The Law of Identity is Refuted by Time/Change

[Skepdick]

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

Yeah, your intellectual cock is huuuuge! Moron.

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

Welcome to the party, moron!

You can pretend that they are identical by discarding uniqueness identifiers.
But they actually aren't.

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

So compare everything that constitutes them. Including their histories which led them to different spatial locations.
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.

Immanent critique is not projection. You are too dumb to grasp even that.

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.

Anything is identical to anything else when you are allowed to discard unique identifiers!

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

Only a diseased mind would fail to get the fucking point, despite so much repetition.

Again . . . learn English language.

I have.

In the English language neither words; nor the language as a whole mean anything.
The users of the English language mean. Using the English language.

If you don't believe me - ask the English language what it means. I'll sit and watch.

And if I were a dumb nitpicker like you I might even point out that what you meant to say is "learn THE English language". The definite article "the" matters.

But I am not a dumb nitpicker, so I won't say it.

[Belinda]

Magnus has amply demonstrated to me ( given I'm an ignoramus) he's proficient in the symbolic system of number. He also knows
some astronomy with regard to planets anyway. Number and astronomy are symbolic systems --- maps of the phenomenal territory.

Magnus is deficient at history, he does not do narrative. At one stage of his life Magnus was the one and only unit. Then he understood he was other than his mother, and then he got the idea that there were people who were not his mother. Throughout life our concepts change. Number is a concept that changes.

Number is not therefore absolute truth but is socio-subjective. To a subject of experience there is the apple and the same apple one day later.However to another subject the day old apple may lack a quality of straight off the tree freshness. The planet Venus was not always the unitary Planet Venus but once was the duality Morning Star and Evening Star.

Mathematics is 'therefore an artifice, a useful abstraction, a tool that addresses a particular need. Objectivity is most useful especially when allied with modern post-enlightenment scepticism. Who could disagree with Leibnitz that if monads are the same in all their properties they are the same monad.

The objectivity of number and the subjectivity of number are both true. Absolute truth is a matter of faith not mathematical proof. No matter how radical your thinking is you always encounter axioms.

[Magnus Anderson]

Welcome to the party, moron!

You can pretend that two "exact constituents" are identical.
But they actually aren't.

A banal truism that I've covered many posts ago.

So compare everything that constitutes them. Including their histories which led them to different spatial locations.

Well, this is the part that you don't get.

You choose what constitutes them.

And you only have to compare what constitutes them -- no more and no less.

So, if their histories do not constitute them, you don't compare their histories. That would be a mistake.

If their locations do not constitute them, you don't compare their locations. That would be a mistake.

And if their lines constitute them, you have to compare their lines. Ignoring the lines would be a mistake.

If a square is made out of 4 edges, and a triangle is made out of 3 edges, it's pretty clear that the shapes are not identical.

You are not free to ignore what constitutes them.

But you're free to choose what you're comparing.

Do you want to compare a square to a triangle or a square's edge to a triangle's edge?

You choose.

Unless you're Skepdick. In that case, you do not choose anything . . . because you suffer from a severe mental retardation.

Anything is identical to anything else when you are allowed to discard unique identifiers!

Nope.

Only a diseased mind would fail to get the fucking point, despite so much repetition.

Only a diseased mind does one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

In the English language neither words; nor the language as a whole mean anything.

And you say you've learned English language?

How little self-knowledge you have.

[Belinda]

Welcome to the party, moron!

You can pretend that two "exact constituents" are identical.
But they actually aren't.

A banal truism that I've covered many posts ago.

So compare everything that constitutes them. Including their histories which led them to different spatial locations.

Well, this is the part that you don't get.

You choose what constitutes them.

And you only have to compare what constitutes them -- no more and no less.

So, if their histories do not constitute them, you don't compare their histories. That would be a mistake.

If their locations do not constitute them, you don't compare their locations. That would be a mistake.

And if their lines constitute them, you have to compare their lines. Ignoring the lines would be a mistake.

If a square is made out of 4 edges, and a triangle is made out of 3 edges, it's pretty clear that the shapes are not identical.

You are not free to ignore what constitutes them.

But you're free to choose what you're comparing.

Do you want to compare a square to a triangle or a square's edge to a triangle's edge?

You choose.

Unless you're Skepdick. In that case, you do not choose anything . . . because you suffer from a severe mental retardation.

Anything is identical to anything else when you are allowed to discard unique identifiers!

Nope.

Only a diseased mind would fail to get the fucking point, despite so much repetition.

Only a diseased mind does one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

In the English language neither words; nor the language as a whole mean anything.

And you say you've learned English language?

How little self-knowledge you have.

But Magnus, the meaning of a word is its use. Some words have been appropriated by arbitration to apply to some precise concept or event. This usually happens in the dafter reaches of scientific academia,

[Skepdick]

Well, this is the part that you don't get.

You choose what constitutes them.

So the part "I don't get" is precisely the part I get ?

Well done, idiot!

And you only have to compare what constitutes them -- no more and no less.

That's exactly what I have done!

I have chosen that what constitutes them is all the things which make them identical;
simultaneously as I have chosen to disregard anything which makes them non-identical from their constituency.

So, if their histories do not constitute them, you don't compare their histories. That would be a mistake.

How fucking stupid are you?

You choose what constitutes them.

So you can choose whether their histories constitute them or not.

If you choose to discard their histories that's yet another uniqueness identifier you are discarding.

If their locations do not constitute them, you don't compare their locations. That would be a mistake.

If constituency is subject to choice then neither choice is a mistake.

And if their lines constitute them, you have to compare their lines. Ignoring the lines would be a mistake.

If constituency is subject to choice then neither choice is a mistake.

If a square is made out of 4 edges, and a triangle is made out of 3 edges, it's pretty clear that the shapes are not identical.

Why have you chosen the number edges as part of their constituency?

You are not free to ignore what constitutes them.

Contradiction.

I am free to choose what constitutes them.

You choose what constitutes them.

But you're free to choose what you're comparing.

I am also free to choose what constitutes them.

Do you want to compare a square to a triangle or a square's edge to a triangle's edge?

You choose.

I want to compare a square to a triangle while excluding edges and sides (or any other unique identifiers) from their constituency.

Nope.

Nope to your nope.

Only a diseased mind does one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

Exactly. So when are you going to change?

How little self-knowledge you have.

You win the irony olympics.

[Magnus Anderson]

But Magnus, the meaning of a word is its use.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

The meaning of a word is often established long before the word is used. Its first use may immediately follow the establishment of its meaning -- though even that is not necessarily the case -- but every subsequent use is further removed from it.

The list of meanings associated with a word can change, that is true, but the same rule applies.

Fixed and shared definitions are preferable because they enable communication.
That's why it's a good thing to stick to dictionary definitions.

[Magnus Anderson]

And you only have to compare what constitutes them -- no more and no less.

That's exactly what I have done!

I have chosen that what constitutes them is all the things which make them identical;
simultaneously as I have chosen to disregard anything which makes them non-identical from their constituency.

In that case, you're not comparing a square to a triangle, you're comparing a portion of a square to a portion of a triangle.

The two portions might be identical but that does not mean the triangle and the square themselves are identical.

We've been through this.
You're doing nothing but repeating yourself.

It's called insanity.

So you can choose whether their histories constitute them or not.

Exactly.

If you choose to discard their histories that's yet another uniqueness identifier you are discarding.

You are seriously confused.

Until you learn how to carefully listen to what other people are saying, you won't get anywhere.

If constituency is subject to choice then neither choice is a mistake.

Yet another proof you have no clue what you're criticizing.

I am also free to choose what constitutes them.

You aren't.

I want to compare a square to a triangle while excluding edges and sides (or any other unique identifiers) from their constituency.

That's because you're a retard.

[Magnus Anderson]

The level of stupidity necessary to not be able to grasp the following.

Before you can perform comparison, you have to choose what you're comparing.

You can choose literally anything.

That's a free choice guided only by need.

But once you choose what you're comparing, you have to compare everything that constitutes one thing with everything that constitutes the other thing.

You're not free to be selective at this point.

If you choose to compare a square to a triangle, you have to compare everything that constitutes them. If a square is made out of 4 edges, you are not free to ignore 2 of its edges. If you do, you're either making a mistake or you're changing what you're comparing, i.e. switching from a square to a portion of a square. If you're changing what you're comparing, then the results of your comparison will pertain to the relation between the chosen portion of the square and the triangle ( or the chosen portion of triangle, if you did the same with it. ) It won't pertain to the relation between the triangle and the square. And if you think that it does, then you will, once again, make a mistake.

[Magnus Anderson]

Have you ever encountered a literalist type?

An example would be someone who thinks that "X has Y" necessarily means "X is a physical object that contains the physical object Y".

So, when someone says "Words have meaning", they incorrectly interpret it to mean, "Words are physical objects that contain within themselves the physical object called meaning". And since meaning is not a physical object that is physically within words, they conclude that the statement is false.

Then they go around and tell us how thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with language.

They demonstrate an amazing inability to understand how flexible languages are.

When someone says, "Word W has meaning M" that can mean any number of different things none of which has anything to do with the literalist interpretation.

1) They might be saying that someone at some specific point in time used the word W to mean M.

2) They might be saying that the official dictionaries assign the meaning M to the word W.

3) They might be saying that most people use the word W to mean M.

4) They might be saying that someone has declared that they will use the word W to mean M. ( Here, the term "someone" can also mean "a group of at least two people". )

The list is probably not exhaustive but I can assure you that the literalist interpretation is not on it.

But then, the same type of people have no trouble saying, "Physical objects have location".

Has anyone ever touched location?

Has anyone ever observed location inside a physical object?

Of course not.

Location is not a physical object, let alone a physical object contained within another physical object.

The location of a physical object has absolutely nothing to do with its physical constitution and everything to do with its environment.

Yet, these literalist types have no trouble saying that physical objects have location.

[Skepdick]

In that case, you're not comparing a square to a triangle, you're comparing a portion of a square to a portion of a triangle.

The two portions might be identical but that does not mean the triangle and the square themselves are identical.

We've been through this.
You're doing nothing but repeating yourself.

It's called insanity.

Well, if it's insanity then you are insane! Because it's precisely and exactly what you are doing when comparing portions of reality!

Why have you apportioned reality like that?

So you can choose whether their histories constitute them or not.

Exactly.

Exactly! So why do you keep lying about being misunderstood?

If you choose to discard their histories that's yet another uniqueness identifier you are discarding.

You are seriously confused.

Until you learn how to carefully listen to what other people are saying, you won't get anywhere.

At what point are you going to stop pretending to be misunderstood?

If constituency is subject to choice then neither choice is a mistake.

Yet another proof you have no clue what you're criticizing.

That's a statement of fact. Not a critique.

You aren't.

Contradiction.

If you are free to apportion reality any way you like - I am free to apportion triangles and squares any way I like.

That's because you're a retard.

OK, retard. Why did you exclude any portions of reality?

[Magnus Anderson]

Well, if it's insanity then you are insane! Because it's precisely and exactly what you are doing when comparing portions of reality!

I am doing nothing but repeating myself when comparing portions of reality?

Pretty strange claim.

Why have you apportioned reality like that?

That's beside the point.

So why do you keep lying about being misunderstood?

Learn what the word "lying" means.

And I'm not even wrong.

You are indeed misunderstanding everything you possibly can.

At what point are you going to stop pretending to be misunderstood?

I can't stop doing something I have yet to start doing.

That's a statement of fact. Not a critique.

And the above is called quibbling.

If you are free to apportion reality any way you like - I am free to apportion triangles and squares any way I like.

But you're not free to confuse triangles and squares with their portions.

[Magnus Anderson]

Let's do it one step at a time, Skeppie, so that your tiny little brain can understand it. ( I'm sure it can't because it's too tiny but it's always worth a try. )

You have to choose what you're comparing.

What portions are you comparing, Skeppie?

There are 4 portions for you to choose from.

SQUARE:
- Top horizontal line
- Right vertical line
- Bottom horizontal line
- Left vertical line

TRIANGLE:
- Left vertical line
- Bottom horizontal line
- Diagonal line

SQUARE-PORTION:
- Bottom horizontal line
- Left vertical line

TRIANGLE-PORTION:
- Left vertical line
- Bottom horizontal line

Make a decision.

Once you make the decision, you have to compare everything that constitutes the chosen portions of reality.

That's how comparing things to see if they are identical works.

You're not free to ignore what constitutes the portions.

Is that too difficult for you to do?

If you're comparing the square to the triangle, you will end up concluding that they are NOT identical.

If you're comparing the square-portion to the triangle-portion, you will end up concluding that they are identical.

The results differ because you're comparing two different thing, i.e. two different portions of reality.

But you find it difficult to distinguish a subset from its set. You confuse the two. So you add this idiotic reasoning of yours where, just because a subset of A is identical to a subset of B, it follows that A and B are identical as well.

[Belinda]

But Magnus, the meaning of a word is its use.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

The meaning of a word is often established long before the word is used. Its first use may immediately follow the establishment of its meaning -- though even that is not necessarily the case -- but every subsequent use is further removed from it.

The list of meanings associated with a word can change, that is true, but the same rule applies.

Fixed and shared definitions are preferable because they enable communication.
That's why it's a good thing to stick to dictionary definitions.

That is true of a conversation like this one, but not of social conversations.
I take it you mean a dictionary of philosophy. Here I feel free to use words from famous philosophers without lengthy explanations because these words can be looked up in a dictionary of philosophy. That's why jargons are so useful; they save time and effort.

[Skepdick]

I am doing nothing but repeating myself when comparing portions of reality?

Pretty strange claim.

Pointing out what you are doing is "strange"? OK... then you are strange.

That's beside the point.

It's exactly the point. You've chosen to apportion reality some way.

Me too.

Learn what the word "lying" means.

I know what it means. And I have an exemplar for it. You.

And I'm not even wrong.

You are not even right.

You are indeed misunderstanding everything you possibly can.

I can't stop doing something I have yet to start doing.

Oh no! Not another contradiction!

And the above is called quibbling.

Pointing out what you are doing is "quibbling" now?

But you're not free to confuse triangles and squares with their portions.

Where is the "confusion"? I've apportioned reality exactly in a manner that discards unique identifiers.

Exactly as you said!

we can ignore, and thus leave out from the comparison, unique identifiers

[Magnus Anderson]

But you're not free to confuse triangles and squares with their portions.

Where is the "confusion"? I've apportioned reality exactly in a manner that discards unique identifiers.

Exactly as you said!

The confusion is in your mind.

You're comparing a subset of A to a subset of B. They are, of course, identical. So far so good.

But then, you end up confusing the subset of A with the set A and the subset of B with the set B, thinking that, just because the subsets are identical, it follows that the sets are identical as well.

It has been explained to you at least 5 times by now. And you have yet to address that.