Tag Archives: Term logic

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 <- Pn.

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  ( P1,2,3…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 Pn 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.

An = Rn <- Pn

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 = (RsiRpi)

Where Rsi 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 Rpi 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 = (RsiRpi ) -> 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 = (RsiRpi ) -> 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

An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n -> Q = I <- Pn   

So (RsiRpi) can easily be reduced to Ripn

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 Rn -> I <- Pn.

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:

An = Rn = (RsiRpi )n = Ripn ->  Qn = I  <- Pn

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

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

 

Advertisements

Aristotle was an idiot (part 2)

25 May

The law of non contradiction.

This is often written in the following dumb format:

Not (A and not A)

This takes a simple statement in English, inverts it, and then expresses it in math form. Nice way to complicate the issue for people who are not math informed.

This works great with Americans whose schooling has somehow taught them, “I’m no good at math.”

How an entire nation of people can be programmed into that five word sentence by so many teachers spending eight hours a day five days a week for twelve years would be easier to understand if most math weren’t relatively simple and if the job of teachers weren’t expected to educate the public.

Of course the same teacher will quickly point out that the above sentence fails grammatically even though its communication is clear.

Someday I will write a Map Thinker’s Guide to Grammar™. But not today.

So let’s make it simple English and simple math.

Either A exists or A does not exist.

It cannot be both at once.

There is a problem with this.

The Law of the Excluded Middle, which we will deal with next makes that statement.

Either (A or not A)

They make the same basic statement but they mean different things. That is why they are expressed differently. Seen as neither one makes much sense to a Map Thinker™ it doesn’t really matter but we will go over the distinction just because.

Not (A or Not A) means that a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same way. Or you can say a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time.

I used the word “way” while most translations I have read say “respect”. I doubt if either one carries the exact meaning of the original. Even if you speak modern Greek I am not convinced you would be certain exactly what the same word meant 2,300 years ago.

Today we know, from quantum physics that some pretty large particles can in fact exist in more than one place at the same time in the same way. The largest I have heard of is a drumstick. The kind made of wood you play a drum with, not the kind from chicken you eat.

But lets take something larger.

Two things I love. Water and Trees.

A tree on a knoll either exists there or it does not. It (at present knowledge) cannot both be there and not be there at the same time. It may not be there tomorrow, it may be cut down, or zapped by lightning.

Unless of course you subscribe to the Quantum concept of parallel universes in which case there will be a universe where the tree is on the knoll and another where it does not exist there. How about the one where the knoll itself does not exist there.

But lets call that reaching.

The question arises, “Does the tree exist at all?”

In point of reality it does not.

The tree is a product of Emergence. That is the tree is built of simple building blocks that are built of even simpler building blocks that are composed of non-particles that are also non-waves.

Ready?

That may sound confusing.

It is.

It is a combination of my understanding of particle physics and complexity theory.

The tree itself is an expression of a combination of relationships that exist in reality in such a way as to produce a species we call “tree” and this is a particular member of that species.

So the tree is really a figment of our imaginations. We aren’t completely sure what is out there. We are sure that this particular combination of universal building blocks is identifiable as both a species and an individual and we call them trees.

So no matter how you look at a tree using modern knowledge it both exists and does not exist at the same time.

And we are talking about something we can cut down to build houses, handcuff ourselves to so others cannot cut them down to build houses, climb, kick, or hug.

In reality the tree does not really exist.

But we can treat it as though it exists in the same way as Aristotle conceived of it.

Things do not get easier when we tackle concepts instead of objects we can touch, hear, taste, hold, smell, see, kiss, or rub on.

A thing can only be true or false if it is narrowly defined. If the parameters are sufficiently delineated. The problem is that once a term is so narrowly defined that it can be true or false it must be agreed upon by two or more people.

In Aristotelean logic most arguments happen because those involved did not agree on their terms, their definitions.

Thus if we agree that Aristotle was the wisest man in history there is little we have to argue about.

There is little point in any discussion between us.

If we agree that Socrates was the wisest man in history then we also have little to disagree about.

There is little point in any discussion between us.

If you believe Aristotle was the wisest man in history and I believe Socrates was the wisest man in history then we disagree about everything.

There is little point in any discussion between us.

Aristotle wanted answers.

Aristotle constructed methods that would force agreements between people who disagreed. If you followed his rules only one truth could exist and the winner of the argument was the one who had demonstrated his was the true argument.

Socrates realized that what people believe to be true is seldom true and that what people believe they know to be real very seldom is. Socrates realized that what is considered knowledge is, like the tree discussed above, a fiction. It does not really exist.

Aristotle represents certainty.

Socrates represents chaos.

Aristotle, like any good preacher, gave the people what they wanted. A feeling of superiority over all lesser beings. These included animals, foreigners, women, and deaf people. He provided simple, easy to master, rules that reinforced this feeling.

Socrates, like any good scientist, sought to find the boundaries of what is known. You cannot explore any concept until you know where the limit of that concept is.

Here we have the basis of logic, both as a workable system of thought, and logic as a failure of reason.

If you believe Aristotle was God’s human gift to Reason, then I am an idiot and there is no point in your paying any attention to anything I have to say.

Your belief is your truth.

If you believe, as I do, that Aristotle did little or nothing to advance humanity and stifled human progress with lousy reasoning, then you must recognize Socrates as a martyr.

Our belief is our truth.

What matters is not that our truth is different.

What matters is that neither of us has the right to force the other to change our truth.

There is no truth.

There is only belief.

And our beliefs are maps.

The maps are not the territories.

Our maps, no matter how useful, are in some way wrong.

If we ask the right questions we may discover where our maps have gone awry.

The law of non-contradiction makes no sense.

 

 

© 2013 All Rights Reserved

ultimatemindsettoday

A great WordPress.com site

Don Charisma

because anything is possible with Charisma

War By Other Means

Politics & Philosophy

this is... The Neighborhood

the Story within the Story

stillness of heart

MUSINGS : CRITICISM : HISTORY : PASSION

The Guilty Preacher Man

abandoned illustrations

matchtall

A tall women amazon model WordPress.com sit

Gotta Find a Home

Conversations with Street People

Three Wise Guys

Best not to think about it

Mister G Kids

A daily comic about real stuff little kids say in school. By Matt Gajdoš

Ray Ferrer - Emotion on Canvas

** OFFICIAL Site of Artist Ray Ferrer **

The Judy-Jodie and Kelli Memorial Blog

A great WordPress.com site

A Financial Life Coach

Your Financial Life Coach

Storyshucker

A blog full of humorous and poignant observations.

Dysfunctional Literacy

Just because you CAN read Moby Dick doesn't mean you should.

Top 10 of Anything and Everything - The Fun Top Ten Blog

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

ajrogersphilosophy

A fine WordPress.com site

Thoughts

What ever I'm thinking