Ingvar Johansson wrote:
> Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb:
>> My point is that logic is a theory, and thus it is, in principle, as
>> good as any other theory, in that it may well be incorrect.
>
> I have once in this forum, in relation to statements like these, urged
> people to read Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word". Unhappily, Waclaw has not
> made it. So I guess I have to try to give a very condensed presentation
> of Nagel's central argument against complete skepticism. (01)
Unhappily (or not) I have joined this forum quite recently, and regret I
haven't picked up your argument from the archives. (02)
> Compare the two propositions (a) <1+1=2> and (b) <I doubt that <1+1=2>
> is true>, and assume that some of your actions (e.g., as a teacher in a
> primary school) depends on whether you act on (a) or (b). Which one
> should you choose? I would choose (a), since as Nagel says: "The thought
> itself dominates all thoughts about itself." When considered seriously,
> the thought <1+1=2> *dominates* the thought <I doubt that <1+1=2> is
> true>. Or, with another formulation: Action-relevant skepticism cannot
> be produced entirely *from the outside*. But this is the way Waclaw and
> many others produce it.
>
> Here is the structure of the argument a second time; now applied to an
> example that I think figured in this forum not too long ago.
>
> Compare the two propositions (a) <if I jump from the 60th floor I will
> die> and (b) <I doubt that <if I jump from the 60th floor I will die> is
> true>, and assume that one of your actions depends on whether you act on
> (a) or (b). Which one should you choose? I would choose (a), since as
> Nagel says: "The thought itself dominates all thoughts about itself."
> When considered seriously, the thought <if I jump from the 60th floor I
> will die> *dominates* the thought <I doubt that <if I jump from the 60th
> floor I will die> is true>. (03)
Fancy that: I compare <If I jump from the 60th floor I will land on my
feet and drink some beer> and <I doubt that <If I jump from the 60th
floor I will land on my feet and drink some beer> is true>, and,
following Nagel (according to you), I choose to jump (so I may never
post here again, good for you, we'll see). (04)
I do not know what Nagel really meant; for now, I have no other choice
than to trust you. But perhaps what 'the thought itself dominates all
thoughts about itself' means only that a thought about a thought can
only follow that thought it is about *in time*, which in itself does not
seem to propose or impose any serious criterion for choosing which
thought to follow. Or maybe it means that our minds are made so that in
critical situations when we need to make a quick decision, we follow
simpler ('dominating') thoughts because they are easier to process
without invoking complicated machinery of logical reflexive thinking. (05)
In the example you give, I could see your choice of (1) rather than (2)
as analogous to a simple reflex vs a reaction mediated by higher levels
of the central nervous system. And with this analogy, I could read
Nagel's words as a statement about how we are: we process (and react
according to) thoughts before higher-order thoughts about the former.
(Which is quite arguable.) (06)
In any case, I remain ignorant as to how your argument relates to my
(possibly naive) earlier statements. (07)
vQ (08)
>
> best wishes,
> Ingvar
>
> (09)
--
Wacek Kusnierczyk (010)
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway (011)
tel. 0047 73591875
fax 0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------ (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|