I honestly find it hard to believe that the law of non-contradiction, typically seen as the first principal in metaphysics, is itself dependant on the existence of essence of things. In fact, the strength (or weakness depending on the case) of pure logic is that it contains no substance, only variables (A, B, X, Y, ...). Furthermore, it seems like an easy cop out for someone to dismiss a logical argument simply on the grounds that he does not believe in the essence of the terms used. Could you unpack this 'bald' example if possible?Law of non-contradiction does not hold without a hard definition of the essence, so invoking the law presupposes the conclusion that there is such an essence. Dr Cleland brings the subject up using 'bald' as the example. — noAxioms
I think it still does due to premise 2. Here is an analogy: We know country X exists because we know someone from country X. We also know country Y exists because we know someone from country Y. This is enough to deduce that a separation or border exists between countries X and Y.Yes, one could arbitrarily make up such a rule, and then be able to classify anything as life or not-life, but what has that proven? That is not the essence of life, it is just an arbitrary rule that sorts things into two buckets. It does not prove the existence of an essence. — noAxioms
If there is no solid truth value to some proposition, it is not a logical (boolean) argument, but rather a fuzzy one. "I am bald" and "I am not bald" can both be true since there is no agreed upon theory of bald.Furthermore, it seems like an easy cop out for someone to dismiss a logical argument simply on the grounds that he does not believe in the essence of the terms used. — Samuel Lacrampe
What's this got to do with it? For one, the existence of a person who is "from" (born in? Raised? Citizen?) country X is not proof of the continued existence of X. Furthermore, the logic made no statement that all countries occupy disjoint geographical regions (and there are indeed counter examples), so no conclusion about their separation can be drawn at all.I think it still does due to premise 2. Here is an analogy: We know country X exists because we know someone from country X. We also know country Y exists because we know someone from country Y. This is enough to deduce that a separation or border exists between countries X and Y. — Samuel Lacrampe
About this one: No 'essence' (in quotes because I dislike applying the term here) has been established, so the example is not a clear one. There are those that have argued on these forums that rocks are an example of life, or that dogs are not. I may not agree with these positions, but I have no rule which I can apply to prove either of them wrong.- There exists an instance where a being is clearly labelled as living and another instance where a being is clearly labelled non-living: e.g. a dog and a rock. — Samuel Lacrampe
I disagree. The only criteria is consistency in A and consistency in B in the law of non-contradiction. You don't need to find the real essence of "bald" but merely need a consistent definition, such as "no hair anywhere on the head". In this case, "I am bald" and "I am not bald" are mutually exclusive. Therefore only consistency and not the essence in the terms is needed to apply the law of non-contradiction."I am bald" and "I am not bald" can both be true since there is no agreed upon theory of bald. — noAxioms
I used the word 'separation' loosely. The separation can be disjoint and yet still a separation.the logic made no statement that all countries occupy disjoint geographical regions (and there are indeed counter examples), so no conclusion about their separation can be drawn at all. — noAxioms
Your statement is circular.If no absolute criteria is known (fuzzy fact), then you can't invoke the law of contradiction to prove that there is in fact an absolute criteria. — noAxioms
Are you asking why finding the essence of life is important? I personally find the topic interesting; that is why I am here. Why are you here if you don't find the topic important?Why is it important? — noAxioms
So the observer is included within the very epistemology of science - as the viewpoint which is to be constrained in some pragmatic/semiotic fashion. — apokrisis
So you are criticising that science does not explain mind. But science exists to shape the mind. It is the reasoning mind in action with the benefit of a sharper method of practice. You want mind incorporated as a scientific output, when it is instead incorporated as the input - a way to refine the modelling that minds are there for. — apokrisis
In my opinion, the best neuroscience model of the mind is Karl Friston's Bayesian Brain approach. And that does describe it as a semiotic dissipative structure - http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/The%20free-energy%20principle%20-%20a%20rough%20guide%20to%20the%20brain.pdf
The mind as informational mechanism is all about reducing the uncertainty that a physical/material world has for an organism. So it is all about modelling that is intimately tied to physical regulation. And that is why a lack of such a tie makes artificial intelligence so impoverished - unless it is, as I argue, tied back into human entropic activities as yet a further level of semiosis. — apokrisis
Any description of mind which uses psychological terms only as metaphor (e.g., accept, desire, rage, self, autonomy, as above) is inadequate, leading to confusion rather than clarity. — Galuchat
OK, you've selected that arbitrary criteria of which I spoke (not exactly since we've not defined where 'the head' stops, but let's define that as the smallest cross section of the neck, which works for humans at least). How does this arbitrary selection provide evidence that there is an actual essence of 'bald'? Never mind the fact that the criteria sorts all of humanity into the not-bald side, so the distinction must be pretty meaningless.I disagree. The only criteria is consistency in A and consistency in B in the law of non-contradiction. You don't need to find the real essence of "bald" but merely need a consistent definition, such as "no hair anywhere on the head". In this case, "I am bald" and "I am not bald" are mutually exclusive. Therefore only consistency and not the essence in the terms is needed to apply the law of non-contradiction. — Samuel Lacrampe
How so?If no absolute criteria is known (fuzzy fact), then you can't invoke the law of contradiction to prove that there is in fact an absolute criteria.
— noAxioms
Your statement is circular.
Interesting yes, but the topic can be discussed without needing to know that there is or is not an actual 'essence'.Are you asking why finding the essence of life is important? I personally find the topic interesting; that is why I am here. Why are you here if you don't find the topic important?
The Nous is the mind which orders all the parts of the cosmos to behave in an orderly fashion. That's what you describe when you say that the universe follows final cause (the intent of a mind), and inanimate things behave according to habits (actions resulting from a mind). — Metaphysician Undercover
So my use of "mind" is clearly deflationary. Especially as I am explicitly generalising it to semiosis, or sign rather than mind. Semiosis is mind-like - in being the mechanism or process by which formal/final cause are understood as immanent in nature. — apokrisis
But - as I understand it anyway - it is critical that nous is immanent and not transcendent. It is not about some spirit or external hand acting on an inanimate and purposeless world. Instead, pansemiosis is a theory of immanent self-organisation - the taking of habits that forms a cosmos obeying its own accumulated laws. — apokrisis
Do you not see that this is unreasonable? — Metaphysician Undercover
I conclude that your metaphysics is essentially pantheistic. The Cosmos is a living god. Do you agree with this assessment? — Metaphysician Undercover
So no, this ain't about gods or minds or anything that requires hard dualism. Semiosis is how physicalism can enjoy all the benefits of dualism without any of its mystic-mongering and question-begging. — apokrisis
Yes, the Cosmos has a Mind. And if that sounds whacky, well sorry but this is what we actually mean in terms of modern physical models based on the interchangability of H and S measures of information entropy. We can now talk about particles and brains in the same essential language. — apokrisis
It doesn't in any direct way. We got side tracked by you claiming that the essence of A and B must exist for the law of non-contradiction to be applicable. I refute this by claiming that we only need consistency and not essence for it. If we agree to this, then my first premise in the argument to prove that essences exist stands: "Either a being is a living being or a non-living being. It cannot be both."How does this arbitrary selection provide evidence that there is an actual essence of 'bald'? — noAxioms
Maybe "circular" was the wrong word; my bad. Nevertheless, it sounds like you demand to know X in order to prove X using the law of non-contradiction. But if X is known, then it must have already been proven. A valid proof implies a logical proof. A logical proof implies that is passes the law of non-contradiction.How so? — noAxioms
I am amazed. Only philosophers could come up with such conclusions.There are those that have argued on these forums that rocks are an example of life, or that dogs are not. — noAxioms
A fair point. It is tough to explain but here goes. I invoke Aristotle's theory of abstraction: We all have in ourselves the implicit knowledge of terms such as 'living' and 'non-living'. This is so by our years of sense observation of the world. This implicit knowledge is what enables us to use the terms correctly in everyday language, even if we don't have the explicit definition of all the terms used. Thus a 10-year old can have a meaningful conversation without ever having read a dictionary. Finding the essence of terms is simply acquiring explicit knowledge based on our implicit knowledge. I think our implicit knowledge that a dog is living and a rock is non-living is pretty grounded.I may not agree with these positions, but I have no rule which I can apply to prove either of them wrong. — noAxioms
Semiosis is how physicalism can enjoy all the benefits of dualism without any of its mystic-mongering and question-begging. — apokrisis
Have you no respect for the advancements made by metaphysicians between then and now? In particular, I refer to those advancements which have created the categories of animate and inanimate things. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.