A Logical Discourse

[Logio]

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

Taken From:

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

It seems that this would be self evident. I would like to know if there are any thoughts on the matter. Perhaps it may seem a limited concept for some to care about, but I think it is a fundamental principle of things (in reality).

Nathan

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Okay peeps. I'm trying to be curtious here and allow someone else to step up to this plate.
PLEASE! Someone say something. This is making me crazy.
:censored:

[Logio]

Okay peeps. I'm trying to be curtious here and allow someone else to step up to this plate.
PLEASE! Someone say something. This is making me crazy.
:censored:

...I think I know what is coming. LOL!

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Lollol. I'm behaving. I promise. Lollol
:superman:

[Logio]

Lollol. I'm behaving. I promise. Lollol
:superman:

MIchael, I believe in your voice. I'm glad that you don't tread lightly. :)

Nathan

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Thank you very much.
That belief is mutual.
And the 'growth' through such interactions is both very apparent and appreciate.
:thanks:
:superman:

[Rana]

"To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities "

it is interesting to read a point of view which is 1 dimensional ..facinating yet deeply sad .


"Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned."

of course if one is looking with ones physical eyes in a physical sense this theory can reflect just that . the organism that maketh the physical body ,being the skeletal,muscular,endocrine,nervous etc is factual ,undeniable and evident ..as this theorist has described it, all of this is characteristics of the ONE entity . the tree ..with its bark ,the leaves . BUT .. what is it that changes the leaves brown ,what makes the leaves fall in sync with the seasons ? the bee that travells from flower to flower collecting pollan , is it the physical flower that calls the bee to come to it ? is it the intelligence of the bee alone ? it is not the actual physical entity as described that is able to exist alone in its singular form ..it is the unseen .the force that tells the bee to travel from flower to flower . why does a human being cry tears when they "FEEL" sad or overly happy ? it isnt the eye duct that generates it alone ..because we all know it is generated from a feeling ,a thought.

" a dog can not be a cat " .. last century it was instinctive for Dogs to be an enemy of the cat , because they are domestic friends in this day and age and their meal provided they have adapted ,and get along . if a cat were raised as a dog WITH other dogs it may feel it IS a dog (of course we can not know for sure) a dog can not transform into the cat (the organism) but he identifies with being a cat because the dog acts like a cat .

reality is unique to everyone and everything .. it depends really if one is concious to their reality and on what level. if i was being interviewed it would depend on what questions the interviewer asks and from THEIR point of view from their reality , what is reality for one is not for another.what is knowable to one isnt knowledge to another . say for me my reality and what i identify with is NOT my organism but the spirit ,this is my reality therefore this theorist will say my identity (what i identfy with) and yes this spirit exists in a particular way so then there is no contradictions.

so the car may be described as blue but in essence it is made up from a grey material that is broken down into the minerals , and the chemicals that make it blue in colour. only generalised ,labelled then pigeon holed as ONE object with many characteristics (in the basic of descriptions ) an entity ? no not in essence only on the superficial layer.

wow great brain teaser with the wording ..really got the neurons moving ..thanks for helping me see how far we have really come ..xx

[Logio]

An identity is limited by definition only...An infinite complexity would still have the identity of infinite complexity.
If an identity includes attachements such as spirit or beliefs, then that also is included within that identity. All microscopic realities are also contained within an identity.

Nathan

[Rana]

An identity is limited by definition only...An infinite complexity would still have the identity of infinite complexity.
If an identity includes attachements such as spirit or beliefs, then that also is included within that identity. All microscopic realities are also contained within an identity.

Nathan

for me and my understanding identity IT is the attatchment of the spirit ..as is the infinite complexities described and microscopic realities .


Rana

[Logio]

for me and my understanding identity IT is the attatchment of the spirit ..as is the infinite complexities described and microscopic realities .

Rana

That's quite understandable in a metaphysical way...perhaps much the same way as the Christian Trinity is said to have a certain identity.

[BlueStar]

Trying to figure out whether to share my thoughts or whether it's better to plaster my mouth with sellotape and run off... :)

[Logio]

Trying to figure out whether to share my thoughts or whether it's better to plaster my mouth with sellotape and run off... :)

This is an open forum; speak your word young one.

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Side note; An individuals physical age is by no means a measure of their true Wisdom.
:superman:

[Logio]

Side note; An individuals physical age is by no means a measure of their true Wisdom.
:superman:

Sorry, I guess that sounded condescending. I know there are younger people far wiser and intellegent than I. :) ...my apologies for the bad humor.

Nathan

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Just a simple reminder my younger friend. ;)
:superman:

[Logio]

http://www.filosofia-irc.org/filosofotos/HEGEL1.jpg

Hegel's thought on the matter:

If everything is identical with itself, then it is not different, not opposed, has no ground. Or, if it is assumed that no two things are the same, that is, everything is different from everything else, then A is not equal to A, nor is A opposed to A, and so on. The assumption of any of these propositions rules out the assumption of the others. The thoughtless consideration of them enumerates them one after the other, so that there does not appear to be any relation between them; it has in mind merely their reflectedness-into-self, ignoring their other moment, positedness or their determinateness as such which sweeps them on into transition and into their negation."

-Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Proposition # 868 on Laws of Identity and Diversity

From:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl409.htm

Perhaps this means that if a single thing cannot be compared to itself, then there isn't a surety that it is itself...even though this seems obvious to our common sense that a thing is, should be itself! This seem to be a paradoxal wall to a proof of reason. Even Decartes' "I think therefore I am", does not have the reach to prove that a thing is itself...but only that it exists.

Nathan

[Lion Spirit Walker]

Nathan my friend, are you You?

[Logio]

Nathan my friend, are you You?

Have I not the right to play the Devil's advocate once in a while?...Even if I really think "A = A" is not untuitive but purely logical.

Nathan

[Narnia]

What if all answers here are correct?

Just because one sees something differently doesn't mean it is entirely wrong ... every view/perspective on everything and or anything has it's own respective position in the greater picture like a puzzle piece in a puzzle or a thread in tapestry.

So, no matter which way 'you' or 'one' or 'I' view identity ... it has it's place .... it just depends on where it is viewed that makes it different.

Just my enigmatic thoughts ...

[Logio]

http://docs.gimp.org/2.2/images/filters/examples/render-checkerboard1.jpg

I believe A = A....perhaps where most people go wrong with this is in a spatial temporal way: something that was white in the past may now be black....or something both black and white such as a checkerboard has the nature of a black and white checkerboard, it is not really of the two identies black and white, but of one identity containing black and white. This is contained within a frame of one thing that has a "togetherness". Perhaps this breaks down in reality with spatial time warps...then a thing's identity may become a confused absurdity.

Nathan

[BlueStar]

In philosophy at college we covered lots of this kind of stuff, including Aristotle. And even at the time, I wondered...

Hasn't our understanding of the world changed significantly since these guys were racking their brains trying to figure everything out with their intellect?

The implicit assumption in their logic appears to be rooted in the notion that we live in a world of solid objects which can be categorised and understood with mind. However, we now know that this is an illusion and the seeming solidity of objects in the world is a sensory delusion. Everything in the material world is in fact 99.9999999999999% empty space (I didn't add all those 9s to be funny, I believe there is in fact 13 of them ;)).

Soooo...to me, the reasoning of Aristotle and others is akin to Plato's cave. It's like creating a science examining and detailing and categorising the images on the cave wall, without having any idea of the source of them. It's kind of pointless unless you know what's creating the images.

The notion of identity as purported by Aristotle doesn't sit with me. It's based on mental fabrications and stories. We slap a label on things: 'tree', 'cat', 'dog' and then think we know them. But take a tree and really show me what the essence of 'tree' is. Ultimately it's just a formation of energy and information on the quantum level. Same with 'cat' and 'dog'. And 'person'. We label them for ease of communication, but this 'identity' that we give it is just story. Maybe it's just me.....but I can no longer accept any story about myself, others or the world as being ultimately true. It's just restless mind grasping onto the shadows on the wall, trying to make sense of something which is just a pale reflection of an invisible source.

Those are my feelings. All differing perspectives are relevant and necessary.

[Logio]

P.D. Ouspensky in his magnum opus 'The Fourth Way' goes deeply into this he basically posits that a thing's identity may not be what it seems. I can agree with this...however, I have a difficulty approaching the idea that A is not A. I believe that the logical construction A = A must be true by definition; that change has a profound affect on how the mind grasps this concept: an object is not the same a nanosecond ago...the concept of identity moves with its object through time...not campared to what it used to be in the past.

Respectfully,

Nathan

[BlueStar]

I totally get you. And from certain perspectives you are absolutely correct. :Boy_yes3:

I'm just playing devil's advocate and asking can we really KNOW what A is, beyond what it appears to be? On the quantum level it's just a wave of energy oscillating at a certain frequency, but is it really any different to B, which is a wave of energy from the same field oscillating at a minutely different frequency? They both come from the same source and return to it. We see the effects or manifestations through our sense perceptions and think we know a thing. But I'm not so sure.

I guess it all depends on how you look at it. My brain doesn't do logical very well. But I'm fascinated by quantum theory and strive to understand that which I don't think can be fully understood. :blink:

[Logio]

http://www.newopticalillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/moving-objects-optical-illusion.jpg

Also Known as: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, False Cause, Questionable Cause, Confusing Coincidental Relationships With Causes.

Description of Post Hoc

A Post Hoc is a fallacy with the following form:

A occurs before B.
Therefore A is the cause of B.

The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that one event causes another simply because the proposed cause occurred before the proposed effect. More formally, the fallacy involves concluding that A causes or caused B because A occurs before B and there is not sufficient evidence to actually warrant such a claim.

It is evident in many cases that the mere fact that A occurs before B in no way indicates a causal relationship. For example, suppose Jill, who is in London, sneezed at the exact same time an earthquake started in California. It would clearly be irrational to arrest Jill for starting a natural disaster, since there is no reason to suspect any causal connection between the two events. While such cases are quite obvious, the Post Hoc fallacy is fairly common because there are cases in which there might be some connection between the events. For example, a person who has her computer crash after she installs a new piece of software would probably suspect that the software was to blame. If she simply concluded that the software caused the crash because it was installed before the crash she would be committing the Post Hoc fallacy. In such cases the fallacy would be committed because the evidence provided fails to justify acceptance of the causal claim. It is even theoretically possible for the fallacy to be committed when A really does cause B, provided that the "evidence" given consists only of the claim that A occured before B. The key to the Post Hoc fallacy is not that there is no causal connection between A and B. It is that adequate evidence has not been provided for a claim that A causes B. Thus, Post Hoc resembles a Hasty Generalization in that it involves making a leap to an unwarranted conclusion. In the case of the Post Hoc fallacy, that leap is to a causal claim instead of a general proposition.

Not surprisingly, many superstitions are probably based on Post Hoc reasoning. For example, suppose a person buys a good luck charm, does well on his exam, and then concludes that the good luck charm caused him to do well. This person would have fallen victim to the Post Hoc fallacy. This is not to say that all "superstitions" have no basis at all. For example, some "folk cures" have actually been found to work.

Post Hoc fallacies are typically committed because people are simply not careful enough when they reason. Leaping to a causal conclusion is always easier and faster than actually investigating the phenomenon. However, such leaps tend to land far from the truth of the matter. Because Post Hoc fallacies are committed by drawing an unjustified causal conclusion, the key to avoiding them is careful investigation. While it is true that causes precede effects (outside of Star Trek, anyways), it is not true that precedence makes something a cause of something else. Because of this, a causal investigation should begin with finding what occurs before the effect in question, but it should not end there.

Examples of Post Hoc:

1. I had been doing pretty poorly this season. Then my girlfriend gave me this neon laces for my spikes and I won my next three races. Those laces must be good luck...if I keep on wearing them I can't help but win!

2. Bill purchases a new PowerMac and it works fine for months. He then buys and installs a new piece of software. The next time he starts up his Mac, it freezes. Bill concludes that the software must be the cause of the freeze.

3. Joan is scratched by a cat while visiting her friend. Two days later she comes down with a fever. Joan concludes that the cat's scratch must be the cause of her illness.

4. The Republicans pass a new tax reform law that benefits wealthly Americans. Shortly thereafter the economy takes a nose dive. The Democrats claim that the the tax reform caused the economic woes and they push to get rid of it.

5. The picture on Jim's old TV set goes out of focus. Jim goes over and strikes the TV soundly on the side and the picture goes back into focus. Jim tells his friend that hitting the TV fixed it.

6. Jane gets a rather large wart on her finger. Based on a story her father told her, she cuts a potato in half, rubs it on the wart and then buries it under the light of a full moon. Over the next month her wart shrinks and eventually vanishes. Jane writes her father to tell him how right he was about the cure.

Any opinions on this fallacy? Do you have any other good examples?

Nathan

[Narnia]

Identity is the fine line of separation and what makes everything different from personalities to molecules. :)

[Logio]

Identity is the fine line of separation and what makes everything different from personalities to molecules. :)

Yes, identity is a very useful thing...but history shows that this line of separation can also cause division.

Nathan

[Narnia]

Yes, identity is a very useful thing...but history shows that this line of separation can also cause division.

Nathan

Yes, this too true and also very sad - but at last we can see the differences and accept them for what they are so there is no division, just difference .... it is what it is. :)

[Logio]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/a/ae/Geodesic.png

It must be said that two things with identical properties cannot be one and the same thing when separated by space...which according to relativity are also separated by time.
Physicists say one particle can be in more than one spatial place at in one timeframe of reference -- but that two particles cannot be in one place at the same time. One would think that if a particle is in two different places that they should conceivably be two different things rather than one.


Nathan

[Logio]

http://www.ihearvoices.org.uk/images/MCEscher-3spheres.jpg

DEDUCTIVE REASONING VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING

Inductive and Deductive Reasoning are two methods of logic used to arrive at a conclusion based on information assumed to be true. Both are used in research to establish hypotheses.

Deductive Reasoning arrives at a specific conclusion based on generalizations.

Inductive Reasoning takes events and makes generalizations.

If-then Deductive Reasoning is how scientists (and other people!) can test alternate hypotheses. Making deductions is important when we cannot directly observe a cause, and can only observe its consequences. This kind of reasoning can be modeled by the following:

If ...

Then...

But...

Therefore...

For example, we might hypothesize that "The color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure."

And so we could test this hypothesis using deductive reasoning:

If the color of a mineral is determined by its crystal structure; then all purple minerals should have the same crystal structure. But purple amethyst has a hexagonal structure and purple fluorite has an isometric structure (determined by observations). Therefore, the hypothesis is not supported or strengthened.

Inductive Reasoning is essentially the opposite of deductive reasoning. It involves trying to create general principles by starting with many specific instances. For example, in inductive geometry you might measure the interior angles of a group of randomly drawn triangles. When you discover that the sum of the three angles is 180° regardless of the triangle, you would be tempted to make a generalization about the sum of the interior angles of a triangle. Bringing forward all these separate facts provides evidence in order to help support your general statement about the interior angles.

This is the kind of reasoning used if you have gradually built up an understanding of how something works. Rather than starting with laws and principles and making deductions, most people collect relevant experience and try to construct principles from it.

Inductive Reasoning progresses from observations of individual cases to the development of a generality.

(Inductive Reasoning, or induction, is often confused with deductive thinking; in the latter, general principles or conditions are applied to specific instances or situations.) Inductive reasoning, or induction, is the process by which a general conclusion is reached from evaluating specific observations or situations.

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.

Inductive: If a child puts his or her hand into a bag of candy and withdraws three pieces, all of which are red, he or she may conclude that all the candy is red.

Inductive: Jimmy Hendrix, Martha Washington, Rosalind Franklin, and John Wayne are all dead. Therefore, all men are mortal.

Deductive: All cars have tires, therefore your car has tires.

Deductive: All men are mortal. Ms. Wilcox is a woman. Therefore, Ms. Wilcox is immortal (ha, ha).

Inductive: A person drives down a particular road at rush hour several times and finds the traffic terrible each time. Therefore, this is a good road to avoid at rush hour.

Deductive: Dobermans are dogs. Max is a Doberman. Max is a dog.

Inductive: Well, I've observed many patients receive that drug combination, and I've never seen any problems with it. Therefore, this is not a clinically important drug interaction."



Nathan

[Rana]

ohhh man ..thanks seriously for the brain massage ..some really neat stuff heya ..

[Logio]

ohhh man ..thanks seriously for the brain massage ..some really neat stuff heya ..

Thanks. I like that stuff a lot.

Nathan

[brother]

Might there be instances where doing the illogical actually is the most logical?

;)

[Logio]

Might there be instances where doing the illogical actually is the most logical?

;)

Absolutely...but who's to say that there isn't a higher logic to it....like String Theory perhaps.

Nathan

[Logio]

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/4688599/Abstract25x5-main_Full.jpg

ABSTRACT AND CONCRETE The words "abstract" and "concrete" are used loosely in everyday speech. Concrete terms are logically those terms which refer to sensible particulars. A particular is an individual that is of a certain kind; and being of a certain kind is a member of a class. Sensible particulars are apprehended at once by sense-perception and by the intellect unless we are conceptually blind. Then these are apprehended only by the sense.
Such conceptual blindness occurs when the sensible individual thing is apprehended by one sphere of sense-perception and not by another, as when that which is perceived is not understood at all. for example, a person who is conceptually blind in his or her sense of touch may be able to identify the object by the sense of smell. This happens when a person cannot identify the kind of object it is by touching it, but can do so by smelling it. When it is just touched by this person, the individual sensible thing is a raw individual, perhaps in some way familiar, as having been touched before, but without an identity, a name.
When we are not conceptually bind, the terms "flower" or "pencil" name certain things that are both perceived and also understood as being of a certain kind. Human apprehension differs radically from the purely sensible apprehension of brute animals that do not have intellects. For them, the world consists of raw individuals. We cannot imagine how the world of sensible objects appears to them.
In human apprehension, which is both sensitive and intellectual, the abstract object of thought is one that cannot be instantiated. We call the object of thought abstract if we cannot give particular instances of it that are sensible.
Such words as "freedom" or "justice" name objects of thought that cannot be perceptually instantiated. They are, therefore, abstract in their referential significance.
In short, concrete terms are those which can be perceptually exemplified or instantiated; abstract terms are those which cannot be perceptually exemplified or instantiated. They refer to objects that are purely objects of conceptual thought.

Nathan