Thoughts on Proving the Law of Noncontradiction

[Renegnicat]

I am going to attempt to demonstrate the law of noncontradiction to be true without question begging and without circular logic. My methods might be seen as questionable, however. I will deal with objections momentarily.

First of all, I am defining a true statement as a statement which is apparent, and I am defining a false statement as a statement the opposite of which is apparent.

Now, I must first justify these definitions. Why should apparancy, in other words, appearances, determine what is true or what is false? My answer is simply that this question arises from a misunderstanding of what those two words mean. True and False are not items which have essential features. Indeed, the two words have no substance outside of apparency at all. So why should we give them any consideration at all? My answer is that we are giving them consideration because we chose them as the subject of our philosophical enquiry, and that the two words are important only from an evolutionary standpoint.

Consider, that the ability to determine if an utterance is true or not would be essential to the survival of our species, and that such an ability rises naturally and necessarily out of the creation of language.

Therefore I justify these definitions of "true" and "false" as self-justifying, because we acquire definitions from apparency, and these definitions are apparent.

Now then, the law of noncontradiction states: "It is not the case that something is the case and not the case."
Thus:
1. given any statement p
It is apparent that if p is true, then the negation of p = ~p, which reverses the truth value of p.
For p and q = T; p = T and q = T.

It is apparent then, that if q = ~p, then p and q(~p) = F
Thus, ~(p and ~p) = T(is apparrent).

The full truth table is as folllows:

Code Select Expand

p   ~p   pAND~p   ~(pAND~p)
T    F    F       T
F    T    F       T
Simply put, this is apparent, thus the truth of the statement is demonstrated.

Possible Objections:
1. There is no justification for proving something through apparency. Only logic and reason should determine proofs.

To this, I simply answer that "Logic", by it's very definition, can be seen as the study of whether statements are apparent. All logical rules are simply observations of the apparency of observations. To prove my point, can you, the objector, construct a logical proposition that does not proposite? Given that all propositions are "statements" about experience, if you reject experience, you reject logic.

Not only this, but if all logical propositions have at their base, experience, then is it any wonder that for a logical proposition such as the law of contradiction to be true, it must be apparent?

2. This is circular logic, because you are using experience to justify using experience.

To which I answer, If experience can not be used, and logic and reason depends on experience to proposite anything at all, then what shall I possibly use? Furthermore, We were born into the world through experience, and philosophy arose as a way to understand and explain just that: experience. Furthermore, if a circular proof, circular though it may be, is apparent, then taken as a whole it is indistinguishable from all other propositions that may be true or false: It is apparent, and thus true.

3. How can you possible account for this?

To which I answer, the difference between a circular argument and a circular truth is that a circular argument does not rely on experience to determine it's truth. Thus a circular argument is false. A circular truth is apparent, and thus is true in the normal sense of any other, non circular argument.

Any questions?

[McQ]

I think Curly was the funniest of the Three Stooges.

[AlP]

I think the problem you are trying to address is that logic and the simplification of an assertion to having truth value doesn't always work in our fuzzy world. For example, more often than not, the probability of a future outcome is more appropriate than it being "true" or "false". In other words, when arguing about reality, an inductive argument (distinct from proof by induction) is often more appropriate than a deductive argument. One reason is because the conclusion of a deductive argument about reality is as fuzzy as its premises. All that a deductive argument tells you is that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true. The trouble with reality is that, as far as I am aware, we have no way of determining whether a premise is true. We have only degrees of confidence.

Logic has its uses. For example in computer science (my subject) and electrical engineering where true and false are abundant. Or one can use logic to find the faults in a deductive argument if someone attempts to use one.

I wouldn't try to figure out whether my mother loves me with logic. I'd weigh all the supporting versus non-supporting information and come to a conclusion of likely or unlikely rather than true or false.

[LoneMateria]

Okay i'm going to try and sift through this mess and do my best to illustrate what I find wrong with it.  First thing is first when I wikipedia this it takes me here.  I'm going to be very skeptical of this because in the Interpretations section the law of non-contradiction is used by religions such as Christianity as a means to find "absolute truth".

First of all, I am defining a true statement as a statement which is apparent, and I am defining a false statement as a statement the opposite of which is apparent.

Why not just simply use other words?  The words true and false are labels to which we already have a common definition.  If a statement is true then the statement is valid.  If a statement is false the statement is not valid.  This is common understanding and if you change labels it will only cause confusion.  

Now, I must first justify these definitions. Why should apparancy, in other words, appearances, determine what is true or what is false? My answer is simply that this question arises from a misunderstanding of what those two words mean. True and False are not items which have essential features. Indeed, the two words have no substance outside of apparency at all. So why should we give them any consideration at all? My answer is that we are giving them consideration because we chose them as the subject of our philosophical enquiry, and that the two words are important only from an evolutionary standpoint.

Just because something seems apparent doesn't mean its true.  Many Christians say its apparent a God exists, or its apparent that Jesus helps them.  They look at a random event like ... finding a $50 bill on the ground.  Jesus must have known you were going to take your wife to dinner its apparent isn't it?  In order for something to be true it must be more then apparent it must be built on correct assumptions.  If its based on yourself (which seems like yours is because something has to be apparent to you to be truth) then the truth can be distorted by you without knowing it.  For example by your definition is it true that rain falls from the clouds?  Most people would say yes here ... however say i'm standing on the opposite side of the earth from you ... is your rain falling from the clouds or rising from them to me?  Who is right?  In order for your definition to work you must demonstrate how personal observations of apparentness are infallible.

Also I think you use the wrong question in there.  You shouldn't be asking why we should give these labels any consideration at all.  Instead you should be asking why should we effectively change the meaning of these labels to mean something obvious when we can use other words like ... obvious and not-obvious.  

Consider, that the ability to determine if an utterance is true or not would be essential to the survival of our species, and that such an ability rises naturally and necessarily out of the creation of language.

I don't see what this has to do with usage of the word true. Nor do I see how this can justify those definitions can you please explain?

Therefore I justify these definitions of "true" and "false" as self-justifying, because we acquire definitions from apparency, and these definitions are apparent.

True and false are not self-justifying because the definition you are trying to use relies on yourself.  Something that is true can be independently verified.  This is how we know we are operating withing reality.  Our personal perceptions can be verified by others to know we are operating withing reality.    

Now then, the law of noncontradiction states: "It is not the case that something is the case and not the case."
Thus:
1. given any statement p
It is apparent that if p is true, then the negation of p = ~p, which reverses the truth value of p.
For p and q = T; p = T and q = T.

It is apparent then, that if q = ~p, then p and q(~p) = F
Thus, ~(p and ~p) = T(is apparrent).

The full truth table is as folllows:

Code Select Expand

p   ~p   pAND~p   ~(pAND~p)
T    F    F       T
F    T    F       T
Simply put, this is apparent, thus the truth of the statement is demonstrated.

Can you apply this to something useful please to make the statement easier to understand?  Also I see at the top you wrote It is apparent that if p is true ... didn't you just try and say that true means apparent?  So it is apparent that if p is apparent .... thats circular reasoning ... or poor lingual skills.  Sorry :-(  

Possible Objections:
1. There is no justification for proving something through apparency. Only logic and reason should determine proofs.

To this, I simply answer that "Logic", by it's very definition, can be seen as the study of whether statements are apparent. All logical rules are simply observations of the apparency of observations. To prove my point, can you, the objector, construct a logical proposition that does not proposite? Given that all propositions are "statements" about experience, if you reject experience, you reject logic.

Not only this, but if all logical propositions have at their base, experience, then is it any wonder that for a logical proposition such as the law of contradiction to be true, it must be apparent?

It seems you are playing a word game here.  Not only have you tried changing the labels of true and false but now you are changing the label of  Logic.  You seem to want to change the labels to fit into your proof here.  Your question to try and prove your point is ridiculous ... take the word logic out of it and read it.  "To prove my point, can you, the objector, construct a proposition that does not proposite(which btw is a made up word but I think I know what you are trying to mean)?  This is like asking can you define me something that is not a definition?  If not then I prove my point.   Sorry faulty the logic here is faulty.

2. This is circular logic, because you are using experience to justify using experience.

To which I answer, If experience can not be used, and logic and reason depends on experience to proposite anything at all, then what shall I possibly use? Furthermore, We were born into the world through experience, and philosophy arose as a way to understand and explain just that: experience. Furthermore, if a circular proof, circular though it may be, is apparent, then taken as a whole it is indistinguishable from all other propositions that may be true or false: It is apparent, and thus true.

Straw Man.  Your logic is circular not because you are using experience to justify experience.  You are using your solution in your premise for your arguments.  

3. How can you possible account for this?

To which I answer, the difference between a circular argument and a circular truth is that a circular argument does not rely on experience to determine it's truth. Thus a circular argument is false. A circular truth is apparent, and thus is true in the normal sense of any other, non circular argument.

Any questions?

The reason circular arguments and "circular truths" don't work is because they are based on bad logic.  There is no foundation for the argument itself (or supposed truth in this case).  If you base your world view on this circular reasoning then your world view is outside of reality.  We see this type of circular reasoning in Christianity often.  Why is the bible true?  Because God made it.  How do we know God made it?  Because the bible says he did.  Bad logic.

[Renegnicat]

Good Post, Lonemateria. I am not going to attempt a rebuttal, as it is apparent that my argument does not stand. Instead I will revise.

Some questions that I have pondered myself involve the inadequacy of circular logic and question begging to prove the validity of a statement. In my mind, at least, there has always been the obvious apparency of observation as the only true arbiter on whether a proposition is true or false. After all, if there was nothing, then what could we possibly mean by any statement at all being valid or not? Thus, it seems to me that the very foundation of meaning lies in experience, and that if there were no experience, then to ask whether any proposition at all even has meaning would itself be, meaningless.

Given this, I wonder if circular phenomena can not be demonstrated through experience. Could it be said that because we experience the law of noncontradiction to be valid in all cases, that the law of noncontradiction is itself validated?

To do so, I think, would be to fail to draw a crucial distinction between experience and a proposition. For example, given any type of experience, it is meaningless to label said experience "false". Any experience is experienced in it's fullness, and is inescapable no matter how we classify it. Given this, however, it is important to realize that just as it is meaningless to call any experience "false", so it is with calling an experience "true". What does it mean to call something experienced "true"? The only "true" statement we can make regarding it is that we have experienced it, but the experience itself seems unaffected.

To answer the previous question of validating the law of noncontradiction, I think it may be in error to treat the law of noncontradiction as a proposition to be validated or disqualified. The "law" of noncontradiction lacks the qualities of a proposition, and indeed, has all the qualities of being nothing more than an observation of the nature of observed propositions. For example, it can be seen that if a pen is blue, then it is blue, and not "blue and not blue". This observation, however, is an observation. It is not a proposition, and thus, what does it mean to say that this observation of non-contradiction is "true" or "false"?

Indeed, what could it mean? If we say it is false, we still observe it, and act according to it's undeniable grip on our actions. And if we say it is true, or "validated", we might be tempted to justify our validation, but the fact is that it doesn't need to be labeled "true" in order for it to exert it's power. Furthermore, the law of noncontradiction is an observation, so in what sense is it possible to "justify" an observation?

On a side note, I would like to return to the "inadequacy" of circular logic in proving or disqualifying a proposition. For, it would seem that there are instances in which circular logic is observed to be the norm. The most useful example I can think of would be the case of two propositions in which proposition p states that proposition q is false. And proposition q states that proposition p is true.

If we follow the logic of both statements, it would seem that both statemtns switch back and forth between "true" and "false" for eternity. We can observe this is so, and thus, we can "see" that there are propositions that are both true and false at the same time. It would seem that this would break the law of noncontradiction, but this is an error. If we look closer at these propositions, we will find that they make no claim at all about any phenomena which can be observed. Indeed, they make no assertions about anything that might be remotely experienced. But if there is no phenomena from which these propositions may be validated or disqualified, then in what sense can we say that they are "true/false" at all? In effect, we observe that the two propositions are both "true" and "false" and "neither". In fact, no meaningful statement about their validity can be made at all, just as it would be with any proposition that made no assertion at all with respect to experience. Thus, we can "see" for ourselves how experience itself provides the foundation for any proposition, because any proposition necessarily derives it's truth value from the experience with which it remarks upon. It is important to note, however, that in no sense could this ever be called a "justification" for these observations, as it itself is simply that: An Observation.

Oh yeah.  

[AlP]

We humans invented true, false and logic. I find they are not directly useful in understanding or predicting reality. They are discrete while reality is not. Ascribing existence to truth (which you are not doing) is reification error.

As I said before, logic can be useful when we invent things that follow logical rules, like computers. Occasionally, in the very restricted context of math for example, a deductive argument could very well be sound. Logic can also be used to show a deductive argument you disagree with is invalid.

In reality, probability is much more useful. I trade. I think I would be down if I didn't take probabilities into account. Truths are for people that buy and hold =). Anecdotal.

I will lose Internet access before I go to bed. Is that assertion true or false? If it is either one of them then it is predestined at the moment I asserted it, which is bullshit. In reality there is a probability that I will lose my Internet connection before I go to bed. It is not at this moment true or false. I'll know whether it was true or false when I go to bed. And even then, the "truth" or otherwise that I did or did not lose my Internet connection will not spring into existence. That is just an idea we humans took way too far.

True and false are abstractions useful in a very limited context.

[LoneMateria]

Well I had this long ass post almost finished when my browser crashed.  So instead of rambling on and on or trying to reconstruct it i'm just going to hit the high points.  First I 100% agree with A|P, and second Renegnicat please let me know if there seems to be something I'm not quite getting or if you see an error in my work.  I'd rather be wrong and learn from it then be wrong and not.

Some questions that I have pondered myself involve the inadequacy of circular logic and question begging to prove the validity of a statement. In my mind, at least, there has always been the obvious apparency of observation as the only true arbiter on whether a proposition is true or false. After all, if there was nothing, then what could we possibly mean by any statement at all being valid or not? Thus, it seems to me that the very foundation of meaning lies in experience, and that if there were no experience, then to ask whether any proposition at all even has meaning would itself be, meaningless.

First are you calling yourself the only true arbiter?  True, false, valid and invalid are labels.  Without us the labels are meaningless but the truth or validity of something will still exist.  Gravity will be true even after our race is gone and no one is around to comprehend it.  For example: labeling gravity as true would be meaningless however it would still be true.  It doesn't matter our experience because there won't be an experience.  

Given this, I wonder if circular phenomena can not be demonstrated through experience. Could it be said that because we experience the law of noncontradiction to be valid in all cases, that the law of noncontradiction is itself validated?

According to the wiki link (and I think someone else said so too) that the law of non contradiction can neither be proven or disproved because in order for it to be it must always have itself in the premise and it has to be used to make it true or not true (this kinda reminds me of String Theory).  Circular Logic is often used by people who don't want to think about or don't know the answer to a particular question or sets of questions.  When using it you run the risk of infinitely compounding the error.  For my last example and then i'll move on:

Person 1: Do you think there is a god?
Person 2: Yes, I do.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Because the Bible tells me he exists.
Person 1: How do you know the Bible is accurate?
Person 2: Because God wrote it.
Person 1: But what makes you think God wrote the Bible?
Person 2: Because my Pastor told me.
Person 1: And how does he know?
Person 2: He read it in the Bible.
Person 1: Isn't that the same pastor that tells you to hate Homosexuals?
Person 2: Yes it's because God hates homosexuals.
Person 1: And what makes you think God hates homosexuals?
Person 2: It says so in the bible.
Person 1: So are you saying its in Gods personality to hate people?
Person 2: God is love ... but certain choices piss him off.
Person 1: What makes you think Homosexuality is a Choice?
Person 2: Because my Pastor says so.
Person 1: And why does he says so?
Person 2: Because it comes from our interpretation of the bible.
etc...etc...etc...

As you can see using circular logic as a way of thinking can build up errors without justification.  I wasn't planning on going the way of homosexuals here but it seems to serve its purpose.  Because of the part of Leviticus that says kill homosexuals assumptions are made and then using circular reasoning are justified.  The bible doesn't say why God wants them dead ... maybe God wants the ultimate gay orgy in heaven it doesn't say.

To do so, I think, would be to fail to draw a crucial distinction between experience and a proposition. For example, given any type of experience, it is meaningless to label said experience "false". Any experience is experienced in it's fullness, and is inescapable no matter how we classify it. Given this, however, it is important to realize that just as it is meaningless to call any experience "false", so it is with calling an experience "true". What does it mean to call something experienced "true"? The only "true" statement we can make regarding it is that we have experienced it, but the experience itself seems unaffected.

The logic seems a little warped to me.  I agree that it is pointless to label and experience as true and false.  However the experience and the conclusions drawn from the experience are 2 different things.  Because you experience A and come to conclusion B, A is not true or false but B is ...  I want to remind you about the if I found $50 example from my previous post.  Your conclusion must be based on correct assumptions.  Your interpretation of your experience is based on certain assumptions which they themselves can be valid or invalid.  Argument from experience does not hold weight when theists use it on us for a good reason.  Experiences are subjective and open to interpretation which can easily lead to errors.

To answer the previous question of validating the law of noncontradiction, I think it may be in error to treat the law of noncontradiction as a proposition to be validated or disqualified. The "law" of noncontradiction lacks the qualities of a proposition, and indeed, has all the qualities of being nothing more than an observation of the nature of observed propositions. For example, it can be seen that if a pen is blue, then it is blue, and not "blue and not blue". This observation, however, is an observation. It is not a proposition, and thus, what does it mean to say that this observation of non-contradiction is "true" or "false"?

Lol this reminds me of a case I read on Fmylife a long time ago.  There was an kid who failed some test in kintergarden because she couldn't get any of the colors right.   It turns out the father taught her the wrong colors because he thought it would be funny.  Which thinking about it now kinda reinforces the points I was making earlier about being based on the correct assumptions.

On a side note, I would like to return to the "inadequacy" of circular logic in proving or disqualifying a proposition. For, it would seem that there are instances in which circular logic is observed to be the norm. The most useful example I can think of would be the case of two propositions in which proposition p states that proposition q is false. And proposition q states that proposition p is true.

This reminds me of what I hear from religion all the time.  Islam is false because my book says its false.  Christianity is false because my book says its false.  Well neither of those statements have to be true but at least one of those statements can be false.

...we will find that they make no claim at all about any phenomena which can be observed. Indeed, they make no assertions about anything that might be remotely experienced...    that in no sense could this ever be called a "justification" for these observations, as it itself is simply that: An Observation.

Oh yeah.  

We are observing a phenomena ... we are observing a contradiction to which we are experiencing.  Why do you need to justify an observation?  You need to justify the conclusion you draw from it.

[Renegnicat]

Hello, lonemateria. You seem to be misunderstanding my post, at least from my point of view. I find myself in agreement with most of what you are saying, but only because I understand them to be basically saying what I said in my previous post!  :drool

To answer the previous question of validating the law of noncontradiction, I think it may be in error to treat the law of noncontradiction as a proposition to be validated or disqualified. The "law" of noncontradiction lacks the qualities of a proposition, and indeed, has all the qualities of being nothing more than an observation of the nature of observed propositions. For example, it can be seen that if a pen is blue, then it is blue, and not "blue and not blue". This observation, however, is an observation. It is not a proposition, and thus, what does it mean to say that this observation of non-contradiction is "true" or "false"?

Lol this reminds me of a case I read on Fmylife a long time ago.  There was an kid who failed some test in kintergarden because she couldn't get any of the colors right.   It turns out the father taught her the wrong colors because he thought it would be funny.  Which thinking about it now kinda reinforces the points I was making earlier about being based on the correct assumptions.

Non-sequitor. She experience the colors, same as every other child, in the same way, did she not? I can prove it: Her father had to "teach her the wrong way." If she really did see colors differently, no such teaching would be necessary.

On a side note, I would like to return to the "inadequacy" of circular logic in proving or disqualifying a proposition. For, it would seem that there are instances in which circular logic is observed to be the norm. The most useful example I can think of would be the case of two propositions in which proposition p states that proposition q is false. And proposition q states that proposition p is true.

This reminds me of what I hear from religion all the time.  Islam is false because my book says its false.  Christianity is false because my book says its false.  Well neither of those statements have to be true but at least one of those statements can be false.

Oh, come on! Did you even read what I wrote? That's exactly what I was saying, that a circular proposition doesn't work because it isn't connected to observation! What do you think the Islam/Christian holy book argument is? You said it right there: "Statement a(islam) is false, because my book(bible) says it is false." and "my book is true, because it says it is true." That's the perfect example a circular proposition, and that's exactly what I was talking about as having no bearing on reality!

...*ahem* The above quote was not me trying to explain the adequacy of circular reasoning. I was explaining why circular reasoning doesn't work; because neither proposition is based on an observation. Instead, both propositions get their justification from each other. But that means that there really is no meaningful statement that they make at all.

...we will find that they make no claim at all about any phenomena which can be observed. Indeed, they make no assertions about anything that might be remotely experienced...    that in no sense could this ever be called a "justification" for these observations, as it itself is simply that: An Observation.

Oh yeah.  :cool:

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I think you missed the point of my previous post. It wasn't really so much as an attempt to prove or validate the law of noncontradiction as it was certain musings on observation and how we come to call certain propositions validated. I say this, because a lot of your counter-arguments... well, they were essentially saying exactly what I was saying. Namely: You can't prove the law of noncontradiction, because it is an observation. However, as an observation of objective reality, you can't exactly close your eyes to it. It's power is still felt every time you try to distinguish between two propositions or try to tell the truth. Every time you open your mouth, even.

Ah, well. I should try to be clearer.

[LoneMateria]

Hello, lonemateria. You seem to be misunderstanding my post, at least from my point of view. I find myself in agreement with most of what you are saying, but only because I understand them to be basically saying what I said in my previous post!  :drool

I don't see how that pertains to the previous 2 posts.  Please explain.

Non-sequitor. She experience the colors, same as every other child, in the same way, did she not? I can prove it: Her father had to "teach her the wrong way." If she really did see colors differently, no such teaching would be necessary.

This is not a non-sequitur because she is having a different experience looking at the same piece of paper the other kids are looking at.  Where they see blue she sees green or whatever the color the father decided on teaching.  There is a reason for this however it doesn't change the fact that she is having a different experience.  It just so happens her experience doesn't coincide with reality.  Its not her fault for this, normal parents teach kids the colors in a normal way and her father is a dick for not doing it.  However even though she sees a color that we identify as blue her experience says its green, though its in error its her observation its still her observation.

Oh, come on! Did you even read what I wrote? That's exactly what I was saying, that a circular proposition doesn't work because it isn't connected to observation! What do you think the Islam/Christian holy book argument is? You said it right there: "Statement a(islam) is false, because my book(bible) says it is false." and "my book is true, because it says it is true." That's the perfect example a circular proposition, and that's exactly what I was talking about as having no bearing on reality!

...*ahem* The above quote was not me trying to explain the adequacy of circular reasoning. I was explaining why circular reasoning doesn't work; because neither proposition is based on an observation. Instead, both propositions get their justification from each other. But that means that there really is no meaningful statement that they make at all.

Okay then I misunderstood since your OP seemed to advocate Circular Reasoning and I thought thats what you were doing there.  Take a breath.

We are observing a phenomena ... we are observing a contradiction to which we are experiencing.  Why do you need to justify an observation?  You need to justify the conclusion you draw from it.

I would like to point out something you said:

You need to justify the conclusion you draw from it.

Exactly.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I think you missed the point of my previous post. It wasn't really so much as an attempt to prove or validate the law of noncontradiction as it was certain musings on observation and how we come to call certain propositions validated. I say this, because a lot of your counter-arguments... well, they were essentially saying exactly what I was saying. Namely: You can't prove the law of noncontradiction, because it is an observation. However, as an observation of objective reality, you can't exactly close your eyes to it. It's power is still felt every time you try to distinguish between two propositions or try to tell the truth. Every time you open your mouth, even.

Ah, well. I should try to be clearer.

We're not always as clear as we'd like to be.  I know on many occasions someone here as summed up my position better then i could have.  I disagree, well partially, on your final notion that you can't close your eyes to an observation because it is an observation.  Like i've been trying to say since the beginning, observation is based on the person who observes it meaning it has an ability to be a flawed observation.  Someone can observe something that isn't there because of their own flawed assumptions on the nature and working of the universe.  Like when people say prayer works ... they have observed prayer working for them and others.  Because this is based on people with a certain view of the world and of reality they are making a flawed observation (seeing something that isn't there).

[Ihateusernames]

Non-sequitor. ...

This is not a non-sequitur. ...

Logically speaking can they both be right? newp, it is either/or here... either it IS a non-sequitur, OR it isn't... you choose.

I believe you need no more Thoughts on Proving the Law of Noncontradiction as it's self evident, and these two's conversation has done a wonderful job of being an example of how and why.

 :yay:

-Ihateusernames

[Renegnicat]

Lonemateria, my web browser keeps crashing every time I try to quote you, so I'm just going to do a quick summation of points:

1. Observation is reality. If you see the sun rise, then the reality is that you have seen the sun rise. It's not true, it's not false, it is what is observed. What can be seen as true or false are any propositions you might make about your observations.

Interestingly enough, that is precisely what religion is: A set of statements that attempt to explain, justify, negotiate, or get a handle on direct observation, aka, reality. I don't know how you can believe that anything you experience may not be "real". If that was the case, then just what would qualify as "real"? What could "real" even mean? "real" IS experience.

In your post, you said that you disagreed with my assertion that the law of noncontradiction was true. What on earth? The law of noncontradiction can be observed. It is observed. In fact, the law of noncontradiction is itself, nothing more than an observation about observation. Given that, it's not true, it's not false. It is observed.

And because it is observed, you can not negotiate with it, you can not ignore it, you can not deny it or dismiss it. If it is observed, then it is observed. Saying it is "false" will not make it go away. And it doesn't need to be proclaimed "true" for it to make itself known.

You see, I did attempt to prove the law of noncontradiction in my first post, but after that attempt was debunked, I thought about it some more, and realized that it can not be proved because the very concept of "proof" loses all meaning when dealing with experience. For an example, if someone put's a gun to your head, you don't need "proof" to understand and react to the situation. It is there. It is real. That's what it is.

That's what the law of noncontradiction is.

There will be none of this bullshite about saying experience can be false. Falsehood has no meaning when applied to experience.

[LoneMateria]

First off i'm going to point out that this conversation is going nowhere.  You keep repeating yourself and I keep repeating myself.  This might be the last time I post to this thread since it looks like you have no intention of changing your mind on this and you haven't presented me with enough evidence or reason to change my mind.  Sorry to hear about your browser i'd recommend Chrome ... it crashes very infrequently on me and it only seems to do so when I have multiple movies loading.

1. Observation is reality. If you see the sun rise, then the reality is that you have seen the sun rise. It's not true, it's not false, it is what is observed. What can be seen as true or false are any propositions you might make about your observations.

This is not reality this is perception.  Because you perceive the sun as rising doesn't mean it's rising.  The sun doesn't move in respect to the earth which the statement, "The sun is rising," implies.  Instead at "sun rise" you are observing the earth rotating at the point where the sun becomes visible.  Because you experience or observe something doesn't mean that your perception of it is aligned with reality.  Your observations are subjective to your preconceived notions and your perspective.  If you believe we live in a geocentric universe then the sun is literally rising in the morning ... does that mean your observation is aligned with reality?  If you observe the sun rising does that mean the sun is rising?

Interestingly enough, that is precisely what religion is: A set of statements that attempt to explain, justify, negotiate, or get a handle on direct observation, aka, reality. I don't know how you can believe that anything you experience may not be "real". If that was the case, then just what would qualify as "real"? What could "real" even mean? "real" IS experience.

No, what is real and what is reality is something that you observe AND can be confirmed by others.  One persons observations can be flawed ... the more people the less of a chance the observation is flawed (though mass delusion can still occur because no one is perfect).  If I experience a dream where I shoot my neighbor ... does that mean I shot my neighbor?  I experienced it, I observed it so it must be real by your standard.  In reality i'm having a dream and others can say ... no no no you didn't do that you were dreaming.

In your post, you said that you disagreed with my assertion that the law of noncontradiction was true. What on earth? The law of noncontradiction can be observed. It is observed. In fact, the law of noncontradiction is itself, nothing more than an observation about observation. Given that, it's not true, it's not false. It is observed.

You were originally musing that it was true.  Thats what i've been contending with since the beginning but now our conversation has shifted to what is or is not reality.  I said before that the law of noncontradiction cannot be labeled true or false because it must use circular logic to prove it.  

And because it is observed, you can not negotiate with it, you can not ignore it, you can not deny it or dismiss it. If it is observed, then it is observed. Saying it is "false" will not make it go away. And it doesn't need to be proclaimed "true" for it to make itself known.

I've stated before that you can dismiss this and gave arguments with examples why ... i've lost interest in repeating myself.

You see, I did attempt to prove the law of noncontradiction in my first post, but after that attempt was debunked, I thought about it some more, and realized that it can not be proved because the very concept of "proof" loses all meaning when dealing with experience. For an example, if someone put's a gun to your head, you don't need "proof" to understand and react to the situation. It is there. It is real. That's what it is.

I know this I stated before that I misunderstood you and thought u were trying to prove it.  I don't agree with the notion that proof loses all meaning when dealing with experience because we know some experiences are false.  There are people who can hear something happen and then think they were there and that they did it.  Some people become so enamored in crimes that they think they did it.  They feel they observed it and that they experienced it.  Its not enough to experience something and to say it happened or its aligned with reality ... evidence must be presented.  It's true I cannot label an observation or someones experience as true or false ... however that doesn't mean we need to take the default position that their experience or their observation is accurate.

[Renegnicat]

Lonemateria, when we say that an experience is "false", we come to that realization through a closer examination of the experience, not by discarding the experience. But if the experience was really "false" then that is exactly what we should do. Think of it this way: When a man steps on a snake, he feel's frightened. Then he looks down and see's that it is a coiled piece of rope. There was nothing actually "false" about his initial sense impressions. The feelings in his leg were not "false". And when he looked down, his eyes did not decieve him. There was nothing "false" about it at all.

So what was false? The statement that it was a snake was! In other words, the thought after the raw experience was false. Not the experience itself. What we say as a false experience is, in reality, nothing more than a statement backed up from an imprecise recording of experience.

This is why we have science, and why reason is not to be discounted. Experience doesn't lie, but we are not particularly good at observing it in the amazingly precise ways that scientific instruments can. So, I understand how you can say that experience can be false. But that's not exactly true. We simply don't observe raw experience precisely enough to gain the correct explanation for our conjectures.

Like I said, if experience could be false, then the whole of science would come crumbling down. But experience isn't false. Try to prove any experience false. If you can do that, then let me know, cause I'd like to know how you did it.

[LoneMateria]

I guess I lied and that won't be my last post.  It seems we are going somewhere here ^_^

Because experience is based on a what a person experienced the experience can be just as flawed as the person.  Our memory is far from perfect (well ... for most of us anyway) and as you said this imprecise recording of experience is what I think makes the experience false.  We can't remember all the details of what happened and we really don't need to thats why we have logic and reason.  The thing is, though, once time passes the experience becomes more imprecise.  Just because you have an experience doesn't make it accurate and the lessons/conclusion that you draw from it can be just as flawed (if not more so) then the faulty experience itself.

The reason science holds up even in the face of this is because science is not just based off of experience, but it utilizes logic, reason, precise instruments, mathematics and peer review processes.  After all what is science without logic, reason, math, and a peer review process?  Without these things it would degenerate into religion ... so and so says this ... well do you have any proof ... sure he experienced it.  It doesn't work that way.

Let me ask you something ... if someone daydreams or has a hallucination ... do they really experience the events they see?

[Renegnicat]

Interesting post, lonemateria. Sorry it took so long to reply.  

p.s. (Yaay! You didn't leave! *hug*)