Counterfeit Pound Coins and Objectivist Epistemology.

[Slyph]

The number of fake £1 coins in circulation now stands at more than 30 million, according to the Royal Mint. How do you know if you've been given one?
That £1 coin in your pocket could be worthless.
The number of fake pound coins in circulation has doubled in the past five years and one in every 50 is now counterfeit.

To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is 'the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree'); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. 'A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.'

"[T]he term 'measurements omitted' does not mean, in this context, that measurements are regarded as non-existent; it means that measurements exist, but are not specified. That measurements must exist is an essential part of the process. The principle is: the relevant measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity."

A person's knowledge of the difference between counterfeit and genuine pound coins is knowledge of pound coin concretes. (premise)

For most practical purposes (purchasing) a counterfeit pound coin is as good as a real one, because nobody bothers to check.

.'. minting origin is a nonessential property of pound coins, pound coins are pound coins qua pound coins (they are passed as currency) without being "genuine".

Until we know a coin is counterfeit, in which case it ceases to be legal tender because... validity is suddenly an absolute by virtue of being discovered? So it grows a concrete?

Fuck you, Ayn.

[Slyph]

For boners, let's imagine the coin is painted lead, the "test" is scraping it hard with your nail and exposing the leaden colour.

The pound coin is a pound coin qua pound coin until the test exposes the lead, after which it isn't anymore. It becomes an "obvious fraud".

This without growing any lead.

[Slyph]

If coin = fraud then coin = not-currency

(if A is B, then A is Not-C)

If coin = passed as currency, then coin = currency
If A = D, then A = C

Coin = C and not-C

[Slyph]

Unless validity is counter-causally related to qualia, in which case DUFF POUND COINS VIOLATE CAUSATION

[President Television]

A=/=A?

[Triple Zero]

where can I buy these counterfeit coins?

[Slyph]

A=/=A?

Either that or I just undifferentiated the word "currency" for a giggle then made a likely sounding thought-experiment for brainfucks. Any resemblance to actual philosophy is purely superficial. I originally intended to write some crap about real and fake pound coins to make some sort of point about property dualism, realised I didn't have the intellectual horsepower, and shat out a lail.

And it's STILL better than the ontological proof.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

fake pound coins dont sound right

[Slyph]

When you drop 'em on a desk?

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

When you drop 'em on a desk?

yep, they thud instead of thunk

[Slyph]

Me:
You can pass a painted lead pound coin as currency, until you scrape it with a nail, in which case the lead colour is exposed. It acts as currency qua currency by being used as a medium of exchange until a test is done to determine it's origin.

If coin = fraud then coin = not-currency

(if A is B, then A is Not-C)

If coin = passed as currency, then coin = currency
If A = D, then A = C

Coin = C and not-C
9 hours ago •  • Like •
D: No.
9 hours ago • Like
Me: I WANT TO BELIEVE
9 hours ago • Like
Me: I totally heard that "No." as a rolled up newspaper being flicked at a dog's nose.
8 hours ago • Like • 1 person
C: Surely you could use a handful of pebbles as currency as long as both parties agree? Isn't currency essentially an IOU in lieu of something of real value ie gold.
7 hours ago • Like
D: Currency by definition must be government approved. The lead pound coin, even if it were made of gold, isn't currency and is worthless, just as unhallmarked silver, legally, isn't silver.
5 hours ago • Like
D: I quite appreciate that the coin is fictional. Fictional or otherwise, it can never be currency, like the cargo cultist runway can never attract the C-54. The legal status makes it currency, not the act of exchange, so a postulate misses the point slightly (imagine!).
4 hours ago • Like
Me: hee hee hee...
4 hours ago • Like
D: BAD DOG
4 hours ago • Like
Me: a cargo-cultist airport does not mechanically work. The radio doesn't go and the tower doesn't broadcast.

A fraudulent coin, and an actual coin are not machines. Nothing "fails" when you make a coin out of lead. It works the same, as a token, at least until the deception is exposed. Guess again.

(there's something I haven't done. What do you say to someone who says he can "sense your energies"?)
3 hours ago • Like
Me: Ahh fuck it. You figured it out already. I'm just asking you to "guess my password now". I didn't define terms. Good job, Ten Points Griffindor!
3 hours ago • Like
D: The radio does work as far as the user is concerned. The vacuum tubes and transistors are as irrelevant to the user as the fiat is to the fraudster or unsuspecting buyer.

Someone who can sense my energies is someone who is delusional.
3 hours ago • Like
Me: I'd still argue that you could use the word "Currency" to describe "tokens swapped for goods", like Caps in Fallout, and it wouldn't be semantically wrong except by your specific definition. But: I didn't define the term at all, I didn't differentiate, hence the apparent paradox. The fact that you're arguing one definition over Chris's definition attests to that. But yeah, when you yourself defined the term, you broked it.
3 hours ago • Like
D: It's not my specific definition, it's THE definition.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: Well why's it so often written with qualifiers? "Official currency," "Legal currency" etc. In common usage "currency" equates to "money".
about an hour ago • Like
Me: ‎"You are correct to point out the dictionary definition of Ulster, but I am afraid Ulster still has currency here for indicating the area of ..."

When used as currency, false currency has currency, until it is proved false.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: I'm literally saying it was a semantic trick anyway.
about an hour ago • Like
D: Common adoption of religion doesn't make it true. In fact doesn't your post require my definition? Replacing the word with "object to be exchanged" doesn't qualify any agreed value, so a forged version wouldn't be automatically less valuable.

Ulster? What now?
about an hour ago • Like
Me: Isn't suggesting the currency system is like, a machine with intangible connections between discrete, remote parts called coins reification of mental properties? I'm not saying you're properly wrong or anything, just that cargo cult radios and false coins are a poor analogy.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: ‎"common adoption of religion doesn't make it true". No, it doesn't, not the material claims, but value is a mental property, not a material property.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: The original post was intended as a falsidical paradoxes, an exercise. I wasn't literally arguing A=/=A.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: ‎-*es
about an hour ago • Like
Me: I posted the Ulster thing as an example of the word "currency" being used simply to mean "value". the solution to the paradox was supposed to be "You're using an undefined use of the word "Currency". When you said "Currency means x" I was trying to say "Fuck it, you're right, If I extended this any further it wouldn't be to illustrate a point, I'd just be waiting for you to say the words 'define your terms' because that's the 'password' I want. You already have the solution in hand"
about an hour ago • Like
D: Irony of using that first sentence to make the point you're trying to make?

It's a pretty good analogy actually. As far as the user is concerned, everything is as it should be, being unaware of the composition of the coin or the requirement to manipulate electromagneticradiation. These things are, though, obviously vital to a radio or the use of the coin as a carrier of abstract value.
about an hour ago • Like
D: The Ulster quote is out of context and not applicable.
about an hour ago • Like
Me: It's only a carrier of abstract value as a mental property. "All that is solid melts into air" and all that. It's a SIGNIFIER of value. "Value = £1" is not the same as "Six inches long". The metallurgical content of the coin is accidental, and the Origin of the coin is nonessential for "use as a coin".

Imagine the coin is physically indistinguishable from real coins, Without reification of legal fictions, explain why it has less value than a legit coin to the bearer.
50 minutes ago • Like
Me: Don't fake and real coins have the same map-territory relationship to the economy? A glut of false coins would have an effect on interest rates, there's effect there.
42 minutes ago • Like
Me: Indistinguishable coins would have equivalent exchange value, interest be damned.
31 minutes ago • Like
Me: ‎"Legal status makes it currency"... But the law doesn't recognise you as "Possessing" £1,000,000 held in evasion of tax, at least it doesn't recognise your de jure claim to it, even if de facto you can go and buy a lambo with it.
11 minutes ago • Like