Can Any Two Things Be Identical???

north wrote:

Quote:

Can you make sense of that if you cannot make sense of me??? Unless all concepts represent a shared identity they have no rational value, or perhaps, rather: Value to Reason...

the thing is , is that , I don't look at hydrogen as concept , to start

concept to me is a brain/or mind made thing

hydrogen is NOT a brain/mind made thing or concept

Quote:

I grasp the idea...but how can you not deal only with the perception and the concept alone ?

because the object dictates what it is by observation and its properties shown by hydrogen

Quote:

The actuality´s are unknowable´s...still we can state that concepts evolve...

the actuality of hydrogen is knowable by further study

concepts then are based not on reality but on pure immagination

Quote:

Can you make sense of that if you cannot make sense of me??? Unless all concepts represent a shared identity they have no rational value, or perhaps, rather: Value to Reason...

the thing is , is that , I don't look at hydrogen as concept , to start

concept to me is a brain/or mind made thing

hydrogen is NOT a brain/mind made thing or concept

north wrote:

Quote:

Can you make sense of that if you cannot make sense of me??? Unless all concepts represent a shared identity they have no rational value, or perhaps, rather: Value to Reason...

the thing is , is that , I don't look at hydrogen as concept , to start

concept to me is a brain/or mind made thing

hydrogen is NOT a brain/mind made thing or concept

Okay... So you carry things in themselves around in your mind??? Give it a rest.. Concept is clearly a mind/brain thing... Good point... The mind/brain looks for patterns, similarities...

The problem is that we cannot see anything until we can conceive of it as some way apart from its background...

It is in the conception of things that we see them as objects, and the concept is by no means the thing, but we must define in order to know, and what is defined is conceived...

Wrong again.

Two different objects cannot be identical.
If (Fx and ~Fy) then ~(x=y).

north wrote:

Fido wrote:

north wrote:

Quote:

Can you make sense of that if you cannot make sense of me??? Unless all concepts represent a shared identity they have no rational value, or perhaps, rather: Value to Reason...

the thing is , is that , I don't look at hydrogen as concept , to start

concept to me is a brain/or mind made thing

hydrogen is NOT a brain/mind made thing or concept

Okay... So you carry things in themselves around in your mind??? Give it a rest.. Concept is clearly a mind/brain thing... Good point... The mind/brain looks for patterns, similarities...

true

What the eyes see without the mind is light and shadow... When you see; what do you see??? Do you think you identify what you see with your eyes???

Quote:

Quote:

The problem is that we cannot see anything until we can conceive of it as some way apart from its background...

okay , not sure that is always true ....

Well it is true, and you should give it some thought... Look into Schopenhaur and the world as idea stuff... Think of an idea a certain bit of knowledge we can have of the physical world, and how much of that knowledge we get culturally, really, pre-rationally... Perhaps you still remember your first encounter with a four legged animal... Do you remember when you found out, for example: A Dog, was not a Cat, though both had four legs and a tail??? It can get sort of confusing to kids, but also to adults used to thinking as kids think, which is to say unselfconsciously...

Quote:

Quote:

It is in the conception of things that we see them as objects, and the concept is by no means the thing, but we must define in order to know, and what is defined is conceived...

to see a thing is not a conception of the thing that we see , but the thing its self

Hi SB,
Protons don't exist. We apply them to give substance to what we measure.

Kind regards.
Mark...

The morning light plays softly on some surfaces, and draws stark lines where the shaded sides of objects meets the sunny side... But what would all the objects be that I see without some essential recognition of them???... If you hunt, then you have been in the woods at first light and last, and then as the light waxes and wanes you have seen shapes become familiar with glare, or slip into unfamiliarity in the gathering gloom... Perhaps in your daily life too, you have seen something normally seen in one position, like a photograph, upside down or out of place... What does the mind ask but a question when it does not perceive the expected, and what it has learned to look for???...

I would agree that our conceptions may do fully as much to blind us to reality as allow us to see...Still, there is no way around it... We all learn to see and in the prrocess are given the idea of what we are seeing... If it becomes necessary to see with children's eyes, phenomenologically, with a purpose of greater existential awareness of our lives- which are the root of all perception and understanding, then many of us are at a loss... We cannot let go of reality unless we have a hold of it some where else... Concepts/ideas/forms/notions are our hold on reality...

mark noble wrote:

Hi SB,
Protons don't exist. We apply them to give substance to what we measure.

Kind regards.
Mark...

Physicists believe there are protons. Pick up any elementary physics book.

What in the world has any of this to do with the OP-let alone with anything at all? Talk of derailing!

Fido wrote:

The morning light plays softly on some surfaces, and draws stark lines where the shaded sides of objects meets the sunny side... But what would all the objects be that I see without some essential recognition of them???... If you hunt, then you have been in the woods at first light and last, and then as the light waxes and wanes you have seen shapes become familiar with glare, or slip into unfamiliarity in the gathering gloom... Perhaps in your daily life too, you have seen something normally seen in one position, like a photograph, upside down or out of place... What does the mind ask but a question when it does not perceive the expected, and what it has learned to look for???...

I would agree that our conceptions may do fully as much to blind us to reality as allow us to see...Still, there is no way around it... We all learn to see and in the prrocess are given the idea of what we are seeing... If it becomes necessary to see with children's eyes, phenomenologically, with a purpose of greater existential awareness of our lives- which are the root of all perception and understanding, then many of us are at a loss... We cannot let go of reality unless we have a hold of it some where else... Concepts/ideas/forms/notions are our hold on reality...

This is something that a person will discover when they're learning to draw. The mind carries a shorthand of images of how things look.... how an egg looks, how a face looks, how a human figure looks. It's funny how when the hand goes to draw, the mind will supersede the field of vision and the hand will draw the mind's image instead. Learning to draw doesn't mean teaching the eye or hand anything... it's becoming aware of how things really look. Otherwise the rendering will look like a stone-age image... easily recognizable to the mind in terms of rational value, as north put it, but obviously not in keeping with what the eye sees. In fact we make a big deal out of points in history when artists learn to create without these mind-shorthands... like ancient greek sculpture and renaissance perspective.

I think north is right. It's meaning that creates the unchanging object that moves through time and space. The unchanging object is an object of thought.

The main issue at debate so far was to my understanding upon the suggestion of a possible equality between any two given things. If we concede that such its not likely to be possible to my view there is no issue to debate further...

Identical objects being similar but not equal is a tautology not worth to be explored.
Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The main issue at debate so far was to my understanding upon the suggestion of a possible equality between any two given things. If we concede that such its not likely to be possible to my view there is no issue to debate further...

Identical objects being similar but not equal is a tautology not worth to be explored.
Best regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

All identical objects are of the same class, conceived of as the same essential thing, and while the individual elements are various, the class of that identity is conserved... Which is to say that the variety of individual elements does not change the identity, which in any respect allows for variety...

As a principal of logic specifically and philosophy generally, Identity should be known and discussed... The fact is, as Piaget showed, Identity, or Conservation is the stepping stone to all rational understanding... Before the age when children grasp that fact they can only learn by rote, or example, and after they can reason things out for themselves... So, everyone knows it, but most people are not conscious of knowing it... If you expect people to think about thinking they must be made conscious of Identity as a predicate to rational thought...

Arjuna wrote:

If one leaf has a raindrop on it and the other doesn't, they're not identical.

If one leaf's contact with an object (a raindrop) makes them non-identical, it follows that, before the raindrop falls, the other leaf's contact with an object (the ground) already makes them non-identical. If they were floating in the air, they would be in contact with non-identical configurations of air molecules. Even if they were suspended in a vacuum, the combination of the earth's, moon's and sun's gravitational pull on them would be very slightly different, depending on their position. The mere presence of other objects is enough to make the leaves non-identical. Two separate but identical leaves could only occur in an otherwise totally empty universe.