Og

Buddha would say that A does not equal A. All things are impermanent (always changing). A then is not the same as A now. It never is.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

Buddha would be wrong. While it is true that all things are impermanent, this does not undermine A=A. It serves a purpose within the limited context of identity. A thing is exactly what it is in a particular moment. My computer from point A in time through point B in time was in fact my computer from point A in time through point B in time. Certainly A=A breaks down, just like causality does at a certain point, but they are none the less absolutely true.

Nick Treklis

I don't understand what you are getting at here. A=A has nothing to do with the letter A, it's about the law of identity. A thing is whatever it appears to be to us, otherwise it wouldn't appear to be that way and thinking like this would be where you enter the realm of insanity.

romansh

Nick .. this is, I suppose, my point we have to agree what we are talking about before we can agree that A=A.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

Og

Isn't that just "A"? Where does an equal sign come into play?

Except your computer at point A has a different temporal location than at point B. Also, many of the chemical constituents are different as well. Just as a person is a completely new collection of molecules every 7 years or so (i.e. all have been replaced).

Electromagnetic and gravitational fields have varied around your computer to imperceptibly (by you) change the available states for the constituent particles.

Certainly A is pretty much like A...

All is impermanent.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

You could just say "A" if you want, but I think A=A illustrates the point much better.

Right but I'm not saying computer at point A = computer at point B, that would violate A=A. What I am saying is Computer at point A = computer at point A, and computer at point B = computer at point B, or like I said before, computer from point A through B = computer from point A through B.

shadowind

there might be absolute truth, but i don't think we can know. i don't think we can know anything for sure,

so the "value' of A has changed, even if what the value really was stayedthe same? like Aorange=Aorange, but through our perception Aorange was an Aapple?
i don't think a independent consciousness is possible, but it would be intresting.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

Nick Treklis

Admitting that you do not see the truth is one thing, but saying that someone else can't know it is another. Not only is it a contradiction as I've already explained, but it is irresponsible to speak about that which you do not know.

It's as simple as identifying something and defining it therein, a thing is what it is. It can't be any other way.

I'm not talking about an independent consciousness, I'm talking about a consciousness that is free from delusion, i.e. false beliefs.

romansh

Shadow did actually say another could not know absolute truth.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

dameedna

Okay I disagree with both.!!!!

Men would live simply perhaps, but not is squalor. Men aren't slobs, they just don't notice the fine details, and therefore won't create them. Would be a waste of energy.

And women ... if you think women will EVER be silent, you are nuts!! literally nuts. Bad, bad analogy.

Just a side note, there are bonding chemicals that are released in the human brain, chemicals that allow US as humans(or at least encourage us) to bond together.

For women, these chemicals are released during conversation. ANY meaningful conversation with male or female. It's is the greatest chemical rush any human can feel beyond orgasm. Basically, while the boys are thinking about it all day, we are having it( which is why we talk for hours, and hours and hours on the phone given a chance..especially as teens)

That same chemical(released during conversation in women) is released in ABUNDANCE for males, during sex. Sex is the primary bonding mechanism for males. Conversation, is the primary bonding mechanism for females.

This..explains a WHOLE lot doesn't it? heheh.

A woman will talk to herself before she is silent..sheesh.

And men will simplify their lives to the bare bones, before they would live in squalor.