John Page

Therefore nothing can equal "it".

But we don't know "it", we only posit "it" - all we have are measurements, information about form.
But nothing remains the same, so "it" is only "it" at a specific point in time and, if its not exactly "it" at the next moment, then there isn't really any "it" (in the fixed object sense of "it") except in our imaginations.

This being the case, "it" is just a trail of data that persists over time due to its being correlated with other data.



Cheers, John

John Page

Hmmm. Not necessarily. I could say that the acceptance of logic is conditioned on its efficacy (but see my thread Pragmattack against this approach), alternatively I could say that logic is a formal system for truth telling that can be learned by the human mind and which is predicated on the uniqueness of identity.

Once we understand that identity (in the mind that has learned the system of formal logic) is merely an instance of a form detected in spacetime (which appears to provide unique coordinates for any appearance of a thing) it becomes clearer that the mind/brain detects forms which it tracks by relative change (i.e. time-based) and by location (i.e. distance-based) in order to suppose there is something which is an "it" that we can name and discuss.

Under this model, our sense of identity is caused phenomenologically by the operation of the mind/brain - hence logic based on identity makes sense to us!

Using your upper and lower case distinctions, A=A by comparison of form, but a=a is the contradiction. However, a=a is a symbolic representation that only makes sense through all a's having the same form.

Am I making any sense?

Cheers, John

John Page

OOPS!

Primal

Oh I see now. In this case you have to distinguish between conceptual definitions, and more empirical ones.

Empirical ones are approximations of complex phenomenon. The meaning is hence too complex to explain in a few symbols so we pick certain features we hope are key. Now I am unaware of anyone who seriously proposes mortality is the defining feature of man.

However it could be included as one as much as any other. As long as all men remain mortal this would be true. However if Socrates was indeed immortal, then we would have to likewise either call him a man or change our definition.

Now I'd vote we change our definition, because in terms of approximation of overall characteristics Socrates is enough like man to warrant this as opposed to being called a "non-man".

Definitions are thus merely useful tools for conveying meaning and in some cases establishing ground rules. Meaning evolved in a complex, unnplanned system via many factors and its relevance concerning an idea or statement may vary or change.

In the case of premises "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man"

They are only as valid as the induction underlying them. If Socrates was found to me immortal one of them would simply have to go. No equivocation would be necessary.

Equivocation hence concerns meanings not words. More precisely using a word that can have two different meanings, and not aknowledging this in its use while switching the meanings.

John Page

Hi Primal:

Can you help me with the difference between conceptual and empirical definitions. When we are speaking of the mind, aren't they all conceptual?

Thanks, John

Clutch

Hang on.

The Law of Identity (LI) is doing just fine. It's a logical axiom, remember, not some sort of grammatical rule of ordinary language; its instances are all valid, given the assumption of a domain of objects, named by the constants of the logical language.

It does not apply to vacuous proper names.

It does not apply to noun phrases or other complex referring expressions like descriptions.

So all these supposed counterexamples, derived from cases of reference failure, succeed only in missing the point. Really, they contribute to the mounting evidence that English is not a formal, artificial, or logical language.

You might just as well give examples like:

"Put one male rabbit and one female rabbit in a garden, and you'll get any number of rabbits out of it!"

...to show that the basic axioms of arithmetic don't hold, either.

Clutch

Aw, hell.

Okay, ignore that last post. I foolishly read the OP in haste, and treated it as engaging the Law of Identity with a sloppy use of '=' for a biconditional.

On second thoughts, the target really does seem to be the ordinary language Randian slogan 'A is A'.

Pardon me.

As for the Randian slogan, though, it seems to fall into the same arrangment as most of her pronouncements: vague and ambiguous, and, when disambiguated, either trivial and unoriginal, or strictly false.

More to the point about 'A is A', though, is why Randians think anything interesting follows from it. They seem to produce the phrase randomly during debate, springing it as a non-sequitur upon someone who is then supposed to reconstruct its relevance somehow.