Non-Contradiction

twyvel wrote:

Re: generalization

Like most or all objects (things), poinsettias and cats are a composite of many elements. Some of what makes up a poinsettia, such as vitamins, might be good for the cats liver etc. and yet other elements may be bad for other organs or parts of the cats body, or the cats psychological well being, etc.

It is like saying, "This >group of hundreds of objects/elements< (the poinsettias) cannot simultaneously be both bad and good for this >group of hundreds of objects/elements< (the cat) Which is false for there is bound to be some objects/substances/elements of the poinsettias that are good and some that are bad (at one and the same time) for the many things/events that constitute a cat. We don't know.

These are merely empirical objections.

twyvel wrote:

Secondly, there are hundreds of varieties of pointsettias and hundreds of varieties of cats, both domestic and wild, of which, depending of the variety some may possess some elements that others do not.

There is also gender and age considerations as well. Point is, the more general your generlization is the less it says.You have to be more specific.

As are these.

twyvel wrote:

And the question may become an issue of 'purity', i.e. is there any such thing?..etc.

And so is that.

Dualistically speaking, You/I are simultaneously both objectification as body/ego and non-objectification as awareness.

Quote:

How do you know that?

Quote:

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

Quote:

No you don't.

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.

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

Quote:

Why?

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'.

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. >>

Well when you use examples based on empirical observations (poinsettias, cats) you get empirical objections. If you can say something about poinsettias and in your syllogism so can I in rebuff.

If we reduce it to: X cannot be simultaneously good and bad for Y.

We still have the words ?'good' and ?'bad' as subjective terms, in which the evaluation is empirically based, i.e. wherever ?'good' is ?'bad' is, and wherever good-and-bad are a subject is.

If we restate again as, X cannot effect Y negatively and positively in the same ?'now', moment.

Since ?'now' has no duration there is no ?'time' for X to effect Y. And if all that exists is ?'now' then duration is an illusion.

In the illusion of ?'duration' the statement, X cannot effect Y negatively and positively in the same ?'now', moment.

….is trivial for we are no longer talking about a ?'now' moment.

And restated to, X cannot effect Y negatively and positively in duration.

….is false.

Yes I do know, as do fresco and JLNobody on this thread.

But you are welcome to believe that you know what others know or do not know even when most of us recognized your guesses for what they are, "guesses".

Yes it may be all illusory but most (if not all) like you/I pretend other wise, though most don't even know they are pretending. When you are in an illusion and don't know it as an illusion, it is an illusion within an illusion, meaning you haven't even got the illusion correct. Once the illusion is seen for what it is it doesn't change into anything real, rather the ?'real' or ?'truth' is recognizing the illusion for what it is,….as it continues.

We say and act ?'as if'.

Because it contradicts the subject?-object relation.

(subjects being, awareness, observing, consciousness etc., object being, anything observable)

Sorry Joe, but I must say: "Oooh Tywvel, that's profound. It's not only true, it's important."

Relative wrote:

Quote:

I am very much interested in researching consciousness/awareness. How did you come to the conclusion we cannot observe awareness/consciousness? ...

The others on this thread who have ?'acquired' that recognition are JLNobody and fresco. Have a look at fresco's thread, Philosophy of Self,…and others.
It is one of the main tenets of Buddhism, Advaita, i.e. nondualism, and many philosophers, mystics, sages and others have pointed this out.

Is a particularly membrane permeable? Depends on the size of what is trying to permeate it. Now one can say that the same permeator cannot both permeate and not permeate the same membrane--assuming the condition of membrane stays the same. But, then, this is not a source of new knowledge. It can't or it can. If you say it can't, you ARE saying it is incorrect to say it can. If you say it can, you ARE saying that it is incorrect to say it cannot. This kind of logic is profoundly trivial.

Actually, when you consider the overwhelming preponderence of human interactions most things can be both A and non A.

For example: is the death penality ethical or unethical?

Now, ask X if capital punishment is moral or immoral and she can give you many compelling arguments that it is, indeed, Moral.

Ask Y, however, and he can come up with equally compelling arguments that seem to indicate that capital punishment is, in fact, Immoral.

So, which is it? Both, of course----depending on which side you are on.

In other words, the far more interesting question, in my opinion, is not the nature of logic respecting, say, facts about the physical world around us....but the futility of applying logic at all to that which is most important in human interactions: how OUGHT I to think and feel and behave around others? No one knows because no one can know. Not sans God.

Yes, Joe. Some truths are inconsequential (or trivial).

If you have not been impressed by Twyvel and Fresco, you are in trouble my friend.

By the way, I'd like discussion on this observation: it seems to me that logic tells us nothing about the world; empirical observation does that. Logic tells us about our thinking. It helps us to avoid, among other errors, non-sequiturs and contradictions. Contradiction, literally means (speaking against). Making a statement that cancels (speaks against) itself or a corollary statement is not ever what we want to do. THAT'S why we want to be logical, not because we want to replicate the structure of the world by means of rationality.

Joe, regarding Fresco and Tywevel, I really mean to say that your question refers to the validity, not the truth (I misspoke) of the law of non-contradiction. To me "validity" has to do with the technical "correctness" of a premise-conclusion logical process; "truth" has to do with the empirical realism of a statement about reality.