"I believe that part of the problem is defining (k) as an independent entity. ie. (k) itself
Since we agree (R5,A1&2) that "I" exists and "I" exists "now", ("I" being a concept of my being and therefore a part of (k) ), were left with the association between "I" and (b).

We agree that((k)itself is independent of (b)itself = false) (although (k) itself remains unproven), This necessarly leads to the conclusion that (k) (Response 2, 1A) is (not) "inherently and casually disconnected" from (b).
(k) itself is independent of (b) itself = false
or
for all (k) there exists some (b)=true

Since (k) is causally connected to (b) it would seem obvious that:
for all (k) there exists some (b)=false
Or put another way "We can't know (who we are), because the knowledge is based on (who we were)".
It seems we have a paradox.

The question here is "what (b)"? The challenge assertion seems to state that:

[(b) in (k )] != "I am"].
But that
[(b) in (k)] = "I was"]
My assertion is that "being cannot be abstracted by knowledge",or:

{(b) in (k) = (b) } Superposition
Or put another way, "knowing who I am includes my present being".

Since it is agreed (R5 A,2.) that we can be "nothing other than our present existence", we're left with the knowledge, or lack thereof, of "who we are". This is the moot point.

Can"who we are" be defined as ("who we were"+ the knowledge of "who we were")?
Does this lead us to knowledge if itself, (Zeno)?"

Ken Bell December 22 1999

Response 6 - Crucible:

A)1. If we can't define (k) as an "independent entity", how can we distinguish it from anything else? It would lead to the following:

(k)itself does not equal (k)
(k) has no independent basis.
(k)itself and (k) do not exist.

In order for (k) to exist, there has to be (k)itself.
(k) = (k)itself

A)2. We agree that there is an association between "I" and (b), but we believe it is a LIMITED association. (limited subset of (b))

"Who we are" and who we were" are ultimately the same thing if they come from the same basis, and even if they do not, we still face that they are really the same thing, with only temporal difference. (It's like a boy and then later, the man. The man is ultimately the same as the boy he was. They are from the same source or essence).

"{(b) in (k) =(b)}"
Again we face the dilemma of how we can know who we are and be who we are at the same time.
Moreover, if we can't really know (b), we have no way of proving (b) in (k) = (b). However, these points are unnecessary to refute the superposition argument:
((b)itself in (k)itself) CANNOT equal (b)itself. It must equal something other than (k)itself or (b)itself. ((b) in (k)) CANNOT equal (b). It must equal something other than (k) or (b).

Since we appear to be constantly changing, we can't define "who we are" as "who we were + the knowledge of who we were". We would always be a step behind. Also, if we can't know who we are, it follows that we would have no way of knowing "who we were" in the past.

Please clarify, "Zeno"?

Reply 7:

"Knowledge can be divided into two categories:

Direct knowledge (k)d, that is knowledge gained by direct experience.
Indirect knowledge (k)i, knowledge gained by reason.

Once gained these types become indistinguishable to all but the knower (if I tell you about an experience, my experience is not part of your direct knowledge), therefore direct knowledge exists only for "I".

Your attempt to resolve the above paradox by stating "The man is ultimately the same as the boy he was" would only work if the boy lived in a world of pure reason, a clockwork universe, as it were.

We know that things happen in our lives that are beyond reasonable prediction, hence hindsight.
In a previous rebuttal I stated "In this causal arena it may or may not be possible to demonstrate the expression of myself...". I now qualify that statement with:
for all "I" there exists (k)i+(k)d (self awareness)
for all (not)"I" there exists ["I"((k)d+(k)i)]=(not)"I"(k)i

The paradox in your proposition, discovered in my crucible can be resolved by the recognition of (k)i being derived from (k)d (Hume).
Since I cannot demonstrate the direct experience of myself ["I"((k)d+(k)i )] without degrading it to (not)"I"(k)i the paradox remains as a function of our communication, which is causally restricted. However, since your proposition (P) exists and since the possibility of (not)P, also exists, P has no self identity and is therefore false.

In regards to Zeno, I reiterate his age old paradox in terms of the knowledge of knowledge itself.

Ken Bell December 1999

Response 7:

In our view, knowledge can be divided into as many categories as one can imagine. For us, there is only one catagory of knowledge, "knowledge". (k), knowledge by reason). Why? We can't get outside of our minds. So as far as we know, all knowledge ultimately stems from reason. (We can't KNOW we have direct experience, without FIRST reasoning. In other words, we reason our so-called sensory experience. We can't know that we have sensory experience, and then reason it).

Knowledge is condition on our existence, and therefore the existence of other life-forms, because we ourselves would not be alive without them. Knowledge is NOT condition on sensory existence. Sensory experience is product of who we are and our reason.

Your DIRECT knowledge (k)d ignores that all knowledge must be reasoned first, whether through previous meanings or newly invented ones. ((k)d = imagination).

The man is the same as the boy he was in the sense that they are from and part of the same thing. (The same analogy can be applied to a seedling and then later the full grown tree. Even though the tree and seedling are obviously different on the surface, they are from and part of the same thing).

Please PROVE that (not) proposition (p) exists. If (p) does not exist, what exists in its place?

The self-identity of (p) is "who we are." (It is all inclusive in terms of self).

Your paradox about (p), in our opinion does not stand:
1. We can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time.
2. We can't get outside of who we are and know who we are because there would be nothing to know.
3. If knowledge is an illusion (Nietzsche), we can't know who we are, because we exist
more than an illusion. (Difference between thought themselves and who we are).
4. If we can't know who we are, it follows that we can't know "who we were".
"Who we are" and "who we were" are from and part of the same thing.
Conclusion:
The reason we can't know who we are is not because we can't know who we were.
It is deeper. Thoughts themselves are not who we are.

Reply 8:

1. Does my cat reason. He certainly seems to have knowledge. His behaviour has been modified over the years by his enviroment. He recognizes new situations as distinct from familar ones. He has learned how to catch mice and birds. Is all of his "knowledge" a function of cat reason? How about a mouse. What about the flea which knows to bite the mouse and not a piece of wood? Do you believe that these beings use the faculity of reason or, that their behaviour is based on something other than knowledge?

In your analogy, using the seed and the tree you state that "they are from and part of the same thing". To which "thing" are you referring?

2. (k) (Response 2, 1A) is (not) "inherently and casually disconnected" from (b).

(k)itself is independent of (b)itself=false(Response 2, 1A) if [ (k) itself is inherently and casually connected to (b) itself] then [ for all (k) there exists some (b)=true]

Since (k) is causally connected to (b) it would seem obvious that:
[for all (k) there exists some (b)=false], This restates your original Proposition. Within this paradox (not)P exists.

3. P=(we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time) self identity of P= [for all (P) there exists (P)]

4. Knowledge is not an illusion. Our sensory input, processed by our reason, coupled with matter produces new realities which are just as valid as those preceding.

In your statement "If we can't know who we are, it follows that we can't know "who we were".",you seem to be combining, present state and past state, with the existence of a "thing". Once again, please define this "thing".

Ken Bell December 1999

Response 8:

A)1. Sorry for any confusion. We look at (k)nowledge strictly in terms of reason and meaning.
To go outside of this is to create confusion over things that don't have meaning, in terms of reason, compared to things that do.

Of course, your cat can't reason. The knowledge you perceive it having is not from its reasoning. Therefore, we don't consider the cat to have knowledge; rather, we consider it to have instinct. Instinct itself appears to be inexpressible.

What meaning we attach to it is only from our perspective and of something that is beyond our perspective. (We think the confusion arises when people act from instinct they sometimes attach meaning to it, and thereby perceive instinct as a conscious, reasoned entity, when in fact, instinct itself appears to be outside of reason.

Further to the point, does a flea REALLY KNOW to bite a mouse and not a piece of wood, or could it be existing unconsciously from instinct?

Regarding the seedling and tree analogy, we believe that there is a basis behind all life-forms. (Life-forms are not ends). In our opinion, the closest conscious representation of it is "inexpressible".

A)2. (k)itself can't be inherently and casually connected to (b)itself without being (b)itself. So the (pr)oposition that [for all (k) there exists some (b)] = false.

We disagree that (no)p exists in (p). Please define not (p) without using (pr).

We have shown the limitation of Zeno's paradox when applied to (p). The main reasons are as follows:
1. We can't know "who we are" or "who we were" not because knowledge is based on the past, but because our thoughts themselves are empty of who we are. (Proof = (p)). 2. If we can't know who we are, it follows that we can't ever know who we were. We can't BEGIN our existence
in the past without having one first.

A)3&4b. Self-identity of (p) = [for all (p) there exists (i)nexpressible and (u)nknown].
(i) = the basis of who we are
(u) = the basis of thoughts themselves

A)4a. Knowledge is an "illusion" in the sense that when it itself is broken down it ends in an unknown, and it appears that we invent the rules and definitions (or meaning) behind knowledge.
In our opinion, the source of knowledge is from an "unconscious assertion" by us that conscious meaning exists.

Moreover, by labelling knowledge an illusion, we are not saying that it does not exist. Even illusion itself has existence, otherwise it would not even have a form of existence.

Reply 9:

"If you believe that all knowledge is based in reason, on what basis do you found your belief that reason is fundemental to knowledge?

What evidence do you have of "a basis behind all life-forms", that (Life-forms are not ends)?

Without casting judgement on the validity of any statements, the paradox revealed in my "Crucible" is based on your own conclusions and statements. Reiterating the statements won't make it go away.

Self identity of a proposition is defined as the property of a proposition in which, for all possible instances of said proposition, the proposition is self consistent and hence identical to any given instance.

If you believe that, R8,A)4a "the source of knowledge is from an "unconscious assertion" by us that conscious meaning exists." Then the statement has no objective basis and is inconsistent.

In this forum, I certainly don't expect to change your opinions or your beliefs. However I have shown that there is inconsistency within your belief system, using logic as a basis. I have successfully "Challenged the Philosophy". Since our beliefs are irrelevent in the challenge I request impartial third party arbitration."

Ken Bell December 26 1999

Response 9:

A)1. Can you have knowledge (ie. conscious meaning) without reason? What would be the
basis of your knowledge? How can it make any sense without reason?
reason = knowledge (conscious meaning)
knowledge = reason

A)2. Life-forms are not ends (ie wholes in themselves) because they are DEPENDENT on other life-forms and things to exist.
If there is no basis behind life-forms, it does not follow that they can exist. (ie. there is nothing behind them. We do accept the position that life-forms are strictly biological). Moreover, it does not follow how life-forms could be ends because it implies that they are not inherently connected to each other.
If there is no basis behind life-forms, how can they come into existence? Where does "whole" or "end" come from? What is behind it?
In short, common sense suggests that there must be a basis behind life-forms, otherwise they would not exist.

A)3. As we have shown your paradox does not go far enough because if we can't know who we are, it follows that we have no way of knowing who we were. So it is not that we can't know who we are because our knowledge is based on the past. Rather, it is because by not ever knowing who we are, we can't know who we were (present = starting place for knowledge.
Another problem with your paradox is that you are assuming that you know why we can't know who we are, without really knowing why).

A)4. Our view on the origin of knowledge is irrelevant to the challenge competition. Nevertheless, it can be shown that through the invention of knowledge and going back to our first thought that an "unconscious assertion" by us appears to be the basis of knowledge. (Please note that we define "conscious meaning" as meaning fabricated by ourselves. So there is no "inconsistency" between "unconscious assertion" and "conscious meaning".

We disagree with you that you have shown "inconsistency" in Garvey's philosophy. However, we suggest that you send a list of your perceived inconsistencies, and we will review them, and possibly get them reviewed by a third party.

Further Response:

There are some serious problems with your claim that you have "Challenged the Philosophy":

1. The "Challenge the Philosophy", as stated clearly in the Contest and Entry Form page, is about overcoming the challenge proposition without contradicting reason, and NOT about finding so-called inconsistencies in the challenge claim or Garvey's philosophy or "belief system".

2. Your definition of self-identity of a proposition as defined in Reply 9 has serious shortcomings. It assumes that a proposition with self-identity must be absolute, otherwise it could not be "identical to any given instance". (How can knowledge be absolute and we ourselves be so at the same time? If knowledge is absolute, how can we know anything?) Moreover, a proposition may be self-consistent, but ones view of it in any given instance may not be. For example, Reply 8)2. states that if "[ (k) itself is inherently and casually connected to (b) itself] then [ for all (k) there exists some (b)=true]". Is this proposition reasonable? We know it is not because if (k) itself and (b) itself were "inherently" connected, there would be nothing to distinguish them. (And even if there was some (b) in (k), it does not follow how we can know (b) and be (b) at the same time).

Finally, "self-identity" as defined within the competition is whether the challenge proposition can be overcome without contradicting reason. If it can be overcome it loses self-identity, and if it can't, it does not. However, your definition of "self-identity" is inconsistent with this, because your definition is condition "on any given instance", rather than being condition on the proposition itself in relation to reasonable instances.

3.Your assertion, the basis of your paradox, that we can only know in the past, (or "we can't know who we are, because the knowledge is based on (who we were)(R6.))" does not stand. For instance, we could foretell, or know, something in the future, and when it comes to the present, we know it. Also, from the past, we could know the present and future. (This does not apply to who we are, ie. challenge propo.).

4. "Who we were + knowledge of who we were" (notp)(Reply 6) cannot equal who we are because it will always be a step behind.
[who we were + knowledge of who we were = who we are] = false.

If we can't know who we are, it follows that we can't know who we were because there would never be an opportunity because we must begin with the present, which is a position of not knowing.

If who we are and who we were are inherently connected and we can't know who we are (inherently), it follows that we would have no way of knowing who we were.

Dispute 9 (1-5) Dispute 9 (10-12)