1
   

Non-Contradiction

 
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 02:21 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

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.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 02:30 pm
joefromchicago
Quote:
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.


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".

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

Quote:
Why?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 02:42 pm
Relative wrote:

Quote:
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'.
JLNobody and fresco. Have a look at fresco's thread, Philosophy of Self,Â…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.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Mar, 2004 02:43 pm
truth
Sorry Joe, but I must say: "Oooh Tywvel, that's profound. It's not only true, it's important."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 05:21 pm
fresco wrote:
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. >>

Thanks for the information, fresco: my reading has yet to take me to the Vienna Circle. Right now I'm reading some Thomas Aquinas.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 05:38 pm
twyvel wrote:
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.

Twyvel, if all you want to do is talk about cats, then go ahead. If you want to talk about the validity of non-contradiction, however, your empirical objections are inconsequential.

twyvel wrote:

If the definitions of "good" and "bad" in this statement are deficient, then all that is necessary is to refine the definitions. You seem to think, on the other hand, that if the definitions are deficient, the logic is flawed. That, I contend, is itself a logically flawed argument.

twyvel wrote:

This is merely a restatement of the "arrow paradox." If duration is an illusion, then everything is an illusion, including you and your empirical observations regarding cats, twyvel. Consequently, you cannot disprove the law of non-contradiction since you cannot disprove anything.

twyvel wrote:

Having renounced the reality of all evidence, you are, once again, left with nothing but your beliefs.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 05:47 pm
twyvel wrote:
Yes I do know, as do fresco and JLNobody on this thread.

Well, given what I've seen, I'm quite prepared to say that they know as much as you do, twyvel.

twyvel wrote:
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".

As a general rule, I do not claim to know what others know. I can, however, know what others know based upon what they tell me they know. And you, twyvel, have admitted that you have no basis for knowing anything.

twyvel wrote:

Hogwash.

twyvel wrote:

No, you say and act both "as if" and "as it is." Face it, twyvel, you want to have it both ways: you want to hold on to facts while simultaneously dismissing them all as illusions. Undoubtedly, you cling to empirical truths because, without them, you have nothing but faith -- a thoroughly understandable and perfectly acceptable position that, for some strange reason, you find impossible to take.

twyvel wrote:

How do you know that?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 05:49 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Sorry Joe, but I must say: "Oooh Tywvel, that's profound. It's not only true, it's important."

Oooooh, JLN, you are easily impressed.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 06:51 pm
truth
So it shouldn't be so hard for you to impress me. Try again. Laughing

Just kidding. You have impressed me, and depressed me.

If you have not been impressed by Twyvel and Fresco, you are in trouble my friend.
0 Replies
 
Randall Patrick
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 07:40 pm
Re: Non-Contradiction
joefromchicago:

<<<A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."<<<


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.

This is applicable to all other moral and political and aesthetic conflagrations that plague us, in turn.

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.

RP
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Mar, 2004 08:53 pm
truth
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.
0 Replies
 
Relative
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 05:01 am
Quote:


Relative wrote:

Quote:

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


It is an interesting self-observation, or meditative understanding. We can, through the use of consciousness, become conscious of the philosophy of 'no-self'. I believe this is a consequence of self-referential aspects of cousciousness. Looking at the reflective self is like standing between two parallel mirrors, and seeing the infinite pattern of mirrors inside mirrors, with infinite series of 'self bodies' in them.
The no-self would be like standing between parralel mirrors, and seeing only the mirrors, with nothing 'no-body' between them.

I think the unobservability of counciousness may be just an illusion we have because we cannot believe the self-referentiality of conscousness, which is not necessarily a paradox, nor an infinite series. I will not claim I know this at this point though.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 09:36 am
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
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.

Are you then saying that it is trivially true?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 09:38 am
Re: Non-Contradiction
Randall Patrick wrote:
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.

No, it's not both. It is merely a point-of-view problem, as I earlier discussed with Metaethics.

Randall Patrick wrote:
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.

That is an interesting question. I encourage you to start a thread on it.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 11:38 am
truth
Yes, Joe. Some truths are inconsequential (or trivial).
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.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 12:38 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
Yes, Joe. Some truths are inconsequential (or trivial).

I quite agree. But, in ascribing "truth" to the law of non-contradiction, it seems that you have parted ways with your non-dualist colleagues. Certainly, twyvel has not conceded that non-contradiction is "true" in any sense, while fresco (as far as I can ascertain), has dispensed with the objective notion of "truth" entirely. This leads me to wonder, JLN, about your previous statement:

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

Perhaps the question isn't whether twyvel or fresco have impressed me, but whether you have impressed them.

JLNobody wrote:
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.

You'll get no argument from me on this point.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 01:59 pm
truth
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. I believe that Twyvel and Fresco are referring to the latter, not the former. I understand Fresco and Twyvel to be arguing that statements about "objective" propositions about the world cannot be true when they ignore the epistemological role of the observer's interaction with "objects" of experience. To treat the world as passively perceived by inactive (neutral, passive) observers, is to ignore the reality of our constructive activities in truth seeking. We actively construct models and interpretations of experience. As sucn, "truth" is a consequence of that interaction between interpreters and their experiences. There is no room here for passive objectivity, only actively thinking researchers and an essentially passive and maleable world.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 03:29 pm
JLN

Exactly - "validity" not "truth" ....the latter being a function of "perception" which is active.

It is a fundamentally significant philosophical step to accept that "truth" in ordinary parlance is not objective but a function of the "purposes" of the observation, even though such purposes may be implicit.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Mar, 2004 03:54 pm
NB A secondary issue arises regarding the nature of the "truth" of my previous statement. To claim such leans either towards Russells Paradox or towards "mystical" concepts of "ultimate truth".
This bifurcation can perhaps be resolved by usage of the terms such as "coherence" instead of "truth" whose semantic import implies linkage to "understanding", and already encompasses within in it the term "validity".
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2004 01:03 am
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
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.

So then you'd concede that the law of non-contradiction is valid, correct?
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 5
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 07:47:49