The Philosophy Discussion Forum

"Doubt it. I'm a subjective moralist, what am I lying about and having regrets about?"

Atla shrugged.

Get it? His user name is Atla and Skepdick asked him a question he...

Nevermind I'll... I'll go do something else now. sorry.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:37 pm You may think that, but I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of humanity will agree that discarding the basic laws of thought would lead to pure chaos. So they won't agree with you and won't behead me. A few of them may punch you in the face though if you push it too far.

Well, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes would inform you that no matter how many people belive it, it doesn't mean it's true....

But Peter Groove Holmes is right, SD. That's like philosophy 101 consensus fallacy stuff check your head bro u know this stuff.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:37 pm You may think that, but I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of humanity will agree that discarding the basic laws of thought would lead to pure chaos. So they won't agree with you and won't behead me. A few of them may punch you in the face though if you push it too far.

Well, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes would inform you that no matter how many people belive it, it doesn't mean it's true....

Doubt he said that about the basic laws of thought. I mean they aren't necessarily "true" or "false" but have been known to always hold so far.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:03 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:37 pm You may think that, but I'm pretty sure that 95%+ of humanity will agree that discarding the basic laws of thought would lead to pure chaos. So they won't agree with you and won't behead me. A few of them may punch you in the face though if you push it too far.

Well, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes would inform you that no matter how many people belive it, it doesn't mean it's true....

Doubt he said that about the basic laws of thought.

He said that in general and without context. So by logical deduction...

No matter how many people believe it; it doesn't mean A=A is True.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:03 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:45 pm
Well, Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes would inform you that no matter how many people belive it, it doesn't mean it's true....

Doubt he said that about the basic laws of thought.

He said that in general and without context. So by logical deduction...

No matter how many people believe it; it doesn't mean A=A is True.

That's no relevant argument against anything that has been known to hold 100% of the time.

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:05 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:03 pm
Doubt he said that about the basic laws of thought.

He said that in general and without context. So by logical deduction...

No matter how many people believe it; it doesn't mean A=A is True.

That's no relevant argument against anything that has been known to hold 100% of the time.

Eeeeh. Deductive soundness + validity.

It's 100% - impossible for the premises to be true; and for the conclusion to be false.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:07 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:07 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 4:05 pm
He said that in general and without context. So by logical deduction...

No matter how many people believe it; it doesn't mean A=A is True.

That's no relevant argument against anything that has been known to hold 100% of the time.

Eeeeh. Deductive soundness + validity.

It's 100% - impossible for the premises to be true; and for the conclusion to be false.

What premises are true and what conclusion is false?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:56 pm But Peter Groove Holmes is right, SD. That's like philosophy 101 consensus fallacy stuff check your head bro u know this stuff.

So then no matter how many philosopher believe A=A is True it doesn't mean it's not False.

So, that means I am right. But you are saying he' right.

Are you confused yet?

"So then no matter how many philosopher believe A=A is True it doesn't mean it's not False."

That's what I'm tryna solve by my cryptic pseudo-wittgensteinian approach when i suggest that to say one 'believes' A=A denotes something peculiar about our use of the rule and how we recognize we are right or wrong with our use of it.

In terms of logical symbolism i showed how strings of commands still function under the assumption that this rule of identity is taken for granted. If A doesn't equal A, it is an A1, buts that's just another kind of identity, another kind of A with certain features.

Like a circuit board with logic gates the brain too runs on the presupposition of the law of identity in this way; only a definite state of firing or not firing is possible for it, so it's reducible to the same rule. In a sense logic is a psychologistic product that mirrors the particular way our nervous system works... but that can't be to say that the world is not logical and that we have invented logic instead.

That whatever is, is what it is, is a priori true. But that's a useless tautology that says nothing more about the world other than that it is logical. From that fact alone nothing more can be deduced. Especially anything of a moral or ethical nature. Like that has zero to do with all this.

U might also note this difficulty. Refusing the law of identity in an ostensible way during a language game. For example, if i were a mute, how would i demonstrate that I believed (or didn't) A=A to another person without performing the rule in symbolic logic in a written form.

But i couldn't ever 'do' anything that would distinguish me as someone who didn't believe that A=A. Whether mute or not i couldn't ever hand someone a watermelon as if it wasn't a watermelon.

See bro u gotta go deep like philosophical investigations deep and look at shit in novel new ways, surprisingly simpler ways, ways that aren't yet bewitched by our philosophical fervor and confusion

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:38 pm "So then no matter how many philosopher believe A=A is True it doesn't mean it's not False."

That's what I'm tryna solve by my cryptic pseudo-wittgensteinian approach when i suggest that to say one 'believes' A=A denotes something peculiar about our use of the rule and how we recognize we are right or wrong with our use of it.

You are not understanding me. "believes A=A" is an incomplete sentence. It doesn't mean anything. Do you believe 6?
Do you believe adding water? Do you believe cake?

It's an incomplete and incoherent expression! Believe WHAT about it?

Do I believe A=A is ALWAYS true? No.
Do I believe A=A is ALWAYS false? No.
Do I believe A=A is ALWAYS decidable? No.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:38 pm In terms of logical symbolism i showed how strings of commands still function under the assumption that this rule of identity is taken for granted. If A doesn't equal A, it is an A1, buts that's just another kind of identity, another kind of A with certain features.

Your demonstration isn't worth anything if you can't explain the counter-examples.

If sometimes A=A is true; and sometimes A=A is false; and sometimes A=A is undecidable then... what are we even talking about?

The entire point of this is that the law is prescriptive, not descriptive.

It's a moral law. But I have absolutely no idea how to adhere to it in practice.

What amounts to violating it?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:38 pm Like a circuit board with logic gates the brain too runs on the presupposition of the law of identity in this way; only a definite state of firing or not firing is possible for it, so it's reducible to the same rule. In a sense logic is a psychologistic product that mirrors the particular way our nervous system works... but that can't be to say that the world is not logical and that we have invented logic instead.

And when the law collapses we have metastability issues with the electronics. The system becomes non-deterministic and behaves in unexpected and undefined ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:38 pm <lots of irrelevant stuff>

You seem determined to ignore the problem right at the starting point of reason...

Isolating the boundaries; and components of the system you are trying to talk about.

Yeah I dunno I don't think that fuzzy logic and time variance stuff fundamentally changes anything about the law of identity in the same way that chaos does not imply a lack of causal order. An indeterminate state is impossible in nature... but sometimes we can't predict what will come of a causal chain of events, e.g., we know all the states at time x of the storm and yet we were off on our predictions regarding its development. That's not chaos happening. That's just the limits of observation.

In the same way when a computer goes full Hal and starts doin shit that his code ain't supposed to allow, it doesn't mean there's some kind of indeterminate A state that is both true and false. It just means there's some kind of metacoding going on at an atomic or subatomic level underneath the programming that's got Hal acting all weird. It's all determined tho mang. S'gotta be. And each and every one of those imperceptible causes that brought about Hal's behavior are As or not As.

Neither God nor his superior Aristotle play dice with the law of identity.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 6:35 pm Neither God nor his superior Aristotle play dice with the law of identity.

Yeah, that's a religious statement...

I'm an atheist mystic. I'm also a Marxist conservative and a Hobbesean anarchist.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 7:22 pm I'm an atheist mystic. I'm also a Marxist conservative and a Hobbesean anarchist.

An "Atheist." So a Materialist of some kind.

And yet a "mystic"?

And a Marxist, so a collectivist control freak who believes in big government and universal "solutions"...

And yet a Hobbesean anarchist?

Dude.

Gotta get your ideas together.