Agreed.


Identical twins have the same DNA but different fingerprints. Agreed.



[/SIZE]Here's where you lose me....I don't see how the above two premises logically lead to this conclusion. Are you drawing a connection between meaning and unity? In other words, humans, like math, have no inherent meaning in isolation and therefore only make sense when joined with another Perspective?

[QUOTE]Subsequently, the total of all human individuals makes the most sense,only and just only because their unity in the form of humanity as a whole creates that. [/quote]

Again, I'm a little confused as to how you logically came to this conclusion.

Does diamantis mean that you can only add together things of the same type? For example, you can add 2a + 3a to make 5a, but you can't add 2a + 3b to make 5 of anything? So, you can add individual humans because they are all 'united' as humans, but you can't add a human to e.g. a dog because they are different? But I can't see the metaphysical aspect of this.

Long Live the Borg!

Is that Victory Gin I smell...?

Ithink what he is saying is that you dont have an "actual" group of something unless the things are exactly the same, other wise you have two distinct things instead of 1 group.

I disagree, you have a group of humans. No humans are individual in the sense they they, their thoughts, and actions are independent from a group of others whether those others are "the same" and the thoughts and actions of the individual corespond with the group that is the "same" or whether the group is different and the thoughts and actions of the individual are the direct result of opposition to the different group.

Human instinct in newborns is to form bonds with others, to learn to do what othersdo and to develop into something that adds to the culture it was born in and reared by. Basicly we are born a component of our culture, our "individuality" is what makes us useful to the group, as in it wouldnt be of use for an organism to develop into something that has two of one organ, (in some cases but this is an illustration) so it develops into something with coresponding organs that function coopperatively togeather relative to an over all purpose; that is the one body, which in turn is developed to relate to other bodies in that groupor body of like creatures.

Back to the original statemnet and disagreement. You can have two TV's of two distinct designs and age, put them togeather and you have a pair of TV's, the essential function is the same and the defining structure of what it is so they are a pair, add another and its a group regaurdless of make and model.

The real question is why are such a group dependant primates going around ranting about individuality from within their collective?

I would say that you can have a group of things so long as they have at least one common quality. (e.g. I have my 2yr old group various item by color where color is the primary similarity and they have various differences.)

Further, if you group several items together with no similarity then they do in fact have a commonality.

Absolutely. good point.

So if you have 0+0+0+0+0, what is your answer? Is it 0, or is it 5 zeros?

If you divide zero by a negative number, do you get -0/n.. or -0?

Anything can be grouped together (and added up) in the most general category of all, i.e. 'Things'.


It is both. The zeros are all plain numbers, so their addition can be simplified into a plain number (zero). If the sum was 2+2+2+2+2, it could be simplified as 10, but if it was 2a+2b+2c+2d+2e, it could not be simplified in terms of mathematical notation (although you could still say you had 10 things).


You get zero (which is the same as -0).