The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

Did you give any argument and explanation whatsoever why those meanings are identical?

Of course, one can only expect a double standard from a bullshitter.

Did you ask for any?

[Magnus Anderson]

It's funny how instead of agreeing that we should be presenting arguments he just goes into this pathetic self-defense "You too" mode. Again, no effort whatsoever, no desire at all, to resolve the dispute. A self-obsessed freak.

[Skepdick]

Did you give any argument and explanation whatsoever why those meanings are identical?

Of course, one can only expect a double standard from a bullshitter.

Did you ask for any?

Did you?

[Skepdick]

It's funny how instead of agreeing that we should be presenting arguments he just goes into this pathetic self-defense "You too" mode. Again, no effort whatsoever, no desire at all, to resolve the dispute. A self-obsessed freak.

What is it that you think I am doing here?

I am attempting to resolve the dispute. By correcting you until you stop disputing with facts.

Fucking idiot.

[Magnus Anderson]

"A is self-identical"

"A is identical to itself"

"A has the same identity as itself"

"A has the same identity as A"

"The identity of A is the same as the identity of A"

Those meanings are not identical.

Idiot.

So how about . . . you being more specific? Exactly what do you disagree with? Everything? Some of it?

Let's break it down.

1) "Self-identical" has the same meaning as "identical to itself".

2) "Is identical to itself" means "has the same identity as itself".

3) "The same" means "equal".

4) "Itself" in this particular instance means "A".

For each one of these 4 claims, tell us which ones you agree with and which ones you disagree with.

Let's do something constructive for once.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am attempting to resolve the dispute. By correcting you until you stop disputing with facts.

It's like someone trying to get rich but sitting home, watching TV all day and expecting money to fall from the sky.

It's a very poor and lazy effort.

And you're WAY TOO obsessed with yourself.

[Magnus Anderson]

Did you give any argument and explanation whatsoever why those meanings are identical?

Of course, one can only expect a double standard from a bullshitter.

Did you ask for any?

Did you?

I did. Just a few moments ago.

[Skepdick]

"A is self-identical"

"A is identical to itself"

"A has the same identity as itself"

"A has the same identity as A"

"The identity of A is the same as the identity of A"

Those meanings are not identical.

Idiot.

So how about . . . you being more specific? Exactly what do you disagree with? Everything? Some of it?

What is it that you didn't understand when I said "Those meanings are NOT identical" ?

1) "Self-identical" has the same meaning as "identical to itself".

Precisely! Those meanings are the same, but they are NOT identical.

2) "Is identical to itself" means "has the same identity as itself".

Precisely! Those meanings are the same, but they are NOT identical.

3) "The same" means "equal".

Precisely! Equal means same. Equal doesn't mean identical

4) "Itself" in this particular instance means "A".

Equivocation.

Itself is itself. That's identity.

You are conflating the application of "itself'" to a subject (such as A), with the identity of "itself" as a concept.

[Skepdick]

It's like someone trying to get rich but sitting home, watching TV all day and expecting money to fall from the sky.

That's pretty much how passive income works. Is this news to you?

It's a very poor and lazy effort.

Indeed! Such is the effort that goes into passive income.

And you're WAY TOO obsessed with yourself.

Obsession with identity could indeed be mistaken for an obsession with myself by somebody who doesn't understand that those two obsessions aren't identical.

[Magnus Anderson]

What is it that you didn't understand when I said "Those meanings are NOT identical" ?

I see. When you said "identical", you didn't mean "the same".

What did you mean?

1) "Self-identical" has the same meaning as "identical to itself".

Precisely!

2) "Is identical to itself" means "has the same identity as itself".

Precisely!

3) "The same" means "equal".

Precisely!

4) "Itself" in this particular instance means "A".

Equivocation.

Itself is itself. That's identity.

So you agree with 1, 2 and 3 but you disagree with 4?

You don't agree that the word "itself" in your statement "A is itself" points to the same thing as the symbol "A"?

You're saying it points to something else?

[Magnus Anderson]

It's like someone trying to get rich but sitting home, watching TV all day and expecting money to fall from the sky.

That's pretty much how passive income works. Is this news to you?

It's a very poor and lazy effort.

Indeed! Such is the effort that goes into passive income.

And you're WAY TOO obsessed with yourself.

Obsession with identity could indeed be mistaken for an obsession with myself by somebody who doesn't understand that those two obsessions aren't identical.

What a loser.

[Skepdick]

I see. When you said "identical", you didn't mean "the same".

What did you mean?

How many times have I explained this?

Identity is a stronger notion than sameness.
Two things can be the same without being identical.

And if "two" things are identical - there aren't really two things. There's only one thing being mentioned twice.

One thing.
Two things.
One thing being mentioned twice using a symbol.
One thing being mentioned twice using two different symbols.
Two things being mentioned once using two different symbols.

So you agree with 1, 2 and 3 but you disagree with 4?

Sure.

You don't agree that the word "itself" in your statement "A is itself" points to the same thing as the symbol "A"?

I am pointing out that the application of "itself" to A has different identity to the identity of the notion of "itself" applied to itself!

You're saying it points to something else?

I am saying that in your particular instance the symbol "itself" loses its own identity and acquires the identity of A when applied to it.

A is itself.
Itself is also itself.
Itself is not A.

[Skepdick]

What a loser.

I'd sooner fuck a goat, than be a winner like you.

[Magnus Anderson]

How many times have I explained this?

Identity is a stronger notion than sameness.
Two things can be the same without being identical.

And if "two" things are identical - there aren't really two things. There's only one thing being mentioned twice.

One thing.
Two things.
One thing mentioned twice using the same symbol.
One thing mentioned twice using two different symbols.
Two things mentioned once using two different symbols.

So you're saying that each one of the 4 statements points to a separate meaning, i.e. there are 4 meanings in total rather than 1. Exactly how and why should anyone care?

You don't agree that the word "itself" in your statement "A is itself" points to the same thing as the symbol "A"?

I am pointing out that the application of "itself" to A has different identity to the identity of the notion of "itself" applied to itself!

I have no clue what this means.

Why did you avoid answering the question? Understand that I am not talking about symbols but to what they point to. What the symbol "A" points to is the same as what the symbol "itself" points to. "A" and "itself" remain not only different in content ( i.e. letters that constitute them ) but also different in identity ( i.ie. they are 2 words rather than 1 word. )

You're saying it points to something else?

I am saying that in your particular instance the symbol "itself" loses its own identity and acquires the identity of A when applied to it.

Again, nothing is said about the symbols "A" and "itself" themselves. The claim is that "A" and "itself" point to one and the same thing. The symbols themselves are still 2 separate symbols. And they also remain different in content since they have different letters. ( They only point to the same thing. )

[Magnus Anderson]

What a loser.

I'd sooner fuck a goat, than be a winner like you.

'I'm sure you already do that.