Is this a logic question?
Can Y be X and not X?
Classical logics say no… a contradiction obviously… but new forms of logic suggest otherwise… also Schroeder’s cat is an example of such a possibility in reality…
Pragmatically, if someone tells you the apple is on the table and isn’t on the table, you probably won’t talk to the person for too long.
No, I’m afraid this is not a question of what snow can ‘become’ at all. The question is, can snow be both white and not white ‘at the same time’ in the same respect?
Of course, snow can ‘be’ white at one time and then ‘become’ not white at another time, but that’s trivial.
I suppose by ‘respect’ you mean the perspective from which audience members view an entity. This is not what is meant by the term ‘respect’ in the phrase ‘in the same respect’ in our context here. What is meant by ‘respect’ is the location of some aspect or trait of an entity.
A ball cannot be both red and not red in the same respect at the same time. This doesn’t mean the ball cannot be red on the outside and, say, green inside. It means only that it cannot be red and not red in respect to the same location on the ball at the same time.
If we cannot mutually agree on definitions of terms then obviously no meaningful discussion can take place. It should be clear to you that to use different definitions for terms does not invalidate the law of noncontradiction. Instead, it commits the fallacy of equivocation.
Yes, it is the descriptions of our experience that we are talking about. I thought we all understood that.
And yes, descriptions can be anything. But does this mean, then, that all possible descriptions of our experience in relation to an entity are true? Of course not. Some descriptions are flat mistaken; some are more or less accurate than are others.
If we agree on the definitions of ‘white’ and ‘snow’ and then when we are standing alongside each other, I point to a snowball and say “That snowball is white” and you say “No, it’s not white”; this doesn’t mean that the snowball is both ‘white’ and ‘not white.’ It means that one of us is mistaken.
Again, this commits the falacy of equivocation. Your usage of the word ‘immortal’ is idiosyncratic. ‘Immortal’ doesn’t mean ‘not dead yet.’ It means ‘not subject to death.’ ‘Immortality’ is not a claim about one’s present state in regard to death. It is a claim about one’s incapability of death.
Since you admit your ignorance on this subject (as well as on all other subjects), then why are you arguing with me? 
All kidding aside, universal skepticism is not a serious epistemic stance. It is only a problem that must be taken into account when epistemic theories are constructed.
I agree with the Persian philosopher Avicenna who said:
That would be a good and proper way to definitively settle the argument.
I just thought I’d add it for interest’s sake.
You ignored the part of my argument that allowed for such a thing to occur. I can selectively quote to win an argument, but that doesn’t mean I’m correct, now does it?
And I’ve never endorsed equivocation, I leave that sort of thing for the Daoists!
it cannot be avoided when epistemic theories are constructed and it undercuts them all…
-Imp
The "principle of identity’ states that A must be A, B must be B and A cannot be B. But according to the Buddhist doctrine of not-self, A is not A, B is not B and A can be B. Everything is in a state of change. A is no longer A. Everything inter-is. A is B. White is not white.
Finally someone who is not castrated by logic(it has it’s merit and use).
Stop relying too heavily on logic everyone, it can only go so far in filtering that which we receive of reality, geez!
We have five senses. Logic is not a sense. Stop using it as one!
I don’t believe that I did that. I expressly pointed out that the part of your argument that allowed a thing both to possess a characteristic and its contradictory was a change in time.
However, different points in time are explicitly ruled out as a factor in the law of noncontradiction by the phrase “at the SAME TIME.”
Again, just to be clear about this: YES, snow can be white at t1 and then later at t2 after urine has been added it can be yellow.
OTOH, NO, the same snow cannot be both ‘white’ and ‘not white’ (be it yellow or black or green or pink or any other color except ‘white’) at t1 or at t2. At t1 the snow we are talking about is either white or not white. At t2 the snow we are talking about is either white or not white.
Impenitent, if you, as you claim, cannot know anything, then how is it that you’ve come to KNOW that you do not know anything?
And if I take you at your word about this (i.e., that you cannot and therefore do not know anything about anything) then what reason do I have to pay the slightest bit of attention to anything that you have to say on any subject?
Please pay attention: no one is using logic as a sense.
Logic comprises the rules that we use to infer true propositions from other propositions that we hold to be true.
Quick lesson: If both ~(p & ~p) is false, then your statement “Logic is not a sense” can mean either that “Logic is a sense” or that “Logic is not a sense.” Since either interpretation of your words is true, you are babbling incoherently.
TM, the Persian philosopher Avicenna said:
Since you believe that to be beaten is the same thing as to not be beaten, may I beat you over the head with a baseball bat to test Avicenna’s claim?
Remember, if he is mistaken and if you are correct then actually I will not be beating you over the head at all even though I might imagine that I am. The blood that begins to drip from your scalp and the pain that you may believe you feel will all be only imaginary!
Can we get together to perform this experiment to see who’s right?
It is meant with irony and in what it says directly. It is both.
You got my point until you didn’t.
You crossed the line between confidence and arrogance. You crossed to the latter.
In such a state of mind you are unwilling to learn and adapt, thus unwilling to broaden your reality, thus unwilling to accept the closest thing to the ultimate truth we can know.
It is meant with irony and in what it says directly. It is both.
/\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ //\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Snow is white and not white.
End of debate. I Love You 
…
I guess that’s a “no” then, huh? You won’t accept my challenge.
Too bad. I haven’t beaten anyone with a baseball bat in . . . well, in forever. 
The problem here is a common problem among amateur philosophers like us, TM. Sometimes we mistake confusion for complexity and those are not the same thing.
We need a mediater, but nobody is neutral, we are all quite extreme.
I think what you need is a suicidal masochist who is amused by witticisms to the tune of Oscar Wilde. Failing that, I always regarded your head to be the shape opposite that of a baseball bat. 
Skeerie when i seem to be the normal one.
Snow was white…7 dwarfs said so.
Raven’s moon-- you should check ou the history of the arguement I had with RC in the thread ‘‘Why Do People Believe’’ you’d be willing to fight until someone loses an eye.
you have no reason… but why insist on believing anyone who claims to “know” anything?
-Imp