X-Message-Number: 26608
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:51:33 -0400
From: 
Subject: RBR and the Fallacy by Definition

RBR tries, in an earlier post in today's queue, to make a distinction 
between "physical entities" such as people and apples, and "arrangements" 
such as a printed document one can hold in one's hand, by use of the 
following definition:

"With reference to physical entities, 'original' has a very well-
defined and precise meaning: an arrangement of matter denoted Y
enclosed within a region R at time T1 is the original X at time T0
if there exists a continuous time-dependent sequence of regions [R]
such that (1) At T0, Y is another name for (is numerically
identical to) X, (2) At T1, [R] specifies the same region as R, and
(3) For every point in time from T0 to T1, the matter in [R] has
Xwise arrangement."

Having to confess that is pretty elegant, I must also ask if it was written 
specifically to lend credence to the dubious concept that an apple has some 
original quality to it that a word processor printed document does not, or 
to support some similar scenario.  And yes, I do comprehend the idea that 
any "originality" attributable to the word processor printed document is 
purely conceptual.  I also happen to think that any "originality" 
attributable to an apple or a human, is also purely conceptual.

RBR accuses me of "mangling concepts with things," so I conclude from this 
that he thinks that some things most of us think of as "things" such as 
your Sunday newspaper, are less real than things such as apples.

In speaking of my two identical word processor printed documents, RBR says 
"When you printed out two 'copies', you created two arrangements.
They are distinct from each other, but similar. Labeling one as the 
'original' and the other as a 'copy' is disingenous."  I agree.  I also 
fail to see the difference between them and an apple or a human.  A tree 
can create untold numbers of essentially identical apples.  Twin birth, 
cloning, etc. can create essentially identical humans.  Why not also call 
them "arrangements"?    Mr. RBR, you are merely guilty of the fallacy of 
Argument by Definition.

Oh, BTW, did you know the moon is defined as an object in the sky 
consisting of green cheese?  Yum.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26608