From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 12:13:10 GMT

In article <BvFxso.CHu@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>>>This argument is getting really strange.  Someone else, I think Chris Holt,
>>>brought up the denotation / connotation point.  The point here is that words
>>>are irrelevant to reality.

>>Are you saying that his point is that words are irrelevant to reality, or
>>is that what YOU believe?  If words are unrelated to reality, why bother
>>with them?  If words are unrelated to reality, how can words be true or false?
>>Does that conclusion apply even to the words "Words are irrelevant to to
>>reality."?

>Oh for heaven's sake.  Let's take it from the top.  We can take, as a
>working assumption, that there exists some kind of objective reality
>(while noting that it is only an assumption); 

Why hold back from commiting to that  presumption?  On what basis could 
you deny it?  If you are saying that his is "just an assumption", how does that
differ from sasying "it is true"?

>and we have access to
>that reality via sensory experience, which gives us partial and
>distorted information.  

On what basis can you conclude that this information is partial and distorted?
If you are talking about things like optical illusions, what you are talking 
about is not distorted information, but rather, distorted interpretation of
what is accurate information.  If our senses were so flawed, how is it that 
we know that iptical illusions are illusions?

>We use regularities in our experience to
>form models of reality, and these models affect the filtering
>process by which we select "important" sensory experiences.  This
>is the first feedback loop.

Your conclusion being that rather than perceiving reality, you perceive 
mental models, right?  On what basis do you reach this ridiculous
conclusion?

>We go from an intuitive, neural-net kind of response pattern to
>a formal, deductive structure in order to optimize space constraints
>(rules are easier to remember).  This often involves the introduction
>of symbols to represent equivalence classes of constants and
>variables; some of these are words.  The structure of relations
>among words approximates the internal model of reality, and shifts
>it; 

Shifts it?  In what way?  Toward what end?  How do you know?

>the presence of a word causes us to look for an equivalence
>class that corresponds to it.  Thus, words also affect the filtering
>process by which we select "important" sensory experiences; and
>there is another feedback loop.

On what basis do you reach all of these conclusions? If any of this 
denies free will, how do you deal with the fact that this denies the
premises on which all knowledge is based?

>What is the point of all this?  It means that words are not
>related to reality, in the sense that when we are viewed as
>passive observers, that which happens "out there" is independent
>of our models.  

Then your comments about free will, perception, and mental models also
are independent of reality.  Why then should I pay heed to your self-admitted
rantings?  Your conclusion contradicts your necessary premises.

>However, words mediate our perceptions, and
>when we are viewed as active participants in shaping reality
>they do indeed have an effect.

So, words shape reality?  As long as you know the right incantations, no
doubt.

>I brought up denotation/connotation to suggest that the supposed
>law of identity "A=A" is basically a meta-rule indicating that
>context is to be ignored in equations, 

Absolutely not!!  According to objectivism, all knowledge is contextual.
You seem to be the one trying to ignore the context of statements.

I should also point out that the assumption of identity is a premise
which must be assumed before you can make any statement or definition.
A=A is not a meta-rule.  It is a primary. 

>that one is intended to
>abstract from the way one says things to that which is being
>said.  While this characterizes many uses of language, it is
>by no means true of all of them ("Rufus is so-named because of
>his red hair"); so it's value as a slogan is dubious.

A=A is NOT a statement about language.  It is a statement about reality.

I don't see what this sentence about Rufus means in relation to identity.
There is a reason for Rufus having the name he does.  That reason is 
something specific.  It is what it is.

--Brian
Newsgroups: alt.individualism