Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:OK Arising_uk, All I'm saying is that truth is all the actually exists thus is absolute but that since we are in an ever changing universe the absolute changes with the universe. Here's an example (keep in mind that the example is not to be taken seriously, but it's point is): There's this asteroid in deep space that both you and I find in our university observatories. You claim that it's pink and I claim that it's blue. We both have PhD's in Astrophysics but you have a little better clout and notoriety such that the community accepts your evidence as the truth and not mine. twenty years later we advance to the point of being capable of capturing the asteroid and bringing it to earth, we do and find that in fact it is green. We then would know that what I had said (blue) and you had said (pink) and everybody believed as truth was in fact merely belief and that the truth was that it was green because green is how it "actually existed." (Keep in mind that in this example the green solution is the pinnacle of that asteroids understanding.) Actual existence determines truth and nothing else, neither you nor my, nor anyone elses belief. Only actual existence can bear out truth. Our job us to simply uncover it. That's it, nothing fancy, extremely simple.

Unless there's some disagreement with some kind of spectrographic evidence I doubt this'd even be a conversation astrophysicists would have and at best they'd say "I believe its green/blue/pink", not that its true. What would be true is that it has a colour.
I believe you're just trying to be difficult aren't you. You know as well as I do that the example was a simplified representation in order to clarify 'Absolute truth.' I seriously doubt you're incapable of keeping track of the context of our discussion.

You see Arising_uk, you can't do what you just did, as it negates what you just said. A language is nothing more than a dictionary full of words and rules in using them. If you negate either the words meaning or the rules in using them then you can't speak that language. Dictionaries are just about standardization because with out them we would each speak a different language and thus not be capable of communicating. For instance if you thought that the definition of "pink" was blue and I thought the definition or "pink" was pink then we couldn't talk about pink. At least not that we could both understand what the other was talking about.

I defy you to give me an example of circular in the dictionary, as you propose.

Take any word and its definition and just keep following the words and definitions in a dictionary and you'll generally come back to the original.
You know as well as I of synonyms. One of the rules in defining is that yo can't use the word to define itself. This circular thing you speak of is just you traveling through the synonyms.
I think a language is exactly not "nothing more than a dictionary full of words and rules in using them". These occur when you have writing. I doubt one-in-ten could tell you the rules of their grammar and no dictionary is needed to speak a language.
I can't believe you said this as it makes you look stupid, and I have read some of your other posts and know this is not the case. Look Arising_UK if you really don't want to talk about this, you don't have to. But please don't say ridiculous things. Not that this point should have to be made but since you say a dictionary is not required for language here goes. Please translate the text below:

Hopentogr sjyehro jsieyfh mj kkfidh hjsyeg knnbdb mkniht.

Don't know what it means? Can't find the words in the dictionary? And you won't know what it means until I tell you what the words mean whether written or spoken all words have a definition otherwise language is impossible.

As long as we both point to the same colour at the same time it would make no difference what the word used, although I agree it would make communicating difficult.
That would be a definition! A dictionary is just convenient. I don't want to travel to the UK just to ask you the meaning of a word when I can purchase a dictionary and be done with it.

To me this sounds as though you are contradicting yourself. Could you do me a favor and attempt to state it clearer for me?

I'm trying to understand the difference between a 'sound' and 'vibrations'.
Not everything that vibrates makes a sound, at least one that's perceptible. Also I'm sure that many things on a space vehicle vibrates but there in no sound in a vacuum. Sound requires both a vibration and a medium that can propagate the vibration.

Electromagnetic energy is a stream of photons that exhibits wave-like behavior as it travels through space.

Acoustic energy is a sequence of mechanical waves that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas.

I thought 'photons' a rain of particles?
This definition answers the question of what Electromagnetic energy is and nothing more.
Why is acoustic energy not a sequence of particles, i.e. electrons, travelling through space?
Because that's physics. I didn't create it I just report it. Ask it's creator.

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Selling swamp land to people that know better.

A guy like you, I wouldn't bother trying to sell swamp land, I'd offer you the Brooklyn Bridge, O my brother in tribulation!

lancek4 wrote:There will be no further communication to you over this forum from me.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Selling swamp land to people that know better.

A guy like you, I wouldn't bother trying to sell swamp land, I'd offer you the Brooklyn Bridge, O my brother in tribulation!

Bob a guy like you couldn't sell me something I actually wanted. O brother of dementia.

Lance is correct you don't deserve my attention. So consider yourself ignored via the sites control panel. I have no time for an inconsiderate child.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe you're just trying to be difficult aren't you. You know as well as I do that the example was a simplified representation in order to clarify 'Absolute truth.' I seriously doubt you're incapable of keeping track of the context of our discussion.

You know as well as I of synonyms. One of the rules in defining is that yo can't use the word to define itself. This circular thing you speak of is just you traveling through the synonyms.

I can't believe you said this as it makes you look stupid, and I have read some of your other posts and know this is not the case. Look Arising_UK if you really don't want to talk about this, you don't have to. But please don't say ridiculous things. Not that this point should have to be made but since you say a dictionary is not required for language here goes. Please translate the text below:

Hopentogr sjyehro jsieyfh mj kkfidh hjsyeg knnbdb mkniht.

Don't know what it means? Can't find the words in the dictionary? And you won't know what it means until I tell you what the words mean whether written or spoken all words have a definition otherwise language is impossible.

That would be a definition! A dictionary is just convenient. I don't want to travel to the UK just to ask you the meaning of a word when I can purchase a dictionary and be done with it.

Not everything that vibrates makes a sound, at least one that's perceptible. Also I'm sure that many things on a space vehicle vibrates but there in no sound in a vacuum. Sound requires both a vibration and a medium that can propagate the vibration.

This definition answers the question of what Electromagnetic energy is and nothing more.

Because that's physics. I didn't create it I just report it. Ask it's creator.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I believe you're just trying to be difficult aren't you. You know as well as I do that the example was a simplified representation in order to clarify 'Absolute truth.' I seriously doubt you're incapable of keeping track of the context of our discussion.

I'll muddle along. You are not clarifying 'absolute truth' for me? You are just stating the conditions needed for there to be such a thing as truth, i.e. states of affairs and things. If you want absolute truth then Logic provides, they are the tautologies and contradictions, although the latter are only true in the sense that they are always false. The rest are the contingencies and here they can either be true or false but we cannot absolutely know this until we know the state of affairs and things that the truth function is being applied to. So your example of the asteroid is just a contingent proposition and whilst we can believe it true of false or the two different propositions true or false, until we get the state of affair, i.e. the asteroid in sense, we won't know what colour it is.

You know as well as I of synonyms. One of the rules in defining is that yo can't use the word to define itself. This circular thing you speak of is just you traveling through the synonyms.

Not quite synonyms as you travel through different words and definitions but in the end will come around to the originals. Words work as a web of connections, I think it a shame the semioticians have lost favour and the deconstructionists come to the fore.

I can't believe you said this as it makes you look stupid, and I have read some of your other posts and know this is not the case. Look Arising_UK if you really don't want to talk about this, you don't have to. But please don't say ridiculous things. Not that this point should have to be made but since you say a dictionary is not required for language here goes. Please translate the text below:

Hopentogr sjyehro jsieyfh mj kkfidh hjsyeg knnbdb mkniht.

Don't know what it means? Can't find the words in the dictionary? And you won't know what it means until I tell you what the words mean whether written or spoken all words have a definition otherwise language is impossible.

What do they mean then? As from what I can see they are not English as the letter connections look and sound wrong, Polish? Teh tinhg is taht we can pettry mcuh uderntasnd teh Egnsilh lganugae eevn if teh dciointray selpls it rgiht. You'd have to explain to me how children speak before they can read and how illiterate adults can speak, if what you say about dictionaries and grammar rules is true.

That would be a definition! A dictionary is just convenient. I don't want to travel to the UK just to ask you the meaning of a word when I can purchase a dictionary and be done with it.

I agree they are convenient but if you don't know what the words refer to in some sense they you will not understand the definition. I'm not arguing with you that you cannot learn a language as an adult with a dictionary and a book of grammar, I am arguing that they are needed to speak a language. In fact, to speak a language like a native this is not the route to learn.

Not everything that vibrates makes a sound, at least one that's perceptible. Also I'm sure that many things on a space vehicle vibrates but there in no sound in a vacuum. Sound requires both a vibration and a medium that can propagate the vibration.

Or very powerful detectors as I assume 'space' is full of particles. But I'm not a physicist so I was just asking not arguing.

This definition answers the question of what Electromagnetic energy is and nothing more.

What? Particles?

Because that's physics. I didn't create it I just report it. Ask it's creator.

But they say all light and matter is explained by particles?

I think you should maybe take note that Physics has pretty much done away with the concept of 'truth' and replaced it with probably true, to fifteen or more decimal places to be sure but still only probably. Where does that leave your 'absolute truth' about things?

Arising_uk wrote:No need to SHOUT!!
You must be a newbie. Shouting is ALL CAPS!. I was on the internet before you knew what it was, as a matter of fact no civilians were on it, just the USA DOD and NASA. This is a large font, there is a difference!

There is nowhere that I said words refer to nothing, I just said dictionaries are useful but essentially circular tools and that language is learnt without them. In the main words refer to states of mind, meaning is not a pre-existing entity 'out there', as such ambiguity is a large part of the game with respect to language. If what you claim was true then natural language processing would have been easy, we'd just have a dictionary and the rules of grammar, whereas in fact this approach has not worked.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions! And I said that whether WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition) of a word is the meaning of the word. And that your perceived circle is due to synonyms, words that mean the same thing, usually due to different origins. This is what you had originally said:

Arising_uk wrote:"The problem with dictionaries is that whilst very useful they are circular."

If you weren't trying to discredit their accuracy and thus mine, due to my quoting one, then what was the point?


I think your beliefs about what I believe are unfounded and that the refusal to take note and discuss is yours.
You can think what you want to think. One of my pet peeves are people that make a point, as if new, once already covered. I've got no time for those people. I believe they should do the other the courtesy of actually reading their words in their entirety before rehashing that which was already covered; it's insulting and it wastes time!

Here's a nice thought that encompasses pretty much what I believe about efficient language communication, "The meaning of ones words is the response they produce", don't like the response but still wish to communicate ones thoughts, change the words and try again.
We disagree yet again. I believe that it's all about the intent of the speaker. It's the responsibility of the listener to either understand what the speaker has said, or know to ask for clarification. No one is a mind reader, it's up to the listener to realize that their take on meaning is out of context.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You must be a newbie. Shouting is ALL CAPS!. I was on the internet before you knew what it was, as a matter of fact no civilians were on it, just the USA DOD and NASA. This is a large font, there is a difference!

Everyone is entitled to their opinions! And I said that whether WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition) of a word is the meaning of the word. And that your perceived circle is due to synonyms, words that mean the same thing, usually due to different origins. ... If you weren't trying to discredit their accuracy and thus mine, due to my quoting one, then what was the point?

You can think what you want to think. One of my pet peeves are people that make a point, as if new, once already covered. I've got no time for those people. I believe they should do the other the courtesy of actually reading their words in their entirety before rehashing that which was already covered; it's insulting and it wastes time!

We disagree yet again. I believe that it's all about the intent of the speaker. It's the responsibility of the listener to either understand what the speaker has said, or know to ask for clarification. No one is a mind reader, it's up to the listener to realize that their take on meaning is out of context.

lancek4 wrote:...
When you were telling me what a line is, you mentioned a string. Is the string the same as a line?

And a plane: are the trees and grass also a plane?

Space: I understand how if I etrapolate an enumerable amount of squares next to each other I can come to an idea of the space that might comprise the whole universe in which we act. Is this the same space I find when I make space for a book on my shelf, for what I find between books does not appear to me as what you have shown to be a square. ? It does not have equallity in sides length, the one side is like I made in your direction, two of the sides are also the bindings of books, and the fourth side is wood. And besides, the book I am placing there seems to defy what you have shown me to be the space in the square.

Arising_uk wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You must be a newbie. Shouting is ALL CAPS!. I was on the internet before you knew what it was, as a matter of fact no civilians were on it, just the USA DOD and NASA. This is a large font, there is a difference!

How would you know what I know? You worked on the minuteman project? But the academic institutions came hot on their heels, so I have a fair experience with the early version of the Internut.

A change of fonts in this medium comes across as shouting to me, as why change them if not for an effect?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions! And I said that whether WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition) of a word is the meaning of the word. And that your perceived circle is due to synonyms, words that mean the same thing, usually due to different origins. ... If you weren't trying to discredit their accuracy and thus mine, due to my quoting one, then what was the point?

To point out to you that we speak languages without ever seeing or knowing about the existence of dictionaries nor the rules of grammar. How do you account for this?
You did it yet again! Goodness gracious! WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition), WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)WRITTEN OR VERBAL the meaning (definition)
Are you a female? If not, you sure seem like one. Not that they're all that way, hey or maybe it's a monthly thing. Come to think of it my wife acts that way sometimes as well. Yeah it's got to be hormonal.

You can think what you want to think. One of my pet peeves are people that make a point, as if new, once already covered. I've got no time for those people. I believe they should do the other the courtesy of actually reading their words in their entirety before rehashing that which was already covered; it's insulting and it wastes time!

My apologies, are you saying that I should read all the posts you've made in this thread as you've answered my questions there? Why did you not say so in the first place?

My pet peeve is those who don't reply to apposite questions about their thoughts but ramble on about themselves.

We disagree yet again. I believe that it's all about the intent of the speaker. It's the responsibility of the listener to either understand what the speaker has said, or know to ask for clarification. No one is a mind reader, it's up to the listener to realize that their take on meaning is out of context.

You sound like Humpty Dumpty. I don't disagree the speakers intent is part of the creation of words and the meaning intended, just that once you've uttered them then the actual meaning of them is not yours anymore, like you say, we are not mind-readers. Intent, if anything, is used to make sure that the words one uses fits the thoughts they are intended to communicate, if the response is not what was intended then I think the words were not coherent with the thoughts, given the context that is. Although I'm amazed that you utter the above when I have asked for clarification about your thoughts by asking questions that you appear to not wish to respond to?

And you sound like the dodo bird! You do realize this goes both ways, right? And it would seem that your point killed your point!

There is no talking to you, We're just incompatible.' I'll give you credit though, the words you use come off pretty well, it's just that you don't seem to understand what it is they mean, I assume it's the circles that you see in dictionaries that you believe confuse meaning. If I don't understand the 'COMPLETE' meaning, at least I'm honest about it as I won't use them.

I'll give you this though, what better way for the powers that be, to control humanity than by controlling their language, thus dictionaries. No it's nothing new, organized religion did it for centuries, but they did it by withholding knowledge. I'm not necessarily saying that they are, just making a point of possibility.

And for your information my eyes are ever getting worse and I have a problem seeing what's on the screen. I have to use binocular glasses to see as I write. I've been torn between using a larger font all the time, or not. At least it will help with approximately 50% of the reading/response bit.