2 ms·

Even if you can't define the exact point that A becomes not-A, it doesn't follow that there is no distinction between the two. Nor does it follow that we can't

Even if you can't define the exact point that A becomes not-A, it doesn't follow that there is no distinction between the two. Nor does it follow that we can't know the difference. That's a pretty classic fallacy. For example, you can't name the exact time that day becomes night, but it doesn't follow that there is no distinction. A bunch of transistors being switched on and off, no matter how many there are, is no more an example of thinking than a single thermostat being switched on and off. OTOH, if we can't think, then this conversation and everything you're saying and "thinking" is meaningless. So even without a complete definition of thought, we can see that there is a distinction.

Workaccount2 2y ago
Looks like we replied to each others comments at the same time, haha
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> For example, you can't name the exact time that day becomes night, but it doesn't follow that there is no distinction. There is actually a very detailed set of definitions of the multiple stages of twilight, including the last one which defines the onset of what everyone would agree is "night". The fact that a phenomena shows a continuum by some metric does not mean that it is not possible to identify and label points along that continuum and attach meaning to them.