3017Metaphysician wrote:...logical impossibility exists in many forms…
There are two basic forms of logical impossibilities, they are X=~X and X<X.
There is nothing more objectively certain in all of reality than that of a logical impossibility. So, if we are looking for objective truths (true knowledge), one method is to weed out the "logical impossibilities" from our contaminated pool of beliefs and knowledge.
3017Metaphysician wrote:...whether it’s the paradox of time itself (the act of thinking/cognition itself and the paradox of past, present & future time) and/or the explanation of consciousness. And in discussing the nature of reality (metaphysics), formal logic does not really help us.
The conscious mind and subconsciousness mind working together breaks the rules of non-contradiction/bivalence, and metaphorically becomes a kind of ‘mottled color of red’ description or phenomenon.
I see nothing that defies logic, or is paradoxical, regarding time or the explanation of consciousness. Remember, paradoxes are not real, they are much like magic. They rely on our ignorance to make them seem real.
3017Metaphysician wrote:For example, consider daydreaming while driving through a red light, then killing yourself in that car accident. Which mind was driving, the conscious or subconscious mind?
There is no real "mind" (or controlling entity within us) per se. Consciousness cannot logically do anything. To best understand this impossibility, take a look at my OP entitled
The Logical Implication of CTD (
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17102).
As I see it, we are like everything else in this universe. We are physical objects/entities that auto-react/interact accordingly (to applied stimuli). Those of us entities that possess memory function, and can therefore recognize (experience recognition of) our physical bodily reactions are said to be "conscious" entities. For it is 'recognition' that converts the non-conscious physical bodily experience into a "conscious experience".
Consciousness is the experience of
recognition made possible by
memory.
Those entities that possess eyes have the capability to experience seeing.
Those entities that possess ears have the capability to experience hearing.
Those entities that possess memory have the capability to experience recognition (aka "consciousness").
RJG wrote:True "self-awareness" is a myth; a logical impossibility [X<X].
1. We can only consciously experience experiences (physical bodily reactions), not "selfs", or things themselves.
2. We cannot be in two places at once. We cannot be both the observer and the observed simultaneously.
3017Metaphysician wrote:Anyway, with respect to the myth of self-awareness, could you be taking issue with “I think therefore I am”, which of course is another discussion altogether, yes?
No, true "self-awareness" is clearly logically impossible on at least two fronts.
Firstly we can only experience (or be aware of)
experiences (physical bodily reactions).
That's it. Nothing more. We can't actually experience things, or "selfs", themselves.
Secondly, the "self" can't logically be in two places at once. [X<X] He can't simultaneously be both the observer and the observed. For example, pick up a stone and tap it on anything you want. Now tap it on itself. It can't be done. And likewise, the experiencer (aka "self") can experience many things, but never himself. True "self-awareness" is not logically possible.