Thoughts on Proving the Law of Noncontradiction

[LoneMateria]

thanks for the hug.  Don't worry about how long it took to respond.  I understand everyone has their own life to deal with an the internet is not at the top.

Anyway I understand where you are coming from.  You are saying because it happened and we were there we experienced it (very reasonable mind you).  I'd really like to hear your take on hallucinations and day dreams pertaining to this.  Also (just a thought) what about hypno-regression therapy?  Thats the therapy where they use suggestion to give you faulty memories and make you think you were abducted by aliens or w/e.  To those people the events are real to them.  In their mind they experienced these events but in reality they didn't, I'd say that is evidence for a false experience.

I'd say an experience is true or false based on it's accuracy compared to reality.  If you and I are watching 4th of July fireworks and I honestly remember Leprechauns running around when we talk about it the next day did I really experience it?  Probably not.  My experience didn't happen and I would label it a false experience.  To use a less extreme example say you and I were taking a road trip and a month after the fact we were discussing it.  I tell you I remember we stopped off at the Grand Canyon and I remember a family on donkeys riding down it.  You tell me i'm mistaken and I insist i'm right.  Well we happened to record on video the whole time we were at the spot i'm referring to and lo and behold they aren't there.  But I still remember them.  Is my experience faulty?  Is it accurate?  Though when I was there the experience happened the experience I remember is not an accurate one of the one that really happened.  My experience is flawed and my experience false.

Now onto the Science.  Firstly with the Precise instruments i'd trust those more then a person.  When a person experiences something his memory of the events can be flawed.  He could remember a certain aspect of the experience that wasn't there and leave out experiences that were there.  Instruments are much, much, much, much more accurate, i'd say nearly 100%.  If you want to say a camera or a sexton experienced an event go ahead.  I'd disagree and say experience is something unique to living creatures.  

(i'm just pondering here.  Could it be said that experience is really just an aspect of our recollection ability?  Afterall if we experience something we don't remember should it be labeled an experience?)

Finally with logic and reason i've mentioned before that they are not accurate.  I'm saying with all these elements working together in science is reliable.  Well for the most part.  We know science has given us the wrong answer from time to time and it's not perfect because we are not perfect.  But with all these different elements at work here we can weed out many inconsistencies and work to build an accurate view of the universe.  Not one aspect in science by itself is 100% accurate.  It's when everything is combined does this become more reliable.

[Renegnicat]

Ah. Excellent post, lonemateria; good questions.  :typehappy:

[Ihateusernames]

it could be said that there really is nothing [useful] instead of something [useful in this post], and that [this post], at it's core, is really nothing.

Fixed this "profound" statement for you. : )

[Renegnicat]

Ihateusernames, You are judging without having seen that which you judge.

[Ihateusernames]

Ihateusernames, You are judging without having seen that which you judge.

Not really.  I'm more being rude to someone who was first rude to me, not judging something I haven't seen (which doesn't even make much sense tbh).  The last post was just an outworking of the golden(ish) rule: you were rude to me therefor you must want me to be rude to you. I'm just trying to be nice afterall...

[Renegnicat]

Mm. Agreed. I am sorry, Ihateusernames. I don't wish to be rude to you.