The Axiom Of Identity *Challenged*

[Arising_uk]

Oh! You're an idealist. What 'mind' does the concept of 'God' exist in?

[Hobbes' Choice]

I feel an unbookmark coming on.

Cherrio.

[Scott Mayers]

I said nothing about causes , whether first or not.

My 2 prong attack was this.

The element that gives identity to the elements in the universe is illogical.
In any attempt to express it involves making a concept with parts. Once there are parts ..there results an infinite regress.
ALL concepts have parts. If not they would contain no information.

If you say it is not a concept, How did you conceive of the underlined part if it was what it says it is. Proof reducto absurdum that it cannot be other than a concept.

Attack 2;

Everything is a concept.
If you can tell me one thing that is not a concept i will concede...with one rule only ...you mustnt conceive of it first.

Since the thing that make things in the universe have identity is bust we have to look elsewhere..it has to be a miracle...

since the only things that exist are minds, and our minds of their own can have no identity, we have to look to a miracle , and a miracle is a concept so it has to emanate from a mind.

Scott Mayers You are nothing on me...lol

I haven't a clue what you are even trying to say then. But I'll try again from a guess in your context here.

You may be interpreting "identity" as the idea that a any concept, like an electron, could exist in multiples of the same kind unless it had some kind of 'cookie-cutter' form to make them. IF this is what you mean, I may understand but need some confirmation. However, if this IS your interpretation, this is something that needs a digression into abstract forms AND to consciousness. Form is what can be a logical construct that acts as the 'cookie-cutter' without a need for a being to create it. Understanding consciousness may also add force to understanding how any initial form acts as the arbitrary 'unit' for all identical copies and each and all abide by such a common rule of construct because the laws themselves are simultaneously 'true' everywhere in a consistent world. I could still be misinterpreting you and you may be misinterpreting me. Is my interpretation correct of you even if you think I may be wrong?

On your "attack 2", I already agree to concepts. However, our words for them act as models that we've just happened to use a word that relates to the way we 'conceive'. It is not meant to mean that what we 'conceive' itself IS the thing; our concepts are the models that REFER to a reality we think of out there. But that reality, not the conception of it, is independent of the ideas they represent when we refer to nature external to ourselves. So you err if you presume this means a mind must be there akin to ours at least in order for them to exist. Your word, "miracle", conveys an awe of something you think you've determined is impossible. But since it happens, this is proof that it IS possible. Just because you find it similar to the awe of one observing a magician do some clever trick to which you cannot understand, this does not mean that some being like a god is certain -- you may be missing something in your own imperfection....or do you think you are on par with your God's potential wisdom if he exists?

[Moyo]

Oh! You're an idealist. What 'mind' does the concept of 'God' exist in?

Gods.

[Moyo]

You may be interpreting "identity

The axiom of identity is what gives things ..well..identity.
I have found a flaw in it. Please read the whole thread before you respond because i dont have the energy to retype everything.

Do you beleive you can conceive of something that is not a concept?

Please explain this because if you say concepts reaffer to reality , i hope you see that you must have conceived of that underlined word before you wrote it down so it too has to be a concept.

Dont gloss over this ..tell me what you mean by reality and dont conceive of it first...go1

[Moyo]

The term physical is a concept.
Perhaps the concept physical reffers to something concrete.

The term something concrete is a concept.
Perhaps the concept something concrete reffers to something objectively real.

The term something objectively real is a concept.
perhaps.....

[Moyo]

It is not meant to mean that what we 'conceive' itself IS the thing

The term the thing is a concept..
perhaps....

If reality appears to exist then its an appearance.
Are you saying reality doesnt apparently exist?

#see_what_i_mean_about_2yr_olds *sigh*.

[Arising_uk]

Gods.

You mean 'God's' 'God''? That you are a pantheist idealist?

[Arising_uk]

The axiom of identity is what gives things ..well..identity. ...

Not quite, what gives identity is..well...being a thing or state of affair.

3.1432 We must not say, “The complex sign ‘aRb’ says ‘a stands in
relation R to b’”; but we must say, “That ‘a’ stands in a certain
relation to ‘b’ says that aRb”.

I have found a flaw in it. Please read the whole thread before you respond because i dont have the energy to retype everything.

I have been reading the thread.

Do you beleive you can conceive of something that is not a concept?

No, but I also believe I can perceive things and states of affairs.

Please explain this because if you say concepts reaffer to reality , i hope you see that you must have conceived of that underlined word before you wrote it down so it too has to be a concept.

Concepts and language refer to the experience of the perception we have of reality, or some such.

Dont gloss over this ..tell me what you mean by reality and dont conceive of it first...go1

I could point at it and show you.

[Scott Mayers]

You may be interpreting "identity

The axiom of identity is what gives things ..well..identity.
I have found a flaw in it. Please read the whole thread before you respond because i dont have the energy to retype everything.

Do you beleive you can conceive of something that is not a concept?

Please explain this because if you say concepts reaffer to reality , i hope you see that you must have conceived of that underlined word before you wrote it down so it too has to be a concept.

Dont gloss over this ..tell me what you mean by reality and dont conceive of it first...go1

I can't follow your broken up language. If others cannot follow you, it is your burden to try harder to explain it. You clearly default to some solipsistic version of thinking if you only interpret reality as only what you can conceive in thought.

[Moyo]

by Arising_uk » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:39 pm

Moyo wrote:Gods.

You mean 'God's' 'God''? That you are a pantheist idealist?

Its recursive.

Moyo wrote:The axiom of identity is what gives things ..well..identity. ...

Not quite, what gives identity is..well...being a thing or state of affair.

Read the underlined word.
You take is Armstrongs i see.

Do you beleive you can conceive of something that is not a concept?

No, but I also believe I can perceive things and states of affairs.

Did you conceive the underlind? Doesnt that make it a concept?

I can't follow your broken up language. If others cannot follow you, it is your burden to try harder to explain it. You clearly default to some solipsistic version of thinking if you only interpret reality as only what you can conceive in thought.

You cant all be wrong so i will try harder.

[Moyo]

Scott Mayer

lets attack one point at a time:

Can you conceive of something that is not a concept.


"Yes or no" answer please...i want to lead you somewhere...you can then have the freedom to explain yourself after ward.

[Scott Mayers]

Scott Mayer

lets attack one point at a time:

Can you conceive of something that is not a concept.


"Yes or no" answer please...i want to lead you somewhere...you can then have the freedom to explain yourself after ward.

"Conceive" means "to take in mind" as a verb. "Concept" means "that which is taken in mind" as a noun relating the same. I asked you about being solipsistic because what you are likely interpreting is that since all that you can interpret about any reality is in your mind alone.

However, this is NOT the case as you can specifically use what you conceive to prove that all that some of what you could possibly conceive necessarily infers a world outside of your capacity to conceive. For instance, if all you think is all that is 'real', you ignore that if you interpret this as sufficient to what is real, then you should always "know" and "predict" everything about reality. You would also be able to "command" your reality precisely as a god could. And just to prove this, did you predict my response? And if all you conceive is simply something of your 'mind', should you not be surprised by my response?

If this is confusing to you, I've used a model example of a computer program trying to determine whether all it 'knows' or 'conceives' is something internal to itself or from without. All input and output data comes from either memory OR to a port (like the internet, for example). The program cannot directly tell whether the address it sends or receives from is from memory (like the brain) or from outside of the computer at first. But it can determine which addresses are from memory OR from a port by imposing some data to it and then see if it returns the exact same data it put into it. If it does return what it puts into that address, it is memory; if it returns ANY different result even at least once, this is enough to PROVE that the data it receives from this address is from some "other place", not simply what it 'conceives'. Since we just happen to always record all that we sense from the outside world (like the ports), when we use the word, "concept" to describe a sensed data, this is because we have recorded the non-concept (the sense) as a model to remember what we sensed only. This means that what we sense in any present moment from things like our eyes is NOT actually a concept but a moment later it is!

So, yes, you CAN conceive of something that is NOT a concept!

You can conceive a sense as it is occurring and then if you use the memory of it, it becomes the concept as it acts as something you've already received from the outside world. Note that the etymology of the word, "conceive", relates to what a woman receives from sex from the outside world that makes her pregnant. Since all memory is due to this, then the memory (or concept) is a model of what comes from external to the mind originally.

[Moyo]

So, yes, you CAN conceive of something that is NOT a concept!

I think we can move no further because of this dishonesty. "A conception thats not a conception. WOW!!!

[Arising_uk]

Its recursive.

Then it'd have to have a base state and presumably this state is not in the 'mind' of anything?

Read the underlined word.

I see it but think that I perceive things or states of affairs.

You take is Armstrongs i see.

No idea? Who is s/he? A mathematical philosopher? If so I'd be interested in their full-name so I can read about their ideas. On the whole my take is more Wittgensteinian.

Did you conceive the underlind? Doesnt that make it a concept?

Like I say, I think I perceive these things and states of affairs. That I can then conceive is more to do with language I think but could be wrong.

You cant all be wrong so i will try harder.

Well we could be but thank you for your future attempts.