Ward No. 6 by Anton Chekhov.

The prologue was written by Gorki. I don't know to what extent this is important and I don't usually read the prologues of books unless they were written by the authors themselves.

Indeed. Imamura's films are quite impressive, and they tend to break away from traditional Japanese filming. Even their characters are very remarkable and when I watch them I say: 'yes, it is clear that I am watching an Imamura film'.

Making friends with an eel in jail. Only a Japanese man could ever think about that. :sweat:

What does lowest threshold of assent mean? — Metaphysician Undercover

The expression of consent – or assent in some cases –. It may be stated expressed or implied. The OP must be referring to the latter. A succinct but firm attitude of engagement with the opposite party.

What do you guys think? — moo

To reinforce the engagement between two parties, it is important to put it on a paper signed by both of you or ratified by a public notary. Handshakes might not be very reliable indicators of agreement.

Hello Clarky and welcome to another Saturday of film recommendations. I bring a beautiful film from Iran. Although I am aware that Iranian films are spectacular, I am not very familiar with them. 

I watched Taste of Cherry (طعم گیلاس..., Ta’m-e gīlās...) by Abbas Kiarostami. The film won the Palme d'Or at the 1997 Cannes Film Festival. 

Plot: Badii drives around Teheran looking for someone who can help him to do a job for him: assisting him to commit suicide. While the driveway, he met different people who had philosophical conversations with.

Colours are secondary qualities of the objects. If the banana is yellow or green, it doesn’t influence its properties or how affects me when I eat it.

Rather, it appears to be a property of the object. — NOS4A2

A colour is a quality of the object, not a property.

If we’ve all been conditioned to say something giving off the same wavelength is “red,” then we would all be able to agree on what red is. — Mp202020

Imagine you ask a colour blindness for a 'red' pen, and he gets it right handing you the red pen. Why did this happen? Your colour-blindness classmate gave up his biological condition to accept the agreement of the concept of red.

By seeing it or knowing its conditions of satisfaction. — jkop

Okay. Let's say the mantis shrimp sees red pigment. When it sees it, what does the mantis shrimp call it? "Red", "rojo", "rosso" etc. This is the point I am trying to make. When the light does the reflexion on 'red', it could be that the mantis shrimp sees it, but I don't know to what extent the animal is aware that the reflected colour is called 'red'.

No, it demonstrates colour vision under selective conditions of observation. — jkop

Hmm... I think the drawing shows the importance of light and shade in colours. It is not only a matter of observation – which is also important – but how the colours are projected and, therefore, how we perceive them. I don't think we could be able to perceive a colour without light and shade getting involved.

But also, the red pen satisfies both you and your helper. We agree that the pen is red, so "red" belongs to pens as well as to minds.

So there is something odd about claiming red is no more than a perception. — Banno

Yeah.

It would be interesting to think about the eventual scenario where you have to teach the helper what the red pen is. When I attended kindergarten, teachers taught us the colour wheel without questioning it by ourselves. We just accepted that red is red and orange is orange. Otherwise, if a child ever dared to colour a sun purple instead of yellow, he would be called a weirdo.

So, it deserves a lot of recognition for how silently those social conventions enter our knowledge. We think they have always been there, but they haven’t.

I'm referring to the biological evolution of colour vision. — jkop

:up:

What matters for an animal is what it sees, e.g. a flower, not the light nor the mechanism that together enable the seeing. — jkop

How does an animal know that it is seeing a colour? These are part of the human vocabulary and language. A dog expresses himself using the sound ‘word’ and a cat ‘meow’ etc. I can agree with you that the cone cells and perception of colours in animals have been evolving, but colours are still something related to vocabulary and social conventions. I don’t know if my dog sees that the ball is red, or, more specifically, if she is aware that the ball is red or not.

The eyes of a mantis shrimp are way trickier. — jkop

Yep. But is the mantis shrimp 100% aware of its beautiful colour scale? 

Why? Arguments from illusion suck. — jkop

That game demonstrates how colour is arbitrary. In my opinion, it effectively illustrated the significance of light, shade, and shadows in our discussion. There are many more, but if you consider them to be useless, I will not disclose them.

Lucerne and Albert by Leo Tolstoy.

Colours are used as natural signs — jkop

Are you referring to the light that reflects those colours right? because the amount of cone cells in the electromagnetic spectrum and the colour wheel differs. As a result, although humans and animals sense colour in different ways, we are both simultaneously stimulated by light.
The "natural sign" is the light not the colours.

We can even perceive the colours in different shadows and reflectances! Our eyes are tricky. Let's play the following classic illusion game:

Muy bueno. Una opinión interesante.

En mi opinión, slur no puede tener mucha cabida en la lengua española. Básicamente es otro anglicismo más que se ha ido asentando en el habla española. Efectivamente, no tiene traducción, como muchas otras. Pero en fin, es otro ejemplo de la gran influencia de la lengua inglesa en el mundo. Esto último no lo mencionó cómo una crítica, sino que resalto que ellos han sido inteligentes en expandir su lengua.
La palabra slur es reconocida en gran parte del mundo. En cambio, no pasa así con blasfemia.

La palabra blasfemia es muy interesante. Tanto es así que está amparada por la Ley. La blasfemia va más allá del insulto. Hace referencia cuándo se ataca el honor o a la integridad de una persona. Por supuesto, tiene una connotación religiosa cómo has mencionado.

Por lo tanto, slur, pienso que va dirigido a insultos por raza, sexo o religión. Pero blasfemia es más sagrado. Por ejemplo: imagina qué dudo de la integridad de tu persona. Insinuó que eres un corrupto o un ladrón. O incluso pongo en duda tu mérito en lo que sea. Esto sería una gran blasfemia…

Folks, why do I buy different coloured collars for my dog? Why do I say that my dog’s favourite ball is the red one? Why do I put the water and food in different coloured bowls? My dog doesn’t care at all. She acts with different biological impulses. She goes to eat where the food is, and she goes to run whenever a park is. Dogs don’t waste time with socially biassed conventions like we do.

Yes, it is awesome. The eye is probably one of the most important sensory organs, yet it is a bit underrated.

Rather than perceiving colour, I believe we perceive light and reflection. That is why a blind person suffers from no light perception. Therefore, a blind person will never understand the social convention of ‘red’, ‘blue’ or ‘yellow’. It is a waste of time to explain to them that our world is colourful because a colour is not something they can smell or taste. Without light, everything is over regarding perceiving electromagnetic spectrum.

Asking for a 'green', 'red', or 'blue' pen is simply picky. The aim of every pen is to write, not to display colours.

If "red" is just in your mind, when you ask for a red pen, how is it that the person you are asking hands you what you want? — Banno

You would know it when that person handed you the 'red pen’. If that person mistakenly hands you a blue one, you should ask for a red one instead. Another example of how colours are social conventions. At the very least, the person is obeying by handing over the pen.

I can only say that I appreciate your help in this thread, Lionino. I like the first post more than the second because it is clearer. You know, when AI shows up, everything becomes unnecessarily complex. By the way, I am not entitled to argue or agree with those formulations because I am not good enough at logic. I hope better users read that and can provide some fruitful answers or feedback. 

I do end up ignoring users who can't drum up anything more than shoddy strawmen, actually. — Leontiskos

I am aware of how you will perceive me from now on. It is that simple to ignore me (and other users like me) without the unnecessary extra effort to change the rules of this site from its roots.

Perhaps the quality would have been improved if there had been limits. — Leontiskos

In an ideal world the poster of a thread would be able to determine the posting limit within their thread, — Leontiskos

Fair enough. I guess those limitations will increase from time to time. First, the 15-minute span, and maybe later you would allow answering to only users you like. That’s your ‘ideal’ world. I only hope the administrators don’t take you seriously, and fortunately the software on this site doesn’t allow such an amount of crank.

You claim a posting time limit, but you are answering me very quickly. Aren’t you realising this is not a great idea, given the way we are having this exchange?

Surprisingly, I am the one that respects the time limit. More than you do.

No I didn't. Did you even read my post? — Leontiskos

Yes, you did.

Perhaps encouraging more thoughtful and effortful posts for new users would elevate the philosophical standard across the board. — Leontiskos

So they don't turn into a shitshow of petty insults? Political threads are the best place for such a rule. — Leontiskos

It will not change anything. Politics are already bollocks and a clown show. Don’t expect the users to elaborate thoughtful answers. I can’t see the point of reading the same political dullness right now or in the next 15 minutes. Do you really think it will have a big impact on the constant tit for tat?

Bah. You are obsessed with rules. — Banno

:up:

And, this:

Posting limits.For example, maybe users start with one thread per week and one post per 15 minutes. — Leontiskos

I remember you posted similar dullness last year. You have a weird obsession with limiting the participation of the users. Again, you forget that not all the threads are about philosophy. There is The Shoutbox, which works like a chitchat, and it will not be effective to limit the time. On the other hand, look at the political threads. What’s the point of limiting the time and words in those threads? Folks discuss it like a ping pong game. Your proposal would reduce the participation in this forum and make it boring. It seems that you seek a place where a question is posted, then you reply with a huge answer, and that’s all. But one of the main features here is the dynamic nature of the interactions with each other. 

Oh, you also refer to ‘new’ members. But you just joined one year ago. Do you consider yourself a veteran or “new”?

That's a good example. :up:

So you perceive hot weather when you think in red. Interesting because when I think in red, I am reminded of the deliciousness of apples.

But could we experience the red colour itself?

When you say you've had the experience of seeing red, — frank

I would pay for experiencing that experience. How would it be? Like the sweetness of a candy or the sharp odour of non-drinking water?

Imagine for a second that red actually exists outside of our subjective view. What would happen if I called ‘blue’ what is typically named 'red' by most people? 
You would answer: Colour vision deficiency (CVD), right?
But why does this happen? Can I see something red without realising it is red? How can I experience the reddish?

:up: :100:

Ramon Llull, — Gregory

Thank you for making mention to Ramon Llull.
I hardly see references or allusions from my country's philosophers, thinkers, and mystics. I respect your cultural knowledge. Another significant Peninsular author is San Isidoro de Sevilla.

Holo. La acabo de hojear. Está bastante bien, no la conocía hasta ahora. Gracias por recordármela. Verás, voy a ser muy honesto contigo en relación a aprender la lengua española o usar webs/manuales para practicar.

De países latinoamericanos como Chile te puedes fiar íntegramente. Tienen excelentes lingüistas y generalmente no son rencorosos con España. De hecho, cultivan de una manera asombrosa sus estudios. No pasa así con países cómo Perú, Colombia o México, donde siempre están con sus mierdas de la cultura precolombina. De hecho, dicen: lengua mexicana ¿pero qué cojones es eso? El Nahuatl supongo. En fin…

De hecho adoro cuando la página web chilena dice: es un recurso global, que no sólo captura la esencia chilena, sino hispana en general.

Aunque suene muy triste no tenemos entre nosotros la misma unión, como por ejemplo, existe en el mundo anglosajón…

la Helena — Lionino

Si, es verdad. Es la que más me ha gustado de lejos. De hecho me encanta sus análisis de las expresiones. Mangas verdes es mi favorita y ahuecar el ala lo decimos mucho.

Me alegro que te tomes en serio este hilo, y te guste el español como lengua. Evidentemente no te voy a obligar a usar exclusivamente un español de España. Pero de vez en cuando hay que saber diferenciar. El español de Chile tiene un nivel muy alta. De otros sitios no tanto.

PD: perdona mi laísmo. Soy de Madrid y no lo puedo evitar jeje.

I'm having visions of the forums being overtaken by the self-replicating grey goo of misnamed threads concerning 0.9999... — Banno

Folks are abducted by the philosophy of mathematics during summertime. The effect of being burned down by the sun...

Not following you here - there is more to clarity, and to logic, than just syntax. — Banno

I agree. I just wanted to point out that syntax is a tool to make clear sense of our sentences. Not the only one, for sure. But it is one of the main tools in linguistics at least.

For example: sometimes logic formulas or axioms are not clear, but thanks to syntax we can get a better approach to understand it.

If syntax is not a tool for working with sentences, what is the main point of syntax then?
Does logic make clear what we do with sentencing as Banno suggested?

I can’t see how ‘P(a)→Q(a)’ helps me to properly write: ‘the cute dog ate the bone’ for example.

Because you said in the post I quoted above: "It's acting as a tool to make clear what it is we are doing with our sentences."

And, that's what syntax is about. The arrangement of words and phrases in a specific order to make clear what we are doing with our sentences. Transposing them could change the meaning. So, syntax is the specific tool to make our phrases clear or let's say, 'understandable'. I don't attempt to deny the value of logic in all of this. I simply think that this is a subject of linguistics rather than logic.

It's acting as a tool to make clear what it is we are doing with our sentences. — Banno

I thought that was the job of syntax rather than logic.

Fred is a good boy. :cheer:

De comer: filetes rusos y patatas fritas.

Hidden among the leaves. Even a whirlwind cannot move it from its place. It's always there. Sometimes ochre, other times green. My dog barks at it often.
Gervasio, the cock of my neighbour.

Some people would have a filthy mind after reading this hyper-short story, while others would not.

THE END.

Good OP, Lionino. Switching logic into natural languages was a big handicap in my last thread. It seemed to be a simple riddle for everyone, until I asked to explain it with natural language and whether the concepts of ambiguity and contradictory are similar or not. I only got answers using logic language constantly until RussellA wrote a very good example using natural language.

I have to agree that statements like A∧B are universal, and I guess it helps people use logic quickly and easily. But, again, it is outstanding to see those logic formulas explained in language. It seems they are only allowed to use it with "A" and "B" in the premises.

So, what could one say about ¬(A→B) in English? — Lionino

I don't get it, but I'm confident I could get it using natural English. Is there a substantial difference?

On the flip side, can the English meaning of "A does not imply B" be converted to logical formulas? — Lionino

To what extent should it be converted into logic formulas?