Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5478428" data-attributes="member: 15538">Returning to this post.As I noted above, this is incorrect. For one thing, you've misidentified the problem. &quot;Orange&quot; covers a lot more than monochromatic orange. Second, this just shifts the definition problem from the human eye to the detecting device. What about something at 620.1 nm?Simply because the definition is clear does not mean the threshold clear. You have baldly ignored the problem here. No real measuring system for a real forest is going to yield absolute answers. Also, areas of forest obviously give way to areas of non-forest. Suppose you analyze a region between an area of forest and an area of non-forest, overlapping them. it is strange that the region will have a different classification, despite having the same trees.Please explain your process, that we may finally have the answer to a question that has eluded philosophy since the beginning. The reason I am returning to this is because the problem of identity is NOT a settled one, and the difference between a measured or identified thing and the ideal of that thing was an issue explored in depth by Plato. Even in the binary logic of a computer, seemingly binary events are epiphenomenal of a micro-proess that is not, that in fact is stubbornly analog.The reason it is important is because introducing your fallacies to this argument is unhelpful. You are making it harder, rather than easier, for people to arrive at a consensus, or several of them, because your criteria for truth are unworkable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5478428, member: 15538"] Returning to this post. As I noted above, this is incorrect. For one thing, you've misidentified the problem. "Orange" covers a lot more than monochromatic orange. Second, this just shifts the definition problem from the human eye to the detecting device. What about something at 620.1 nm? Simply because the definition is clear does not mean the threshold clear. You have baldly ignored the problem here. No real measuring system for a real forest is going to yield absolute answers. Also, areas of forest obviously give way to areas of non-forest. Suppose you analyze a region between an area of forest and an area of non-forest, overlapping them. it is strange that the region will have a different classification, despite having the same trees. Please explain your process, that we may finally have the answer to a question that has eluded philosophy since the beginning. The reason I am returning to this is because the problem of identity is NOT a settled one, and the difference between a measured or identified thing and the ideal of that thing was an issue explored in depth by Plato. Even in the binary logic of a computer, seemingly binary events are epiphenomenal of a micro-proess that is not, that in fact is stubbornly analog. The reason it is important is because introducing your fallacies to this argument is unhelpful. You are making it harder, rather than easier, for people to arrive at a consensus, or several of them, because your criteria for truth are unworkable. [/QUOTE]

Verification