Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am When a person [philosophical realist] is stuck with 1. i.e. self is self as a thing or entity, this lead to eternalism, the idea of a soul that can survives physical death, theism and the whole load of evil that come with theism with the potential threat to exterminate humanity. [when Islamists get to cheaply and easily available nukes and bio WMDs].

When a person is able to toggle between the two truths and sense to optimize with conditions we can optimize humanity's survival.

You truly don't see do you, just how truly short sighed you are.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am When a person [philosophical realist] is stuck with 1. i.e. self is self as a thing or entity, this lead to eternalism, the idea of a soul that can survives physical death, theism and the whole load of evil that come with theism with the potential threat to exterminate humanity. [when Islamists get to cheaply and easily available nukes and bio WMDs].

When a person is able to toggle between the two truths and sense to optimize with conditions we can optimize humanity's survival.

You truly don't see do you, just how truly short sighed you are.

Hand waving as usual.
Give me your argument and justifications to your above claims, else it would be better for you to shut up.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 6:32 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 4:11 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am When a person [philosophical realist] is stuck with 1. i.e. self is self as a thing or entity, this lead to eternalism, the idea of a soul that can survives physical death, theism and the whole load of evil that come with theism with the potential threat to exterminate humanity. [when Islamists get to cheaply and easily available nukes and bio WMDs].

When a person is able to toggle between the two truths and sense to optimize with conditions we can optimize humanity's survival.

You truly don't see do you, just how truly short sighed you are.

Hand waving as usual.
Give me your argument and justifications to your above claims, else it would be better for you to shut up.

Been there, done that...I'm not going to waste my time again with someone as yourself that is incapable of rational reasoning. Your only argument falls apart when dealing with me - sure - when up against standard theist beliefs you have a leg to stand on, but against me you are left standing on your own scrotum.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm the apple is the apple and is no other apple

A is A

...and...

an apple is an apple (it does not transform into a pineapple, or penguin)

A is A

Newton's laws are somewhat based on what I said in my last posts above this one. If you look at the first of Netwon's laws, it asserts that anything remains in its state of rest or movement UNLESS something from outside affects it. Applying it to logic in a similar way, my (1) and (2) rules, which reduce to meaning that either (1) A, or (2) not-A is the case. Whatever "A" stands for, we treat it as 'statically' true unless some other factor prevents it from being the case from without. So if A = "a particular apple", then it remains as such only while it cannot be affected from its environment. We assume that since you begin with whatever particular apple you had in mind, one might come along and take a bite in it or it 'rots' (a condition of change due to bacterial degradation.

So the 'A' remains as it is in some understood 'state' (static way) unless something affects it. This assures that at least something other than the apple exists, this class of anything other than the A is called 'not-A' or 'non-A', depending on whether you want to specify that something other than it, like "an orange" exists rather than it or to merely deny that the particular apple you have in mind is denied as being true.

Regardless, there requires three coinciding rules of which one, two, or all three of them exist.

So "A is A" unless it is "not-A". This may seem trivial and obvious to state, but it is complete when we add also the possibility that "both A and (some) non-A exists" (or neither). This exhausts the possibilities.

The reason you have to respect the possibility of A NOT being A as a possibility (that an "apple" is "not an apple") is to complete the possibilities that MAY be true. You cannot prove that any given apple would remain so ....in time. Thus if it is true that an apple is not an apple, you can make sense of this as meaning that some other factor, such as 'time', assures that it can 'coexist', like that in the interval of time between picking the apple and eating it is itself a whole truth about that period of time. Thus, when an "apple is not an apple" occurs in an interval of time where each truth existed.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:02 am Note Buddhism's Two-Truths Theory;

• A is A
  A is not-A

There is no contradiction because both can be at the same time, but not in the same sense/perspective.

• Example;
  Water is Water - common sense but at the same time,
  Water is not-Water but H2O - scientific sense.

The application of the above, i.e. the ability to shift perspective to optimize, do have a range of values for survival and the preservation of the human species.

What is most critical with the Two-Truth theories within Buddhism is this;

• 1. Self is Self - common realist sense
  2. Self is not-self but a bundle of energy, Emptiness, etc. - anti-realist sense.

When a person [philosophical realist] is stuck with 1. i.e. self is self as a thing or entity, this lead to eternalism, the idea of a soul that can survives physical death, theism and the whole load of evil that come with theism with the potential threat to exterminate humanity. [when Islamists get to cheaply and easily available nukes and bio WMDs].

When a person is able to toggle between the two truths and sense to optimize with conditions we can optimize humanity's survival.

This is a good example.

I'm a simple man. This...

The reason you have to respect the possibility of A NOT being A as a possibility (that an "apple" is "not an apple") is to complete the possibilities that MAY be true.

...makes no sense to me.

If the apple is the apple then A is A.

The apple cannot be a watermelon: A is not B.

If the apple, somehow, transforms into a watermelon, then we move from A is A to A is not B (B is B).

We're talkin' about identity, yeah? A thing is itself and no other, right?

We can say that A was not A, or that A will be not A, or that A could have been not A, but “is” denotes the here and now of the present point in space/time.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:24 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm the apple is the apple and is no other apple

You got it wrong henry. An apple is itself and nothing else.

Another apple is itself also. It's not the same as the first apple.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm A is A

Those are two apples. They are different apples.

A is not A. Both A and A are the same TYPE of thing. Apples.

What we have is 2 symbols pointing to the same concept of what we ostensively call an apple. 1 apple and 2 references, but only 1 apple.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:34 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:27 pm the apple is the apple and is no other apple

I agree in English, but you are translating it wrong into Logic.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:27 pm A is A

Those are two apples!!!!

One apple on the left of the "is".
One apple on the right of the "is"

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:27 pm A is A

Two apples again...

Look... you can argue with me all you want, but you can't argue with logic.

https://repl.it/repls/GoldenDefenselessParser

Code: Select all

from universe import A

print (A() == A()) # False

Two symbols for the same apple.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:15 am Clones?

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time. In effect every oak leaf is a clone of its neighbour as it is produced by exactly the same DNA, yet they are all different.
As two clones cannot occupy the same space time they cannot share exactly the same experience and econstantly diverge.

Yes, but there is only 1 clone, 1 oak leaf, 1 apple or 1 A. The other was or will be, at a different point in space/time like then & there instead of here & now.

When I say the apple is the apple what I'm sayin' is: the thing I call apple is that thing and no other thing, similar or disimilar.

Get it? I'm not talkin' about the placeholder apple (a placeholder you can exchange for any other placeholder), no, I'm talkin' about the actual thing that apple placeholds.

I go to the market, buy an apple, that apple I just bought is that apple and no other: A is A.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:59 pm When I say the apple is the apple what I'm sayin' is: the thing I call apple is that thing and no other thing, similar or disimilar.

Get it? I'm not talkin' about the placeholder apple (a placeholder you can exchange for any other placeholder), no, I'm talkin' about the actual thing that apple placeholds.

I go to the market, buy an apple, that apple I just bought is that apple and no other: A is A.

I’m with you on this, hq. I only brought up symbols because of skep’s post about A being on both sides of the equals sign. That made me think that referents should be thrown away, too. There can only be 1 A or 1apple whether directly experienced or referred to via placeholder.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:32 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:59 pm When I say the apple is the apple what I'm sayin' is: the thing I call apple is that thing and no other thing, similar or disimilar.

Get it? I'm not talkin' about the placeholder apple (a placeholder you can exchange for any other placeholder), no, I'm talkin' about the actual thing that apple placeholds.

I go to the market, buy an apple, that apple I just bought is that apple and no other: A is A.

I’m with you on this, hq. I only brought up symbols because of skep’s post about A being on both sides of the equals sign. That made me think that referents should be thrown away, too. There can only be 1 A or 1apple whether directly experienced or referred to via placeholder.

Oh, I wasn't schoolin' you (cuz you'd fry me with your Robot Overlord Death Ray), no, I was just clarifyin' for all those folks who seem to think A is A is about placeholders instead of actual, real, in-your-face things.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:35 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:26 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:15 am Clones?

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time. In effect every oak leaf is a clone of its neighbour as it is produced by exactly the same DNA, yet they are all different.
As two clones cannot occupy the same space time they cannot share exactly the same experience and econstantly diverge.

Yes, but there is only 1 clone, 1 oak leaf, 1 apple or 1 A. The other was or will be, at a different point in space/time like then & there instead of here & now.

Er, no.
You can call anything by any name. The point is that of all the clones, or oak leaves, or apples,(of which there are many), none is exactly the same as any other. So whilst, conceptually a=a, there is in fact no example where this is true in reality.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 5:59 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:35 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:26 pm

No not even clones can occupy the same space/time. In effect every oak leaf is a clone of its neighbour as it is produced by exactly the same DNA, yet they are all different.
As two clones cannot occupy the same space time they cannot share exactly the same experience and econstantly diverge.

Yes, but there is only 1 clone, 1 oak leaf, 1 apple or 1 A. The other was or will be, at a different point in space/time like then & there instead of here & now.

Er, no.
You can call anything by any name. The point is that of all the clones, or oak leaves, or apples,(of which there are many), none is exactly the same as any other. So whilst, conceptually a=a, there is in fact no example where this is true in reality.

The law of identity works pretty well in reality, does it not?