a thing is identical with itself

...

Comments

Seth says

... 2015-06-15 07:47:45 18419

Someone is clearly confused. The existence & is-ness of a thingy is only a NOW thingy. Don't get confused by your concepts of what is happening or might be. Try a little Barbara Cubed (page 3) if you need to get the cobwebs out of your mind.

... it is unclear if you are responding to what is being said in the article ... which was substantially spoken by Quine as follows ...

A philosophical riddle was propounded in antiquity about the identification, early and late, of a ship belonging to Theseus: was it the same ship despite successive replacement, over the years, of all its parts? The same riddle is familiar from Heracleitus in application to a river: you cannot step into the same one twice, he claimed, for its substance is continually renewed. For that matter, is Ralph as of now the same man [? Moreover,] are you indeed you after all this time? These three riddles—one, really—are wrongly reckoned as identity crises; they hinge not on the nature of identity, but on what we choose to count as a boat, a river, a person. Words are instruments, and their vagueness is tolerated where it does not impair their utility.

—W.V. Quine, 1986

but, according to your logical processing, you seem not to want to use signs except just those which can be identified in a single NOW slice ... change and metamorphosis, apparently, not being an important matter of your concern. Nothing, in that view, even need be continuous ... it being all static in that one NOW. hmmm ... not so very sure that would work for me.

Seth says

... 2015-06-15 09:27:29 18419

... 2015-06-15 09:25:08 18419

Complexity, speed, confusion & haggling are used above to repeal the laws of logic - nice going - too many computers & too few educated brains !

For those who are not calcified between the ears there is also a sense for language attributed by GW to Aries. It helps getting stuff from the chaos into the Cosmos where humans can participate.

Well yes certainly there is a sense of language

... on that we agree

.

But OH

... did you think i just now tried to repealed the laws of logic?

... or rather just grocked them in a more useful perspective

.

And, i'm curious, ....

just who and/or what is bound by these laws anyway?
When do they apply?

Those are actually some good questions to ponder. lots of literature has been written on those subjects.

Seth says

incidentally, regarding my formula, i actually think this could be usefully deployed in a robot to establish a relationship between it's heuristic intuition and its linguistic logical thinking.

that i don't know if it ever has been used that way, is for me, one of those little sorrows

of not connecting with the right people at the right time. Oh well.

Seth says

... 2015-06-15 08:33:05 18419

better still, know what you are talking about when you call the river a river. It doesn't have an ID like you have an ID (or name).

Well i certainly agree with that

... and even expressed it precisely in the language of mathematics

. it works well on paper as an academic exercise and may even be useful for legal due-diligence and debugging a computer program, or perhaps navigating a ship.

But trying to use it in this multi-person world of natural human life is almost impossible, could cause social unrest, or even be hazardous to your health. best, me thinks, leave home without it

.

The actual world out here metamorphosis fast with perspectives changing from place to place. One usually needs to go with intuitive gut feelings to be able swim in these seas.

It is not the logical identity of the thing that is important out here... rather it is the mental backgroud(s) of its apprehension. You seem to say simply, just don't do that. But it is not just you (or me), it is also whom you are interacting with. So, in a natural context, i find it impossible to hold an identity fixed sufficient for the 2nd and 3rd laws of logic to apply ... but, of course, in a acadamec problem or in a computer, i certainly can.

Seth says

seth 2015-10-06 14:57:27 18419

source: Seth Russell on a Rusty Gentry item on Facebook

Oh i don't know ... maybe Plato was confused. I mean: to point out what is be-ing and then pointing out some other thing that is mere representation of be-ing, while all along being snared in the latter ... does seem to me as a snarl of gangily gnarl.

...

i am not sure it relates here, but Rusty's picture is freaky kewl in a irritating kind of way

a thing is identical with itself

Tags

Comments

See Also