Esinn
Posts: 886
Joined: 6/23/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterHermes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Esinn
We know according to the three laws of logic which are non-conceptual laws, they exist without a human mind, for something to exist it must have an identity which is not a logical contradiction.
Definition is a mandatory prerequisite for existence - a logical postulate. Meaning for something which human current knowledge is aware of to exist we must be able to give "X" an articulate non-ambigious definition. If this can not be done or the definition violates the laws of logic the concept is meaningless, & simply ceases to exist or is proven to be a concept existing only within the individual mind - having no external influence.
Since you are a great follower of the logic: How did you come up with the idea of these logical laws being exist without a human mind (or any other mind in that matter) ? In order to make that observation you must exist, and your very existence makes it impossible for you to observe if those laws are non-conceptual. You can not declare any non-conceptual laws in the field of logic, because you as a human being are already conceptualizing every observation you make. This is how a thought process works for the human mind. First you get a sensory information from your eyes, ears, nose etc.. (it can be something like reading too, you need eyes for reading or ears for hearing somebody to read you if you are blind). Then your mind process this sensory information and conceptualize it, then it makes a conclusion by comparing it with prior knowledge, then your brain stores it. Therefore you can never be in a position of knowing what is non-conceptual as long as you are in the field of thought , therefore logic.
Now what happened here is similar. You read or heard something about god (sensory info from ears and eyes), you thought about it (conceptualized it) , you compared it with your previous conclusions, you made a new conclusion or an altered version of an old one and you decided to share it. Same process repeated for other people replying you, and since everybody has different previous conclusions , they also made different inferences. This will keep on going as an endless cycle.
Now I suspect you want to challenge other peoples concept of god using your logic, instead of wondering what is the essence of the universe. That is all fine (if you are all entertained), as long as you realize every inference you make is conceptual.
Hermes
Sorry I missed you. I will never do it intentionally - like you I do my best.. Shoot me a private message if you are so inclined to get me in gear.
quote:
Since you are a great follower of the logic: How did you come up with the idea of these logical laws being exist without a human mind (or any other mind in that matter) ? In order to make that observation you must exist, and your very existence makes it impossible for you to observe if those laws are non-conceptual.
I did not invent the laws of logic. The idea is not mine. I would suggest a philosophy class. The law of identity, like the other 2, is extremely clear, A is always A. If A is something other than itself it becomes logically impossible, like a square circle, something which can not exist(see the other laws of logic). It is a tautology. These 3 laws are logical absolutes - I've not met anyone who has disagreed. Even without a mind, I assume you do not believe the universe depends upon minds to exist, A would still be A. Possibly I explained it incorrectly in my OP. However, this is what I was getting at. I will peek at it in a bit. An analogy might be the speed of light (186,000 miles/s) relative to the observer. No matter how much this violates our notion of common sense this is a fundamental law and necessity. We only need to identify a few more of these absolutes to understand everything.
quote:
This is how a thought process works for the human mind. First you get a sensory information from your eyes, ears, nose etc.. (it can be something like reading too, you need eyes for reading or ears for hearing somebody to read you if you are blind). Then your mind process this sensory information and conceptualize it, then it makes a conclusion by comparing it with prior knowledge, then your brain stores it.
Ya, sure this conclusion can be wrong for many reasons though.
- Decoupled cognition
- Hyperactive agency detection
- Attachment Mechanisms
- Transference
- Reciprocal Altruism
- Empathy
- Confirmation Bias
Drugs, mental illness, disease, social pressure, 'internal' pressure, poor sensory perception, religion  Those are just a few of the known psychological mechanisms that can force us to reach an incorrect or otherwise broken conclusion. If you disagree with these or are not sure what they are the point still stands incorrect conclusions are frequent(I added some others ontop of this paragraph). As I have not read your future posts I wonder where you are going.
The purpose of me bringing up the three laws of logic is 90% of religions I am aware of define god(s) as an absolute. How they arrive there is beyond me. But, this is another day. Going back to the top A is A or it is not. god is god or it is not. god is invisible or it is not. When a circle becomes a square it no longer exists.
quote:
essence of the universe.
'Essence'? At this time it seems it would be particles or 'strings' - nothing more. There is no logical reason to believe it would be anything else. What does the essence of the universe have to do with defining god?
_____________________________
Let's break the law
|
RE: Define God - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread