Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:30 pm Thinking doesn't operate on symbols. Symbolic thinking operates on symbols.

All reasoning is symbolic.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:33 pm Fucking idiot still thinks this is about semantics.

This has nothing to do with symbols, dummy!

It absolutely has. And your disregard for language is what leads you into this situation of frustration.

You are literally forcing a non-standard definition of the word "identical" onto me.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:38 pm All reasoning is symbolic.

Idiot thinks symbolic and non-symbolic reasoning are identical.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 12:40 pm It absolutely has. And your disregard for language is what leads you into this situation of frustration.

You are literally forcing a non-standard definition of the word "identical" onto me.

Fucking idiot thinks thoughts are identical with words.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:10 pm Fucking idiot thinks thoughts are identical with words.

Words aren't the only type of symbol out there.

"You have to stop time" counter-argument

This counter-argument is built on top of the "You have to perform a comparison" claim.

It's narrowly focused on portions of reality that occupy a single moment in time.

The argument is that, in order to compare the state of an apple at single point in time to itself, one has to stop time. Since that's impossible, it follows that the comparison is impossible. And since that's impossible, it's also impossible to determine the equality, at least in this particular case ( which, supposedly, breaks the law. )

The problem with this argument is the underlying premise that one must observe the state of the apple at a single moment directly in order to compare it to itself. In reality, one can use the combination of reasoning and observation to calculate the most probable state of the apple at that point in time.

But again, as I said before, there is no reason whatsoever to perform any comparison at all. Some things can be known purely through conceptual analysis.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:13 pm Words aren't the only type of symbol out there.

Fucking idiot still thinks symbolic and non-symbolic reasoning are identical.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:25 pm Fucking idiot still thinks symbolic and non-symbolic reasoning are identical.

And you can't add anything of substance.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:26 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:25 pm Fucking idiot still thinks symbolic and non-symbolic reasoning are identical.

And you can't add anything of substance.

Drawing your attention to the existence of an entire class of reasoning (non-symbolic) you aren't even aware of is not substantial?!?

What a dimwit.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:28 pm Drawing your attention to the existence of an entire class of reasoning (non-symbolic) you aren't even aware of is not substantial?!?

It is not. Non-symbolic is only non-symbolic in name. You need language to perceive color, let alone 3D objects in space.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:38 pm It is not. Non-symbolic is only non-symbolic in name. You need language to perceive color, let alone 3D objects in space.

Trying to explain to you why this is not true would be like trying to explain colors to the colorblind.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:42 pm Trying to explain to you why this is not true would be like trying to explain colors to the colorblind.

You are showing your true colors.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:49 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 1:42 pm Trying to explain to you why this is not true would be like trying to explain colors to the colorblind.

You are showing your true colors.

They were never hidden. You are just blind.

"You can't compare a thing to itself" argument

This counter-argument is built on top of the "You have to perform a comparison" claim.

The argument goes something like this:

1) Comparison is a binary function, i.e. a function that takes 2 arguments.

2) A binary function can only be applied to two distinct portions of reality. It cannot be applied to one and the same portion of reality.

3) Hence, it's not possible to compare a thing to itself.

The first premise is true but the second is false.

By definition, a binary function is a function that has two inputs. It is NOT a function that is connected to two distinct portions of reality.

The inputs of a binary function can be connected to two different portions of reality but they do not have to be. They can also be connected to one and the same portion of reality.

This is possible because the inputs of a function are separate from the portion of reality they are connected to.

The inputs themselves store a map of the portion of reality they are connected to. The function itself is directly applied to these maps and not the connected portions of reality themselves.

The usual response at this point is that, in order to compare a thing to itself, we need to compare it to itself. If we're comparing maps of it, we're not comparing the thing to itself. In fact, even if we made a copy of that thing and compared it to the original, we still wouldn't be comparing the thing to itself.

This is fallacious because if our maps are accurate representation of the thing then comparing the maps would be comparing the thing to itself. Similarly, if the copy is identical to the original, then comparing it to the original would be comparing the thing to itself.

But again, as I said before, there is no reason whatsoever to perform any comparison at all. Some things can be known purely through conceptual analysis.

Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Mon Mar 10, 2025 6:02 pm The inputs of a binary function can be connected to two different portions of reality but they do not have to be. They can also be connected to one and the same portion of reality.

Translation: You can duplicate a unique resource indiscriminately and without constraint.