The Essence of Mind

Pong originates from Atari, silly boys.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still working on a response for you PJ, about halfway there. Should be in the next day or two.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

FINALLY finished the damn thing. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. I like it though, but it's exhausting!

You got it.

It’s part of space-time proper… so… yeah. It’s not really common to “things” so much as “space” if you see what I’m getting at. It’s just that “life things” are “alive” because they are “joined” with this space. Life seems to me to be the physical expression of “idea space” or “the abstract”, bleeding through into classical space-time through conditions that allow such bleed through.

Just theorizing about it. I don’t really know, it’s just an interesting thought to me. Also “spooky action at a distance” and related shit. Seems to fit given my perhaps crude understanding.

I don’t think of it that way. “entities” is all I can say, and that it seemed so.

Yes. Constructs in “idea space”.

I’ve written about it here a few times. I don’t really like talking about it but I cannot deny it. It was probably just a hallucination. It sure seemed real though. I mean real as in “an experience I had”. Nothing that occurred in the experience seemed real like “a chair is real”, but real as in “representative of some interaction in idea space where I saw stuff of pure idea space that I’d swear exists outside of my own perspective, though may appear differently depending on the perspective through which it is experienced”.

I’ll try to find you a link.

Well you know how two dimensional things look differently than three dimensional things and stuff. I don’t imagine it’s actually different at all, but that it would “be experienced” differently, if the term “experience” is applicable to such a perspective. Know what I mean? Say time is dimension zero, the fundamental. Stack three dimension on it and call them space. From “space-time” in that sense, time appears as it does to us on a daily basis. Events happen, whatever. Now stack another dimension on the three you had before. I would imagine that from any combination of dimensions, were there an entity bound to it, time would appear quite differently. That’s all I’m saying. If “idea space” is a dimension, and it is possible for instance, that there could be an entity comprised entirely within that space, then time would seem to me to have to seem different from there than here. Goddamn I’m so freaking wordy.

In the absence of its observation (just the knowledge that it exists, whether or not you’re looking directly at it), there is no means for this consideration.

No, but you might have “the remains of a chair”. * shrug *

From “bob the carpenter’s” perspective, there is no such consideration of the nominal v. universal, so I doubt he’d concede. Is he necessarily wrong? It would appear that you think so. I think “essence” is basically a matter of opinion, and bob has worked hard enough to be entitled to his own.

You’re talking about language though, not the actual things – as they cannot really be discussed. In your model, there is some sort of status that holds labels to things? I challenge your challenge! I think the “perspective at which you label a ‘universal or nominal’” is as arbitrary as the definition. It’s done basically because of the scale in which we exist. IMO, a “chair” is not a universal. I can easily envision a perspective from which the term “chair” has no value – that of a zebra, for instance – or an ape. Maybe I misunderstand your application of the term.

What is truth? In the way I understand “truth”, as in “subjective”, yes… to believe is to know is to be true. Whether or not it is something we could agree on is another matter.

I agree, but what if I didn’t? Obviously as you say I don’t have to… but if I didn’t, would I be necessarily wrong? If we “accept a certain degree of philosophical rigour to make a greater definition”, are we wrong in doing so, as to “make the greater definition” loses the trees for the forest or vice-versa?

This is so fascinating to me. Let’s assume for the moment that all “truths” fall back on a single assumption, or multiple assumptions made in the instance of the mind of an individual. If the person choose to abandon all assumptions – there can be no truth. If a person assumes something, they can find truth based on their assumption but alas, their assumption can’t be proven on the basis that it is assumed, and you cannot prove the basis for the system from within the system. It’s basically this idea that IMO, I believe is the ontological truth – a catch 22 that represents to me, the opportunity cost of existence – which of course I gladly pay. This phenomenon was the basis for my thread “The Taoist Trap” if you remember it.

I would say yes, if you want to say with 100% accuracy what the essence of chair is, you would have to see every single chair that has and does exist, or you might miss something. If you miss something, you cannot say what the essence is. Therefore, since “all chairs that have ever been” or even “all chairs that are” requires an impossible inspection. Well, I suppose that’s if you’re looking at what you think is “the chair itself”. If you just want to talk about chair “the idea”, then yeah you can make up whatever shit you want to about it and it will appeal to some people and not to others. There is no objective standard however, as to the accuracy of a concept – at least IMO. We can only measure such knowledge against the fruit of other minds. Attempted contrast is the only available measure.

I just don’t buy the idea of a universal I suppose. I think language is about utility, and that at some point all sets become vague, like the rock I rest my ass upon. Is it a chair? Blah blah. In the social sense, language is about conveyance of information. “you know what I mean” is all I hope for. I find the notion of a universal somewhat ridiculous, but maybe it’s just my mood and current frame of mind.

Thanks for the links btw.

YES! That was it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks.

Ultimately I don’t think there is any way to tell if it is the same ship or not. IMO all that matters is how effectively we can communicate about it.

To whom?

Like I said, I think this is true, but inconsequential.

I think so, yes. To me, it’s the “shape of your mind”. You create filters that clean up your stimulus so as not to disturb or strain whatever mental balance you’ve managed to attain. It’s not necessarily a conscious thing, but more of a subtle consequence of choosing to ignore or lie about something to begin with.

How is the principle, by which you’re organizing yourself, not subjective? So as your principle must be subjective (as it exists in your own mind), you’re still subjective. It’s a step towards bullshitting yourself that you’re “objective” if you ask me, but I’m a jackass, so…

Regardless I do see your intended meaning I think, but I reject it as stated. I’d say combining “objective” with “as it can be discerned” is oxymoronic - as nothing can be discerned without each mind exercising discernment.

It would depend on how exhausting your line of questioning would be, the people involved, etc. You cannot say with 100% sureness that any two people would agree - period.

Please note that your question presumes much. What is “extreme”? If we just both need to know what color that tree is as a matter of reference, we can most likely easily agree. If one of us will die if we answer a single thing about the tree incorrect – we’ll be using tunneling electron microscopes to examine every nanometer. To be “extremely accurate”, we’d have to be able to answer as to every aspect of every nanometer of the object in question.

All that matters is the percentage that gains the outcome of our common interest. How much of what I’m saying do you think you’re understanding in 99% accuracy of what’s going on in my head as I’m typing it?

What beliefs in particular?

Of course we can make due, and communication allow us to harness the power of the many – and direct it.

Why not just deny the possibility? A nor B exist, so they can’t equal each other. If every point in space-time is unique, there is no means by which A can equal B if either is in reference to space-time. If it is not in reference to space-time, then it doesn’t exist.

Deny the identity, deny the equality.

Identity doesn’t exist after all, except in minds…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Identity is a definition to either be accepted or rejected. If I accept your identity, then I agree with your conclusion. If not, then your conclusion is bogus.

Why not? Okay, you say A=A. I say it doesn’t. In what way does that demand denial of my denial? I say A is an invalid identity, because identities don’t actually exist. Perhaps I say identities are transient by their very nature, and point to my objection of universals, etc. (I’m just trying to make a point, we’ll see if I can)

Okay, then ignore my BS above if you’d rather.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

YES! There’s no escaping it. I think it’s really only consequential when we’re discussing the nature of mind, but yes.

The meaning of the phrase “jobob is a nice guy” invokes a different reaction in each mind, by the fact that each mind exists independently of others. While a message is generally communicated that has strong similarities from mind to mind, it is not “100% correlation” by any means if you take into consideration the content of each thought as it occurs in the mind. The “meaning” is that thought. It’s what the word invokes in the context of the individual mind, which is necessarily unique – though perhaps in a vein of thinking that manages the communication of internal states to others in a way that they can relate to some degree.

If there is to be effective communication, then yes. Of course that’s not always the case.

If I knew the exact mechanism I’d be accepting the nobel prize I’d think. It does so by adaptation. The mind responds to its environment, learning how to cope with it. That’s the bulk of its job. When it first encounters a label and associates stimulus with it, a circuit becomes established. When new stimulus arrives that falls into the same pattern of stimulus, it is “automatically routed” to that circuit, by the nature of it’s position in the conceptual inter-relationships, and how they were formed in the first place.

I’m going to try to use a retarded example of a riverbed.

Let’s say the water flowing into a riverbed is stimulus, and the riverbed itself is the constraint on stimulus. Over time as the flow persists, ruts are dug into the riverbed. The water flows into the ruts, because that’s just the physics of it. It’s similar with concepts in minds. Minds can actually with will, fill in the ruts or whatever, but I’m just trying to demonstrate what I mean.

While that’s a lame example, maybe you sort of see what I mean.

Please demonstrate a method of doing so that is independent of context. I think you’ll find that any attempt to do so applies context and as such, fails to meet the request.

I’m just saying that what is demanded is wholly dependent upon one’s existing knowledge base, and since knowledge exists only in minds – blah blah blah.

No it doesn’t to someone who already “knows” what a rock is made of. However, if you didn’t have the knowledge you have about it, it would exactly stand to reason that a rock is made of whatever you thought it was made of.

Exactly! Now you’re getting it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But the only way we can relate to “reality” is through…?

By what authority do you assert which things are “objective”? What is to be done if someone rejects that authority? What if it turns out you’re wrong, or your assertion is twisted, or misrepresentative or wholly short-sided?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was hoping you’d find it amusing.

First, it was serious – even though it was funny.

Second – I find flaw in this argument in the following: “rational” and “reasoning” have no objective standard. Unless those involved in the conversation or whatever agree that this statement is rational and reasonable, it cannot be.

And perhaps another part of why I think the concept of universals is just flawed and not very representative of the reality of minds and such. If you saw a facsimile of a tree and didn’t know it was a fake, then you saw a tree. Where or not the tree actually existed as a “tree” the ontological thing to which we refer, is wholly irrelevant to the matter of whether or not “I saw a tree”. I did. It was right there. I swear.

Depends on the quality of the fake doesn’t it? Is it ontologically different than the actual tree? I would say sure, yeah – given that I know it’s a fake. If not, then I wouldn’t. IT WAS A FUCKING TREE MAN!!!!!! RIGHT THERE! Hehe. I’d never know to question it unless it was being questioned, and then perhaps I’d change my mind if there were good reason to do so.

Say you use binary to count, and I’m a decimal guy.

If you said “please write down the number 1000” and I wrote “8”, is the symbol 8 necessary to write down the number valued at 8? In the decimal system, it’s absolutely necessary. In the binary system, not only is it unnecessary, but wholly disallowed. I’m saying that the necessity of x depends on the model in which x exists.

Fair enough.

Please give me and example and explain why it cannot be denied. Then I’ll come up with some bullshit reason as to why I need to deny it.

Not necessities! Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lol.

Having read on, I see your point.

Stop humping my leg damnit. Lol.

Hmm… yes, point taken. I’ll try to keep it in mind.

No. I’m implying there’s no way to know, because there would be nothing to know anything. With a deeply integrated, wholistic system – there is no way to know if the system could be stable were one to take away a part. For instance, if the capacity for intelligence exists and nature pushes toward it for whatever reason, to take away the intelligence could only happen if you take away the universal capacity for it. If that is the case, the substance of the universe would have changed. What direct effect that would have on other aspects of the universe would seem impossible to determine, as whatever comprises the capacity for intelligence is inexplicable in the scientific community. I’ve offered my own opinion in this thread of course.

All of it hinges on ego man, I don’t mean it like “you egotistical bastard”. I just mean as in “self”… as it is “selves” who create models with things like necessities. The Tao (das ding an sich) cannot be spoken of, so necessity is inapplicable.

When I say “viewpoint” I mean more of a geometrical reference point, like a node-ish kind of thing. A “hub” into which information is created via stimulus. (created because it just IS before stimulus, which translates whatever into information of some sort) And to me “self-awareness” is just that, the capacity to reflect in the framework of ego, or “awareness of self”, where “self” is like an “active agent” or something. A realization.

Goddamn that was long.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wesmorris:

Sorry for not responding sooner. It's been a bit busy around here, so I've had to limit my forum time.

"It’s part of space-time proper… so… yeah. It’s not really common to “things” so much as “space” if you see what I’m getting at. It’s just that “life things” are “alive” because they are “joined” with this space. Life seems to me to be the physical expression of “idea space” or “the abstract”, bleeding through into classical space-time through conditions that allow such bleed through."

So basically, an object which is alive has an "Active principle of idea space" within it, whereas everything else is not so connected and can't really move in it?

"Just theorizing about it. I don’t really know, it’s just an interesting thought to me. Also “spooky action at a distance” and related shit. Seems to fit given my perhaps crude understanding."

Got any more ideas on this vein? Like, what aspect of idea space might give rise to this "spooky action at a distance"?

"I don’t think of it that way. “entities” is all I can say, and that it seemed so."

Care to elaborate, or too personal?

"Yes. Constructs in “idea space”. "

Could we speak of culture as an "idea-space based genetics"? A sort of "DNA of idea-space"? And cultural evolution as a cognate of biological?

"I’ll try to find you a link."

I'd be most obliged. Thanks in advance.

"Well you know how two dimensional things look differently than three dimensional things and stuff. I don’t imagine it’s actually different at all, but that it would “be experienced” differently, if the term “experience” is applicable to such a perspective. Know what I mean? Say time is dimension zero, the fundamental. Stack three dimension on it and call them space. From “space-time” in that sense, time appears as it does to us on a daily basis. Events happen, whatever. Now stack another dimension on the three you had before. I would imagine that from any combination of dimensions, were there an entity bound to it, time would appear quite differently. That’s all I’m saying. If “idea space” is a dimension, and it is possible for instance, that there could be an entity comprised entirely within that space, then time would seem to me to have to seem different from there than here. Goddamn I’m so freaking wordy."

I am having a bit of a time grasping your ideas here. Perhaps if you furnished me an example of what you would imagine a "Time-space entity" would see time-wise which differs from how we might?

"In the absence of its observation (just the knowledge that it exists, whether or not you’re looking directly at it), there is no means for this consideration."

Agreed, but this does not mean the chair would not have a relational property outside of an observer. If you close your eyes, the chair doesn't suddenly fall apart.

"No, but you might have “the remains of a chair”. * shrug *"

Then doesn't it stand to reason that at least part of chair's identity is found in its connection with its relation to itself?

"From “bob the carpenter’s” perspective, there is no such consideration of the nominal v. universal, so I doubt he’d concede. Is he necessarily wrong? It would appear that you think so. I think “essence” is basically a matter of opinion, and bob has worked hard enough to be entitled to his own."

If one asks Bob the carpenter if he could have used the same wood to make a table, what would be his likely answer?

"You’re talking about language though, not the actual things – as they cannot really be discussed. In your model, there is some sort of status that holds labels to things? I challenge your challenge! I think the “perspective at which you label a ‘universal or nominal’” is as arbitrary as the definition. It’s done basically because of the scale in which we exist. IMO, a “chair” is not a universal. I can easily envision a perspective from which the term “chair” has no value – that of a zebra, for instance – or an ape. Maybe I misunderstand your application of the term."

The term "universal" does not mean that it would be universally held. The term means "a category as opposed to a specific object of said category". Example dog compared to Spot. Or horse compared to Mr. Ed.

"What is truth? In the way I understand “truth”, as in “subjective”, yes… to believe is to know is to be true. Whether or not it is something we could agree on is another matter. "

So you are claiming that without persuasion, 1 + 1 = 2 is not true?

I will respond to the rest of this post shortly.

 

I can relate.

I think that would follow from the idea, yeah. It’s a geometry thing for the most part. Whatever particular geometrical relationship of matter/energy in space time allows a connectivity to “idea space” is “alive”. Other stuff, that does not have that particular relationship that allows life, isn’t.

I’ve had a few more ideas in this vein, yes. It’s been a while since I thought of it. The only one that occurs to me is something about quantum computing, and the capacity to store information “inside” a quantum state. I need to look it up, I started a thread about it a while back.

As far as “spooky action at a distance goes”, to me the “aspect of idea space” that “gives rise” to the phenomenon could be along the lines of “the connection between the spins of the separated electrons is tied together by a principle of pure logic”, and something about “a point in idea space, by the nature of its geometric relation to ‘space-time’, appears to contain more than one point in idea space”, or backwards or something. Basically the whole thing where from the end, a line (even infinitely long) appears to be a point.

The link I said I needed to get you was to my confession of this that I posted here in some random thread. I’ll try maybe this afternoon.

Sure. What’ interesting to me is that DNA itself seems to adhere to some principles of idea space, as it is in and of itself, a language… but a language from first principles that has no “designer” per se. It just happened. DNA is in words and such, so says my BIO chem engineering friend. He is very sharp and was blown away when we went over this topic in terms of his expertise. During the discussion, which was very powerful… he said something about “man I just imagined the view of the planet from space with a big beam of light shining down into this room right now” or something to that effect. It sounds goofy, but it was sincere at the time, and he doesn’t say that kind of shit for no reason. Bah, anyway… just a nostalgic moment there, pardon.

I will try this afternoon if I get a bit of time.

Well when I was in a course for linear algebra, we dealt with multidimensional arrays of junk all the time. I was talking about it with the proff one day and trying to understand how the dimensional stuff we were talking about worked, from a geometry kind of perspective. He said you know it’s impossible to say really, because we can’t truly relate… but I always think of it like “well, from the 183248th dimension the 183217th dimension would look flat”. I liked that.

What I am trying to drive at is that our experience is limited to our dimensionality and cannot be otherwise. From a “being” of another dimensionality, I presume all things, including time would necessarily appear/feel quite different – though the very words I use to describe this most likely could not even apply in another dimensional context. “feel” and “appear” quite possibly wouldn’t even remotely apply to a “being” of any other dimensionality than our own.

Outside of an observer, I’d say there is no chair, but simply an unnamable object of no discernible anything.

No I don’t think so. That it is a “chair” is in how “we” relate to it, whether it be the chair it its remains.

So you’re implying an “essence” must be unique? Perhaps so. Hmm. Regardless, depending on the size of the chair, he might say “well not much of a table, no. maybe I could have fashioned a wee night table or something”.

And the category must cross languages?

And if it crosses languages, does that mean it would cross species, were there another species that could use language as we do?

Hmm. Well, I still think the point above stands. The actual thing cannot be discussed, only our model of it can be. Did you read my latest response to you in the alien universal’s thread, the quote from water?

Well, yes – depending of course on how you define truth.

There is no such thing as one, is there? I mean, ontologically, in reality and separate from an observer and such…

I have been pursuaded though, that indeed it does. But I think all things conceptual are necessarily voluntary, and that given that “truth” is housed in “minds”, there is no universal truth per se. There are things that people can hold to be universal truths and who knows, maybe they’re right… perhaps quite a few things are truly universally true, like your example. But so long as there can exist someone to deny it, or more interestingly – someone to be utterly ignorant of it, if you were to ask them “is this true”, they would honestly reply “no”. So again, what is truth?

Groovy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wesmorris:

I just spent nearly an hour and a half writing a post only to lose it.

I neither have the energy nor inclination to rewrite it.

Later I'll consider writing a brief summary, but I really have no intention at this point of rewriting all that.

That being said, I thankfully still have in my possession some thread ideas taken from this conversation.

Here is one argument I can remember, though:

To reject identity, rejects itself, for this reason:

If A = A is held to be not true, one is saying that A is not equal to A, and that one own's view is truthful. One is in essence, disproving it through proving it. Even if one says "there is no identity", then one is saying "no identity is truth", or the new A = A is "no identity = reality".

Also one question I remember:

Do you concede that it is possible for people to err?

 

I understand the argument regarding A=A and disagree.

I still think it is possible and there is no necessaity to acknowledge A (that is, whatever this thing is that you are referring to as A) in the first place. One can say that A cannot be A because A is always changing. If A is always changing then this A is not that A, so A cannot be A, ever... because time never stops, and a projection of "A" into an imaginary infinitessimal slice of time in which A cannot change, it could be argued that no such time can be shown to exist, therefore neither can A. A presumes a universal static, which is apparently not allowable.

"there is no A remaining to be A"

Mind you, I don't generally see things that way, but I don't think it can be argued against if it is already accepted as true.

Of course it is possible for people err, but "by what standard?" becomes an inescapable question, as error requires premise. It could be there there is actually no such thing. Everything is and must be by the nature of physics, absolutely perfect. It is only expectation that leads to the false premise of error.

 

In my opinion,

A = A is a definition. Maybe an axiom or a correlary or something.

For a definition (or whatever) to be valid, it must be accepted.

For it to be accepted, one must believe it - at least tentatively.

To me, acceptance is faith, even if it's tentative.

So in my mind, A = A is a matter of faith.

While I personally do have faith in this concept, it is context dependent.

If for instance, we both agree on the identity - the context is established into which we can discuss the implications of the identity.

If we cannot agree on the identity, then we either must come to an alternative agreement or we have nothing to say to one another on the topic.

In order to think that we have communcated with one another, we have to think we can to relate to one another. This is often established by things like agreement on definitions.

Further, I think it's fundamentally wrong to deny someone's rejection of a definition. Technically it really can't be done. As you noted earlier, you can't shove it down their throat, no matter how ridiculous the rejection may seem.

*shrug*

So while I would agree that for instance "it is imperative if one wants to discuss logic or communicate at all, we must agree that A=A", but I will not agree that "A = A" is truth regardless of its acceptance.

 

what do you think of this:

any concept that is said to be objectively true and independent of time (like logic, mathematics, blah) it does not "fit" into spacetime. thus, "idea space" is necessarily part of reality - at least so long as such concepts are held to be true.

 

Basically, what you're saying is that abstract reasoning using variables, etc. is something that fits into "idea space" and that this "idea space" is necessarily part of reality ---what you could really just say is that its all a type of abstract reasoning that is already known to be something our brains can do...

 

the point is that it is an aspect of "reality" that doesnt' fit into "space-time" in the classical sense. You apparently missed a large part of the conversation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Comments on the identity thing?

 

"the point is that it is an aspect of "reality" that doesnt' fit into "space-time" in the classical sense. You apparently missed a large part of the conversation. "

I have missed alot, but I don't see how you came to such a conclusion. Math and Logic, and whatever other system of thought that you might be aware of, are not *real* in any external sense. They are abstractions built upon previous, necessary truth values... its abstract thought.



I think that A=A is always true, regardless. A=A is not much more than an extended (A), thus to say a A=A is a matter of faith, you only say that A is a matter of faith- which is a meaningless notion. When we are taking equalities, you are saying, in the abstract that A(1) = A(2), A(1) *is* A(2). So, 1=1, or my computer = computer --1 is 1, and my computer is my computer.

 

And so you're saying the "internal sense" doesn't exist, or it isn't part of "reality"?

Like god, the flatness of the world, and that the earth is the center of the universe?

It can't be if one has never encountered A. A does not exist to that person and therefore, doesn't exist to equal itself.

If this "truth" exists independent of the individual, exactly where in space-time does it do so? Please give me the coordinates so I can verify the assertion.

I do understand what you're trying to say, but I've been through all that and I think I've come to understand the issue more fundamentally that what you offer.

LOL. Ironic. You see, it cannot be "meaningless". I said it, so it obviously has some meaning. I gave it meaning. Now, I see from your response that you took no meaning from it. Let the relevant statement you quoted from me = A. To me, A=A. To you, A is meaningless.

I don't understand what you're saying I'm saying, pardon. If you could explain I'd appreciate it.

I disagree. I think your computer is my computer. I'm coming over to put it where it goes.

I only say that of course to make the point that identity is not identity if it the pertinent definitions cannot be agreed upon.

 

Those are certainly abstract ideas, but are definitely not what I was speaking of. I am of the opinion that all logic and math come from a simple, single variable, from which all other operations come from. A -> A=A -> 1+A= 1+A -> etc.

I don't think 'encounter' is a prerequisite for something being itself, which is the case of A=A.

They exist only in the abstract study. You take an abstract numerical or truth concept, (1 or T), and you operate on it. Math is definitely a product our of physical understandings of the world, and logic is an attempt to get concepts to flow from each other. Both of these stem from concrete reality, but their own validities are not dependent on them.

Uh huh. A is a variable. It could be a number or a rock. You said that A=A is a matter of faith. I pointed to the idea that A=A is only A. Thus, if the operation of A=A is a matter of faith, then A is a matter of faith. Its one thing to have 'faith' in the truth of a particular logical operation, but its another thing to merely state that A -an undefined variable- requires of itself belief, acceptance, and faith.

Ok, lets say A=B (just for notational purposes.)

If A=B, then A is B. That is what 'equal' means. So that, if we were to take the distance between the back two car tires in two different trucks, we might find that the distance is equal. Thus, the distance between car x is the distance between car y.

When you say "A=A" requires faith, you are saying nothing more than "A" requires faith. But what does it mean to say "A" requires faith? If you're not doing an operation on A, then there is nothing to have faith in.

(A=A)=(A). Ex, (1=1)=(1)

I'm not one to fiddle with language. Its important to agree on definitions, but it is a waste of time to purposefully distort the arbitrary language that we have in order to prove a particular case. There is no 'true' authority to say that 1 is the quantity of 'singleness,' but I do not see the point in arguing against that. And in the same way, I like to assume that people know what the word "Identity" means.

 

The point was, depending on whom you ask, those are "truths".

Whether or not something is or isn't itself again, depends on whom you ask.

For instance, If you saw yourself in the mirror and said "I'm that phish person on sciforums" you'd be correct in stating I presume. If I saw you in a crowd, you would be part of the people in a crowd. Your identity would, to me, be whatever you told me if we talked. To me, that would be truth (however tentatively).

Agreed. If you read the thread, while there have been several tangents, you'll note my underlying point is that the "essence of mind" is "the abstract". Would you agree that abstracts only exist in minds?

While I agree on principle, I play devils advocate to myself and ask "why much concepts flow?" I surmise a geometry to it which I've explained to some degree in this thread, and at some length in others over the last few years.

How would you say the validity is established?

Indeed. To re-iterate, I say this because in order for it to be true, it must be believed. IMO, believe and faith share enough meaning to adequately make such an assertion. This is because I ask myself "what is A?" and "what compells me to think A remains A given that it is subject to the principles of space-time". "how can something remain something when that something is always changing". Mind you, generally I will agree that A=A but I ask myself the questions anyway. I think they are valid questions (and a few other, more clear questions I'm too lazy at the moment to clarify) and that further, that it is clear that there is no necessity in the equivalence, other than the capacity for communication. If you don't speak of it, A doesn't have to equal A at all. This sets up an interesting scenario to me... a sort of "tyranny of communication" so to speak, wherein if you speak of it it takes "potential" to "history", trashing one's capacity for refusing the concept until of course, the next moment - when all bets are off. Hmm. Eventually I'll figure out how to communicate this idea better.

I understand your point and in a general state of mind agree. However, I think it's perfectly plausible to reject A alltogether as unecessary, delusional, an illusion, or simply "short of the mark" for usefulness. I say this because to me, relativity of experience is an imperative that trumps all else in terms of mind(s) and interaction. This means that context is the imperative, and can undermine even the most basic logical notions in certain circumstances. IMO, this is important to the comprehension of the function of mind - I mean both sides of the argument and their potential validity.

Exactly.

Actually I think it's exactly the same thing. To say otherwise is in my mind, to insist that "what [B]you[/B] see is what is", which is obviously not necessarily true. That is ego unabated, which is another interesting phenomenon with quite an upside, and quite a downside.

But the identity is not confined to numerical systems. Even were it so, the point stands. If we do not agree that A is B then we cannot communicate and have nothing to say to one another in that regard. Agreement is voluntary. Further... shit I'm tired and forgot what I was going to say.

No, not more, the same... remember? Hehe. You just implicitely disagreed that A=A! Lol. Funny that.

It basically means that you believe that A can exist, and that A is what it seems.

Oh? So A=nothing?

Sure, but it would perfectly valid to say "nuh uh" and miss out on what might follow.

I have to vehemently disagree on that. It is precisely this kind of thing that illuminates the boundaries of logic.. at least IMO.

Well, I can't force you to see it. I see it. *shrug* Please note however, I'm not actually arguing against the identity, but merely for the fact that I think that there are "valid" arguments against it. More importantly, I'm trying to establish the scope of human interaction, and the essence of mind.

Yes, it's comfortable to assume such a thing I agree. Have you noticed though, that humans often have to resort to "you know what I mean"?

Know what I mean?

 

Do "we" distinguish the mind from the brain, as if it were "magically" separated?

Because it would be illogical, Spock.

 

True, but unlike things such as Set Theory, you can't go from Nature=Nature -> God in any real logical sense. Whether people believe it or not, a truth to them or not, has no bearing on whether a conclusion follows from a premise.

To you. And to the person living 1,000 years from now, I might not even exist. Yet here I am.

Yeah, I agree. However, I think the mind only 'discovers' things, and that these rules of math and logic we are so familiar with are not things 'produced' by the mind in the sense that we make them true.

I think they flow because they are inherent principles, in that, you are not adding new information to any equation when you find its basic principles. For example, you could turn 1=1 into a whole host of equations with numerous variables, and represent that on graph, finding its particular traits, etc. But at the end of the day, you've added nothing to the concept of 1=1.

I think geometry follows that same path, and considering geometry, like all math, is unified and founded on Set Theory, and Set Theory follows the same idea that everything in math (or logic) is nothing more than deeper explanations of 1=1.

Well, in math you can use 'proof by contradiction' in that you take the opposite of an equation and if it contradicts itself, then the original form is necessarily true. In logic, you would find particular methods that demonstrate necessary truth.

The misunderstanding between us, I think, is that we are discussing two different things.

1=1 is true no matter what the context of 'space-time.' Why? Because we discuss quantity, 1=1 never changes. If we were to talk about 'rocks', I would also say Rocks=Rocks. However, when we apply this type of reasoning to concrete examples, such as "My car today" = "My care tomarrow" is not necessarily the same thing. But "My car now" = "My car now" is a necessary truth regardless of whether I'm talking about yesterday, tomorrow or today. As time goes on, the car is still what it is -itself. Something is never not itself.

"What something is now" is always what it is now, context is irrelevant.

Whatever....

No, like I said, if you're not doing an operation on A, then there is nothing for which you might be inclined to believe. To say, "I believe in A, this undefined variable" strikes me as nothing more than playing with words.

Which is why, in the study of logic, we use variables.

Language will always be an inperfect method of idea communication. Its very comfortable to assume that a person who has been using English to communicate would extend that very same skill to the actually substance of the discussion, and not say "Well, I don't have to agree with the word "green."