User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 15 of 15

  1. #11
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Thanks for this! As INFP it's a conundrum I've danced with for a long time. And you are all doing better than I could to put it into language.

    It's surprising to me how many seek definitive answers to things which seem too complicated to me to answer simply "yes" or "no".
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  2. #12
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    If the laws of thought weren't ontological, then how would we know what parts of reality did or didn't conform to the laws of thought?
    What if we don't know that because we *can't* know that, because it's contrary to our way of knowing?
    Anything follows a contradiction. In the presence of a contradiciton, true and false lose their distinction, all becomes worse than false, and knowledge becomes impossible. But it is clearly true that something exists; therefore, it is necessary that there are no extant contradictions.
    You're just citing the standards of reasoning as justification for your position. Can't you even see what you're doing? You've built up these ideas and and you're just insisting on interpreting everything according to them as long as there is a perspective from which you can do so. Which, ironically, is exactly what I was suggesting that people did when they applied reason to reality.

  3. #13
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    Anything follows a contradiction. In the presence of a contradiciton, true and false lose their distinction, all becomes worse than false, and knowledge becomes impossible.
    To be frank, I forget why that is naught but a statement of Excluded Middle, but it is. Or at least, the Law of Non-Contradiction and that of Excluded Middle tend to go hand in hand.

    Moving right along, consider this:

    1. for any p, either p or not-p.
    2. so for any q, if q is true then either p or not-p

    Step 2 is interesting. The "if..then" statement is counter-intuitive, but automatic given Excluded Middle. Intuitively, for a conditional statement to be true, there should be some connection between the antecedent and the consequent, but Excluded Middle guarantees us (p or not-p) for any p, so that implication isn't ever going to crap out.

    So how about we strengthen implication to rule out counter-intuitive cases? That's to say, how about we monkey around with the semantics of "if...then" to reflect what we actually do when we use reasoning. You can guess what's going to happen, right?

    It so happens that if you start to monkey around with the semantic definition of "if...then" to reflect our need for there to be some connection between the "if" part and the "then" part... wait for it... one often ends up denying Excluded Middle.

    Because Excluded Middle always does weaken the truth conditions for any conditional statement!

    Anyhoo... what I mean to say is, there's lots of differing semantics available for implication, and they reflect differing requirements on the logics in question.

    One aspect of the whole kit and kaboodle is the gnarly question, what are the real semantics we really use when we say "if this is true, then that is true too"?

    And that's when we might want to start taking a close look at paradoxes.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I do not have the intellect, at my age, to debate anything here, and in general, to put it simply, I think that us humans assume things, we think we know stuff, and we don't have any proof of anything. Think about it, how do we know that any of our presumptions are correct? Nothing, in theory, is testable. People will argue with this, because it is my uneducated/unintellectual veiw.
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  5. #15
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Why do you insist that reality either does or doesn't violate the laws of thought? Couldn't it be that we can only perceive the aspects of reality that don't violate the laws of thought (because we use thought to describe our reality), and thus reality can never appear to violate those laws?
    In short, if reality violated the laws of thought, of reason, then either (1) so to do your thoughts about that reality, or (2) your thoughts cannot be veridical.

    If (1), then your thinking is irrational. This is another way of saying it is incorrect, and that you need to revise the premise.

    If (2), then your thought which was supposed to be about an irrational world is not in fact about it at all. Your own thought has slipped off the subject it was conceived of exactly to grasp, exactly because it cannot be grasped. The consequence is that your thought has no meaning because it can't have meaning except for what YOU have given it. But the meaning you have given it does not match the state of the world because it cannot match the state of the world. This is another way of saying you are incorrect, and that you need to revise the premise.

    But if you don't care for the short version, I have another you might enjoy ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    If the laws of thought weren't ontological, then how would we know what parts of reality did or didn't conform to the laws of thought?

    Anything follows a contradiction. In the presence of a contradiciton, true and false lose their distinction, all becomes worse than false, and knowledge becomes impossible. But it is clearly true that something exists; therefore, it is necessary that there are no extant contradictions.

    I'm committed to reason.
    High five!

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    But a little thought shows that all of these example truly fall short of violating the Law of Noncontradiction.

    The problem here is the selection of words used, not a matter of logic.

    The logically consistent picture will show that the word usage that we created is self-contradictory, and what we have created in reality is a violation of The Excluded Middle--an expected outcome of the use of clumsy concepts.
    I wonder if we can suggest that violations of the excluded middle are always the result of a category mistake, and not actual violations of the principle itself. I suppose that would require us to be able to communicate effectively while making such mistakes though. For example, even if there is no specific property "hot" which water must either be or not be (which we would conclude then cannot apply to water), we can at least communicate with it meaningfully.

    Then again, perhaps all properties are like this. I wonder. What do you think? Even the seemingly exact locations of things have implicit probabilities. Maybe things can't just simply HAVE or NOT HAVE properties ... then every (finite) thing would violate the excluded middle. ??
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

Similar Threads

  1. 101 this or that questions!
    By themightyfetus in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-30-2016, 09:05 AM
  2. EmDrive Is an Engine That Breaks the Laws of Physics and Could Take Us to Mars
    By Tellenbach in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-10-2014, 08:15 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-13-2010, 04:08 PM
  4. Who would win? The Crow or Ash from Army of Darkness
    By Clownmaster in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 11:40 PM
  5. The basic law of group masturbation...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-26-2007, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO