Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

The Anti-Reflexivity Principle

bsh1
Posts: 28,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Live Debate Challenge: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2015 11:42:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

X as a whole cannot act on X as a whole, but aspects of X can act on other aspects of X.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
bsh1
Posts: 28,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Live Debate Challenge: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
bsh1
Posts: 28,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Live Debate Challenge: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 1:51:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

Cutting, being a mechanical motion, effects every atom in the entirety of a being simply by moving them. The atoms in an apple are the same before and after slicing, they've just been moved into two different groups.

When the hinged knife cuts on its handle, every atom in every part of the knife is separated into two different groups. Ergo, the knife has acted on its entire being.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
bsh1
Posts: 28,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 3:55:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:51:18 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

Cutting, being a mechanical motion, effects every atom in the entirety of a being simply by moving them. The atoms in an apple are the same before and after slicing, they've just been moved into two different groups.

"Effects" is not the same as "Acts on." My shooting someone may effect their loved ones, but I only acted on the person I shot.

When the hinged knife cuts on its handle, every atom in every part of the knife is separated into two different groups. Ergo, the knife has acted on its entire being.

Right, but not every atom was acted upon.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Live Debate Challenge: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 8:06:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 3:55:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:51:18 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

Cutting, being a mechanical motion, effects every atom in the entirety of a being simply by moving them. The atoms in an apple are the same before and after slicing, they've just been moved into two different groups.

"Effects" is not the same as "Acts on." My shooting someone may effect their loved ones, but I only acted on the person I shot.

By this sort of definition, I say that you didn't act on the person because you didn't kill them, the bullet did. You just affected them.

When the hinged knife cuts on its handle, every atom in every part of the knife is separated into two different groups. Ergo, the knife has acted on its entire being.

Right, but not every atom was acted upon.

By your definition, NONE of the atoms were acted upon.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
bsh1
Posts: 28,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:04:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 8:06:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:51:18 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

Cutting, being a mechanical motion, effects every atom in the entirety of a being simply by moving them. The atoms in an apple are the same before and after slicing, they've just been moved into two different groups.

"Effects" is not the same as "Acts on." My shooting someone may effect their loved ones, but I only acted on the person I shot.

By this sort of definition, I say that you didn't act on the person because you didn't kill them, the bullet did. You just affected them.

Hypotheticals are designed to illustrate concepts, not always to be 100% accurate. You got the point, obviously.

When the hinged knife cuts on its handle, every atom in every part of the knife is separated into two different groups. Ergo, the knife has acted on its entire being.

Right, but not every atom was acted upon.

By your definition, NONE of the atoms were acted upon.

Well, the knife did directly push some atoms, but it didn't do so to all of them.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Live Debate Challenge: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,993
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 9:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

Suicide like Apoptosis.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2015 11:44:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

What's an example of the totality of something acting under your definition?

And when you touch your toe, does not that affect your entire nervous system and thus your entire body, even if subtly? There may not be a clear separation, in a nonlinear stochastic dynamical system, between a small local perturbation and subsequent global states of the whole system.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2015 2:13:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/22/2015 9:04:33 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 8:06:26 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 3:55:15 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:51:18 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:47:40 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:44:26 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:43:21 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/22/2015 1:41:54 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 6/21/2015 11:06:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Is the anti-reflexivity principle sound? The principle dictates that an agent cannot operate on itself; for instance, a knife cannot cut itself.

It can if it has a hinge.

But then only a part of the thing is acting on itself, which isn't the same.

What is a part of the knife? Does it go down to the atomic level? If it doesn't, on what basis do you make the distinction between parts, and why do we have to make that distinction?

A "thing" is the totality of that thing. A knife is everything that makes up that particular knife.

For instance, my toe is not me; I am more than my toe. The same is true of my finger. So, when my finger touches my toe, I am not operating on myself, my finger is operating on my toe. I would only operate on myself if everything that I am, somehow touched myself, which is physically impossible.

Let me put it like this. A whole is not its parts. It's parts are discrete elements that still comprise the whole. The parts can interact with other parts, but the whole cannot operate on the whole. Thus, the anti-reflexivity principle would be affirmed.

Cutting, being a mechanical motion, effects every atom in the entirety of a being simply by moving them. The atoms in an apple are the same before and after slicing, they've just been moved into two different groups.

"Effects" is not the same as "Acts on." My shooting someone may effect their loved ones, but I only acted on the person I shot.

By this sort of definition, I say that you didn't act on the person because you didn't kill them, the bullet did. You just affected them.

Hypotheticals are designed to illustrate concepts, not always to be 100% accurate. You got the point, obviously.

When the hinged knife cuts on its handle, every atom in every part of the knife is separated into two different groups. Ergo, the knife has acted on its entire being.

Right, but not every atom was acted upon.

By your definition, NONE of the atoms were acted upon.

Well, the knife did directly push some atoms, but it didn't do so to all of them.

The point I'm trying to illustrate is that you don't have a clear definition of "act on". Does "act on" mean to repulse the immediately adjacent atoms? Because that's what you seem to be implying. But if that's the case, then how do photons excite atoms? Or gravity move planets?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.