Has anyone else noticed the blatant political flavor of many sciencey mags these days?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 5, 2022

Climate change, Culture, Intelligent Design, Media, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Yes, it was always there but recently, as the editors become ever more self-righteous (= Us vs. the Unwashed), it has become more open and that sure isn’t an improvement. Two items noted in passing:

Big Climate:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an important organization with a primary purpose to assess the scientific literature on climate in order to inform policy…
Regrettably, the IPCC WG2 has strayed far from its purpose to assess and evaluate the scientific literature, and has positioned itself much more as a cheerleader for emissions reductions and produced a report that supports such advocacy. The IPCC exhorts: “impacts will continue to increase if drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are further delayed – affecting the lives of today’s children tomorrow and those of their children much more than ours … Any further delay in concerted global action will miss a brief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.”
The focus on emissions reductions is a major new orientation for WG2, which previously was focused exclusively on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The new focus on mitigation is explicit, with the IPCC WG2 noting (1-31) that its focus “expands significantly from previous reports” and now includes “the benefits of climate change mitigation and emissions reductions.” This new emphasis on mitigation colors the entire report, which in places reads as if adaptation is secondary to mitigation or even impossible. The IPCC oddly presents non-sequiturs tethering adaptation to mitigation, “Successful adaptation requires urgent, more ambitious and accelerated action and, at the same time, rapid and deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”
Roger Pielke, Jr., “A Rapidly Closing Window to Secure a Liveable Future” at The Honest Broker Newsletter/Substack (March 2, 2022)

The relentless drum-banging will probably have the opposite effect of the one desired, especially when (as is sure to happen) some emission reduction strategies do much more harm than good and the boosters are running for cover, misrepresenting those outcomes in the name of “Trust the Science.”

And then there are the ridiculous efforts in popular science media to snuff out any awareness of the possibility that the virus that causes COVID-19 escaped from the Wuhan lab doing research on making viruses more powerful. How awful of any of us to suggest such a thing! Here’s an intro to a podcast on the topic:

We have featured the work of science writer Matt Ridley on several occasions over the years. Now he is the author (with Alina Chan) of the new book Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19. Brendan O’Neill has recorded a podcast with Ridley to discuss how the Covid-19 virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan and how scientists tried to suppress the lab-leak origin theory. Spiked has posted the podcast here. I have embedded it below.
The New York Times continues to flog the alleged natural origin of the plague. Most recently, the Times has promoted “new research” pointing to the live animal market in Wuhan as the origin: “Analyzing a wide range of data, including virus genes, maps of market stalls and the social media activity of early Covid-19 patients across Wuhan, the scientists concluded that the coronavirus was very likely present in live mammals sold at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in late 2019 and suggested that the virus spilled over into people working or shopping there on two separate occasions.” However, “some gaps” in the evidence still remain. “The new [unpublished] papers did not, for example, identify an animal at the market that spread the virus to humans.”
Scott Johnson, “The case for the lab-leak theory” at Powerline Blog (March 4, 2022)

More re Viral

Science writer Matt Ridley thinks science is reverting to a cult. Maybe his next book should be about that.

Comments

Seversky
We are able to make sense of the Universe by recognizing what appear to be the distinct entities of which it is comprised. We have evolved a set of linguistic tools which we can use both to model what we observe and to predict what we have not yet observed. Logic is one of those tools and the LOI is a statement of what we have observed. These linguistic modeling tools are only of use if they can both describe what we have observed and predict what we have not yet observed.
We go beyond this with the LOI. It is not merely an arbitrary rule that aligns with observation. It is an inherent characteristic of our rational human nature. It makes observations comprehensible. As discussed earlier, A=A is an absolute truth that admits no exceptions within our frame of rationality. We are oriented to the truth of things because all of our thoughts proceed from the LOI. It is impossible to have rational thought without it.
Not necessarily. If the Universe is understood to comprise everything that exists, whether or not we are able to observe it, then there is literally nothing beyond it. Any theoretical boundary is between existence and non-existence.
I will disagree and assert that the separation given by the LOI is necessary and it applies to existence. You propose here that "non-existence" would take the form of "Not-A" in the LOI. When we say "This universe" - a separation and boundary is created. We then have A=A. So, that means A is not "Not-A". That's our rational construct. However, you propose that "Not-A" is "non-existence" (or nothing). This works out like so: Not-A is non-existence or nothing. So, "Nothing is Not-A". If nothing is Not-A, then "A is everything". If A is everything, then A=A fails since we will no longer have an identity. The LOI requires an existing Non-A. That's how our rational thought works. We must have an existing comparison between A=A and "all else" -- the "all else" cannot be nothing since that would mean that A=A is every possible thing so no distinction could be made. Back to our box of blue marbles. They're all blue marbles, so we cannot request a selection of "the blue marble". There's no distinction. Perhaps another analogy (they're difficult because we always make distinctions), you're swimming underwater and want to demonstrate what water is. Or you show a "cupful of water" - but what is in the cup is the same as everything around you. That violates the LOI since you haven't identified the thing. This is the problem with monism. The reason we speak of "the physical universe" (A=A) is that we have that which is Not-A. So, defining "physical" from a dictionary: everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance— Thomas De Quincey That definition would be pointless if Not-A = Non-existence. If there was no Not-A, then "nothing is not physical" and there's no sense in saying that physical is that which can be measured by weight, motion and resistance. So, we have to have an existing Not-A, and that is the "non-physical" in this case. Beyond this, to say that the A=A for existence (inside the boundary of identity) has "non-existence" as outside, has a separation between what exists and nothing. But "nothing" can have: No properties and No capabilities or potential In this case, however, the universe would be “surrounded by non-existence” – but this is impossible since the capability to surround something, is a property. But non-existence cannot have a property. The universe is defined by its boundary, as any existing entity must be - but if the boundary is non-existence, then nothing prevents the universe from being absolutely infinite in every dimension. There are insoluble problems with a material entity that is absolutely infinite in time, space and material composition. But that's what we'd have with a universe where Not-A is nothing (unbounded). Like rainwater filling a small hole in the ground which is a puddle – if A is the puddle, the edge of the hole is the boundary, and the “non-A” actually defines the shape of the puddle. So, there’s a relationship between the Inside and Outside that is necessary. If the Non-A is nothingness, there can be no relationship. In this sense, non-existence is a ‘universal acid’ to being. First, it destroys our rational thought because we would have an entity that cannot be identified as such. We could not refer to the universe and make that distinction. Then, if the universe was suspended or surrounded by non-being, then we would say that non-existence is a possible state (not that it ‘exists’ but that there could be absolute nothingness). We establish "Not-A" is nothingness. So, nothingness is a possible state. We keep in mind, that nothingness has no characteristics by which we could say it is 'potential' - it has no potentiality. But if we said "it's just nothingness outside the universe", then nothingness is possible. But if nothingness is possible, then its possible that our universe could also become reduced to nothingness through change over time. But in an infinite duration of the universe, if it was possible to become nothingness - then the universe would have been nothing already and could never exist (since nothing comes from nothing). We already know that the universe could not begin from nothing (you affirmed that in a previous post last week. But if “non-existence” was the identifying “outside” of the universe – then the universe could not have had a cause outside of itself. It would have to be self-caused (which is irrational) or eternal. If, however, the universe itself was eternal and uncaused – everything that was possible to happen to the universe would have already had to happen by now. As such, “non-existence” for the universe would be a necessary possibility (since “non-existence” surrounds a changing, decaying universe) then the universe would have already been reduced to nothing by now. A common understanding of the universe is not that "it is everything" but that it is "all physical reality" and thus requires an explanation for its existence. The way the universe can develop and change is with regards to its potentiality. A cause must precede its effect. So, the origin of the universe require causes that come before the universe existed. That cause must have the power to move potentiality to actuality - so, there must be the potential to make the change. If nothingness preceeded the universe, there would be no possiblity for the universe to arise. Regarding potentiality, this does align with quantum theory which proposes wave functions as potentialities which, when actualized, become particles. But potentiality cannot actualize itself. The universe is itself a potentiality which has been gradually and partially actualized – but that requires something actual to exist to actualize the potential of the universe to exist and change. That means a real entity, outside the bounds of the universe must necessarily exist as an actualizer of the universe’s potentiality.
Again, not necessarily. We can only observe anything if it has some effect on observable physical reality.
The effect that the immaterial has left on the physical is that it is what enables us to identify the physical. We know the material as A=A and therefore the non-material is the necessary “Not-A”. The non-material leaves the effect of the shape and outline of the boundary for A – or the physical. That’s how we can refer to things like “the physical” or “nature” – because we distinguish it from the “non-physical” and “supernatural”. So, the non-material is an existing entity that we call "Not-A" in this case.
You can posit some immaterial entity living in some sort of “transcendental realm” but unless it leaves some sort of observable physical imprint on the fabric of our reality, we have no way of observing it or even knowing it exists at all.
We know for certain it exists because we use the term “physical” in our LOI, separating it from the non-physical as a necessary component. If “everything is physical” then we couldn’t identify it in the A=A formulation. We would have “A is everything” and thus no way to define A. We would lose our rational thought in this case. Even the non-philosophical work of physical science points to the existence of immaterial entities (WJM for example believes that science indicates that nothing but immaterial essences exist) and that work is done through observation.
In this case, the boundary is not between nature and supernature but between what is known and what is not known or does not exist to be known.
It is rather, what is known as absolutely necessary through the process of rational identity. A monist system will necessarily destroy rational thought because it will not permit real distinctions. “Everything is one” means that there can be no “Non-A” – and if Not-A does not exist, then A=A is the same as A=Not-A. or better yet, we cannot compare A with anything.Silver Asiatic_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Q @798, Okay, I see why I wasn't able to understand you in the beginning. I wasn't even thinking in terms of a brain, so that's why the analogy mystified me. The conversation with SA has actually propelled me to think more about the nature of self and experience and trying to untangle it from categorical labels like mind, soul, physical senses, consciousness, etc. At a more fundamental level, we have two root concepts: observer and observed, experiencer and experienced, regardless of how you categorize aspects of either side of that fundamental dualism of self and other. My questions to SA were about examining whether or not it is even rational to think of the experiencer and his/her experience as two different things. I don't see how they can be. If you shut off the experiencer, there is no experience occurring. If you shut off the experiences, there is no experiencer. What if instead of thinking about it dualistic terms, we thought of the experiencer and the experience he/she is having as the same thing? That's where I was heading with the term "Qua," the normal definition of which is "in the capacity of; as being," which is somewhat suitable here without bringing in all the mind/soul/consciousness/unconscious baggage. I don't see how the experiencer and experience can be separable things. One cannot exist without the other. The only thing that exists for any Qua-A (to distinguish it from other Qua, or people, let's say) is Qua-A. There's no escaping it, even in principle. The question is, can something not-Qua-A cause a Qua-A experience of any sort? This gets back to what is causing experiences to occur, and whether or not it is rational to say that some extra-Qua-A commodity can cause something to occur in the Qua-A. I'm still working on that.William J Murray_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe.
This is a BS. Nobody says that the ball is a tree or a mouse or a submarine. A - notA discussion appears only in particular cases when notA could be confounded with A.Sandy_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

VL attn WJM, it is not just the triad of principles, LOI, LNC & LEM that are at stake. We apply these to logic of being and make use of possible worlds thought. That allows us to reckon with evidence from our world and allows us to contemplate other possibilities. We can then see a weak, inquiry form Principle of Sufficient Reason, that allows us to ask, why is A the case, or not the case or even why can A never be the case. Bring to bear the causal-thermodynamic succession of years etc, and we can look to the matter of the past of origins. We may see that a transfinite span of past stages is not feasible and that we need a finitely remote root of reality. A world with morally governed rational creatures then leads to further considerations on what can adequately found such a world. KFkairosfocus_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT}

VL @799, Excellent logic there about the limitations of logic in extrapolating characteristics of not-A from A. The specific characteristics of "A" don't tell you anything about the nature of "not-A," because all it takes for something to be not-A is changing one tiny characteristic. A exact duplicate of the red ball on the table can be on the kitchen counter, but it is still not the red ball on the table.William J Murray_{March 31, 2022
March
03
Mar
31
31
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

to SA, re 791 You write, “Eventually, we can apply it [the LOI] to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature. ... In that case, we have nature and supernature. In simple terms, this gives us “transcendental reality” or something beyond the universe which exists. ... So, we have a transcendent being. That’s the Not-A in the LOI of the universe.” No. All the LOI says is that there is the universe A and everything that is not the universe not-A. That tells you absolutely nothing about any properties that “everything that is not the universe” might have. Using words like “supernature”, “transcendent”, and especially “being” have connotations that bring in assumptions you are making that are not warranted merely by invoking the LOI. A simple example that has been used before: suppose you have a red ball on a big table. (I will forego adding a picture). The ball is A. Not-A is everything else in the whole universe. The only thing you can say about not-A is that it is not the ball. Other than that, you know nothing specific about not-A. At the start of this discussion I said I thought there were leaps of faith not justified by the evidence in the arguments for a sentient transcendental being. Your argument here is an example, as your conclusions are not even warranted by the logic of the LOI. So, I’ll repeat: in general, no matter how much you know about A, you don’t know anything specific about not-A. In particular, you don’t know that not-A has properties that are the opposite of A. So, as above: “All the LOI says is that there is the universe and everything that is not the universe. That tells you absolutely nothing about any properties that “everything that is not the universe” might have.Viola Lee_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @796, You had written in 776:
SA, It appears to me that you did not answer my question. Let me make it more simple and explicit: If I shut down every form of consciousness you have – the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point?
Conscious brain activity involves communications between the neurons in your brain usually by means of chemical neurotransmitters, sometimes electrons, and sometimes a combination. This activity allows you to, for example, calculate the answer to questions like 1+1. Computers send electrons through tiny circuits, loading up registers, and performing operations that also can result in calculating the answer to questions like 1+1. So, to answer your repeated question to Silver Asiatic, in which you made it more simple and explicit, I’d suggest that “shutting down every form of consciousness . . . FOREVER” could be accomplished by shutting down all synapses. This would terminate all sensory, experiential input from your sense organs: vision, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Similarly, FOREVER shutting off the supply of electrons through a computer or shutting down the specific programs running on a computer terminates all communication between you and the computer. So, the computer no longer has any experiences (which generate heat as a byproduct). Notice that I’m not addressing whether computers are conscious. But you, the operator of the computer, who tells the computer what to do (such as adding 1+1) still have intention and will and experiences but they just no longer involve this computer. It could be expressed through another computer instead. As you might be able to understand now, there’s a question of whether your brain as a type of biological computer either generates consciousness or transmits consciousness. If your brain generates consciousness, then consciousness is a physical phenomena that should be accessible to neuroscientists. However, as posted here on several occasions, Michael Egnor is a neurosurgeon who has never found any evidence of localized higher abstract thought within the brain. For example https://youtu.be/BqHrpBPdtSI Dr. Egnor relates several amazing types of operations on the brain and its results--what's been found possible and not possible through brain surgery. This is strong evidence for an external or dualist nature of consciousness, personality, and intellect. I hope this answers the question you repeatedly posed to Silver Asiatic. -QQuerius_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

SA: I appreciate the conversation. It's required me to think out my own perspective more clearly. You've brought in a couple of challenges to my perspective that "all experience occurs in mind/consciousness," notably what the soul directly experiences and experiences in our unconsciousness (not non-conscious) state, perhaps better stated as sub-conscious experiences. In every challenge, you present that "you" have experiences in a variety of ways and not all of them are experiences that occur in your active, conscious awareness. You also express that you can have direct soul experiences. You argue that some of these are external of mind (that's where the discussion began, I think.) It occurs to me that the problem here is one of semantics, categorization, and definition. Instead of mind or consciousness or physical senses, subconscious, unconscious, sub-conscious, soul, etc, I'm going to use the word "Qua." Qua is the capacity of any being as an "I" to have any experience whatsoever, in any way. We call certain sub-categories of Qua mind, soul, awareness, unconscious, subonscious, physical senses, etc, but they are capacities of the subject, the "I," to experience in different ways. Qua represents the full capacity of the "I" to experience. Given the above: 1. If I shut down your Qua permanently, is it rational to say "you" still exist? (And remember, Qua includes any form of thought, which are experiences.) 2. Would you agree that Qua is necessarily subjective in nature? (Note, I'm not talking about what the experiences are of, I'm talking about the experiential capacity itself. I grant that we can have subjective experiences of something that exists objectively, and we can recognize that the thing we are experiencing is objective in nature, but the experience itself is not objective.)William J Murray_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Q @793 said: Sorry, I really don't understand what you're asking me. I shut down my computer every day and I still have experiences because there's a whole world I experience other than my computer. As far as a computer having an experience, we haven't established that computers have experiences. If you shut down all the processes and occurrences that are going on within all that comprises the computer forever, then there are no occurrences going on there. I don't see how any of this is applicable to the discussion. I'm sure you have sort of point you're attempting to make via analogy. Maybe just state it?William J Murray_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT}

PS, note the specific focus of this, universality of math drawn out through possible worlds analysis and distinct identity https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/62/59kairosfocus_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

VL, the next steps have been put on the table repeatedly, so that needs to be acknowledged instead of repeatedly asking as though it is not there. I roll the tape, first noting SA drawing out from LOI:
[789] the most important point here is that A=A is irrefutable. There are no exceptions. It’s an absolute truth. But is A=A a part of every affirmation that we make and therefore of ever rational thought we have or express? I believe the answer is yes. Not only is A=A always correct in itself, but every rational construct or idea or proposal we have more make, requires that A=A be at the foundation. We cannot make a proposal where LOI is violated. With that in mind, we just have to look at your proposals and observe that the LOI is operative. If it is operative in every situation, then we have good grounds to believe that we have this dualism. We always have A and not-A, and therefore this is an indication about how reality is structured. First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this. Yes, but eventually we have Arizona and New Mexico. If they are not unique then they are the same thing. If they are unique, then there’s some reason – something that sets them apart. Even if the line is vague or people disagree on the line, eventually we have “this is New Mexico and this is Arizona”. Then we have the one and everything else that is not-that. A and not-A. We could say “this is both New Mexico and Arizona” (maybe they share some territory). But again, if we say that, we cannot say “this is both of them and this is not both of them”. That’s a violation of LOI. So we have the “not both of them” existing. It’s the place that is not either. Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico, Eventually we have to define the thing. Even if we say “I can’t tell the difference”. We will be pointing to “something”. We would say “that place over there has foothills leading to the mountain”. We identified “that place” as separate from all other places. So, A is not equal to not-A. Eventually, we have something that is not the foothills or the mountain or something that is not both together – that’s the “outside the boundary” or not-A.
So now go back to KF:
[783] LOI has as immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM, also once we look at world W = {A|~A} we see 0, 1, another complex 1 so 2. That invites the von Neumann construction of Peano style succession from {} –> 0 to w, first transfinite ordinal. Further construction immediately yields N,Z,Q,R,R*,C,C* etc and a reason why a core of math is transworld universal, i.e. necessary entities [= beings] framework to any possible world. I have noted on this several times. Add, the weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, for any particular A that is, or is a state of affairs, or can be, or is not or cannot ever be, we may freely ask why or why not and confidently expect a reasonable answer. This wifPSR bridges to logic of being, exploiting possible worlds speak. Thus possible vs impossible [of] being, and of possibles contingent vs necessary. Already, that opens up properties of beings and causality. Cause/effect is little more than a corollary to wifPSR. Thus we have some pretty big powerful results in hand that then extend into Mathematics, science, affairs, history etc.
Where, too, I call back up a C1 Rhetoric 101 that shows how conceptual thought and linguistic communication cannot proceed without distinct identity:
1 Cor 14: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
That means, instantly, that any attempt to argue against LOI and its close corollaries, e.g. by appeal to quantum theory, instantly self-refutes, see UD weak argument corrective 38. That clears up a lot of confusion. So, much is next -- as outlined -- and some of it is absolutely central not only to our thought and communication but also it bridges to accurate description and understanding of reality. Once we are willing to acknowledge, we may then proceed to substantial reflection. KFkairosfocus_{March 30, 2022
March
03
Mar
30
30
2022
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

William J Murray,
Q @ 780: I don’t know what or if computers “experience,” so I don’t understand the analogy.
Ok, I'll make the question easier with a rough abstraction. When in operation, computers experience (i.e. react to) electrons traveling through logical NAND and NOR gates in a microprocessor on a PC board that also includes memory chips loaded up with instructions from executable code, and support chips typically in conjunction with a hard disk drive. Whether this qualifies as consciousness is unlikely but debatable depending on anyone's definition of consciousness. So . . . If I shut down every process on my computer – explorer.exe, taskmgr.exe, spoolsv.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, smss.exe, winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, services.exe, etc., FOREVER, does my computer have any more (electron) experiences after that point? Do I, the operator who had been controlling the computer, have any more experiences after that point? -QQuerius_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic/791 I have a few comments to offer.
With the LOI we are able recognize identity. We can apply that to objects. Eventually, we can apply it to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature.
We are able to make sense of the Universe by recognizing what appear to be the distinct entities of which it is comprised. We have evolved a set of linguistic tools which we can use both to model what we observe and to predict what we have not yet observed. Logic is one of those tools and the LOI is a statement of what we have observed. These linguistic modeling tools are only of use if they can both describe what we have observed and predict what we have not yet observed.
To say “this is the universe” creates a separation with what is “not the universe”
Not necessarily. If the Universe is understood to comprise everything that exists, whether or not we are able to observe it, then there is literally nothing beyond it. Any theoretical boundary is between existence and non-existence.
To say “this is all of physical nature” creates that which is “not physical nature”. So, to identify these things is to require the existence of something “outside the boundary”. In that case, we have nature and supernature.
Again, not necessarily. We can only observe anything if it has some effect on observable physical reality. You can posit some immaterial entity living in some sort of "transcendental realm" but unless it leaves some sort of observable physical imprint on the fabric of our reality, we have no way of observing it or even knowing it exists at all. In this case, the boundary is not between nature and supernature but between what is known and what is not known or does not exist to be known.
In our search for truth, we recognize that truth aligns with what exists.
I would agree. Under the correspondence theory of truth, the truth value of any claim about reality is the extent to which it corresponds to what it purports to explain/describe.
A transcendental reality is of greater existence-value than that of the universe.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "existence-value"
That which is circumscribed by matter and energy is subject to decay, loss and dissipation. It has finite powers and does not explain itself, so it must be caused. It is a contingent entity, dependent upon much else for its sustained existence, and depending on “what is outside of it” to define it’s boundary. That which causes the universe, is greater than the universe.
If I read this correctly, it reduces to the age-old and unresolved dilemma of an uncaused first cause or infinite existence. The problem is that positing an uncaused first cause does not escape the problem of infinity because the uncaused first cause, if it exists and has no cause, must have infinite existence.Seversky_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

VL
What is the next step?
With the LOI we are able recognize identity. We can apply that to objects. Eventually, we can apply it to something like the universe or physical reality or to nature. To say "this is the universe" creates a separation with what is "not the universe". To say "this is all of physical nature" creates that which is "not physical nature". So, to identify these things is to require the existence of something "outside the boundary". In that case, we have nature and supernature. In simple terms, this gives us "transcendental reality" or something beyond the universe which exists. In our search for truth, we recognize that truth aligns with what exists. A transcendental reality is of greater existence-value than that of the universe. There are reasons for this: That which is circumscribed by matter and energy is subject to decay, loss and dissipation. It has finite powers and does not explain itself, so it must be caused. It is a contingent entity, dependent upon much else for its sustained existence, and depending on "what is outside of it" to define it's boundary. That which causes the universe, is greater than the universe. So, we have a transcendent being. That's the Not-A in the LOI of the universe. Since the Not-A is a necessary truth as part of the LOI (A=A we identify the universe, Not-A is necessarily true) and what is true aligns with "what is" or with "being" - then we have the existence of a being that is not the universe. That's transcendent being existing.Silver Asiatic_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Hi Sa: You start by writing, “What we’ve done so far is just .... [I omit a bunch of stuff] ... make a proposal where LOI is violated.] I’ll repeat that I agree with all that. Im not sure why you keep repeating that. It may be that you think my examples were meant to question the LOI. They were not. The LOI is central to our rational thinking. My examples were meant to point out that when we go to apply the LOI in our attempt to find propositions that align with reality, there are complexities that we have to keep in mind. I also agree with you that things moving through time doesn’t cause a problem for the LOI, because at any moment everything is what it is, and not another thing, even if in the next moment it is a slightly different thing. After discussing my examples, you quoted my as writing, “Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself.” You agreed, saying, “That’s true and I agree.” Then you write, “Although we can also say that our thinking is part of the world, and it actually shapes the world. When we implement our ideas, then the world changes as a result.” I’m not sure what you mean here. Merely thinking something doesn’t change the world. We change the world when we act upon our thoughts, but that is different. Can you explain more what you mean, Then you wrote, “ So, we have an interaction with the world that is real. We trust our senses to give us an accurate picture of things.” I agree with that. I am not an idealist like WJM. I assume the external world is real, I believe our senses give us fairly accurate information about the world within the limits of their abilities, and that we can discover truths about the world by observing it, creating ideas about it, and testing those ideas in numerous ways to make us more certain about their validity. I don’t think this is an issue between us. In fact, when I wrote, “How do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like?”, you said those were great questions. Great questions, thanks. In your final paragraph, you bring up some issues that go beyond what we’ve said so far. You write, after saying again that the LOI is absolute, “Then we have deductions where, if the premises are certain, we have a high degree of certainty.” [my emphasis] This is where alignment with reality can get difficult. Generally, logical propositions make conditional statements in the form if p, then q, and then tie various chains of reasoning together using logic. But the logic itself can’t tell us whether the beginning premise p is true: that takes observing the world, as I’ve mentioned above. So building an understanding of what is true has to go beyond logic itself and find verifiable premises with which to reason. And then you write, “The final thing, and I think this touches on your view – can we ever truly say that a certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence? What would be required for us to say that? Can we think of areas in science, for example, where the belief is “we can never know it”? First, I think this jumps ahead of where we are at. But I’ll reply anyway. I don’t think I ever said a “certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence?” (QM brings up issues in this regard, I suppose, but I don’t think we’re talking about that.) I have talked about their being things I don’t think we can know, which is different, but I think jumping ahead to metaphysic is premature. I’ll also point out that I’m not talking about science per se, but about how people in general build their understanding about the world: how do we come to think certain things are true? Then you write, “We reached an agreement on a non-scientific truth, which is something we both agree is certain and which is always true. So, we wouldn’t say that observed science is the only means of having true statements. I see this as pointing to the reliability of our knowledge and that we have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence.” I have never held that science is the only means of having true statements. I hope that is very clear. Also, I don’t think we have discussed at all the idea that, “We have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence”, and I don’t see how that follows from the things we have agreed about. Also, if we were to discuss that, although it might be premature, we would need to start by discuss what kinds of things count as a reason or an explanation. So to me the next step is discussing how do we use our rational abilities, including logic, to create understandings that align with reality? I think that our understandings are an overlay, or a model if you will, of reality, built on our observations of the world (and ourself) and then testing for confirmation in various ways. Perhaps it's time to get more specific about this, with examples? Or perhaps is time to go back to the beginning of our discussion: You quoted me, in response to Q, that “that the evidence ... points to a sentient transcendental being, with motivation and intention (as you mentioned earlier), and then to a all wise and benevolent being (as KF asserts) is a large number of leaps of faith embedded in a particular cultural theological tradition. And you replied, “They’re not really big leaps if you follow each step carefully.” That’s what we’re trying to do: follow each step carefully. We’ve established the primacy of the LOI and logic in general, agreed that in order to get truth (which we want to align with reality) we have to observe reality and try to find true propositions, and that chains of logical reasons start with premises which must be true for the chain to be true. What is the next step?Viola Lee_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

VL What we've done so far is just look at the root of our rational thinking, which is A=A. Then the most important point here is that A=A is irrefutable. There are no exceptions. It's an absolute truth. But is A=A a part of every affirmation that we make and therefore of ever rational thought we have or express? I believe the answer is yes. Not only is A=A always correct in itself, but every rational construct or idea or proposal we have more make, requires that A=A be at the foundation. We cannot make a proposal where LOI is violated. With that in mind, we just have to look at your proposals and observe that the LOI is operative. If it is operative in every situation, then we have good grounds to believe that we have this dualism. We always have A and not-A, and therefore this is an indication about how reality is structured.
First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this.
Yes, but eventually we have Arizona and New Mexico. If they are not unique then they are the same thing. If they are unique, then there's some reason - something that sets them apart. Even if the line is vague or people disagree on the line, eventually we have "this is New Mexico and this is Arizona". Then we have the one and everything else that is not-that. A and not-A. We could say "this is both New Mexico and Arizona" (maybe they share some territory). But again, if we say that, we cannot say "this is both of them and this is not both of them". That's a violation of LOI. So we have the "not both of them" existing. It's the place that is not either.
Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico,
Eventually we have to define the thing. Even if we say "I can't tell the difference". We will be pointing to "something". We would say "that place over there has foothills leading to the mountain". We identified "that place" as separate from all other places. So, A is not equal to not-A. Eventually, we have something that is not the foothills or the mountain or something that is not both together - that's the "outside the boundary" or not-A. The only way this could be violated is if we said "everything is the foothills and the mountain".
Third, some things are very unquantifiable, and the way they exist “in reality” is unclear.
We know those things exist because you identified them here. "There are things that exist which are hard to quantify". But eventually, we have a not-A. Otherwise, those things cannot exist.
Is it true that either I love X or I don’t love them? Is there a clear dividing line between the two?
We don't need a clear dividing line. If you said "I love X and I don't love X", we know what you mean. You love X under certain aspects and don't love X under others. So, that's not a violation of LOI. However, if you said under the same aspects I love and do not love X, that's a problem. I love ice cream and I don't love ice cream. That does not violate A=A because we know it is: "I love the flavor of ice cream but I do not love ice cream for its carbs and fat". However, if we said: "I love strawberries because they are flavorful and healthy AND I do not love strawberries because they are flavorful and healthy." Then that violates LOI. We said the existing thing (our love for strawberries) is the same as the non-existing thing (our non-love).
Fourth, and more esoteric is this. Consider the sun. At all moments it is sending out photons so that a vast spherical mass of photons are always there. If we were a different kind of creature who perceived the world differently, we might see the sun’s identity as including all the photons, not as the sun sending out all those photons. That is, again, there are reasons why the dividing line the defines identity might not be clear.
Eventually, there will be a sun and photons. We will know that because it is separated as A=A and that means there will be an inner-boundary (A) separated from the outer. So, there is something that is "not sun and photons". One may define it one way, another another - but in all cases, we have this dualism in reality. It's two-fold. Something is inside the boundary and something outside. The question of "is this the right definition of sun and photons"? is a different thing and that's where it can be fuzzy or even incorrect.
And last, think of the world from a quantum perspective. Are there “things” there that have a distinct identity? Of course we can only think of A and not-A because that is innate and fundamental to us, but given (in my opinion) that our experience and thinking is attuned to the macro-world of our sensory experience, can our thinking really grasp that at the quantum level there might be a “smeared out” world in which distinct identity doesn’t exist?
We could say that prior to observation the wave function gives probabilities that are not a distinct A, but they’re really potential particles and anything that is observed will be in a measured position, so that we can say we never have a particle that is both A and not-A at the same time. Another possible objection could be that we never truly have “an A” because whatever we think of is moving through time and the A of this second is different from the A one second later. But we’re talking about the entity A. “I see a deer running on the hillside”. The deer moves position, it’s also 10 seconds older than when I first saw it. But we call it the same deer (and hillside). In my philosophical view (realism) that is because there is an underlying substance and form for the deer that persists while some external characteristics of the deer change. So A remains the same A. That is definitely true of things that don’t change in time like numbers of concepts. The big problem would be that if we could ever refute the LOI, we would destroy rational thought also because the LOI is required in our propositions, thoughts and affirmations about reality.
Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself.
That’s true and I agree. Although we can also say that our thinking is part of the world, and it actually shapes the world. When we implement our ideas, then the world changes as a result. So, we have an interaction with the world that is real. We trust our senses to give us an accurate picture of things.
Given these complexities, how do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like?
Great questions, thanks. I invite you to offer your initial thoughts on this, in light of LOI and what we discussed (validation to reality). I’d begin with the idea that with A=A we have a rare truth that is certain, objective and absolute. We can validate that by matching what we see in reality, and it is not falsified (where A=A and Not-A at the same time). Then we have deductions where, if the premises are certain, we have a high degree of certainty. The other cases are where we have to use inferences to the best explanation. We don’t have absolute certainty, but we see something that is consistent and we expect the future will show the same result. The final thing, and I think this touches on your view – can we ever truly say that a certain entity or event that we observe or know about, has no reason its existence? What would be required for us to say that? Can we think of areas in science, for example, where the belief is “we can never know it”? We reached an agreement on a non-scientific truth, which is something we both agree is certain and which is always true. So, we wouldn’t say that observed science is the only means of having true statements. I see this as pointing to the reliability of our knowledge and that we have good grounds to believe that any existing thing must have a reason or explanation for its existence.Silver Asiatic_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

WJM
The question is, is it rational to say that “I have an experience” when I am in no way aware of it, or ever will be, and it will never have any effect on my conscious experience?
The fact that we can remember it later means that we were not conscious of it when it happened. In fact, we weren't aware. We might wonder even from childhood: "Why was I so frightened?" and only until adulthood realize - it must have been when I was in that place and things were happening around me. Sometimes people in psychotherapy realize experiences that they were never conscious of when they happened. Now, however, you've asked about "experiences we will never be conscious of" - how could they affect us? As the previous example, those experiences can shape us in ways we don't know - even though we were not consciously aware of them at the time. But did we "experience" those things that we never were consciously aware of? I think we still experienced them, even at the time. Maybe like a prize-fighter or football player who is accustomed to many painful hits on the body. It can happen so often, that the guy is not even consciously aware of them. He's just getting pummelled - can't count the hits. Then even to the end of his life, he never remembers exactly what happened. I'm not talking about brain-damage, let's say he's perfectly clear in his mind. But he had so many stings and hurts, that even while they were occuring he couldn't notice them. It was as if they never happened. He didn't consciously experience them. However, all through his life he has these physical effects. So, he may never remember what happened but he experienced something in reality and he has the traces of those effects in his body. So, the experiences made an impact on him, even though he never felt it at the time and cannot remember what happened. That may not be the perfect analogy but it's my way of thinking that there is an external reality that we can encounter in a non-conscious way -- just through our bodily senses.Silver Asiatic_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

WJM
Take one of those little robotic vacuum cleaners; it reacts to its environment.
Yes, but to be consistent, the robot is equipped with sensors that take in signals from the environment. In fact, we call them "sensors" based on our own "senses". So, I believe that I sense the external environment like the robot does. The robot processes the data it takes in through sensors, so it does not need consciousness to act. I do have consciousness, but it is informed by data received from the real, external world.Silver Asiatic_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

KF writes, "I have noted on this several times." That's the understatement of the day! :-)Viola Lee_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

SA: As far as the paramecium question, I don't know. Just because a paramecium or anything else reacts to the environment doesn't indicate it is having an experience. Take one of those little robotic vacuum cleaners; it reacts to its environment. Does that mean it is having an experience? No. For all i know, paramecium are robotic nanotechnology. In order for them to be having any first-person experiences, as per my prior comment about the difference between "an occurrence" and "an experience," they would obviously require some form of at least rudimentary consciousness. Otherwise, they're just a form of biological technology.William J Murray_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

SA said:
In my view, there is a difference between experience and consciousness. We can experience things that we are unconscious of, and only realize it later.
I think this is the key to this discussion. The question is, is it rational to say that "I have an experience" when I am in no way aware of it, or ever will be, and it will never have any effect on my conscious experience? I think you're conflating two different things, "an occurrence" and "an experience." You say we can be unaware of something that happens (occurs) until later - and I agree. However, we don't experience that occurrence at the time it occurs; rather, we experience it later as memory in our aware consciousness. This is made clear by the hypothetical example I offered where I shut down all forms of your consciousness forever. Let's say I do that but your body is still kept operating via artificial means, and I put out a lit cigarette on the palm of the hand of that body. The occurrence of that event will never be experienced as a painful burn by any form of your now-erased consciousness, ever. "You" never experience it, even though the event occurred to "your" hand that still has a completely functioning sensory apparatus. So, we can see here clearly the distinction between an occurrence and an experience, and that the only way to have an actual experience is in one's consciousness, even if the experience of the occurrence happens later via memory. Q @ 780: I don't know what or if computers "experience," so I don't understand the analogy.William J Murray_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

VL, LOI has as immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM, also once we look at world W = {A|~A} we see 0, 1, another complex 1 so 2. That invites the von Neumann construction of Peano style succession from {} --> 0 to w, first transfinite ordinal. Further construction immediately yields N,Z,Q,R,R*,C,C* etc and a reason why a core of math is transworld universal, i.e. necessary entities [= beings] framework to any possible world. I have noted on this several times. Add, the weak inquiry form principle of sufficient reason, for any particular A that is, or is a state of affairs, or can be, or is not or cannot ever be, we may freely ask why or why not and confidently expect a reasonable answer. This wifPSR bridges to logic of being, exploiting possible worlds speak. Thus possible vs impossible [of] being, and of possibles contingent vs necessary. Already, that opens up properties of beings and causality. Cause/effect is little more than a corollary to wifPSR. Thus we have some pretty big powerful results in hand that then extend into Mathematics, science, affairs, history etc. KFkairosfocus_{March 29, 2022
March
03
Mar
29
29
2022
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

re 774, to SA. First we agree that all people are searching for the truth to some extent about at least some things, we agree about the use of logic in our search, and that our next topic should be the search for truth., I think this search is where our conversation should go next. We also agree that the LOI (and I would add all the logic that follows) is “inbuilt [innate] in us because of our rational nature” We also agree that ‘we validate the truth through an alignment with reality” and that “other things, beyond logic, are necessary for our best understanding.” Then you write, “One thing we can conclude (if you agree) is that we have a two-fold nature of reality at this point.” Here I think we need some more discussion. Separating things into A and not-A is fundamental to thinking. Because we think with words we can’t help but think in terms of A and not-A. However the ways separating things into A and not-A is, or might be, fundamental to reality is not so clear. Here are some complexities in thinking about “identity divisions”. First, some identity divisions are entirely man-made and arbitrary. For example, you are either in Arizona or not, but the dividing line between Arizona and New Mexico only exists as a man-made convention. Many things are like this. Second, similar but more vague: is a certain tree on a mountain or not? Where do the foothills become a mountain? Again, there is no clear dividing line, although the distinctions are anchored in physical reality a bit more than the state line between Arizona and New Mexico, Third, some things are very unquantifiable, and the way they exist “in reality” is unclear. Is it true that either I love X or I don’t love them? Is there a clear dividing line between the two? Or is it more likely that I love some things about them, but not others, or in fact that I sort of love them, but not in the same way or with the intensity as I love others. Fourth, and more esoteric is this. Consider the sun. At all moments it is sending out photons so that a vast spherical mass of photons are always there. If we were a different kind of creature who perceived the world differently, we might see the sun’s identity as including all the photons, not as the sun sending out all those photons. That is, again, there are reasons why the dividing line the defines identity might not be clear. And last, think of the world from a quantum perspective. Are there “things” there that have a distinct identity? Of course we can only think of A and not-A because that is innate and fundamental to us, but given (in my opinion) that our experience and thinking is attuned to the macro-world of our sensory experience, can our thinking really grasp that at the quantum level there might be a “smeared out” world in which distinct identity doesn’t exist? My main point here is that I’m making a distinction between how we think about reality and how reality is. Our thinking is there to help us understand the world, but our understandings are an overlay over the world as it really is. We want to know the truth about the world, but the truth we find is a human truth that must be a compromise between our ability to articulate our understandings in terms of identities and the complexities of reality itself. Given these complexities, how do we search for the truth about the world? How do we make and test concepts to find out if they really align with reality? How do we get good working models in our mind of what reality is really like? I think this is the next question. I welcome your comments on the distinctions I have made and the points I have raised. [Note: I am also interested in your comment about monism, but that takes us into metaphysics and is premature, I think. But I will save your comments for some other time.]Viola Lee_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Totally off topic, but does anyone know if something has happened to ET? He was always very present on this site but I haven’t seen a comment from him in quite some time.Scamp_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

William J Murray, If I shut down every process on my computer – explorer.exe, taskmgr.exe, spoolsv.exe, lsass.exe, csrss.exe, smss.exe, winlogon.exe, svchost.exe, services.exe, etc., FOREVER, does my computer have any more experiences after that point? Do I have any more experiences after that point? -QQuerius_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

WJM
What are the “outer world” boundaries that allow us to identify math when we are thinking about it and not misidentify it as love?
The outer world boundaries are that we call something "math". So, we draw a boundary around it. This action causes there to exist an outer world called "non math". We would then categorize love as being outside of the boundary of math. Otherwise, we would not be able to identify math, and we could not have LOI A=A.
When we identify something (other than ourselves) as A, what is doing the identifying?
It's part of our rational nature. You're arguing that we are nothing but mind, but it doesn't follow that just because we undertake rational analysis that we do not have a physical body. In my view, we have a physical body, a mind and a soul which brings all together in what we would call "a person". So, when we identify A=A, that's one aspect of a person. It's not our digestive system, for example.
Is A identifying itself? Are our physical bodies identifying A? Or is the identification of something that occurs the consciousness of the observer?
We are not always identifying A=A since that does require a rational consciousness and we do not perpetually live in that state of mind. We can be unconscious or semi-conscious or in a meditative state where we are not thinking.Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

WJM
If I shut down every form of consciousness you have – the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point?
In my view of consciousness, it is a self-awareness where we process experiences taken in by the senses. So, we can have sense-experiences without consciousness. The example I gave was animals. But even more basically, something like a single-celled paramecium. We can observe the paramecium experiencing light or heat and responding to such. So, I can infer that the paramecium has experiences. Does the paramecium have self-aware consciousness? If it does, then yes - it requires consciousness to experience things. But I don't see evidence that tells me that paramecium have self-aware consciousness. Some evidence that would tell me that they (or any animals and plants did) would be to observe enough individuality in the species. That a simple amoeba, for example, viewed itself as independent of instincts and determined qualities of their species and could act for goals higher than nutrition and survival. So yes, I think sensory experiences can happen in a being that does not have self-aware consciousness.Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

SA said:
In fact, the LOI provides a dualistic world and therefore does not reduce human life to one thing. Whatever we identify we will have the “non-A” so an outer world providing the boundary.
What are the "outer world" boundaries that allow us to identify math when we are thinking about it and not misidentify it as love? When we identify something (other than ourselves) as A, what is doing the identifying? Is A identifying itself? Are our physical bodies identifying A? Or is the identification of something that occurs the consciousness of the observer?William J Murray_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

SA, It appears to me that you did not answer my question. Let me make it more simple and explicit: If I shut down every form of consciousness you have - the unconscious, subconscious, semi-conscious, regular consciousness, hyper-consciousness, higher consciousness, etc., FOREVER, do you have any more experiences after that point?William J Murray_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

WJM
If so, please tell me how what we are identifying as “you” persists if I shut off all forms of your conscious experience forever.
In my view, there is a difference between experience and consciousness. We can experience things that we are unconscious of, and only realize it later. We think back and realize that something hurt, or that we were happy or that we saw something that we didn't notice. In reflection, we realized we were "not consciously aware" when we experienced the thing. That happens through sensory input - which is the classical way of describing how we receive data. We take the sense data in, and may be conscious of it, or may not be until later (and therefore, may not be conscious at all). I'd give a somewhat weird idea, in the sense that we don't really know, but a thought experiment ... Do animals experience things? Do they have the conscious awareness of being "a you" or "a person consciously experiencing"? I think animals do experience sensations but not in a way that is consciously aware of a self. So, I don't think consciousness and experience are the same thing. I think this points to the idea that we take in data from our senses from the world around us and by our body (which I believe is a real, physical body), and then process in our consciousness, and ultimately interiorized in our soul (which is the form of the person).
the LOI is reductionist in that it requires you reduce anything you are talking about in terms of that which give it its proper identity that distinguishes A from not-A.
You could look at it that way, but it's not a reduction to a monist substratum like saying "all is mind" or "all is matter". In fact, the LOI provides a dualistic world and therefore does not reduce human life to one thing. Whatever we identify we will have the "non-A" so an outer world providing the boundary. That's not really what would be considered reductionist, although you're right that we have truth vs error at the beginning and Being vs Non-being. I'm adding that we have this: Truth (A=A) Being (Truth is validated by "what is") The Good (Truth is aligned with value or goodness).Silver Asiatic_{March 28, 2022
March
03
Mar
28
28
2022
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 29 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply