You must have frustated your mom (or dad depending on if there was some rational influence in your life). In any case, it seems like we've been throught this before, but let's focus once again on the LNC before we talk about the other issues (since it appears key to whatever mumbo jumbo you believe to be true):

***Human experience seems limited to LNC; in that to be "experience" requires BEING "experience"; that is, requires the "experience" to BE; to EXIST; to be non-contradicting. I'm suggesting human experience and everything else is limited to LNC because to be is to be. Of course we seem to experience contradictions when people lie; but is it an experience or a gap in experience, that we experience? Or a gap in consciousness in the one that contradicted? Perhaps we observe an obscuration of awareness in the one that contradicts?***

Let's break this down:

P1: LNC is true
P2: Everything ('existence') is limited to LNC, even (P1) and (P2)
C3: Experience cannot contradict LNC (from (P1) and (P2))
C4: Pragmatism is based on LNC (from (C3))

I deny (P1). You need to use (P1) in order to establish (P1). Here is my take:

P1: Human experience establishes classical logic as 'true'
P2: Evaluation of classical logic leads to certain axioms which all of classical logic must be consistent.
P3: Other 'logics' can be constructed that are self-consistent to their axioms.
P4: Other 'logics' can be constructed without the LNC axiom.
C5: The LNC axiom might be limited to human experience
C6: Alan is wrong and should cease and desist talk about mumbo jumbo.

You see, this talk of LNC being necessary for existence is Aristotelian mumbo jumbo. It is human experience that might make LNC appear to be true, not existence itself or whatever mumbo jumbo you want to introduce.

Harv

• no logic can be constructed.... - dolphin - October 29, 2002 - 03:51 UTC
  • Dogma? - harvey1 - October 29, 2002 - 14:59 UTC
• Detail - dolphin - November 13, 2002 - 06:22 UTC