1
   

Non-Contradiction

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:07 pm
fresco wrote:
Seems to me that the concepts of "thing" and "truth" are tautologically linked. i.e. The "truth" of statement "the thing X has property A" implies continuity of X long enough for A to "be observed". But as JLN has pointed out, both "thingness" and "observation" are transitory processes, and "truth" is no more related to "reality" than a snapshot is to the flux of existence.

Then you can't say anything about anything, including "change" and "existence."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:09 pm
Relative wrote:
jonny : this is just another disguise of a liar paradox.
(i) states x has no properties
(iii) states x has a property (of being an object)

This is a contradiction in definitions, nothing more.

That's correct.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:11 pm
fresco wrote:
In the flux of existence ambiguities (like contradictions) scarcely arise.

How do you know that?
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:11 pm
Re: If proposition and intention are mutually irreducible...
Consequently, with that kind of objective morality, we can justifiably say that a thing cannot simultaneously be both good and not-good. In other words, if I deem my action "good" and someone else deems it "bad," the difference can be explained by the fact that one of us is wrong, not that both of us have different perspectives.[/quote]

I understood your original question to be of genetics. I guess that I did misunderstand! Absolutely, I do not believe there is such a thing as all good or all bad. It is a matter of person perception of beliefs.

We will probably never see the flaws of the perceived good. We obviously see the flaws of those on death row as bad. They are not all bad, as we would like to think. I strongly feel that there is good and bad in every one of us. We would like to believe we are all good, but that is not true at all. We just don't see our own flaws of bad and never bother to correct this problem. You see it every day with law abiding citizens. This is not a new concept at all.

As far as perception as to living or dead, would someone please shoot me! I don't necessarily wish to live, but do, no matter. Reality is definitely a matter of perception by an individual. We all live in a different for of reality. My reality just happens to suck to date. I still live, breathe, and have a pulse. I guess that makes me real. Others seem to think that I am. Otherwise they would fear me, but they don't. I would be a presence outside the norm of reality.

I do know about neuron stimulus. A group of people don't but it when a singular individual claim to exist. A group of people are not fooled by past lives, since it is normally the case that our neurological system is intact. You may fool one, but you can't fool them all. I also do not believe in any afterlife. Dead means just that
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 09:18 pm
twyvel wrote:
joefromchicago
Quote:
Dualistically speaking, You/I are simultaneously both objectification as body/ego and non-objectification as awareness.

Quote:
How do you know that?


I know it though intuition, observation, reason, contemplation etc.

No you don't.

twyvel wrote:
note: by 'objectification' I don't mean to suggest the existence of autonomous objects but only what appears to be such. As JLNobody and fresco have said, observation is a process, an action in which a supposed observer and a supposed observed are actually in continuous flux.

See, twyvel, it works like this: if you only accept "what appear to be autonomous objects" while denying their actual autonomy, then any knowledge you may have is, as far as you can ascertain, purely illusory. You can't even say that "a supposed observer and a supposed observed are actually in continuous flux," since you have no basis for asserting the reality of observer, observed, flux, or continuity.

twyvel wrote:
And as regards contradictions, for someone to claim that they can observe the awareness that they are is a contradiction.

Why?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2004 11:40 pm
truth
Joe, granted that x cannot contain the properties A and not A at the same time. That is tautologically valid, but when we try to test for the applicability of this principle in reality, you object that we are giving "merely empirical objections." What is the utility of logic for you?
0 Replies
 
SCoates
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:03 am
Good question JLN. I myself love to use logic to come to useless results. But I must admit that it is only for the sake logic, when in fact logic should be for the sake of something else...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:32 am
joefromchicago wrote:
fresco wrote:
In the flux of existence ambiguities (like contradictions) scarcely arise.

How do you know that?


......because in the flux/process in which we actually perceive

T/-\E C/-\T as THE CAT

the "abiguity" does not even consciously arise ! Or to go even further "ambiguity" cannot exist without "focus" and this focus is observer/purpose dependent. (In a completely secular society "blasphemy" would have no "reality")

Like "contradiction", the word "ambiguity" becomes a synthetic semantic exercise (or a "legal exercise" in a courtroom where alternative contexts are negotiated within which to interpret a focal issue) . This indeed says something about "reality" which is transcendent of the sterilty at attempts at "definition without context". Such attempts are what I mean when I talk about the limits of bivalent logic or those of semantics based entirely thereon.
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 06:08 am
twyvel :
Quote:
Who we are as awareness is unknown because it cannot be made an object of observation without ceasing to be what it(?) is, and there is nothing for it to be known by, i.e. objects don't know anything.


Quote:
And as regards contradictions, for someone to claim that they can observe the awareness that they are is a contradiction.



I am very much interested in researching consciousness/awareness. How did you come to the conclusion we cannot observe awareness/consciousness? This seems very profound - if that were so, awareness would be 'divine'.


fresco:
Quote:
T/-\E C/-\T as THE CAT

the "abiguity" does not even consciously arise ! Or to go even further "ambiguity" cannot exist without "focus" and this focus is observer/purpose dependent.


I agree. For me, there is no ambiguity in the stated. The only ambiguity for me is whether CAT represents the domestic animal, or the medical apparatus for scanning tissue. Ambiguities in natural language make it (almost) unsuitable for formal logic. You have to be very careful and follow rules of procedure (like in court), and use only allowed types of argument (no 'ad vitum nullum' etc. Wink ) and use strict agreed upon sources of word definitions etc.


JLNobody:
Quote:
Joe, granted that x cannot contain the properties A and not A at the same time. That is tautologically valid, but when we try to test for the applicability of this principle in reality, you object that we are giving "merely empirical objections." What is the utility of logic for you?


I cannot say for Joe, (probably utility of logic for him is his everyday bread and butter), but for me utility of logic is my everyday bread and butter. That is unless I make an ambiguity, state A & not A, express myself unclearly etc.
The falseness of A & not A is actually not tautological, it is a consequence of rules of procedure of logic, AND consistency of the system of axioms (or in other words, the subject being under analysis).
The only way A & not A can arise using rules of logic is if it is already built-in in axioms, assumptions or definitions. This is relatively elementary stuff and is indeed at the heart of utility of logic.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 09:28 am
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Joe, granted that x cannot contain the properties A and not A at the same time. That is tautologically valid, but when we try to test for the applicability of this principle in reality, you object that we are giving "merely empirical objections."

That's because empirical objections can always be accomodated by a logical proposition simply through the adjustment of the definitions. If, as twyvel suggested, our definition of "cat" is not sufficiently comprehensive, we can simply broaden the definition. Gaps in our inductive knowledge, therefore, do not equal gaps in a deductive sequence. The limits on our ability to know facts do not constrain our ability to construct logical propositions. In short, empirical objections are largely inconsequential when talking about deduction.

JLNobody wrote:
What is the utility of logic for you?

It permits me to apprehend the illogic around me.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 09:32 am
fresco wrote:
......because in the flux/process in which we actually perceive

T/-\E C/-\T as THE CAT

the "abiguity" does not even consciously arise ! Or to go even further "ambiguity" cannot exist without "focus" and this focus is observer/purpose dependent. (In a completely secular society "blasphemy" would have no "reality")

How do you know that?

fresco wrote:
Like "contradiction", the word "ambiguity" becomes a synthetic semantic exercise (or a "legal exercise" in a courtroom where alternative contexts are negotiated within which to interpret a focal issue) . This indeed says something about "reality" which is transcendent of the sterilty at attempts at "definition without context". Such attempts are what I mean when I talk about the limits of bivalent logic or those of semantics based entirely thereon.

Oh, that's what you meant.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:47 pm
truth
Gentlemen, I gave an answer of sorts, but accidently posted it in a new thread, called "TRUTH", actually the "subject" term used for the answer. I've done this before but have no idea how it happened. If someone could transfer it to this thread, I would be very grateful.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 12:50 pm
This is JLNobody's post....



Oh what a tangled web we weave. We call these discussions "threads" (of thought). Sometimes they are best referred to as (tangled) "webs." But no matter, they are fun and good exercise for my aging brain.
Joe you answered my question on the use value of logic with something like, "It permits me to see the illogicality around me." I understand. It takes intelligence to recognize stupidity. The most poignant scene in the movie, "Monster," was when the heroine tried to impress prospective employers with obviously naive remarks, thinking they were taken as sophisticated. It was SO sad.
Our discussion seems to boil down to a debate betweem the value of formal abstract logic and the Pragmatists' logic of Instrumentalism. If logic is not a tool to be USED for purposes of problem solving, in the "real world" then it amounts to no more than a game for mathematically talented individuals. That's why it seems to me that your disdain of "merely empirical objections" is misguided. Logic is a tool for dealing with problems we confront in the empirical world. A purely formal logic is valueless (to me) if it does not serve to solve problems. If I want to develop a sense of the nature of (my) Reality, I would rather meditate on the nature of my experience as such. If we argue that that is too subjective a path to "real" knowledge, I must remind us that the axioms upon which logic (and all thinking) rest are inherently subjective. They feel true or self-evident, but that's only so, as far as we know, for human minds (and, of course, such minds are conditioned by historical and cultural exigencies). If we argue that axioms are not solipsitically "true", not totally subjective, because they are SHARED by other minds, I'll concede to the extent of calling them "inter-subjective. "But to my mind that is STILL subjective, albeit, perhaps the subjectivity of a species (or cultural sub-species?).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 02:52 pm
truth
Thank you Twyvel. You are a good friend.
Now let me make some other comments for what they're worth. As I see it this thread has been about formal logic, or should I say deductive logic? In deductive logic the correct conclusion is completely implied in the premise. That's what I meant by the tautological truth of Joe's original question. As I stated above, logic must be useful or it is useless. How's that for a tautology? I prefer inductive logic, even though the conclusion in that form is only a statement of probabilities. Here, as I understand it, the conclusion is only PARTLY implied in the premise. It is open to the world and must therefore be ratified by observation. The old rationalists used to try to prove the existence of God by means of deductive logic. This required, I assume, a careful selection of premises which would guarantee the proof. Socrates, if I remember correctly, used to question his students with regard always to his premise, which they accepted with the term, "indubitably." Once they accepted the premise he could guide them, by his "socratic method" to an inevitable acceptance of the conclusion he pre-planned. A most oppressive method, a method that made no room for observation, only compliance with rules. I prefer the more 'un-ruly" method of inductive logic, partly because of its greater utility in dealing with real problems in the real world, and partly because it made room for observations, i.e., the scientific method.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 04:14 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Our discussion seems to boil down to a debate betweem the value of formal abstract logic and the Pragmatists' logic of Instrumentalism. If logic is not a tool to be USED for purposes of problem solving, in the "real world" then it amounts to no more than a game for mathematically talented individuals. That's why it seems to me that your disdain of "merely empirical objections" is misguided.

Hold on there, JLN, I never expressed any disdain for empirical observations. I merely noted that empirically based objections to logical propositions were inconsequential. I happen to be a pretty big fan of induction, but just in its proper place.

JLNobody wrote:
I prefer the more 'un-ruly" method of inductive logic, partly because of its greater utility in dealing with real problems in the real world, and partly because it made room for observations, i.e., the scientific method.

I have no idea what "inductive logic" is, but I can assure you that the scientific method is firmly rooted in deductive logic.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 06:03 pm
Give it a pause before posting! Think about what Joe is saying. He is right! We cannot be so arrogant to belive in something we do not know as truth without serously considering alternatie ideas. Take a deep breath and think about what was stated before forming a complete guess!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Mar, 2004 06:37 pm
truth
Wildflower, why such enthusiasm? We're only having fun. Be like the grandmother who caught her grandchildren having sex. She said, "That's nice; don't fight."
Joe, as I recall "inductive logic" was formulated by Hans Reichenbach with some connection to the mathematical theory of probability. In contrast to deductive logic, as I have said, where the conclusion, if it follows the premise is NECESSARILY true, in inductive logic a correct inference is only PROBABLY true. Or course, scientists deduce hypotheses from extant "laws", but the statistical work of most investigations are inductive in nature, as I understand it.
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 01:52 am
Sorry! I didn't realize that I was being over enthusiastic!! I thought that this was a good topic and just happen to agree with some points made is all. Can I have some fun too!! lol!
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 12:04 pm
Joe wrote..

<<I have no idea what "inductive logic" is, but I can assure you that the scientific method is firmly rooted in deductive logic>>


For your info...

<<The philosopher Carl Hempel (1905-1997) proposed what is called the "deductive-nomological" model of explanation in 1948. An explanation is similar in form to a deductively valid argument. The premises must contain a scientific law, and the conclusion is a description of the event that is being explained. Hempel also believed that this form was the same for a scientific prediction. Philosophers of science after Hempel have criticized his model for a number of reasons. In 1962 Hempel described a second form of scientific explanation called the "inductive-statistical" model. In this model the premises provide some probability for the event being explained. The premises must contain a statistical law. >>
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 01:25 pm
truth
Thanks, Fresco. I probably had Hempel in mind, unconsciously. It's been more than thirty years since I was required to read his defense of functionalism in a seminar. This "statistical law" you refer to, did he refer to it as a "covering law"
Sorry folks. I should have asked this in a "pm."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-Contradiction
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 08:33:53