Re: Anti-Holism Flops... again!

Ian Goddard (
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 01:46:35 -0400

Anton Sherwood ( wrote:

>> IAN: Silly argument. The relation is meaningful
>> only because the relation exists between two
>> DIFFERENT times.
>By "meaningful" do you mean "nontrivial"?

IAN: That's tangential to the issue. The
issue is "is identity a product of 'same
as' or 'different than,'" and whichever
it is, is the principle of identity.

Your doing a lot of talking but no
evidencing of your case by showing
an identity that is what it is free
from difference, free from relation.

Difference is the definition of
identity, both logically and factually.

A is A if and only if A is different than not-A.

>> You just tried to find an
>> example of meaningful self-relation and did
>> so only by including exactly that which you
>> purported need not be a part of relation!
>Please pay attention: I explicitly called your attention (once again) to
>the distinction between vernacular identity and mathematical identity.

IAN: You mean "vernacular ID" and "logical ID"
have different identities because their different?
Gee. OK, so why don't you define that difference?

>Also, you're failing to distinguish between two things and two
>perceptions of the same thing. When I say "I believe this cat is the
>same as yesterday's cat" what I really mean is "I believe that my
>present perception and yesterday's perception are of one and the same
>cat" -- not at all that "the two cats are equal".

IAN: "Equal" = "same as." I think
your talking in a circle going nowhere.

The cat is defined by difference, and
you have still not shown us otherwise.
You mission is clear and simple, no
need for lots of talk... so where's
the goods? Where's this difference
free non-holistic identity??? You've
now had a year or two to find it.

>> Also, the cat is always relatied to not-cat.
>Everything is related to everything in *some* way. My quarrel is with
>your contention that everything is related to everything (except
>possibly itself) in the *same* way.

IAN: Well, your trying to argue that some
things are what they are as a result of be-
ing related to nothing else. You've still
not shown an example of that. Once you
have, or concede you cannot, then we
can nit-pick about degrees of relation.
First things first, show me the goods.
Show me the non-different identity.

>> IAN: Fluffy is being related to the black void!
>> Fluffy is DIFFERENT than the black void. How more
>> obvious could it be? How more transparent can the
>> infection by the "same as" crackpot meme be? It's
>> causing you to make the most absurd arguments,
>> arguments that defeat themselves by 100%!
>Yawn. Okay, what if there's only the black void? Can I say that the
>black void which I perceive right now is the same black void as the
>black void which I perceive right now?

IAN: In so saying you've just passed
in time from "black void at moment 1"
to "bv at m2." But I'm not saying
that "same as" is nonexistent, just
that it's not the principle of identity.

>> >And then there's binocular vision: two perceptions of the same thing
>> >at the same place and time, yet slightly different.
>> IAN: "Slightly different" is still different.
>> Good grief. All your cases against holistic
>> identity are actually cases for it!
>Please pay attention: two PERCEPTIONS, not two things perceived.

IAN: Two X is different than 1 X.

VISIT Ian Williams Goddard ---->