(November 12, 2010 at 8:23 pm)theVOID Wrote:(November 12, 2010 at 6:19 pm)Chuck Wrote:(November 9, 2010 at 5:50 pm)theVOID Wrote: Non-contingent things are even further removed from neuroscience, you can't establish truth that is by definition independent of minds and/or physical things by measuring minds and physics. You can't neurologically prove that a =/= not a, only whether or not we are accurate in our application of these concepts.
Not with a notional non-contingent truth. However, no truth actually taken to be non-contingent is fundamentally non-contigent upon the mind and/or physical things because:
1. It is only conceived of by the mind.
That is a misunderstanding, the concepts of the non-contingent are contingent upon minds, but the non-contingent things that they relate to are not. The concept of the law of non-contradiction is contingent upon minds, but the law of non-contradiction exists without minds or physical things.
Would that interpretation of non-contingent truth be analogous to "red light means stop" whether there is anything to stop, or any meaningful definition of stop? If so, then non-contingent truth must be contingent upon the mind because the very notion of its non-contingency exists only as a concept in the mind.
