On Sep 28, 12:58 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Sep 28, 9:12 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Is that supposed to give evidence that there is something you can be > > certain about and that cannot be mistaken? > > The problem ewe have is that by your own mind dependent idiotic > Kantian primacy of consciousness standard you would not and ewe could > not recognize a certainty if it hit ewe on the fucking nose, now that > is a certainty. > > MG
It has nothing to do with Kant. You made deductive claims that something is certain and cannot be mistaken. When challenged you did not claim that it was not certain but only highly likely. Then I claimed that if something is certain then the truth of other ideas and propositions is impossible, else your propositions would not be certain but only probable. I claimed that we have not found a way to make it impossible to argue that we are dreaming instead of being awake, and if we think we are awake and are awake, then it is merely a lucky guess. But with inductive logic and testable theories we can make it more reasonable to believe we are awake or dreaming by manipulating the situation with research methodology or basic hypothetical science. You cannot win this debate, quietly back out instead of digging your hole of untruths deeper.