Unless I’m mistaken, you are Benny44 who has replied to some of my posts. And yes, I do not know the extent of your knowledge. But that doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t exhibited enough knowledge about what we have been discussing for further conversation to bear fruit.
You can know philosophical absolutes, like Law of Contradiction, Law of Excluded Middle, etc. However, when we apply these labels of A is not B and then reference reality, the logic only works if we’ve correctly labeled A in reality and B in reality. But we can’t know that unless reality demonstrates that for us. That is why you can be logically correct and still factually wrong because what you labeled in reality as A and B and then you run the experiment to see if they follow the logic, sometimes, you’ll learn that you didn’t know enough about A and B to separate them like that in those categories. Your ignorance about A and B in reality gets better and you learn that B is a subset of A or something else entirely. That’s why, any philosophical claim about reality has to be tested against reality for us to be justified in believing that claim to be actually true for reality.
Yes that is a logical law. A can not be B. But once you reference something in reality about that, regardless of how obvious and intuitive it seems, you still have to test that claim. Truth claims about reality are not justified until you can falsify them against reality, regardless of how big your ego is for assuming you couldn’t be wrong here.
Wrong, we are the only ones that can communicate this concept to other human beings. Elephants and primates are able to express all the ranges of emotion that people do, just they don’t speak your language, for example.
We are wired to need ceremony for emotional release of heightened emotional states. We feel insignificant in when we look into the vastness of the cosmos at night, so we create ceremonies to deal with that, like finding significance with our tribe. We feel our time to experience life is short, so we created art that will last beyond our time here so we can have a taste of immortality. We kiss photos of past lovers, talk to our family member’s head stones, etc.
Without a human to giraffe dictionary you will have a very difficult time proving emotions in other animals.
So something is created.
Have you never owned a dog or watch documentaries on primates that learn sign language? You’ve never seen the terror that a pachyderm expresses when their child is stuck in a hole?
050[0861_AEEPN]2.0.CO;2/5/m_i0006-3568-50-10-861-f01.jpeg?Expires=1784222069&Signature=VosbKmPD5eoMXrdzNdibpu638CQU~YKErV1MdZiEvn0RitDpdTG5IrVQmonHUtWLKhV44Lzp00geGqtipVLftzeJvRxuZA0~wTB6py7DDfd0e6bA0ZQlH-xDzOStZMt7yTAK3TvDQiO132gupmSaHbfUiPl1sNl~nxouQi27JMWAdwnQJAtb6wO-wOR-mfqiVuIuvs6AkDgb82do3pq1CRsCJ5mMzvPcuHVUDYLqBeE3333E86RyjCL3Yl1AVULK6Xw20Y1IhUyb63fL~Z7P-t3bCs-P9HdG5SvXWwYY2n7GGgEpjNXcY9l74oJ7uwpqE52NB1mMrtcYWAK1fFswzA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA)
academic.oup.com
A story around the campfire, just like the bee “waggle-dance” when they find a food source.
It’s in our memory, which is a brain function we can study.
I Have.
You don’t have to test what is ontologically necessary. I know that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time because to be something is an ontological feature of reality and to be nothing at all is not an ontological feature of reality. There are also truths that follow necessarily from that fact for the same reason, such as the fact that a thing cannot come from absolutely nothing without a cause because we know that absolutely nothing has no reality in it, it is a lack of reality, and therefore reality cannot come from it. It follows therefore that anything that begins to exist is necessarily caused by something that is already real. You cannot object to this fact, and it is an arbitrary and ridiculous demand that one must subject such facts to an empirical method.
Yes you don’t have to test A does not equal B. But once you reference A to something in reality and B to something in reality, you do. Just like you don’t have to test “A does not equal B”. But you do once you say, “A = Apple and B is not an Apple”, You have to test this because they actually might be the same based on our ignorance of reality. It’s people that just assume they are obviously right and can’t be wrong that paves the way for charlatan and crystal healers and every other huckster out there trying to get your life savings.
Yes there is always another, “How did that happen?” question. So we learn where we have to stop and say, “We don’t know.” from this point because we can’t test any further than this. Which is great to know so that you know where you need to spend your time trying to learn instead of just making stuff up and believing its actually true for reality that you’ve never tested or can’t test.
Address the argument i put forward to you. Otherwise we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Making an argument in reference to reality is not what necessarily requires the scientific method. Making an argument for the existence of unnecessary particulars or the particular natures of contingent beings is what requires the scientific method. Metaphysics and science are operating in two different contexts and are asking two different questions about two different aspects of the same reality. You are failing to understand this, most probably because you don’t really understand the epistemology of either of them.
Yes it is.