Perception | The Map Thinker (tm)

Tag Archives: Perception

The Sixth Law of Identity

14 Jul

_{Now we have a tiny little itsy bitsy teeny-weeny problem in the <- .}

_Ready?

_{There are two senses we know for a fact do not act the way we think the senses work.}

_{One is what we see.}

_{The other is what we smell.}

_{I suspect those two rascals the ears as well, but that is unproven.}

_{The oldest cones in our retinas sense the color blue.}

_{But do those cones report this color blue to the optic nerve? Does it travel to the part of our brain that says what we are looking at is blue?}

_No.

_{They report to other glands and organs that relate to our ability to adjust to time. In other words our sleep cycle.}

_{Our noses sense smells called pheromones. But this information is not passed on to the olfactory system. It is sent somewhere else and causes reactions that could be called romance or lust.}

_Ooops.

_{So we have to live with the conclusion that we do not know for sure what we are sensing and we do not know for sure how we are sensing it. Nor can we ever be sure what our bodies are doing with that information.}

_{This puts a whole new spin on A <- P.}

_{We do not know for sure what A is.}

_{We do not know for sure how well we perceive A.}

_{We do not know for sure how we perceive A.}

_{To make it worse when synaesthesia kicks in. That is when someone smells yellow, hears blue, sees the sound birds make, or hears someone touching them.}

_{All answers are provisional.}

_{Only questions have meaning.}

_{If we can find the right questions.}

_{It order to account for these types of phenomena we must add in the uncertainty of what might be being perceived.}

_{I <-^- P}

_{Hmmm. We have another problem. This one is with ->.}

_{A = R}ip_{/T -> I}

_{I do not want to dig too far into Complexity Theory, Breaking Points, and Emergent Phenomena, but let us simply say the recipe sometimes produces unexpected results. Without trying to account for it we still need to include it.}

_{A = R}ip_{/T -^-> I}

_{So now we have:}

_{A -^-> I <-^- P}

_{So lets take a look at one of the unexpected things in A -^-> I.}

_{Most people are aware of Herd Mentality and are disparaging of it. That is where a group of livestock will follow the leader anywhere without question. Sort of the way people follow Rock Stars, Politicians, Preachers, and Talk Show Personalities. It enables unscrupulous slaughter-house owners to train Judas Goats to lead the herd through the slaughter-house.}

_{What most people are unaware of is Herd Intelligence. This is where the intelligence of the individuals in the herd is low but the effective intelligence of the group is high. This is most obvious in ants that appear to have no intelligence as individuals but have been known to perform amazing feats of engineering in large groups.}

_{If you recall P(EE) where EE is Experience and Expectations. If we add cultural bias and other factors that influence perception into the ^ of <-^- P we can pretty much cover the entire gamut. Other people from other disciplines can add whatever unexpected influence might occur here.}

_{In short:}

_{Even if a human ever did come across an A = A situation there is little chance that human being would ever be able to experience it.}

_{Yet, of course it appears that we do.}

_{A baseball bat is a baseball bat and whether it is made out of wood, aluminum, or plastic, it is still a baseball bat.}

_{And we all know it.}

_{We are able to function not because A = A but because we can act as though A = A.}

_{The ^. I call it the Bump, as in “The Bump in the road”.}

_{Normal humans only have three cones. Red, blue, and green. Butterflies can see ultraviolet light. Mantis Shrimp — The number of colors they can see is just plain scary.}

_{Two things that look exactly alike to a human might look like two entirely different things to a Mantis Shrimp.}

_{Thus our own senses, such as eyesight, limit out ability to comprehend reality, to reason through reality, and to be creative with reality, if we actually believe and treat reality as if A = A.}

_{Or when:}

_{A <- P -> B}

_{When A as Perceived and Processed by P become Absolute Belief then we have an individual or group who are locked into mental prisons of their own making and will be unable to cope with any emergent reality their belief system does not encompass.}

_{When A <- P -> U}

_{That is when A as Perceived and Processed by P produces a deliberately useful Future (Where future can be the time it takes to respond at the speed of light) Action or Reaction. Please note that an Action or Reaction can range from discounting the tree as not being relevant to the current situation, or a simple admiration of its habit (Habit means “Shape” to non horticulture types), or snapping its picture. It does not have to be a physical action or interaction with the tree.}

_{Thus P is aware, at some level, that other Actions and / or Reactions are available but are not included because they are not useful at the time.}

_{Thus if we expand the new formula derived from A = A out to its maximum we would have:}

_{A = DR}ip_{/Tn -^->DQ/Tn = I (EE)/Tn <-^- P/Tn -^-> B -^ -> FAR/T}t

_{It is doubtful to me anyone would have any use for such a cumbersome formula aside from explanation of its parts and how they fit together.}

_{The simplest accurate formula we can use is: A <-^-> P = ? where A and P interact with each other in ways that produce results that have statistical probability but are not individually predictable. Yet managing, in most cases, to produce the illusion that A = A.}

_{It is almost scary to me that I could do that to Aristotle’s poor little A = A.}

_{But to me it is just, well, obvious.}

Tags: Aristotle, Computational complexity theory, Emergence, Herd Mentality, Judas goat, Mantis Shrimp, Perception, Sense

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Philosophy

The Fifth Law of Identity

6 Jul

So far we have considered many things. Until now we have considered only one Perceiver and attributed only one Point of View to that Perceiver.

Humans are the only intelligent species we know about that is able to actively consider Points of View of Others, either other humans or other intelligences. This is a valuable ability that should be tended and cultivated. It increases one’s ability to solve problems, achieve greater understanding, and increases creativity.

But here we get into a real tangle.

How many Points of View do we have and do we pick it or does it pick us?

Logically A = A and there is only one Point of View.

Mapologically A_n /T-> I_n /T <- P_n.

We need the T (Time) in our formula because Timing is often important to P.

Farmer George waits for the fruit to be ripe enough to pick.

Courting George must wait until the girl is old enough to marry.

Fisherman George throws back all that are too small.

Historian George wants to save the tree because it is so old it is a part of history.

Thus Time plays a part in our Point of View.

A/T = A A becomes A when A is ripe enough to be A.

A/T ≠ A A ceases to be A when A is overripe, old, and rotten.

But…

Not everyone sees a banana as being ripe at the same stage.

Some people like their bananas firm and almost green: Others like them soft with brown spots on them.

Cooks who only eat firm bananas will wait until they are soft to make banana bread with them.

Therefore a Cooks perspective changes with whether they are going to eat the banana or cook the banana.

Thus

A = DA/T -> I^u/T^0-n <- P

A is A.

DA/T is the difference in A over Time.

I is the Identity of A as Perceived and Processed by P.

^{Iu is the usefulness of that Identity as Perceived by P.}

^{/T0-n is the length of Time A is Perceived as being useful for a specific purpose by P.}

In English:

A is only A over the length of Time George Perceives of A as being useful.

At all other times A ≠ A.

But if we are going to discuss the fifth law of Identity, then we also have to discuss a phenomena called Pareidolia.

What is Pareidolia?

It is that wonderfully creative process that allows you to lay on the grass, look up at the sky, and see all kinds of pictures, creatures, things, etc. Or the stars. Those pictures aren’t really there. Our minds are able to recognize patterns in random events. This is an advantage for us. We can take the night sky, look at the random array of stars there, and create constellations in our minds. Cassiopeia and Orion do not exist until we look at them and identify them. Once done we can organize, study, and use the night sky to guide us home.

It doesn’t just happen with things that we see. In Lady Chaterley’s Lover, D. H. Lawrence has her attempting to understand what the windshield wipers are saying. I believe this apparently “non-episode” episode is more important to the story than is generally supposed.

Pareidolia enhances our lives with art and creativity of all kinds.

But:

Pareidolia has a negative side.

While it grants us creativity and gives us superior problem solving skills, it also allows us to delude ourselves and allows others to delude us when we are not self aware enough to realize what mental tools we are using when.

When we convince ourselves, or allow others to convince us, that random static on the radio or TV is in fact spirits of the dead trying to contact us — We have carried our wonderful gift of Pareidolia a bit too far.

Pareidolia is creative.

Pareidolia is NOT proof.

Add Confirmation Bias and you have Delusion.

I’m not going to go into a lot of detail here, there should be no need to. This is the day and age of computers. Even if you are not reading the blogged version you should have one handy.

Use it.

Research anything that interests or confuses you.

A/T -> I/T <- P/T

A over Time produces an Identity over Time that is Perceived and Processed by P over time even though A is a random series of events that have no innate meaning.

So. The Fifth Law of Identity explores the POV, or Point of View of P.

In order to apply this law we must first be aware there are always more POV’s than we are aware of. (Don’t bother to point out I just split an infinitive. I am a native speaker of English — Not Latin.) Or more specifically, I have a different POV of Grammar.

Which points out the First POV we have to be aware of is our own.

My POV regarding Grammar is that the subject needs to be revised until all rules, not just some, make sense and serve a worthwhile purpose.

We have to be aware of the POV’s of others.

I am aware there are people whose POV will discount everything I ever say based on my use of Grammar. After all how can anyone who refuses to dedicate himself to observing all the rules of Grammar, even the most idiotic, have anything worth while to say about reason?

And I have to be aware that my POV could be wrong.

And I have to be aware their POV could be right.

And I need to be aware that BOTH could be either wrong or right.

Now toss in the factor that whether either of us is either right or wrong may depend on factors neither one of us have any control over, and that the correctness or incorrectness may be fleeting, and you have something to wrap your mind around.

The Map Is Not the Territory.

A better set of questions might be:

When and where:

am I right?

am I wrong?

are they right?

are they wrong?

are we both right?

are we both wrong?

The best answer might be:

Depends on the audience.

And now we have to add:

Belief.

A <- P

Where P perceives and processes.

To Perceive an Apple and to Process all the data at hand to define it as a “ripe” apple, that is one ready to eat, is one thing. This is a conclusion. Conclusions are to be tested.

We may call a Conclusion a provisional belief. A conclusion is subject to substantiation, and when proven incorrect, can be changed.

A belief, on the other hand, is an investment of one’s own identity in a conclusion.

So now we must extend our poor little A = A equation further.

_{A = DR}ip_{/T ->DQn/T = I (EE) <- P -> B -> FAR}

_{Let’s simple it down:}

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR

Where A produces an Identity that P not only perceives and processes but forms Conclusions and Beliefs about. These Beliefs dictate FAR = Future Actions and Reactions.

Let’s continue.

B can be an Idea, a Theory, a Conclusion, a Belief, even a Delusion, or in its most extreme case, a Trigger.

What is a Trigger?

A Trigger is a reaction that has become so ingrained emotionally that it bypasses all intellectual contexts.

It is often induced by severe emotional trauma. I met a girl who had nearly been strangled to death. A man could not put his arm around her neck for a hug or a kiss, as is commonly done, without evoking an extreme fight reflex from her.

I met a man who as a child had been constantly yelled at and punished by his parents for slamming the door shut. One day he slammed his way out of the house — Just as a severe earthquake struck collapsing the house and burying his parents inside. To this day he has a hard time closing a door, let alone slamming it.

But a Trigger can be induced with less trauma over longer time.

I knew a man whose father taught him to spit every time he passed a Synagogue. Even though he disowned the teachings of his father toward all things Jewish — His mouth still watered every time he passed a Synagogue.

My late wife was a diabetic. She took insulin. A friend, who was an ex-addict, could not watch her take insulin because of the overwhelming desire it caused in her to go back to her old ways.

I’ve known several women whose mother’s potty trained them using running water. These women could not be around running water without wanting to go to the bathroom.

During the cold war the word “Communist” evoked a Mass Trigger Effect.

What is a Trigger?

Any emotional reaction that bypasses all critical thinking. Especially if it is disadvantageous in the current situation.

Not all triggers are simple.

Rituals, both simple and complex, are often used by individuals and societies as triggers to certain types of action.

Not all triggers are erroneous.

A boxer enters a frame of mind when he puts on gloves and enters a ring. This triggers a certain type of behavior. When the opponent raises his hand the boxer will likely strike.

The same person would not be likely to strike someone at a party who raises their hand to their chin.

The trigger was not present.

Thus:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR

Means that we must always question each step along the way.

The Identity we Perceive is not A, it is the amalgamation thereof. We tend to treat this Identity as though it were the Territory itself, even though it is not. Our Perceptions are limited, our ability to Process the information is limited, yet we develop beliefs and belief systems based on them. These in turn produce Future Actions and Reactions that are often so instantaneous there is not perceptible time lag.

Thus Time is a factor in FAR:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR/T

Knowing this a Map Thinker must ask questions at all five stages of A.

But first: The /T is not quite complete.

We need a superscript ^t for “trigger”.

A trigger is something that triggers a reaction. We can never be quite sure what that trigger might be or when it will go off. We can give pretty good guesses based on probabilities of large populations or on intimate knowledge of an individual or culture.

I knew a lot about triggers before I ever heard of one.

I read a Science Fiction story once about ( I think ) an alien who could read minds. Some very very intelligent people tried to outsmart him, but alas he always knew what they were thinking so nothing they tried worked.

Then the Mind Reader gave an order to a man who was not all that smart.

The man hit the mind reader, knocked him cold. Everyone was then able to jump in and hog tie the Mind Reader.

The reason the man won was because he did NOT think. He reacted instantly. What the Mind Reader said to him caused a Trigger to react. The Trigger was to hit, hit now, and hit fast. Without thought, without plan.

I dated a girl who would not allow anyone to put their hand or arm around her neck because someone had tried to strangle her. This had so traumatized her that putting an arm around her neck sent her into a violent panic reaction.

On the other extreme when I was a bartender I came across a woman. People who had known her for years had no clue she had ever been pregnant.

Until one day she saw some women putting their children on the school bus for the first time. And she realized that had her baby lived it would now be six years old and would attend kindergarten.

She had a complete breakdown at the bar.

Six years before she had had an abortion. She had not mentioned it. She had not thought about it. She had had no emotional reaction to it.

Until that day, when it hit her.

She had killed her baby.

And if she had not she would be putting it on the school bus for the first time today.

A trigger does not have to be complex or dramatic.

It can be as simple as suddenly realizing what your mother meant when she said “Don’t be Walter Mitty.” too you.

So now we have:

A -> I <- P -> B -> FAR/T^t.

Tags: Apple, D. H. Lawrence, Law of Identity, Narrative mode, Pareidolia, Perceiver, Perception, point of view

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Philosophy

The Third Law of Identity

22 Jun

The First and Second Laws of Identity primarily concern those things that are most concrete. Things you can see, taste, touch, smell, and hear.

Assuming you have all five of those senses.

You may not.

Even if you do those senses may be atypical and you not even realize it. I know of a person who went to the eye doctor because their vision had deteriorated. The doctor was confused, the person had 20/20 vision.

Going through older medical records from prior eye doctors revealed when the person was young they had 15/15 vision.

20/20 seemed poor by comparison.

The Third Law of Identity deals with A as Action.

Verbs.

At some point we quit just identifying things and begin to notice those things are doing something. It is the first step in discovering that Reality is a series of Interacting Relationships, not just static objects that sit around waiting for you to observe them.

To say A = A when speaking of eating makes no sense.

AT -> C^h <- P

When A is an Action over Time it Produces a Change that can be Observed by P.

The Change can be Place or Composition or even something else.

When eating the primary change is in composition. The apple has changed position, but it has changed composition even more.

When running the primary change is in position. However the composition of the runner has changed slightly as well. The runner is sweating, breathing deeply, possibly panting, etc.

Even sitting still and meditating produces change even though it is difficult to observe without instruments.

AT -> D = (D^cD^tD^p) = D^ctp <- P

An Action over Time produces Change which amounts to a Difference in Composition, Time, and / or Place.

Okay. Lets go back to the First Law of Identity:

A_n = R_n = (R^siR^pi )_n= R^ip_n -> Q_n = I <- P_n

_{You will notice that as you add T Time the recipe will change. The degree of change may or may not be perceptible to The Perceiver.}

_{Thus all A’s A0..A}_∞_{act as verbs no matter how static they appear to be to any given Perceiver. In fact in order to understand A we have to revise the formula to include T Time.}

A_n = R^ip_n -> Q_n = I <- P_n

_{AnTn = R}ip_{nTn -> QnTn = ITn <- PTn}

_{In simple english the Recipe of Anything changes over Time altering the Qualities received by the Perceiver ( Who has also changed over Time). Whether the receiver Perceives the changes or not is a different matter.}

_{We can expand, contract, or manipulate these formulas in any what that is useful. For now the simplest expression of A = A for a modern Map Thinker is:}

_{AT <- PT}

_{Any thing over Time that is received by the Perceiver over Time recognizing that both have changed to some degree over any given interval.}

Tags: Aristotle, Business, Health, Identity theft, Law of Identity, Perceiver, Perception, United States

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Uncategorized

First Law of Identity

8 Jun

The Map Thinker’s ™ first law of identity.

When the Identity consists of those things that are objects in the real universe (As opposed to Concepts). When the Identity consists of those things that are concepts, such as freedom, God, government, goals. When Identity consists of things that are beliefs, such as a belief there are true psychics and those who believe all psychics are frauds. When the Identity consists of an event, such as the birth of a baby, or Christmas, or 911.

Identity is that which the Perceiver has learned to identify as distinct.

For the minute we will concentrate on those things that are “real” objects in The Universe.

Let us look at what this means.

And by the way, when you are looking at it, the math like looking junk confuses some people, makes it clearer to others. If it confuses you, just skip it. Just read the words. The math like looking stuff is only there to make me seem more important anyway.

The words alone explain it all.

A = I <- P_n.

Where A is that which is perceived.

Where I is the identity of A as Perceived and Processed by P.

Where <- is the perception as received (observation or non observation through various senses) or, you may say, is understood, by P.

Where P is the Perceiver who Perceives and Processes the Qualities of A that equal Identity.

Where _n denotes the specific Perceiver.

Aristotle in his egotism, assumed every intelligent person would be a copy of — You guessed it — Him. He never took into consideration that someone else might legitimately differ with his view. He assumed anyone who differed was less intelligent — Or even less human than he was. Thus he assumed that A = A is the truth and that any intelligent human being would experience it the same. Thus you either agreed with him or joined the ranks of subhumans; barbarians, women, Blind, and Deaf.

Einstein was not an egotist, he simply did not take differences in human perception into consideration when he evolved the Theory of Relativity. To do so would have added a note of complexity that would not have helped his ideas in any way. Still he postulated an observer who saw accurately, processed the information accurately, and would report accurately. Naturally accuracy would duplicate Aristotle’s perceptions.

Something which seldom happens.

It is time we got off our high horse. Look the horse in the eye. That horse thinks. We may think things the horse does not, possibly because there is no use in the horse thinking of them. In this the horse may be superior to us. As humans we think many things there is no use in our thinking. In fact many things humans think are counter survival. Unlike the horse.

Aristotle assumed Truth exists in a permanent state.

There is no evidence that anything, let alone truth exists in other than a transitory state.

Aristotle further assumed that a human being using their mind alone could understand this absolute truth.

That assumption is unfounded and has a very low probability factor. The evidence is that it is extremely difficult for anyone to understand completely even the most obvious truths.

The tree is full of green leaves.

But do we all experience the same green from the same tree? Even those of us who are not color blind do not see the exact same green as others. I personally see one green from one eye, another green from the other eye, and a different green when I look with both eyes. I experience three shades of tree green. Should I ask, “Which is the ‘true green?’ or do I simply accept the fact that I can only experience that which I can experience?

Most of us would be horrified nowadays to be told that Deaf People and Color Blind people were less intelligent, perhaps less human than those who saw colors ‘correctly’ or heard ‘correctly’.

Yet when anyone attempts to apply Aristotelian logic to the modern world they are applying just those assumptions. They are imbedded in Aristotelian logic. They are embodied in the “Law of Thought” A = A.

The “truth” as near as it exists, is that each person who Perceives ( P_1,2,3…n) will experience any given reality in a slightly different way.

If an absolute truth did exist in any manner, shape, or form, we would not be able to experience it in any way save through our imperfect human senses.

Once we did experience this absolute, perfect truth, each person would have to process it.

An example of this might be an automobile accident. Let us assume that all observers are of equal perceptual ability. They are capable of exactly the same initial perception.

P₁ might notice the action of the cars involved but not be aware of the colors of the cars.

P₂ might notice the colors of the cars but be unclear on the action.

P₃ might not notice the action or the colors of the cars. They might notice the color of the drivers.

Why the difference?

Processing.

Each processed the exact same information differently.

So P_n for each _n processes different information differently.

One person sees Caviar and salivates.

Another is revolted by eating fish bait.

So now let us take an objective look, as objectively as we can, at two disparate A’s.

A half pound of ocean water and A half pound of rock.

No two things could be more different.

Or could they?

Ocean water is called salt water because it has so much salt in it. It has so much that it is economically sound to extract the salt from it.

Rocks have enough water in them that colonizing the moon is more apt to be viable because it can be extracted from them.

Oceans have organic matter in them. Probably because fish poop in it.

Rocks have organic matter in them. Probably because the neighbor’s dog pooped on it.

Ocean water has minerals in it.

So do rocks.

It is quite possible to hold a solid rock in one hand and a glass of ocean water in the other and that both contain the exact same ingredients.

Just not in the same proportions.

It is important to grasp this.

There is no difference between the rock and the glass of ocean water except the proportions of the ingredients.

A_n = R_n <- P_n

Where A is that proportion of difference which allows the Perceiver to perceive it as having a separate identity. R is the recipe. If you find it difficult to think of A, say a rock, as a Recipe, read on, the concept is truly very natural.

This proportion of difference might be very slight.

One percent difference in DNA can mean the difference between one discernible distinct species and another discernible distinct species.

My mother was in the middle of baking a meatloaf when a bunch of panicked people raced into the kitchen yelling the problem. There were a lot more people coming to dinner than expected and there was no time to change the menu and cook more, or new food.

My mother, undaunted, said, “Hand me some broth. I’ll turn the meatloaf into a huge stew.”

And she did.

She had an innate knowledge that the difference between many things is more in the perception than in the reality.

But she did not stop there.

Spaghetti cooks quick. So she scooped out some future meatballs from the meatloaf.

In less than twenty minutes the meatloaf that was meant to feed six became stew with spaghetti and meatballs able to feed twenty.

Slight differences in composition and ingredients made huge differences in the final product.

This is equally true of humans.

The difference that makes us individuals is one thing and one thing only — How we choose to react to situations.

Let us apply this to our little equation:

A = R

Where A is the Thing, R is the Recipe.

Let us look closely at R.

R = (R^siR^pi)

Where R^si is the sum of the ingredients.

Here we need to keep in mind that stew is still identifiable as stew whether it contains salt or not or whether it contains oregano or not. It is identifiable as the same stew even though you add peppers to spice it up.

Where R^pi is the proportions of those ingredients.

Remember my mother’s stew and the meatloaf had exactly the same ingredients. The spaghetti and meatballs only had one new ingredient.

Where A equals the Sum of its Ingredients factored by the Proportion of those Ingredients. This creates an aggregate identity that can be perceived by The Perceiver. Which is then processed, categorized, and possibly reported to others via language.

The R is simply the Recipe.

In other words all of reality consists of recipes that consist of the same ingredients recombined over and over again.

Are we finished?

No.

The last produces more confusing clarification: We need to dig just a little deeper into identity.

A = R = (R^siR^pi ) -> Qn

Or, written in English.

R is the Sum and Proportion of its ingredients expressed as distinct Qualities. These qualities are perceived as hard, soft, rough, smooth, heavy, light, tasty, smelly, etc.

Therefore:

A = R = (R^siR^pi ) -> Qn = I <- Pn

A is a Recipe that equals the Sum and Proportions of its ingredients and is expressed as various Qualities that present a distinct Identity that can be Received by each Perceiver in a different way.

A tree is a bunch of bored quarks who got together for a little party. They banded together into little Ménage à trois to produce electrons, neutrons, etc. That banded together into atoms and molecules. That produced all kinds of parts of the tree. Those parts somehow all came together and produced the tree.

Wow!

Aristotle’s universe was very drab and boring compared to the real thing.

Just remember:

A ≠ A

A_n = R_n = (R^siR^pi )_n -> Q = I <- P_n

_{So (R}si_Rpi_{) can easily be reduced to R}ip_n

Looking at this alleged formula brings one to the same philosophical conclusion as arrived at by particle physics.

To wit:

A thing does not really exist except as a potential possibility until we perceive it.

But it gets worse.

We, who perceive it are, to varying degrees, deaf and blind and otherwise limited in our perceptions.

So we are not able to fully perceive that which our perceptions have brought into existence.

We get to that later.

Right now lets just shorten our equation to R_n -> I <- P_n.

A -> I <- P

All the complexities that go into the creation of A produces an Identity that is Received by a Perceiver.

R = A <- P

Or even:

A <- P

In English: A person, place, idea, or thing as perceived by the individual in question.

This is a perfectly fine simplified equation to use instead of:

A_n = R_n = (R^siR^pi )_n= R^ip_n -> Q_n = I <- P_n

_{So long as we remember that it is a simplified, shortened form.}

Tags: Aristotle, Blindness, Christmas, Deaf, Law of Identity, Law of thought, Perception, Relativity, Seawater, Term logic, Universality (philosophy)

Comments Leave a Comment
Categories Philosophy

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Search

The Map Thinker ™

The Sixth Law of Identity

The Fifth Law of Identity

The Third Law of Identity

First Law of Identity

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Blogs I Follow

Meta