> Anton Sherwood (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> >If a definition is fallacious for including a paraphrase of
> >the word defined, then *all* definitions are fallacious. And
> >yet they're still useful.
Ian Goddard wrote:
> IAN: A definition is useful IF it puts
> the defined in context, IF it defines
> the relations of the defined to things
> that are different than it. The "A=A"
> definition of A does not do that, it
> seeks to remove A from context,
Beep! "A=A" is not a definition of A; it is a definition of "=" (as I
believe I have pointed out before).
The context of the definition is the field of mathematical logic.
The definition "A=A" defines equality as different from inequality
(which yours, by the way, fails to do).
> and thus
> seeks to nullify its identity
Nullify the identity of identity?
> to the ex-
> tent its identity is derived from differ-
> ential relation, which it is by 100%.
(Token objection to misuse of the word. See elsewhere for details.)
> We can go around and around about identity,
> but the shortcut is to simply show me the
> proof, show me A that is A free from not-A.
Where have I asserted that A is free from not-A? Please quote me.
I don't even know what "free" means here.
> That's all you need to do. You don't need
> to call me names or get mad, just prove it.
I was not angry when I jocularly used the word "crackpot".
I only become angry when I read your tirades against everyone who uses
the word _identity_ in its etymological sense.
> I've tired to and having failed to do so,
> accepted that the identity of A is not the
> "same as" A, but rather, A is the difference
> between A and not-A, and I didn't get upset.
That's funny -- just a moment ago I responded to a post, apparently from
you, that said
IAN: Identity is what a thing is; wether rock,
symbol, or idea, all things have an identity.
Do please make up your mind.
I remind you that I also do not say "the identity of A is the same as
> You've tried to do that, and like my own
> effort, your examples of "free identities"
> have only evidenced examples of holistic
I posted examples (adding to yours) of multiple perceptions. After ten
days of happy distractions, I've forgotten just what my purpose was, but
I can't believe I intended them as examples of "free identities". They
couldn't be: because _identity_, as I am using the term, has no plural!
> If you cannot find any example
> of any identity or any attribute of any
> identity that is not derived from differ-
> ential relation but from "same-as relation,"
Identity *is* the "same-as relation". Every example of identity is of
the form "A=A". The attributes of identity include symmetry,
reflexivity, transitivity. (Others, anybody?)
The attributes of a *thing* are not identity. They are very useful
information, but they are not identity (Latin for "sameness").
> then you must admit that the "same-as"
> definition of identity is false, irra-
> tional, and thus definitionally crackpot.
Do you mind if, for the sake of my blood pressure, I replace all your
uses of the word "identity" with "plergb"?
> A is A not because A is the same as A,
> A is A because A is different than not-A.
A is A whether or not A is different from not-A.
A is A whether or not there is another thing like A.
A is A whether or not there is another thing unlike A.
Exceptions eternally? Absolute none!
I don't care *why* A is A. *Why* is not part of the definition of
> We've been through this in the past, you
> never found a single example to support the
> atomist-identity theory you believe then and
> you still cannot find even one example now
> and yet here you are still clinging to it.
> How is it that some people can believe in
> that for which there is 100% no evidence?
We don't need no stinkin' evidence to define a logical construct. The
guys who defined ASCII did not need evidence to assign the bitstring
"1101001" to the letter "i". That bitstring represents that letter
because some engineers chose to make it so, and _identity_ means
"sameness, the relation of a thing with itself" because someone coined
the word and chose to use it in that sense.
-- "How'd ya like to climb this high without no mountain?" --Porky Pine Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685