Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

No idea about python. Would have to learn how how all this bullshit works where you can redefine any operator to do anything you want. Irrelevant to A = A outside python.

Nothing to it. =(x,y) is just a binary function. It has no intensional meaning.

"A=A" as used in philosophy is a prescriptive not a descriptive statement.

It's defined to be tautologically true. It's not evaluated.

So?

[Skepdick]

No idea about python. Would have to learn how how all this bullshit works where you can redefine any operator to do anything you want. Irrelevant to A = A outside python.

Nothing to it. =(x,y) is just a binary function. It has no intensional meaning.

"A=A" as used in philosophy is a prescriptive not a descriptive statement.

It's defined to be tautologically true. It's not evaluated.

So?

So, it amounts to the English question "Are X and Y the same?"

What do you mean by "the same"? Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. How do you want to compare them?

[Atla]

Nothing to it. =(x,y) is just a binary function. It has no intensional meaning.

"A=A" as used in philosophy is a prescriptive not a descriptive statement.

It's defined to be tautologically true. It's not evaluated.

So?

So, it amounts to the English question "Are X and Y the same?"

What do you mean by "the same"? Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't.

Depends on context if they are treated as same or not. So what?

[Skepdick]

Depends on context if they are treated as same or not. So what?

What do you mean by that?

Are you declaring them "the same" a priori (on what grounds?); or evaluating them to be the same a posteriori according to some pre-defined comparison criteria?

What kind of thought process goes into asserting them "the same"?

[Atla]

Depends on context if they are treated as same or not. So what?

What do you mean by that?

Are you declaring them "the same" a priori (on what grounds?); or evaluating them to be the same a posteriori according to some pre-defined comparison criteria?

What kind of thought process goes into asserting them "the same"?

?

Joe's personality didn't noticable change whatsoever in the last week. Is Joe the same person he was a week ago?

In some context (say everyday chatter) we tend to say yes, in some other context (say molecular biology) we tend to say no.

[Skepdick]

Joe's personality didn't noticable change whatsoever in the last week. Is Joe the same person he was a week ago?

In some context (say everyday chatter) we tend to say yes, in some other context (say molecular biology) we tend to say no.

What kind of presupposition do you start with a priori?

A: Do you assume "the same", unless you detect some difference?
B: Do you assume "different", unless you detect some similarity?
C: Do you assume "I don't I don't know" and you do total analysis and some complex molecular or quantum analysis of Joe?

What sort of analysis process is the assertion of "sameness"? Sounds like you are saying you are doing A.

[Skepdick]

Joe's personality didn't noticable change whatsoever in the last week. Is Joe the same person he was a week ago?

Joe's personality didn't noticable change whatsoever in the last week therefore Either joe is the same; or not the same as last week (or maybe it's meaningless to ask this question? Or maybe there are other options?)

Depending on your choice of sameness evaluator.

[Atla]

Joe's personality didn't noticable change whatsoever in the last week. Is Joe the same person he was a week ago?

In some context (say everyday chatter) we tend to say yes, in some other context (say molecular biology) we tend to say no.

What kind of presupposition do you start with a priori?

A: Do you assume "the same", unless you detect some difference?
B: Do you assume "different", unless you detect some similarity?
C: Do you assume "I don't I don't know" and you do total analysis and some complex molecular or quantum analysis of Joe?

What sort of analysis process is the assertion of "sameness"? Sounds like you are saying you are doing A.

Well I certainly don't start from pure sameness. Nor from pure difference. I guess this varies from person to person and how much detail you see in the world. I guess universally speaking I start from somewhere around.. 20% sameness 80% difference? Yeah something like that

[Skepdick]

Well I certainly don't start from pure sameness. Nor from pure difference. I guess this varies from person to person and how much detail you see in the world. I guess universally speaking I start from somewhere around.. 20% sameness 80% difference? Yeah something like that

I guess it's meaningless to guess. You probably start with different biases for different purposes.

When we abstract we erase as much difference as possible.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdick has no ability to read for example 'A = A' and evaluate it in an abstract way, which would be the whole point.

Tell me more, I want to know...

Code: Select all

In [1]: class A:
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return False
   ...:

In [2]: a = A()

In [3]: a == a
Out[3]: False

I'm no python coder, looks like you created some class which returns false after an equality. So a is equal to a.

You are correct. In Python all classes come with a set of magic methods signified by __double underscores__ but they are optional and you can overwrite them with arbitrary nonsense if you wish. Skepdick, being a fatuous dishonest troll that nobody really should be dealing with, has in that code overwritten the equality method for his A class.

Here's the same code but, this time written to return a string of text in response to the question of whether this thing is equal to itself
.

dunderfuckery.PNG

.
And here is the non fuckery version where the class does nothing and none of the default magic methods is overwritten. It gives the non lying answer to the question.
.

DunderNonFuckery.PNG

.
The real reason why Skepdick lives his life on a philosophy forum even though he hates philosophy and everyone hates him, is probably that he is banned from all computer science forums for posting dumb shit like that.

[Skepdick]

It gives the non lying answer to the question.

There's all your fuckery...Please define the lie() function/assertion in computational terms.

But hey, look! I'll take your concenssion that identity is prescribed not described. Fucking idiot.

Confuses syntax with semantics.

[Atla]

Tell me more, I want to know...

Code: Select all

In [1]: class A:
   ...:     def __eq__(self, other): return False
   ...:

In [2]: a = A()

In [3]: a == a
Out[3]: False

I'm no python coder, looks like you created some class which returns false after an equality. So a is equal to a.

You are correct. In Python all classes come with a set of magic methods signified by __double underscores__ but they are optional and you can overwrite them with arbitrary nonsense if you wish. Skepdick, being a fatuous dishonest troll that nobody really should be dealing with, has in that code overwritten the equality method for his A class.

Here's the same code but, this time written to return a string of text in response to the question of whether this thing is equal to itself
.
dunderfuckery.PNG
.
And here is the non fuckery version where the class does nothing and none of the default magic methods is overwritten. It gives the non lying answer to the question.
.
DunderNonFuckery.PNG
.
The real reason why Skepdick lives his life on a philosophy forum even though he hates philosophy and everyone hates him, is probably that he is banned from all computer science forums for posting dumb shit like that.

Wonder why he's still sticking to this python wizardry when we already pointed out years ago that he's merely exploting python's redefening thingy

[Atla]

concenssion that identity is prescribed not described

Why, can you give an example from the entire known universe where something is not identical to itself?

[Skepdick]

Wonder why he's still sticking to this python wizardry when we already pointed out years ago that he's merely exploting python's redefening thingy

Because it's an empirical demonstration that (A = A) ↔ ⊤ is a prescriptive statement.

Axiom; not an assertion.

[Skepdick]

Why, can you give an example from the entire known universe where something is not identical to itself?

Why can't you give me an example in the entire known universe of what it means to compare something to itself?

The comparison operator takes TWO arguments.
How did you get TWO of the itentical-to-itself thing?

=(x) is not the same thing as =(x,x)