From: stu5s33@bcars6f8.bnr.ca (Robert Nychka)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Reply-To: stu5s33@bcars6f8.bnr.ca
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:55:14 GMT



tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) tells us...
"When you say A = A what are you saying? What is A? A predicate? A human?
 A thought? The problems is that logic does not connect to the real world.
 If my beliefs are A then I am perfectly capable of holding two contradictory
 beliefs at the same time. If I am A how am I defined? A list of attributes?
 Is time involved? I am different that I was last week and will be different
 next week. The axioms of propositional logic simply do not apply in the domain
 of humans."

I have been following this thread since it began, and was leary in getting 
involved, but it 'seems' to me that the disscussion about the Law of 
Identity (A=A) has really been about on how concepts are defined and NOT 
about the Law of Identity.  The Law of Identity simply states that existence 
exists, it does NOT state that everybody will see or define things the same 
way.

Even Objectivist Epistemology doesn't say that the DEFINITION of concepts 
will be the same for EVERYBODY.  It states that ONLY for rational people.  
Ayn Rand was very much aware of how (irrational) people accepted 
contradiction into their definitions and the development of her epistemology 
was intented to provide a formal technique on defining concepts and to AVOID 
misinterpretation.

A lack of formal definition for a concept is still no excuse for ignoring 
what that concept represents.  It is something that exists independent of 
the observer.  Each concept has a certain list of attributes that are based 
on FACTS, NOT interpretation.  The inability to define these attributes, 
and hence the concept, is a PERSONAL failing, NOT one reserved for 'the 
domain of humans'.

For example, every argument against the Law of Identity I have read has 
implicitly agreed with it's basic axiom.  That existence exists.


Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) tells us...
"The morning star is the evening star" 

- can you change the properties of the star?

bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise) tells us...
"I'm standing on the border of California with one foot in Nevada. Am I in  
 California or not? I'm typing this on a typewriter (containing a microprocessor  
 and a disk drive). Is it a computer or not?  I'm using a voice synthesizer
 to output your message. Am I reading it or not?  Answers to the above  
 questions: Yes." 

- can you change California/Nevada?  Your terminal?  The information?

tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) tells us (yet AGAIN)...
"We disagree on the meaning of a computer. Is an abacus a computer? 
 Is a human a computer? Is a computer a digitial calculating device? Can
 it be analog? Is an AI still a computer? What happens if we just plain
 disagree on definitions? Definition problems are not trivial, they are
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
 responsible for much ambiguity in the real world, and as such must be
 included in any useful system. Our definitions of computer may overlap
 yet have many non-common elements" 
  
- too bad you can't make a analog computer function descretely by CHOICE!


All of these cases are "disagreements on definitions".  They do not 
refute the Law of Identity.  

And Todd Hoff sums it up beautifully by telling us that he..
"...can hold two or more contractory images, feelings, definitions ... 
 in my head at a time, where each is true to me."

Which is a good thing because than he can still believe an earlier comment 
of his:

"And I still don't find replies saying "you are assuming A=A in your replies
 even if you don't know it" very convincing."

Too bad, because you do.

Robert Nychka

Newsgroups: alt.individualism