What is time?

[RCSaunders]

I give you two phenomena: A and А.
Can it be said that A is the same phenomenon as А?

A simple yes/no answer would suffice.

Have you stopped taking drugs?

A simple yes/no answer would suffice.

[Skepdick]

I give you two phenomena: A and А.
Can it be said that A is the same phenomenon as А?

A simple yes/no answer would suffice.

Have you stopped taking drugs?

A simple yes/no answer would suffice.

Implying that my question is loaded, except - it's not loaded and you are dodging it.

I am asking to simply commit. Quite literally!

A = А. True or false?

If you answer "true" then it implies that A and А are the same thing and they belong to the same category: [ A, А ].
If you answer "false" then it implies that A and А are different things and so they belong to different categories: [ A ] and [ А ].

It's exactly how identification might work in the real world. You have two phenomena before you and you are trying to determine whether there's any significant difference between them. If you believe that there's no significant difference between two things then I would expect you to place them in the same mental category.

So. Demonstrate that which you preach. A = А. True or false?

All I am demonstrating is that you can't arrive at "categorisation" without addressing your epistemic criterion for "significance" and "insignificance".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance and since you claim that deduction is the formalisation of reason - I think you have a statistical problem on your hands.

[RCSaunders]

Implying that my question is loaded, except - it's not loaded and you are dodging it.

I am asking to simply commit. Quite literally!

A = А. True or false?

If you answer "true" then it implies that A and А are the same thing and they belong to the same category: [ A, А ].
If you answer "false" then it implies that A and А are different things and so they belong to different categories: [ A ] and [ А ].

It is loaded. If A = A there is only one thing, A. There is no, "A and A."

A = A, as you have used it is ontologically impossible and epistemologically nonsense. When some philosophers have written, A is A, they do not mean there are two As, they mean A is what it is and nothing else.

[Skepdick]

It is loaded. If A = A there is only one thing, A. There is no, "A and A."

I am hearing you committing to A = А being true?

A = A, as you have used it is ontologically impossible and epistemologically nonsense.

That's demonstrably bullshit. After your prolonged tirade defending the periodic table, are you really going to tell me that two oxygen atoms are ontologically and epistemically impossible?

It's the exact same problem as sorting your socks after washing. Are these two a pair? Either they are or they aren't!

How can you make claims of impossibility when A = А is right before your eyes? Are you denying your senses now?

When some philosophers have written, A is A, they do not mean there are two As, they mean A is what it is and nothing else.

Good thing I am not a philosopher then. I am a scientist gatecrashing a philosophy party.

Perhaps the question A = А bothers you? Ok. It's not about the letters. It's about the method.

C = С? True or false?

Here's my expert scientific prediction: you are going to dodge the questions.

[RCSaunders]

A = A, as you have used it is ontologically impossible and epistemologically nonsense.

That's demonstrably bullshit. After your prolonged tirade defending the periodic table, are you really going to tell me that two oxygen atoms are ontologically and epistemically impossible?

It's the exact same problem as sorting your socks after washing. Are these two a pair? Either they are or they aren't!

How can you make claims of impossibility when A = А is right before your eyes? Are you denying your senses now?

I have never seen two things that are identical, and either have you, though you may not have been able to discern their difference. There is always a difference. If two things were identical in every possible way how could the be two? There seems to be only one way anyone ever answers that question. (You may have a different answer.) If two things are identical in every possible way, they can only be two if they are in different places. You may have two socks in your draw that seem identical, but unless you can separate them, you don't have two. (Maybe you just had too much to drink and it looks like two.)

Every existent is different in some way from every other existent. If two supposed things were identical in every possible way they would not be two things. Everything that exists has some relationship or relationships to everything else that exists. Nothing exists in total isolation. If an existent is identical in every way to another existent and is really a different existent it cannot be in the same position (place) as the similar existent.

The fact that the subatomic world is comprised of entities that are described as identical, (atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, etc.) meaning their only differences are relative ones is one reason the sub-atomic world is only an explanation for the real world we directly perceive.

C = С? True or false?

I honestly do not understand the question. If you wrote, C is C, I would answer true, of course, because a thing cannot be anything other than what it is. But, C = C has no meaning. An equality requires something to be equal by some parameter, size, weight, color, number, etc.

If you are trying to get me to say there can be two things both identified as C, I will not, because it is not true. Can you imagine what algebra would become if the same variable were used for more than one thing?

[Skepdick]

I have never seen two things that are identical, and either have you, though you may not have been able to discern their difference.

Strawman. You have argued that all things with 8 protons (irrespective of any other differences) are Oxygen.
Therefore, epistemically speaking, all things with 8 protons are "the same" element.
They are not LITERALLY identical - they are CONCEPTUALLY identical.

This is your very own argument. Are you running away from it now?

There is always a difference. If two things were identical in every possible way how could the be two?

I agree. And yet you categorize things! You ignore all the differences, and you focus on their similarities. This is how abstraction works.

There seems to be only one way anyone ever answers that question. (You may have a different answer.) If two things are identical in every possible way, they can only be two if they are in different places. You may have two socks in your draw that seem identical, but unless you can separate them, you don't have two. (Maybe you just had too much to drink and it looks like two.)

This is not what I am pointing out at all. I am not saying that two socks are exactly identical. I am simply asking whether two randomly chosen socks from your drawer are a pair.

Or I could simply ask you: Is the thing before your eyes sufficiently similar to the concept in your head for you to identify the thing as being a manifestation of your concept? Are the concept and the thing a pair? Identification!

I honestly do not understand the question. If you wrote, C is C, I would answer true, of course, because a thing cannot be anything other than what it is. But, C = C has no meaning. An equality requires something to be equal by some parameter, size, weight, color, number, etc.

If you are trying to get me to say there can be two things both identified as C, I will not, because it is not true. Can you imagine what algebra would become if the same variable were used for more than one thing?

I am using C = С in the abstract sense. Because there's a computer screen separating us. If we were having this conversation face to face I'd pick any two physical objects available to me and ask you to group them together.

You know how if you have two atoms and both had 8 protons you would group them together in your head as the element Oxygen?
This is how abstraction works.

Or imagine you have two socks before you, you pick them up and you compare them. This is what the = operator stands for: = signifies the process you would undertake (in your head) to compare both objects to each other.

IF you compare two socks and they are "the same" - then you group them together. [ C, С ].
IF you compare two socks and they are NOT "the same" - then you don't group them together. [ C ], [ С ]

This is classification. Sorting.

All I am asking you to do is determine if C and С belong to the same category ( [ C, С ] ), or whether they belong to two different categories ( [C] and [С]). Are they the same, or are they different?

All this talk about identification. Surely you can put this to practice?

[RCSaunders]

I have never seen two things that are identical, and either have you, though you may not have been able to discern their difference.

Strawman. You have argued that all things with 8 protons (irrespective of any other differences) are Oxygen.
Therefore, epistemically speaking, all things with 8 protons are "the same" element.
They are not LITERALLY identical - they are CONCEPTUALLY identical.

This is your very own argument. Are you running away from it now?

There is always a difference. If two things were identical in every possible way how could the be two?

I agree. And yet you categorize things! You ignore all the differences, and you focus on their similarities. This is how abstraction works.

There seems to be only one way anyone ever answers that question. (You may have a different answer.) If two things are identical in every possible way, they can only be two if they are in different places. You may have two socks in your draw that seem identical, but unless you can separate them, you don't have two. (Maybe you just had too much to drink and it looks like two.)

This is not what I am pointing out at all. I am not saying that two socks are exactly identical. I am simply asking whether two randomly chosen socks from your drawer are a pair.

Or I could simply ask you: Is the thing before your eyes sufficiently similar to the concept in your head for you to identify the thing as being a manifestation of your concept? Are the concept and the thing a pair? Identification!

I honestly do not understand the question. If you wrote, C is C, I would answer true, of course, because a thing cannot be anything other than what it is. But, C = C has no meaning. An equality requires something to be equal by some parameter, size, weight, color, number, etc.

If you are trying to get me to say there can be two things both identified as C, I will not, because it is not true. Can you imagine what algebra would become if the same variable were used for more than one thing?

I am using C = С in the abstract sense. Because there's a computer screen separating us. If we were having this conversation face to face I'd pick any two physical objects available to me and ask you to group them together.

You know how if you have two atoms and both had 8 protons you would group them together in your head as the element Oxygen?
This is how abstraction works.

Or imagine you have two socks before you, you pick them up and you compare them. This is what the = operator stands for: = signifies the process you would undertake (in your head) to compare both objects to each other.

IF you compare two socks and they are "the same" - then you group them together. [ C, С ].
IF you compare two socks and they are NOT "the same" - then you don't group them together. [ C ], [ С ]

This is classification. Sorting.

All I am asking you to do is determine if C and С belong to the same category ( [ C, С ] ), or whether they belong to two different categories ( [C] and [С]). Are they the same, or are they different?

All this talk about identification. Surely you can put this to practice?

I'm sorry I just cannot buy into your continuous confusion of the metaphysical and epistemological. I cannot do what you'd like. Put it down to dyslexia or something, if you like.

[Skepdick]

I'm sorry I just cannot buy into your continuous confusion of the metaphysical and epistemological. I cannot do what you'd like. Put it down to dyslexia or something, if you like.

My 'confusion'.

That's precisely what I keep pointing out. You are biased for reductionism. You like things nicely packed into neat boxes. Like 'epistemology' and 'metaphysics'.

You are so indoctrinated into categorical thinking that you can't fathom to put back together the things you take apart.

Holism (the thing you claim you cannot conceive of) is the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Your very own cognition is a complex system. A complex interaction between your metaphysic, epistemology, ontology and all the other categories you've created in your head.

Holism is systems thinking. Your mind is a system.

[RCSaunders]

I'm sorry I just cannot buy into your continuous confusion of the metaphysical and epistemological. I cannot do what you'd like. Put it down to dyslexia or something, if you like.

My 'confusion'.

It was meant as a criticism of you, it is how I find what you say. It is confusing to me.

Your mind is a system.

Now, I did not insult you that way, but I don't think you know how insulting that accusation is. If you want to think your mind is some kind of, "system," (whatever you think a system is), that's fine. But my mind is not.

I know exactly what "holism" is, in all it's manifestations, as well as the absurd notion of, "emergence," by the way.

[Skepdick]

Now, I did not insult you that way, but I don't think you know how insulting that accusation is. If you want to think your mind is some kind of, "system," (whatever you think a system is), that's fine. But my mind is not.

Now there's a moment for introspection. The language I use to describe minds (my mind, your mind) insults you. This is on-queue for Linguistic relativism.

You haven't yet completed the journey of re-describing every aspect of your being in your own language.
At some point you need a theory of mind. A concept for mind. How it works, what it does.

If you talk about metaphysics, surely you ought to also talk about metacognition?
And if you are going to be talking about metacognition, surely you ought to talk about metalearning?
And if you are going to talk about metacognition and metalearning you are going to need a metalanguage?

And if you have such depth of introspection into your inner workings, then you might as well talk about reflection.

The ability of the mind to examine, introspect, and modify its own structure and behavior.

Surely these are familiar concepts to a self-described epistemologist?

[RCSaunders]

Metacognition,metalearning,metalanguage, all academic monstrosities meant to evade the necessity of getting to the point.

Where does it end? Metametametametametametaacademics.
[/quote]

[Skepdick]

Metacognition,metalearning,metalanguage, all academic monstrosities meant to evade the necessity of getting to the point.

None of it is academic. Metaprogramming and reflection is applied computer science. Tried and tested procedural knowledge.

It's the same thing as introspection. It's the same thing as "changing your mind". You were the one who claimed procedural knowledge is intellectual knowledge.

I am describing to you valid epistemic procedures that I use for self-assessment/self-correction - you don't like it. OK. What must I do?

[RCSaunders]

I am describing to you valid epistemic procedures that I use for self-assessment/self-correction - you don't like it. OK. What must I do?

Good grief! Do whatever you believe is right. I don't tell anyone what to do. Everyone must choose for themselves what to think, believe, and do.

I know what I know and am willing to discuss it with anyone interested, but I have no interest in changing what anyone else believes. I don't need anyone else's agreement to know I'm right, and neither should you, but that is up to you too.

If you are right and everyone else in the world disagrees with you, you are still right. I know from experience that if you hold true principles you will definitely find few who will agree with you, and if you live by those principles, you will find even fewer who will appreciate you for it.

[Skepdick]

I am describing to you valid epistemic procedures that I use for self-assessment/self-correction - you don't like it. OK. What must I do?

Good grief! Do whatever you believe is right. I don't tell anyone what to do. Everyone must choose for themselves what to think, believe, and do.

I know what I know and am willing to discuss it with anyone interested, but I have no interest in changing what anyone else believes. I don't need anyone else's agreement to know I'm right, and neither should you, but that is up to you too.

If you are right and everyone else in the world disagrees with you, you are still right. I know from experience that if you hold true principles you will definitely find few who will agree with you, and if you live by those principles, you will find even fewer who will appreciate you for it.

I don't believe it's possible to be 'right'. The best I could ever hope for is to be less wrong.

I seek neither verbalistic agreement, nor appreciation. Only seek common purpose.

[RCSaunders]

I seek neither verbalistic agreement, nor appreciation. Only seek common purpose.

Good for you!