"The question to the "proposition"--that we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time--to be overcome, is a metaphysical statement. Most students of philosophy soon learn that no philosopher and/or metaphysical statements can ever be "really" overcome and/ or refuted. Answer, we philosophy thinking people, finally, just stop discussing a system and switch or change to another metaphysical system of statements to discuss. I can write any number of systems (via: Hume, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc.) in a metaphysical "jargon" which states "truths," which by the concepts of the system, itself, cannot be overcome and/or refuted.

Now, to my reasons (by reason "itself") for my answer...

About 5,000 years ago, give or take, when a man and/or a woman first looked at themselves in a clear pool of water, before they could read or write--the question to "who" am I was answered. This "who" am I or "who" we are discovery evolved into pantheism, and finally, Buddhism. A recent discovery of a man, preserved in ice in Alaska and estimated to be ~5,000 years old, by carbon 14 dating, advances this train of thought. He had: leather clothes, hat, pouch (a fish in it), walking stick, and a spear. He, finally, looked, I guess, one day into a clear pool of water, and saw an "image" of himself. He knew immediately "who" he was and, simultaneously in his own reason, existed as he was (be "who" we are, "idea" Here)--and, later transcended to empiricism (to be or to exist is to be perceived: Locke, Berkeley, Hume). He perceived himself by himself via the pool of water. The pool of water is the (empirical answer) to the question in the "proposition."

The pool of water, here, is part of the Reality of the Universe of Existence (Reality Itself), which gives credence to the man knowing "who" he was and being "who" he was at the same time. He was able to make clothes, get a fish, etc. He knew "who" he was and could be "who" he was at the same time; otherwise, he could not have survived in the physical world. How could he have "known," if he did not know simultaneously "who" he was and be "who" he was?

In a similar situation, of parallel "content," a college student was frantically asking people if he existed or not? A college professor, sensing his serious dilemma, finally, asked the student, "Who wants to know?" Well, after the student pondered the professor's question over and again, he saw that you have to "exist" to ask yourself the question, if you "exist?" Likewise, then, empiricism, to be is to be perceived, overcomes the "proposition" because it exists in your reason, in the same manner, as when a person asks the question "Do I exist?" Yes I exist; also, "Does my empiricism exist?" Yes, it exists! If I am using it, it has to exist! Yes, you can know "WHO" you are, and be "WHO" you are at the same time. In contrast to the discipline of Physics, where two physical objects can not exist together in the same space or place at the same time-- in metaphysics, you can know "WHO" you are and be "WHO" you are at the same time.

In conclusion, at the beginning of the dialogue, I said that the "proposition"--that you can not know "who" you are and be "who" you are at the same time--cannot be overcome, is a true statement. However, upon reflection of what I have written, I submit that my metaphysical "proposition" has overcome and/or refuted another metaphysical "proposition." Although unusual to achieve, if you compare and contrast my "proposition" against the other: I feel that my "proposition" has overcome and/or refuted the "antagonist" proposition."

John B. Larson May 13 2000

Response:

We agree that the challenge proposition is a metaphysical statement. Though due to the uncertainty, or certainty, of knowledge, any statement can be considered metaphysical. Moreover, in terms of the competition, the challenge proposition is an empirical statement, because we are asking how anyone could know who they are while being who they are. In other words, we are asking for a reasonable explanation for how anyone could know who they are.

We disagree that "it is possible to write any number of systems in a metaphysical ‘jargon’ which states ‘truths’, which by the concepts of the system, itself, can be overcome and/or refuted". In our view, it is an unusual case in which a proposition, and its terms, can maintain its soundness and consistency against all conceivable antagonistic propositions and/or claims. If you have a number of systems from Kant, Hume, Hegel, and Schopenhauer, which you think cannot be refuted, we welcome an opportunity to refute them, thereby prove our point.

In terms of your challenge, the statement "to be is to be perceived" does not explain how we can know who we are. Rather, you assume that by the mere fact that we exist that we can perceive ourselves through intellect. In other words, you are assuming that we can, for instance, look into a clear pool of water or mirror, and "immediately" know who we are. How? You argue:

Premise (1): you yourself exist.

Premise (2): your empiricism exists.

Conclusion (a): you can know who you are.

We agree with Premise (1). However, regarding Premise (2), it does not follow that you can know who you are through the mere existence of empiricism. More important, we argue that your empiricism has limited existence, and therefore you cannot know who you are through it:

Premise (a): you cannot get outside of your mind and know that you are.

Premise (b): you cannot know something (ie. thought) solely through itself.

Conclusion (1): thoughts themselves (or empiricism) is an empty form.

Conclusion (2): you create the empty form of thoughts (or empiricism).

Premise (c): you cannot create who you are through who you are.

Premise (d): you need intrinsic separation from what you know in order to know.

Conclusion (3): the empty form of thoughts is intrinsically different from who you are.

Conclusion (4): the empty form of thoughts (or empiricism) has limited existence, as an illusion, you create, in your mind.

Conclusion (5): you cannot know who you are.

So in terms of your challenge, it does not follow that empiricism is inherently the same as who you are, and that looking into a clear pool of water does not explain how you could know who you are without intrinsic separation from who you are, nor does it explain where your empiricism, or knowledge, comes from or even what its form is. Does a deer when it drinks from a clear pool of water and look down at it, know who it is?!

Further, it does not follow why the prehistoric man you described needs to know who he is in order to survive in the physical world. Surely, he could survive, like the natural world, through his instincts. Also, it does not make sense why he needs to really know who he is to makes clothes or catch fish. Certainly, a bird which builds a nest out of twigs, mud, and saliva does not need to really know who it is to build the nest?!

Finally, if you are so sure, you can know who you are (ie. fundamental level of being), who are you?

52. Entry:

"The proposition as you phrased it is a tautology, for knowledge through reason implies some kind of model or description, which is never equivalent to the object of study. There is always a simplification. Rational knowledge also requires a viewpoint, which again is not all encompassing. Your proposition as I understand it states that we cannot know exactly who we are. If we know who we are, it is but a construct of our mind, a model which at best approximates the real thing. Since we hold this model in our consciousness, we become the model, thus abandoning the real self.

My response to this proposition is that if you confine the concept of knowledge to rational, logical, conceptual processes, then you are right and there is no refutation. Reason is inherently limited. There are, however, other means of knowing, that go beyond language and reason. This ground, I think, has been covered before by the Taoists, Zen, Castaneda, Qabbala, Yoga, and so on."

Viktor Simkovic May 17 2000

Response:

If we cannot know something for certain, including not knowing something for certain, it follows that knowledge through reason may or may not be all encompassing. We cannot say for certain either way, or even that we cannot say for certain either way.

How can we get beyond language and reason, and know anything? Surely, as soon as we are beyond or outside of our minds, we are beyond or outside of knowing?! You may respond that instinct, for instance, is a form of knowing, though how could it be when it occurs unconsciously so that we can only perceive it from a position of knowing through intellect? In our view, as soon as we get beyond our minds, it appears that we also give up all forms of knowing from our perspective. In other words, we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are.

You may respond further that when a beetle, for example, uses its antenna to locate the outer edge of a spider’s web, the beetle knows not to go any further. Though how can the beetle know anything when as far as we know it does not think? From our perspective, the beetle responds unconsciously to its antenna, according to its evolved make-up and instincts. In other words, the beetle appears to be pre-programmed genetically and instinctually to deal with certain situations like confronting a spider’s web.

53. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 52.

"There is a way of knowing something without reasoning it out, or putting it into words, yet being consciously aware of it. Furthermore, this kind of knowledge can be acted upon with repeatable results. Everyone has had an experience akin to this.

You claim that knowledge of a perception can come only through the intellect, through a process of analysis. I claim it is possible to have conscious awareness of a perception without conceptualizing. Here we run into trouble, because explaining it requires the use of language, yet it is beyond language. It is a subjective phenomenon. Language requires the reductionist approach, a hierarchical structure of symbols with specific rules of combining them. Can consciousness be divided into building blocks, each of which is conscious? No, it is somehow unitary, indivisible. There are ways of knowing just like that, and there are specific practices of attaining such knowledge, unlike instinct, which is beyond our control."

Viktor Simkovic May 18 2000

Response:

If "conscious awareness of a perception without conceptualizing it" is beyond language and reason, how can we know we are consciously aware of a perception without conceptualizing it? We cannot, without using language and reason, which takes us away from the notion of describing something apparently beyond our minds. For example, you claim to know something beyond our minds, and yet you use your mind, or language and reason, in the form of the phrase "conscious awareness of a perception without conceptualizing it" to label it. It appears that what you are describing is not a subjective phenomenon; rather, it appears to be an illusory phenomenon.

The axiom, "we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are", shows that we cannot know what is outside of our minds, and as soon as we think we do, we do not.

How can consciousness be "unitary and indivisible", and you know that it is?

How can you know anything without reason?

54. Entry:

"I think both statements sound contradictory but they are not.

1)We are assuming a proposition as it is a fact.

2)Let's be aware that this statement * we can't know who we are and be who we are * it is a statement imposed to our minds,

3)Supposing it's true we really don't know who we are and yet we are capable to be who we are is quite reasonable, I'll say yes, it is quite compatible because:

a)we don't need to know who we are in order to be ourselves and being consciousness of who we are.

b)In our process of thoughts (or reason) we have to make a distinction between high intellectual functions such as thinking, deducting, making abstractions, intuition, and others, and the highest and quite unique intellectual function called consciousness; which could be defined as the sum of all the other intellectual functions mentioned plus the knowledge of good and bad, the knowledge of the fact we are going to die and mainly (for the purposes of the proposition in question) the knowledge of our individuality. Therefore, we are born with that highest intellectual function called consciousness. However it's not manifested until the earliest 4 or 5 years old (in average).

c)We are born with the knowledge of our individuality, and we grow and act according to that knowledge and the learning process of our environment.

d)We are capable of being who we are according to the above statement.

e)In order to be who we are we don't need to know who we are.

f)In other words in order to live our individuality we don't need to know who we are. Now assuming the fact I'm proposing is true, I have to say my opinion concerning this tragedy(to me): We are destroying ourselves because we ignore (supposedly) who we are. Because of this, we believe our acting is quite reasonable (up to certain point). We are not aware of the possibility we are born with a defective system of thinking (or reasoning). We assume what we are doing (in the human species) is right. And we mistaken concepts such as the statements of the challenge proposition, which finally (according to me) are quite compatible. The tragedy is mainly because our defective system of thinking is quite different for each individual. Example: concerning this statement in question (Let's imagine the whole process of thinking!!!!). And finally here we have another distinctive intellectual function called consciousness, which is to me perfect (according to our human limitations). Now we have the total view of the disaster of humankind. The contradiction of our imperfect reasoning and our consciousness and as a result our own self-destruction. What hope do we have, shall I ask to myself?

Not much as long we are not aware of this fact to start with.

Then we shall advance to next step: How to harmonize both: reason and consciousness, for both becoming almost perfect (to our human material and psychological needs)? It's up to everyone, because in the meanwhile, during the human trajectory on an illusional space and time, I only may say: Ignorance is a blessing for now. And knowledge will be a blessing from now, in order for humankind to survive!!!"

Julieta Petroni May 19 2000

Response:

How can we overcome the contradiction that we use reason, and knowledge, to exist, and yet our use of reason is apparently harming us?

Why would we harmonize reason and consciousness, if our use of reason, and knowledge, is the source of our problems?

How can we harmonize something empty of who we are (ie. reason and knowledge) with who we are?

It appears that if reason and knowledge is empty of who we are, or life, and that we are increasingly harming ourselves, and most other life-forms, by existing through reason, we will have to stop using reason, and knowledge, as a means to exist, or simply be who we are, from and through who we are.

We agree with your view of the human species’ tragedy stemming from most people not agreeing on what they actually know about our "defective system of thinking", because this almost universal disagreement implies that we have no way out of system of thinking, assuming that most of us need to act together to change our system.

55. Entry:

"We can't know" would entail a discussion of what exactly self-knowledge entails. In the discussion of terms, you refer to "knowing" as a proposition. Does self-knowledge merely entail the proving or refuting of a particular proposition? If "knowing" refers only to the kind of knowing involved in analytical philosophy--that is the kind of knowing involved in the proving of propositions, then it seems like your statement is irrefutable, for this reason: to "know" in the sense of proving a proposition, would necessarily entail a bit of reductionism--the reducing of being into a proposition. At that moment we cannot "be who we are", because the analysis given has driven from us some basic parts of our being that cannot be totally subsumed under an analytical schema. Now this does not mean that what we know ANALYTICALLY is empty of who we are, because while we cannot reduce ourselves to our analytical knowledge of ourselves, we can know a PART of ourselves through this seeming filter. Now, by turning our attention to this limited understanding of human nature, we can create what you describe above...and it seems that we have.

On the other hand, "knowing" who we are, it seems, entails "being who we are". Your definition above, including propositions, logical conclusions, etc. is perhaps necessary to "knowing" who we are...but it doesn't seem that it is "sufficient". Knowledge of ourselves as ourselves necessarily implies some sort of praxis, of being- in-the world if you want to use a Heideggerean term. If you take into consideration this understanding, you could indeed rephrase your proposition to say "we cannot fully know who we are without being who we are at the same time."

Roger Whitson June 1 2000

Response:

Since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, how can "self-knowledge" entail anything else than proving and refuting a proposition, claim, thought ect.?! In other words, how can we have conscious knowledge without reason? It appears that all knowledge, from our perspective, must entail a form of reasoning, no matter how limited. We cannot have knowledge without reason, just as we cannot have reason without knowledge.

In terms of the competition, "knowing" refers to "limited knowing", thereby proving within the limits of reason whether the challenge proposition can be refuted or not. For an explanation of limited knowing see limited knowing.

How do we know part of ourselves through the filter of our analytical reasoning? What part of ourselves do we know?

We agree that "knowing" who we are would entail "being" who we are, because without being who we are, we would not exist, thereby not know.

Yes, knowledge of ourselves as ourselves entails "some sort of praxis, of being-in-the world". Yet limited knowledge of ourselves entails the same thing. It begs the question of whether we exist through a praxis of being-in-the world from knowledge of ourselves or limited knowledge of ourselves.

In our view, your rephrased proposition, "we cannot fully know who we are without being who we are at the same time", leads to the question, can we know who we are while being who we are? Also, your proposition itself appears to not say anything, because we assume that in order for us to know anything, we must be who we are (ie. we cannot know anything from a position of non-existence or some other existence than ourselves).

56. Entry:

"The proposition cannot be overcome; it is simply a version of the "Liar's Paradox" that can be derived from Godel's Theorem. Any logical system of propositions (containing Peano's axioms for counting) cannot prove itself:

- both consistent and complete
- consistent without proving itself inconsistent.

Peano's fifth axiom appears as the meta-state "who we are" when one attempts to create a closed set (perhaps labeled "consciousness"?) that contains "I-ness".

Frankly, this is a problem that needs to acknowledged by any materialists since, if consciousness is purely a physical phenomenon (like chemical reactions in the brain's structure interacting with the rest of the body's input) then it is truly a set of propositions (or algorithms for the ai folks) and must therefore be subject to Godel's Theorem. However, it appears that we consistently "think outside the box" (could it not be said we are consistently hypocritical?) which would lead one to conclude our "reason" does not all correspond to the pure physical state of a body."

Yuri Kuzyk June 2 2000

Response:

We agree that "any logical system cannot prove itself" or be proved by any other logical system, because of the circularity of reason, thereby the uncertainty, or certainty, of any proof. However, in our view, a logical system can be proved, within the limits of reason, through its self-consistency and completion, and in relation to antagonistic logical systems.

Regarding Peano’s fifth axiom, or the notion of "closed set", the philosophy competition is not about knowing who we are, but showing how we could reasonably know who we are.

Yes, if consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon, which interacts with the body’s sensory input, then it appears consciousness is a set of propositions. Though, we assert that consciousness does not interact with the body’s sensory input; rather, we ourselves attach conscious labels to our sensory perception, so that there is application to our sensory instead of interaction with it. We make this claim because we, the human species appear to be the creators of knowledge, and that our unconscious sensory does not create information nor transfer information from outside of it. Our unconscious sensory appears to send uncoded signals, which we and unconscious life-forms respond to instinctually from our evolutionary development and genetic make-up. It follows that consciousness is something outside of the natural sensory process. Hence, it appears that we consistently and always "think outside of the box"; and therefore, we appear to be consistently and always hypocritical to our natural existence (ie. unconscious, instinctual unfolding). Further, this conclusion on consciousness leads to our claim that reason, and knowledge, does not correspond to the pure physical state of the body. They appear to be empty forms, devoid of who we are.

Entries 47-50 Entries 57-62