Is this disprovable?

Question

Consider the following statements:
1. Non-self cannot be distinguished without self.
2. Anything distinguishable from self is non-self.
By combining 1 and 2,
3. Anything distinguishable from self cannot be distinguished without self.

Is statement 3 disprovable?

Answer 1

A cannot be identified without B, anything that can be identified as something else other than B is not B but A, so anything that is not B but A cannot be identified without B?

Rephrased again in the same meaning:
A is not B ( presupposition, that non-self is the opposite of self, therefore not self )
1. A ( non-self ) cannot be identified without B ( self)
2. Anything that can be differentiated from B is A, therefore, anything that can be identified to be different from B must be A.

3.ii) Anything that can be differentiated from B has to be A,i) which in turn cannot be identified to be different unless there is B.


However there is a loophole. The fact is, if there is no B, you cannot differentiate A from B, so A effectively becomes B! Right?

Which means that no matter what, if A is not distinguished, then there will be B, but since there is B, then A should be distinguished, does this make sense? No it does not. This is a paradox.
Therefore statement 3 becomes void.

Answer 2

Yes. It is relative. Statement three "may"** be valid in terms of formal logic but must still stand the test of material validity. What we end up dealing with here is the level of self involvement. If it is purely sensory the statement cannot be disproved. One cannot experience anything without self because self is the point of experience.

I like to think of your problem in terms of security clearances.
Does statement number three really need to be disproved?
If it cannot be disproved does it make any difference?
Can the statement be correctly stated in another form.
There is not much, if any, difference between statement 3 and the Western model "I think therefore I am."

It is harder to disprove against the Eastern model of "I think, but I am not my thoughts."

I really don't feel like doing away with statement 3 because I like it. I think it is impossible to escape human subjectivity; even if one postulates pure science or pure revelation.

Every human statement is not only subjective but is in transition and therefore disprovable. Until such time as man comes forward with a universal criteria for truth; all such statements will be disprovable -- including this one!

**Non-Mary cannot be known without Mary.
Anything non-Mary is non-Mary.
Anything non-Mary cannot be known without Mary.

The above is a statement of platitudinal redundancy. What happened to the distribution of terms? In the minor premise
"Anything distinguishable from self" is really no different than the statement non-Mary. Further, the word anything really hides the word all; another argument worth considering.

One can claim that this argument shows that self can distinguish between self and non-self. If this is true, than self must be able to observe self; which would distinguish it as non-self according to the minor premise/statement 2.

So, statement number 3 does not need to be disproved because if proceedes from an improper carriage of terms and considered by itself is redundant and otherwise meaningless. If I disprove statement 3; I will no longer be able to find my T-Bone steak on the grill in my own back yard. Without self, my T-Bone would be, alas, indistinguishable; except perhaps to the neighbors dog. OR the hamster above which did quite a fine job.

Answer 3

By combining statements 1 and 2, you get three. All statement 3 is 1 & 2. If you are saying statement 1 & 2 are proven, then 3 is also proven and therefore disprovable.

Answer 4

It seems you are playing with words that have a specific technical meaning in some philosophical system, and those meanings are not made clear by the question, so the whole idea of "proof" seems beside the point.

That being said, what could the phrase "distinguishable from self" possibly mean in the absence of "self"?

Answer 5

Long time since I took logic but I think you are trying to disprove a non-analagous negative statement. Basicly I couldn't symbolicly represent the arguments which desn't mean it can't be done just means I can't with my limited and dated knowledge.

Answer 6

no...only you and you alone could distinguish the difference...

Answer 7

The first proposition is meaningless, so no conclusion can be drawn.

Answer 8

Is the long way of saying "I think therfore I am"