From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philo
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 15:15:09 GMT

In article 93Jan7152528@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
> 

>    > There is a rational basis for accepting self conguence at some
>    > level of your perception. That rational decision is based on an 
>    > act of faith or if you will empirical knowlegde. Any bit of
>    > empirical knowledge has the possibility of being proved invalid
>    > is some context. If you say I am 99.99% certain that "A is A"
>    > there is still the finite(although small) probability that "A is not A".
> 
> #   Really?  If A is not A, then how can you claim that (A is A) is false, since
> #   you are already assuming that (A is A) is not really (A is A)!  What in the
> #   world does it get you to think that there is a finite probability that what
> #   is, is not!
> 
> There may be a fact unknown to me that may become known and thus
> A is not A at that time.

You must be joking.  If A is not A, then how can you know that your fact
is a fact?  It is obviously NOT a fact!  Ha, ha, good one!

> For the here and now where I am existing certainly A is A(Within the
> limits of human perception).
>    > 
>    > Your observation of reality (your subjective view), will fail
>    > to coincide with the `objective reality'. While allowing
>    > for a finite but small probability you have in effect remained
>    > more consistant with `objective reality'. 
> 
> #   How do you know that your objective reality (in which A is A is not true)
> #  exists?  After all, if A is A is false, then that reality is not reality, and
>  
> 
> If any human mind can concieve of something it could exist. You can't
> invent reality in your head, but you can use your rationality to
> unmasked some aspect of reality that had remained undiscovered
> by human intelligence until that point.

I can conceive of a hand reaching out of your terminal and strangling you.
The probability of lots of quantum effects combining is pretty pathetically
small, though.  But if by "some aspect of reality that had remained
undiscovered" you mean that "A is not necessarily A", then once again you
claim that you are not necessarily you, and so on.  I would much rather
be me, rather than not necessarily me!

> 
> #  existence is not existence.  How could your mind function if you aren't you,
> #   your mind isn't your mind, and functionality is not functionality?!
> #
> #   How could you argue that A is A is not necessarily true?  To do so, you would
> #   have to admit that (A is A) exists -- that is, (A is A) is (A is A).  If it
> #   isn't, then you really don't know what you are arguing about!
> 
>  I'm saying for the moment and the forseeable future it is and will be true. 
>  I certainly know what we are arguing about. My notion of concepts is
>  much more Platonic in nature than the one offered by Ayn Rand to replace
>  the Plationist view on the nature of identity.

If you know what we are arguing about, then you must admit that A=A (which you
are apparently now doing, at least for the moment)...

--Rob