#72509
06/12/2002 1:06 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Dear Mindworkers at large, Which of the following words, would you consider, denotes a thing? a. manuscript b. novel c. book d. atom e. force f. network well, I'm going to stop here. Maybe it's a wild-goose chase  . Regards Werner
|
|
|
#72510
06/12/2002 1:30 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170 |
|
|
|
#72511
06/12/2002 1:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
|
|
|
#72512
06/12/2002 2:36 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
Anything can be a thing.
Or a thingamajig or a thingamabob, for that matter. Wade a minnit: can matter be a thing? I thing not.
|
|
|
#72513
06/12/2002 3:04 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Maybe wsieber was looking for a discussion about concrete things as distinguished from abstractions. I haven't done my homework on that.
|
|
|
#72514
06/12/2002 4:50 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
one interesting abstract thing is a meme.. its been discussed before, but not to death.. maybe one of the program directors (the folks doing the summer reruns could find it! it came up in a thread started by twuwm, on favorite new words.. a long time ago!)
of you'r not familiar with meme's you can google.
|
|
|
#72515
06/12/2002 5:26 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
|
|
|
#72516
06/12/2002 5:55 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170
member
|
|
member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 170 |
|
|
|
#72517
06/12/2002 6:16 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
As I perused
The use of the muse is to preuse and amuse. By the way (he asked tangentially), do youse pronounce muse to rhyme with peruse or amuse? I am both confused and bemused.
|
|
|
#72518
06/12/2002 7:20 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<which of the following ...?>>
none but a. manuscript, and only if you remove the period; but if articled: all.
|
|
|
#72519
06/12/2002 7:44 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
how wonderful you are here inselpeter, over in Q and A, there is a thread on ogam/ogham, which suggests a link to basque! you're the resident expert, perhaps you could lead us to some interesting sites to persue.
|
|
|
#72520
06/13/2002 5:20 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
..but if articled: all.
If I get you right, then, as soon as we refer to a specific instance of a class (or member of a set), we have a thing, independently of it's concreteness? That would be a self-consistent view, but it would mean that e.g. a thought can also be a thing.
|
|
|
#72521
06/13/2002 9:56 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<It would mean a thought can also be a thing.>>
Not only can be, but is.
Perhaps it would be helpful to ask, 'what is not a thing?'
|
|
|
#72522
06/13/2002 11:56 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Wsieber: It would mean a thought can also be a thing.
Inselpeter: Not only can be, but is. Perhaps it would be helpful to ask, 'what is not a thing?Perhaps, Mr. inselpeter you will allow me to disagree with your original answer to wsieber's question. Your qualifying removal of the period in order to use the article "a" as a designator changed the rules so this contra interpretation is valid as well. eg, The waitress winks and smiles a knowing smile that indicates she remembers all-too-well the drunken promises that you made late last night and says to you..."Coffee?"Notice she did not say " a coffee". The "a" was implied and understood, just as the "Do you want...". Now to address your question... What is not a thing?That's easy. "Nothing" is not a thing. But the human mind cannot comprehend the concept of "nothingness" without "somethingness" to provide contrast, therefore everything is a thing including the absolute absence of everything. Follow...? 
|
|
|
#72523
06/13/2002 12:01 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
the human mind cannot comprehend the concept of "nothingness" without "somethingness" to provide contrast
Non cogito, ergo non sum?
[also echoing the comment, a thought can also be a thing]
|
|
|
#72524
06/13/2002 12:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Is the intent of the question to ask what things are real?
One could ask (and some do) whether words like 'force' and 'torque' and other mathematical descriptions are real or just lucky conveniences. If that's the gist of the question, there was a book I failed to read some time ago concerning the five senses in which mathematics is real that might provide some insight.
k
|
|
|
#72525
06/13/2002 12:21 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Is the intent of the question to ask what things are real?Hey, you are in the process of uncovering my plot ! As a matter of fact (ahem...) I want to sow doubt in the minds of those who define reality in terms of things...
|
|
|
#72526
06/13/2002 12:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I found a reference to the book at Amazon - Mind Tools : The Five Levels of Mathematical Reality by Rudy Rucker.
I haven't read it and it's pretty far down on my list - don't think I'll ever get to it. But the idea is really fascinating. We use words all the time and we don't even stop to question (most of us) what they mean. We assume that we understand what a word means to us, and often that everyone understands the same thing by it. Reality, truth, facts (Tarski defined Truth as "correspondence to the facts" but it's not really obvious to me that any sufficiently large number of people wouldn't disagree with what a fact is - where sufficiently large means greater than 1). A few years ago I read Popper's Objective Knowledge. (Great book - written by a philosopher who speaks in words I can almost understand.) In it, he posits three realities - physical reality, individual psychology, and "objective knowledge" or knowledge that has survived a lot of criticism. I've only read it twice and I need to read it at least twice more for it to sink in. My faulty perception of what I've read so far is that he accepts the existence of truth, but believes our knowledge of it is imperfect. That is, knowledge is not truth. (Almost obvious when it's said that bluntly.)
k
|
|
|
#72527
06/13/2002 3:07 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2 |
Manuscript, novel, book, atom, force, and network are all "things."
Not all things are concrete objects. Some are physical objects but whose existence we can only infer as they are too large or small to see, some are descriptions of classes of physical objects, some are concepts, some are abstractions, but all are things. We give names to imaginary constructs, too: isn't Cerberus, the mythical three-headed dog, a thing?
"Animal, vegetable, or mineral?" does not encompass every thing, let alone everything. Many years ago my college rooming group stumbled during a game of "Twenty Questions" when someone used "pitfalls" as the unknown and couldn't assign it to an acceptable category...
"Nothing" is another problem altogether. Often it's confused with "zero" and with "no thing," and the potential for linguistic ambiguity has given rise to all kinds of apparent paradoxes and amusements(*). Quite a diverse spectrum for a profound concept - "All null sets are the same" is the basis of the entire number system.
(*)For example: no horse has four tails. One horse has one more tail than no horse. Therefore - one horse has five tails. Q.E.D.!
|
|
|
#72528
06/13/2002 3:14 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,066 Likes: 2 |
knowledge is not truth
Indeed, as Godel demonstrated and Hosftadter rephrased in Godel,Escher,Bach, "Truth is a stronger notion than provability," meaning that there are statements that are true but whose truth (or falsehood) cannot be proved logically.
|
|
|
#72529
06/13/2002 3:59 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
I want to sow doubt in the minds of those who define reality in terms of things... -wsieberEveryone defines reality in terms of things mr. wsieber, other than the transcendental we must use words, and words are things and also describe "things". So what are things? Things are our abstractions from the totality of the universe that are evolutionarily functional. In other words, a thing is given an independent functional existence when it is given a name. ...whether words like 'force' and 'torque' and other mathematical descriptions are real or just lucky conveniences. - Falliable FiendWords are arbitrary, reality is everything and therefore all-inclusive. A classic routine is - What is a ball? No, not a dance, a ball is a object that is used in games. No- that's a hockey puck, balls are round, not flat. Yes, that is a ball but it is flat, blow it up. Yes, I know it's not round , it's a football! And so forth. But everyone knows what a ball is. It is a tangible object that bounces. Like a bowling ball. But intangibles such as systems have positive evolutionrary value and as such they are as concrete as, well, concrete, or bowling balls. Culture, for example. In other words, none of our extractions can be an absolute member of an absolute group, each is unique, even if only by virtue of the fact that it occupies a singular relative position in space. So each categorization we make is flawed. About the closest the study of semantics can come to a workable tenet is... Words have no ultimate meaning, words only have function.Non cogito, ergo non sum? - KeivaThat's an interesting question Kevia, but it is tangent to the question at hand . I think latin in general is too vague for inquiries into the nature of words and language. The use of latin serves well those who need to isolate a particular sense of meaning, or to obscure, or, probably most often, to impress the barefooted.
|
|
|
#72530
06/13/2002 4:30 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
It wasn't meant as a new question, milum; I was asking if I'd correctly understood your (admittedly difficult) point:
..........But the human mind cannot comprehend "nothingness" without
.........."somethingness" to provide contrast, therefore everything is a thing
..........including the absolute absence of everything. Follow...?
and whether I'd accurately restated it:
the human mind cannot comprehend the concept of "nothingness" -- Non cogito
........................................................................................therefore-- ergo
......................................................even "nothingness" is a thing -- "nothing" non sum
I suspect I got tangled in my "little latin".
|
|
|
#72531
06/13/2002 6:50 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 43
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 43 |
"nothingness" - Keiva
"somethingness" - The world entire
I suspect I got tangled in my "little latin". Keiva admits it. He knows little Latin. And little else besides. All he knows is what comes out of a book. He's a quoter, a plagiarizer. Basically a bastardizer of other peoples' work. A man of little brain and even less charisma.
|
|
|
#72532
06/13/2002 9:24 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Dear equalizer,
Here is a proposal;
An open one-on-one discussion about the awadtalk board, it's past, it's purpose, and it's future between you and I, or some other representative of the group that left the board.
Under these ground rules;
(a) We exchange ten line paragraphs using the edit function of the topic thread to insure that inconsiderate posters can't interrupt our measured exchange with childish vile and low insults.
(b) The format can be as a debate, a casual discussion, an interview, or a pre-agreed upon set of questions.
(c) The exchange will continue until the post edit function switches off or until we have said all we think needed to be said.
(d) No insults, personal or general will be made.
And if we can't agree on what constitutes an insult, this experiment is dead before it begins. That would be a shame. I believe that words of balance can purge this board of anger and hate.
|
|
|
#72533
06/13/2002 9:39 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
milum, i wish, i so wish you were right.
it is true reasonable people could accomplish what you propose, but i have yet to see any reasonable behavior from k. he has for months, been a bully. he threatened to "nuke" the board, did, and now, goes around crying 'peace'-- with his little latin, he should know his peace is a pax roma-- Roman Peace.. you know the kind, the roman army invades, (decimate the males -- that is, kill one in ten) send most of the others off to slavery, impose taxes, and laws, favorable to rome and the army, so that the local population can be amde to pay the salaries of the standing army, that is there to insure 'peace'.
the way he uses the word is a mockery of real peace. if peace is appeasing a bully, then i am all for war.
i haven't been insulting, (unless you consider it insulting to tell the truth) and what good has it done? i stand up to his lies, his half truths, his inuendos, his attacks, and what good does it do?
|
|
|
#72534
06/13/2002 9:57 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
<<follow?>>
The waitress you flirted with certainly implied the article -- but that is your luck, your charm, your gift and good fortune. I'm not certain an article is implicit in Wsieber's original list, though.
As to not comprehending nothingness, I would say that what you are calling a concept is a grammatical error. Or, as part of the binary being/nothingness, it is only half an empty concept. Of course, *as* error or concept, whether whole or half, it is a thing or part of one. Returning us (playfully) to "atom" mentioned somewhere in this thread.
But I keep wondering what Wsieber has up his sleeve; where is the goose he means to chase?
|
|
|
#72535
06/13/2002 10:46 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
i haven't been insulting says of-troy.
?
|
|
|
#72536
06/14/2002 2:23 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275 |
I suspect I got tangled in my "little latin".
Keiva, thanks for the translation. It helps us who has no Latin at all.
|
|
|
#72537
06/14/2002 2:42 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275 |
Here's a good URL about memes[/]
Dr. Bill, that was a good URL! Richard Dawkins is said to have coined the word and have elucidated the concept in his books. I have read a few of them. I became a fan after I read "The Selfish Gene".
Sorry to digress from "things, notions, concrete and abstract" etc.
|
|
|
#72538
06/14/2002 5:09 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Everyone defines reality in terms of things ... a thing is given an independent functional existence when it is given a name..
Aren't we by any chance begging the question here, dear milum? (Don't worry, I'm going to stop here)
|
|
|
#72539
06/14/2002 9:32 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
I think the question is more along the lines of -
"okay, we have things like concrete and we have things like love and we have things like dreams. It's a noun, so we know it's a thing. But is a 'force' a thing like love or a thing like concrete or is it something entirely different?"
"okay, we have this bunch of equations that describes something we're observing pretty well. Now of course those equations are real, per se, but are they *the* reality or is there something else that's *the* reality and these equations are just fortuitous?"
I guess Popper would say they are part of the third level of reality - objective knowledge. But maybe what we want to know is are they a part of physical reality. Maybe I'll just browse that book a bit.
k
|
|
|
#72540
06/14/2002 1:29 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 43
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 43 |
i haven't been insulting says of-troy.
?
Hey, Kenny boy. Have you run out of words to put in front of your quotations? Not even a limerick or a song for us? Tut, tut.
Whenever will you join the land of the living? What a schmuck you are!
|
|
|
#72541
06/15/2002 1:58 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
Dear Mind workers at large, I don't think I can shoot down wsieber's wild goose with a single-shot rifle, so here I go, bourbon in hand, with a shotgun approach to wsieber's question. ***The thing ~~//~~> selected sensory extraction from the totality of the environment. ~~//~~> the formulation of a vocal sound for the referent. ~~//~~> the creation of written symbols that represents the sound symbols that represents the selected sensory essence of the thing. ~~//~~> the integration of the spoken symbol for the referent into the mind-system of a sapient being ~~//~~> the integration of the written symbol into the belief system of the reader. ~~> = transfer of information // = filtering of information. Point: The miracle of communication is that it works at all.***The howler monkey does not see the lion stretching and yawning over by the waterhole so he doesn't cry out the monkey signal scream for lion. What he sees is a big yellow furry mass rolling in the grass. A lion is something different. A lion has hungry eyes and moves with stealth and intent and can erupt any moment into a blur of slashing claws and gouging teeth. A snake is different. Dead or alive, slithering or sunning, when a howler monkey sees one of these sticks with a crook he screams with great bloodcurl the monkey word for snake and all hell breaks loose. Point: In innate monkey philosophy a lion is merely an affect of the environment, while the snake is an entity that exists through time, the monkey beginnings of Personality Theory.***Are words real? Yes. In every way we apply the term "realness". Physical electro-chemical processes occur in the brain and sound waves are emitted from the mouth. We can literally eat words if we eat a book. Are their meanings real? Gravity is real and can kill. Gravity waves have yet to be detected, we know gravity by it's effect. Turn on your TV and see the flames of the Mideast. Words and meanings by any definition are as real as a brick. Point: I must leave and get a haircut but I will be back.
|
|
|
#72542
06/15/2002 2:48 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
Will you bring back the haircut with you or do you leave the haircut there?
Is the haircut the hair remaining on your head in it's new shape? Or is the haircut that hair that is no longer an attached extension of yourself, now swept into the barbers' circular file? You could bring the cut hair back with you, and you would have the "whole" haircut with you. But, if the the haircut exists as two parts 'current hair' and 'cut hair', then the hair cut is defined by something of the past and present. We had the action and have the results of a haircut simultaneously. Not to mention (of course) that the hair is continually growing and the haircut fades is *gone at the moment of the next haircut.
If noone knows what you looked like before, don't you loose the "haircut" and gain a "style"?
|
|
|
#72543
06/16/2002 12:08 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Wow, musick i never though about all that before...When some one tells me they are getting a hair cut, i just usually ask Which one?
|
|
|
#72545
06/16/2002 1:13 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
the person know as Keiva, who recently posted on this thread, was banned, for flaming. he forced his way back into this forum by implied threats to Anu Garg, the founder of AWAD. this same person has also been know, for certain, to post under the names AphonicRants and KeivaCarpal.
|
|
|
#72546
06/16/2002 1:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 275 |
Are words real? Yes. In every way we apply the term "realness". Physical electro-chemical processes occur in the brain and sound waves are emitted from the mouth. We can literally eat words if we eat a book. Are their meanings real? Gravity is real and can kill. Gravity waves have yet to be detected, we know gravity by it's effect. Turn on your TV and see the flames of the Mideast. Words and meanings by any definition are as real as a brick.
And bricks can kill--so be careful how and where you hurl them.
|
|
|
#72547
06/16/2002 1:44 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,636 |
Keiva, go away. You are not welcome here.
|
|
|
#72548
06/17/2002 5:23 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379 |
Dear wsieber,
Then perhaps the question is to ask what is meant by "reality." I mean that, first of all, in the true-blue awadian school: it's historical meanings and ethymology. Heidegger discusses this with reference the real in "What is a Thing?" Which, to the extent I can remember it, deals with the Kantian forumulation of the real, which relates to "realm" (something mapable (describable)? relating to property?). In Kant (as I remember) according to that reading (as I remember) the real is the entirety of all those things that can be known. To be known, in that sense (as I remember) would be to be described in terms of number or of cause and effect. The real, then, is the mechanical universe, and all it's parts (including thoughts) are things. That may not satisfy, however, and it is possible that the real is a concept that exceeds itself.
|
|
|
|
|
