In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> 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 computers can be programmed to claim "I am", the truth of an "I am" claim is not an absolute. There need not be any person who is" making the claim".
> as it asserts the existence of whoever or whatever made > the claim. The existence of the claim proves that it is true. > Objectively.
Existence of the claim only establishes the existence of the claim, not its truth. One also needs to establish the nature of that which appears to be making that claim. If a mechanism without "consciousness" produces "I am" is it really making a claim, and if so what claim is it making?
If one is communicating with what may be either a person or a computer, or even just a recording, is the message "I am" necessarily "an absolute objective truth"?