Reply to the response to Entry 245

"Firstly I just want to say I think I have won the challenge, not that I think I have definitely won but your arguments in my opinion don't show flaws in my logic.

The rock's output is determined by its input and makeup. Lets say the rock's makeup is big, the crushing boulder that inputs the rock receives a greater impacting output from the rock because it is bigger compared to a smaller rock. The shape of the rock, its makeup, determines how it is crushed, how it impacts on what it rests and how the shards will fly off. The rock receives the impact/input from the boulder and although the rock does not decide anything, it still has a response which is dependent on its makeup. If the rock was bigger than the boulder the boulder may not crush it. The rocks reaction/output is determined by the boulders input and the rock's makeup. If the makeup or input was different the output would be different. A response is not a choice, it is simply the culmination of input, makeup and the laws of physics and everything works this way.

We are simply computers, here are two examples.

We are essentially a machine with a program. I could write a program to output if a number is greater than 7. Whether the output is true or false is _entirely_ dependent upon the input and makeup/program, the computer has no control, it doesn't decide how to respond. Just as how we react is entirely dependent upon what input we receive and our makeup. If I was asked questions with sound that manipulates my ear which manipulates my program which results in an output, there is no choice in it.

Although we have the illusion of existance or consciousness we are simply machines with programs.

My ear drum vibrates due to sound waves emitted by a person. Different hairs in my scalp are stimulated which according to the laws of physics stimulate nerve cells which transmit an electrical signal. That signal travels through nerve cells into the brain. That signal stimulates(hits) multiple nerve cells which hit more nerve cells. These signals fly through the brain until they end up stimulating nerve cells that stimulate mouth muscles to say ‘hello’. What we do just like a computer or a rock is dependent on our input and makeup. We are very complex machines which clouds the issue but we are manipulated and respond accordingly just like all matter.

The idea that we simply respond and have no free will is the theory of determinism.

"For you respond that we are biologically programmed, you would face the problem of showing what is behind our biological programme that allows us to exist" (Excerpt from Response)

I don't because ‘we’ don't exist. We have the illusion of existance which is created by our program, we have the illusion of a transition of thought which is created by constantly accessing our short term memory but we are in no way different from a rock. Everything is matter responding to the laws of physics, some matter is configured into machines and programs but nothing can ever be anything but what it is, we are our programs and our programs are simply matter just like a rock or a computer.

"1.1 If there is "no 'we' only matter", what is behind matter in terms of our existence that allows matter to respond to input, while in terms of the existence of a rock, matter receives input without a response?" (Excerpt from Response)

There is a response from a rock, it is just not a complicated one. When a rock or our makeup receive input they both respond according to the input. If someone says hello to me I will say hello back, if someone smiles at me I will smile back. If a rock is hit its makeup will modify and it will give off input to other things, if the rock is hit harder it will react harder. How we, a rock or a computer respond is entirely dependent on our input and makeup. If the program I described earlier had a 5 entered it would respond false if the number was a 10 it would respond true, how it responds is dependent on its program and the input it receives and the laws of physics governing these reactions. We are a lot more complex and process information very differently from a computer but we are a machine with a program none the less.

"1.2 If the basis for the universe is matter, what is the basis for the interaction of matter in terms of inputs and outputs?" (Excerpt from Response)

The laws of physics. Everything reacts according to the laws of physics. When a rock receives input its makeup is manipulated according to the laws of physics which results in the output. Even if random events occur we are still not conscious and still do not have free will. Either our reactions are a result of the laws of physics or random laws, in no case do we choose how to react.

"2. If we are complex machines with no identities except for illusory identities, what can the data we store and react to mean, since the meaning of the data is centered around illusory, non-existent identities?" (Excerpt from Response)

It doesn't ‘mean’ anything. ‘Meaning’ something is another ‘I’ word. It doesn't matter if a rock is in a thousand shards or whole. We receive data which manipulates us in a extremely complex way, we have the illusion that we respond to that data. To say a person is saddened by data received, that the data has meaning, is not really true. The data simply manipulates us and a mechanism of our programs is to create meaning as a means to achieve our survival. In reality there is no we and our makeup simply responds giving us the illusion of making a choice. Just like a rock or a computer we cannot effect our future. We are simply matter following on a set path acting according to the laws of physics. Everything is just matter configurations and the matter configurations don't mean anything, the world could explode and it is just a rearrangement of matter.

"3. If ‘we’ do not exist, then your ‘only matter’ position is based on something that does not exist, and therefore it exists as an illusion." (Excerpt from Response)

It is based on my program, not ‘me’, my program exists and its processes are coming to conclusion that we are no different from a rock or a computer. My program has used extensive analysis running through potentially contrary arguments and it can see no flaws in the original conclusion. It is true that ‘I’ don't have any conclusion because there is no ‘I’. My data storage has referenced this conclusion as true with the logic backing it up, it exists in reality and is based on real things.

It is true that in reality no matter configuration can be classed a conclusion just as no matter configuration can be classed a tree. However the matter configuration in my data storage can be interpreted by my program which can run processes on them and reference the data as true or false according to how the processes analyzed them. From my programs inputs/perspective and my makeup's analysis of the output has been made that the statement ‘we are only matter’ is referenced as true.

Just on a final note it is true that I cannot prove my argument, I can only show it to be probable, however nothing at all can be truly proven."

Alistair Burrowes July 17 2001

Response:

It appears that your challenge comes down to not the illusion of "we" as conscious label, which we are in agreement with, but the non-existence of "we" or "I" as non-label, unconscious entity. If you are correct, you would prove, within reason, the first statement of the proposition, "we cannot know who we are", because there would be no who we are to know, while refute the second statement, "be who we are", because there would be no who we are to be. However, there are still aspects of your "only matter" position that need to be addressed in order to evaluate your position:

1. By stating that there is "only matter", are you implying that there is no identity at any level equated with matter? In other words, does the matter that comprises a human being contain any level of identity, which distinguishes it from the matter in another human being? (If you respond yes, then you face the problem that there is a "we" in the form of matter; and if you respond no, you face the problem that you have no logical way to distinguish matter, so that there is nothing you could know.)

1.1 Your "only matter" position is contingent on the identity of things like rocks, computers, and human beings through their makeup, and yet you claim that there is no individual identity. (i.e. how can you theorize using identities, and yet conclude from the theory that there are no real identities? It appears contradictory to use identities, or "makeup", in the proof to disprove identities--your proof is contingent on the use of identities, and yet the proof concludes that there are no identities.)

2. Your position so far has no explanation for how matter interacts. You simply assume that there is matter, and the interaction of matter. ("input, makeup, output") However, what causes matter to interact? Where do inputs come from? What is the basis for inputs? What causes inputs to be an input? Do inputs simply exist from nothing, or is there a basis or life-force behind them?

3. You claim that everything reacts to the laws of physics, and yet how do you reconcile that the laws of physics, according to your position, are a result of inputs and makeup including programming, and centered on an illusory identity of ourselves?

Also, you imply that the laws of physics are outside of our programming as though they are a basis for our programming, and yet the laws of physics are a product of our programming. In other words, it does not make sense that the laws are both outside of our programming, thereby a defining element of our programming, while at the same time a product of our programming.)

3.1 You appear to be assuming that data is received directly from the external world, and yet our sensory implies an indirect relation with the external world. Or as you say, the sound waves emitted by an individual "stimulate" the nerve cells, of another individual, which then transmit electrical signals, thereby the nerve cells respond or react to the sound by transmitting an interpretation of the sound rather than the actual sound. Hence, it appears that data is created at this point of sensory interaction between nerve cells and external inputs like sounds, which is further evidence that the laws of physics, or any other system of knowledge, does not exist in reality.

4. How can your conclusion that "we are no different from a rock or computer" exist in reality or is based on real things, when your conclusion is centered on an illusory identity of yourself? In other words, how can your conclusion be less illusory than the illusion of identity it is contingent on for meaning?

247. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 246

"1. By stating that there is "only matter", are you implying that there is no identity at any level equated with matter? In other words, does the matter that comprises a human being contain any level of identity, which distinguishes it from the matter in another human being?" (Excerpt from Response)

Yes, there is no identity at any level, simply stuff.

"If you respond yes, then you face the problem that there is a "we" in the form of matter; and if you respond no, you face the problem that you have no logical way to distinguish matter, so that there is nothing you could know." (Excerpt from Response)

Hmm, my mind is reeling. By saying that there is only matter bumping around there is no longer anyway a program, person, computer or rock that can make any points or be right. This is an infinite paradox I believe. The reason the proposition statement cannot be overcome is because to overcome it a person needs to show that nothing can be overcome. By showing that matter cannot be categorized there is no such thing as our perspective to make any claims. All we have are subjective statements and in reality there are no statements and only a real statement can mean anything, which cannot exist. The paradox always exists no matter how many levels of explanation are used and cannot be explained using subjective statements.

Unless the previous paragraph shows why the proposition cannot be overcome I will have to think this all over before I make another submission.

Further clarification of the "only matter" position:

In reality there is no such thing as a rock or a computer. They are words that a subjective perspective creates to term similar things. In reality there is only matter which sometimes gets clomped together, there are no identities.

Matter interacts according to the laws that govern that matter. In reality there are no such things as input, makeup and output, that is categorizing matter. I use them because the concept is directly transferable to a computer. In reality there is only matter reacting according to the laws of physics.

Our programs evolved in accordance with physical laws to increase our chances of reproducing.

We receive no data, matter just bumps into matter. There is no external world because this would mean matter is categorized. Data is not created, matter just interacts with matter according to physical laws which may result in a neuron firing.

Alistair Burrowes July 18 2001

Response:

By claiming that indistinguishable matter is all there is, you are also claiming that what we know, which is based on relational constructs, does not exist, and therefore there is no way to overcome the proposition because in terms of consciousness, there is nothing to overcome, and nothing to overcome with. The contradiction in your position is that you are claiming that consciousness does not exist, and yet you are using consciousness as though it does exist to refute the existence of consciousness. However, the problem with your position without considering its contradiction, is that the position is contingent on perceiving the statement, "there is only [indistinguishable] matter bumping around" as an absolute, and then it would follow that there is no possibility to overcome the proposition. (i.e. there is nothing to overcome because the proposition does not exist.) Yet, since your statement is subject to self-referencing and the non-existence of consciousness, we see no reason to perceive it as an absolute, which means there is a possibility to overcome the proposition. For example, it is possible that your "only matter" position is incorrect, and therefore from our perspective consciousness may exist including the proposition and the possibility of overcoming it.

One potential solution to your problem is to show that indistinguishable matter is a necessity of reason. (i.e. in order to make sense of our existence, there has to be indistinguishable matter.) Though we would still be left with your contradiction of using consciousness as though as it does exist to refute the existence of consciousness. (i.e. you cannot use consciousness to refute the existence of consciousness without contradicting yourself, because then your refutation does not exist as well, and something that does not exist cannot logically be used to show the non-existence of something else without contradiction; and if your refutation does exist, as you appear to be implying, then you have also contradicted yourself.)

248. Entry:

"The assertion that "we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time" is false. Consider the following proofs (dynamic & static):

1) The Dynamic (non-trivial) Consideration

If I can state that I currently exist then I must assess the manner & value of my existence.

The manner of my (or anyone's) existence may be characterized by parameters such as age, height, emotional state, orientation with respect to surrounding environment, etc., etc.

These differing manners of existence attach a certain value to them. The value can be numerical but certainly need not be; I may fully understand the value of having a brother or sister, but I certainly don't walk about life attaching a numerical value to such value. But for the sake of this proof, let's keep this consideration of "value" to be numerical. So a value of zero would entail a non-existent value; i.e. I do not have any brothers or sisters. A non-zero value would entail either a positive or negative value of existence; i.e. I have one or some finite value of brothers and sisters OR that I've lost some finite value of siblings.

Let us now call this newly established numerical scale determining the value "x". Let us also call the assessed "manner of existence" a consideration "y".

x & y are related mathematically by the following: x = n * tan (y)
That is "x" equals "n" times the tangent of "y".
This equation holds under the auspices of Metaphysics.

At this point, I'd encourage the reader stop reading this proof and to use the tools of graphing paper or a computer to *visualize* what this relationship looks like. Consider what the different points entail. The range of "n" may be any fixed value from negative infinity to positive infinity. That is n = (-inf, +inf).

You will notice "y" has limiting values and is subsequently bounded. I'm not concerned with the exact values of the bounds for the purpose of this proof, but I will simply define these bounds as "The Upper Bound" and "The Lower Bound".

We will consider the upper bound to be taking on "infinitely many manners" (or forms) of existence. We will also consider the lower bound to be a state of non- existence.
Note: As the equation x = n * tan (y) depicts, neither bound may ever be attained for any value of existence "x".

So, now, the opening logic statement said:
If I can state that I currently exist then I must assess the manner & value of my existence.

Let us define our "current state of existence" at the origin of the graphical relation. So we are explicitly acknowledging that our existence is taking on some manner, namely "y", and therefore some value, namely "x".

Note: "x" or the value of existence being negative is valid because we parameterized our "current state of existence" to be the origin. So negative infinity and positive infinity of "x" are unattainable, just as the upper and lower bounds of "y". Parameterizing "y" at the origin (zero) also holds true. Again, I encourage you (the reader) to re-parameterize all you want, in order to consider the implications of defining our "current existence" at the origin.

Also for the sake of simplicity, let us consider the range of "n" from zero to positive infinity. That is "n" = [0, +inf). I invite you to go back later and make assessments on the negative range of "n" values.

---
So let us consider that we are standing in a cubic room with four white walls, a white floor, and a white ceiling. Nothing else (and no one else) is in this cubic room.

Immediately I can assess my manners of existence: 1) I have legs
2) I have arms
3) I have a torso
4) I have a head
5) I am subject to gravity (hence my standing)
6) I am in a certain emotional state
7) I am moving my arms
etc. until I reach some finite value*.

*Note: The resolution at which I assess my manners of existence may indeed be re-parameterized. Namely:
1) I have 10 toes
2) I have 5 toes attached to their respective feet
3) I have two ankles
etc. etc. until I reach some finite value *far greater than* what I had reached above when I simply considered my "arms" and "legs".

So I could go on and on enumerating my manners of existence, but at a fixed resolution, I will hit always a finite value. This numerical value can be our defined value "x" which we will re-parameterize to the origin (zero). The summation of my assessed "manners of existence" (y) can be re-parameterized at "zero" to conform to the graph.

So we now have x = zero (re-parameterized from the enumerated value determined above, and y = zero (also re-parameterized from it's assessed value). So we are sitting at the origin graphically.

The dynamic consideration of this proof says this:

If I assessed my movement within this room to be one manner of my existence in what had been my "current assessment", and my head was moving at some speed during that "current assessment", then by virtue of my stopping ALL movement (external physical movement that is), I will have decreased my manner of existence and subsequently decreased the summed value of my existence. So my later position on the graph would show that I have decreased in my value of existence "x" and decreased in my assessed manner of existence "y".

This will place me at *known* negative x & y values.
Proof:
If I then simply exist under those known conditions, then I *know* both who I am and exist as who I am at the same time.

This thereby proves the assertion that "we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time" is false in a dynamic (non-trivial) manner.

In contrast to the negative "x" and "y" position, I could leave the cubic room and walk into the middle of a tropical storm. Not only would I have physical movement, but I would have to resist the movement due to the storm. So this gives us a contrasted view. The summation of manners of existence, such as me resisting wind and a down-pour of rain, does not change the fact that I will assess a *known* finite point of existence on the graph for any given time. This assessment will always be in contrast to the "current assessment" we had originally made.

It is this necessity for constant contrast with respect to an original "current assessment of existence" that makes this proof a dynamic (non-trivial) consideration. So let us now consider the other side; the trivial side.

2) The Static (trivial) Consideration

If my value "x" of existence amounted to the mere fact that I existed, independent of my body in the middle of the cubic room and not subject to gravity, Then I would (again) know who I am and exist as who I am for lack of knowing anything else; for a constant * lack* of having anything with which I may compare and contrast my "current manner of existence".

This again proves the assertion that "we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time" is false in a static (trivial) manner.

The dynamic case shows that differing values can always be assessed (can always be re-parameterized from some "current assessment") and the static case shows us that existence amounted to mere acknowledgment of existence (and nothing else) is a case where we both know who we are AND existing as who we. The static case becomes dynamic once given a means of assessing contrasted manners of existence."

Donald Changeau July 20 2001

Response:

Your proof of a "Dynamic Consideration" is contingent on the assumption that you can state with certainty that you currently exist, and by doing so, you can know the manner(s) of how you exist, which then allows you to put values on them, creating levels for the summed value of your existence. However, it is unclear whether or not you can state with certainty that you currently exist. If we consider that knowledge is created at the point of sensory reception, so that sensory information is only an indirect representation of external stimulus, it then follows that we can only state we currently exist, including the manners we attach to our existence, in an indirect, limited sense.

Regarding your "Static Consideration", whereby you exist independent of your body in an empty cubic room, (thereby know who you are from a lack of knowing anything else), it does not follow how you could exist in a cubic room independent of your body, which means that the conclusion you draw from the example, is not applicable to our perceived existence. (i.e. our existence in which we are dependent on our body.) More important, in terms of the competition, it does not follow how you could know who you are from the lack of knowing anything else, because you apparently would not be able to know without your body, and even if you were part of your body in the cubic room, you would face that your sensory reception, in terms of sensory information, is in an indirect relation with external stimulus. Also, lack of knowing anything else does not necessarily equate with knowing who we are, and if anything, it equates with not knowing anything at all, because knowing is contingent on comparison.

249. Entry:

"Granted that we are who we are, the proposition is reducible to "We cannot know who we are". This entails that we know that we cannot know who we are. It would also entail an infinite regress of propositions about knowing that we know that we know that we know, ad infinitum...who we are. This is the problem with "knowing" in any internalist sense of the notion. It also seems to be the notion of 'knowing' that you're using. Then, what's really in question is if we can know anything at all since there lacks any grounds of justification (viz., all grounds of justification are subject to justification by infinite regress, which doesn't qualify as epistemically justificatory in any sense, including internalism). Moreover, as explicated by Benaceraf, there lacks a connection between epistemic justification and the grounds for that justification...i.e. there lacks a connection between knowing that you're justified for believing p and the grounds for knowing that.

What it comes down to, given your internalist account of epistemic justification, is that we cannot know anything, including the fact that we know that we cannot know anything, which is contradictory - and the reason for the demise of skeptics who asserted that "I do not know anything", or "We do not/cannot know anything".

This seems to be incredibly problematic for your challenge if it is to make any sense at all (which it doesn't)."

Michael De July 21 2001

Response:

The proposition, "we cannot know who we are", does not necessarily lead to infinite regress. It depends on the perceiver of the proposition. If the perceiver perceives, "we cannot know who we are" as an absolute statement, then it will lead to infinite regress, and self-referencing, as you have described. However, if the perceiver perceives, "we cannot know who we are", as a non-absolute statement, then it will lead to self-referencing, as apparently any statement does, and not infinite regress. Therefore, the problem of infinite regress with knowing in any internalistic sense does not necessarily hold.

Also, we are confused by your distinction between internalism and externalism, in which you appear to imply that the latter is not subject to infinite regress and can be epistemological justified. Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, so that all we know is what we know, how can there be a distinction, in terms of knowing, between internalism and externalism? Could it not be that all conscious knowing is internal?! What is the qualified epistemological justification(s) for externalism if we accept the notion?

You are correct that if we perceive the statement, "we cannot truly know anything", as an absolute, then we would be contradicting ourselves. However, we perceive the statement as a non-absolute or a more reasonable statement than antagonistic statements within the apparent limits of what we know, and by doing so, we avoid the demise of so-called skeptics.

Entries 239-245,  Entries 250-252