Yea, that is the only way to defeat Decartes, right? "I think, therfore I am" because I is used before proof of "I".
Yea, it seems that this is the level that we say "we're looking into a mirror here - find a way around instead" - or - do the best we can
Bill Roh
I am Not
Eric Boyd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Eric Boyd:
>
> <<
> try Godel's paper on Incompleteness.
> >>
>
> Sorry, I forgot the link:
>
> http://www.ddc.net/ygg/etext/godel/
>
> <<
> On a meta note, I have said before that Godel's proof itself only
> proves that logical systems cannot refer to (or totally explain)
> themselves -- It is the logic equivalent of a man saying "I always
> lie"
> >>
>
> That's not quite right, actually. Godel's proof, on further thought,
> is more like a man saying "*I* cannot consistently assert the truth of
> this statement". If the man does assert it, the statement is false,
> and he lied. Therefore he cannot consistently assert the truth of the
> statement, and *therefore* the statement is true. Therefore there
> exists a truth that the man cannot assert, and therefore his group of
> truths has a "hole". As I said, it is a trivial hole, but a hole
> non-the-less.
>
> So, my conclusion is that logical systems are no worse off than our
> own human abilities, and this is certainly not a good reason to jump
> off the logic band wagon...
>
> ERiC