:

"A)1&2.It appears that your statement in 1.
'we believe the stronger case lies with (k) itself being
independent of (b)'
is in conflict with the elimination of Prop. 2A. '(k)
itself is independent of (b) itself'
Although I agree with Prop. 2A's elimination, I'm a little
confused by the inconsistency.

As for the elimination of Prop. 2C, I don't think that
it's possible to use the conclusion to prove the argument.

B)3. Agreed.

C)4. By 'absolute conscious whole' I assume that you are
referring to all (b), or to encapsulate
within the limited perspective of (k), 'the All Being'.
Since (b) cannot be abstracted by (k)
we must conclude that:
All (b) that is (not(k)) is equally undefined and
therefore beyond our perspective.
Since (k) in (b) is not necessarily absolute (k) can only be
considered an instance of (b).
As for (b) in (k), because of (b)'s undefined character,
only a limited set of (b) can be defined.
Klein bottle.

D)5. How indeed. Like you, I'm simply working through the
logic of written words, propositions, statements and
conclusions. In this causal arena it may or may not be
possible to demonstrate the expression of myself, and
demonstrate my being in a non-causal fashion. The
demonstration of a possibility and its subsequent practical
utility are two different things.

E)6. Without getting into too much detail it can be
demonstrated that in complex systems there exists,
particular to the system, a value of recursion which hinges
on positive and negative feedback . This value may also be
a time dependent series within limits imposed by
interactions with contigious complex systems.

F)7. That's a very good question and seems to be the crux
of the matter.
I would have to concede that if reason were our only
faculty we would be in a real mess.
However we also possess the knowledge of being which allows
objective observation, through our senses, of the world
around us. This world includes other people who also
observe the world and interact with us. Are we always
guided by reason in our daily lives? Has there
ever been a rational culture? It seems to me that the
knowledge of being, being a limited instance of being
itself, is the value referred to in E)6 which can be used
to moderate an apparently degenerative loop."

Ken Bell December 18 1999

Response 2:

1)A. We were using the word, "independent" in two different ways. (In 1. as inherently different though casually connected; and in 2. as inherently and casually disconnected). So there was only "inconsistency" in our use of the word. Sorry for any confusion. In 1., we have changed the word, "independent" to "limited subset" for clarification).

2)A. As for the refutation of proposition 2C, we have not come to a conclusion in this context. So by using the challenge proposition to refute propo. 2C seems valid.

3)C. By "absolute conscious whole," we are referring to all (b). We do not accept the "have your cake and eat it too" argument. (If that were the case, you could justify reasoning anything you wanted). In other words, we believe that if (k) is part of (b), all of (k) must be part of it or none at all.

4)C. Yes, we agree that all (b) that is (not(k)) is "beyond our consciousness".

5)C. How can (k) in (b) not be "necessarily absolute" in (k)? Either it is (k) itself or it is not.

6)C. As for your assertion that (b) is in (k), or "because of (b)'s undefined character, only a limited set of (b) can be defined", is unclear. Please define it. Also, please prove that what you define (b) in (k) as is a limited set of (b).

7)D. If there is NO possibility of expressing us ourselves, without contradicting our reason, what does that tell us as life-forms guided by reason?! (By considering everything and nothing in terms of our basis, we prove, within the confines of our minds, that it is impossible to express us ourselves in the present or future, or to have expressed us ourselves in the past).

8)E. Yes, in complex systems there appears to exist a "value recursion which hinges on positive and negative feedback." In our case, we believe that the positive is who we are, and the negative is our thoughts themselves. (But, this implies a bias, which we have no reasonable grounds for asserting. Nevertheless, if we are right, the value recursion you are referring to is irrelevant).

The notion that "recursion value may be a time dependent series within limits" does not hold up because the complex system we are discussing includes both who we are and our minds. To understand how the system works, we must get to its essence. So far we have not been able to do that.

9)F. We can't get outside of our minds. So as far as we know, reason is our only faculty. Also, we can't have "objective observation" without reasoning and who we are. Which one comes first, reason or who we are? Since all we can know is what we reason, we must concede that reason comes first. Yet, we could counter that we need who we are to reason. Though since we can't get outside of our minds, we must conclude that reason comes first, which supports the proposition that something other than life exists.

Reply 3:

"A)3. By the metaphor 'have your cake and eat it too' I am
concretely referring to our proposed ability to interact
with technology without necessarily being drawn into a
destructive recursion with it.
All (k) is derived from (b)

Some (k) is part of (b) ie. (b) in (k)... (I think
therefore I am)+(I am therefore I think)

Some (k) is derived from (b) This leads to iterative
recursion.

A)5. We have a misunderstanding.
Since (k) in (b) is not necessarily absolute, (k) can
only be considered an instance of (b).
I apologise for forgetting the punctuation after the
word absolute.

A)6. (b) in (k) is defined as the portion of (k) which
recognizes 'itself' and by extension, 'other'(b).
Since "Be" refers to the state of living or existing,
everything beyond (k) which is alive or exists must have
the quality (b). Therefore (b) in (k) which exists is
limited to (k)'s assertion that it, (k) exists and, by
extension other undefined (b) exists.

Q)7. When you use the phrase "express ourselves" to what
are you referring?

A)8. A reductionist approach towards complex systems leads
only to a limited understanding of them. For a more
complete view of the 'essence' of a system we must consider
the parallel workings as well as the causal ones. In our
case the superposition of
state (k) and state (b) ie. (b) in (k).
As for possible recursion values, I am referring to an
expression of the superposition of (k) and (b) ie.
technology, which can be moderated by our knowledge of
being.

A)9. Please consider that the relationship between our
knowledge and our being can be demonstrated to be
non-causal. The statements 'I think, therefore I am,' and
'I am, therefore I think', have no meaningful causal
resolution. In fact they can only be resolved by
superposition."

Ken Bell December 19 1999

Response 3:

1)A3. Our complaint about your use of the metaphor, "have your cake and eat it too" still stands, regardless of the context. (To accept such a position is to have an unreasonable bias. In other words, why should the "cake and not cake" position only apply to the situation you are "concretely referring to"? Again, all meaning would be lost).

If all (k) is derived from (b), it does not necessarily follow that all (k) itself, or any (k) itself, equals (b) itself. There may be an inexplicable situation, in which through our thought process and fabrication of knowledge, (k) comes to exist in a limited way. Moreover, the notion of all (k), or part of it, deriving from (b) is far too simplistic, because (b) itself appears dependent on many other things. So there could be a situation, for instance, where (b) itself struggles to survive in (n)ature, unconsciousness, and through fabricated knowledge, (b) itself exists through thoughts themselves and their material extensions to overcome its struggle. In this scenario, all (k) is not derived from (b) itself. Rather, it is from (b) itself's struggle with (n).

Descartes statement itself does not get us anywhere because it is limited to the conscious realm. His statement has been dealt with in more detail in Dispute 7.

2)A5. What do you mean by (k) can only be considered an "instance" of (b)? (It sounds like you are trying to overcome your "cake and no cake" position in this context. We don't see how you can. Though by the same token, it is great that you are trying.

3)A6. Everything beyond (k) that is living or existing with (b) itself as its basis, must have the quality (b). (Sorry for any confusion. We have changed the definition of "be" to living or existing with who we are as the basis).

4)Q7. "Express ourselves" refers to the ability to think who we are. (Obviously, we believe it is impossible. Sorry for any confusion. We have changed the phrase to "express us ourselves" for clarification).

5)A8. State (k) itself and state (b) itself
(b) itself in (k) itself
(k) itself in (b) itself
((b) itself = (k) itself) = false
((k) itself = (b) itself) = false
(k) itself does not equal (b) itself, or
(b) itself does not equal (k) itself
because if they did, there would be nothing to distinguish. They must be inherently different, and by being so, they can't equal each other.

The "recursion value" does not necessarily make up for the difference between (b) itself and (k) itself. For instance, for there to be a recursion value, in a best case scenario, (b) would be inherently different from (k), as in the case of positive and negative electrical wires. Though there may be a situation where we have two positive electrical wires, with different charges, which produce a recursion value. Yet, the "value" would likely be lower than a positive / negative scenario. And by considering the challenge proposition, the two positive wires scenario can't be applied to the relationship between who we are and our thoughts themselves. The more reasonable explanation, within the limits of our reason, is that who we are is positive, or full, and thoughts themselves negative, or empty. (We could go on with more proofs, and perhaps this is where our discussion should be focused).

6)A9. The statements, "I think, therefore I am," and "I am, therefore I think", could also be resolved by recognizing that they are limited to the conscious, or reasoned, realm, thereby represent the mere limitation of reason itself. His statements are similar to a mathematical equation.

Reply 4 - Conclusion:

"When I state that "I am" I base that conclusion on the
recognition of my being, existing.
My knowledge is derived, either directly or indirectly
from my being, my existance.
Without knowledge of any kind I might still exist, but
could not conclude that "I am".
The statement "I am" exists within my knowledge, in fact
is based on my knowledge.
Since "I am" itself, is a statement of being, it stands
itself unqualified by anything other than my knowledge.
Therefore:
I know that "I am" my being.
and
I am being that which I am."

Ken Bell December 20 1999

Response 4:

1) Does "recognition" include "knowledge of"? If so, how can you KNOW (b) itelf and be (b) itself at the same time? We must conclude that you are ASSUMING that you can know (b) itself, despite the challenge proposition which proves, within our reasoned existence, that it is impossible.

2) We agree that "without knowledge," you could not conclude that "you are." Though by the same token, we believe that you would not have to.

3) What knowledge is "I am" based on? We believe it is not based on knowledge. Rather, it is based on an assumption, and even faith, that your "I am" respresents who you are.

4) Yes, "'I am' stands itself unqualified by anything other than [your] knowledge." Though you can say that for any phrase or statement. (We can't get outside of our minds).

5) "I know that I am being."
What do you know is your being? How?

"I am being that which I am."
How can you know "I am" and be it at the same time? Couldn't "I am" be a mere fabrication to order us as beings? How can "I am" itself, which breaks down into a word, thought, appearance, and then into an unknown, represent who you are? Are you saying that we are unknown, or nothing? Finally, how can you base your conclusion on your belief in "I am" when you have no way of refuting the challenge proposition, without contradicting reason? How can you have a reasoned view of your existence, "I know that I am my being," and yet ignore a proposition which not only disproves what you believe, but the proposition itself can't be overcome?

Reply 5:

1) "(I) exists.
Do you deny my existence?

The existence of (I) is indicated in the first person by
the singular "am".
Without "am" (I) remains causally incoherent.
"who" is the possessive pronoun which defines "I am" in
distinctive terms.

2) Would you say that I am something other than my present
existence?

3)I don't need to know the details of who I am to know
who I am.
1) exists
2) exists now
3) Is distinct, as encapsulated by "who".

4)I can be(present indicative) nothing other than who I am.

5)Do you deny that I wrote this?

6)Would you consider the above statements to be something
other than part of my knowledge?"

Ken Bell December 21 1999

Response 5:

A)1. We agree that [you] exist and that there is a basis behind [your] existence, as the challenge claim states. However, we deny that [you] have knowledge of your (b)eing itself. (This position is not a contradiction, because we do not claim to REALLY know that [you] exist, and that there is a basis behind [you]. Rather, we claim to know from within the confines of our reason. (We can't get outside of our minds).

A)2. No, we wouldn't say that you are something other than your present existence. You can only be who you are. Though it is one thing to be who you are and another to know who you are.

A)3. What exists?
What exists now?
What is distinct, as encapsulated by "who"?

A)4. Yes, we agree, as in A)1., that [you] yourself can be nothing other than who [you] are, whatever you are.

A)5. No, we don't deny that you wrote your reply. We deny that you or anyone truly knows that you, as in you yourself, wrote it.

A)6. No, we wouldn't consider your reply to be something other than part of your knowledge. Though we come back to the dilemma of deciding in what sense is [your] knowledge itself is part of who [you] are: 1. (k) itself is independent of (b) itself
2. (k) itself is a limited subset of (b) itself
3. (k) itself is a subset of (b) itself
You agree with us on the elimination of propo. 1. (Reply 3 A 1&2)
Propo. 3. is refuted because we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time, without ceasing to be who we are, and even then, we would not know who we are because we ourselves would not exist. Added to this, we have no reasonable way of overcoming the challenge proposition. (Superposition argument fails to explain how we can know who we are and be who we are at the same time). If these proofs don't satisfy you, please consider the one below from response 3:

State (k) itself and state (b) itself
(b) itself in (k) itself
(k) itself in (b) itself
((b) itself = (k) itself) = false
((k) itself = (b) itself) = false
(k) itself does not equal (b) itself, or
(b) itself does not equal (k) itself
or
((b) itself = "am") = false
("am" = (b) itself) = false
"am" does not equal (b) itself, or
(b) itself does not equal "am"
because if they did, there would be nothing to distinguish. They must be inherently different, and by being so, they can't equal each other. If you think otherwise, and can prove what you think within the bounds of reason, please let us know. If you can't prove what you think about this, we believe that you must concede the point that what we know itself is empty of who we are.

Disputes 10-13 Dispute 9 (6-9)