Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:56 am
Well, I'll try and put my argument into some kind of formal language and post it after I get back from retrieving our rental bond!
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
In other words, one cannot say that something is and is not at the same time. A banana is not an apple.Philosophaster wrote:Law of non-contradiction is:Cory Duchesne wrote: I'm curious, how would you express the law of non-contradiction more effectively and simply than A=A?
! ( A & !A ) = "It cannot be the case that both A and not-A" (where "A" is some proposition being considered)
The law of A=A is inherently non-contradictory.A = A does not contain or imply (logically) the law of non-contradiction.
It all depends on how one conceives of A=A. If by "A=A" one means that a thing is itself and not something other than itself, then the law of non-contradiction has already arisen right there. It automatically becomes a contradiction to conceive of a thing being something other than itself.You can learn all the rules of inference in logic and none of them will enable you to derive "! ( A & !A)" from just "A = A." That makes it an invalid inference, a non-sequitor.
The principle of non-contradiction also has its own identity and is not something else. Thus, A=A underlines even it.Cory: Doesn't all categorization rest upon A=A?
DQ: No, all categorization rests on the principle of non-contradiction. A=A is merely a secondary derivation from non-contradiction, the fundamental truth is that a thing is not its own negation -- that ~(A&~A).
This is code for reading more theology books.In case you haven't guessed, I am rolling my eyes. You people need to get out more, intellectually speaking.
In formal logic (which is what "A = A" looks like to people familiar with formal logic), the expression you just used would be written "( A = A ) & !( !A = A )" -- "(A equals A) and not (not-A equals A)."David Quinn wrote:If by "A=A" one means that a thing is itself and not something other than itself...
Nope. How can someone 'derivate' a self-evident axiom? Earlier in this thread you even agreed on the axiom of equality in mathematical logic (which A=A could be seen as too) and now it's suddenly a secondary 'derivation'!vicdan wrote:No, all categorization rests on the principle of non-contradiction. A=A is merely a secondary derivation from non-contradiction, the fundamental truth is that a thing is not its own negation -- that ~(A&~A).
David: It's quite funny, really. His spiritual philosophy, which he has spent many years developing, has taken him to the exact same place as a man who has spent no time at all on spiritual development.
Victor: This was what I found so amusing. What you mean is that I have spent no time at on on spiritual matters you approve of. If you were any more myopic, your eyes could serve as a microscope.
Nat: Yeah, the presumptuousness of this is too much. Who is David to claim that a given person has spent "no time at all on spiritual development?"
Rent a sarcasm detector, dude.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Nope. How can someone 'derivate' a self-evident axiom? Earlier in this thread you even agreed on the axiom of equality in mathematical logic (which A=A could be seen as too) and now it's suddenly a secondary 'derivation'!
No, that's how only you are categorizing it but you're just one of a few. If I talk about gravity, or death, it doesn't have to be a 'technical' term either. Even by invoking consensus you could not substantiate this statement above, I bet.vicdan wrote: they even try to grab technical terms and expressions (which is what A=A is)
If all beings were conscious, there would be great possibilities - a heaven of sorts. But with consciousness, it can be seen that this is so unlikely to happen that it is almost certainly impossible.David Quinn wrote:Whereas Kevin looks at consciousness with great joy at all the possibilities it brings
You poor spiritually retarded child, I fucking worship truth. I just refuse to delude myself, and so I refuse to believe your delusion that Truth is achievable. if it were, i would be all over that shit; and back when I believed that it is a meaningful concept and achievable, I spent all my time and effort on it.David Quinn wrote:In my view, spiritual development cannot even begin to take place without valuing Truth as the number one priority and making every effort to discover what it is. However, Victor has long dismissed this possibility from the outset. He has never attempted to venture outside the conventional, empirical mindset - at least not rationally in adult life.
Nat had moved forward to where I am -- but you, with your voluntarily worn blinders, cannot see it. You are trying to catch a black cat in a dark room, when I stand behind the door and try to talk you out of your terminal idiocy.You, on the other hand, have attempted to move in that direction, which I respect. But then, for some strange reason, you have decided to retreat back to where Victor is.
Try talking about something you understand a bit better, like say chinese hieroglyphics. You are embarrassing yourself.And now your views are fundamentally identical to his. Like him, you only acknowledge empirical realities and dismiss all non-empirical thinking as meaningless.
I don't think it can be demonstrated they are independent. How would you do that?vicdan wrote: Yes, identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle are all three independent axioms, and you need all three to have logic.
As long as the meaning of this expression is identical to the meaning that I conceive of and not something other than it, I don't have a problem with it.DQ: If by "A=A" one means that a thing is itself and not something other than itself...
P: In formal logic (which is what "A = A" looks like to people familiar with formal logic), the expression you just used would be written "( A = A ) & !( !A = A )" -- "(A equals A) and not (not-A equals A)."
This is precisely the purpose of formal logic: to avoid the distortions and lack of clarity in much everyday language. Another related purpose is to make it possible to check a proof "mechanically."David Quinn wrote: The main problem with translating everything into formal logic is that it can too easily create distortions.
I was raised in the same mindset that you are currently in, Victor. Most educated people are.You don't understand where I am.
Holy sacred trinity, Batman! The meaning of life is 3, not 2--or 42, for that matter!Yes, identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle are all three independent axioms, and you need all three to have logic.
I agree that the purpose is to try and make the communication of publicly-available knowledge between people clearer. But it isn't much help when it comes to communicating an inward philosophical understanding of things.DQ: The main problem with translating everything into formal logic is that it can too easily create distortions.
P: This is precisely the purpose of formal logic: to avoid the distortions and lack of clarity in much everyday language. Another related purpose is to make it possible to check a proof "mechanically."
Poor David, you have no idea, do you?..David Quinn wrote:Victor,
I was raised in the same mindset that you are currently in, Victor. Most educated people are.You don't understand where I am.
There is nothing esoteric about it. It is the standard, conventional view - at least here in Australia.
But the trouble here is the same one Victor and others keep complaining about. You are using a very narrow definition of "truth" and making proclamations as if it were the only possible definition. While Victor and I have had our clashes, I've never had any doubt that he is a guy who has dedicated his life to understanding what reality is and what we can know about it (primarily the latter after he realized how it constrains the former). Epistemology, his primary area of interest, is the study of truth in the sense that it deals with the nature of meaningful knowledge and how it is acquired. For you to state that he has no interest in "truth" is proof of one of two things:David Quinn wrote:In my view, spiritual development cannot even begin to take place without valuing Truth as the number one priority and making every effort to discover what it is. However, Victor has long dismissed this possibility from the outset. He has never attempted to venture outside the conventional, empirical mindset - at least not rationally in adult life.
How are you in a position to assert this, O True Scotsman? Do you have a patent on spiritual development? This is a textbook religious attitude, no?He might be maturing emotionally within this mindset, but that isn't spiritual development. Spiritual development is all about opening one's mind to the Infinite and purifying one's mind and character in the light of this great understanding. Victor has made no movement in that direction.
Following a line of reasoning I feel is consistent with the sources I've studied is a "strange reason?"You, on the other hand, have attempted to move in that direction, which I respect. But then, for some strange reason, you have decided to retreat back to where Victor is.
On ontology and epistemology, yes. Try us on politics or ethics sometime. :PAnd now your views are fundamentally identical to his.
Not true. I don't do that and neither does he, as he mentioned in the show. There are tons of areas in which non-empirical thinking is valuable. Ontology just isn't one of them.Like him, you only acknowledge empirical realities and dismiss all non-empirical thinking as meaningless.
Yeah, you've stated that before. Believe what you want to.Personally, I think you're scared of consciousness and its ramifications.
Yes, as I mentioned in the show, I do see a danger in labelling people "conscious" and "unconscious" (with ourselves as "conscious," of course). As I said, it's a form of dehumanization - precisely the same kind of thinking that got 6 million Jews shoved into ovens a while back. Yep, I definitely see "dangers" in that. That you guys don't is very interesting, in a psychological sense.This shines through in the show that you did. Whereas Kevin looks at consciousness with great joy at all the possibilities it brings, all you can see are dangers and horrid implications.
I also do it with Chuang Tzu and Nagarjuna's blessings. The latter sent me a Fully Enlightened Secret Decoder Ring with the message, "there are no paramartha discourses." You're free to continue attempting them, though, if it provides you a sense of "Having The Truth." I'll take religious salvationism for $1000, Alex. Oh my, it's today's Daily Double!Retreating back into conventional empiricism is now a safe haven for you - and you do this with what you imagine to be Lao Tzu's blessing as well!
It is tantamount to receiving a double reward for your ego.
No ego there...David Quinn's website wrote:I am a highly logical thinker who spends his days immersing himself in the Infinite. My aim in life is to awaken as many people as possible to this marvellous reality, which I sometimes call God or Tao.
...I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and Weininger. If it were not for these fearless men, and those like them, the human race would be in total darkness...
Wisdom of the Infinite - An incisive book that rivals Chuang Tzu and Nagarjuna at their best.
And your approach is very similar to the way many intelligent people leave traditional religions but fail to address the spiritual immaturity which keeps them seeking absolute certainty and a "special" self-image indefinitely. The security of having the world figured out and the comfort of being somebody special. Heaven.It's very similar to the way many Christians indulge in obscene money-making exercises and somehow manage to find a way to imagine that Jesus would approve of this. In this way, they gain both material and "spiritual" rewards for their egos. Heaven.
You're kidding again! Everyone already knows such axioms cannot be derived or proven through formal logic, they are merely assertions.vicdan wrote:Give me first-order logic with induction, and I can prove that you cannot derive non-contradiction and excluded middle from identity.
I've already checked it out. The main problem with it is that it is almost exclusively concerned with formal communication and the sharing of outward, social, publicly-available knowledge between people. In other words, it is superficial.You really should familiarize yourself with modern century philosophy. Just out of curiosity, if for not other reason.
No, he thinks he understands it. For him, we are unconscious individuals. You have no understanding of anything spiritual and I have a mistaken one.vicdan wrote:So you [David] confine yourself to being utterly unable to understand where Nat and I are coming from. Your choice of course.