What is P and -P?

[Terrapin Station]

Look at it this way. It's commonly believed that both oxygen and carbon are comprised of electrons, protons, neutrons, as well as relations, forces, etc. between those particles (and if we wanted to we could talk about leptons, etc. instead).

Well, how are we making any distinctions between them if we're saying that they're composed of the same sort of stuff?

Does that stump you?

Can you stop playing stupid now?

That is precisely what stumps me!

You are discerning things which are, supposedly, fundamentally the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_ ... scernibles

So, you have no idea how we can claim a distinction between an oxygen atom and a carbon atom, right? Or between the PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup?

[Skepdick]

So, you have no idea how we can claim a distinction between an oxygen atom and a carbon atom, right? Or between the PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup?

It's obvious to any idiot that you are distinguishing all those things. It's also obvious that you are distinguishing two carbon atoms from each other.

It's not obvious HOW you are distinguishing anything IF everything is made FROM THE SAME STUFF.

Atoms are not made from "the same" stuff.
Atoms are made from different stuff. Protons, neutrons and electrons.

Protons aren't made from "the same stuff"... you get the point.

The logical implication of physicalism is indistinguishability. Unless you can explain how you end up with different things from the same building blocks while avoiding Platonism (which you rejected).

[Terrapin Station]

So, you have no idea how we can claim a distinction between an oxygen atom and a carbon atom, right? Or between the PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup?

It's obvious to any idiot that you are distinguishing all those things. It's also obvious that you are distinguishing two carbon atoms from each other.

Yeah, not what I asked you.

I asked if YOU have any idea how we can claim a distinction between a PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup.

[Skepdick]

So, you have no idea how we can claim a distinction between an oxygen atom and a carbon atom, right? Or between the PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup?

It's obvious to any idiot that you are distinguishing all those things. It's also obvious that you are distinguishing two carbon atoms from each other.

Yeah, not what I asked you.

I asked if YOU have any idea how we can claim a distinction between a PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup.

I have a mathematical model for machine vision classification algorithms. Does that count?

It counts for physicists to I figure...

[Terrapin Station]

It's obvious to any idiot that you are distinguishing all those things. It's also obvious that you are distinguishing two carbon atoms from each other.

Yeah, not what I asked you.

I asked if YOU have any idea how we can claim a distinction between a PlayDoh airplane and coffee cup.

I have a mathematical model for machine vision classification algorithms. Does that count?

I take it that's a yes. So how does that work? How do you claim a distinction based on your mathematical model for machine vision classification algorithms? (In short, at least.)

[Skepdick]

I take it that's a yes. So how does that work? How do you claim a distinction based on your mathematical model for machine vision classification algorithms? (In short, at least.)

I am not claiming anything. The vocabulary of "claiming" stuff is for philosophers - I am not one of those.

The answer to your "how" question is precisely the algorithm which performs the classification. No more, no less.

The dumb computer is performing classification precisely like you would perform it.

Which brings us right back to the question of why you think you "understand" anything and the machine doesn't.

[Terrapin Station]

I take it that's a yes. So how does that work? How do you claim a distinction based on your mathematical model for machine vision classification algorithms? (In short, at least.)

I am not claiming anything. The vocabulary of "claiming" stuff is for philosophers - I am not one of those.

The answer to your "how" question is precisely the algorithm which performs the classification. No more, no less.

The dumb computer is performing classification precisely like you would perform it.

Which brings us right back to the question of why you think you "understand" anything and the machine doesn't.

If you're not claiming a distinction between a PlayDoh coffee cup and a PlayDoh airplane I'm fine with leaving it at that. I think that says enough.

[Skepdick]

If you're not claiming a distinction between a PlayDoh coffee cup and a PlayDoh airplane I'm fine with leaving it at that. I think that says enough.

What is it that we are leaving it at exactly?

if a machine can distinguish a PlayDoh coffee cup and a PlayDoh airplane Mathematically/mechanically. because they only differ in geometric form, not in substance that sure seems like an argument for Platonism (which your reject).

Still looking for this "coherence" you insist exists in your position.

[Terrapin Station]

if a machine can distinguish a PlayDoh coffee cup and a PlayDoh airplane Mathematically/mechanically. because they only differ in geometric form, not in substance that sure seems like an argument for Platonism (which your reject).

You're of the view that shapes must be platonic?

(Er, what? lol)

[Skepdick]

You're of the view that shapes must be platonic?

(Er, what? lol)

Well, it is called Plato's theory of FORMS. And mathematics is a FORMAL language.

Like I told you: syntax (structure) is sufficient for FORMAL semantics.

shape noun the external form, contours, or outline of someone or something.

Geometry is sufficient to classify them as different things, without so much as having any understanding what a "coffee cup" or an "airplane" connotes.
Is just boring, mechanistic pattern recognition.

So yea! Lol.

[Skepdick]

Oh... I totally missed this post...

Why don't you stop playing stupid/acting like an Aspie?

Because computers act like Aspies, and I've been explaining shit to computers since I was 5 years old.

You keep asking stuff/asking me to explain stuff to you that I shouldn't need to explain if you're not retarded . . .

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer; art is everything else. --Donald Knuth

Almost as if I have an objective criterion for "understanding" or something

although even that wouldn't be such a problem if you weren't so argumentative about it/weren't such an A-hole about it.

I called myself Skepdick so that it doesn't surprise anyone that I am an A-hole and we can avoid the pointless ad-hominems. Alas...

[Terrapin Station]

You're of the view that shapes must be platonic?

(Er, what? lol)

Well, it is called Plato's theory of FORMS. And mathematics is a FORMAL language.

Like I told you: syntax (structure) is sufficient for FORMAL semantics.

shape noun the external form, contours, or outline of someone or something.

Geometry is sufficient to classify them as different things, without so much as having any understanding what a "coffee cup" or an "airplane" connotes.
Is just boring, mechanistic pattern recognition.

So yea! Lol.

How many different senses of the word "form" can we conflate? Yay!

[Skepdick]

How many different senses of the word "form" can we conflate? Yay!

Since meaning is holistic - none so different that you can't locate an intersection.

Everything is different from everything else, except for the similarities!
Everything is the same as everything else, except for the differences!

Those two premises are sufficient to arrive at agreement; or maintain disagreement with any view-point.

So to save you from your Philosophical urges, I'll make it easy for you: How many different mental states do you have for the word "same" if things are never literally the same?

[Terrapin Station]

Since meaning is holistic

What in the world does "meaning is holistic" amount to?

I don't want to move on to something else other than your confusion about what platonic forms are at the moment.

[Skepdick]

What in the world does "meaning is holistic" amount to?

It amounts to everything.

I don't want to move on to something else other than your confusion about what platonic forms are at the moment.

You don't know what platonic forms are either. You aren't Plato.

So lets focus on why you think my interpretation is "confused" and yours isn't.