joefromchicago wrote:
Quote: 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.
You are the one who brought poinsettias and cats into this discussion, not I.
You bring empirically based statements into the discussion and then object when others attempt to counter those statements with empirical observations. Go figure,
Unless we are restricting this talk to mathematics, which we are not, then objections are going to be empirically based just like your opening post is empirically based.
You wrote:
I believe that the "wave-particle debate" is a debate precisely because the notion that light is both wave and not-wave (and particle and not-particle) goes against the law of non-contradiction. As I mentioned before, when we find something that appears to contravene the rule, we either doubt the empirical finding or we doubt the rule. I believe that, at present, physicists are still grappling with that question.
You are putting forward here an empirical objection to the law of non-contradiction. You are your own contradiction
joefromchicago.
Quote: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.
Quote: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.
It's not a question of the logic being flawed. The issue is simply that your Opening post;
A thing cannot simultaneously be both "A" and "not-A."
or the Law of non-contradiction, is not an absolute.
Quote: 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.
Quote: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.
That duration is an illusion is not the main point here. The main point is, if the duration needed for X to effect Y is an unknown then we cannot say what takes place in that unknown duration, i.e. X could effect Y in more then one way.
Quote: 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.
Quote:Having renounced the reality of all evidence, you are, once again, left with nothing but your beliefs.
Quote: We say and act ?'as if'.
Quote: 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.
If duration is an illusion and we, as illusory characters act ?'as if' it is not an illusion, then everything appears to be not an illusion. And in that pseudo non-illusion everything is possible ?'relative' to that illusion. Get it yet?
If we don't know the truth of this existence, which the vast majority of us don't, we act ?'as if', we pretend events and ?'things' are real; have autonomous existence, even though we
do not know.
Unless one knows the truth they are pretending to some extend.
This existence certainly works one way and not the other, though stating ?'empirical truths' as truths when the whole enchilada may be a dream, is to build your house on the untenable. And the term ?'relative truth' is oxymoronic.
And in as much as someone takes this existence as being non-illusory, they are taken on and holding a belief system, subject?-object material dualism is a belief system.
Quote: And as regards contradictions, for someone to claim that they can observe the awareness that they are is a contradiction.
Quote:Why?
Quote: Because it contradicts the subject?-object relation.
(subjects being, awareness, observing, consciousness etc., object being, anything observable)
Quote:How do you know that?
It's blatantly obvious to some of us that awareness cannot be observed, cannot be objectified, cannot be made an object to itself. When one goes looking for the observer they end up in an infinite regress,.... or a never ending..........
If subjectivity (awareness) could be objectified it would cease being subjectivity. Why you don't get that simple observation I don't know, but it's probably due to (intellectual and other wise) taking your ?'self to be an object, or a collection of objects.
The law of non-contradiction doesn't hold in regards to the nature of ?'self' (ego-body-pseudo-self) being both object and subject simultaneously; both presence, as objectification (illusory), as ego-body, and absence; as awareness; awareness is not present as an object, yet it is obviously present as non-objectification, subjectivity, consciousness etc.
