The Axiom Of Identity *Challenged*

[Arising_uk]

Thats why i said step by step...we're getting there.

Try walking a bit quicker please.

But you used it implicitly in your proposition.

Which one?

Perceptions have something to do with concepts. ...

Or more likely - many concepts rest upon perception.

As soon as you think of that part of whats being perceived that you think has nothing to do with concepts it cant help but have something to do with concepts .

What do you mean by 'think'? As I have a difference between thought and think. I think thought lies with perception and one need not necessarily have to think about it in the sense of using language to do so.

[Arising_uk]

heed this riddle well ..for in it lies the path to the truth

IF ONLY CONCEPTS EXIST..WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF A TREE BUT A CONCEPT OF A CONCEPT OF A TREE AND THAT ALSO IS A CONCEPT OF A CONCEPT OF A CONCEPT OF A TREE

So Ultimately a concept of a tree is meaningless. But what of the concept "ultimately" ..if it is also ultimately meaningless then we can never reach ultimatality. so there is no meaning in the construct.Even within the regress.

Have you tried climbing a concept? Or maybe try running through your conceptual tree. Let me know what meaning you get from such happenings.

[Moyo]

I have climbed what appeared to be a tree.

Appearnces exist in minds, can you have an objective appearance ? tell me?

[Moyo]

Can you answer me this realist...

Meaning is something that happens in minds...can you get an objective meaning walking around...

for something to exist it must be meaningful otherwise what would you be referring to.

How could things exist before they had meaning or how could things exist before there were minds.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" has meaning.


It is not more complicated than that.

[Moyo]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" has meaning.


It is not more complicated than that.

So nothing can exist before "two subjects agree"?

If it can....what would you be reffering to before "we agree".

[Hobbes' Choice]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" has meaning.


It is not more complicated than that.

So nothing can exist before "two subjects agree"?

If it can....what would you be reffering to before "we agree".

No. How the hell do you infer that?
The meaning of the signifier of the thing doesn't exist without agreement. I said nothing about its ontology, just its identity.

[Harbal]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" .

But what if it turned out to be just a large bush?

[Obvious Leo]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" has meaning.


It is not more complicated than that.

You're quite right. The notion of "identity" is a very simple one in philosophy. The "tree-ness" of a tree is nothing more than a mutually agreed inter-subjective convention and this naturally applies to all emergent phenomena. A quark is only a quark because that's the way physicists have chosen to codify a particular class of observations in their interrogation of the sub-atomic world. Such phenomena have no ontological status whatsoever but this doesn't make them meaningless. It merely means that the meaning is the property of the observer and not the property of reality. Kant 101.

[Arising_uk]

I have climbed what appeared to be a tree. ...

And what has it appeared not to be?

Appearnces exist in minds, can you have an objective appearance ? tell me?

I doubt it as I think Kant nailed this with the Noumena but think it intersubjectivity and as such me and the squirrel both perceive a tree when being prey. Are you saying there are two trees?

[Arising_uk]

Can you answer me this realist...

Meaning is something that happens in minds...can you get an objective meaning walking around...

I can get an intersubjective one.

for something to exist it must be meaningful otherwise what would you be referring to.

Doesn't have to have a meaning just be there. Does a rock have meaning?

How could things exist before they had meaning or how could things exist before there were minds.

What do you mean by meaning?

So you think that the world did not exist before living things appeared?

[Obvious Leo]

So you think that the world did not exist before living things appeared?

This is actually one of the more bizarre conclusions which derives from quantum mechanics, believe it or not. Physicists also have a bad habit of conflating the map with the territory. Since an observation is an act of cognition Kant should be required reading for all physicists, because if it was they might be able to design some models which actually make sense.

[Moyo]

Meaning is established when two subjects agree.

Subject One: I have a concept of tree; I point: "there is a tree!"
Subject Two: "Oh yes, that is a tree."

Thus "tree" is that object identified by agreement. Therefore "tree" has meaning.


It is not more complicated than that.

So nothing can exist before "two subjects agree"?

If it can....what would you be reffering to before "we agree".

No. How the hell do you infer that?
The meaning of the signifier of the thing doesn't exist without agreement. I said nothing about its ontology, just its identity.

But how can you say anything about the identity of something that isnt meaningful...what would you be reffering to?
If The meaning of the signifier of the thing DOESNT EXIST without agreement How can you say anything about it "without agreement" as you put it Without meaning. We can only have discourse on something once the meaning of the terms have been established. So we cannot talk of anything that has no meaning what would you be reffering to?

So if you understand this do you agree with me that we should leave all talk of meaningless things out of our discussion, or things that existed before there were minds to establish meaning or i will also talk of a faqlzajsdu since it is also meaningless and exist in just the same way as something that exists without established meaning and the establishment of meaning happens in minds.

[Moyo]

Perhaps we could reitterate a previous post of mine

If you say you think there are some aspects about that object that dont have anything to do with concepts then that is a lie thinking cannot help but have something to do with concepts.

If the thought was about the aspects then those aspects (which are about the object) have to have something to do with concepts.As soon as you think of an aspect about something that aspect has to have something to do with concepts...which means all aspects about the object i.e the whole thinghave something to do with concepts unless you are not thinking about them. If you are not then how can you say anything about them much less that they have nothing to do with concepts.

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual .

If its the aspects themselves that have nothing to do with concepts and not the thought of them how can you say that given that you can only say what you are thinking about. That means everytime you consider these aspects they are being thought of (by you) So see the bold writing above also that qualifies it for inclusion in the definition. If a man always has a head that is what we define to be part of a man ..the day we see a man without one ....the day we consider an aspect of something without thinking (tell me if this is even possible)...then and only then..

That means the whole being of that present is conceptual.

[Hobbes' Choice]

So nothing can exist before "two subjects agree"?

If it can....what would you be reffering to before "we agree".

No. How the hell do you infer that?
The meaning of the signifier of the thing doesn't exist without agreement. I said nothing about its ontology, just its identity.

But how can you say anything about the identity of something that isnt meaningful...what would you be reffering to?
If The meaning of the signifier of the thing DOESNT EXIST without agreement How can you say anything about it "without agreement" as you put it Without meaning. We can only have discourse on something once the meaning of the terms have been established. So we cannot talk of anything that has no meaning what would you be reffering to?

So if you understand this do you agree with me that we should leave all talk of meaningless things out of our discussion, or things that existed before there were minds to establish meaning or i will also talk of a faqlzajsdu since it is also meaningless and exist in just the same way as something that exists without established meaning and the establishment of meaning happens in minds.

I suspected you had difficulties in processing information before. This latest exchange seems to conform it.

Let's take this a step at a time.

But how can you say anything about the identity of something that isnt meaningful...what would you be reffering to?

I can see an object, I name it! Its identity is something to do with ME and my language. A signifier is a label. Once labelled the meaning is carried with your experience of things with that label. THere is no problem here.

Next.

If the meaning of the signifier of the thing DOESNT EXIST without agreement, how can you say anything about it "without agreement" as you put it Without meaning. We can only have discourse on something once the meaning of the terms have been established. So we cannot talk of anything that has no meaning what would you be reffering to?

There is no objective meaning without agreement. When a thing is first signified the meaning is subjective to the person making the signification. Another subject, as I already said, can point to the same object and agree with me the nominal attribution.
There is no problem here.
Its a fucking process. You are thinking in synchronic terms, you need to think diachronically.