The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Magnus Anderson]

What is "it" that you are assigning to a word, and does it exist before you assign it to the word?

This is an English board. Did you forget that? Are you really that stuck inside your idiotic stubborn dogmatic closed-minded mind so as to be completely unaware as to where you are? Noone is writing in Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew. Everyone is writing in English. So in order to understand others, and in order to be understood, you have to understand English.

And in English language, the word "identical" most commonly means "absolutely the same" and not "one and the same" as you keep idiotically insisting. It means "qualitatively identical" rather than "numerically identical".

And it's not merely English language. I am sure most other languages use the word THE SAME EXACT FUCKING WAY.

It's merely YOU being the retard that you are that keeps redefining words his own way only to end up ni a situation where he's completely isolated from the external world, not being able to understand others and not being able to be understood by others. A situation you very much enjoy because you can hallucinate all you want and because you're protected from every and all criticism.

LEARN WHAT THE WORD "IDENTICAL" MEANS.
STOP FORCING YOUR OWN STUPID DEFINITION.

[Magnus Anderson]

I am literally insisting you stop being an idiot. This is not about definitions.

It's about logical implications.

You're literally living in a la la land.

You're a mentally ill freak, a complete and utter imbecile, a pathetic loser, a loner with no connection with the external world, a tryhard wannabe extremely original thinker but in reality an insane cretin with no capacity to properly think, a forceful creep, an arrogant ape, a brainwreck, a sad form of existence, a zero.

[Skepdick]

I am literally insisting you stop being an idiot. This is not about definitions.

It's about logical implications.

You're literally living in a la la land.

You're a mentally ill freak, a complete and utter imbecile, a pathetic loser, a loner with no connection with the external world, a tryhard wannabe extremely original thinker but in reality an insane cretin with no capacity to properly think, a forceful creep, an arrogant ape, a brainwreck, a sad form of existence, a zero.

Sounds about identical to yourself.

[Skepdick]

What is "it" that you are assigning to a word, and does it exist before you assign it to the word?

This is an English board. Did you forget that? Are you really that stuck inside your idiotic stubborn dogmatic closed-minded mind so as to be completely unaware as to where you are? Noone is writing in Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew. Everyone is writing in English. So in order to understand others, and in order to be understood, you have to understand English.

And in English language, the word "identical" most commonly means "absolutely the same" and not "one and the same" as you keep idiotically insisting. It means "qualitatively identical" rather than "numerically identical".

And it's not merely English language. I am sure most other languages use the word THE SAME EXACT FUCKING WAY.

It's merely YOU being the retard that you are that keeps redefining words his own way only to end up ni a situation where he's completely isolated from the external world, not being able to understand others and not being able to be understood by others. A situation you very much enjoy because you can hallucinate all you want and because you're protected from every and all criticism.

LEARN WHAT THE WORD "IDENTICAL" MEANS.
STOP FORCING YOUR OWN STUPID DEFINITION.

Identity is not identical to the word "identical".
Identity is a priori language. It's a law of thought, not some linguistic convention.

You fail to recognize that it's impossible for you to be identical to anything else; and that's why you are a dumb cunt.

Keep bickering over semantics. You have nothing else to offer.

[Belinda]

What is "it" that you are assigning to a word, and does it exist before you assign it to the word?

This is an English board. Did you forget that? Are you really that stuck inside your idiotic stubborn dogmatic closed-minded mind so as to be completely unaware as to where you are? Noone is writing in Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew. Everyone is writing in English. So in order to understand others, and in order to be understood, you have to understand English.

And in English language, the word "identical" most commonly means "absolutely the same" and not "one and the same" as you keep idiotically insisting. It means "qualitatively identical" rather than "numerically identical".

And it's not merely English language. I am sure most other languages use the word THE SAME EXACT FUCKING WAY.

It's merely YOU being the retard that you are that keeps redefining words his own way only to end up ni a situation where he's completely isolated from the external world, not being able to understand others and not being able to be understood by others. A situation you very much enjoy because you can hallucinate all you want and because you're protected from every and all criticism.

LEARN WHAT THE WORD "IDENTICAL" MEANS.
STOP FORCING YOUR OWN STUPID DEFINITION.

Identity is not identical to the word "identical".
Identity is a priori language. It's a law of thought, not some linguistic convention.

You fail to recognize that it's impossible for you to be identical to anything else; and that's why you are a dumb cunt.

Keep bickering over semantics. You have nothing else to offer.

I agree with Skepdick but not his explanation as he phrased it. "Impossible for you to be identical to anything else" implies that Magnus is an essence, a self. Magnus lives and so Magnus has no essence at present. He is not unitary. There is no enduringly definite attribute of Magnus such as may possibly be discovered after his demise.

Similarly there is no essence of any event until after it has ceased to be a differentiated event. Leibnitz's monads are heuristic and as heuristic they are useful devices for imagining sameness/identity . However a monad, like mathematics itself ,is a heuristic device.

[Belinda]

What is "it" that you are assigning to a word, and does it exist before you assign it to the word?

This is an English board. Did you forget that? Are you really that stuck inside your idiotic stubborn dogmatic closed-minded mind so as to be completely unaware as to where you are? Noone is writing in Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew. Everyone is writing in English. So in order to understand others, and in order to be understood, you have to understand English.

And in English language, the word "identical" most commonly means "absolutely the same" and not "one and the same" as you keep idiotically insisting. It means "qualitatively identical" rather than "numerically identical".

And it's not merely English language. I am sure most other languages use the word THE SAME EXACT FUCKING WAY.

It's merely YOU being the retard that you are that keeps redefining words his own way only to end up ni a situation where he's completely isolated from the external world, not being able to understand others and not being able to be understood by others. A situation you very much enjoy because you can hallucinate all you want and because you're protected from every and all criticism.

LEARN WHAT THE WORD "IDENTICAL" MEANS.
STOP FORCING YOUR OWN STUPID DEFINITION.

But numerically identical is one attribute among others. You don't say why you privilege number. Number is a quality abstracted by humans ,crows, and the great apes, from the flux of experience.

[Skepdick]

I agree with Skepdick but not his explanation as he phrased it. "Impossible for you to be identical to anything else" implies that Magnus is an essence, a self. Magnus lives and so Magnus has no essence at present. He is not unitary. There is no enduringly definite attribute of Magnus such as may possibly be discovered after his demise.

Similarly there is no essence of any event until after it has ceased to be a differentiated event. Leibnitz's monads are heuristic and as heuristic they are useful devices for imagining sameness/identity . However a monad, like mathematics itself ,is a heuristic device.

Yeah, I am not talking about metaphysics or abstractions here. I am speaking about identity in an operational sense.

Even on Magnus's weaker notion of "identity" a principle of substitution holds. if A is identical to B then A can be substituted for B and vice versa.

So... what can we substitute Magnus with such that if we remove him and drop in a replacement nobody would even notice?
Is he like a spare wheel?

[Magnus Anderson]

Identity is not identical to the word "identical".
Identity is a priori language. It's a law of thought, not some linguistic convention.

You fail to recognize that it's impossible for you to be identical to anything else; and that's why you are a dumb cunt.

Identity is indeed prior to language. Things had identity long before language was invented.

However, the word "identical" is not prior to language. And this is where you mess up. You fail to understand that in English language, and more importantly, when I use the word, the word "identical" does not mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity as" but "exactly the same" or "has the same properties as".

You keep forgetting you're on an Internet forum dealing with another person's views that are expressed in English language. If you fail to understand how other people are using their words, but you nonetheless proceed to criticize them, you will end up constructing a strawman argument. And it is precisely this you've been accused of -- and on more than one occasion.

It has been observed, not merely in this thread, but pretty much everywhere else, that, as someone who does not really understand English language, and who's not aware of that fact, you're extremely prone to constructing strawman arguments.

It's amazing to me how incapable you are of understanding basic things.

Keep bickering over semantics. You have nothing else to offer.

Yet, that's precisely what you've been doing for the last 16 pages or so. And that's precisely what you do in general.

It's called "accusing the other of your own guilt" or more simply "projection".

[Magnus Anderson]

But numerically identical is one attribute among others. You don't say why you privilege number. Number is a quality abstracted by humans ,crows, and the great apes, from the flux of experience.

There's a difference between a number and a concept of number.

Numbers are objective, i.e. they can exist without minds.

Concepts are subjective, i.e. they exist within minds, so no minds no concepts.

The number of planets in the Solar System is 8. If you remove all of the minds in the world, the number would still be 8. The number wouldn't vanish simply because there are no minds to perceive it. But concepts, together with the concept of number, would cease to exist, that is true.

Abstraction is a specific process of constructing concepts. It involves taking a number of examples and constructing a concept that one can use to represent those examples and other things. It involves recognizing what all of the examples have in common.

I would say that the concept of number is most likely not created through the process of abstraction.

And I do not privilege the concept of "numerically identical". Skepdick does. In fact, I'm saying that insisting on it in this thread is nothing but a distraction. The Law of Identity has nothing to do with it.

All in all, I don't see how any of this is related to the topic at hand.

[Skepdick]

Identity is indeed prior to language. Things had identity long before language was invented.

Duh! Because identification is a cognitive process!

However, the word "identical" is not prior to language. And this is where you mess up. You fail to understand that in English language, and more importantly, when I use the word, the word "identical" does not mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity as" but "exactly the same" or "has the same properties as".

You keep forgetting you're on an Internet forum dealing with another person's views that are expressed in English language. If you fail to understand how other people are using their words, but you nonetheless proceed to criticize them, you will end up constructing a strawman argument. And it is precisely this you've been accused of -- and on more than one occasion.

Idiot. "identical" is an adjective. Adjectives express cognitive processes known as "judgments".

The cognitive process which determines identicality is necessarily prior to you expressing the outcome of the cognitive process with the word "identical".

It has been observed, not merely in this thread, but pretty much everywhere else, that, as someone who does not really understand English language, and who's not aware of that fact, you're extremely prone to constructing strawman arguments.
It's amazing to me how incapable you are of understanding basic things.

You are a prime example that speaking a language like English and thinking/understanding are unrelated cognitive tasks.

For starters, you have failed to understand that I am not arguing with you - arguing with idiots makes one an idiot too.

I am correcting you. You keep confusing non-identical cognitive processes as "identical".

It's called "accusing the other of your own guilt" or more simply "projection".

How is that possible? I actually understand identity (no, not the word). You don't.

You fail to grasp that what I am busy correcting is your misuse of your cognitive faculties, not your use of language.

[Magnus Anderson]

The cognitive process which determines identicality is necessarily prior to you expressing the outcome of the cognitive process with the word "identical".

This is true insofar the underlying cognitive process does not operate on words ( but on symbols of a different kind. )

That said, it's a banal truism that misses the point.

The point is that, if someone says "They are identical", they are not necessarily using the word "identical" to mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity".

In your words, their word "identical" does not necessarily describe the outcome of the cognitive process that compares whether or not two things are one and the same thing.

In fact, since the most common use of the word "identical" is not "one and the same" but "exactly alike", that's quite unlikely.

But explaining this stuff to someone who does not understand what the word "unicorn" means -- or even more generally, what it means for a word to mean something -- is a bit futile. The issue is significantly deeper and requires special attention.

[Magnus Anderson]

For starters, you have failed to understand that I am not arguing with you - arguing with idiots makes one an idiot too.

I am correcting you. You keep confusing non-identical cognitive processes as "identical".

You have serious mental health issues that not only make it diffcult for you to think clearly but to also engage in a constructive dialogue with other people.

Other than yourself, you're not deceiving anyone here.

As I've said before at least once, you're the Norman Boutin of philosophy.

[Skepdick]

You have serious mental health issues that not only make it diffcult for you to think clearly but to also engage in a constructive dialogue with other people.

Other than yourself, you're not deceiving anyone here.

As I've said before at least once, you're the Norman Boutin of philosophy.

Philosophy is for idiots. Everything is operations management.

It's not possible to engage in any constructive activity with a person who can't think.

If you just want a "dialogue" go to the pub; or call an escort.

[Skepdick]

This is true insofar the underlying cognitive process does not operate on words ( but on symbols of a different kind. )

Cognitive processes don't operate on any kind of symbols. Symbols are the products of cognitive processes.

That said, it's a banal truism that misses the point.

The point is that, if someone says "They are identical", they are not necessarily using the word "identical" to mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity".

Can you smell your double standard yet? When I am offering internal critique to your notion of "identity" and I say that a triangle is identical to a square I am not necessarily using the word "identical" to mean "one and the same" or "has the same identity".

All I mean is that the triangle and the square are exactly the same once I ignore anything which differentiates them.

In fact, since the most common use of the word "identical" is not "one and the same" but "exactly alike", that's quite unlikely.

Fine!

A triangle and a square are exactly alike! Once you ignore any unlikeness.

But explaining this stuff to someone who does not understand what the word "unicorn" means -- or even more generally, what it means for a word to mean something -- is a bit futile. The issue is significantly deeper and requires special attention.

It's probably best you don't explain things you don't understand. You don't even know what meaning is.

Words don't mean anything. Humans mean using words. Only an agent can "mean".

[Magnus Anderson]

Cognitive processes don't operate on any kind of symbols.

I am well aware of the fact that you know absolutely nothing about cognitive processes.

All I mean is that the triangle and the square are exactly the same once I ignore anything which differentiates them.

You can pretend that they are identical by ignoring what constitutes them.
But they actually aren't.

You have to compare everything that constitutes them.
You are not free to be selective.

Remember what you accused me of? That I can't think.
Well, that's another projection in a row of projections of yours.

What you can say instead, and what has to do with what I'm saying, is that one of the edges of the triangle is identical to one of the edges of the square.

A triangle and a square are exactly alike! Once you ignore any unlikeness.

Only a diseased mind can enjoy repetition to the extent that you do.

Words don't mean anything.

Again . . . learn English language.