Philosophy Now Forum

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:21 pm If you think it's just a rule against equivocation, please name one thing that is not itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:04 pm Then I don't know what else this Law of Identity is supposed to be about. Things are themselves, not something else, which is 100% obvious, self-evident, isn't this the "law"?

I'm sure it's obvious but the question is as to you think the Law means to all of us.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:28 pm I'm sure it's obvious but the question is as to you think the Law means to all of us.
EB

Saying that something is a law doesn't make it law anymore than saying my cat is a dog will make it a dog.

You are focusing far too much on the language - it's just words. Words of zero consequence.

If identity is a law. And gravity is also a law. There appears to be some misclassification going on here...

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:28 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:04 pm Then I don't know what else this Law of Identity is supposed to be about. Things are themselves, not something else, which is 100% obvious, self-evident, isn't this the "law"?

I'm sure it's obvious but the question is as to you think the Law means to all of us.
EB

You mean to most of us. What I wrote is what I think it means to most of us, but you seem to disagree, that's why I ask.

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:21 pm

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:53 am

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 6:36 pm
I believe the Law of Identity means something a bit deeper than a redundant injunction not to equivocate.
If that was what it meant, we would call it "Rule against equivocation" or some such. And we do have it in logic. It's called the "fallacy of equivocation".

That is precisely what it means. The word "law" is used for the static meaning. It is a "rule" in that this means the PRACTICE of logic, as though is were a game's rule we agree to when we play the game called, "logic".

Yet, it's been called a law for a very long time.
If it wasn't, in fact, a law, don't you think people would have noticed?
And is it not the case that it is indeed a law and not just a rule?
If you think it's just a rule against equivocation, please name one thing that is not itself.
EB

First off, define what you understand of the differences of the terms.

"Law" IS a 'rule' of a more formal structure. But "rule" can be described as something that enforces, like a 'Ruler', such as a King or Queen. So in "rule of law", this is intended to say that people are ruled through formal laws that we AGREE to follow, versus an arbitrary dictator.

When discussing the three main logic "laws", these are the pre-agreed set of laws that ALL logic systems were deemed to require. While we can question these, they were initially agreed to speak about what DEFINES the term and subject of all logic. This can be disagreed to but the classic way was to stick to these for the following reasons:

(1) In order for us to communicate between people at all, we need some minimal language in common to us all. Some preferred to call this concept as originating in "thought" so we don't confuse this to any specific language, like French, or English, that we learn arbitrarily.

(2) Whether we can know the processes of thought, we can at least recognize (observe) that when communicating between each other, we require AGREEMENT to some language grammar and words, etc, in order to hope that when we SEND a message, it is RECEIVED and interpreted as intended by the sender.

We can't know for certain whether one actually understands us in our minds. So all we can do is to measure this by the apparent standards of AGREEMENT. One way is if you send a message with some intent in our mind of what we want others to respond in a way you approve of. For instance, if you are hungry, you might figure out how to use some verbal sentence, like, "Hey you, I am hungry, can you give me food?" The standard of 'agreement' subjectively is to whether you are satisfied by the listener to aid you in getting food to satisfy your hunger. If you don't get this satisfaction, you are hopefully able to infer that you didn't communicate appropriately or are being denied this by the listeners' lack of interest to AGREE to feed you for some reason.

You are either forced to alter your means of communicating to 'fit' theirs if when you think they are not understanding, or, if by continuing to try and fail, you infer they do not want to comply. Both are due to at least some mismatch in what you are communicating and to the AGREEMENT you are confirmed or denied. This AGREEMENT is what we require to set as an initial standard for thought both of ourselves and to those we want to successfully communicate with.

"Logic" is originally a word based upon literal symbols recorded and manipulated. It derives from "Look-like" and "to log" (record what we see). This became the original meaning to analyze with concision things we observe but with reference to only the agreement of the symbols that are mapped to the observations. The use of this was to communicate in a way that was technically clear as possible when discussing differences between people. Especially in areas where people MUST communicate in order to get things done in things like government, law, and science, as well as to personal relations we value, we need to be sure to at least have some common grounds to define terms. Most disagreements are due at least to some misunderstanding that BOTH SIDES own.

Of course, if one is a dominating and powerful RULER over you, such force would be lopsided and the one in such power would be the one controlling the power to negotiate. But in order to be fair outside of force, we need EACH of two sides to AGREE to the same terms prior to analyzing what each other means. This minimal concept of agreement is what the first law asserts.

If I say X, you understand X in thought; If you say X, I understand X in thought.

This is identical to saying,

(I understand X in mind when you say X) if and only if (You understand the same X in mind when I say X)

And this is identical to saying

X by me is EQUAL to X by you.

Thus, this is the "Law of Identity". It acts as our 'ruler' or measure of understanding about 'agreement'.

X = X, if we agree that this "=" means EQUALS or co-identity between the two sides with "X" to stand for a pointer to something.

Do you understand? Do you AGREE? (if not, we can't get to any resolution no matter what each of us says)

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:50 am Thus, this is the "Law of Identity". It acts as our 'ruler' or measure of understanding about 'agreement'.

X = X, if we agree that this "=" means EQUALS or co-identity between the two sides with "X" to stand for a pointer to something.

Do you understand? Do you AGREE? (if not, we can't get to any resolution no matter what each of us says)

This is a conceptual error again.

A bank is a bank.

Do we both agree what "a bank" points to?

Until I use the phrase "bank" in a sentence (e.g encode its meaning) and until you parse my sentence (e.g decode its meaning) we can't answer this question in general terms. Because English is ambiguous, contains lots of synonyms and people who speak it most definitely do not adhere to the grammar rules as stated.

Example:
Bank: Noun. the land alongside or sloping down to a river or lake
Bank: Noun: A bank is a financial institution licensed to receive deposits and make loans
Bank: Verb: (context of aircraft) tilt or cause to tilt sideways in making a turn

So a bank needs not be a bank.

Most accept the first law but question the second and third only. All or some of the laws may actually be interpreted as implying the other but the reasoning of separating them is due to the fact that the first one is a yes/no agreement (binary) whereas the others, as they correlate to contradiction may refer to multiple values. The distinction of them is about further agreement to STOP the analysis should one DISAGREE with the other (non-contradictory 'agreement') and the other is about RESTRICTING the values to be binary (the law of the middle).

So the main law in contention is the "Law of excluded middle" options. This is important if we are making laws for something else that we do not want to permit exceptions to degrees. This is ONLY pertinent say, if we don't want some bias of favor to one side or the other in some exceptional circumstance. For instance, we often have a constitutional law (a governing 'logic') that asserts, "All people are to be treated equal under the law (without exception)." Today this rule is challenged when it is perceived that for some particular person, they cannot achieve equality in reality by a defect of nature, say for instance that one may be disabled.

So the only law of logic/thought that is reasonably in contention is the "Law of the Middle". The 'classical' thinkers using logic, often only dealt with particular subjects that were binary. Even in politics, those who demanded to reason ON PAR with those in power, would default to believe that we SHOULD be fair in reasoning. Those in power who did not care for such 'equality' would be unfair because of their power but would at then try to counter-appeal that nature by default favored their unequal power and so no amount of logic matters. That is, to them, God or Nature, is the AGREEING factor to their justification of rule. As such, they BEG that those without power to accept their lowly fate and submit to their authority via some 'faith'.

This is going beyond the concern of the thread about the first law. So I'll stop here. But I think it's important at least to express the same respect about the other laws considering we were questioning why have any 'laws' or 'rules' at all.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:58 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:50 am Thus, this is the "Law of Identity". It acts as our 'ruler' or measure of understanding about 'agreement'.

X = X, if we agree that this "=" means EQUALS or co-identity between the two sides with "X" to stand for a pointer to something.

Do you understand? Do you AGREE? (if not, we can't get to any resolution no matter what each of us says)

This is a conceptual error again.

A bank is a bank.

Do we both agree what "a bank" points to?

Until I use the phrase "bank" in a sentence (e.g encode its meaning) and until you parse my sentence (e.g decode its meaning) we can't answer this question in general terms. Because English is ambiguous, contains lots of synonyms and people who speak it most definitely do not adhere to the grammar rules as stated.

Example:
Bank: Noun. the land alongside or sloping down to a river or lake
Bank: Noun: A bank is a financial institution licensed to receive deposits and make loans
Bank: Verb: (context of aircraft) tilt or cause to tilt sideways in making a turn

Okay, the older texts on logic often begun with discussing a distinction between 'denotation' and 'connotation' precisely because of your own concern. I will draw something or find an illustration online to link that would help here.

But before so, let me express that when we first learn symbols (which are words) and the conventional arrangements to communicate in sentences(grammer), each of us begin learning by ASSOCIATION of our parent's to our internal desires. We had no choice at that stage to learn because our parents were the ones in power. If they simply didn't care to understand you, should you have cried when hungry as your internal default to communicate, "feed me"*, you had to learn the specific symbols associated IN THE PRESENT ASSOCIATION of the environmental objects or activities. This concept is called, "denotion" [of notion].

The law still actually suits even in this because the act of 'denoting' is about pointing to an objective third factor between two communicating beings during the same time. To psychology, this is called, "classic conditioning". When two distinct beings (like the two different sides of the equation, x (left)= x(right)) are trying to beg some symbol to reference the present environment both are in, like say, being in the presence of a chair (real object) while simultaneously saying, "chair", the word "chair" (as one possible "X") acts as the reminder to the event in that experience, you, the other, and the object, a real chair. This action is 'denoting' the symbol, a kind of initial assignment.

Once both agree, the word, "chair", connotes the initial denoted event.

This still proves that unless one side DISAGREES, the relationship of the shared event denoting that concept cannot be 'pointed' to. If this was a baby not being able to 'agree' for some mental defect of not being able to hold any memory, say, of any denoted event, then we usually infer that the baby is mentally defective in some way. While such real beings exist, which proves the law is not always held in nature, in order to analyze between two people, they REQUIRE that agreement.

(*actually we begin just crying as our preferred 'symbol' to get anything and figured our parents were a part of our own mind to know what we wanted specifically)

Edit note: by the way, just in case you were confused above, the actual chair, in the example is NOT the symbol, "chair", that we used to point to it. So, the 'X', in the expression of equality is only the pointer that left side perspective and the right side perspective SHARE about the actual object, a specific chair, initially denoted. The word, "chair" is what connotes to the actual chair and so after understanding the initial shared meaning, the symbol then is a shorthand reminder between the two sides what we are speaking about.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:34 am The law still actually suits even in this because the act of 'denoting' is about pointing to an objective third factor between two communicating beings during the same time. To psychology, this is called, "classic conditioning". When two distinct beings (like the two different sides of the equation, x (left)= x(right)) are trying to beg some symbol to reference the present environment both are in, like say, being in the presence of a chair (real object) while simultaneously saying, "chair", the word "chair" (as one possible "X") acts as the reminder to the event in that experience, you, the other, and the object, a real chair. This action is 'denoting' the symbol, a kind of initial assignment.

Once both agree, the word, "chair", connotes the initial denoted event.

This still proves that unless one side DISAGREES, the relationship of the shared event denoting that concept cannot be 'pointed' to. If this was a baby not being able to 'agree' for some mental defect of not being able to hold any memory, say, of any denoted event, then we usually infer that the baby is mentally defective in some way. While such real beings exist, which proves the law is not always held in nature, in order to analyze between two people, they REQUIRE that agreement.

(*actually we begin just crying as our preferred 'symbol' to get anything and figured our parents were a part of our own mind to know what we wanted specifically)

OK. So lets get directly to the problem of self-reference.

What does the "law of identity" connote/denote?

Why can't we agree?

For me - all it connotes is "taxonomy consistency". Delineation of terms. 1:1 map between meaning and symbols. Within a single context.

Are two people interacting a "single context"? No. Two minds - two contexts. The rest is synchronization.

And so the shenanigans begin: You adopt my language for X. NO! You adopt MY language for X. We should call X the universe. NO. We should call X God. The universe doesn't care what you call it.

Is just a word. In fact, from now onwards I am just going to call it 'figgy pudding' because 'the universe' is just way too bland.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:39 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:34 am The law still actually suits even in this because the act of 'denoting' is about pointing to an objective third factor between two communicating beings during the same time. To psychology, this is called, "classic conditioning". When two distinct beings (like the two different sides of the equation, x (left)= x(right)) are trying to beg some symbol to reference the present environment both are in, like say, being in the presence of a chair (real object) while simultaneously saying, "chair", the word "chair" (as one possible "X") acts as the reminder to the event in that experience, you, the other, and the object, a real chair. This action is 'denoting' the symbol, a kind of initial assignment.

Once both agree, the word, "chair", connotes the initial denoted event.

This still proves that unless one side DISAGREES, the relationship of the shared event denoting that concept cannot be 'pointed' to. If this was a baby not being able to 'agree' for some mental defect of not being able to hold any memory, say, of any denoted event, then we usually infer that the baby is mentally defective in some way. While such real beings exist, which proves the law is not always held in nature, in order to analyze between two people, they REQUIRE that agreement.

(*actually we begin just crying as our preferred 'symbol' to get anything and figured our parents were a part of our own mind to know what we wanted specifically)

OK. So lets get directly to the problem of self-reference.

What does the "law of identity" connote/denote?

Why can't we agree?

By the way, I added an edit above just in case you want to look.

If we can't agree, then you or I are possibly unable to? I don't know. You could be just pretending not to understand. I can't read your mind nor can you mine. We are forced to try to share some grounds in any debate by understanding the terms. But IF you 'agree' to me saying that we must have common grounds, then you DO agree to the meaning of the concept of this "Law of Identity". You may be misunderstanding if you think it is about a SPECIFIC logic/language. That's why I asked you not to use the Python. That is a language that I am not familiar with and still would be irrelevant to use because the "Law of Identity" doesn't speak of some arbitrary system or language, that FORCES you to not share the same meaning. The "Law of Identity" isn't about Python, specifically, it is about all logic. You can't use a higher order language to dictate what is true of all other languages. Because your particular use of programming something contrary to apparent agreement doesn't assign this to be true of all other higher-ordered languages. The universal agreement about logic is between people. An orange may be identical to itself but can't reflect upon it. Thus we communicating it are forced to use the expression of "identity" as what two distinct perspectives AGREE to about some third factor.

Logic is a reality but we cannot communicate it without using repeated symbols on paper or this medium.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:57 am By the way, I added an edit above just in case you want to look.

If we can't agree, then you or I are possibly unable to? I don't know. You could be just pretending not to understand. I can't read your mind nor can you mine. We are forced to try to share some grounds in any debate by understanding the terms. But IF you 'agree' to me saying that we must have common grounds, then you DO agree to the meaning of the concept of this "Law of Identity". You may be misunderstanding if you think it is about a SPECIFIC logic/language. That's why I asked you not to use the Python. That is a language that I am not familiar with and still would be irrelevant to use because the "Law of Identity" doesn't speak of some arbitrary system or language, that FORCES you to not share the same meaning. The "Law of Identity" isn't about Python, specifically, it is about all logic. You can't use a higher order language to dictate what is true of all other languages. Because your particular use of programming something contrary to apparent agreement doesn't assign this to be true of all other higher-ordered languages. The universal agreement about logic is between people. An orange may be identical to itself but can't reflect upon it. Thus we communicating it are forced to use the expression of "identity" as what two distinct perspectives AGREE to about some third factor.

Logic is a reality but we cannot communicate it without using repeated symbols on paper or this medium.

So I ask again: why do we want to or need to agree on the "law of identity" ?
What purpose does it serve agreeing or disagreeing to it? Other than keep sophistry occupied for 2400 years.

It seems to me we are communicating just fine even though we have such "deeply-seated" misunderstanding.

Lets not try invent problems...

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:57 am The universal agreement about logic is between people.

I am not on-board with that idea. If identity/lnc are the laws of THOUGHT, and I use logic to think then I am certainly not going to negotiate/agree with you on how *I* should think. That is none of your business.

We can negotiate language, values, goals and objectives, culture etc.. But my mind is off-limits to you. I don't negotiate with that which is priceless to me.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:57 am You can't use a higher order language to dictate what is true of all other languages.

And yet that's exactly what I am doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... 0_grammars

Type-0 grammars include ALL formal grammars. They generate exactly all languages that can be recognized by a Turing machine.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:02 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:57 am By the way, I added an edit above just in case you want to look.

If we can't agree, then you or I are possibly unable to? I don't know. You could be just pretending not to understand. I can't read your mind nor can you mine. We are forced to try to share some grounds in any debate by understanding the terms. But IF you 'agree' to me saying that we must have common grounds, then you DO agree to the meaning of the concept of this "Law of Identity". You may be misunderstanding if you think it is about a SPECIFIC logic/language. That's why I asked you not to use the Python. That is a language that I am not familiar with and still would be irrelevant to use because the "Law of Identity" doesn't speak of some arbitrary system or language, that FORCES you to not share the same meaning. The "Law of Identity" isn't about Python, specifically, it is about all logic. You can't use a higher order language to dictate what is true of all other languages. Because your particular use of programming something contrary to apparent agreement doesn't assign this to be true of all other higher-ordered languages. The universal agreement about logic is between people. An orange may be identical to itself but can't reflect upon it. Thus we communicating it are forced to use the expression of "identity" as what two distinct perspectives AGREE to about some third factor.

Logic is a reality but we cannot communicate it without using repeated symbols on paper or this medium.

So I ask again: why do we want to or need to agree on the "law of identity" ?

What purpose does it serve agreeing to it?

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:57 am The universal agreement about logic is between people.

I am not on-board with that idea. If identity/lnc are the laws of THOUGHT, then I am certainly not going to negotiate/agree with you on how *I* should think. That is none of your business.

We can negotiate language. But my mind is off-limits to you.

We ARE already following it. If you can't understand any words I say and I couldn't follow words you say, neither of us would nor COULD communicate at all. So what 'disagreement' we might have is not about what I understand the meaning of the "law of identity" but to your disagreement about what the law means. And this very disagreement IS precisely a proof that we need to both agree. The laws of logic are not about your specific opinion or option to disagree but THAT we can agree to something at all, like speaking English here, and that when we do understand some word or sentence, this is itself the AGREEMENT to which the 'laws' are expressing about thought.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:10 am We ARE already following it. If you can't understand any words I say and I couldn't follow words you say, neither of us would nor COULD communicate at all. So what 'disagreement' we might have is not about what I understand the meaning of the "law of identity" but to your disagreement about what the law means. And this very disagreement IS precisely a proof that we need to both agree. The laws of logic are not about your specific opinion or option to disagree but THAT we can agree to something at all, like speaking English here, and that when we do understand some word or sentence, this is itself the AGREEMENT to which the 'laws' are expressing about thought.

What does communication have to do with the laws of THOUGHT?
What does agreement between two people have to do with THOUGHT?

90% of the time people can't understand what I am saying and disagree with me because they don't have my technical background.
Does that mean we aren't following the law of identity then?

Who isn't? Me or the person who doesn't understand?

What our understanding is evidence of is that we have agreed on the common USE of language.
It says NOTHING about our agreement on the common rules for THOUGHT. And it should be patently obvious that most people on this forum don't think like I do.

If anything - I object to the notion of "rules" when it comes to reasoning! Rules (axioms) are false authorities! Made up Gods.

I see we're posting and then updating on the fly while the other is responding to the prior edit only. I'll wait for ten minutes in between to respond to try to avoid this.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:19 am I see we're posting and then updating on the fly while the other is responding to the prior edit only. I'll wait for ten minutes in between to respond to try to avoid this.

If we can agree that thought (computation/reason) can be distinct from language (communication, self-expression) then there is no need to re-visit.

Identity is the law of THOUGHT, and therefore I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with inter-subjective consensus.

To speak of identity in the context of language is a mistake.

Identity is about the observer <-> observed relationship.