Philosophy Now Forum

"Exactness" is Age's absolute criterion.....

He's the arbiter of exactness.
He is the exact authority of exactness.
If you cannot be exactly convincing to him, you are wrong....he doesn't know why, he only knows he's the judge and jury of exactness.
He doesn't have to udnerstand anything, as long as it feels bad, it is wrong...and he will use such exacting standards to dismiss it as another confirmation bias.....which he is exactly guilty of.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 12:55 pm "Exactness" is Age's absolute criterion.....

He's the arbiter of exactness.
He is the exact authority of exactness.
If you cannot be exactly convincing to him, you are wrong....he doesn't know why, he only knows he's the judge and jury of exactness.
He doesn't have to udnerstand anything, as long as it feels bad, it is wrong...and he will use such exacting standards to dismiss it as another confirmation bias.....which he is exactly guilty of.

In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:21 pm
In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:21 pm
In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

You're absolutely right to highlight that a definition should draw a clear boundary — that’s exactly what it’s for. In fact, the word definition shares a root with finite, both from the Latin finis, meaning end or boundary. To define something is literally to draw a mental line around it — to say “this is what belongs inside, and this is what doesn’t.”

A good definition sets a limit — it distinguishes what the term does apply to, and just as crucially, what it excludes. If a word means everything, it ends up meaning nothing.

So when someone uses a word like will, freedom, or god, but can’t or won’t specify where its boundaries lie — what phenomena are inside the circle and what are outside — then they’re not defining; they’re blurring. They’re using language like fog, not like a lens.

And when someone demands clarity from others, but uses rubbery, shifting terms themselves, that’s not debate — that’s evasion. Definitions aren’t about winning points — they’re about drawing clear lines so ideas can actually be tested, compared, and either accepted or rejected on their merit.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:21 pm
In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

Whoever wrote the clever post above is not the same persona as the Pistolero who wrote a silly story about Jesus and his mother. Is there a child living in your house who uses the same computer ?

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:21 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:21 pm
In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

Whoever wrote the clever post above is not the same persona as the Pistolero who wrote a silly story about Jesus and his mother. Is there a child living in your house who uses the same computer ?

I agree about all the examples you provide.

My point is that the jargon terms that are peculiar to academic philosophy are useful for conciseness and explicit meaning.
jargon
noun [ U ]
us /ˈdʒɑr·ɡən/
Add to word list
words and phrases used by particular groups of people, esp. in their work, that are not generally understood:
technical jargon
legal/computer jargon

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:21 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 1:21 pm
In the interest of practicality, it is the responsibility of the transmitter to make themself clear to the receiver. That goes for feeling-tone as well as cognitive stuff.

Pistolero himself is hard to comprehend .

It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

Whoever wrote the clever post above is not the same persona as the Pistolero who wrote a silly story about Jesus and his mother. Is there a child living in your house who uses the same computer ?

No, dear...it's a matter of not wasting my time.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm
A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.

It may seem like a naive question but how does one do this in any strict sense? A hypothesis is below theory where certainty is concerned, and even the latter is seldom claimed as certain. How is any of this actually made verifiable beyond its probability quotient...unless you mean understood by a steadfast adherence to the denotations of each word describing the hypothesis or theory?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 6:03 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 4:21 pm

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm It is because I believe many of the conventional definition of words are wrong, in that they refer to texts, not to testable, falsifiable, independently perceptible actions....like the term 'will' and 'morality' and 'god'....or sex/gender, or race/ethnicity...
Popular use is not a validation of veracity.
Throughout the ages the masses have believed all kinds of superstitious absurdities....and our age is not exempt because we consider ourselves enlightened an d progressive...
Every age had its own version of modernity. All of them believed they were up-to-date, and on the forefront of human awareness.

A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.
Our language is infected by nihilistic tropes....after over two-thousand years of indoctrination.


I can explain my positions if the other approaches me in good faith....not as Age does, who has already decided that I am wrong, because my views threaten his comfort, his safe place, and only interrogates me, and many others, in order to find an angle to dismiss and piss on my views.

The demand for absolute certainty is what hypocrites demand, selectively...not from what comforts and supports their delusions, not from themselves but only from those that threaten them.
Supernatural criteria, like in the case of free-will- is a sign of a coward debating in bad faith.

Whoever wrote the clever post above is not the same persona as the Pistolero who wrote a silly story about Jesus and his mother. Is there a child living in your house who uses the same computer ?

No, dear...it's a matter of not wasting my time.

The quickest way to acquire knowledge is to consult the best sources. When Googling consult sources with ed or ac in their addresses. E.g. The Stanford dictionary of Philosophy is thorough and reliable

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:58 am

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm
A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.

It may seem like a naive question but how does one do this in any strict sense? A hypothesis is below theory where certainty is concerned, and even the latter is seldom claimed as certain. How is any of this actually made verifiable beyond its probability quotient...unless you mean understood by a steadfast adherence to the denotations of each word describing the hypothesis or theory?

Each were represents a concept. A concept that may or may not be testable.
How?
By applying the theory - by converting the theory into action.
By comparing the theory to actions.
By comparing the expectations, derived in theory, to the consequences, derived through actions.

When I define Will as what differentiates the living from the non-living, and use it as a synonym for intent, I offer a definition everyone can experience independently.
When I say 'free' is a qualifier of the word it is referring to, in this case the Will, I offer a definition that is measurable.
Degree of free, relative freedom, determined by the will's power.
Measurable by amount of accessible optinos.

When I say morality does not need divine origin, nor is it arbitrary because it refers to behaviors we can all witness in other species, I make it independently falsifiable.
When I say, the common trait of these species is their cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, I am offering a independently verifiable explanation.
When I say 'morals' are the linguistic encoding of these behaviors, and that ethics are manmade amendments to facilitate more complex social structures, I am offering a definition and explanation that is independently falsifiable.

When I say love evolved to overcome the fight/flight impulse, so as to make cooperative survival and reproductive strategies possible, I am not offering any supernatural, or metaphysical explanation.

So, when possible, a word/symbol, referring to a cocnept in the mind, must refer to a independently experienced phenomenon...not to texts in books, or ideas existing only in the mind.
Actions....behaviors.... not theories in books.

Pistolero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:21 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 5:58 am

Pistolero wrote: ↑Wed Apr 23, 2025 2:35 pm
A hypothesis must be independently verifiable, by each reader.

It may seem like a naive question but how does one do this in any strict sense? A hypothesis is below theory where certainty is concerned, and even the latter is seldom claimed as certain. How is any of this actually made verifiable beyond its probability quotient...unless you mean understood by a steadfast adherence to the denotations of each word describing the hypothesis or theory?

Each were represents a concept. A concept that may or may not be testable.
How?
By applying the theory - by converting the theory into action.
By comparing the theory to actions.
By comparing the expectations, derived in theory, to the consequences, derived through actions.

When I define Will as what differentiates the living from the non-living, and use it as a synonym for intent, I offer a definition everyone can experience independently.
When I say 'free' is a qualifier of the word it is referring to, in this case the Will, I offer a definition that is measurable.
Degree of free, relative freedom, determined by the will's power.
Measurable by amount of accessible optinos.

When I say morality does not need divine origin, nor is it arbitrary because it refers to behaviors we can all witness in other species, I make it independently falsifiable.
When I say, the common trait of these species is their cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, I am offering a independently verifiable explanation.
When I say 'morals' are the linguistic encoding of these behaviors, and that ethics are manmade amendments to facilitate more complex social structures, I am offering a definition and explanation that is independently falsifiable.

When I say love evolved to overcome the fight/flight impulse, so as to make cooperative survival and reproductive strategies possible, I am not offering any supernatural, or metaphysical explanation.

So, when possible, a word/symbol, referring to a cocnept in the mind, must refer to a independently experienced phenomenon...not to texts in books, or ideas existing only in the mind.
Actions....behaviors.... not theories in books.

That’s a solid attempt at grounding abstract concepts in observable reality — and I respect the effort to root definitions in testable, falsifiable, experiential terms. But clarity still matters, and your framing sometimes trades precision for poetic generalization.

Take your claim: "Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living." That might sound intuitive, but it muddies the line between intentionality and reaction. Bacteria move toward nutrients. Is that “will”? Or is it stimulus-response coded by evolution?

When you say “freedom” is measurable by “number of accessible options,” that too demands scrutiny. A Roomba has options. A chess computer does too. But calling their programmed decision trees degrees of freedom stretches the concept beyond what most people mean by agency.

What you’re really doing — and doing well, I’ll admit — is reclaiming philosophical language from the fog of mysticism and reframing it in terms of observable behavior. But it only works if the boundaries are crystal clear. If “morality” just becomes any social behavior in cooperative animals, then we’ve emptied it of its normative weight.

You say concepts must refer to independently experienced phenomena — I agree. But then define what counts as “experience.” Neural firings? Emotional resonance? Abstract reasoning? That’s where the debate gets serious.

Bottom line: if you want your definitions to be powerful, they must draw a sharp line — not just between what’s in and out, but between causally grounded phenomena and loose metaphor. You’re reaching for truth — good. But don’t just settle for “makes sense” — show where it doesn’t bend under pressure. That’s how definitions earn their keep.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:55 am Take your claim: "Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living." That might sound intuitive, but it muddies the line between intentionality and reaction. Bacteria move toward nutrients. Is that “will”? Or is it stimulus-response coded by evolution?

Again....
'Will' is the focus on an objective.....It is not a thing.
That is what differentiates the living from the none living.
Every time I move, I am willfully acting.
I reject Schopenhauer's definition, adopted by Nietzsche.

'Freedom' is not the absence of causality or need....it is about options.
What path, towards the objective, will be chosen.....is determined circumstantially, but also, all things being equal, it is a matter of choice.
Why turn right and not left, to get around an obstacle?

In higher life forms this choice is based on memories, i.e., experiences, and judgement, evaluating circumstances.
Furthermore, organisms can have multiple objectives....even simple bacteria: to replicate, to hydrate to find nutrients, to evade being consumed etc.

'Free,' does not mean 'liberated from existence'....no more than 'strong' means liberated from mass.
'Fre' does not mean liberated form causality....no more than 'power' means liberated from weakness.
These terms are qualifiers....they describe something about the cocnept they refer top...in this case Will.
So, strong-willed does not require to be omnipotent, to have a degree of strength.

Degreeeeeeessss.......not absolutes.
Gradations, not perfection.
No Platonic ideal......

Strength is a measure of weakness.
Power is a measure of powerlessness.
Indepedence is a measure of dependence.

No absolute states. No perfect, indivisible immutable singularities.
No Platonic ideals.

When you say “freedom” is measurable by “number of accessible options,” that too demands scrutiny. A Roomba has options. A chess computer does too. But calling their programmed decision trees degrees of freedom stretches the concept beyond what most people mean by agency.

Order is what imposes limits....
Self-organizing, is an imposition of limits on oneself.
Life cannot exist without such limits. The cellular membrane is such a limit...within which life attempts to perfect its order - ordering,
Becoming, not Being.

Order = probability.
What is 'probability"? A restriction of possibilities.
When I say this is probable, I mean I've discounted the majority of known and unknown possibilities.
I've restricted my optinos.
Certainty is the implosion of probabilities to a singularity.

Life, organisms, thrive on order.....so certainty is ideal.
Life dislike multiplicity of possibilities, because most are not to their liking.
Organisms like to organize what is not to their liking - this is what consuming is.....the breaking apart of a foreign organization, to integrate it into an organism's particular order.
This is why men desire absolute order...God....the certainty of absolute order is preferable to chaos...

What you’re really doing — and doing well, I’ll admit — is reclaiming philosophical language from the fog of mysticism and reframing it in terms of observable behavior. But it only works if the boundaries are crystal clear. If “morality” just becomes any social behavior in cooperative animals, then we’ve emptied it of its normative weight.

Nothing in existence is "crystal clear"....mainly because of chaos....
All is in Flux.

What I am doing is anchoring concepts upon a shared reality, all can falsify independently.
I am grounding concepts.
This does not mean I am presenting a certainty...only a higher, superior, probability.
Dialogue is about competing perspectives.

Words are the anchors of abstractions, of concepts in the mind.
They anchor concepts to experienced reality.....

Your definitions do the opposite.
You take a cocnept and detach it, using words.....You detach it form reality and attach it to other theories.....texts referring to texts, supported only by emotions.
So, instead of using words/symbols to anchor concepts to experienced existence you use them to set them adrift on the tides of fantasy.....where emotions guide your definitions to their popular conventions.

Instead of starting with the act, you start with the idea....and the idea is shaped by your existential anxieties and personal preferences, which are common among humans....same fears. the human condition.

Instead of defining 'free' in relation to an actor, an agency, a WILL, you define it by inverting or projecting your cocnept in some supernatural realm - Platonic.
Free, for you and your ilk, becomes a definition that is impossible to exist, because ti inverts existence or disconnects from it.
You require such criteria as to make freedom impossible for any real, mortal, life form.

but you do not do the same with other terms like 'strong' or 'power' which tells me your subcosnciuos motive has something to do with freedom.
As the Architect said to Neo..."Choice is the problem".
Yes, choice is a problem for those who dream of utopia. How to deal with human agency....with human personality.....which had developed to be more than a bee or an ant....
How to reduce man to an ant....

The easiest way is to use language. All you need to know is in Orwell.

You say concepts must refer to independently experienced phenomena — I agree. But then define what counts as “experience.” Neural firings? Emotional resonance? Abstract reasoning? That’s where the debate gets serious.

Experienced by multiple subjects.
Experience validated by actions....application.

I perceive a phenomenon...and call it dog....
How do I verify that it is something that exists, and is not a figment of my imagination?
How do I define it....by observing it or by forcing it to abide by my conventional definitions?
How to I verify my observations?

Bottom line: if you want your definitions to be powerful, they must draw a sharp line — not just between what’s in and out, but between causally grounded phenomena and loose metaphor. You’re reaching for truth — good. But don’t just settle for “makes sense” — show where it doesn’t bend under pressure. That’s how definitions earn their keep.

I'm not settling for anything.
Only objective truth is my guide.

I ground my definitions in a reality all can falsify, independently....then I draw conclusions that challenge those of others.

I say...
If race is truly a "social construct" then how did the human species evolve without producing any branching out, any sub-species...?
Many species have sub-species, that can still produce viable offspring, e.g., polar bears and grizzlies....coyotes and wolves...Zebras and horses....

Why are appearances fundamental i categorizing all phenomena, living and non-living, EXCEPT one?
Why is this one exempt?
Is this exemption rational or emotional?
Is it a result of reasoning or ideological indoctrination?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:33 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 10:55 am
Take your claim: "Will is what differentiates the living from the non-living." That might sound intuitive, but it muddies the line between intentionality and reaction. Bacteria move toward nutrients. Is that “will”? Or is it stimulus-response coded by evolution?

Again....
Will is the focus on an objective.....
That is what differentiates the living form the none living.

Freedom is not the absence of causality or need....it is about optinos.
What path, towards the objective, will be chosen.....is determined circumstantially, but also, all things being equal, it is a matter of choice.

In higher life forms this choice is based on memories, i.e., experiences, and judgment, an evaluation of the circumstances.

Furthermore, an organism can have multiple objectives....even simple bacteria....to replicate, to hydrate to find nutrients, to evade being consumed etc.

'Free,' foes not mean 'liberated from existence'....no more than 'strong' means liberated from mass.
These terms are qualifiers....they describe something about the cocnept they refer top...in this case Will.
So, strong-willed does not require to be omnipotent, to have a degree of strength.

Degreeeeeeessss.......not absolutes.
Gradations, not perfection.
No Platonic ideal......

When you say “freedom” is measurable by “number of accessible options,” that too demands scrutiny. A Roomba has options. A chess computer does too. But calling their programmed decision trees degrees of freedom stretches the concept beyond what most people mean by agency.

Order is what imposes limits....

Order = probability.
What is 'probability" a Restriction of possibilities.
When I say this is probable, I mean I've discounted the majority of known and unknown possibilities.
I've restricted my optinos.
Certainty is the implosion of probabilities to a singularity.

Life, organisms, thrive on order.....so certainty is ideal.
They dislike mmutipliucity of possibilities, because most are not to their liking.
Organisms like to organize what is not to their liking - this is what consuming is.....the braking apart of a foreign organization, to integrate it into an organism's order.
This is why men desire absolute order...God....the certainty of absolute order is preferable to chaos...

What you’re really doing — and doing well, I’ll admit — is reclaiming philosophical language from the fog of mysticism and reframing it in terms of observable behavior. But it only works if the boundaries are crystal clear. If “morality” just becomes any social behavior in cooperative animals, then we’ve emptied it of its normative weight.

Nothing in existence is "crystal clear"....mainly because of chaos....
All is in Flux.

What I am doing is anchoring concepts to a shared reality, all can falsify independently.
This does not mean I am presenting a certainty...only a higher, superior, probability.
Dialogue is about competing perspectives.

Words are the anchors of abstractions, of concepts in the mind.
They anchor concepts to experienced reality.....

Your definitions do the opposite.
You take a cocnept and detach it, using words.....You detach it form reality and attach it to other theories.....texts referring to texts, supported only by emotions.
So, instead of using words/symbols to anchor concepts to experienced existence you use them to set them adrift on the tides of fantasy.....where emotions guide your definitions to their popular conventions.

Instead of starting with the act, you start with the idea....and the idea is shaped by your existential anxieties and personal preferences, which are common among humans....same fears. the human condition.

Instead of defining 'free' in relation to an actor, an agency, a WILL, you define it by inverting or projecting your cocnept in some supernatural realm - Platonic.
Free, for you and your ilk, becomes a definition that is impossible to exist, because ti inverts existence or disconnects from it.
You require such criteria as to make freedom impossible for any real, mortal, life form.

but you do not do the same with other terms like 'strong' or 'power' which tells me your subcosnciuos motive has something to do with freedom.
As the Architect said to Neo..."Choice is the problem".
Yes, choice is a problem for those who dream of utopia. How to deal with human agency....with human personality.....which had developed to be more than a bee or an ant....
How to reduce man to an ant....

The easiest way is to use language. All you need to know is in Orwell.

You say concepts must refer to independently experienced phenomena — I agree. But then define what counts as “experience.” Neural firings? Emotional resonance? Abstract reasoning? That’s where the debate gets serious.

Experienced by multiple subjects.
Experience validated by actions....application.

I perceive a phenomenon...and call it dog....
How do I verify that it is something that exists, and is not a figment of my imagination?
How do I define it....by observing it or by forcing it to abide by my conventional definitions?
How to I verify my observations?

Bottom line: if you want your definitions to be powerful, they must draw a sharp line — not just between what’s in and out, but between causally grounded phenomena and loose metaphor. You’re reaching for truth — good. But don’t just settle for “makes sense” — show where it doesn’t bend under pressure. That’s how definitions earn their keep.

I'm not settling for anything.
Only objective truth is my guide.

I ground my definitions in a reality all can falsify, independently....then I draw conclusions that challenge those of others.

I say...
If race is truly a "social construct" then how did the human species evolve without producing any branching out, any sub-species...?
Many species have sub-species, that can still produce viable offspring, e.g., polar bears and grizzlies....coyotes and wolves...Zebras and horses....

Why are appearances fundamental i categorizing all phenomena, living and non-living, EXCEPT one?
Why is this one exempt?
Is this exemption rational or emotional?
Is it a result of reasoning or ideological indoctrination?

A definition, by nature, draws a boundary — it tells us what a thing is and just as crucially what it is not. The root word "fine" comes from Latin finis, meaning limit or end — it's the conceptual fence that separates the included from the excluded.

If your definitions don’t clearly carve that line — if they drift or flex based on emotion, ideology, or poetic instinct — then they’re not definitions at all. They’re suggestions. Anchoring definitions to observable, falsifiable actions is what gives them edge — otherwise, they’re just fog in a hall of mirrors.

Draw the line. That’s what “define” means.

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:46 pm
A definition, by nature, draws a boundary — it tells us what a thing is and just as crucially what it is not. The root word "fine" comes from Latin finis, meaning limit or end — it's the conceptual fence that separates the included from the excluded.

If your definitions don’t clearly carve that line — if they drift or flex based on emotion, ideology, or poetic instinct — then they’re not definitions at all. They’re suggestions. Anchoring definitions to observable, falsifiable actions is what gives them edge — otherwise, they’re just fog in a hall of mirrors.

I just told you the "delineating boundary"....the ACT.
Kant's phenomenon.

The apparent is how we've evolved to a priori, interpret phenomena.....energy patterns.
Appearances are not superficial nor irreverent. This si why men try to mask or dismiss or change their appearance.

That a leaf is green is not irreverent.
Form, colour, movement, are all apparent, exposing the noumenon.....

Draw the line. That’s what “define” means.

To connect an abstraction to an action.
I perceive lightning...I do not need to know what it is or how it works to know that it is real...it exists.
If I define it in a way that makes it impossible to exist, because i want to comfort myself, then I am disconnecting my definition form the act...

What if I doubt my own perceptions?
I test them, over time.
Does lightning have an effect I can experience?
Do others perceive the same phenomenon?
Can I use this phenomenon to make predictions...like rain?

Pistolero wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 4:00 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Thu Apr 24, 2025 3:46 pm
A definition, by nature, draws a boundary — it tells us what a thing is and just as crucially what it is not. The root word "fine" comes from Latin finis, meaning limit or end — it's the conceptual fence that separates the included from the excluded.

If your definitions don’t clearly carve that line — if they drift or flex based on emotion, ideology, or poetic instinct — then they’re not definitions at all. They’re suggestions. Anchoring definitions to observable, falsifiable actions is what gives them edge — otherwise, they’re just fog in a hall of mirrors.

I just told you the "delineating boundary"....the ACT.
Kant's phenomenon.

The apparent is how we've evolved to a priori, interpret phenomena.....energy patterns.
Appearances are not superficial nor irreverent. This si why men try to mask or dismiss or change their appearance.

That a leaf is green is not irreverent.
Form, colour, movement, are all apparent, exposing the noumenon.....

Draw the line. That’s what “define” means.

To connect an abstraction to an action.
I perceive lightning...I do not need to know what it is or how it works to know that it is real...it exists.
If I define it in a way that makes it impossible to exist, because i want to comfort myself, then I am disconnecting my definition form the act...

What if I doubt my own perceptions?
I test them, over time.
Does lightning have an effect I can experience?
Do others perceive the same phenomenon?
Can I use this phenomenon to make predictions...like rain?

Right — and this is exactly where we can agree in principle, but diverge in practice.

You say the act — the phenomenon — is the boundary. And I agree: definitions should ultimately refer back to some kind of observable or testable act in the world. That’s what makes them meaningful. But where we differ is this: not all appearances are equally informative, and not all definitions based on appearance clarify rather than confuse.

You bring up Kant’s phenomenon, which is a perceptual construct — sure. But Kant also reminds us that what appears is shaped by how we perceive, not just by what is. And that’s where definitions must be careful. If we base our conceptual fences purely on appearance, without accounting for what generates the appearance (i.e., underlying structures, systems, or dynamics), we risk defining the shadow, not the object casting it.

Lightning is a great example. Pre-science, it was a god’s weapon. Then it became a “thing that cracks the sky.” Now it’s a high-voltage electrostatic discharge between regions of different electrical potential. Each step redefines the phenomenon, narrowing it by linking it more tightly to cause and structure. The “act” was always there — but only some definitions got closer to what mattered.

So yes: definitions must be grounded in phenomena. But they should not just observe action — they must understand it in context, and draw lines that separate not just “what is seen” but “what operates.” That’s the difference between folk wisdom and science, between suggestion and understanding.

To define well is to cut reality at its joints — not just where it looks like it bends.