Virgil wrote: > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > email@example.com wrote: > > > Virgil wrote: > > > > > > > > Any "absolute truth" that is totally independent of any assumptions. > > > > > > At least he has never shown us any. > > > > > > Let me do the dirty deed and show you one: > > http://unwantedinsights.blogspot.com/2006/05/absolute-certainty.html > > > > Nothing whatsoever has to be assumed to state "I am". > > This is called "self-awareness". You should try it some day. > > That is the most subjective of truths, and as such is not an absolute.
It is an absolute objective truth. The claim "I am" could not exist if it weren't true as it asserts the existence of whoever or whatever made the claim. The existence of the claim proves that it is true. Objectively.
Your attempt at trying to naysay about this statement proves conclusively (to YOU) that the claim exists.
Anything you say in response to the claim "I am" proves that you acknowledge the exitence of this claim. And thus its objective truth, as it could not exist if it weren't true.
> One can only assume, not absolutely know, that anyone else
1) Nobody has said a word about "anybody else". The phrase "I am" asserts the existence of the entity that formulated this very assertion. Which makes it true.
2) It is quite easy to know with absolute certainty whether some other entity is self-aware. However this requires self-awareness on the part on the one who wants to know. It is approximately step ten on a journey on which you haven't taken step one yet.
Step one is *becoming self-aware*. Your comments up there constitute your failure to pass a very simple Turing test.