GENIUS FORUMS

Dennis Mahar wrote:A=A or the law of identity is the BASIS upon which reasoning proceeds.

Consciousness as an activity identifies, differentiates, reacts.

Reasoning is identifying the object and differentiating it.

To establish the true identity of the object appearing.

You will find the object lacks inherent existence.

Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower. We see sunshine, we see the rain, we see clouds, we see the earth, and we also see time and space in the flower. A flower, like everything else, is made entirely of non-flower elements. The whole cosmos has come together in order to help the flower manifest itself. The flower is full of everything except one thing: a separate self or a separate identity.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos. If we understand being in terms of inter-being, then we are much closer to the truth. Inter-being is not being and it is not non-being. Inter-being means at the same time being empty of a separate identity; empty of a separate self.

Dennis Mahar wrote: You will find the object lacks inherent existence.

Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos

Pincho Paxton wrote:Well A =A to me means that something is made from itself. But even zero is made from two things 1 + -1 = 0. So according to that you can't use A = A.

You can use A + -A = B

Which is Cause and effect, and includes Newton's 3rd law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You can't use

A = A

because that would mean that...

0 = 0

and then the Universe would not exist.

If I write 2 = 2 then there are a few Cause and effects in the text.

(2 space) equals (space 2)

and as you can see, they have reversed, but you are ignoring the reversal. and at the very least they have moved apart by 5 font sizes.

Or an apple equals another apple. There are billions of differences between two apples.

David Hodges: What does A=A mean? If this is a self evident truth, what is the truth that is represented by these symbols? I've thought of several different senses in which A=A can be taken: (1) 'A' = 'A' : When we make a definition, a label, then that definition or label 'A' means exactly what we have defined it to mean, no more or less.

David Quinn: Yes, this is the basis of accurate logical thought.

David Hodges: (2) A = 'A' : the thing itself (A) is identical to the definition or label we have made up ('A'); all that we can talk about is the stuff that is in our heads, not stuff that may or may not be "out there".

David Quinn: No, A=A doesn't refer to this. The affirmation of A=A as the underlying principle of logic and truth doesn't require one to adopt any particular belief or viewpoint. Regardless of whether things exist beyond the mind or not, neither position is supported or opposed by A=A.

A=A comes into play the moment we construct definitions and start thinking about them. For example, if we define the mind to be the totality of all there is, then A=A dictates that nothing can exist beyond the mind. And so on.

To me, it constitutes the vital link between logic and existence. If a thing exists in any way, then it necessarily has a form of some kind (i.e. A). If a thing has a form of some kind, then it means that it doesn't have any other kind of form. It's very existence as a form automatically precludes the possibility of it possessing any other form. That is to say, A=A.

A=A can be thought of as the fleshed out version of A. It is what the abstract mind creates out of direct perception in order to in engage in logical thought. 'A' is what we directly perceive in each moment; A=A is our reasonings about what we perceive.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Well A =A to me means that something is made from itself. But even zero is made from two things 1 + -1 = 0. So according to that you can't use A = A.

You can use A + -A = B

Which is Cause and effect, and includes Newton's 3rd law, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

You can't use

A = A

because that would mean that...

0 = 0

and then the Universe would not exist.

If I write 2 = 2 then there are a few Cause and effects in the text.

(2 space) equals (space 2)

and as you can see, they have reversed, but you are ignoring the reversal. and at the very least they have moved apart by 5 font sizes.

Or an apple equals another apple. There are billions of differences between two apples.

Jesus fucking wept. Maybe this short dialogue will help a bit:

David Hodges: What does A=A mean? If this is a self evident truth, what is the truth that is represented by these symbols? I've thought of several different senses in which A=A can be taken: (1) 'A' = 'A' : When we make a definition, a label, then that definition or label 'A' means exactly what we have defined it to mean, no more or less.

David Quinn: Yes, this is the basis of accurate logical thought.

David Hodges: (2) A = 'A' : the thing itself (A) is identical to the definition or label we have made up ('A'); all that we can talk about is the stuff that is in our heads, not stuff that may or may not be "out there".

David Quinn: No, A=A doesn't refer to this. The affirmation of A=A as the underlying principle of logic and truth doesn't require one to adopt any particular belief or viewpoint. Regardless of whether things exist beyond the mind or not, neither position is supported or opposed by A=A.

A=A comes into play the moment we construct definitions and start thinking about them. For example, if we define the mind to be the totality of all there is, then A=A dictates that nothing can exist beyond the mind. And so on.

To me, it constitutes the vital link between logic and existence. If a thing exists in any way, then it necessarily has a form of some kind (i.e. A). If a thing has a form of some kind, then it means that it doesn't have any other kind of form. It's very existence as a form automatically precludes the possibility of it possessing any other form. That is to say, A=A.

A=A can be thought of as the fleshed out version of A. It is what the abstract mind creates out of direct perception in order to in engage in logical thought. 'A' is what we directly perceive in each moment; A=A is our reasonings about what we perceive.

Dan Rowden wrote:

Quinn wrote: A=A can be thought of as the fleshed out version of A. It is what the abstract mind creates out of direct perception in order to in engage in logical thought. 'A' is what we directly perceive in each moment; A=A is our reasonings about what we perceive.

Pincho Paxton wrote:A = A Means that I can pull, because my hand is me, and I can use it to pull.

This is why I propose to call any thing to be actually an instance of assembly. It's a collection of properties bound by unifying consciousness. The multiple knotted together in abstract "thingness", a true feat of mind! The object in computer science: nothing but an ephemeral set of attributes and behaviors.

But a bee for example would assemble the notion of flower differently, it might include electric field but leave out other properties. The boundaries of "flower" will be different. It has no need for an abstract so it doesn't contain "flower" in its mind but even if it could, it would be very hard to recognize for a human as he cannot connect to the same notions.

However, properties are still being assigned, unified conclusion or action follows. The reality lies in binding, unifying properties to a common cause. Temporary and relative. Yet real.

a true feat of mind!

My mind never treats an object as itself, I have always evaluated all objects into their individual parts.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think Dave simply means the brute fact of the appearance of a thing, devoid of any conceptual overlays of "real", "illusory", objective" etc. What the thing is without thinking about it, basically.

Dan Rowden wrote:I think what you're asking is "How can there be "thingness/differentiation" in the first place? Is that about right? Beyond that you seem to be asking if there isn't some Kantian thing-in-itself to be considered. Is that right? i.e. some basic sort of substance from which consciousness does its differentiating?

Dennis Mahar wrote:Pincho,

My mind never treats an object as itself, I have always evaluated all objects into their individual parts.

are the parts inherently existing?

your simple substance, your monad, your 'thang',
when all is broken down,
is 'infinite particle'.
your claim is that it is an element that has no constituent parts, in having no constituent parts it must necessarily be uncaused.

this 'thang' is your gesture to inherent existence.

maybe I'm being a bit dull here but that's what it looks like.

does infinity mean 'no thingness' to you or does infinity as you use it mean 'duration'?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Dennis Mahar wrote: You will find the object lacks inherent existence.

Looking deeply into a flower we see that the flower is made of non-flower elements. We can describe the flower as being full of everything. There is nothing that is not present in the flower.

The flower cannot be by itself alone. The flower has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud and everything in the cosmos

This is why I propose to call any thing to be actually an instance of assembly. It's a collection of properties bound by unifying consciousness. The multiple knotted together in abstract "thingness", a true feat of mind! The object in computer science: nothing but an ephemeral set of attributes and behaviors.

But a bee for example would assemble the notion of flower differently, it might include electric field but leave out other properties. The boundaries of "flower" will be different. It has no need for an abstract so it doesn't contain "flower" in its mind but even if it could, it would be very hard to recognize for a human as he cannot connect to the same notions.

However, properties are still being assigned, unified conclusion or action follows. The reality lies in binding, unifying properties to a common cause. Temporary and relative. Yet real.

chikoka wrote:A bee wouldn't assemble the notion of a flower differently because then it wouldn't be a flower anymore, or else two different things have the same name.

Concepts dont exist or rather exist in the same way sets exist.
They are functions of things that exist, namely an arrangement of matter.

This Infinity is of tiny sphere. If you look at spherical objects which stack like snooker balls then they create a pattern. The pattern is a fractal. The fractal is in nature. So all you need to start off nature is infinite tiny sphere. The tiny sphere are created by smaller sphere, and the smaller sphere are created by smaller sphere. You get to a scale where the size is so small that the sphere fold inside out, and become holes. The holes travel back into the sphere, so now you have sphere with holes in them. Particles. The holes scale backwards. Now the smaller particles can fit inside the bigger particles until you get atoms. The holes can rearrange until you get electrons (which are holes). The electrons can spin until you get magnetism (bigger holes), and the bigger holes allow more particles to enter, Gravity. The gravity flows into the holes and particles flow with the Gravity to make bonding. And bonded parts grow into nature.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

chikoka wrote:A bee wouldn't assemble the notion of a flower differently because then it wouldn't be a flower anymore, or else two different things have the same name.

The whole idea of name giving is that we call similar looking things the same. They are different but not different enough to distinguish them in that specific context of communication. This is a limited form of unification, a feat of consciousness (name giving, classification, etc). This is something else than identity in philosophy which is deeper and different from a name. A name is more like a general class or a pointer.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Concepts dont exist or rather exist in the same way sets exist.
They are functions of things that exist, namely an arrangement of matter.

There's an assumption there that 'sets exist' independent of conceptualization.

That is a case of False Identity.

The whole idea of name giving is that we call similar looking things the same

chikoka wrote:You should simply have said "there really is no flower", instead of a realism of the flower , then assuming that realism to say "there really is a flower" but is different for both human and bee.

chikoka wrote:

The whole idea of name giving is that we call similar looking things the same

Suggesting that language correctly reflects reality is old school.

Sets are a concept just like those that Dan was asking about. That's why concepts exist how sets exist.They are both concepts.

Dennis Mahar wrote:

Sets are a concept just like those that Dan was asking about. That's why concepts exist how sets exist.They are both concepts.

taking away the concept 'set' gets rid of 'set'

existence is conceptual?